Some thoughts about your reply
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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnowLaw
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnowLaw
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnowLaw
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.