PDA

View Full Version : Another trick courts are using re: R4C



KnowLaw
08-04-12, 04:17 PM
The amount of energy spent in trying to keep this fraud (non-recognition of R4C process) alive is just incredible. It's almost as though they (the so-called "authorities") view this as a game. Here's something I just discovered the other day. I'm sure old-timers here won't be surprised in the least, and I offer this as FYI to be on the lookout.

Three weeks ago, a curious LEO sped up from behind me to catch up with my auto and pulled me over for a stop. I have an expired plate along with a notice in the rear window explaining "Private Property, Not for Hire." This is the second time I've been stopped in the four years since I began traveling this way.

I also have noticed the state DOT and the county sheriff's office of my intent to travel this way in an affidavit, which I keep in the car at all times. The affidavit helped the first time I was stopped as it slowed down the DPS officer, who wasn't sure about the legal ramifications of the affidavit and thus subsequently wrote a citation for No registration, No DL.

In that incident, I immediately issued a refusal for cause that same day, drawing up a Certificate of Mailing so I had proof of service. I called the court at the end of the following week to see if the citation had made it onto the court docket and was told that it hadn't. (At this point in my journey, I wasn't quite sure what to expect from the "authorities" or how they were going to respond to this.)

The next week on a whim I decided to call again. I don't recall now just exactly how the conversation went (meaning I don't recall whether or not they asked for a name; I'm thinking they did and that I must have given one), but this time I was told that the citation had shown up and was in the system. I knew what I had to do. I took a photocopy of my original photocopy of the R4C along with the Cert. of Mailing down to the court and entered it into the court case file.

The court clerk asked me if I wanted a court date (after denying having seen any R4Cs ever having been filed). My initial thought was that this seemed strange, however I had written up a court order along with an affidavit describing the event of the traffic stop in great detail, and I wanted to see if the judge would approve it so I assented to a court date.

Two months later, when I went to court and the case was called, I didn't have to say a word before the judge dismissed the case. I handed the judge my affidavit and court order, but of course never heard back from her.

Fast forward to today. Got ticketed three weeks ago for the same issues and issued my R4C that same day, complete with a Cert. of Mailing (I create my own Cert of Mailing instead of using the Post Office form; this way I can describe the document being mailed and who is mailing it -- i.e. True name).

At the end of the first week I called the court to see if citation number so-and-so had been turned into the court. The person on the phone took a second to check the computer and said "No, it hasn't." I expected this as sometimes it takes more than a week for the court before the citation is turned in.

At the end of the second week I called the court again to check on the citation, and the person on the phone did a preliminary check on the computer and said "no." Then asked if I would hold on so she could check further. She then asked for a description of the violation and my name. I gave her the info on the violation, but declined to give my name. saying that she already had the ticket number and should be able to locate it by that. She excused herself, put me on hold for a couple of minutes, then came back on to say that she couldn't find any such citation.

I'm thinking, "Okay, this is interesting." And looking forward to the next week when I call, not really suspecting anything, but just wanting to confirm for a third and possibly fourth week that the citation hadn't been turned in.

When I call at the end of the third week to check on the citation, I get the same answer and runaround as the second week, only this time I provide a LAST NAME, just to see what will happen. Shazaam! The clerk just happens to find the citation buried in a stack (the same stack that she had just moments before checked and found nothing) and promises to enter it into the system as we are speaking. I tell her I'll be down next week to file a couple of documents that will clear this matter up and hang up.

I suppose if I had continued to refuse to provide a name I could have ridden out the time limit on the court date set on the citation, and the date would have gone by with no one claiming it! Who knew!

On a side note, is there anyone here who knows how we can begin to hold these officials (primarily the LEO) accountable in these situations where they neglect to inform the court of the R4C? Or are we at the mercy of the Thin Blue Line, which protects its own. Just wondering, that's all.

shikamaru
08-04-12, 07:39 PM
On a side note, is there anyone here who knows how we can begin to hold these officials (primarily the LEO) accountable in these situations where they neglect to inform the court of the R4C? Or are we at the mercy of the Thin Blue Line, which protects its own. Just wondering, that's all.

To do so, you probably must suffer a damage first.

shikamaru
08-05-12, 03:29 PM
On a side note, is there anyone here who knows how we can begin to hold these officials (primarily the LEO) accountable in these situations where they neglect to inform the court of the R4C? Or are we at the mercy of the Thin Blue Line, which protects its own. Just wondering, that's all.

I got it. I would study due process. The court and its officers has a duty not to trespass on your legal rights.

BONMAN
08-05-12, 04:35 PM
This is what we use in Washington



RULE 2
ONE FORM OF ACTION

There shall be one form of action to be known as "civil action."




RULE 13
COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSS CLAIM

(a) Compulsory Counterclaims. A pleading shall state as a counterclaim
any claim which at the time of serving the pleading the pleader has against
any opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that
is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require
for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot
acquire jurisdiction. But the pleader need not state the claim if (1) at
the time the action was commenced the claim was the subject of another
pending action, or (2) the opposing party brought suit upon his claim by
attachment or other process by which the court did not acquire jurisdiction
to render a personal judgment on that claim, and the pleader is not stating
any counterclaim under this rule.
(b) Permissive Counterclaims. A pleading may state as a counterclaim
any claim against an opposing party not arising out of the transaction or
occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim.
(c) Counterclaim Exceeding Opposing Claim. A counterclaim may or may
not diminish or defeat the recovery sought by the opposing party. It may
claim relief exceeding in amount or different in kind from that sought in
the pleading of the opposing party.
(d) Counterclaim Against the State. These rules shall not be construed
to enlarge beyond the limits now fixed by law the right to assert
counterclaims, or to claim credits against the State or an officer or
agency thereof.
(e) Counterclaim Maturing or Acquired After Pleading. A claim which
either matured or was acquired by the pleader after serving his pleading
may, with the permission of the court, be presented as a counterclaim by
supplemental pleading.
(f) Omitted Counterclaim. When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim
through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice
requires, he may by leave of court set up the counterclaim by amendment.
(g) Cross Claim Against Coparty. A pleading may state as a cross claim
any claim by one party against a coparty arising out of the transaction or
occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a
counterclaim therein or relating to any property that is the subject matter
of the original action. Such cross claim may include a claim that the party
against whom it is asserted is or may be liable to the cross claimant for
all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the cross claimant.
(h) Joinder of Additional Parties. Persons other than those made
parties to the original action may be made parties to a counterclaim or
cross claim in accordance with the provisions of rules 19 and 20.
(i) Separate Trials; Separate Judgment. If the court orders separate
trials as provided in rule 42(b), judgment on a counterclaim or cross claim
may be rendered in accordance with the terms of rule 54(b), even if the
claims of the opposing party have been dismissed or otherwise disposed of.
(j) Setoff Against Assignee. The defendant in a civil action upon a
contract express or implied, other than upon a negotiable promissory note
or bill of exchange, negotiated in good faith and without notice before
due, which has been assigned to the plaintiff, may set off a demand of a
like nature existing against the person to whom he was originally liable,
or any assignee prior to the plaintiff, of such contract, provided such
demand existed at the time of the assignment thereof, and belonging to the
defendant in good faith, before notice of such assignment, and was such a
demand as might have been set off against such person to whom he was
originally liable, or such assignee while the contract belonged to him.
(k) Setoff Against Beneficiary of Trust Estate. If the plaintiff be a
trustee to any other, or if the action be in a name of a plaintiff which
has no real interest in the contract upon which the action is founded, so
much a demand existing against those whom the plaintiff represents or for
whose benefit the action is brought may be set off as will satisfy the
plaintiffs debt, if the same might have been set off in an action brought
against those beneficially interested.
(l) Setoff Must Be Pleaded. To entitle a defendant to a setoff under
this rule, he must set forth the same in his answer.


RULE 18
JOINDER OF CLAIMS AND REMEDIES

(a) Joinder of Claims. A party asserting a claim to relief as an
original claim, counterclaim, cross claim, or third party claim, may join,
either as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims as he has
against an opposing party.
(b) Joinder of Remedies. Whenever a claim is one heretofore cognizable
only after another claim has been prosecuted to a conclusion, the two
claims may be joined in a single action; but the court shall grant relief
in that action only in accordance with the relative substantive rights of
the parties.


Courts Home>Court Rules Search | Site Map | eService Center



RULE 54
JUDGMENTS; COSTS

(a) Definition; Form. "Judgment" as used in these rules includes a
decree and any final order from which an appeal lies. A judgment shall not
contain a recital of pleadings or the record of prior proceedings.
Judgments may be in writing signed by the court or may be oral confirmed by
an entry in the record.
(b) Judgment Upon Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties. When
more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a
claim, counterclaim, cross claim, or third party claim, or when multiple
parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as
to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an
express determination in the judgment that there is no just reason for
delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. In the
absence of such determination and direction, any order or other form of
decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims
or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not
terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or
other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry
of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of
all the parties.
(c) Demand for Judgment. A judgment by default shall not be different
in kind from or exceed in amount that prayed for in the demand for
judgment. Except as to a party against whom a judgment is entered by
default, every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in
whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded
such relief in his pleadings. (d) Costs. Costs shall be fixed and allowed as provided in RCW
12.20.060 or by any other applicable statute.

KnowLaw
08-06-12, 02:31 PM
I got it. I would study due process. The court and its officers has a duty not to trespass on your legal rights.
Yeah. That's what I thought. I was just wondering if anyone here has had any experience with that. With how to go about pressing charges against the officer. Is that even possible? (Kind of like asking the fox whose duty is guarding the hen house to prosecute its own lawbreakers.) . . . Or whether the system will protect its own in such cases.

shikamaru
08-06-12, 03:31 PM
Yeah. That's what I thought. I was just wondering if anyone here has had any experience with that. With how to go about pressing charges against the officer. Is that even possible? (Kind of like asking the fox whose duty is guarding the hen house to prosecute its own lawbreakers.) . . . Or whether the system will protect its own in such cases.

You could file an administrative complaint.
This was what the administrative courts were intended for according to Rod Class.

KnowLaw
08-06-12, 11:10 PM
You could file an administrative complaint.
This was what the administrative courts were intended for according to Rod Class.
Thanks for your input, shikamaru. Well appreciated.

I've been reading through some of my legal research material, and came across the following:


[9] It was made clear that true name has the right to travel and the state's failure to adequately train its officers or agent (concerning rights, concerning diversity of jurisdiction, etc) was tantamount to a conspiracy against rights in violation of 18 USC 241 *and* that any State ID or DL was done with reservation of rights, without any intent to become an accommodation party for DOE, JOHN H--that any attempt on their part to bypass the refusal for cause or the reservation of rights would be deemed to be a conspiracy against rights per 18 USC 241.

[8] Maintaining the false appearance that someone has willingly contracted with a State even where a reservation of rights is made, should a municipality introduce instruments into the public financial system of the United States they will have committed a financial crime (this was also pointed out in document filed) and if a warrant is issued they will have conspired to defraud the State AGAIN by causing valuable resources of the state to be deployed complicit with fraud and with a conspiracy to deny rights or kidnap;

The jist #8 was also part of the filing with the SoS's delegates. It was made clear that if they were in a quandary by setting out to enforce contracts that they knew were not enforceable without obeying the contract in statute binding upon them which required them to honor the right of avoidance, diversity of jurisdiction, etc.
While #8 seems to make clear that an actual trespass taking place would trigger a violation, as you suggested in your first response, #9 seems to suggest that "any attempt [such as fraud upon the court] . . . to bypass the refusal for cause or reservation of rights would be deemed to be a conspiracy against rights" because of the state's failure to train its officers.

Yet, in trying to look at it from both sides, while the DL was canceled by the state in 2008, and the registration was "STOPPED" (meaning that "the registration cannot be renewed until a matter is resolved"; which matter was resolved by my surrender that same year of state documents [two DLs and one ID card] returned to the state), in addition in 2008 the title was never canceled. This would give the officer pause to suspect he had "probably cause" in catching someone who was trying to "drive" an unregistered "motor vehicle" without a license.

A few years ago, when I was researching the cancellation of the title, I wasn't sure about some of the information I was reading regarding the junking of the title (the reasoning didn't make sense), and therefore never went that route. This means that the title, and therefore the "motor vehicle," still shows up in the system when they punch it into the computer. I'm not sure how to get the title canceled in order to preclude these presumptions, yet however that may be...

I can still keep the wolf away from the door by refusing nexus with the legal name.

Also in 2008 I recorded an Affidavit of Administrative Notice with the County Recorder and sent the state DOT and the county sheriff copies notifying them of my intent to operate my conveyance while reserving my rights and requesting a rebuttal point-by-point of my affidavit within 20 days or "be estopped from challenging these statements of fact or from asserting any future civil claims" against me. Of course, there was no rebuttal forthcoming.

