If you are like most people, you are probably mostly ignorant of the law and the court system. Because of your ignorance, you are typically tricked into going to court, denied your due process rights, and robbed by a lawyer for the priviledge of being robbed. You are in a lose - lose situation.

It is my sincere hope that the following information will be of help to you in staying out of the states courts. If you have a willingness to question and the ability to put words on paper you should be able to completely avoid being sued except in the following four cases:

• The one attempting to sue you is completely ignorant of the law. ( typically other people )
• The one attempting to sue you has a valid reason to sue you. ( very unlikely if you are good to others )
• The one attempting to sue you has the judge in their pocket ( sadly, this is not uncommon )
• The one attempting to sue you is a complete idiot.

As an added bonus, you can carry out this system without the aid of a lawyer, though if you can find a good, honest, trustworthy lawyer to hire as council to review your writings at a reasonable cost, but all means do so.

With a reasonable understanding of evidence and court procedure, you should be able to trounce anyone who tries to bring suit against you once you comprehend the information in this hub. Although I will touch on a few ideas concerning evidence and procedure, I will not be going too in depth into them as they are outside the scope of this document.

Most people I know think about trial when they hear the word lawsuit, not knowing that a trial is but a small part of any lawsuit. Indeed, the trial phase of a lawsuit should almost never be necessary.

There are nine primary phases of a lawsuit:

1. The pre-lawsuit phase
2. Starting a lawsuit - the Complaint and Summons
3. Defending against frivilous lawsuits - Flurry of Motions
4. Initial response - Answers and Counter-claims
5. Narrowing the controversy - Discovery
6. Unable to agree to the facts - Trial
7. Decision of the facts - Judgment
8. Challenging errors - Appeal
9. Canceling bad judgments - Vacating Judgement
   

Each of these phases has a specific purpose, which you can get an idea of by the quick descriptions that I put before them.

It is my contention that steps two through nine are typically both unnecessary and unwanted as lawsuits are expensive and trials are even more expensive.

Most places know this and weigh the likelyhood of them prevailing against you against what they believe they could get out of you if the win. It is for this reason that before you start worrying about lawsuits or trial proceedings you should spend a bit of time studying how to avoid them completely.

(paraphrasing from The Matrix)
Neo: What are you trying to tell me, that I can dodge bullets?
Morpheus: No Neo. I'm trying to tell you that when you're ready, you won't have to.

Typically, before a lawsuit starts there is a lot of accusation, arguing, bickering, and general disagreement. People take their arguments to court to get them adjudicated.

Have you ever asked yourself what would happen if you refused to disagree with the one making accusations?

Courts are a tool, purportedly one to right a wrong or redress some kind of damage. They are used to decide a dispute in favor of one party or another.

If you learn to take the dispute away, you have learned how to stay out of court.

Of course, you cannot simply refuse to defend yourself. If you remain completely silent the other party, by your silence, can claim there is a dispute and drag you into court. Avoiding court is an active process, sometimes referred to as administrative process. As the master of your own affairs, you have the perfect right to administer any process against you. If you are fair and honest, you should never end up in a court.

Keep that in mind. No dispute? No valid controversy to take before a court.

So, how exactly does someone avoid arguing when being accused of something? The answer to that is so simple and obvious that people are typically amazed once they see it.

Offer to agree with the one accusing you of something once they prove their claim against you.

For example, if someone accuses you of taking their shovel and you have no idea what they are talking about, ask them for a description of the shovel and invite them to come check your yard tools to see if yours are among them. State clearly that you did not take the shovel and ask what facts your accusor has which suggest to him that you took his shovel.

This can go a long ways to getting rid of a dispute before it gets anywhere near a lawsuit. Unfortunately, the things to ask are only so clear when dealing with simple things. When dealing with governments, corporations, and financial instruments, the answers can be hard to come up with.

