Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 63

Thread: Two traffic stops snubbed.

  1. #31
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,596
    Zec 5:1 Then I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a flying roll.

    Zec 5:2 And he said unto me, What seest thou? And I answered, I see a flying roll; the length thereof is twenty cubits, and the breadth thereof ten cubits.

    Zec 5:3 Then said he unto me, This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth: for every one that stealeth shall be cut off as on this side according to it; and every one that sweareth shall be cut off as on that side according to it.


    In my opinion: verse 3 describes to a tee the State as Trust. On one side we have those who take from the Trust without standing or possibly by endorsement of another Trust - Federal Reserve System - and on the other side we have the Trustee who is also unable to reach the trust corpus by Oath of office.
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 05-11-11 at 04:43 PM.
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    Lawful Money Trust Website

    Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
    Zec 5:1 Then I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a flying roll.

    Zec 5:2 And he said unto me, What seest thou? And I answered, I see a flying roll; the length thereof is twenty cubits, and the breadth thereof ten cubits.

    Zec 5:3 Then said he unto me, This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth: for every one that stealeth shall be cut off as on this side according to it; and every one that sweareth shall be cut off as on that side according to it.


    In my opinion: verse 3 describes to a tee the State as Trust. One one side we have those who take from the Trust without standing or possibly by endorsement of another Trust - Federal Reserve System - and on the other side we have the Trustee who is also unable to reach the trust corpus by Oath of office.


    Thank you! That is some amazing insight.

  3. #33
    Hey Colonel;

    We talked on the phone several weeks ago. I am the guy in Mississippi who beat the ticket.

    The recording of it became corrupted on the computer. I've been having a guy try to recover it. Might work later. If yes, I'll let you know.

    BUT, I wrote the transcript the next day. Here it is, exactly as it went down.

    Prelim remarks. I believe the reason it worked is simply because I did not plead along the way. In other words, I talked with the clerk on at least 2 occasions before the date to move the date, etc., and on each occasion, she tried to get me to state how I pled or would plea.

    Having gone to court and won on a wildlife charge and come to understand that "pleadings perfects jurisdiction," I had figured out the game. So, I fastidiously did NOT plead, and I made it abundantly clear to the clerk that although she is Christian and good person, she was, after all, an officer of the court and as such, she should, in no way, say or intimate to the 'judge' that I pled anything, and if she did, I was going to be very upset and sue her.

    So, in court, here's the transcript:

    judge: "So, Mr. File, are you here today to plead not guilty."

    Me: "Your Honor, I have not pled anything." (my way of saying have not, will not be doing it now because I know you do not have jurisdiction now unless I screw up and give it to you.)

    I waited 2 Mississippi:

    Me: "Your Honor, may I ask the Court a question?"

    judge: "Yes, you may."

    Me: "Do pleadings perfect jurisdiction?"

    Here, it was as though I farted in church on a wooden bench on the front row. Pussel-gutted prosecutor almost had a heart attack and started blurting out 'jurisdiction' stuff cause he had some more money to collect and they didn't see this coming.

    Judge was taken aback and blurted,...

    judge: "Yes."

    I waited 2 Mississippi:

    Me: "Therefore, your Honor, may I MOVE the court to dismiss the charges, immediately?"

    judge had his head down writing. He needed a story like the prosecutor did. He said,

    judge: "Yes, you may. The officer is not present anyway."

    Officer WAS present in street clothes. judge needed a story for the other people cause they were domestic charges and didn't have an officer. Reason I know that is because I listened to all the attorneys talking with them before. I just sat there with my head down like I was napping and listened so hard I could hear the mice in the damn wall. I had everybody pegged. Lambs to the damn slaughter for Fed Res Notes.

    10 seconds went by, maybe.

    judge said: "You are free to go, Mr. File. Have a nice day."

    I walked out through 5 attorneys and 2 police officers sporting 9 MM's and Tasers like I was Barac, 'Insane,' Obama.

    Whole thing took less than 30 words from me. Saved me $168 Federal Res Notes.

    You and I already talked about the procedure problems I set up on them using these words and getting the question before the court, first.

    He had to address the question. If he didn't, I'd get it on the record and beat, and embarass him on appeal as the record is all that matters on appeal unless, of course, well, no matter right now.

    The thing that made me figure it this way is I heard an attorney on the radio the day after my Fed Court Wildlife thing talking about pleadings. He was showing out and didn't even know what he said. He go broke lawyering if he practiced what he preached because no court, save a victim case of murder or rape, could get one of his clients into jurisdiction.

    Hence, the Bar would sanction me if I were


    judge: "So, Mr. File, are you here today to plead not guilty."

    Me: "Your Honor, I have not pled anything." (my way of saying have not, will not be doing it now because I know you do not have jurisdiction now unless I screw up and give it to you.)






    If that " person " "APPEARED" before the Court, they now had PERSONAM JURISDICTION

    look it up

    why do you think they call them " APPEARANCE TICKETS "

    BETTER CALLED " self arrest warrants "

    I am soooo tired of reading this crap
    Last edited by Binbokusai Yagyuu; 01-19-12 at 10:09 PM.

  4. #34
    No arraignment. I like that!


    But there is something fascinating in your style. Instead of saying that, No, I am not here to plead. What you did is point out that you had not plead.

    You actually threatened to sue the clerk of court if she plead for you? I think you are a genius. - Or maybe dyslexic...
    Last edited by David Merrill; 01-20-12 at 01:21 AM.

