Now what?

Not so. This is actually the answer you want! A criminal case requires an injured party and your right to question said party. Your only question to the cop is, "what injury did you sustain"? No injury, no case. Simple.

Your example of the loud music and pissed off neighbor is entirely different situation in which neither your, nor my strategy would work as there is an injured party. You must offer compensation for the affront. This is "natural law" in effect.

As to the ensuing paragraphs, I've agreed this is a superior strategy if you know what you're doing and wish to prove your point "lawfully". But that's a lot of trouble to go to for say a $150 traffic ticket. A lot of "on-the-fly" learning, a lot of paperwork, a lot of follow-up, etc. etc. It's a lot simpler to just show up in court, use my strategy, and if you can't win the joust with the judge, just pay the ticket and be done with it. I think this is where most people are at. They really don't care in the grand scheme. Now, if it's a $1500 or $15,000 fine, that's a whole different matter. I'd never suggest my strategy in these situations. The SMJ strategy is the only way to go now.

Robert Fox has the answer to that, as well:

Caveat emptor. This is a risky strategy. ALL STRATEGIES are risky once you find yourself in this situation. First and foremost, the psychopathic psychiatrist can just straight up lie a thousand different ways about his interaction with you. He could suggest your uncooperative nature is a sign of a psychiatric disorder alone. Or he could just flat our say you failed his test. Who's going to contradict him? It's not like you get to have your attorney present, if you even have one, or have the encounter recorded. They can pretty much do and say anything they want. And before you know it, you're being force-fed mind-altering psychiatric drugs. Not a good place to be.

Now, I'm not saying this is a good or bad strategy per se. I'm saying you could very well be in big trouble, especially if you've humiliated the judge. He and his cronies can pretty much do whatever they want....and often do just that.

I brought up this point about pscyhe-evals simply to highlight the need to "remain in honor" at all times, and to not humiliate the judge. Once you get one issues against you, it's usually very bad news for you. They can instruct guards to beat you, move you from facility to facility without directly notifying your family/attorney, etc. and all sorts of nasty things can happen along the way. Net-Net - remain in honor and never try to humiliate the judge.

Would Fox's strategy work? Maybe. I wouldn't bet the farm on it though.

As to his second strategy I react the same. Maybe. However, it's not fool-proof. The judge/court may only be interested in their "guy's" opinion. The judge can rule this way. Or the judge can say well that was 3, 6, 9 months/years ago and is no longer relevant today. Lots of ways this can be twisted against you.

Once again, I don't think there IS a good strategy other than remaining in honor at all times to avoid such a situation in the first place.

You've reached a level where you can "legally joust" with them, in honor. If I had a nickel for every time I've seen somebody who also seemingly possessed this knowledge, but got rattled and fell out of honor, I'd at least have $100 or so...lol.

Remaining in honor is rule #1, #2, #3, #4 & #5 in my estimation. Even while the judge and prosecutor are acting dishonorably. It's not a level playing field in the last. But joining them in their dishonor, or even worse, pointing their's out, can bring disastrous results!

Now what?

Not so. This is actually the answer you want! A criminal case requires an injured party and your right to question said party. Your only question to the cop is, "what injury did you sustain"? No injury, no case. Simple.

Your example of the loud music and pissed off neighbor is entirely different situation in which neither your, nor my strategy would work as there is an injured party. You must offer compensation for the affront. This is "natural law" in effect.

As to the ensuing paragraphs, I've agreed this is a superior strategy if you know what you're doing and wish to prove your point "lawfully". But that's a lot of trouble to go to for say a $150 traffic ticket. A lot of "on-the-fly" learning, a lot of paperwork, a lot of follow-up, etc. etc. It's a lot simpler to just show up in court, use my strategy, and if you can't win the joust with the judge, just pay the ticket and be done with it. I think this is where most people are at. They really don't care in the grand scheme. Now, if it's a $1500 or $15,000 fine, that's a whole different matter. I'd never suggest my strategy in these situations. The SMJ strategy is the only way to go now.

Robert Fox has the answer to that, as well:

Caveat emptor. This is a risky strategy. ALL STRATEGIES are risky once you find yourself in this situation. First and foremost, the psychopathic psychiatrist can just straight up lie a thousand different ways about his interaction with you. He could suggest your uncooperative nature is a sign of a psychiatric disorder alone. Or he could just flat our say you failed his test. Who's going to contradict him? It's not like you get to have your attorney present, if you even have one, or have the encounter recorded. They can pretty much do and say anything they want. And before you know it, you're being force-fed mind-altering psychiatric drugs. Not a good place to be.

Now, I'm not saying this is a good or bad strategy per se. I'm saying you could very well be in big trouble, especially if you've humiliated the judge. He and his cronies can pretty much do whatever they want....and often do just that.

I brought up this point about pscyhe-evals simply to highlight the need to "remain in honor" at all times, and to not humiliate the judge. Once you get one issues against you, it's usually very bad news for you. They can instruct guards to beat you, move you from facility to facility without directly notifying your family/attorney, etc. and all sorts of nasty things can happen along the way. Net-Net - remain in honor and never try to humiliate the judge.

Would Fox's strategy work? Maybe. I wouldn't bet the farm on it though.

As to his second strategy I react the same. Maybe. However, it's not fool-proof. The judge/court may only be interested in their "guy's" opinion. The judge can rule this way. Or the judge can say well that was 3, 6, 9 months/years ago and is no longer relevant today. Lots of ways this can be twisted against you.

Once again, I don't think there IS a good strategy other than remaining in honor at all times to avoid such a situation in the first place.

You've reached a level where you can "legally joust" with them, in honor. If I had a nickel for every time I've seen somebody who also seemingly possessed this knowledge, but got rattled and fell out of honor, I'd at least have $100 or so...lol.

Remaining in honor is rule #1, #2, #3, #4 & #5 in my estimation. Even while the judge and prosecutor are acting dishonorably. It's not a level playing field in the last. But joining them in their dishonor, or even worse, pointing there's out, can bring disastrous results!