The second key to avoiding lawsuits is knowing what questions you should be asking. If you cannot strike at the root of a particular dispute, then you may be unable to defend yourself. In fact, it is quite likely you will be unable to defend yourself properly.

Typically, people are most often taken advantage of by corporations, whether they be sub-corporations of a government ( what we have been thought to think of as corporations ) or governments themselves ( governments are contracts, see resource links at the bottom to verify this for yourself ).

When taken advantage of by normal corporations, one is typically taken advantage of because he does not know what a contract is, what is required for a valid contract, and what parts of a contract are unconscienable and void.

When taken advantage of by government corporations, one is typically taken advantage of because one does not know ones status and rights. ( see resource links for a discussion of law and status )

Before looking at contracts, one should learn to ask oneself "Quo Warranto", which means "By whos authority?".

Some examples:

1. If a debt collector writes you a letter claiming you owe a debt to someone, your first goals should be to verify that the debt collector is who they say they are and that they have a valid reason to contact you concerning the purported debt.
2. If a bank contacts you about a mortgage, your first goals should be to verify that the one sending a letter is actually an agent of the bank in question and that they have a valid reason to contact you concerning the mortgage.
3. If a police officer stops you on the side of the road, you should verify that the one stopping you is a police officer and find out why, specifically, he believes he has a right to impede your travel.
4. If you get a parking ticket on your window, your first action should be to send the ticket back to them and ask what authority they have to charge you for parking your car on a public road.

What you are doing is questioning presumptions.

One key to questioning presumptions is knowing the following about contracts:

• What is required for a contract to be valid?
• When can a contract be transferred to another party?
• What types of things in a contract are unconscionable?

Take a look at Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 6th ed (see resources at end), part of which I have included here:

CONTRACT.

1. This term, in its more extensive sense, includes every description of agreement, or obligation, whereby one party becomes bound to another to pay a sum of money, or to do or omit to do a certain act; or, a contract is an act which contains a perfect obligation. In its more confined sense, it is an agreement between two or more persons, concerning something to be, done, whereby both parties are hound to each other, *or one is bound to the other. An agreement, upon a sufficient consideration, to do or not to do a particular thing. A contract has also been defined to be a compact between two or more persons.
2. Contracts are divided into express or implied. An express contract is one where the terms of the agreement are openly uttered and avowed at the time of making, as to pay a stated price for certain goods.
3. Express contracts are of three sorts 1. BI parol, or in writing, as contradistinguished from specialties. 2. By specialty or under seal. 3. Of record.
   1. Parol
      1. A parol contract is defined to be a bargain or voluntary agreement made, either orally or in writing not under, seal, upon a good consideration, between two or more persons capable of contracting, to, do a lawful act, or to omit to do something, the performance whereof is not enjoined by law.
      2. From this definition it appears, that to constitute a sufficient parol agreement, there must be, 1st. The reciprocal or mutual assent of two or more persons competent to contract. Every agreement ought to be so certain and complete, that each party may have an action upon it; and the agreement would be incomplete if either party withheld his assent to any of its terms. The agreement must, in general, be obligatory on both parties, or it binds neither. To this rule there are, however, some exceptions, as in the case of an infant's contract. He may always sue, though he cannot be sued, on his contract.
      3. There must be a good and valid consideration, motive or inducement to make the promise, upon which a party is charged, for this is of the very essence of a contract under seal, and must exist, although the contract be reduced to writing.
      4. There must be a thing to be done, wbicb is not forbidden; or a thing to be omitted, the performance of which is not enjoined by law. A fraudulent or immoral contract, or one contrary to public policy is void. As to contracts which are void for want of a compliance with the statutes of frauds, see Frauds, Statute of.
   2. Specialties
      1. The second kind of express contracts are specialties, or those which are made under seal, as deeds, bonds, and the like; they are not merely written, but delivered over by the party bound. The solemnity and deliberation with whicb, on account of the ceremonies to be observed, a deed or bond is presumed to be entered into, attach to it an importance and character which do not belong to a simple contract. In the case of a specially, no consideration is necessary to give it validity, even in a court of equity. When, a contract by specialty has been changed by a parol agreement, the whole of it becomes a parol contract.
   3. Of Record
      1. The highest kind of express contracts are those of record, such as judgments, recognizances of bail, and in England, statutes merchant and staple, and other securities of the same nature, cutered into with the intervention of some public authority. See Authentic Facts.