I'm just trying to figure out what I need to do to keep from receiving these nuisance citations in the future when pulled over. It all depends on how you handle the LEO involved and what you can get him to recognize. Think I'm going to insist on his reading the Affidavit, word for word, to his supervisor before he decides to take any action. Then when it seems he is making a "legal determination," ask him if he has a license to do so. That should give him pause to think.

David Merrill
08-06-12, 11:45 PM
Thanks for sharing that!



The amount of energy spent in trying to keep this fraud (non-recognition of R4C process) alive is just incredible. It's almost as though they (the so-called "authorities") view this as a game. Here's something I just discovered the other day. I'm sure oldtimers here won't be surprised in the least, and I offer this as FYI to be on the lookout.

Three weeks ago, a curious LEO sped up from behind me to catch up with my auto and pulled me over for a stop. I have an expired plate along with a notice in the rear window explaining "Private Property, Not for Hire." This is the second time I've been stopped in the four years since I began travelling this way.

I also have noticed the state DOT and the county sheriff's office of my intent to travel this way in an affidavit, which I keep in the car at all times. The affidavit helped the first time I was stopped as it slowed down the DPS officer, who wasn't sure about the legal ramifications of the affidavit and thus subsequently wrote a citation for No registration, No DL.

In that incident, I immediately issued a refusal for cause that same day, drawing up a Certificate of Mailing so I had proof of service. I called the court at the end of the following week to see if the citation had made it onto the court docket and was told that it hadn't. (At this point in my journey, I wasn't quite sure what to expect from the "authorities" or how they were going to respond to this.)

Are you keeping a collateral evidence repository? ie. a Libel of Review? [Bonman's process is a counterclaim too!]


The next week on a whim I decided to call again. I don't recall now just exactly how the conversation went, but this time I was told that the citation had shown up and was in the system. I knew what I had to do. I took a photocopy of my original photocopy of the R4C along with the Cert. of Mailing down to the court and entered it into the court case file.

The court clerk asked me if I wanted a court date (after denying having seen any R4Cs ever having been filed). My initial thought was that this seemed strange, however I had written up a court order along with an affidavit describing the event of the traffic stop in great detail, and I wanted to see if the judge would approve it so I ascented to a court date.

Two months later, when I went to court and the case was called, I didn't have to say a word before the judge dismissed the case. I handed the judge my affidavit and court order, but of course never heard back from her.

Fast forward to today. Got ticketed three weeks ago for the same issues and issued my R4C that same day, complete with a Cert. of Mailing (I create my own Cert of Mailing instead of using the Post Office form; this way I can describe the document being mailed and who is mailing it -- i.e. True name).

At the end of the first week I called the court to see if citation number so-and-so had been turned into the court. The person on the phone took a second to check the computer and said "No, it hasn't." I expected this as sometimes it takes more than a week for the court before the citation is turned in.

At the end of the second week I called the court again to check on the citation, and the person on the phone did a preliminary check on the computer and said "no." Then asked if I would hold on so she could check further. She then asked for a description of the violation and my name. I gave her the info on the violation, but declined to give my name. saying that she already had the ticket number and should be able to locate it by that. She excused herself, put me on hold for a couple of minutes, then came back on to say that she couldn't find any such citation.

I'm thinking, "Okay, this is interesting." And looking forward to the next week when I call, not really suspecting anything, but just wanting to confirm for a third and possibly fourth week that the citation hadn't been turned in.

When I call at the end of the third week to check on the citation, I get the same answer and runaround as the second week, only this time I provide a LAST NAME, just to see what will happen. Shazaam! The clerk just happens to find the citation buried in a stack (the same stack that she had just moments before checked and found nothing) and promises to enter it into the system as we are speaking. I tell her I'll be down next week to file a couple of documents that will clear this matter up and hang up.

I suppose if I had continued to refuse to provide a name I could have ridden out the time limit on the court date set on the citation, and the date would have gone by with no one claiming it! Who knew!

On a side note, is there anyone here who knows how we can begin to hold these officials (primarily the LEO) accountable in these situations where they neglect to inform the court of the R4C? Or are we at the mercy of the Thin Blue Line, which protects its own. Just wondering, that's all.


If the chief of police or another principal official fails to forward the R4C to the court that is defrauding the judge and court. So you appear Restricted Appearance Rule E(8) to prevent fraud on the court. Make sure you have a certified copy from your evidence repository certified by the US clerk of court. There are instances where the suitor hands that over to the judge and the judge says, Okay. That seems to be the end of business.

A couple weeks later the suitor will revisit the clerk and find that what he handed over, the certified copy of the R4C from the USDC is all that is in the folder!

One suitor had a similar experience when the local clerk insisted he give a name. It developed into a warrant and the police were snooping around but would never arrest him. When they stopped his wife though, without cause he waited on the front porch until the next cop came pestering and approached the squad car and was arrested. The True Name is the real Key here.

Chex
08-07-12, 11:36 AM
"The True Name is the real Key here"

I guess it has it's application: http://www.dmvnv.com/pdfforms/vp154.pdf

Here's another: http://gacc.nifc.gov/eacc/administrative/finance/MN%20Tax%20Exemption.pdf?noc=T&contentType=GSA_OVERVIEW&contentId=16366

That's going back to here: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?404-LAW-states-registration-not-required

KnowLaw
08-14-12, 08:50 PM
A couple weeks later the suitor will revisit the clerk and find that what he handed over, the certified copy of the R4C from the USDC is all that is in the folder!

David, I'm not following you here. What is it you are trying to communicate: "...is all that is in the folder!"?

Could you be more explicit. Which clerk are you speaking about? The one for the USDC? And is there some implication that you are meaning to communicate?

David Merrill
08-14-12, 09:11 PM
David, I'm not following you here. What is it you are trying to communicate: "...is all that is in the folder!"?

Could you be more explicit. Which clerk are you speaking about? The one for the USDC? And is there some implication that you are meaning to communicate?

This would be the local clerk, probably county for traffic. All that was in the case file was the certified copy of the R4C. Nothing else.

KnowLaw
08-14-12, 10:14 PM
I have a question for anyone who has been through this recently and has personal experience with visiting a municipal court to present your R4C.

Because of the way in which the court obtained "a response" from a presumed "fiduciary trust," I'm trying to figure out if traffic courts are now approaching this in a different way in order to catch more victims. Or whether they will recognize a R4C no matter what once it is presented.

The first time I went through this three years ago, it was a county Justice court that received the citation. At that time, once I learn that the citation was on the court docket, I went to the Justice court and entered a copy of the refusal along with the Cert. of Mailing into the case file. The clerk at the desk accepted it without problem.

This time, it is a city municipal court that is involved. I went to enter my copy of the R4C and Cert. of Mailing into the file, but the clerk would not accept it. Said that I had to file these with the "judge" on the day the court date was set. I'm presuming, at that time, they want to give the "judge" a chance to contract with me again.

I'm also assuming that as long as I stay on purpose: "I'm here by special visitation, Rule E(8), to make sure the plaintiff is not defrauding the court; I would like to tender a copy of this refused for cause presentment to the bench please..." and then shut up that I should be okay.

Does anyone here see a problem with this?

The reason I'm asking is: I don't trust courts of no record, and I'm not sure if they've devised a scheme to overcome R4C (i.e. other than what I've suggested above).

David Merrill
08-15-12, 10:45 PM
I have a question for anyone who has been through this recently and has personal experience with visiting a municipal court to present your R4C.

Because of the way in which the court obtained "a response" from a presumed "fiduciary trust," I'm trying to figure out if traffic courts are now approaching this in a different way in order to catch more victims. Or whether they will recognize a R4C no matter what once it is presented.

The first time I went through this three years ago, it was a county Justice court that received the citation. At that time, once I learn that the citation was on the court docket, I went to the Justice court and entered a copy of the refusal along with the Cert. of Mailing into the case file. The clerk at the desk accepted it without problem.

This time, it is a city municipal court that is involved. I went to enter my copy of the R4C and Cert. of Mailing into the file, but the clerk would not accept it. Said that I had to file these with the "judge" on the day the court date was set. I'm presuming, at that time, they want to give the "judge" a chance to contract with me again.

I'm also assuming that as long as I stay on purpose: "I'm here by special visitation, Rule E(8), to make sure the plaintiff is not defrauding the court; I would like to tender a copy of this refused for cause presentment to the bench please..." and then shut up that I should be okay.

Does anyone here see a problem with this?

The reason I'm asking is: I don't trust courts of no record, and I'm not sure if they've devised a scheme to overcome R4C (i.e. other than what I've suggested above).

Please carry an audio recorder and don't get beat up over a traffic ticket. The home rule judiciary is actually of a higher authority than the county/state. I am learning how to explain this over the last couple days from a new experience. I identify with METRO organization though UN combinatorial mathematics - WSA ID and Passport. World Services Authority presumes UN charter law.

Look here though:



www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Resignation.gif


That is something to contemplate; that municipal home rule is the next stage of self-governance that constitutions are drafted to create and protect.

My heritage is in METRO organization. I was drafting a coram vobis the other day and ending it with a Delegation of Authority - Bond. My first draft I was explaining how I had the authority in my estate - perpetual inheritance - to pass this to the suitor. Then it dawned on me to use Article XX instead and write myself out of the process as priest.


Regards,

David Merrill.

KnowLaw
08-16-12, 10:20 PM
Please carry an audio recorder and don't get beat up over a traffic ticket. The home rule judiciary is actually of a higher authority than the county/state. I am learning how to explain this over the last couple days from a new experience. I identify with METRO organization though UN combinatorial mathematics - WSA ID and Passport. World Services Authority presumes UN charter law.

Thanks David.

Yes. The officer who issued the citation seemed convinced that his homey (attorney in black robe) could overcome what the county justice court was not able to. I'm unconvinced about this as a R4C stands as incontrovertible if not properly rebutted. It's all in the paperwork the "judge" has before him. I'm going by what you have previously written: "All that judge is doing is finding facts, or guiding a jury to. So establish all the facts around your R4C."

I made the mistake of consenting to contact when the officer came up to the window. I was interested in gathering intelligence, to see if certain approaches would deter the LEO. Last time I do that! Went through the whole not traveling in commerce response. Officer was unconvinced; thought he had another victim. Then explained that I had already been to court about this matter and the matter had been dismissed. Showed him a document setting the previous court date and a copy of the refusal of that citation. Looking back in retrospect, there were better actions I could have taken, starting with not consenting to the contact in the first place. And then questioning the officer and not responding to any of his questions.

What I was asking about in the post of mine you referenced was any tips on handling the "restricted appearance" so that I could have straight in my mind what I needed to accomplish. Do this, don't do that; step by step advice about what I needed to be aware of. I came across some very good information while tooling around on this site, and would like to recommend it to anyone else who might be caught up in a similar matter. The thread is listed below along with the document download links to the information. Much thanks to EZrhythm for posting this. Excellent examples to learn from.

No Verified Complaint (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?378-No-Verified-Complaint)

Testimony - George's Wife - Charging Inst..doc (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=602&d=1312335577)
File Type: doc Testimony - George - Verified Complaint.doc (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=603&d=1312335577)


The information in these two docs doesn't presume presenting a R4C, but rather a more difficult situation wherein R4C was not used, and you have to challenge jurisdiction before a hostile traffic court "judge." What are the things you need to watch out for when confronting the court, what pitfalls can you fall into and how to avoid them, and how can you get your points across without entering into their jurisdiction. The tips in these two Word documents are priceless. They show you how to hold the public official accountable to the constitution and due process. This is the kind of information I was looking for when I asked my question.

After researching my situation more (and going on previous experience when facing "the system"), I realized that standing mute after presenting the R4C to the court was the paramount thing I had to keep in mind (and not responding to any of the babble coming out of the "attorney in black robe"). No testimony, no contract. And make your stand for however long it takes for the "judge" to realize you're not going to fall for his ruse.

Keep the procedure simple:

When name is called, answer: "No sir. I am First Middle here by Restricted Appearance only, to challenge jurisdiction. I am not here to testify, nor to plead, and I do not swear oaths. I would like to tender a copy of this refused for cause presentment to the bench please...to prevent fraud upon this court." Then STAND MUTE!

If the judge asks anything not having to do with the R4C, THEN remind the ?judge? that you are here by Restricted Appearance, to challenge Jurisdiction ONLY, and to please stay on point!

Only if it becomes apparent that you have made a mistake and ventured into jurisdiction, say ? "I accept Your Flag, your Oath and your Bond as affirmations, declaring that You are Under Penalty of Perjury." Then attempt to recuse the "judge," and ask for a hearing in Court of Record.

If anyone can see anything that can be added or subtracted from the above, please speak up.