  5. #35
    [QUOTE=David Merrill;6212

    You actually threatened to sue the clerk of court if she plead for you? ..[/QUOTE]




    actually, it calls for a Criminal Complaint, for Tampering with the Record

    nonetheless, by "appearing", our supposed friend has started the Machine... next will be the Judge entering a guilty plea, and an FTA

    learn how the System works ...

  6. #36
    § 150.10 Appearance ticket; definition, form and content.
    1. An appearance ticket is a written notice issued and subscribed by a
    police officer or other public servant authorized by state law or local
    law enacted pursuant to the provisions of the municipal home rule law to
    issue the same, directing a designated person to appear in a designated
    local criminal court at a designated future time in connection with his
    alleged commission of a designated offense. A notice conforming to such
    definition constitutes an appearance ticket
    regardless of whether it is
    referred to in some other provision of law as a summons or by any other
    name or title.
    2. When an appearance ticket as defined in subdivision one of this
    section is issued to a person in conjunction with an offense charged in
    a simplified information, said appearance ticket shall contain the
    language, set forth in subdivision four of section 100.25, notifying the
    defendant of his right to receive a supporting deposition. § 340.10 Definition of terms.
    The following definitions are applicable to this title:
    1. "Information," in addition to its meaning as defined in
    subdivision one of section 100.10, includes (a) a simplified information
    and (b) a prosecutor's information and (c) a misdemeanor complaint upon
    which the defendant, by a waiver executed pursuant to subdivision three
    of section 170.65, has consented to be prosecuted.

    2. "Single judge trial" means a trial in a local criminal court
    conducted by one judge sitting without a jury.
    3. "Jury trial" means a trial in a local criminal court conducted by
    one judge sitting with a jury. § 170.65 Replacement of misdemeanor complaint by information and waiver
    thereof.
    1. A defendant against whom a misdemeanor complaint is pending is not
    required to enter a plea thereto. For purposes of prosecution, such
    instrument must, except as provided in subdivision three, be replaced by
    an information, and the defendant must be arraigned thereon. If the
    misdemeanor complaint is supplemented by a supporting deposition and
    such instruments taken together satisfy the requirements for a valid
    information, such misdemeanor complaint is deemed to have been converted
    to and to constitute a replacing information.
    2. An information which replaces a misdemeanor complaint need not
    charge the same offense or offenses, but at least one count thereof must
    charge the commission by the defendant of an offense based upon conduct
    which was the subject of the misdemeanor complaint. In addition, the
    information may, subject to the rules of joinder, charge any other
    offense which the factual allegations thereof or of any supporting
    depositions accompanying it are legally sufficient to support, even
    though such offense is not based upon conduct which was the subject of
    the misdemeanor complaint.
    3. A defendant who has been arraigned upon a misdemeanor complaint
    may waive prosecution by information and consent to be prosecuted upon
    the misdemeanor complaint. In such case, the defendant must be
    required, either upon the date of the waiver or subsequent thereto, to
    enter a plea to the misdemeanor complaint.
    Last edited by Binbokusai Yagyuu; 01-20-12 at 12:35 PM.

  7. #37
    This is what you are referring to concerning giving the Court jurisdiction. This is from the great State of Georgia but it spells it out nicely.
    TITLE 17. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    CHAPTER 7. PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS
    ARTICLE 5. ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEAS GENERALLY

    O.C.G.A. § 17-7-94 (2011)

    § 17-7-94. Recordation and effect of plea of "not guilty" or of standing mute


    If the person accused of committing a crime, upon being arraigned, pleads "not guilty" or stands mute, the clerk shall immediately record upon the minutes of the court the plea of "not guilty," together with the arraignment; and the arraignment and plea shall constitute the issue between the accused and the state.


    HISTORY: Laws 1833, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 834; Code 1863, § 4525; Code 1868, § 4544; Code 1873, § 4638; Code 1882, § 4638; Penal Code 1895, § 947; Penal Code 1910, § 972; Code 1933, § 27-1405.
    The arraignment and plea [together] shall constitute the issue between the accused and the state.

    Appearance perfects the process i.e paperwork. Any errors in the process are made perfect by ones appearance. What is needed is an abatement. An abatement is not a challenge to the Court, it is a notice to the Court that there are errors in the process.

    Long story short. An abatement informs the Court "Fix the errors in the process [paperwork] and I will show."
    Last edited by Shuftin; 01-20-12 at 06:34 AM.

  8. #38
    The style BY used is unbelievably simple. It strikes me like the §508 church. If you mention §508 then you are not the exeption to §501(C)(3). You simply must be without registering an appearance. The problem being that you cannot gather much of a congregation without giving people that money in tax-exemptions and more a problem, if even one of the congregants tries to get the exemption on a 1040 Form, naming your true church, or the Good Church as one suitor coins, that disqualifies the entire exception. Look at §508(C)(1)(a).

    BY simply pointed out that he had not yet plead. Genius!
    Last edited by David Merrill; 01-20-12 at 11:37 AM.

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Shuftin View Post
    This is what you are referring to concerning giving the Court jurisdiction. .

    Appearance perfects the process i.e paperwork. Any errors in the process are made perfect by ones appearance.

    Thank You, brother Steve, for helping to make my point ...

  10. #40
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    Is there a meaningful and/or consequential difference between:

    "I have not plead anything"

    and

    "I am not here to plead"


    Also, wouldn't, "I have not yet plead" be contrued as having an intent to plead in the future?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •