Prosecutions WITHOUT an Actual Injured Party are a SHAM

Any prosecuted statute, code, infraction, misdemeanor, felony, etc. to which there is NO competent fact witness who has been injured is a sham. The citing officer nor the district/prosecuting attorney can be the competent fact witness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFNdUeCAZa0

Statements of counsel, in their briefs or their arguments are not sufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.

Actual facts not mere allegations of complaint are determinative of issue of jurisdiction.
If there is no witness there are no facts, if there are no facts there is no jurisdiction.

The narrator in the video doesn't provide good examples but one may insert;
...didn't come to a complete stop.
...was fishing without a license.
...didn't file income tax returns, etc.

With Regards to Trinsey v. Pagliaro Good reference; great point EZrhythm, who doesn’t love earth shaking Supreme Court sit down and shut up statements, (facts).

The state and annotated statutes.

so if I understand this correctly, only the injured party can be a "competent witness"? In other words lets say for example you get pulled over for speeding. The "complaining witness" who is the cop who pulled you over is not a competent witness because he was not injured by how fast you were driving?

That is correct! In fact he is acting as a foreign third party agent.

hmm interesting, I actually bring this up because I have to fight a couple of tickets next month and was looking for opinions on procedure. Normally I have gone before the bench and asked the court clerk to tell the judge that I am making "a reservation of my rights before the court" to which the clerk usually looks at you like you have three heads but has not been met with resistance by the judge. In fact my brother beat a $400 speeding ticket using this approach in which the cop never showed up to testify (wonder if they warn them ahead of time about stuff like this). anyway after doing that I want to follow up with "and ask this court to produce a competent witness"? or should I use the term injured party?

Do not plead to anything. When called ask the judge if pleadings perfect jurisdiction? If and when he says yes motion for dismissal.

See: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...ge1304915/pg50

about a quarter of the way down the page.

interesting as this has almost been revealed in court when they deal with the most ignorant of all people, non english speaking immigrants who don't understand the process or what is being asked of them. It usually leads the judge to have to explain that without a plea they can't proceed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllanNR

...or should I use the term injured party?

---

I posted a method under Success Stories; http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...=3947#post3947

I noticed something interesting about the "tickets" the cop gave me, the court date says 8-14, which falls on a sunday. I dont think they normally screw up like that, could something be up there?

Citations usually state that one promises to appear on or BEFORE the date indicated. If one wanted to appear before a judge then the court would schedule a new date for when the court would be in session.

A Notice to Appear may also be responded to by "Special Appearance" and demurrer through the mail. I know of instances where people have sent in jurisdiction questions or a Conditional Acceptance and the replies from the court are always "non-responsive".

what do you mean by "non-responsive"?

EZ ...
.. must you be awesome all of the time :)?

Keep bringing the funk, my man.

I humbly accept your offer to keep bringing the awesome funk but it's not me who is awesome, it is the Father in heaven who comes through all the way everyday.

Non-responsive is a term that means although a question is answered or a statement is made, the reply doesn't actually answer any of questions, some of the questions or doesn't answer the questions completely.
During witness testimony a party directing the questions may be heard stating, "Objection, the answer is non-responsive."
A court may send a reply to a Conditional Acceptance with a whole lot of words that further attempt to coerce a favorable response to their demands but is non-responsive just the same. At that point the court (Corporation) is in dishonor in the matter and the only obligation on one's part is to send a Notice of Non-response.
In commerce the one who leaves the battlefield first, defaults/loses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EZrhythm

I humbly accept your offer to keep bringing the awesome funk but it's not me who is awesome, it is the Father in heaven who comes through all the way everyday.

Non-responsive is a term that means although a question is answered or a statement is made, the reply doesn't actually answer any of questions, some of the questions or doesn't answer the questions completely.
During witness testimony a party directing the questions may be heard stating, "Objection, the answer is non-responsive."
A court may send a reply to a Conditional Acceptance with a whole lot of words that further attempt to coerce a favorable response to their demands but is non-responsive just the same. At that point the court (Corporation) is in dishonor in the matter and the only obligation on one's part is to send a Notice of Non-response.
In commerce the one who leaves the battlefield first, defaults/loses.

---

So, I"ve been going back and forth with a judge via snail mail, he says what I sent him for payment (an a4v since all money is debt, no lawful way to pay!) he says that it has no basis in law or fact and so is that non responsive? I sent another one with fact for him on why my instrument had basis and he wrote back that I was "complaining" of no way to pay that has no basis in fact or law. Can I respond with a notice of non response? and if so how to do that? OR do I write and say that there is no injured party and insert case law? and if so how and what case law or could you please direct me on that? Thank you so much in advance as the revenue generators are trying to get over 500 bux from me and husband is on unemployment and when I didn't have insurance they have no proof I was on the road or that I did anything wrong (which I didn't!)

I believe the only thing you can accept for value has to have value. Most of the dogma around A4V seems to me that it supposes an account of some kind that you can draw upon like a checking account. Proving that account exists from a mere registry - like a birth certificate - is likely folly.

Oaths of office though, properly subscribed in correct form, published at the correct clerk are bonds but only have value if the judicial officer violates the constitutions or law. One likely angle would be that he has a fault in his oath; around here it is swearing without the name of God.

