Another trick courts are using re: R4C

[shikamaru]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.