Now, I want to set the stage for an extended explanation of the confrontation response formula by telling you what happened in a tiny town in upstate New York recently, when I appeared before a lay justice who had a long-standing reputation as a hanging judge.

       It involved a speeding ticket I had received on the New York Thruway. Seventy-Three miles in a 65-mile zone.

        The fact that I am an attorney had no bearing upon the outcome. He granted no special dispensation to the other lawyers who appeared before him that night. Rather, he seemed to delight in socking it to them.

       Nor was it luck or happenstance.

        There was only one reason why I emerged, after an hour, satisfied that I had done as well as anyone could under the circumstances.

        I shot him!  Figuratively, of course. The outcome had been influenced by a carefully constructed verbal salvo I had fired directly into his subconscious.

       That night, at that session, I was the only one who could claim a victory of sorts. Everyone else called to the dock had been slaughtered in ritual fashion, particularly those who were represented by attorneys.

        I don't practice in traffic courts except for myself and my wife. That portion of my practice has grown substantially in the past few years.

        Unless the room is jam-packed, I don't even sign the attorney log, which would get me out faster, because I like to watch the judge in action to get a feel for the best approach and strategy.

       When I walked into that small crowded courtroom in the boonies, the first thing I noticed was the judge on the bench, robed and sitting in solitary splendor.

        The second thing was the absence of a court clerk, a stenographer, and an Assistant District Attorney. Nada. Nothing. No one.

        The third thing was a profusion of state troopers buzzing about the room, which explained the disproportionate number of police cars outside, and certainly suggested that the ticket givers had  a preference for that particular venue.

        Definitely not your garden variety of court. The judge ran it as his little fiefdom.

       For example, he let the state trooper who had issued the ticket plea bargain with the alleged offender. Not exactly proper, as far as I was concerned. You should not have to negotiate with the officer who is going to testify as a witness against you.

        Should I plea bargain or try the case? A shallow dig was all that was necessary to come up with a related experience.

       A few months before, I had accompanied and represented my wife on a speeding ticket in somewhat similar circumstances.

        As we watched His Honor financially shear everyone who came before him, my wife suddenly remembered that another teacher in her school had driven by and seen her get her comeuppance, at the place where it actually happened, not at the location listed on the traffic ticket or in the officer's deposition.

       The trooper had been very abusive because she had stopped instantly when he had flashed his lights and turned on his siren. At a dangerous curve.

       What do you do at the eleventh hour with a revelation like that? I decided to try the case, but to first request an adjournment so that the witness could appear.

       It was not to be, however. Instead, there was an immediate and short-lived trial, with the conclusion foregone, after the judge denied my request for an adjournment.

       Cross-examining the trooper was a sobering experience. The officer knew I knew that he was lying and I could almost sense him gloating inwardly as he parried my sarcasm.

       He said he paced and clocked her on his speedometer. I asked him whether he always used his speedometer as radar. He replied that he had, thousands of times. I asked him when he had last calibrated his brain, at which point the judge indicated his displeasure and backed it up with conviction.

       The bottom line was a heavy fine and four points on her record. It was over before it really began.

       That was what surfaced as an associated experience as I debated whether to plea bargain or try this case. The fact that the equities were in my favor was really not decisive.

        Reminded me of a ditty I had read long ago:

       Here lies John Jay, who died maintaining his
       right of way.

       He was right, dead right, as he sped along,

       But he's just as dead as if he were wrong.

       More important than right, it seemed, was the buddy-buddy relationship that permeated this particular courtroom.

       I opted for plea bargaining, which occurred shortly thereafter. The trooper then spoke to the judge while I loaded my mental shotgun. He told me the judge would not budge on the points or the standard fine for the lesser charge. I reluctantly agreed to plead guilty.

       Let me replay the short conversation as I stood before the judge. There is a lot in it that will not be apparent to you until the confrontation response formula is explained. You will initially wonder how those few terse responses of mine produced such a successful result, but not after you understand the formula and achieve the same type of results yourself.

       "You have the right to an attorney", he said. "Do you have one?"

       "I am an attorney, your honor," I replied. "I hope you won't hold that against me."

       "What kind of law do you practice?"

       "Trusts and Estates," I answered.

       "Have you tried many cases?"

       "Litigation is not my strong point," I said, "but if I did try this case chances are you would throw it out."

       He frowned. "What do you mean?" he asked.

       "Well, " I responded, "There's a lot of things here that don't smell too good. A discrepancy between the ticket and the deposition. Two different speeds. Two different methods of determination. One's obviously a fabrication."

       I noticed him looking at both the ticket and the deposition.

       "Also," I continued, "the trooper claims I told him I was speeding. What attorney would make an admission like that? Maybe he felt pressured to nail down a conviction to make sure you didn't throw out the case."

       He looked at the ticket and deposition again, then fined me half of what I had seen him fine others. I laid the cash on his bench and watched him fill in the blanks on the form in his book.

       He smiled at me when he handed me the receipt. "I've given you a present not many people get," he said. "No points."

       I looked at the receipt and saw that he had crossed out the section of the Motor Vehicle Law resulting from the plea bargain and had inserted another, which did not carry any points. I thanked him and beat a hasty retreat.

       Care to venture a guess on what turned the tide in my favor? Would it surprise you to learn that I followed the confrontation response formula?

        Some of the tactics included in the short conversation were "mirroring and pacing", "representational mode analysis", and "embedded commands". The judge was not aware, of course, that many of the words I used bypassed his conscious and went directly to his subconscious. You will understand why as I explain the details of the formula.

NOTE: The Manual contains a complete description of the Confrontation Formula. Used properly, it will enable you to come out on top in most sales situations, confrontations, and negotiations. Does it make sense to just concentrate on the conscious aspects when addressing the subcoscious is so much easier?