KnowLaw
09-11-12, 10:48 PM
I just came out of the "restricted appearance" on this traffic citation and certain things transpired that I'm endeavoring to figure out. I need a bit of assistance with this so that I can keep this matter on track, if that's possible. They run you through these processes so quickly that you don't have time to figure out what just occurred. So I took a fall back and regroup approach. I think I've figured out parts of what occurred, but would appreciate any helpful comments which might help to clarify and suggest how to proceed from here.

When I entered the court waiting room, one of the officers had me look at a Notice they wanted read and signed, entitled "Municipal Court of the City of XXXX, Notice as to arraignment, pretrials, trials and sentences." Along with this Notice there was a document they wanted signed that stated that the person acknowledges that they have read the Notice and by signing acknowledges having received a copy of that document. And then it stated in parenthesis: "(DON'T SIGN IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.)" I told the officer that I had questions for the judge and declined to sign this.

There was another court document they wanted me to sign (but they didn't give me a copy of that so I don't recall the exact heading of that document). It had something to do with admitting jurisdiction, and of course I refused to sign that also.

The "judge" called the name, I stood up slowly and announced at the gate: "No sir. I am First Middle here by Restricted Appearance only, to challenge jurisdiction. I am not here to testify, nor to plead, and I do not swear oaths. What you have is abandoned paper. Under the common law right of avoidance in this matter I would like to tender a copy of this refused for cause presentment to the bench please...to prevent fraud upon this court." The judge went wide-eyed, in surprise.

I didn't cross the gate to the bar as asked by the "judge." So he sent a court officer (this is municipal court, so they don't have a bailiff) over to escort me to the bar, to which I replied when the officer motioned me to step through the gate: "I object. I'm doing this under protest." And then proceeded to the table to which he directed me.

When I offered my refusal and certificate of mailing to the judge, he motioned to his court officer not to take it. He then proceeded to read a state statute (13-2810) entitled: "Interfering with judicial proceedings; classification." This, according to the judge, was supposed to be his justification for obtaining jurisdiction.

It read: "A. A person commits interfering with judicial proceedings if such person knowingly]:
"1. Engages in disorderly, disrespectful or insolent behavior during the session of a court which directly tends to interrupt its proceedings or impairs the respect due to his authority; or
"2. Disobeys or resists the lawful order, process or other mandate of a court; or
"3. Refuses to be sworn or affirmed as a witness in any court proceeding; or
"4. Publishes a false or grossly inaccurate report of a court proceeding; or
"5. Refuses to serve as a juror unless exempted by law; or
"6. Fails inexcusably to attend a trial at which he has been chosen to serve as a juror.
"B. Interfering with judicial proceedings is a class 1 misdemeanor."

Not quite understanding what was going on, yet understanding that the statute was never proven to apply to me just because it was read to me, I did what others have suggested to do and stood mute. I'm never quite sure (in the heat of the moment) when I can reply without admitting to the jurisdiction, which is why I stood mute. I can, in hindsight, see where I might have said, had I realized what was taking place: "Without admitting jurisdiction, does the plaintiff or prosecuting attorney [neither of which were present in court] have court admissable evidence that this statute applies to me, First Middle?"

After this pronoucement from the judge and my failure to respond, I continued to state for the record that I was here under restricted appearance to challenge jurisdiction and that I wanted to submit my papers to prevent fraud upon the court. The judge then accepted the paperwork I wanted to submit, saying "Yes, we'll put this paperwork into the file." He said it almost as though he had gotten what he wanted from the interaction. My consent through not objecting! Can this be challenged?

At this point, the judge announced and then wrote up an Order to appoint an attorney for my person, to which I objected on and for the record. The judge overruled the objection and kept writing. He did acknowledge my objection (supposedly on the record; although I doubt it). The "Order Regarding Counsel" document states: "Good cause appearing, the court enters the following orders: Counsel appointed - Defendant is given court-appointed counsel. The court clerk shall provide defendant with a card/notice with the attorney's name, address and telephone number. If the defendant fails to contact attorney and stay in contact with said attorney or fails to appear in court as needed, a warrant for defendant's arrest may be issued." When handed this document, I refused to sign. The court officer put in place of the signature: "Refused to sign dAF# 1991." I'm not sure what this signifies!

The judge then went to another form titled: "Determination of release Conditions and Release Order." This read: "It is ordered that Defendant be released, provided that he comply with the 'Standard Contitions of Release' and all other conditions checked below. If released, Defendant shall appear as indicated: Date XX-XX-XX Time: 2:00 pm Location: Municipal Court." The boxes for "Trial" and "Other, w/ Atty John Smith" (the name of the attorney being appointed) were checked.

Following this, a boilerplate section stated: "During the pendency of this case Defendant will:
"1. Appear to answer and submit himself to all further orders and processes of the court having jurisdiction in this case;
"2. Not commit any criminal offense;
"3. Notify the Court of any change of address and not leave the state without permission of the Court; and
"4. If released during an appeal, prosecute the appeal with due diligence.
"5. Defendant has an obligation to remain in contact with the Court and Defendant's attorney during the pendency of this case."

Two additional boxes were checked:
"The Court finds that it is not necessary to impose additional conditions to assure Defendant's appearance as required.

"The Defendant is not to drive without a valid driver's license."

The document was dated, and this document I signed as follows: "without prejudice" above the line for the defendant to sign, on which was written "Non assumpsit." The judge wrote in the margin "refused to sign" and initialed it. That was basically the end of the proceeding.

At this point I'm thinking that I need to accept this this judge's oath, declaring him under penalty of perjury, and disqualify him for cause, and demand a hearing in a judicial court of record. Not quite sure how to go about doing this, though! It may be too late for this?

I've been reading Bill Thornton's material where he states that: "It is a matter of right that one may demand to be tried in a court of record. By sheer definition, that means that the court must proceed according to the common law (not the statutory law). The only way that a court can suspend that right is by the prior agreement of the parties."

I'm not exactly certain what actions need to take place in order to do this. Whether I need to write up an affidavit and submit it or what. If you need to ask more questions for further clarification, please ask and I will answer to the best of my recollection.

I have a couple of questions of my own:

1. Did I error in not saying anything (objecting) as the judge was reading the statute in order to assert jurisdiction? This seems to me where I likely made an egregious error. Yet if I did, can it be fixed?

2. Assuming I just screwed myself by consenting to jurisdiction, is there a way to appeal this in a court of record? Or some other way to handle it?

3. Can my objection at the bar gate be used to override these whole proceedings, since this objection occurred prior to the judge's shenanigans? Can this be stated in an affidavit and used to override everything that went after it?

At the moment, I've got a real sinking feeling. I'm hoping someone here can help me to correct that!

David Merrill
09-12-12, 12:03 AM
I have some questions. I have read through the thread here.

Do you have a collateral evidence repository? I asked you by inserting the question on Page 1 in red; maybe you missed it? You seem confused when I started speaking like you knew about this. You are behooved to have a case opened in the USDC to acquire the 'exclusive original cognizance' of the US government with the federal clerk of court. This is what we (William THORNTON (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_William_Thornton.wmv) and myself) mean by court of record. If you are letting them keep the only record then you make them the court of record even though they are technically a court not of record.

The other thing; did you hand the police officer a driver license? How did you sign it?

If you signed it with your legal name then you have already identified yourself to the court through that signature.

When you approached the bench with that R4C in hand, it should have been marked a true and correct copy of the document in your USDC evidence repository by the US clerk of court. Was it?


Please forgive me if I have missed something or forgotten details.

David Merrill
09-12-12, 12:56 AM
I should not speak for William THORNTON just because I have seen him lecture. What I am saying is that he would not disagree with the statute-described definition (http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=6a244c5b39c1a63efe39c5146839d88e&csvc=toc2doc&cform=searchForm&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzB-zSkAl&_md5=3532434a80cc0fb90bf7a0aa5b2769c7).



ANNOTATION

The acts of a court of record are known by its records. Judicial records are not only necessary but indispensable to the administration of justice. The court judgments can be evidenced only by its records. The acts of a court of record are known by its records alone and cannot be established by parol testimony. The court speaks only through its records, and the judge speaks only through the court. Herren v. People, 147 Colo. 442, 363 P.2d 1044 (1961).

Look at the Colorado Constitution though:



Section 23. Trial by jury - grand jury. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate in criminal cases; but a jury in civil cases in all courts, or in criminal cases in courts not of record, may consist of less than twelve persons, as may be prescribed by law. Hereafter a grand jury shall consist of twelve persons, any nine of whom concurring may find an indictment; provided, the general assembly may change, regulate or abolish the grand jury system; and provided, further, the right of any person to serve on any jury shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex, and the general assembly may provide by law for the exemption from jury service of persons or classes of persons.

But you saw in the statutes:



TITLE 13. COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE
COURTS OF RECORD
ARTICLE 1.GENERAL PROVISIONS
PART 1. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS


C.R.S. 13-1-111 (2012)

13-1-111. Courts of record



(1) Each of the following courts shall have a seal and shall be a court of record:

(a) The supreme court;

(b) The district courts;

(c) The county courts;

(d) The juvenile court in the city and county of Denver;

(e) The probate court in the city and county of Denver;

(f) Any court established by law and expressly denominated a court of record;

(g) Repealed.

(h) The court of appeals.


Therefore a traffic trial in front of a jury of six is a court not of record, with no authority (http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/7346/courtofrecord.jpg)except what you have granted by letting it get that far.

I hope you are starting to get clear of the sinking feeling.

If you become the court of record then start keeping a record of the judge's and prosecutor's oaths of office - the DA too. Know the bill of rights and put them on notice in open court that they cannot proceed as a court not of record. If it was here then that means the judge would have to set a panel of twelve and of course his oath would be in the record etc. If you know the Bills of Rights then mind his "p"s and "q"s for him. As soon as he has violated your rights tell him the deal is off. If he insists on proceeding then let him know what you charge for such a performance if he forces you to be an actor.


A lien is not the way to go for you though, from what I have read above. You will likely end up in prison unless you can get your mind wrapped around record forming.



Regards,

David Merrill.



http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/3271/billingnotice.jpg

KnowLaw
09-13-12, 10:06 PM
I apologize for not responding before now. We had a storm go through our area on Sunday and the power was out for a day and a half, and during that my phone went down so I haven't had Internet capability for the past four plus days. The court hearing for arraignment was Tuesday morning, so the prior two days I was busy dealing with the power outage and unable to continue preparing properly (not that it would have done any good) for the court matter. So, I got steamrollered (cognitive dissonance) in that first hearing. Took me half a day just to figure out what happened! I'm not very good in verbal jousting, thinking on my feet (unless I have a good foundation in the material of study, which in this case I didn't).

I'll respond to the questions posed in your first post, David, then address your second post, which I found intriguing. Hopefully, we can make this thread helpful to others who find themselves in a similar situation. A kind of "step one: do this; step two, do that" etcetera.

I have not set up an evidence repository with the USDC. But I do keep a personal evidence repository of all things filed (affidavits, citations, letters and such) concerning any issue at hand so that I can submit them when needed. And yes, I agree with your statement following; this is my intention and what I'm doing at present: "If you are letting them keep the only record then you make them the court of record even though they are technically a court not of record."

2nd question: No. I don't have a driver license. He took the information from an invalid computer record of my canceled (in my eyes; suspended in theirs) auto registration (haven't figured out how to get rid of the Certificate of Title to the car). I signed "without prejudice" above my First Middle name. The judge acknowledged that in court when I mentioned it.

3rd question regarding a true and correct copy of the document in your USDC evidence repository: This is irrelevant (not applicable since there is no USDC repository). I did tender a photocopy of my original photocopy of the refused for cause presentment, the original Defendant's copy of which went back to the issuing officer. I also tendered my Certificate of Mailing.

Re: Your 2nd post.

It's Thursday afternoon and I still do not have Internet capability (service techs have not shown up yet), so I haven't been able to access the links in your second post yet. I was able to post the request to my thread using a local Library WiFi. Didn't have much time to do much else.

This is the area where I need specific details about how to go about accomplishing the general instructions provided in your reply. I've never done any of this before, so its all new to me! I'm learning on the fly. I am able to follow detailed instruction, though. I just need to know where to go to obtain the information or documents needed, or a sample of a Notice and Demand letter so that I can write one applicable to my matter.

While this is all second nature to you, how do I get hold of the judge's and prosecuting attorney's oaths of office? Where do I need to go to obtain certified copies, and will it cost very much? Is it really necessary to obtain (in this instance) the DA's oath? Is a DA likely to be brought into a municipal city matter like this?

"Know the bill of rights and put them on notice in open court that they cannot proceed as a court not of record." Okay. Excuse me for possibly being obtuse here. So how would I go about doing this? What words would I use, what legal issues need to be emphasized? How would I go about doing this in open court? I read in a Court Survival Guide I downloaded from the old Worldnewsstand.net website something about filing a request for a Special Appearance. This, presuming the judge approved it, would allow me to have a hearing to address just this matter, yes.

