No, I’m not a f***ing attorney – but I know the law.

Written by Gregory Monte.

I accompanied my son to his summary appeal at the Wayne County (PA) Courthouse on March 7, 2019.  When the judge decided to prevent him from offering important evidence, I felt obligated to call out from “behind the bar” to let the judge know that she was making a mistake.  My son was having difficulty explaining why the evidence was legitimate, so I called out Rule 902.  This was a reference to the rule about self-authenticating evidence.

In an attempt to shut me up and shut me down, the judge shot back with a quick question:

“Excuse me sir but are you an attorney?”

I felt like saying the following:

“No I’m not a f***king attorney, but I obviously know more about the rules of evidence than you do in this case.”

Instead I calmly responded with these words: “His evidence is self-authenticating.”

She still didn’t get it and repeated her question.

This time I responded with a simple “no.”

But a light bulb must have gone off in her head at this point, because she called a 5-minute recess.  When she returned, she allowed my son to proceed with his case.

Do you think that maybe she looked up Rule 902 back in her chambers?  I think so.  I showed her that I knew not only more than she did, but that I knew more than most attorneys.

My point is that, by spreading the news about my traffic-ticket research, I am attempting to make all traffic attorneys superfluous.  By revealing a full set of defenses available to the regular citizen, I am bypassing the normal way of doing business in the world of “justice.”

Screw the attorneys – you don’t need them.

My Free Resources


9 thoughts on “No, I’m not a f***ing attorney – but I know the law.

  1. I was suing Thurston County, Washington, for clear violations of the Public Records Act [codified at chapter 42.56 RCW]. In such cases, the prosecutor’s civil division represents the county.

    Three times, in the course of the proceedings, the judge ruled in favor of the prosecutor. In all three instances, I cited relevant court rules. Subsequently, the judge withdrew his ruling and ruled in my favor.

    CLEARLY, the judge was biased in favor of the county. He should have recused himself from the case, and I should have done a better job of entering onto the record the fact he showed bias by presuming in favor of the prosecutor when no cites were offered by either of us and our claims challenged each other.

    Judges do not know but a fraction of the laws applicable to cases before them. Add to that, they bastardize the concept of justice by refusing to allow anyone other than an attorney to assist those brought before it.

    Decades ago, I aided my friend in a case and accompanied him to court. The prosecutor insisted he did not do the paperwork because they were beyond his legal capacity or comprehension. He went on to demand I identify myself to the court and the court sought to honor his demand (oral motion).

    I responded with that my mere presence did not empower the court to demand I identify myself anymore than a judge could demand everyone on the court room stand and identify themselves – no such court rule exists. The judge excused herself, came back and stated she could not find a rule requiring me to identify myself.

    A few times during the proceedings, the opposition caught me coaching my friend with a nudge or kick and tried to whine about that too. That went no better than the demand I identify myself.

    My friend won.

    As we left, I shook the prosecutor’s hand, AND identified myself. His reaction was cute,

    Liked by 1 person

  2. For the Back of Your Mind:

    * ANYTIME government is attempting to terminate a liberty right, be it with regard to parental rights or some other protected right, you have the RIGHT to counsel. If you cannot afford it, just as in criminal matters, you have the right to demand you be appointed counsel.

    * ANYTIME an action could result in jail time, you have the right to demand counsel be appointed you. This is true in civil matter for which you can be found in contempt and jailed. For example, if you are brought before a court for failure to comply with an order made in a civil arena, even if the court is said to be civil (e.g., family court), you have the right to counsel.

    * Nowhere in law have I found an appellate or supreme court case stating, unequivocally, the fact you are a juvenile makes you unqualified to claim indigence, by which you could demand represenatation.

    * Keep in mind, appointed counsel is operating on a limited budget born of a bid counsel made, or limits imposed by law or rule, but to which the prosecution is not equally subject. As such, there is seldom any money in actually defending you, unless your crime is going to generate a lot of news coverage.

    * Testimony aside, if appointed counsel, any attempt to speak on your own behalf, when before a court, will be silenced. HOWEVER, counsel will take the stance their only duty is to defend you in the instant matter for which they were appointed, so statements that are not relevant and that would stand in the public record to besmirch you would not be objected to.

    Based on the foreoging, you have the right to file notice to the court objecting to your appointed counsel’s failure to object to such things.

    A POWERFUL tool is, notice to each of your appointed attorneys, explaining what you expect of them, including any insurance that would indemnify you, if you are damaged by their negligence or other matters that reach the level of “ineffective assistance of counsel.” Things you can expect are: building a record (e.g., objecting, introducing things and MOVING them into evidence, . . .); performing meaningful discovery (rather than relying on the opposing counsel’s offerings favorable to his/her case); filing motions, when appropriate, including seeking sanctions, again, if appropriate, etc.); . . .


    If you do not, timely, establish an objection, such as when being proceeded against without counsel you requested, you are presumed to have waived the right to challenge that to which you object.

    If a public defender finds and excuse to withdraw from the case for conflict, his office is treated like a law firm, which, also, would be barred from involvement in the case, due to conflict.

    Rather than immediately bring to the court’s attention the conflict, strategy may best be served by waiting until the day of court to bring these issues to its attention.

    . . .

    Liked by 1 person

  3. See
    For some things you may not know about the strong conspiracy that exists between law school graduates. Please pass it on. Thanks,


  4. Attorneys, and attornment. An interesting search.

    Next, look to the times bar associations conduct investigations into the practice of law without a bar membership. The fun in that search is, the bar claims to be part of the judicial branch, yet, there it is, conducting investigations, as if part of the executive branch.

    Once upon a time, a bar association tried to push such an investigation. Fun ensued.

    The bar was given a public records request, which an executive branch agency would have had to respond to. Of course, in the requests was the mention that if it refused the request under a claim it was part of the judicial branch, it was admitting it and usurped executive branch authority, thereby combining the two branches and creating a tyranny situation. blah blah blah

    It took the bar three years to respond. That response was a notice the time had lapsed on the investigation. . . .


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s