Some handy reference material is provided HERE by the Golden Gate Litigation site in the form of PDFs and videos. also has material and a course you can purchase.

The Free Legal Dictionary
The main source of TheFreeDictionary's legal dictionary is West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Edition 2, which contains more than 4,000 entries detailing terms, concepts, events, movements, cases, and individuals significant to United States law.

The legal dictionary also incorporates The People's Law Dictionary, by renowned authorities Gerald and Kathleen Hill. It includes definitions, context, and usage for more than 3,000 terms. Regarded by scholars, jurists, leading attorneys and reviewers as one of the most practical works of its kind, The People's Law Dictionary is a comprehensive source of meanings and use for thousands of today's most common legal terms. It has gained widespread praise for its scope and clarity.

Courts In General

General Considerations (bulleted points via Jurisdictionary)
  • Draft & file proper motions.
  • Ensure that it is a court of record.
  • Make effective courtroom objections.
  • Move the court to get what you want (via proper motions)

Drafting & filing proper motions can, as it's supposed to be the case, with some judges/magistrates leads to having one's case dismissed prior to trial. Sadly, as time goes on and the masses continue to not question their Authority belief, and the potential cash cow grows fatter, this becomes more the exception than the Rule.
Included in the proper aspect, is filing timely according to applicable jurisdiction's rules regarding such.
[another consideration, if it goes so far as an actual trial, is Marc's ploy of preparing --but never actually signing-- a Plea Of Guilty. aka An Unsigned Plea of Guilty; see Marc's website for details]

Having the case on the record is reportedly essential to having a case legally appealable. According to Appellate level judges, if it's not in a record, it didn't happen (whatever specific violation or abuse that occurred is null). Thus, if there's no Official Record? In other words, the verdict\ruling stands as is.
[side-bar: in most instances, having a judges' ruling Appealed is something they can't personally stand, thus persistently reminding judges that you in fact intend to Appeal, can be a means to having them better behave]

Coupled with the importance of there being a Record, is that you must object, object, object --to each and every violation of both Rule and Law (including Codes). On appeal, if it's not objected to during the trial, and on the Record, it's likely going to stand (as ruled).

Moving the court is to file motions that specifically instruct the court as to what you are owed, according to fact and law stated therein, so as to have the court rule in your favor.

All of the above are in the "best case scenario" perspective. It's all in accord with the public relations scheme/scam, aka the Rules and The Law. However, in the real world, much here depends upon the individual magistrate/judge (ie how much of a power intoxicated bully) you drew from the pool of such.

Certificate of Mailing (.docx file/format)

Tips For Court & Pleadings

(started by forum user 11:11)

Judicial and Statutory Definitions of Words and Phrases (with citations)


Examples of Specific Legal System operations setups

The intent here is to direct to examples of how some Court System operations run, in hopes of giving a general idea for a foundation. Always, of course, research your specific area's setup.

Local Procedures | Circuit Court | City of Alexandria, Virginia

The Guide to Texas Courts:

Provides information about Self Help and Legal Research resources in Texas. Links are grouped by those that cover courts statewide, for multiple counties, and then by individual county.

Georgia Self Help Resources
Civil Courts:
Each entry gives a general presentation of each topic
FAQs (selected)

Georgia Administrative Office of the Courts
Superior Court
Superior courts are trial courts of general jurisdiction. Superior courts have exclusive jurisdiction over felony cases (except in the case of juvenile offenders as provided by law), prosecuted by the District Attorney's Office, and cases regarding title to land, equity, and divorce. Superior courts have general jurisdiction over civil law cases, misdemeanors, and other cases.
Georgia has 159 superior courts, one in each county. In superior courts, a judge and sometimes a jury hears witnesses' testimony and other evidence and decides cases by applying the relevant law to the relevant facts.