If yes, then this presents another obstacle for me. I've never seen a request for Special Appearance. Where could I find a sample similar to what I need to have done? And do I need to specify in the request what the special appearance is in regard to? (Sorry for all the questions; I just don't want to make any mistakes. I just need directions to know where and what to look for.)

"As soon as he has violated your rights tell him the deal is off. If he insists on proceeding then let him know what you charge for such a performance if he forces you to be an actor." Okay. Again, how would I phrase this? I presume this would be done in open court, too.

I'm much better with producing paperwork for the record than in having to joust with a judge or prosecutor in court. Is there any way that I can get things on the record through the use of affidavits and other such notices?

Some additional information you need to know:

I previously filed with the state Dept. of Transportation and the County Sheriff and subsequently with the county recorder back in 2008 a sworn Affidavit of Administrative Notice regarding the travel issue. I used this affidavit in a previous traffic stop by a highway patrolman who basically ignored it, but which matter was settled in a justice court with a R4C presentment that I was able to enter into the court case file prior to any court appearance. It was therefore within the court's cognizance.

Might this affidavit be used in this instance as a prior "notice to principal is notice to agent" type thing where the gov't agencies were legally put on notice about this matter? A copy of the affidavit is attached. (Sorry for the wordpad text file; system wouldn't allow rich text format.) I ask this because of the following, which I found in my research:


Commercial processes (including this affidavit and the required responses to it) are non-judicial and pre-judicial because:

a) No judge, court, government, or any agencies thereof, or any other third parties whatsoever, can abrogate anyone's affidavit of truth; and

b) Only a Party affected by an affidavit can speak and act for himself and is solely responsible for responding with his own affidavit of truth, which no one else can do for him.

No third party can invalidate someone's affidavit of truth. To act against such an affidavit is to create a situation and/or enhance the condition of a Mixed War.

A Mixed War condition exists where "authorities" have violated their oaths of office, violated the fundamental law they swore to uphold and protect, violated the codes, statutes, and regulations that govern them and in so doing disregard the peace and safety of the community by their acts, operating as Agents for undisclosed Foreign Principals or Governments against those whom they swore to protect. Such acts of Treason constitute a secret war against the people.

I'm not sure how a municipal court judge of no record would handle this submission. It is obviously coming from a jurisdiction (common law) foreign to his own. But when it said: It is pre-judicial and "No judge, court, government or any agencies thereof. . . can abrogate anyone's affidavit of truth," that pretty much told me that this was powerful stuff. It seems to override any government's jurisdiction. Whether or not they recognize it, though, is another story.

Maybe obtaining the oaths of office, swearing out an affidavit of accepting the oaths of office of both the judge and prosecuting attorney, and submitting that along with the Affidavit of Administrative Notice to the court somehow (not sure whether I can just submit it into the case file or whether I need to request a Special Appearance hearing to do it). Any ideas about this?

Just occurred to me: In the Court Survival Guide it mentioned a strategy to put in a Motion To Withdraw Plea "to remove your implied consent to the court's jurisdiction. By vacating your plea of Not Guilty, technically the venue and Jurisdiction is removed. So here is where you can again use the Notice of Special Visitation and of Foreign Law, and the Judicial Notice of Military Flag and Challenge of Jurisdiction. Make sure the court agrees to vacate your previous Plea, before you say anything more. Before you are required to enter a new Plea, present these 2 notices and demand the resolution of jurisdiction.

"Now the court will now be up against the wall, because it must stop everything and make a legal determination as to whether the court even has jurisdiction. Because it no longer has your plea, it no longer has your consent to their implied and assumed jurisdiction."

I'd rather do something that doesn't require me to speak much, but just enter paperwork on the record to challenge jurisdiction. Don't want to get crossed up like the first time, when I wasn't prepared for the judge's reply. The devil is in the details in this! But if I know ahead of time how he is likely to respond, then I can have a statement ready to rebut (or whatever) his reply. As long as I know what to say (no matter what he may say, if he's being belligerent) I'll be okay.

It says in the Court Survival Guide about this: "Immediately Motion for Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, as soon as they try to dance around it. If the judge doesn't dismiss the case now, then Object, or Recuse (dismiss) the Judge for obvious bias against you, and place him/her on notice of your intent to Appeal his/her judicial error. This is their mistake for sure." That is, recuse the judge and demand a hearing in a judicial court of record. So I guess that answers my question about what to do if the judge tries to wiggle out of dismissing the case.

Thank you for any information you may be able to provide.

David Merrill
09-14-12, 02:37 PM
I apologize for not responding before now...

I'll respond to the questions posed in your first post, David, then address your second post, which I found intriguing. Hopefully, we can make this thread helpful to others who find themselves in a similar situation. A kind of "step one: do this; step two, do that" etcetera.

I have not set up an evidence repository with the USDC...

2nd question: No. I don't have a driver license. He took the information from an invalid computer record of my canceled (in my eyes; suspended in theirs) auto registration (haven't figured out how to get rid of the Certificate of Title to the car). I signed "without prejudice" above my First Middle name. The judge acknowledged that in court when I mentioned it.

Technically you have won your case. At trial you ask the arresting officer how you identified yourself? Suppose you told the officer you are First Middle and he did not believe you? However it would be good if you gave him some kind of ID card with First Middle on it - even a driver license signed "First Middle" is good. Before I had a WSA ID card I carried a Certificate of Search from the USDC on David Merrill.

By bringing out the testimony that he never heard you when you identified yourself however, you expose an error in jurisdiction.

3rd question regarding a true and correct copy of the document in your USDC evidence repository: This is irrelevant (not applicable since there is no USDC repository). I did tender a photocopy of my original photocopy of the refused for cause presentment, the original Defendant's copy of which went back to the issuing officer. I also tendered my Certificate of Mailing.


There is a recognized legal principle that, if "all" judges have conflicts of interest, then "any" judge can hear the case. (The issue comes up from time to time in cases involving the compensation of judges or other matters affecting all judges.) - United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980).

Without an evidence respository the court not of record is holding the highest record.

Re: Your 2nd post.


This is the area where I need specific details about how to go about accomplishing the general instructions provided in your reply. I've never done any of this before, so its all new to me! I'm learning on the fly...

While this is all second nature to you, how do I get hold of the judge's and prosecuting attorney's oaths of office? Where do I need to go to obtain certified copies, and will it cost very much? Is it really necessary to obtain (in this instance) the DA's oath? Is a DA likely to be brought into a municipal city matter like this?

The DA is responsible for the legal training of police officers. This oath of office (http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/7770/danmaydaoathandinsuranc.pdf) is bogus and exposes a vacant DA office. See below how there is no oath before God as prescribed by tradition and by statute (http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/6332/formofoath.jpg)? In Colorado county and municipal oaths are found at the county clerk and recorder while all district and state oaths are found at the secretary of state. Here is a valid oath (http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/6152/suthersfungiblefidelity.jpg); see how it looks like a bond. Look at Dan MAY's $5K insurance policy again. Pathetic! All that is to me is a confession that he knows his oath of office is bogus!

The acquirement of oaths must be convenient and cheap, wherever you are in America.

"Know the bill of rights and put them on notice in open court that they cannot proceed as a court not of record." Okay...


I am really talking about reading the bills of rights in your state and the federal constitutions. All actors who have sworn to uphold the constitutions (presuming all the oaths are valid) must adhere to these rights. In your situation you are probably sunk on most of the other issues; like how to abate for misnomer etc. that may fly, maybe not but you have to wait until you are in the fire to see if the extinguisher is full if you know what I mean. You will probably win by insisting on a court of record and since it is a court not of record you have to demonstrate competence by forming the record yourself. With that (and all the oaths of office) in the Record then you will be able to do things like (if you were in Colorado) make the judge form a panel of 12 jurors for traffic court. The judge would be so reluctant to do that he would likely beg the prosecutor to lose the witness and throw the trial.


If yes, then this presents another obstacle for me. I've never seen a request for Special Appearance. Where could I find a sample similar to what I need to have done? And do I need to specify in the request what the special appearance is in regard to? (Sorry for all the questions; I just don't want to make any mistakes. I just need directions to know where and what to look for.)

I am speaking about a Restricted Appearance Rule E(8) (http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/RuleE8.gif) in the US District Court and simply to form the Record with a competent clerk of court.


"As soon as he has violated your rights tell him the deal is off. If he insists on proceeding then let him know what you charge for such a performance if he forces you to be an actor." Okay. Again, how would I phrase this? I presume this would be done in open court, too.

I'm much better with producing paperwork for the record than in having to joust with a judge or prosecutor in court. Is there any way that I can get things on the record through the use of affidavits and other such notices?

Some additional information you need to know:

I previously filed with the state Dept. of Transportation and the County Sheriff and subsequently with the county recorder back in 2008 a sworn Affidavit of Administrative Notice regarding the travel issue. I used this affidavit in a previous traffic stop by a highway patrolman who basically ignored it, but which matter was settled in a justice court with a R4C presentment that I was able to enter into the court case file prior to any court appearance. It was therefore within the court's cognizance.

Might this affidavit be used in this instance as a prior "notice to principal is notice to agent" type thing where the gov't agencies were legally put on notice about this matter? A copy of the affidavit is attached. (Sorry for the wordpad text file; system wouldn't allow rich text format.) I ask this because of the following, which I found in my research:

Possibly. What I see is that you are getting your mind wrapped around record forming. Get it into the Record of the muni court. It should show that it is in the record of the Administrative Agency you mentioned though - marked by them and returned or have a certificate of mailing etc.

I'm not sure how a municipal court judge of no record would handle this submission. It is obviously coming from a jurisdiction (common law) foreign to his own. But when it said: It is pre-judicial and "No judge, court, government or any agencies thereof. . . can abrogate anyone's affidavit of truth," that pretty much told me that this was powerful stuff. It seems to override any government's jurisdiction. Whether or not they recognize it, though, is another story.

Maybe obtaining the oaths of office, swearing out an affidavit of accepting the oaths of office of both the judge and prosecuting attorney, and submitting that along with the Affidavit of Administrative Notice to the court somehow (not sure whether I can just submit it into the case file or whether I need to request a Special Appearance hearing to do it). Any ideas about this?

Yes! That sort of thing. If you have been keeping Return Receipts and such then you are keeping a record! The USDC evidence repository is a competent clerk for you to use in the cognizance of the US government.

Just occurred to me: In the Court Survival Guide it mentioned a strategy to put in a Motion To Withdraw Plea "to remove your implied consent to the court's jurisdiction. By vacating your plea of Not Guilty, technically the venue and Jurisdiction is removed. So here is where you can again use the Notice of Special Visitation and of Foreign Law, and the Judicial Notice of Military Flag and Challenge of Jurisdiction. Make sure the court agrees to vacate your previous Plea, before you say anything more. Before you are required to enter a new Plea, present these 2 notices and demand the resolution of jurisdiction.

Indeed you will screech the proceedings to a halt every time you mention, I have not been arraigned. However that continues from Square One and will land you an appointment with a court-appointed psychologist for a competency hearing. That could be deadly or destroy your mind over a traffic matter?


"Now the court will now be up against the wall, because it must stop everything and make a legal determination as to whether the court even has jurisdiction. Because it no longer has your plea, it no longer has your consent to their implied and assumed jurisdiction."

I'd rather do something that doesn't require me to speak much, but just enter paperwork on the record to challenge jurisdiction. Don't want to get crossed up like the first time, when I wasn't prepared for the judge's reply. The devil is in the details in this! But if I know ahead of time how he is likely to respond, then I can have a statement ready to rebut (or whatever) his reply. As long as I know what to say (no matter what he may say, if he's being belligerent) I'll be okay.

(Continued)

David Merrill
09-14-12, 02:38 PM
(Continued from above)


It says in the Court Survival Guide about this: "Immediately Motion for Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, as soon as they try to dance around it. If the judge doesn't dismiss the case now, then Object, or Recuse (dismiss) the Judge for obvious bias against you, and place him/her on notice of your intent to Appeal his/her judicial error. This is their mistake for sure." That is, recuse the judge and demand a hearing in a judicial court of record. So I guess that answers my question about what to do if the judge tries to wiggle out of dismissing the case.

Thank you for any information you may be able to provide.

I have never read the Court Survival Guide and do not even have an unread copy in my library.

One thing I note though is that most of these manuals do not consider that the judge considers you a willing actor and as such he has full jurisdiction (http://www.llmc.com/Historical_Millaw.asp#page_26) until things are proven otherwise.

A court-martial always has jurisdiction to determine whether it has jurisdiction...

So is the condition of the ongoing Emergency still manifest in the economy. Page 1 (http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_PL94-412.jpg). Page 2 (http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_PL94-412_stipulation.jpg).

