David, I'm not following you here. What is it you are trying to communicate: "...is all that is in the folder!"?Originally Posted by David Merrill
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?
This would be the local clerk, probably county for traffic. All that was in the case file was the certified copy of the R4C. Nothing else.
I have a question for anyone who has been through this recently and has personal experience with visiting a municipal court to present your R4C.
Because of the way in which the court obtained "a response" from a presumed "fiduciary trust," I'm trying to figure out if traffic courts are now approaching this in a different way in order to catch more victims. Or whether they will recognize a R4C no matter what once it is presented.
The first time I went through this three years ago, it was a county Justice court that received the citation. At that time, once I learn that the citation was on the court docket, I went to the Justice court and entered a copy of the refusal along with the Cert. of Mailing into the case file. The clerk at the desk accepted it without problem.
This time, it is a city municipal court that is involved. I went to enter my copy of the R4C and Cert. of Mailing into the file, but the clerk would not accept it. Said that I had to file these with the "judge" on the day the court date was set. I'm presuming, at that time, they want to give the "judge" a chance to contract with me again.
I'm also assuming that as long as I stay on purpose: "I'm here by special visitation, Rule E(8), to make sure the plaintiff is not defrauding the court; I would like to tender a copy of this refused for cause presentment to the bench please..." and then shut up that I should be okay.
Does anyone here see a problem with this?
The reason I'm asking is: I don't trust courts of no record, and I'm not sure if they've devised a scheme to overcome R4C (i.e. other than what I've suggested above).
Please carry an audio recorder and don't get beat up over a traffic ticket. The home rule judiciary is actually of a higher authority than the county/state. I am learning how to explain this over the last couple days from a new experience. I identify with METRO organization though UN combinatorial mathematics - WSA ID and Passport. World Services Authority presumes UN charter law.
Look here though:
[IMG]www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Resignation.gif[/IMG]
That is something to contemplate; that municipal home rule is the next stage of self-governance that constitutions are drafted to create and protect.
My heritage is in METRO organization. I was drafting a coram vobis the other day and ending it with a Delegation of Authority - Bond. My first draft I was explaining how I had the authority in my estate - perpetual inheritance - to pass this to the suitor. Then it dawned on me to use Article XX instead and write myself out of the process as priest.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Thanks David.
Yes. The officer who issued the citation seemed convinced that his homey (attorney in black robe) could overcome what the county justice court was not able to. I'm unconvinced about this as a R4C stands as incontrovertible if not properly rebutted. It's all in the paperwork the "judge" has before him. I'm going by what you have previously written: "All that judge is doing is finding facts, or guiding a jury to. So establish all the facts around your R4C."
I made the mistake of consenting to contact when the officer came up to the window. I was interested in gathering intelligence, to see if certain approaches would deter the LEO. Last time I do that! Went through the whole not traveling in commerce response. Officer was unconvinced; thought he had another victim. Then explained that I had already been to court about this matter and the matter had been dismissed. Showed him a document setting the previous court date and a copy of the refusal of that citation. Looking back in retrospect, there were better actions I could have taken, starting with not consenting to the contact in the first place. And then questioning the officer and not responding to any of his questions.
What I was asking about in the post of mine you referenced was any tips on handling the "restricted appearance" so that I could have straight in my mind what I needed to accomplish. Do this, don't do that; step by step advice about what I needed to be aware of. I came across some very good information while tooling around on this site, and would like to recommend it to anyone else who might be caught up in a similar matter. The thread is listed below along with the document download links to the information. Much thanks to EZrhythm for posting this. Excellent examples to learn from.
No Verified Complaint
Testimony - George's Wife - Charging Inst..doc
File Type: doc Testimony - George - Verified Complaint.doc
The information in these two docs doesn't presume presenting a R4C, but rather a more difficult situation wherein R4C was not used, and you have to challenge jurisdiction before a hostile traffic court "judge." What are the things you need to watch out for when confronting the court, what pitfalls can you fall into and how to avoid them, and how can you get your points across without entering into their jurisdiction. The tips in these two Word documents are priceless. They show you how to hold the public official accountable to the constitution and due process. This is the kind of information I was looking for when I asked my question.
After researching my situation more (and going on previous experience when facing "the system"), I realized that standing mute after presenting the R4C to the court was the paramount thing I had to keep in mind (and not responding to any of the babble coming out of the "attorney in black robe"). No testimony, no contract. And make your stand for however long it takes for the "judge" to realize you're not going to fall for his ruse.
