Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 51

Thread: Another trick courts are using re: R4C

  1. #1

    Another trick courts are using re: R4C

    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.
    Last edited by KnowLaw; 08-14-12 at 08:31 PM. Reason: clarification

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by KnowLaw View Post
    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.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by KnowLaw
    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.

  4. #4

    Counterclaim and cross claim

    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.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by shikamaru View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by KnowLaw View Post
    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.

  7. #7

    Holding officers accountable

    Quote Originally Posted by shikamaru View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Thanks for sharing that!


    Quote Originally Posted by KnowLaw View Post
    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.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 08-07-12 at 09:25 AM.

  9. #9
    "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/administra...ontentId=16366

    That's going back to here: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...n-not-required
    Last edited by Chex; 08-07-12 at 11:47 AM.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    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?

Posting Permissions

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