A practical way to view the same scenario is that the judge is preparing you for your day in court. It is only after conviction (or under oath on the stand) that the court will be hearing from you. Until then all the judge hears is your attorney. It is called allocution (http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/7493/allocution.jpg).


http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/7493/allocution.jpg


See that? Entered into the record.

If you want my advice though, plead out and pay up. All this about record forming and being the court of record is something to have between your ears before you get into this kind of trouble. If you got into an accident and broke a little kid's arm could you be responsible? That is key to being competent.

The Suitors I speak of here mostly have driver licenses that they sign "First Middle" complete with registration (no tax (http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/914/ownyourcarlawfultitletr.pdf)) and insurance. The others who drive have a bond (they are wealthy). Suitors are competent and that is synonymous with responsible.

Mainly though you can teach yourself the proper redemption model of Jesus CHRIST by making your demand for lawful money. That can teach you to wrap your mind around remedy (redemption).



http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2011/danmaydaoathsmall.jpg

Michael Joseph
09-14-12, 11:07 PM
Speaking of tricks. A friend of mine showed me THIS (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001) today.

I heard recently that the CEO of Starbucks is pushing towards no cash policy (http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/starbucks-mobile-payment-app-01192011/). It won't be too long before the clerk is looking for your DL - and oh by the way, can you give me your SSN before I refill that cup. Just sign here.

Conditioning 101. Its Convenient.

David Merrill
09-14-12, 11:16 PM
Speaking of tricks. A friend of mine showed me THIS (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001) today.

I heard recently that the CEO of Starbucks is pushing towards no cash policy (http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/starbucks-mobile-payment-app-01192011/). It won't be too long before the clerk is looking for your DL - and oh by the way, can you give me your SSN before I refill that cup. Just sign here.

Conditioning 101. Its Convenient.




(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully?


(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than

May I serve that with a Criminal Complaint (http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/9098/complaintformfederal.pdf)?


http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/1845/criminalcomplaintformfe.jpg

KnowLaw
09-15-12, 09:58 PM
I just received an envelope from the law office of the appointed attorney. I'm not opening it. Depending on the ideas I express as you read throughout the rest of this reply, would you concur that I should refuse it as "Return to Sender improperly addressed." It's addressed to First, Middle Initial, Last name. Just checking, really. It's an offer to contract. If they try to force it on me, I'll use your suggestion: "My fee is half a million dollars if you want me to act in that capacity." Counter offer!



Might this affidavit [of Administrative Notice] be used in this instance as a prior "notice to principal is notice to agent" type thing where the gov't agencies were legally put on notice about this matter? A copy of the affidavit is attached. (Sorry for the wordpad text file; system wouldn't allow rich text format.) I ask this because of the following, which I found in my research:

Possibly. What I see is that you are getting your mind wrapped around record forming. Get it into the Record of the muni court. It should show that it is in the record of the Administrative Agency you mentioned though - marked by them and returned or have a certificate of mailing etc.

Yes, I have a certificate of mailing for that affidavit sent to the agencies from four years ago of which I will need to get a certified copy made so that I can preserve the original for future use.

I'm still needing some input on this as I'm thinking of possibly entering this document (Affidavit of Administrative Notice) at a certain stage in the proceedings in order to have the judge (after I have accepted his oath) sign an Order of the court testifying to the court's recognition of the validity of this affidavit. This Order would be so I could hand out the Court Order after serving notice with the affidavit to any LEO in the future who might stop me thinking he has a citation victim.




I'm not sure how a municipal court judge of no record would handle this submission. It is obviously coming from a jurisdiction (common law) foreign to his own. But when it said: It is pre-judicial and "No judge, court, government or any agencies thereof. . . can abrogate anyone's affidavit of truth," that pretty much told me that this was powerful stuff. It seems to override any government's jurisdiction. Whether or not they recognize it, though, is another story.

Maybe obtaining the oaths of office, swearing out an affidavit of accepting the oaths of office of both the judge and prosecuting attorney, and submitting that along with the Affidavit of Administrative Notice to the court somehow (not sure whether I can just submit it into the case file or whether I need to request a Special Appearance hearing to do it). Any ideas about this?

Yes! That sort of thing. If you have been keeping Return Receipts and such then you are keeping a record! The USDC evidence repository is a competent clerk for you to use in the cognizance of the US government.

Yes, I have been keeping certificates of mailing (they are less expensive than return receipts on registered mail) and forming a record. I've always had my head wrapped around record forming ever since I first read your recommendation for it.




Just occurred to me: In the Court Survival Guide it mentioned a strategy to put in a Motion To Withdraw Plea "to remove your implied consent to the court's jurisdiction. By vacating your plea of Not Guilty, technically the venue and Jurisdiction is removed. So here is where you can again use the Notice of Special Visitation and of Foreign Law, and the Judicial Notice of Military Flag and Challenge of Jurisdiction. Make sure the court agrees to vacate your previous Plea, before you say anything more. Before you are required to enter a new Plea, present these 2 notices and demand the resolution of jurisdiction.

Indeed you will screech the proceedings to a halt every time you mention, I have not been arraigned. However that continues from Square One and will land you an appointment with a court-appointed psychologist for a competency hearing. That could be deadly or destroy your mind over a traffic matter?

Okay. I didn't have in mind to follow the Court Survival Guide's strategy exactly as it is laid out after the plea was withdrawn (filing the notices and all). The idea I meant to imply was to use this method of backing the court out of its jurisdiction, then using that opportunity to guide the judge (forming an agreement) by asking for a clarification of certain things before I enter a new plea. This is a very tricky approach, because I need make certain that the old plea has first been vacated (jurisdiction removed) before I propose the idea of needing clarification so that I can make an informed and reasonable determination about which plea I wish to enter. You see?

For instance (to the judge), [Oh, by the way, I accept your oath and bond as binding placing you under penalty of perjury.] So, I can plead "guilty" or "nolo contendre." However, am I not entitled to understand these procedures before I undergo them? Isn't one of the duties of the court to make sure the defendant understands everything that is happening? I need some clarification about the implications of each of these pleas before I can make a reasonable determination which way I want to go. What are the differences in the legal significance of each of these pleas after the deed is done? (Let the judge make his statement.)

Just so I understand what occurred at the arraignment, because this would affect how I might plead, I need to clarify something about that occurrence and then ask you a question about that which I still don't understand. [Now we're back at the point where I screwed up at the arraignment and didn't object after the judge's outburst about the court's jurisdiction. This is just a rough sketch of what I have in mind. I need to think about this more, to improve on the limitations I'm placing on the judge in this instance.]

When you made your statement about jurisdiction and the statutes involved, there was nothing about what you were saying that I disagreed with, which was why I didn't object. Given the correct circumstances, of course the court must be able to establish jurisdiction over the matter before it can proceed.

No. What I had in mind, and what I failed to bring out in that instant, was the fact that the matter had been refused for cause, which means, if I understand this correctly, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that the plaintiff now has the obligation to bring verified proof of claim and enter that upon the court record. This is not the court's obligation in this instance. There is case law which states:

HAGANS vs LAVINE (415 US 533): "Once JURISDICTION is challenged it must be proven by the Plaintiff."

What I had in mind, but failed to communicate, because I'm not familiar with the ways of legal procedure in court, was the written established challenge to personam jurisdiction that was entered upon the record, and which the court was supposed to have cognizance of before I even entered the room. If the officer did not communicate that document to the court, then there was a fraud in the makings. And my intention was to correct that fraud. I do not see where the plaintiff has rebutted that challenge on the record with a verified complaint from a flesh and blood victim who has been injured. Isn't this a requirement in all criminal cases? That a competent witness come forward with a notarized affidavit demonstrating an injury. (Let the judge make his statement.)

In light of these facts, I fail to see how I am able to make a plea to a non-existent case.

David Merrill
09-15-12, 11:18 PM
Speaking from experience scripts fail. Especially with the chief judge in home rule municipal jurisdiction. All he is doing is presuming you want a day in court, a fair trial. He does not see you or hear you. He sees and hears only your attorney.

Write across the Letter - Return to Sender with an arrow back to his return address. Black through your address information and the light yellow barcodes. Mark clearly in red: YOU ARE NOT AND YOU NEVER WERE MY ATTORNEY!

Take three copies (write the case# on the copies) of the letter to the post office and ask the clerk to please rounddate your three copies for evidence that you have sent that letter back to the attorney. If they want to charge you to send it back tell them that is not your name on it. [When you give somebody your name (http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/6872/nameinagent.jpg)you give them power of attorney over you.]

Take your three copies to the DA's office. Give the receptionist one and have her/him mark your two copies received, time and date with initials. Take the two marked copies to the courthouse and find the clerk. File one and get the second marked Filed.

Now you are pro se, in the eyes of the court. The "judge" gave you a couple weeks to find an attorney or you are It, right?

I am not going to encourage all this script because I do not believe in it. The judge will mow you down and proceed on the premise the defense attorney he is speaking with is looking for a trial, or is incompetent to defend you. If you are incompetent to stand trial you might be steered into a psychological exam.

There is a possibility that the judges sometimes clear nuisance cases off the docket like you have said. The City will be paying $2K for that psychological exam for example. If the judge is sure that you are just a sovereign citizen then he might not want to pay for your philosophy and so you walk. But if you are just going to go back to driving around without a license, I doubt it. He has a duty to the citizens as I explained; the only way for you to get that done in Colorado is to set a $30K (last I checked many years ago) bond. If you will not be responsible for that kid on the bicycle, for breaking his arm with your car, then you cannot get this done in my opinion.

Now let's pretend that you succeed in the billing cycle, past due notice and cure a proper lien against the State for $20M. You might post that lien as your bond, that might cause some discussion.

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/7398/20mlienoriginalreturn.jpg

Michael Joseph
09-15-12, 11:43 PM
Speaking from experience scripts fail. Especially with the chief judge in home rule municipal jurisdiction. All he is doing is presuming you want a day in court, a fair trial. He does not see you or hear you. He sees and hears only your attorney.


A presumption of trust. He appears therefore he trusts. Meaning why would I ask anything of you IF I do not trust you? I once heard a police officer tell a young protege of mine "if you stay I am going to have to arrest you." When he asked me what I thought he should do I simply said "he is telling you if you stay seeking His Judgment, then you have placed your trust in Him making Him your Sovereign, so LEAVE." He told the PO to have a nice day and he turned and left.

Jurisdiction perfected in Trust - He Trusts by implication of his Faith in Deed - he appears and asks for Judgment - Please, will you dismiss the charges, Please? I have wonderful arguments, if only you will hear them. The Tyrant's response: trial day is set on [insert date].

Before we proceed, if we proceed, I have a few MORE questions.....

KnowLaw
09-16-12, 05:51 PM
Speaking from experience scripts fail. Especially with the chief judge in home rule municipal jurisdiction. All he is doing is presuming you want a day in court, a fair trial. He does not see you or hear you. He sees and hears only your attorney.
Okay. I was thinking that they (the courts) have come up with a way to preclude that kind of thing. So, that information about Withdrawal of Plea is probably dated and not useful now. They've seen it before, and come up with a way to get around it. (Just speculating here.)



Write across the Letter - Return to Sender with an arrow back to his return address. Black through your address information and the light yellow barcodes. Mark clearly in red: YOU ARE NOT AND YOU NEVER WERE MY ATTORNEY!

Take three copies (write the case# on the copies) of the letter to the post office and ask the clerk to please rounddate your three copies for evidence that you have sent that letter back to the attorney. If they want to charge you to send it back tell them that is not your name on it. [When you give somebody your name (http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/6872/nameinagent.jpg)you give them power of attorney over you.]

Take your three copies to the DA's office. Give the receptionist one and have her/him mark your two copies received, time and date with initials. Take the two marked copies to the courthouse and find the clerk. File one and get the second marked Filed.

Now you are pro se, in the eyes of the court. The "judge" gave you a couple weeks to find an attorney or you are It, right?
What I need to know is the procedure about this appointing an attorney. From what you just wrote, it doesn't seem as though I am locked in yet. I'm not sure the judge gave me anything of the kind with regard to finding an attorney. I don't remember a lot of what he was saying at the hearing. It went by pretty quickly, and I have trouble keeping up with things. But perhaps you are correct. Might the Muni court have a transcript of the hearing (tape recorded, I presume) that I could apply for a copy of in forma pauperis?

At present, I'm not sure what is the best option for me to take, so I will keep this in the background. I haven't returned the attorney's letter yet. Just marked it. Will need to ask more questions in order to better determine an answer. It may be that it's more advantageous to go through the trial, and wait for an opportunity at allocution. What do you think, given the circumstances? It seems like my best chance to get the truth on the record.



I am not going to encourage all this script because I do not believe in it. The judge will mow you down and proceed on the premise the defense attorney he is speaking with is looking for a trial, or is incompetent to defend you. If you are incompetent to stand trial you might be steered into a psychological exam.

