The Quick Four Sentence Method
This method, according to multiple sources, was used by a woman in Los Angeles at an initial appearance in an administrative court (no jury/no injured party) to close the “books” on the “charge”. When you close the case they leave you alone. The first sentence expressly declines consent (this prevents the presumption of consent); the second sentence declines the offer of contract (an administrative court is a dispute resolution service by contract); the third sentence declines to become surety (via the artificial legal person NAME debtor in the debt-money system); the fourth sentence demands a bond against harm (court officials hold insurance bonds which can be called upon to indemnify anyone they may damage).
First – “I do not consent to these proceedings.”
Second – “Your offer is not accepted.”
Third – “I do not consent to being surety for this case and these proceedings.”
Fourth – “I demand the bond be immediately brought forward, so I can see who will indemnify me if I am damaged.”
At this point, the Judge reportedly dismissed the case and told her to leave the court. Someone observing this method repeated it, and was also released. After the second case, the Judge told everyone to go home, and closed the court for the day, leaving the court.
If court officials expect someone to use this method, they will typically re-schedule the case to the end of the day so that others will not see this. Judges do not want this method known, and BAR attorneys will not and cannot do this for you. If you enter their court intending to do this, you must do it yourself as soon as possible. Do NOT let them distract and dissuade you because if you agree to engage in any issue they attempt to raise you are consenting to their jurisdiction, and you WILL lose. Keep it simple. Do not add anything. Say ONLY the four sentences. If necessary, repeat, repeat, repeat.
Memorize ALL four sentences, or keep a copy!
In Australia, as in many other jurisdictions, judicial officers such as judges, magistrates, and registrars enjoy a legal immunity that protects them from being sued for actions taken in the course of their judicial duties. This immunity is essential for the independence of the judiciary and ensures that judicial officers can perform their functions without fear of personal liability.
However, there are certain circumstances under which this immunity may not apply, resulting in a judicial officer potentially losing their immunity from being sued. Below are some reasons and examples:
### 1. Acting Outside Jurisdiction
– Reason: If a judge or magistrate acts beyond their legal authority or jurisdiction, they may not be able to claim immunity.
– Example: A judge makes a ruling in a matter that is completely unrelated to the court’s jurisdiction (e.g., a family court judge handling a criminal case without proper authority).
### 2. Failure to Follow Proper Procedures
– Reason: If a judicial officer does not adhere to established legal procedures or principles, it may lead to personal liability.
– Example: A magistrate fails to give a defendant the opportunity to be heard during a hearing, which could result in an appeal and potential claims for damages if the failure is found to violate the defendant’s rights.
### 3. Corruption or Misconduct
– Reason: Engaging in corrupt practices or misconduct can strip a judicial officer of their immunity.
– Example: A judge is found to have accepted bribes in exchange for favorable rulings. In such cases, affected parties may seek to hold the judge liable for their conduct.
### 4. Deliberate Abuse of Power
– Reason: If a judicial officer intentionally abuses their position, they may lose immunity.
– Example: A magistrate uses their position to intimidate or harass a party involved in a case or to further personal interests.
### 5. Non-Judicial Actions
– Reason: Actions taken outside of their judicial capacity may not enjoy immunity.
– Example: A judge engaging in personal activities that lead to a lawsuit (e.g., a personal dispute unrelated to their role as a judge).
### 6. Negligence Outside Judicial Functions
– Reason: Conduct that involves negligence outside the scope of their judicial functions may expose a judicial officer to liability.
– Example: A registrar failing to properly manage court schedules, resulting in significant consequences for the parties involved.
### 7. Discriminatory Actions
– Reason: Engaging in discrimination can lead to a loss of immunity if it is proven that the actions were taken as a personal vendetta or outside the judicial role.
– Example: A judge consistently rules against a particular group based solely on race or gender without legal justification.
### 8. Criminal Conduct
– Reason: If a judge engages in criminal conduct, immunity will not protect them from criminal charges or related civil suits.
– Example: A judge is involved in an illegal scheme, such as a drug trafficking operation, which leads to their prosecution.
### 9. Malicious Prosecution
– Reason: If a judicial officer knowingly engages in malicious prosecution or abuse of process, they may lose immunity.
– Example: A judge orders the prosecution of an individual without any legal basis, purely out of personal animosity.
### Conclusion
Judicial immunity is a fundamental principle designed to protect the independence of the judiciary, but it is not absolute. Actions taken outside the official role, misconduct, or abuse of power can lead to personal liability for judicial officers. Individuals wishing to pursue claims against a judge or magistrate must carefully consider the legal context and the specific circumstances that may lead to exceptions in immunity protections. Legal counsel should be sought for cases where this issue arises.
Wirral In It Together 