Balancing the Scales of Justice for Pro Se Homeowners

Dr. Graves is at it again with this insightful Tidbit – How to Argue with Judges!

Posted by on Jul 5, 2012

Dr. Graves is the author of “Jurisdictionary” – a 24 hour crash course on understanding the law and civil procedures for pursuing a lawsuit (either as a Plaintiff or Defendant).  As a user of the course I get his insightful emails on a regular basis and this one has a clever analogy that all of us can relate to!  If you are a pro per, or a homeowner pursuing accountability of the parties involved in your Fraudclosure with an attorney, then investing in this program is a MUST DO.   The key ingredient in winning is knowing YOUR RIGHTS and how to pursue them.

Click here to order your copy of Jurisdictionary®


Arguing with judges is like arguing with baseball umpires.

You better know the rules AND HOW TO USE THEM!

Here are a few rules from the Official MLB Rulebook:

  • A player is not permitted to step or go into a dugout      to make a catch.
  • A player is permitted to reach into a dugout to make a      catch.
  • If a player makes a catch outside the dugout and his      momentum carries him into the dugout, the catch is allowed as long as the      player does not fall in the dugout.

Simple enough?


What if the players and the coaches on one team don’t know the rules?

What happens then?

Will it do that team any good to argue with the umpire?

Probably not!

And all the %#$@&* will only get you thrown out of the park and possibly grounded for the season!

To argue successfully with a baseball umpire or a judge on his bench in the courtroom, you must know the Rules of Court … and how how to use them to your advantage!                        

It’s the bottom of the ninth. Two down. Batter at the plate. The count is three and two. The batter pops a high foul. You push back your catcher’s mask and dash toward the dugout to make the catch. The ball hits your glove and you trip on the rim of the dugout and fall in. Scrambling to your feet, you climb back out of the dugout, ball in your upraised hand, triumphant grin on your face.

Teammates cheer.

Fans roar fanatic approval from the stands.

But, the scornful look on the umpire’s face and his raspy voice erase your victorious joy.

“Foul Ball!”

“But, I caught the ball, ump!”

The player strides purposely toward the umpire, waving a fist, yelling obscenities, and spitting (of course).

Fast behind is the coach, marching menacingly toward the umpire, cap shoved back, fists in the air, also shouting nasties and accusing the umpire of needing a new pair of glasses.

The umpire stands firmly behind the plate, hands planted on his hips, and waits for the verbal onslaught.

“I caught the foul ball. It’s an out!”

“It’s a foul ball. Period!” the umpire insists.

“You must be blind, Ump! It’s an out! Game’s over. We win! You saw me catch the ball? Jeeter couldn’t do any better!”

“Maybe not,” the umpire insists, “but Jeeter knows the ground rules! You fell in the dugout. Catch doesn’t count. Get back behind the plate where you belong!”

“But. But. But.”

If you studied my affordable 24-hour Jurisdictionary lawsuit self-help course, you know that all the “buts” in the world won’t do you a bit of good in court!

Claiming you’re pro se and should be allowed to play by different rules won’t help, either!

You either learn the rules – and how to use them to your advantage OR YOU LOSE!

Sending emails to friends after you lose or posting hateful comments on the internet complaining “All our courts are corrupt” just marks you as a loser.

Learn the official rules and how to use them … or lose!

You can show up in court with all kinds of documents and things that you think are “admissible evidence”. You can know the law is on your side.


If you don’t know the rules of evidence and rules of procedure – and how to use them to your advantage you lose!

There will be times when you’ll need to argue with the judge about this or that, but do yourself a favor and discover what I learned practicing law in state and federal courts since 1986: unless you know the rules and how to argue the rules effectively, you have no more chance of changing a judge’s ruling than the catcher who snags a foul ball in mid-air while falling into the dugout!

The Rules RULE!

End of story!

Losers believe internet fables. Losers get their legal education at the barbershop or on websites or expensive weekend seminars run by people who never practiced law, never went to law school, and don’t know mud from sand about the rules of court or how to use them to advantage.

Too many good folks believe mythological silver-bullet easy solutions to their legal problems. As a predictable result, they are losing … when they could be winning!

A host of wannabe legal gurus infest the internet and barbershops with half-baked schemes that sound too good to be true … and, like the old adage says, “If it sounds to good to be true, it probably isn’t.”

You may have heard people claiming you can win by challenging a judge’s oath of office, insisting a UCC lien can be used to create collateral for borrowers, insisting banks don’t loan “real money”, or that you can deny your citizenship and claim to be a “sovereign human being” above the law.

It might work in small claims or traffic court … but it will not carry the day for you in any kind of serious lawsuit or criminal case.

Hope in one hand and spit in the other. See which hand gets wet.

Learn how to use the rules!

It’s not expensive, and people who have my course tell us an 8th grader can learn it all in a single weekend.

If you have a lawyer, you’ll save thousands in legal fees by knowing what the lawyer should be doing … and you’ll maximize your chances for success by making certain the lawyer does what should be done, instead of taking you for a ride to the poorhouse – as happens to so many good people these days.

If you don’t have a lawyer, you’ll know how to stop the opponent’s crooked tricks and get the judge on your side!

The key is knowing the rules and how to use them!

To learn more, go to: Jurisdictionary®



One Comment

Join the conversation and post a comment.

  1. sdabqaes

    The specific actions brought on by this trustee continue to inflict great harm
    and suffering to those involved. It is my understanding as well as the law that
    anyone acting as a Trustee must perform with the highest level of ethics and
    morals (standards of conduct) one of the fiduciary responsibilities include
    making all mortgage payments and is required by law.
    Supporting evidence shows multiple loans have been taken out against the trust
    to cover expenses come to find out mortgage payments have not been made in
    months on either of the two properties which was never brought to any ones
    attention. The property located on Herman Avenue in San Diego California
    Subject property has been my home for the last 10 years. November 14 of 2003 I
    closed on this property as new construction was complete. The original purchase
    agreement and down payment we’re in place as of June 2003 for new construction.

    In 2009 a dear friend and employer at the time (now deceased) had agreed to
    purchase my home so that I could remain housed. Due to the progression of my
    disease HIV/AIDS which was advancing rapidly causing unforeseen hardship.
    However I had worked for my friend (now deceased) for a number of years in
    which I helped care for this very estate.

    As it is known by all parties involved that at any time I could repurchase my
    home at the sale price in which my friend paid for it in 2009 if and when I
    should be able too The agreement and intent was that I would have a life estate
    regardless of being able to repurchased the home or not. The trustees actions
    strongly suggest discrimination against my lifestyle and being HIV positive.
    Although this trustee is well aware of all underlying factors involving ‘my
    home’ and the progression of my disease the adverse actions continue to spiral
    out of control. And continues to disregard my existence and has made no effort
    towards a remedy reasonable or otherwise.
    Perhaps the consideration and option to repurchase my home rather then to
    dispose of me and intentionally forcing me in harms way and with no regards.

    I assure you Kevin’s (deceased friend) intent and wishes were that I remain in
    my home that was the sole purpose that he had purchased ‘my home’ and in hopes
    that the progression of my disease would slow down. Unfortunately this is not
    the case and I have no resources left and nowhere to turn to.

    May the Angels hear me asking for a miracle!


    A. E. Sanchez

Leave a Comment


Forgot Password?

Join Us

Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.