There is a possibility that the judges sometimes clear nuisance cases off the docket like you have said. The City will be paying $2K for that psychological exam for example. If the judge is sure that you are just a sovereign citizen then he might not want to pay for your philosophy and so you walk. But if you are just going to go back to driving around without a license, I doubt it. He has a duty to the citizens as I explained; the only way for you to get that done in Colorado is to set a $30K (last I checked many years ago) bond. If you will not be responsible for that kid on the bicycle, for breaking his arm with your car, then you cannot get this done in my opinion.
Yes, the bolded statement above is what I had planned to do. I believe it's $30K here in Arizona also. I've downloaded information about creating a bond; I'll have to dig it out and see if you think it will fly. It worked at one time.

The last time I was in court for this I still had insurance on the auto. That probably had something to do with the outcome at that time. Do you think?



Now let's pretend that you succeed in the billing cycle, past due notice and cure a proper lien against the State for $20M. You might post that lien as your bond, that might cause some discussion.
You lost me here. I have little idea what you are talking about. I'm not familiar with the info. This would need to be explained more fully for me to understand.

Before I read your reply above, I typed out a brief outline of the situation as it currently stands, at least as I understand it. I will post that next to see what kind of comment it draws.

KnowLaw
09-16-12, 06:16 PM
(Preface: My phone, and therefore Internet capability, is going to be impaired for at least another week due to the demand for repairs in my area after the storm that went through on the 9th, so I'm unable to research this at home and must find WiFi spots to connect.)

Let me try to outline the situation as it presently stands.

1. The Muni court judge has assumed jurisdiction based on my not having objected to his assertion of such at the arraignment.

2. After the above mentioned occurrence in #1, the judge then accepted my papers proving "refused for cause" was properly served, because now he has jurisdiction and the papers can be ignored. The refused citation clearly shows a reservation of rights (without prejudice) signed above my First Middle signature, which the judge acknowledged after gaining jurisdiction.

3. The judge then, over my stated objection which he recognized in court, created paperwork to appoint an attorney for me. The paperwork states that I am not to contact the attorney before Sept. 24. (So, I'm wondering if there is something I can do before then -- make motions, submit affidavits or whatever -- in an attempt to regain some personal control over the proceedings.) Does anyone know the significance of not contacting the attorney?

4. The judge then created paper work for the setting of a trial, bypassing Preliminary Hearing and Pretrial. There's a box checked that reads: "Appear at a mandatory pretrial conference per attached notice." I'm not sure what this is in reference to. And I don't know what the "attached notice" is in reference to since there isn't any. The only papers I have are: a document stating the name address and phone number of the appointed attorney; an Order Regarding Counsel appointing the attorney; and the document ordering me to appear at trial on Nov. 27th. So, I'm not sure what this "attached notice" is in reference to.

5. Trial was set for November 27 at 2:00 pm.

6. Judge asked before closing the proceeding: "Do you have anything you want to say?" Not being aware (at that moment) of the opportunity to object, I missed an opportunity to object to the proceedings and withdraw consent.

7. I was released on my own recognizance and ordered not to "drive."

Given these circumstances, I need to know how I can proceed to endeavor to get the truth of the situation on the record, and also what I can legally do to influence the situation from this point on, seeing as an attorney has been appointed (who I have yet to see or contract with).

Some thoughts that have occurred to me, although I don't know if I am allowed to file anything to get it on the record (even though I haven't accepted the attorney; I realize the attorney is being forced on me at this point "under protest"). I'm just putting these out to see if there is something positive I can do to begin influencing the direction of things:

1. File an affidavit revoking power of attorney of gov't officials.

2. File an affidavit accepting the oath of office of the judge and prosecuting attorney (supplied with certified copies of said oaths to establish a record) putting them on notice to follow their constitutional duties. (I also have an Affidavit of Administrative Notice, which was recorded and sent four years ago to the State Dept. of Transportation and the County Sheriff -- with proof by certificate of mailing -- but these would need to be recognized in a court that is superior to the inferior court with which I am presently entangled to be effective.)

3. File a Motion to Withdraw Plea (to establish a hearing). I don't think this would do any good if I were still under the power of attorney of the attorney appointed. Am I correct in that assumption? In other words, he would be in control of any dealing with the judge at the hearing and not myself. I would not be able to ask my questions in the way and under the circumstance that I want in order to establish on the record certain facts. (David made this clear in his last reply, so this point can be disregarded.)

4. There is something I read recently about "assistance of counsel" I believe it is called. Does anyone know anything about this and its significance?

5. Will a notice of violation of Title 18 Sec. 241 (Conspiracy against rights) to the gov't "actors" have any effect on these actors? Or will it just cause them to fly off the handle and issue threats. (On second thought, this might not be a good idea.)

What I'm endeavoring to determine is: what procedures am I able to use that they cannot block. If I'm unable to accomplish anything in the above list, then it seems that I have no other alternative than to endure the trial. At which point I will have an opportunity at allocution to enter testimony.

I need some clarification about allocution and what, beyond saying "I do not consent to these proceedings," that I can bring out. I read that one can bring out defects in pleadings, at which point I can point out that I am not in receipt of a verified complaint, etc. The plaintiff has an obligation under the ruling in Hagans vs Lavine (415 US 533) to provide evidence on the record to rebut the challenge. But also that this matter was "refused for cause" at the outset, but said refusal was not recognized by the court. This would also be a good point to bring in the Affidavit of Administrative Notice recorded at the county recorder.

Right about now, I'm feeling as though that sinking feeling has abated somewhat, and that I have a chance to set the record straight. (On second thought, maybe not.)

David Merrill
09-17-12, 09:58 AM
The system of thought is become the court of record by keeping the record.



I don't remember a lot of what he was saying at the hearing. It went by pretty quickly, and I have trouble keeping up with things.

So you keep an audio recorder in your shirt pocket. Then you can order up the transcript and compare. There is a lot of intelligence to be found in what the "judge" instructs be removed by the transcriber. If he adjusts it at all, then he is not a court of record any more. But since you have an accurate recording, you are. You might use the Libel of Review (http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/9462/libelofreview52012.pdf) to set up an evidence repository; a Record in the care and custody (trust) of the US clerk of court. You become the court of record. [The case gets dismissed but you continue using it for an evidence repository - the Record.]

The approach you are using here and on SuiJurisClub is quite uneffective in my opinion. You are silly to try allowing voices on the Internet to advise you in such hybrid and scripted responses. Awaiting that magic moment - the window of allocution - that is just plain risky. In my opinion you would be best off to get your mind wrapped around these topics while able to enjoy yourself and the learning process. Not while under the gun.

Did you put together a portfolio of the actors' oaths of office yet?

What I teach record-forming. When you get that between your ears you grasp how to redact the situation to simply holding the actors to their oath as a fungible fidelity bond. Look at that Lien. It has the oaths being violated in the "collateral" field.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Seosaidh
09-17-12, 12:38 PM
A presumption of trust. He appears therefore he trusts. Meaning why would I ask anything of you IF I do not trust you? I once heard a police officer tell a young protege of mine "if you stay I am going to have to arrest you." When he asked me what I thought he should do I simply said "he is telling you if you stay seeking His Judgment, then you have placed your trust in Him making Him your Sovereign, so LEAVE." He told the PO to have a nice day and he turned and left.

Jurisdiction perfected in Trust - He Trusts by implication of his Faith in Deed - he appears and asks for Judgment - Please, will you dismiss the charges, Please? I have wonderful arguments, if only you will hear them. The Tyrant's response: trial day is set on [insert date].

Before we proceed, if we proceed, I have a few MORE questions.....

Your comment to your protogete shows you know how to think on your feet. Makes me wonder what the police officer thought.

KnowLaw
09-18-12, 03:43 AM
The system of thought is become the court of record by keeping the record.
Okay. I'm beginning to focus in on this. This not having access to the Internet is killing me. I just spent the whole day writing a reply which I'm not going to post because I can see that it is mostly irrelevant to what you are trying to pound into my head. If I had seen your comment earlier [it's 8 PM here as I write] I wouldn't have wasted so much time accomplishing nothing.



So you keep an audio recorder in your shirt pocket. Then you can order up the transcript and compare. There is a lot of intelligence to be found in what the "judge" instructs be removed by the transcriber. If he adjusts it at all, then he is not a court of record any more. But since you have an accurate recording, you are. You might use the Libel of Review (http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/9462/libelofreview52012.pdf) to set up an evidence repository; a Record in the care and custody (trust) of the US clerk of court. You become the court of record. [The case gets dismissed but you continue using it for an evidence repository - the Record.]
I'm not able to sneak an audio recorder into the courtroom. (Don't even have one to begin with.) So, I'm up a creak on that. But yes, I see your point about keeping my own record. I've been hoping to do that with affidavits, to establish a record. Any chance I can use affidavits?

Also, I haven't pulled the trigger yet on canning the appointed attorney. Just holding onto the letter they sent without opening it. I'm not sure the judge will allow me to go pro se. I need more clarity about what course of action to take and why I'm taking it.

Had a chance to glance briefly over the Libel in Review (on the fly while composing this reply, so will need more time to study it later). That certainly looks interesting. I see why you recommend it. It gets the matter on record.



The approach you are using here and on SuiJurisClub is quite ineffective in my opinion. You are silly to try allowing voices on the Internet to advise you in such hybrid and scripted responses. Awaiting that magic moment - the window of allocution - that is just plain risky. In my opinion you would be best off to get your mind wrapped around these topics while able to enjoy yourself and the learning process. Not while under the gun.

Did you put together a portfolio of the actors' oaths of office yet?
Haven't had an opportunity yet. I need all three oaths, is that correct? Won't fly with just two? Need to bring the District Attny into it? (I'm thinking out loud here; please indulge me.) The DA because that ties him to the Libel of Review? I'm just trying to understand.

I've mostly been trying to come to some clarification about the real situation that's facing me before taking any action. That's why I've been asking so many questions. My questions have been in the vein of elimination of methods of approach, asking people's opinions, attempting to ascertain their experiences.

I agree about the comment about allocution. But at the moment, that's the only thing that's providing me with any hope.



What I teach record-forming. When you get that between your ears you grasp how to redact the situation to simply holding the actors to their oath as a fungible fidelity bond. Look at that Lien. It has the oaths being violated in the "collateral" field.

I'm trying to follow you here, but I'm not sure I correctly understand. What do you mean by the term "fungible fidelity bond"? You're using terms I have no idea what you are talking about until you explain them to me.

I presume you are referring to the following, which I still do not understand what it is or how it is created! Or how it might effect things.


...and cure a proper lien against the State for $20M. You might post that lien as your bond, that might cause some discussion.

KnowLaw
09-18-12, 04:38 PM
David, thank you for your kind indulgence.

I think I'm now seeing (connecting all the pieces) what you've been trying to drill into my head all along. I can see the reason and logic in it. That other advice was clouding my thinking, but I think I'm clear of that now. I'm now listening only to you.

I'm now ready to execute the instructions you've given, beginning with returning the letter from the attorney. I'm also preparing to obtain the 3 oaths of office: the judge, the city prosecutor, and the DA (once I can find out who that is). I'll swear out an affidavit of acceptance of the oaths to file into the case.

So, will anything I file in the muni court (like affidavits) be open to recognition by the court? Or do I first have to force them to recognize, through the acceptance of the oaths placed into the record, so that my demands can be met and I can be heard in my own proper person? In other words, what triggers that recognition? I just want to be clear about this.

Also, at one point you made the following statement:
David: There is a recognized legal principle that, if "all" judges have conflicts of interest, then "any" judge can hear the case. (The issue comes up from time to time in cases involving the compensation of judges or other matters affecting all judges.) - United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980).

Could you please tell me the significance of this? I want to be clear about the implication of what you're trying to point out.

One step at a time. Depending on how things play out, I'm seriously considering your suggestion about filing the Libel of Review with the district court, now that I understand how it can be used.

I called the state Sec. of State office, but they don't handle Dist. Atty oaths of office. I assume I need to contact the U.S. Sec. of State to obtain this? If so, do they have local offices in the districts where I can get the copies of the attorney's letter being returned stamped "Received, time and date with initials"?

Treefarmer
09-18-12, 04:55 PM
KnowLaw, it sounds as though you have embarked on a very difficult journey.
Would it not be easier just to pay the ticket?
Or are the charges against you so grossly unjust, trumped up, fabricated and expensive that you have to enter into this battle with the traffic court-of-no-record against such unfavorable circumstances?

KnowLaw
09-18-12, 05:22 PM
KnowLaw, it sounds as though you have embarked on a very difficult journey.
Would it not be easier just to pay the ticket?
Or are the charges against you so grossly unjust, trumped up, fabricated and expensive that you have to enter into this battle with the traffic court-of-no-record against such unfavorable circumstances?
No DL, no registration, no (at the moment) insurance. They want me off the road. I'm checking into supplying a bond for insurance.

