Would the prosecutor please identify the "defendant" ?

What we're battling the criminal traitors for is Common Law jurisdiction and recognition of our inherent rights as free Humans. Without an injured party, there is truly no crime according to Common Law jurisdiction. When the DA\Prosecutor asks for the "defendant" many in the freedom movement will produce their Birth Certificate on demand, as it is the TRUE Legal Person the "courts" are seeking when they say the "defendant".

We must start holding the Trustee's feet to the fire if we are ever to get true justice in these commercial "court" venues being operated mostly for profit. Without a contract, they don't really have a case against us. They work for us, remember that.

It depends on what kind of matter is being brought whether or not a prosecutor is present in the initial stage of the court process.

If a matter has gotten to the point where a prosecutor is involved, then you've already relinquished jurisdiction.

For example, in most victimless traffic court situations, one's first "appearance" in court will be only with a judge in attendance. There is no prosecutor needed until the court gains jurisdiction. That is, until there has been established a "defendant" in the case. They need the person's consent to be the "defendant." And these quasi-military administrative "courts-martial" operate on the judge's ability to draw people into his jurisdiction without their being aware that this has occurred.

If one is so naive as to think he is going to out smart one of these judges in his own court, he is operating under a false assumption. That is, unless he is properly prepared and has done his homework, and knows how to bait, steer, and corner the judge into dismissing the case.

Well yes this is only a great remedy if they've gotten you past the initial "arraignment".

I have always found it interesting that the prosecutor claims to be acting on behalf of the people. What everyone seems to forget is that the prosecutor himself is also 'one of the people'. If he cannot articulate an injury for remedy, 'failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted' is appropriate. In my state there is only one form of action, the 'civil action'. There is no allowance within the court rules for a 'criminal action'. This is the same in most states. There are rules for 'criminal proceedings', but not 'criminal actions'. Many times the victimless crimes prosecution will openly be civil, as with traffic violations.