Layman’s Approach Vs Judicial Approach
Its extremely important that you make your demands.
Example: Tax Court
The judicial method of dealing with a question:
Judge asks, “Did you bring your records?”
Judicial Response: “Before I make any admissions I’m going to need a definition of what it is you want.”
Judge: “Well, I want your records! You know what records are.”
Judicial Response: “Sir, if I knew what records are I wouldn’t have asked you. What is it you’re looking for?
Judge, “We’re looking for canceled checks, check register, bank statements, payroll journals, etc.”
Judicial Response: “Oh, ok. I don’t have any of those.”
Judge: “What do you mean you don’t have any of those?”
Judicial Response: “ I’ll tell you again, I thought you asked me plainly if I had canceled checks, bank statements, payroll journals,check register etc. And I thought I answered you plainly when I said no I don’t have those. Why are you badgering me?”
Layman’s method of dealing with a question is:
Judge: “Have you brought your records?”
Layman: “No, I’m not bringing in any records, I don’t have any of those records. I don’t keep any of those records and the checks and things like that, I burned all those. My account’s got some other things and I fired him and I don’t know where he moved to.”
A layman makes excuses for his actions, or he tries to cover them up. Or he tries to evade the question.
Judicial Approach
You learn from a judge, they answer questions specifically and absolutely. And we must learn to answer questions specifically and absolutely. What isn’t answered specifically and absolutely comes under the 5th Amendment / Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process and under the Exclusionary rule.
“Did you bring your records?”
Response: “Am I a person who is required to keep these records? Would you please bring me a statute, law or regulation to show me I’m a person required to keep them?”
Answer questions with questions
Example: Clerk’s Office
Clerk : “Mr Gordon are you going to bring those back?”
Gordon: (he knew what she was talking about) “Let me ask you a question, bring what back?”
Clerk: “Well the tickets!”
Gordon: “Oh the tickets? Did you want me to bring you some tickets to football game?”
Clerk: “Mr. Gordon, now you’re just playing games.”
Gordon: “No, I’m not here to play games, I’m here to file paper. What I want to do is file these two motions.”
Clerk (who is pregnant): “Ok I’ll file these for you but you know you’ve got me in a lot of trouble”
Gordon: “I didn’t get you in trouble and I don’t want you to make those kinds of allegations and insinuations.”
Clerk starts to file the papers: “You know Judge Woods is really angry with me because I don’t have those two tickets that he gave you and you were supposed to take them to the Marshall and you didn’t take them to the Marshall, and you’ve got them and he wants to know if you’re going to bring them back or they’re going to file felony charges against you for grand theft.”
Gordon: “Wait a minute, let me see if I understand your position here. Have you lost some tickets?”
Clerk: “Mr. Gordon, you know the two tickets you were in here on last Friday.”
Gordon: “Oh, last Friday I was in here, that’s right and I think the record will clearly reflect that I was here. Did you check that file cabinet right over there , are you sure those tickets didn’t fall down behind there. Have you searched all over for those?”
Clerk: “They’re not there Mr. Gordon, we know they’re not there.”
Gordon: “Did you check with Marshall Riggs and did you check with Sam Spade over here?”
Clerk: “No, nobody has them. Do you have those?”
Gordon: “Who told you I have those?”
Clerk “Judge Woods said so.”
Gordon: “Were you in the courtroom that day?”
Clerk: “No”
Gordon: “ Did you see Judge Woods physically hand me any of his property?
Clerk: “No.”
Gordon: “Well then what you’re telling me then is hearsay and innuendo, isn’t it?”
Clerk: “Don’t you ever give a straight answer Mr. Gordon?”
Gordon: No”
In the entire conversation he never made any admissions or confessions. Both of them are pretty sure in their minds what they’re talking about but the clerk’s total lack of capability to communicate on a judicial level left her with no answers.
The way the clerk should have asked, “Mr. Gordon, did Judge Woods hand you two tickets, No. 7528 and No. 8922 on the 13th which was last Friday?” That’s a direct question.
In answer, Gordon: “Let me ask you this, of what relevance does that have with the business we have today”
Clerk “Well those tickets are not in our files and our information leads us to believe that those tickets are in your possession and if they are, we want them back. Are those tickets in your possession?”
Gordon: now he either has to lie or tell the truth. Or invoke the exclusionary rule under the 5th Amendment / Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process and use this term, “I don’t want to answer that question because it may tend to incriminate me in some criminal prosecution. Therefore I demand as a matter of right the right to remain silent. Am I in custody or am I free to leave?”
That’s the way you answer the question judicially. Don’t answer questions in the vernacular. Don’t discuss law in the vernacular with laymen. Discuss law with jurists or laymen in juristic terms. Don’t answer direct questions but when you do, always stop and ask the question, “Let me see if I understand your position.... Let me see if I understand the question”.... and then repeat the question. When you’re on the record and repeat the question change it to use the words you want to use. If you can get him to say yes that’s the question, then answer it.
Example:
Clerk”Mr. Gordon, do you have the two tickets?”
Gordon, “Let me see if I understand your question. Are you asking me if I stole some property that belongs to this court?”
Clerk, “Yes”
Gordon “The answer to that is no.” Gordon didn’t tell him if he did or didn’t have the tickets.
This conversation deals with contested issues of fact. When you don’t want to answer or use the exclusionary rule, rephrase the question and get the antogonist to answer it. The courts do exactly that.
Example:
This is the way you want to train yourself. In a case called Williams vs Florida a man asked this question, a major federal question of that case. “Does a six man jury violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment? Byron White answered the question, “No. Conviction sustained. Go to jail.” In Byron White’s footnotes he write, “I perceived that the question the defendant wanted to ask was, how many jurors does it take to make a common law jury.” Then he went on with this comment, “That question is not before the court but if that question was before the court we would answer it.”
The man’s problem was, he asked the wrong question and the justice gave him the right answer to the wrong question. Judges understand judicial questions. It’s the laymen who don’t understand judicial questions.
Before judges make answers they rephrase the question or answer the question with a question so that when you go through the transcript and the subject matter comes out you can always substantiate your position.
Gordon doesn’t take oaths and he doesn’t testify. When he wants to testify he does it through affidavit. That way he can’t be cross examined on his statements. He can make an assertion that would require sworn testimony or a sworn affidavit in contravention of his statement but he can’t be cross examined so that they can get the facts from it. He doesn’t provide facts.
Exclusionary Rule Example
You’re at the scene of the crime, talking to the clerk that assumes Gordon has the two tickets and assuming he has stolen them. He doesn’t admit having or not having them.
If he were to say something about what he did with them, those are called inculpatory or exculpatory statements.
A crucial thing to remember is, when you deny something it can be just as damaging to you as admitting it.
To say no I don’t have the tickets could be a lie and if there are 2 or 3 people standing around who hear you say that, they can testify as to everything they’ve seen, heard and know. You don’t want people testifying against you so whenever there are two people present you don’t answer questions. When there’s one person present it becomes a contested issue of fact as to whether you did or didn’t say it. Also, don’t play the game by lies “thou shalt not bear false witness.” You don’t have to say anything.
Learn that you don’t act in privilege, you act in rights.