I have no income at the moment (my Internet affiliate marketing is flat). I have no choice but to fight. Wish I could say otherwise. And yes, considering that I have noticed the state DOT and the county sheriff's office 4 years ago and not received a rebuttal to my affidavit, the charges are "grossly unjust, trumped up, fabricated and expensive."

Treefarmer
09-18-12, 06:21 PM
No DL, no registration, no (at the moment) insurance. They want me off the road. I'm checking into supplying a bond for insurance.

I have no income at the moment (my Internet affiliate marketing is flat). I have no choice but to fight. Wish I could say otherwise. And yes, considering that I have noticed the state DOT and the county sheriff's office 4 years ago and not received a rebuttal to my affidavit, the charges are "grossly unjust, trumped up, fabricated and expensive."

In this case, I would think a Libel of Review would be in your best interest.

And perhaps, depending on where you live, one of these?
935

David Merrill
09-18-12, 07:25 PM
David, I'm not following you here. What is it you are trying to communicate: "...is all that is in the folder!"?

Could you be more explicit. Which clerk are you speaking about? The one for the USDC? And is there some implication that you are meaning to communicate?


The local court - typically the county court where they hear traffic matters. Maybe municipal court. The USDC case file will have all the suitor's R4C's in it.

KnowLaw
09-19-12, 03:20 AM
The local court - typically the county court where they hear traffic matters. Maybe municipal court. The USDC case file will have all the suitor's R4C's in it.

All that was in the case file was the certified copy of the R4C. Nothing else.
So what you're saying (and Treefarmer, too) is that I need to open up a counterclaim in the USDC using the Libel of Review.

What about all these other things you've been recommending? Are they still important; or is the LoR the most important piece of the puzzle to get these "gangstas" off my back? (Please excuse my slowness.)

I'll be working at getting the oaths of office next. Or maybe searching out the district court in this area to file the LoR.

Jethro
09-19-12, 03:48 AM
David, would it be accurate to summarize the "USDC case file" as an "evidence repository" wherein admissible evidence is collected and held for future (or present) use?

BONMAN
09-19-12, 02:48 PM
No DL, no registration, no (at the moment) insurance. They want me off the road. I'm checking into supplying a bond for insurance.

I have no income at the moment (my Internet affiliate marketing is flat). I have no choice but to fight. Wish I could say otherwise. And yes, considering that I have noticed the state DOT and the county sheriff's office 4 years ago and not received a rebuttal to my affidavit, the charges are "grossly unjust, trumped up, fabricated and expensive."

YOU COULD ALWAYS USE THIS AFTER YOU INTRODUCED EVIDENCE OF YOUR TRUE NAME (written in proper grammar),IN THE FORM OF AN AFFIDAVIT, ---- NOT LEGAL ADVICE, JUST COMPILED FOR MY OWN ENTERTAINMENT, USE AT OWN RISK

Defendant, seeking specific relief in the form of removal of this case to the Supreme Court of the United States, in accordance with Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America or dismissal according to Rule 2.3 IRLJ.
2. The Supreme Court of the United States has original Jurisdiction pursuant to Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America, to wit;
The Constitution of the United States of America Article III
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;----between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, [B]and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
3. The STATE of WASHINGTON is a State, and is party to this action, the Constitution of the United States of America, places original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court of the United States in all cases where a State is a party.
4. The use of the mandatory command “shall” is quite clear and unambiguous as is used in the Constitution of the United States of America, at Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2, it is a command and not a request and must be followed without exception.
5. The STATE of WASHINGTON has attempted to seize jurisdiction and placed this case in Stevens County District Court without revealing the authority to do so, the Prosecutor must show the authority delegated from the Supreme Court of the United States and has not done so, there fore there is no authority and hence no jurisdiction.
“The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings”[Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533]
“No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction” [Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S. Ct.768]
“Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be ‘assumed’, it must be proved to exist.” [Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca2d 751.211 P2s 389]
“Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.”
[Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250]
Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction.” Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872)
6. All Judicial, Executive, and Legislative Officers are bound by oath and honor to adhere to and follow the Constitution(s), there does not appear to be anything anywhere to the contrary.
7. ---------------------------, Defendant, therefore demands this case No.I---------------------, be moved to the Supreme Court of the United States or its redirect, since it has original Jurisdiction, as stated above, pursuant to Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America, or dismissal according to Rule 2.3 IRLJ, to wit;
IRLJ RULE 2.3 VENUE
Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute (fn.1), an infraction case shall be brought in the district court district or the municipality where the infraction occurred. If a notice of infraction is filed in a court which is not the proper venue, the notice shall be dismissed without prejudice on motion of either party.


(fn.1), RCW 9A.04.110 Definitions. *** CHANGE IN 2005 *** (SEE 1934-S.SL) *** In this title unless a different meaning plainly is required: (24) "Statute" means the Constitution or an act of the legislature or initiative or referendum of this state;
Respectfully submitted this 31 day of March, 2008:

KnowLaw
09-19-12, 10:33 PM
YOU COULD ALWAYS USE THIS AFTER YOU INTRODUCED EVIDENCE OF YOUR TRUE NAME (written in proper grammar), IN THE FORM OF AN AFFIDAVIT, ---- NOT LEGAL ADVICE, JUST COMPILED FOR MY OWN ENTERTAINMENT, USE AT OWN RISK

The Constitution of the United States of America Article III
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;----between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, [B]and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.


7. ---------------------------, Defendant, therefore demands this case No.I---------------------, be moved to the Supreme Court of the United States or its redirect, since it has original Jurisdiction, as stated above, pursuant to Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America, or dismissal according to Rule 2.3 IRLJ, to wit;
IRLJ RULE 2.3 VENUE
Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute (fn.1), an infraction case shall be brought in the district court district or the municipality where the infraction occurred. If a notice of infraction is filed in a court which is not the proper venue, the notice shall be dismissed without prejudice on motion of either party.


(fn.1), RCW 9A.04.110 Definitions. *** CHANGE IN 2005 *** (SEE 1934-S.SL) *** In this title unless a different meaning plainly is required: (24) "Statute" means the Constitution or an act of the legislature or initiative or referendum of this state;
Respectfully submitted this 31 day of March, 2008:
Thanks, Bonman. That's useful information. It makes some of the same points made in David's Libel of Review, which would put the adversarial party on notice to mind their p's and q's according to the Constitution.

I do have some concern, though, regarding it's application to my own circumstance. Primary of which is that it is not the State which is bring charges, but rather home rule municipal corporation (City of XXXX). Wouldn't this fact eliminate this as a possible remedy, unless "City of" could be somehow connected as a subdivision of State? Or is it already presumed to be connected with the State? I'm asking because I don't know.

Also, I'm not sure that Arizona has an equivalent of "Infraction Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction." I just spent some time searching for such, but came up empty. That doesn't mean it isn't there. Just that I haven't found anything. Although isn't this a challenge to venue, a concept present as part of organic law. If so, it does apply no matter what State rules say or don't say.

KnowLaw
09-19-12, 11:38 PM
It does seem to work (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?51-Libel-of-Review-and-39-Miscellaneous-Evidence-Files) conversely though, for some metaphysical reason like how a dog can sense fear. If you train properly in the lesson plan and develop good record-forming skills with your evidence repository then it would seem you can confidently (competently) R4C a presentment with no evidence repository at all.

One suitor (understand this one is a former Army Ranger) had a traffic ticket just before we met and he filed his LoR. It was amazing how quickly he learned the principles but he had genuine fearless chutzpa too. A few days later he went in to the pre-trial traffic hearing and knew inherently that when the clerk gave him the yellow slip with the trial date on it that was a new Presentment. He pulled out a pen and wrote Refused for Cause across the Notice and boldly walked to the bench saying, Let the Record show that this presentment is Refused for Cause timely and returned to the Presenter. He then left the judge stuttering a little but asking, What am I supposed to do with this? - shaking the R4C/Notice in the air. He left and nothing more came of it.

The wonderful thing about this confidence (competence) is that he was utilizing the recording equipment and cattle court full of witnesses for his record-forming. He did not so much as keep a copy or carry an audio recorder!
What are the chances of success of putting it on the record by returning the copies of the Order for trial date (and other documents issued at arraignment) "Refused for cause" to the court clerk. Isn't that just like the traffic ticket? Or is there something I'm missing? I thought of doing this a few days ago, but wasn't certain of how the outcome might transpire and talked myself out of it. I guess it all hinges on how one handles future presentments. But given the type of judge I'm up against, what are his likely counter-moves? Would I be risking arrest?

I avoided one presentment in contract with the court, having returned the appointed attorney's paperwork to him unopened (as per David's instructions). I'm sure the judge was counting on that sealing consent.

Anyone here with any experience with a direct written Refusal to the court's presentments?

I'm not certain I ever gave consent, though. Since there is no contract with an attorney, doesn't that still make me IT? And if that's true, aren't I still able to file a R4C of their whole fraudulent "case" and have it recognized? As far as I'm aware, timeliness means before performance is due. And that isn't until the 27th of November.

I'm just looking for competent feedback, based on what David has written in the above anecdote.

David Merrill
09-20-12, 02:21 AM
So what you're saying (and Treefarmer, too) is that I need to open up a counterclaim in the USDC using the Libel of Review.

What about all these other things you've been recommending? Are they still important; or is the LoR the most important piece of the puzzle to get these "gangstas" off my back? (Please excuse my slowness.)

I'll be working at getting the oaths of office next. Or maybe searching out the district court in this area to file the LoR.


Jethro too;


The Libel of Review (LoR) is dismissed out leaving you with an evidence repository wherein you build your Record. In this case with KnowLaw there will be some kind of flaw in the oaths of office (almost certainly). So you get that into the record and serve a certified copy on the local court. There will be likely then a bunch of obvious loopholes in process indicating that the prosecution has become voluntary. Of course if you cannot see them, and you do not understand arraignment and some of the other things we have spoken of here then you will perfect jurisdiction around you anyway.

The LoR does a lot more than set up an evidence repository.


Here is some Crosstalk between echo chambers:


What pray tell does a LoR do for me? It gives me cognizance of the United States Trust - prior to [1789] the Corporation and its Persons - created - Under its SEAL.

IT IS ALL VOLUNTARY - where do you place your trust? Be sure to vote - indictments are based on evidence - registration. Registration of Trust. For the Settlor is Sovereign and liable internationally to other States regarding its domestic affairs; therefore, the Settlor keeps books in regard to the acts of its Persons - it is called a Register of Deeds.

That is a lot of trust law and the experience of a Libel of Review several years ago. That is what you are hearing. That kind of understanding enables one to speak to officials in a manner they not only understand but appreciate.

Peaceful inhabitant. Heir to the original estate.

Treefarmer
09-20-12, 03:14 AM
So what you're saying (and Treefarmer, too) is that I need to open up a counterclaim in the USDC using the Libel of Review.

What about all these other things you've been recommending? Are they still important; or is the LoR the most important piece of the puzzle to get these "gangstas" off my back? (Please excuse my slowness.)

I'll be working at getting the oaths of office next. Or maybe searching out the district court in this area to file the LoR.

The LoR IS your evidence repository that gets noticed by Judges, attorneys, METRO, and the likes.
It speaks for you where you can be heard: on the record.
You can then file your oaths of office and other important evidence in there, to get it seen and heard.
No attorner can take that away from you, AFAIK.

Jethro
09-20-12, 03:54 AM
Thanks David & Treefarmer,

What's the difference between a LoR/evidence repository for filing oaths of office, etc. and recording the same at a (county) recorder? If the objective is to create admissible evidence, would not the latter be equally sufficient since certified copies of public records are self-authenticating (e.g. Fed. Rules of Evidence Rule 902) and therefore admissible?

David Merrill
09-20-12, 09:56 AM
Thanks David & Treefarmer,

What's the difference between a LoR/evidence repository for filing oaths of office, etc. and recording the same at a (county) recorder? If the objective is to create admissible evidence, would not the latter be equally sufficient since certified copies of public records are self-authenticating (e.g. Fed. Rules of Evidence Rule 902) and therefore admissible?

The Default Judgment from the LoR is indeed filed in both offices - local and federal (http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/6379/defaultjudgmentrecovery.pdf).


http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/3369/defaultjudgmentnoticex.jpg


Read this carefully. (www.savingtosuitorsclub.net)


That is an intense little clause of American history and remedy, the 'saving to suitors' clause. Incompetence in common law always defaults to admiralty. But you get the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States government. That is the basis of the LoR.

You keep the receipt. Look at the receipt here (http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/6379/defaultjudgmentrecovery.pdf) - a $46 Miscellaneous Case (no Default Judgment). Two years down the road you might R4C a traffic ticket, the US clerk of court might send it back, This case was dismissed in early 2013... You send it back with a copy of the receipt and remind him about 'saving to suitors' - Congress has guaranteed me the 'exclusive original cognizance' of the US government since 1789! You are in breach of contract...