State Court
State courts are trial courts with limited jurisdiction covering misdemeanor and traffic violations, prosecuted by the Solicitor, and all civil actions, regardless of the amount, unless the superior court has exclusive jurisdiction. State courts also handle preliminary felony matters. Georgia has 70 state courts.
Juvenile Court
Juvenile courts exercise exclusive jurisdiction in cases involving delinquent, unruly, and deprived children under the age of 17. Juvenile courts have concurrent jurisdiction with superior courts involving non-capital offenses, custody, child support, and legitimation cases, and termination of parental rights.
Georgia has 159 juvenile courts, one in each county.
Probate Court
Probate courts exercise jurisdiction in traffic violations (in some counties), the probate of wills, the administration of estates, the appointment of guardians, and the involuntary hospitalization of incapacitated adults and other dependent individuals. This court also administers oaths of office and issues marriage licenses and gun permits.
Georgia has 159 probate courts, one in each county.
Magistrate Court
Magistrate courts are courts for civil claims of $15,000 or less, county ordinance violations, applications for and issuance of arrest and search warrants, warrant application hearings, preliminary hearings, dispossessory writs, distress warrants, and deposit account fraud (bad checks). No jury trials are held in this court. Appeals from this court are made to the state or superior court.
Georgia has 159 magistrate courts, one in each county.
Civil Court
Civil courts have a jurisdictional limit of $25,000. Jury trials are held in this court. Appeals from this court are made to the Georgia Court of Appeals.
Georgia has two civil courts, in Richmond and Bibb counties.
Municipal Court
Municipal courts have jurisdiction over ordinance violations and such other jurisdiction as provided by law.

Topical Index: State Statutes

Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute

Most but not all state statutes on the Internet are organized along lines fitting the following topical breakdown.
[For a full listing of State Statutes on the Net, click here.]
  • [For a full listing of State Statutes on the Net, click here.]


"NO OBLIGATION" cases ...

The courts have ruled repeatedly that the government has no obligation to protect you. This is the basis for understanding that there are no citizens, as the definition of a citizen is one who owes allegiance to the state in exchange for the obligation of the state to protect that citizen. No obligation to protect = no valid contract = no claim for allegiance = no citizens.

DeShaney v. Winnebago (thanks to Bruce for the pointer)
California Government Code
845. Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.

A compilation of various "no obligation" cases, with citations: No Duty To Protect - Case Cites w/summaries
(source: No Obligation Cases *note: never rely upon other's information without source verifying it for yourself)


DOS game written by Ashley L. Lipson Esq.


The premise of the game is simple; How to properly object to questions in court. The points you acquire per witness determine if you get to the next round. Answers are timed from 29 points to 10 points, partial credit is given for an objection that could somewhat be valid but is not the best grounds for objection, and 0 points are given for an incorrect objection or invalid keystroke.

In the beginning it lists what keys you press to raise the proper objection to the prosecutor's questions.

Q is a proper question, no objection

A is an objection of argumentative

B is an objection to the Best Evidence Rule (Rule 1001 through 1008 of the Federal Rules of evidence in the United States)

C is an objection to a conclusion (Now I know why Marc always says the prosecutor says objection calls for a legal conclusion the witness is incompetent to testify!)

F is an objection to assuming facts not in evidence (Just recently heard this objection when Marc was dealing with Mary

H is an objection to hearsay

I is an objection to irrelevant or immaterial testimony

L is an objection to leading

M is an objection to multiple questions

P is an objection to privileged information

S is an objection to speculative questions

V is an objection to vague questions

Later versions have many new questions and also provide questions from actual court proceedings.