Breaking down contracts...

Clearly, there is quite a bit to contracts. However, while they can be convoluted and span a long period of refinement in the history of english law, they can be boiled down semi reasonably.

Bacially, a contract requires:

• Two or more parties
• Mutual consideration
• Voluntary Agreement
• No unlawful acts

Additionally, a contract should have a timeframe ( e.g. I'll cut your lawn...someday doesn't cut it ) and should not be unconscienable.

You can easily determine what sections of a contract are unconscienable as they typically do one of the following:

• Provide for fines, fees, etc. even though no damage is done to the other party.
• Claim to give one party unilateral ability to adjust terms or set rates

Primary things to look at when dealing with claims of contract violation are mutual consideration, proof of contract, capacity to complain, and unconscionability. A few examples to make clearer the types of questions one might ask follow.

A purported debt collector claims you owe a debt

• Who is this debt collector?
• What right does the debt collector have to ask you about the purported debt?

The one writing the letter could be a scammer for all you know. Furthermore, even if the one writing is a debt collector, they must either be the holder in due course of the contract or an agent of the one holding the contract. Rather than discuss anything or even admit that there is a debt, you should instead write back asking who they are and what interest they have in the matter...noting that you will agree to speak with them as soon as they prove a lawful claim to the matter by providing the validated contract as well as all information concerning the passing of the contract from the original holder to them.

Notice that you do not argue. You do not make excuse. You do not even admit that there is a debt. Any reference to a debt or creditor should be in the form "alleged X". You have tossed the ball back into their court and avoided any conflict. If they cannot or will not prove they hold a valid contract signed by two parties, then that is not your problem. If they purchased the contract and the contract did not have a transfer agreement, not your problem. If they purchased the contract for 5% of what you owed, the rest has already been discharged by the original holder and you have no obligation to pay more than the 5% the debt collector paid.

A bank writes to note that you are in default of the mortgage on your house

If you do not know the one writing, offer to speak with him as soon as he clearly identifies himself. If he did in the initial letter, make sure that the bank is the holder of the mortgage note. Once they produce the note, ask for the full accounting on the note, including proof of the initial consideration tendered by the bank.

While you may think you are behind on the mortgage, wouldn't it be prudent to double check and make sure they did not give it away or sell it to someone else? And shouldn't you make sure that they lent you money in the first place? As odd as it might sound, the book Modern Money Mechanics published by the federal reserve suggests that perhaps the banks are not lending money at all, but instead creating it out of thin air when you make a promise to pay.

A policeman writes you a ticket on the side of the road.

The presumptions against you at that point are that (a) the officer has the authority to issue you a ticket, (b) the officer can make legal determinations about the facts, (c) you are a driver, (d)all practices required to measure speed with the device used were properly followed, and (e) the car you are in is registered with a state.

If you question the presumptions, offering to pay the ticket upon proof of all of the presumptions, can they take you to court? You are not arguing, merely asking questions. Until they are answered responsively, taking you to court without your understanding of the claim being made against you would be a denial of your due process rights.

Things to contemplate on any claim:

1. What authority do they have to bring a claim against you?
2. If claiming to be in default of something, can they prove everything required to show that you are actually in default? Original agreement? Proper chain of title to it? Proof of monies initially tendered?
3. If claiming you broke a statute, what authority do they have to make that claim? Is the claim a legal determination? If so, are they licensed to practice law? If they measured something, can they prove that they measured it properly?

