Court Defense Strategy
🛡️ Emergency Court Defense Strategy for Psychiatric Commitment
Based on the Constitutional Principles of Carl Miller
⚖️ 1. Assert Your Constitutional Standing Immediately
As Carl Miller teaches, the U.S. Constitution is a contract between you and the government, and you are the expressly intended beneficiary. Assert this:
“Your Honor, I am here in propria persona. I am not waiving any of my constitutional rights. I am the beneficiary of the Constitution — a contract enforceable in court under the Statute of Frauds.”
This sets the stage: you are not under statutory jurisdiction until due process is established.
📜 2. State Your Legal Refusal Document Was Properly Executed
If you’ve presented the Declaration of Refusal of Psychiatric Treatment, calmly reference it in court as evidence of prior due process demand:
“This signed document asserts my constitutional and statutory rights as protected under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. §9501. It is a lawful notice of refusal and demand for due process.”
🧷 3. Demand Proof of Jurisdiction
Carl teaches that jurisdiction is everything. If they can’t prove jurisdiction with clear evidence, the case must be dismissed.
Say:
“Before any further action is taken, I respectfully challenge this court’s jurisdiction and request that it be proven on the record. Jurisdiction must be proven, not assumed.”
Cite:
- U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) — limits on assumed jurisdiction
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) — unconstitutional acts are void from inception
📑 4. Demand Constitutional Specific Performance
Use Carl’s powerful line:
“Your Honor, I request specific performance on the contract known as the United States Constitution. I am invoking Article VI, the Supremacy Clause, and I demand my rights be interpreted liberally in favor of me, the clearly intended beneficiary.”
Back it with:
- Am Jur 16, Sec 97 – Constitutional protections are to be liberally construed in favor of the citizen
- Bryars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28 – Courts must protect against encroachment of rights
🧠 5. Preempt Forced Medication with Informed Refusal
They may try to claim “mental illness” to justify medication. Your counter:
“I have not waived my right to informed consent. No psychiatric diagnosis has been rendered by a neutral third party. Under 42 U.S.C. §9501, I retain the right to refuse medication unless a court proves incompetence.”
If they try to declare you incompetent:
- Demand an independent psychological evaluation
- Demand that it be on record, with an opportunity to cross-examine
- State clearly: You are not a danger to yourself or others
🔐 6. Destroy Their Case With Carl’s Willfulness Argument
“The Supreme Court in U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 (1973) defines willfulness as an ‘evil motive or intent to violate known legal duty.’ I acted under lawful belief, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent. I lacked any willful wrongdoing. There is no crime.”
Add:
“If this court proceeds despite this, I reserve the right to sue under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for deprivation of constitutional rights under color of law.”
💥 7. If It Escalates: Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice
“Your Honor, due to failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and due to lack of jurisdiction, I motion for dismissal with prejudice and demand all costs and fees incurred be compensated under civil rights remedy statutes.”
🧠 Summary Cheat Sheet
| Step | What to Say | Why It Works |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | “I stand in propria persona” | Establishes constitutional identity |
| 2 | “I submitted my lawful refusal document” | Shows proactive rights assertion |
| 3 | “Prove jurisdiction on record” | Shifts burden to court |
| 4 | “Request specific performance” | Forces court to honor the Constitution |
| 5 | “No willful wrongdoing under Bishop” | Negates mental illness or guilt presumption |
| 6 | “Motion for dismissal with prejudice” | Ends case if they can’t meet burden |
⚖️ Legal Disclaimer
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The information provided on this page is for educational and informational purposes only. It is based on publicly available legal documents, constitutional case law, and teachings from legal researchers such as Carl Miller, who is not a licensed attorney.
🧠 We are not lawyers, and nothing on this site should be interpreted as legal advice, legal representation, or a substitute for consulting a licensed attorney.
The content is intended to empower individuals to understand and assert their rights under the U.S. Constitution and relevant legal precedents — particularly in situations where conventional legal recourse has failed or been denied.
⚠️ Always do your own research and, if necessary, seek counsel from a qualified legal professional. Use of any information from this site is at your own risk.
✊ We believe in the right to self-education, self-representation, and freedom of speech — all of which are protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.