So get a look at your state constitution. Most likely this county judge has to have his oath published at the county clerk and recorder. For a couple bucks go get that. Somebody came across an new confirmation just yesterday. Look through these:

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/6332/formofoath.jpg
http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/5...ffirmation.pdf Yesterday's Find
http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/1...ffirmation.jpg

See what is happening there? If one swears, they must mention the Witness - God. This aligns up with the bond on you. - Your driver license. Here that is a $250 bond indicated by a fellow who challenged jurisdiction. He got notice he had a warrant and went in to find that he needed to post a $250 bail bond. The magistrate determined he was a Patriot Sovereign etc. and that the state's driver license card might be worthless to him. So they hit him for $250 cash instead.

That $250 bail bond carries the Name of the Trust - IN GOD WE TRUST. Look on the Bills indicting the US through the Fed. Bills of Indictment. Therefore the judicial officer must be tied into the same Trust and bonding system. I swear by the ever-living God...

Now people and officers can solemnly affirm instead but that just defers to somebody up the line who has sworn. In other words Dan MAY might solemnly affirm and leave off the name of God, as DA because he is under John William SUTHERS.

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/8...ydaoathsos.jpg



http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/6...lefidelity.jpg

Look closely though. Dan MAY is running a vacant office because he swears but without the Authority of the Witness - God.

This fellow Dan PETERSEN developed early (before James Timothy TURNER anyway) negative averment liens against public officials who had no oaths at all but I do not know how directly those instruments played to him spending his life since in prison.



Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. Go get this judge's oath of office and show it to us please.

do I have to go to court or can I respond by letter? if yes, is there a template?

thanks in advance
Tara

Yeah, I'm not looking to do bonds or whatever...! Just wanting to hang onto my FRN's and not give them to revenue generators. Would prefer to stay out of court, so am wanting a letter to respond to judge. Is there a template, do you know or can I just write: Dear Sir (not honorable judge) There is no injured party in this regard, nor a competent witness. Trinsey V. Pagliaro D.C. Pa. 1964 229 F. Supp. 647. Please dismiss this complaint. thank you Tara ................? Thanks for your help

The People of the State of XXXXXXX have been injured and are represented by the Attorney General and his agent the District Attorney.

If you read my posts again, what I suggested is that your Acceptance for Value is without law because there is no bond. Go get his oath of office and if there is a flaw then you have a cause to end this. Also get the District Attorney's oath but that will likely be available from the Secretary of State - not being county. I am making assumptions so look at your state constitution for the details about the oath.

If there is a flaw in either oath - this form might get his attention. You are being prosecuted from a vacant office - maybe extortion or conspiracy - (look in Title 18 for crimes).

You have to find something that has the substance of law. That sounds like what the judge is saying; He sees no law behind your A4V argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I believe the only thing you can accept for value has to have value. Most of the dogma around A4V seems to me that it supposes an account of some kind that you can draw upon like a checking account. Proving that account exists from a mere registry - like a birth certificate - is likely folly.

Oaths of office though, properly subscribed in correct form, published at the correct clerk are bonds but only have value if the judicial officer violates the constitutions or law. One likely angle would be that he has a fault in his oath; around here it is swearing without the name of God.

So get a look at your state constitution. Most likely this county judge has to have his oath published at the county clerk and recorder. For a couple bucks go get that. Somebody came across an new confirmation just yesterday. Look through these:

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/6332/formofoath.jpg
http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/5...ffirmation.pdf Yesterday's Find
http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/1...ffirmation.jpg

See what is happening there? If one swears, they must mention the Witness - God. This aligns up with the bond on you. - Your driver license. Here that is a $250 bond indicated by a fellow who challenged jurisdiction. He got notice he had a warrant and went in to find that he needed to post a $250 bail bond. The magistrate determined he was a Patriot Sovereign etc. and that the state's driver license card might be worthless to him. So they hit him for $250 cash instead.

That $250 bail bond carries the Name of the Trust - IN GOD WE TRUST. Look on the Bills indicting the US through the Fed. Bills of Indictment. Therefore the judicial officer must be tied into the same Trust and bonding system. I swear by the ever-living God...

Now people and officers can solemnly affirm instead but that just defers to somebody up the line who has sworn. In other words Dan MAY might solemnly affirm and leave off the name of God, as DA because he is under John William SUTHERS.

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/8...ydaoathsos.jpg



http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/6...lefidelity.jpg

Look closely though. Dan MAY is running a vacant office because he swears but without the Authority of the Witness - God.

This fellow Dan PETERSEN developed early (before James Timothy TURNER anyway) negative averment liens against public officials who had no oaths at all but I do not know how directly those instruments played to him spending his life since in prison.



Regards,

David Merrill.

---

Does the Constitution mandate that every judge swear to the everliving God or speak "So help me God" rather than affirm without a punishing authority? The DA who affirmed may be under the judge who swore, but what of a judge who affirms; who is he/she under?

If the answer is no one, then the Constitutional mandate regarding oaths is supreme law in that vain meaning ANY judge who does NOT swear is running a vacant office; no higher punishing authority exists for that office of trust.

Is this correct?

Let's see the oath of the supreme court judge swore in Dan MAY?

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/8...ydaoathsos.jpg

That is not exactly what you are after but maybe if I look in my Oaths directory I can put something together... Nope! The only affirmation I have is old and from administered by the old chief judge. I don't have his oath.

The way I am understanding it, by all research at this point, any affirmation must be deferring to a judge who has been sworn in by swearing. That allows for your hypothesis but does not confirm it.

P.S. Hey!!

I just looked at that Oath of Office. He signed before a Notary. Fine. But the other day I learned about Notaries administering oaths! See how that agrees with Colorado Statute?

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/6332/formofoath.jpg


http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/1...ffirmation.jpg

It looks like the Notary has mis-administered. Dan MAY was allowed to swear but not by any Witness - the ever-living God.