Neutrality in the courts and among the police is absolutely essential to justice. Indeed neutrality is the prerequisite for legitimate courts and police and is essential for having any possibility of justice.
The political courts and police are by design biased, they all work to serve each other's power because they have all of the incentives which cause a conflict of interest in favor of their own power. They don't pretend to be unbiased because their system is structured in a way to enforce political edicts. The prosecutor works for the police-state, the prosecutor is in "law enforcement" (political policy enforcement) and both of them work for the legislators who impose statutes that are by their definition "crimes" against the state, not the victim. In truth there can only be crimes against individuals, the state is an artificial institution, an institution can't be the victim of a crime. But when someone is victimized it's considered not a crime against the human being, it's a "crime" against the imposed order of the state. The prosecutor's job is to use the power of the police to railroad the suspect, whom the state has targeted, and by prima facie evidence has decided is most likely guilty.
   So when you have the prosecutor working for the state instead of the victim and working with the political police and the judge and other court officials who all are participants in enforcing an illegitimate government on people and imposing their own set of court procedures and they also use their hand picked slaves to sit on the jury in involuntary servitude, known as jury duty, the result of all of this is a court that is all on the side, not necessarily of the victim, because they deny the victim the right to totally control prosecution, but on the side of the power of the state.
   Sometimes when police decide that a suspect is guilty they don't continue to investigate all leads that may clear the suspect, instead they sometimes close the case before conviction, which the police should never do. Even worse, there have been many cases of prosecutors and the police conspiring together to withhold evidence, fabricate evidence, coerce and even force confessions and frame a person whom they know to be innocent. The reasons for this may vary; political motives to persecute a person with unpopular ideas, racial or religious bigotry or even public pressure to convict someone, anyone.

Neutral courts must be composed of officials, judges and juries that objectively judge the laws of the parties involved. It is not the prerogative of the court to impose its own laws on others, courts cannot be allowed to make and enforce laws, laws are made by individuals in their consensual governments and between their contracts and treaties or in their absence according to natural law interpreted by common law. When people define their laws in their interactions with each other there will inevitably be conflicts, it is the duty of a neutral court to judge the parties according to their voluntarily accepted laws, not the laws imposed by the court, the judge, the prosecutor or the police, but the laws that exist between the two parties involved; or in the absence of any explicit contract or codified law, then they judge common law, which is not the imposition of the court's preferred law, but objectively judging what is the implied recognition of society's law which comes out of the ways in which people associate and treat each other in a free society guided by natural law.

Neutral police must also enforce voluntarily accepted contracts and the chosen laws of the parties involved. The police must not be allowed to enforce their own preferences in law, and most of all must not be allowed to enforce political policies for selfish interests. They should respond to complaints that someone's rights have been violated and they must conduct an objective investigation to determine the facts, which include pursuing leads which may exonerate the accused. When presenting evidence in court the police must present that evidence in a neutral way and allow the prosecution and defense to use the evidence as they see fit.

Neutrality in the courts may be within different structures but is basically the same with Libertocracy.
First, when two parties in a dispute are civilzens of the same government they have given their prior consent to use their own courts, police, judge and jury. Within this court, for it to be fair, the police should investigate all leads and present all evidence, first of all gathering evidence and getting a suspect arrested and charged, but also in working for the suspect to investigate any leads that might clear the suspect. The political police don't always do this, so there must be emphasis on holding the police to their duty to do investigations for both sides. Also, there must be a complete separation of power between the legislators and the police, prosecution, defense, judge and jury. Each one must be operated separately, politicians must not appoint judges or law enforcement officers. The police must be an independent service, the prosecutor must work for the victim, not the police or the legislators. The prosecutor should not be unbiased but should completely take the side of the victim. If there is no victim, then there should not be any prosecutor. The judge may be selected by the people or an independent judicial body and then approved by the people under whom one is contracted. The jury must be selected by an independent jury selection committee which may be chosen by the people who contract for the service.

When someone travels onto the territory of a particular government that person is giving one's implied consent to accept the court of that territory. But to be fair to that alien the court must view the defendant, not as an alien but simply as a defendant who is equal in the eyes of the court to a defendant who is a civilzen. In any just government an alien must be able to get equal treatment in court whether as a victim or defendant or a plaintiff in a litigation case. The neutrality in this case is considered the same as if the alien was a civilzen because, as stated, the alien gave one's implied consent to accept the police and courts of that government when that person entered its jurisdiction. Even though the visitor may have given one's consent to accept the jurisdiction and is bound by all of its laws, for the sake of justice, should the alien be charged with a crime or sued and the defendant believes that one may not receive justice in that jurisdiction, the defendant who is a signatory to a treaty that protects the defendant's rights may file an appeal to the treaty organization to rule on whether or not there is reason to doubt if the defendant will get justice in that jurisdiction. If there is any question about this, then the case should be moved to a neutral jurisdiction or held before the treaty organization court which is neutral. For the same reason, the defendant may appeal to a neutral police, such as the treaty organization's police to investigate the charges if there is doubt about receiving justice. Holding treaty member governments accountable makes them more responsible and concerned with justice for everyone, including alien visitors.

When two parties in a dispute are civilzens of different governments and the dispute occurs between jurisdictions or the accused or respondent is outside of the jurisdiction where the complaint was filed, then their course of action is to seek or form a neutral court of civilzens from governments other than those of the two parties. The persons operating the court must not have any vested interest in the outcome of the case for either side. Both parties should agree to the court and accept the procedures, judge and jury as neutral and legitimate. If one party, like the defense, should be obstinate and refuse to accept any court, then the most neutral court possible will be established by recognized authorities who are neutral in the case and the defendant will be subject to it. The way a person may give one's prior consent to accept a court is through a treaty organization or a contract that specifies a private legal firm that operates neutral courts.

                                                                                                                                     by Libercratus