a bit of an update. Well, more like another recommendation.
When the courts asks if one is so-and-so (NAME) AND/OR tells one the court can not continue if you are not so-and-so AND/OR threatens to play the warrant-for-did-not-appear card, maybe one should consider the following approach:
On and for the public record, does this court seek the person or the man, for I am here for this matter and blah, blah, blah yakkety schmakkety. (finish the one sentence)
This should prevent the court from issuing the warrant or just attempting to run over everything. If a case has been initiated, it would be wise to prepare one's self for going into court, but only to keep on point. One is there to "state a claim for which one's relief should be granted" while are the same time, showing where the other party has FAILED to state a claim upon which THEIR relief should be granted (ie: enter a plea)
Now, if anyone takes one into custody, ACTION breathes life into the PRESUMPTION of wrongful imprisonment and now United States v. Kozminski - 487 U.S. 931 (1988) takes effect and Principal VI of Nuremburg applies and the silent contract in place is the one doing the seizing is usufructuary unto the one seized unless the one seizing can show where the RIGHT exists, else there is a WRONG and a violation of God almighty's Natural Law which then becomes a TORT.
We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.
If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.