Some CONFIRMED citations that may be helpful:

  • note: it is crucial to keep in mind, that if you wish to argue using Cites (see also, Precedent), you'll need to consider all Cites relevant (e.g. see Shepardizing) and not just one, nor only the ones that you think, or have been told will help you. Many Case Rulings are context relevant, and as odd as it may seem Cases can contradict others, or hinge on crucial, distinguishing factors *

“Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.” and “Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.”
Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co.,495 F 2d 906, 910. (confirmed: WestLaw)
see also:

“The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.”
Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) (confirmed)

“the duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted in the particular case before it.”
Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 US 405 (confirmed)

“Constitutional limits on standing eliminate claims in which the plaintiff has failed to make out a case or controversy between himself and the defendant, and, in order to satisfy the judicial article of the Constitution, the plaintiff must show that he personally suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of putatively illegal conduct of the defendant.
Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 99 S. Ct. 1601 (1979) (Confirmed WestLaw)

“To satisfy the threshold requirement of alleging an actual case or controversy, the plaintiff was bound to demonstrate a personal stake in the outcome, an abstract injury was not enough but, rather, the plaintiff was bound to show that he had sustained or was in immediate danger or sustaining some direct injury as the result of the challenged official conduct and the injury or threat of injury was required to be both real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical.
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons 461 U.S. 95,103 S.Ct. 1660 (1983) (Confirmed WestLaw)

The constitutional limits on standing eliminate claims in which the plaintiff has failed to make out a case or controversy between himself and the defendant. In order to satisfy Art. III, the plaintiff must show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant. Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U. S. 59, 438 U. S. 72 (1978); Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 429 U. S. 260-261 (1977); Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U. S. 26, 426 U. S. 38 (1976); Warth v. Seldin, supra at 422 U. S. 499; Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614, 410 U. S. 617 (1973). Otherwise, the exercise of federal jurisdiction "would be gratuitous, and thus inconsistent with the Art. III limitation." Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U. S. 38. (confirmed)

“The plaintiff must show that he himself is injured by the challenged action of the defendant. The injury may be indirect, see United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669, 688, 93 S.Ct. 2405, 2416, 37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973), but the complaint must indicate that the injury is indeed fairly traceable to the defendant’s acts or omissions. Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 41-42, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 1925-1926, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976); O’Shea v. Littelton, 414 U.S. 488, 498, 94 S.Ct. 669, 677, 38 L.Ed2d 674 (1974); Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617, 93 S.Ct. 1146, 1148, 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973).” Vil. of Arlington Hts. v. Metro Housing Dev., 429 U.S. 252, 262. (confirmed)

“It is as old as the law, and never more to be respected than now, that no one shall be personally bound until he had his day in court; by which is meant that until he has been duly cited to appear, and has been offered an opportunity to be heard. Judgment without such citation and opportunity wants all the attributes of a judicial determination; it is judicial usurpation and oppression, and never can be upheld where justice is justly administered.”
Old Wayne Mut. L. Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907). (Confirmed WestLaw)

“A second and more basic reason leads us to conclude the disputed evidence was improperly admitted. We risk stating the obvious here: a complaint is merely an accusation of conduct and not, of course, proof that the conduct alleged occurred. The prosecution did not introduce evidence that Bailey misused the SEC rules — rather, the prosecution offered only the complaint, which is far from evidence of anything. Admitting the complaint may have permitted the jurors to succumb to the simplistic reasoning that if the defendant was accused of the conduct, it probably or actually occurred. Such inferences are impermissible. “
U.S. v. Bailey 696 F.3d 794 (2012)[ 696 F.3d 801 ](emphasis added) (confirmed WestLaw)

“It must be said, though, that a complaint would not establish knowledge even if the prosecution had purported to use it only for that reason. All a complaint establishes is knowledge of what a plaintiff claims. It does not establish the truth of either the facts asserted in the complaint, or of the law asserted in the complaint.”
U.S. v. Bailey 696 F.3d 794 (2012)[ 696 F.3d 801 ] (confirmed WestLaw)

“The right against self-incrimination forbids the government from compelling any person to give testimonial evidence that would likely incriminate him during a subsequent criminal case. This right enables a defendant to refuse to testify at a criminal trial and "privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings"
Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 94 S. Ct. 316, 38 L. Ed. 2d 274 [1973]. (Confirmed)