REGISTRATION OF FOREIGN JUDGMNT


That is revealing right there but also note that he proved out his affidavit with a Certification of Commission on his notary too.

When you get the exclusive original cognizance of the US government then you can effectively explore any and all the techniques being explored here because you are getting all of it on the record.

As KnowLaw gets some of the faulty oaths of office together he might publish an affidavit at the county clerk and recorder that he has not given consent to be prosecuted by vacant offices (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImMmIzMDdiNmUtMzY2Yy00MzgzLTkxYTEtNzZmZ jU1MmJkYTdl/edit) and recognizes the court not of record not. [SUTHERS was cleaning out his office the next morning; and look at his Oath today! (http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/6152/suthersfungiblefidelity.jpg) It is clearly a fungible fidelity bond - even a stock certificate!] Then he gets certified copies - actually the original from the C&R into the case with the local clerk of court marking his certified copies FILED, including markings from the district attorney too, into the case file. Pretty quick things start happening like the prosecutor leaves the courtoom when his case is called?

So the judge asks, What can I do for you?


Instead of pleading or making a motion KnowLaw might become aware enough:

Business here is concluded. Have a nice day!


More likely though he will move for a dismissal and the prosecutor will come back into the room and they will resume the business of charging and prosecuting...

So it takes getting the remedy between your ears. If you are incompetent then the law will have its effect, thank God. You become like a vessel being blown about by the winds and tides. I want my trustees to control you until you get on your feet but then again I want you on your feet.



Regards,

David Merrill.

David Merrill
09-20-12, 10:36 AM
KnowLaw;


I hope you realize competence (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImOWMwMjUxZTYtZmViNy00NmI1LWEyNzItMDgxY zFkZWMxNmVi/edit).


Robert RUBIN announced his resignation in time for the 5:00 News! Notice especially that I utilized the US Geodetic Survey to pull the entire issue to 9035 feet above the high tide mark. I keep an office with a granite desk and wonderful view up there!



http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/7852/hermanpastoral.jpg


http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/6361/mountaintopdesktop.jpg

KnowLaw
09-20-12, 03:39 PM
What's the difference between a LoR/evidence repository for filing oaths of office, etc. and recording the same at a (county) recorder? If the objective is to create admissible evidence, would not the latter be equally sufficient since certified copies of public records are self-authenticating (e.g. Fed. Rules of Evidence Rule 902) and therefore admissible?
Bingo, Jethro!

You said it! Make it happen!

That's what I do (file documents at the county recorder). Become your own court of competent jurisdiction. That's what sovereignty it all about. Like David says, become a competent record keeper. Form and keep your own record of events.

The LoR filed with the USDC is a significantly better method of being able to deal with the court system. But it accomplishes essentially the same thing as keeping your own record by filing at the county recorder. And filing at the county recorder is less expensive (if cost becomes a factor).

KnowLaw
09-27-12, 04:24 AM
Okay. I've had some time to mull over everything that has been suggested (trying to make sense of it and to gain insight into its significance) and I think I'm getting a clearer picture of what is happening. At least I hope I am. But I need some valid feedback -- and correction of my assumptions if they are incorrect -- so that I can correct what needs to be corrected in order to gain remedy.

Objective One: gain control of the judge in this matter. Gather the oaths of office together and publish an affidavit at the county recorder that I have "not given consent to be prosecuted by vacant offices" (if the oaths actually show this) and I do not recognize the court not of record. Using David's method, this is done by gaining the cognizance of the U.S. government through the district court by filing the documents into a miscellaneous case file and filing the original from the recorder into the case with the local clerk of court marking my certified copy FILED, including markings from the district attorney into the case file. Getting the DA's markings on these documents is significant in being able to gain control of the judge! This would also mean I would need to file a LoR.

Question 1: I haven't been able to locate a local office of the district court where I could open a miscellaneous case file. The only district court offices that I'm aware of in this state are in two of the larger metropolitan areas that are hundreds of miles from where I live. The only local courts showing in the phone book under United States Government are: Courts: Probation and Parole; U.S. Bankruptcy Court; U.S. Magistrate; U.S. Pretrial Services. Would the U.S. Magistrate court be part of the district court system where I might be able to get this done locally? Or no?

Question 2: If the oaths of office of the actors are indeed faulty (as David suspects), is gaining the cognizance of the district court the only way to get control of the judge in this matter?

Question 2a: If the oaths of office contain an oath upholding the U.S. and State Constitutions, wouldn't accepting this oath and putting the judge and prosecuting attorney on notice achieve the same thing as gaining the cognizance of the district court? It seems to me it would. Correct me if this is wrong, please!

Question 3: Are any affidavits that I might file into this muni court's record, aren't they part of the written record? Or would the judge need to recognize me as my own attorney in order for these to matter or play any significance?

Part of the problem is: I've been seeking a way to remedy this matter without having to use the district court. I was under the impression that if you could get into a court of record (where the common law is recognized), then you could bring out the defects in the presentment and thereby achieve remedy. I missed my chance to recuse the judge at the "arraignment" and demand a hearing in a judicial court of record.

Because I have not had a complete understanding of the significance of the suggestions that have been made and the specific way in which they need to be executed, there are some things that are still needing to be done. Hopefully, I still have time to correct those errors.

I just today received another letter from the appointed attorney (haven't yet filed the first "return to sender" photocopy with the local court because I was attempting to find a district court office where I could open a file) and have not opened it, and have marked it "return to sender" in the same manner as David suggested for the first one. I'll be getting photocopies of that letter and getting the P.O. to date stamp those copies tomorrow when I return it. If I'm unable to locate a local district court office in order to obtain the D.A.'s file markings, will it still be useful to file these copies with the local court, or will the judge just disregard them?

I'll also tomorrow be looking into obtaining the oaths of office of the judge and the prosecuting attorney.

This is embarrassing to admit (simply because I didn't have the correct understanding to go on from the start), but I "refused for cause" the three copies of the documents (the Determination of Release Conditions and Release Order, the Order Regarding Counsel, and the Notice to Defendant re: "your court appointed attorney") that were handed to me at the "arraignment," and returned them to the court last Thursday by Certificate of Mailing. It didn't hit me until today that perhaps these won't be recognized by the judge either, even though they are in the record.

I'm doing my best to understand the processes in play here, but it's difficult to be certain without being able to get certain crucial questions answered first. I'm not dumb; just ignorant of how these processes are supposed to work. Any useful comments will be greatly appreciated!

KnowLaw
09-28-12, 11:34 PM
Okay, update on what has transpired. (As much as possible, I'd like to document what happens in this matter. Perhaps this thread will help someone else out who finds themselves in a similar circumstance.)

I learned that the local U.S. Magistrate Court is connected with the USDC, but that in order to open a case file, I would need to travel to the State capital (or use the mail) to begin the process at the main District Court there. They don't handle this type of thing in the local Magistrate Court. This would mean if I wanted file stamps on documents submitted to the Muni court, I would have to go to the capital to get them (a 170 mile trip).

Question: Other than in the instructions to the DC court clerk which get published on a certificate of mailing back to a presenter, how else might I be able to demonstrate to the Muni court that documents are being filed with the USDC such that the court becomes aware of this? Perhaps (answering my own question) this is where the LoR comes into play once it is filed with the District Court. So, this would still be effective if I were only to file documents with the DC by mail rather than in person?

Today I was able to file the copies of the two returned letters of the appointed attorney into the case file at the Muni court. I was a bit apprehensive about whether or not the clerk would accept them; she asked, "You have an appointed attorney, don't you?" I told her that I was obtaining my own assistance of counsel and that these needed to be filed providing evidence that the appointed attorney had never been engaged in the matter. She seemed to understand that and filed the photocopies.

I also filed a certified copy of my recorded Affidavit of Administrative Notice along with a certified copy of the original certificate of mailing in 2009. On the back of each of the three pages of the affidavit I placed a stamp in the lower right hand corner, signed (First Middle) at a diagonal over it cancelling it, then sealed it putting my thumb print to the right and covering it, dated it, and placed the EIN (SSN without dashes) on each of the front pages at the top right.

According to information I researched about the Universal Postal Union (UPU), I should have done this on the presentments. I goofed! It's been a while since I read it. There are so many little things to remember that this slipped my mind. But what I was thinking originally was: I wanted to establish myself as the postmaster of this affidavit. Had it been on a presentment, this action would have constituted a cross-claim. On any presentments in the future, I'll try to remember to do this; not sure what effect, if any, this might have on matters. The affidavit went unrebutted back in 2009, so I wanted to establish this document within the jurisdiction of the UPU. Would this still qualify as a cross-claim? The following is the pertinent explanation about the significance of invoking the UPU:


Autographing a stamp not only establishes you as the postmaster of the contract but constitutes a cross-claim. Using the stamp process on documents presents your adversaries with a problem because their jurisdiction is subordinate to that of the UPU, which you have now invoked for your benefit. The result in practice of doing this is that whenever those who know what you are doing are recipients of your documents with autographed stamps they back off. If they do not, take the matter to the US Postmaster to deal with. If he will not provide you with your remedy, take the matter to the UPU for them to clean up.

Use of a notary combined with the postage stamp (and sometime Embassy stamps) gives you a priority mechanism. Everything is commerce, and all commerce is contract. The master of the contract is the post office, and the UPU is the supreme overlord of the commerce, banking, and postal systems of the world. Use of these stamps in this manner gets the attention of those in the system to whom you provide your paperwork. It makes you the master of that post office. Use of the stamp is especially important when dealing with the major players, such as the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Treasury, etc. They understand the significance of what you are doing. Many times they hand documents back to someone using this approach and say, "Have a good day, sir." They don't want any untoward repercussions coming back on them.

I don't expect the affidavit to do magic. But it's certainly going to establish the record I've been keeping.

I was also able to obtain the judge's oath of office. The county recorder didn't have on file an oath for the city attorney. They suggested I check with the city clerk.

In looking at the judge's oath, it seems to be a valid oath: "I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution and laws of the State of XXXX, and the Charter, Ordinances and Laws of the City of XXXX, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of Municipal Judge for the City of XXXX, according to the best of my ability, so help me God (or so I do affirm)"

So, I can accept the judge's oath in an affidavit and hold him to his agreement on the record. I like the sound of that: "On the record." That's what David teaches.

I've read where matters such as this are most often settled in the validity expressed in the paperwork, or the written record. That's where I can excel. That the actual trial is often a formality. Although I hardly expect that in this case. But I'm going to do my best to establish a valid written record expressing the truth. We'll see whether the adversarial actors will honor their oaths. (I'll be preparing an allocution just in case.)

I've also read that filing a motion for discovery (since I haven't seen a verified complaint and have no idea yet what I'm supposed to be defending), getting the judge to grant it, and giving the prosecuting attorney a deadline like 10 days can be effective. When the prosecutor doesn't come up with valid discovery, the judge has no recourse but to dismiss.

All of this sounds fine in a fairy tale world where people have integrity and are honest. We'll see how it flys in the real world.

What made the difference was: I went back and carefully re-reading what David was suggesting at the outset of this inquiry, and it was all beginning to fall into place. I could see what I needed to do. I needed to get clear on what process I wanted to pursue. I also needed to calm down so that I could think straight. Once that occurred, I went about following David's suggestions as best I could.

There's one more thing I'm considering doing. I came across a private insurance bond for financial responsibility that I could swear out in an affidavit and record. If I entered that into the matter, maybe the judge might be a bit more accepting of my position. Only problem is, I'm not real happy about the way the affidavit is worded. I don't want to admit a connection between a legal fiction and true name. May need some help with the wording.

Any comments or clarifications will be appreciated.

Moxie
02-15-14, 05:33 AM
Anyone remember how this one turned out?

KnowLaw
02-21-14, 04:42 PM
Anyone remember how this one turned out?
Pretty much what happened, without going into all the detail, is what David posted as the last message in a similar thread over at suijurisforum.com (http://www.suijurisforum.com/post28374.html#p28374)

In other words:
I liked the example when the ex-Army Ranger became a new suitor amidst a traffic matter. During a preliminary hearing he just rode it out - whatever the judge wanted to do.

When they handed him the yellow slip - the Notice of the next hearing he wrote across it Refusal for Cause and walked it up to the bench saying, "Your presentment is hereby refused for cause timely and I am placing it on your bench."

The judge was speechless; "Well, uh... hmm... What am I supposed to do with this?"

The suitor left the courtroom and never heard another word about it. Ever!
I handed the judge his walking papers and never heard about the matter again.

If you'd like more detail about the process and how it is approached from a different angle than the one espoused here, you can go to Common Law Remedy (http://www.beattraffictickets.org/) and download a free report that will give you all the details about the approach I used.

Moxie
02-24-14, 04:27 AM
Cool story, thanks!