Once you start learning to ask the right questions, many people will just walk away. Whether it is because they have no valid claim against you, because they feel it is not worth their time to pursue the matter, or for some other reason, I cannot say in every case. I just know it works.

For this discussion, I am talking about administrative process in the light that you can administer a process of your own to determine the facts and then decide to agree or disagree with one making a claim.

By doing so, you accomplish a few different things:

1. You establish proof of good faith by way of considering what is said and offering to agree should the one making a claim against you prove what they are claiming.
2. You establish a good amount of evidence to use in case you eventually find yourself in disagreement with the one making a claim, or they decide to file a lawsuit against you rather than answering your questions.
3. You give the one making the claim against you notice that you are not going to just roll over. Additionally, you show them that you know how to establish a record which can be used in a court of law. Most groups will either try to ignore you or leave you alone once you start using this process.

The initial claim against you.

Someone writes you a letter claiming that you must do something. This is where you start building evidence at. Make a copy of the letter, place it in a filing folder, and mark the folder with the name of the one making the claim. You will use the folder to keep all written materials in pertaining to the initial claim.

Responding to the claim.

After looking over the claims being made, you write back questioning their presumptions. A good place to start is typically to ask who they are and specifically what authority they have to even discuss the matter with them.

In the case of governments, you want to ask them to prove their authority by establishing the law they claim gives them it and documenting the logical flow of regulations and statutes that eventually gives them some authority over you.

In the case of other corporations, you generally want to get them to produce the valid contract signed by two parties as well as any note, bill, or proof of consideration given.

How to write good letters

When writing the letter, be polite. Offer to agree about specific points or matters once they show proof of what they are claiming. Be sure to note that they have a reasonable amount of time to respond or they will be tacitly agreeing that they do not have what you are asking for. Typically thirty days is good. If they do not respond after the time is up, be sure to write them another letter noting that they are in fault and offer them an extended timeframe to get you the proof. Another twenty to thirty days is typically good. If, after that second timeframe expires, they still do not respond, send them a letter of default noting that they failed to respond initially and failed to respond after being granted additional time to do so. Because of that, you accept their agreement that they were mistaken and have no claim against you.

All letters should be sent certified mail, return receipt. When sending them, leave a space on each letter for a certified mail number and write it in before sealing the envelope. From there, go home, make a copy of the letter sent, attach the certified mail stub to it, and put it in your file. Once you get the return receipt, add that to the letter mailed as well. If you want to keep it extra neat, place your copy of each mailing in an envelope and note the date and subject within it.

What you are doing is showing that you sent a letter, what date you sent it on, that it was received, the date it was received, and who signed for it. This is all stuff that you can enter into evidence in a trial by writing up an affidavit denoting that your letters are true and correct copies of what you sent.

What is a responsive answer

A responsive answer is one where they provide the proof asked for, or at least provide something that qualifies as a reasonable replacement for the proof asked for.

If you ask them to send you a verified copy of the original mortgage note along with a declaration that everything related to the note is included and they send you back some flimsy legal letter along with a copy of the original contract, that is not a responsive answer. They have not provided evidence that will stand up in a court of law, and what they did provide is not even a copy of the note they claim to hold.

If you ask for the authority under which city hall presumed to issue you an infraction for having your grass too long and they write back with a copy of the ordinance stating that no grass shall be over two inches high under penalty of fine, they are being non-responsive. A responsive answer might include either a contract where you agreed to abide by whatever they say or perhaps a record of you voting on the initiative that gave fines for having ones grass too tall.

Again, I am not a lawyer and I am not giving legal advice.

However, I have had excellent success using this process to get rid of a variety of fines, fees, and unfounded claims against me.

It does require a bit of work and a bit of research, but if the alternative is paying arbitrary fees, court fees, and such it might just be worth your time to consider.

If you have any questions about the process, please feel free to leave them in the questions dialogue below.

If you have comments, please leave them in the comments box instead.

Peace.