“The government insists broadly that the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination does not apply in any civil proceeding. The contrary must be accepted as settled. The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is also a party defendant. It protects likewise the owner of goods which may be forfeited in a penal proceeding.”McCarthy v. Arndstein - 266 U.S. 34 (1924).
See Also: Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, 142 U. S. 563-564. (Confirmed)

“The Fifth Amendment provides that no person 'shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.' The Amendment not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings.”
McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40, 45 S.Ct. 16, 17, 69 L.Ed. 158 (1924) (Confirmed WestLaw)
See Also:

"If there was here a denial of cross-examination without waiver, it would be constitutional error of the first magnitude and no amount of showing of want of prejudice would cure it."
Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1 (1966)

Some more resources for common objections.

Request For Discovery / Brady (Material) Request

Marc's MOTION TO DISMISS includes a Request for Discovery/Brady Request. However, you may wish to learn more about Brady so that your request can be tailored to the specific needs of your circumstances.

According to USA v Olsen, Brady violations are so bad, federal judges are saying that prosecutions are at epidemic levels of withholding exculpatory evidence.

What must a prosecutor disclose, upon request, before you begin any hearings? What is material?
  • Anything that has a bearing on guilt or innocence or on sentencing. This disclosure is required irrespective of the good or bad faith of the prosecutor.
  • When the reliability of a given witness may determine guilt or innocence, the prosecutor must disclose evidence affecting the credibility of that witness.
  • “The individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government’s behalf in the case, including the police.” Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995)

If you plan on using the "Marcratic" Method in court, you’d want to include the question: “What facts and witnesses do you have to prove the constitution and codes apply to me?

What might your request look like (in addition to the specific and important requests included with Marc's Motion to Dismiss):
Favorable or Exculpatory Evidence: (Defendant specifically demands:) Any evidence, information, documents, and other materials favorable to the defendant in the possession of the Prosecutor or Attorney General, or of any police department involved in the investigation of the case against defendant, or of any agency or person and available to the prosecution through the exercise of due diligence, [Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83(1963)], including but not limited to the following:
  • The names and addresses of all witnesses to the above-referenced case, whether or not the State intends to call such witnesses at trial;
  • All statements regarding this case, whether written or oral, made by any witness in this case, whether or not the State intends to call such witnesses at trial;
  • The identity and whereabouts of any informants;
  • The names and addresses of all persons detained or arrested as suspects in this case and any statement or statements of such suspect(s);
  • Any information relevant to the credibility of any witness that the prosecution may call at trial, including the medical and psychiatric records of any alleged victim or witness which is in the possession of the Prosecutor or Attorney General;
  • Witness’ criminal records and impeachment evidence including all records of any felony or misdemeanor convictions and juvenile adjudications, and of the probationary status, whether felony or misdemeanor, and any other information relevant to impeachment of any witness to be called to testify against the defendant;
  • Agreements for Testimony: The full and completes statement, whether oral or written, of all promises, rewards and/or inducements of any kind made by the State, its prosecutors, agencies, or agents to induce or encourage the giving of testimony or information made to (1) any prospective witness whom the State intends to call as a witness at trial or any pre-trial hearing; (2) any witness who assisted the State in its investigation and preparation of the above-referenced case;
  • Any evidence to be used in rebuttal of the defense case; and
  • Names, addresses, and phone numbers of witnesses who may be called to testify pursuant regarding evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identify or absence or mistake or accident when such matters are relevant to a material issue in dispute.

To insure that the State or Federal prosecutor is in compliance with their obligations under Brady, it is good practice to periodically follow up on the initial written discovery request by sending supplemental written discovery demands to the prosecutor, reiterating the prosecutor’s obligation to disclose Brady material. As our investigation of a case continues and we learn more about the State or Government’s case as the investigation progresses, we may specifically refer to newly disclosed facts and reference those facts in our supplemental Brady demands.