How Far Can You Expect the Globalist Criminals to Be Tried?

On the other hand, how can you protect yourself in court?

Lincoln, just like the Constitution, is now made of sand. Of course, such has always been the case, but this time, it’s more obvious:

---

So, where is a court that represents the people?

The central idea of following article ticked me off, which is often the reason why I post something new. Sorry, I have low tolerance for nonsense. “Vigilant Fox” is obviously an agent:

https://vigilantfox.substack.com/p/attorney-edward-a-berkovich-urges

What originally meant to be a comment, has become this article.

My take on the US court system

What a disgraceful show...

I would first believe in the Tooth Fairy than in a fair(y) court in the US.

First, here are a few words about the US court system:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/can-you-afford-to-go-to-court

I left out a few essential things from the original article, but I am making up for that now.

False hope is often based on lawsuits that will never happen:

What can you expect from a trial?

Whether you are the defendant or the plaintiff, being prepared cannot hurt.

Most Americans haven’t the faintest idea how it works, yet they are buying into the idea that a “Nuremberg 2” (Nuremberg was a kangaroo court to being with) could bring justice for the unwashed peasants:

1. A case in the US goes on trial only if it the majority of a Grand Jury finds it trial-worthy. Only the Prosecution is allowed to present the case.

2. If you don’t want to be at the full mercy of a judge, your attorney must apply for a jury trial in time. You can get a jury trial even for traffic violations, but you might be liable for the court’s expenses, if you are found guilty¹.

3. Jury selection is a science now, and it can vastly determine the outcome of a trial. If your (expensive) lawyer is on better terms with the judge than the State Attorney is, your chances might increase over, well, close to nothing.

4. In order to wait for a jury trial without being incarcerated for the 12-18 months (last time I checked, it was 12-18 months), you must be able to afford bail.

5. Without a good (aka. expensive) lawyer, you have lost before the trial begins.

6. Public defenders are hilariously underpaid and have about one hour to spend on a case, which usually amounts to a plea bargain with the prosecution. Judges have the habit of catching new attorneys in the cafeteria of the courthouse and assign them to perform as public defenders, because there is always a complete shortage of those, meaning there is nobody available. In return, attorneys are forced to take one in ten cases “pro bono,” that is, for free, and you can only imagine how much effort they put in, when they are working for free.

7. If you manage to pass the first five obstacles and your lawyer requested a jury trial in time, you become a participant of about 1-2% of all cases these days. Lots of innocent people end up in the governor’s son’s private prison, only to become an enslaved worker; hence the “three strikes and you are out” and comparable ruses that put non-violent defendants behind bars for many years at the taxpayer’s expense.

8. Next, if you want to litigate, you must find a judge who is willing to take the case.

9. Be prepared that it is the judge who determines what “evidence” is admissible during the trial.

What can courts do, if the freedom of speech is not guaranteed?

In a country, where free speech is in the Constitution, how is it possible that someone is sentenced to pay millions of dollars of restitution for voicing his opinion?

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/on-the-freedom-of-speech

Isn’t the Constitution supposed to prevail over court verdicts?

https://nypost.com/2021/11/15/alex-jones-liable-for-defamation-in-sandy-hook-hoax-lawsuits/

Yes, it’s about Alex Jones and Sandy Hook; today is the anniversary of the event! Of course, Jones seems to be an insider player and the case is most likely only “to set a precedent” or, worse, intimidate anyone speaking against the official narrative in the future.

Obviously, even in Jones’s case, if the court (well, it was the “judge”) hadn’t denied evidence presented by the defense, there would have been no “guilty beyond reasonable doubt” verdict. That alone tells you volumes about the US court system, but wait a minute, in a civil case, the majority nine out of twelve jury members can ensure conviction… Only criminal courts require the 12 jury members to come up with a unanimous decision. I remember watching Twelve Angry Men, when I was 10 (we just had our first TV at the time), and it changed my thinking about ever passing judgment on anyone in my life:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/

My favorite quote from that movie is the joke about the man, who fell off the 100th floor and halfway down, he keeps telling himself, “So far, so good.” Kind of what the injected hope for:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/any-hope-for-the-injected-orfor-that

For those, craving for revenge, let me offer my take on it:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/crime-and-punishment

The relevance of 9/11

The Alex Jones case also reminds me of 9/11:

TV-viewers believed that two airplanes took down three steel/concrete towers, ignoring the fact that airplane fuel simply doesn’t burn hot enough to melt the steel structure, and Building 7 collapsed the same way as the Twins, eerily resembling controlled demolition. Moreover, Building 7 fell down, at least according to the official narrative, due to an office fire, which should be in the Guinness Book of Records, because that sort of thing has never happened in history. First responders reported giant pieces of the steel structure flying all over the place, and according to some eye-witnesses, the planes had no windows. Still, although the embers were glowing in the dark until the morning (which happens when high-tech explosives are used), the “perps’” passports were conveniently found intact among the debris that was urgently removed the following day and moved out of the country, preventing any further investigation. Forget that the buildings had been insured a few months before the event and a few tons of gold were supposed to be in them. Forget that “essential workers” didn’t show up for work that day. My readers collected further information on the false flag attack on America:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/invitation-for-a-new-topic-what-happened

Even if everything was won in court

Who would enforce a court’s decision?

After all these years, everyone who wanted to know is well aware that 9/11 was a false flag that made Congress pass the (un)Patriot(ic) Act that none of the “elected” representatives read (maybe the one, who was the one one, who voted against it, did) and is still in effect, just like the Federal Government’s “medical emergency” stipulations keep being extended or, once suspended, can be declared again anytime, depriving states of their right to make their own decisions, as against the WHO.

This seems to be the game that never ends, kind of like the “boosters” that will only end after there will be nobody to receive them. The government cares for you! Die healthy!

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/die-healthy

Conclusion, according to the government, with its corollaries

If you have a headache, the best cure is to cut your head off. Come on, you must admit that you are a useless eater!

You are owned:

Your compliance training goes back for over a hundred years:

And most commoners have received the latest chunk of humiliation and the depreciation of the value of their lives:

Don’t fret is; you are not going down on your own

If it’s any consolation, the end for the technocrats is no different from the one planned by them for the masses:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/what-the-elite-and-the-unwashed-peasants

In the meanwhile, just “trust the science”:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/freaks-of-science

As for lawsuits, “the people” don’t stand a chance:

1. The “British law” of having to pay for the winner’s court expenses drastically reduced the frequency of litigation in all countries since the 19th century.