Keep the procedure simple:
When name is called, answer: "No sir. I am First Middle here by Restricted Appearance only, to challenge jurisdiction. I am not here to testify, nor to plead, and I do not swear oaths. I would like to tender a copy of this refused for cause presentment to the bench please...to prevent fraud upon this court." Then STAND MUTE!
If the judge asks anything not having to do with the R4C, THEN remind the ?judge? that you are here by Restricted Appearance, to challenge Jurisdiction ONLY, and to please stay on point!
Only if it becomes apparent that you have made a mistake and ventured into jurisdiction, say ? "I accept Your Flag, your Oath and your Bond as affirmations, declaring that You are Under Penalty of Perjury." Then attempt to recuse the "judge," and ask for a hearing in Court of Record.
If anyone can see anything that can be added or subtracted from the above, please speak up.
I just came out of the "restricted appearance" on this traffic citation and certain things transpired that I'm endeavoring to figure out. I need a bit of assistance with this so that I can keep this matter on track, if that's possible. They run you through these processes so quickly that you don't have time to figure out what just occurred. So I took a fall back and regroup approach. I think I've figured out parts of what occurred, but would appreciate any helpful comments which might help to clarify and suggest how to proceed from here.
When I entered the court waiting room, one of the officers had me look at a Notice they wanted read and signed, entitled "Municipal Court of the City of XXXX, Notice as to arraignment, pretrials, trials and sentences." Along with this Notice there was a document they wanted signed that stated that the person acknowledges that they have read the Notice and by signing acknowledges having received a copy of that document. And then it stated in parenthesis: "(DON'T SIGN IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.)" I told the officer that I had questions for the judge and declined to sign this.
There was another court document they wanted me to sign (but they didn't give me a copy of that so I don't recall the exact heading of that document). It had something to do with admitting jurisdiction, and of course I refused to sign that also.
The "judge" called the name, I stood up slowly and announced at the gate: "No sir. I am First Middle here by Restricted Appearance only, to challenge jurisdiction. I am not here to testify, nor to plead, and I do not swear oaths. What you have is abandoned paper. Under the common law right of avoidance in this matter I would like to tender a copy of this refused for cause presentment to the bench please...to prevent fraud upon this court." The judge went wide-eyed, in surprise.
I didn't cross the gate to the bar as asked by the "judge." So he sent a court officer (this is municipal court, so they don't have a bailiff) over to escort me to the bar, to which I replied when the officer motioned me to step through the gate: "I object. I'm doing this under protest." And then proceeded to the table to which he directed me.
When I offered my refusal and certificate of mailing to the judge, he motioned to his court officer not to take it. He then proceeded to read a state statute (13-2810) entitled: "Interfering with judicial proceedings; classification." This, according to the judge, was supposed to be his justification for obtaining jurisdiction.
It read: "A. A person commits interfering with judicial proceedings if such person knowingly]:
"1. Engages in disorderly, disrespectful or insolent behavior during the session of a court which directly tends to interrupt its proceedings or impairs the respect due to his authority; or
"2. Disobeys or resists the lawful order, process or other mandate of a court; or
"3. Refuses to be sworn or affirmed as a witness in any court proceeding; or
"4. Publishes a false or grossly inaccurate report of a court proceeding; or
"5. Refuses to serve as a juror unless exempted by law; or
"6. Fails inexcusably to attend a trial at which he has been chosen to serve as a juror.
"B. Interfering with judicial proceedings is a class 1 misdemeanor."
Not quite understanding what was going on, yet understanding that the statute was never proven to apply to me just because it was read to me, I did what others have suggested to do and stood mute. I'm never quite sure (in the heat of the moment) when I can reply without admitting to the jurisdiction, which is why I stood mute. I can, in hindsight, see where I might have said, had I realized what was taking place: "Without admitting jurisdiction, does the plaintiff or prosecuting attorney [neither of which were present in court] have court admissable evidence that this statute applies to me, First Middle?"
After this pronoucement from the judge and my failure to respond, I continued to state for the record that I was here under restricted appearance to challenge jurisdiction and that I wanted to submit my papers to prevent fraud upon the court. The judge then accepted the paperwork I wanted to submit, saying "Yes, we'll put this paperwork into the file." He said it almost as though he had gotten what he wanted from the interaction. My consent through not objecting! Can this be challenged?
At this point, the judge announced and then wrote up an Order to appoint an attorney for my person, to which I objected on and for the record. The judge overruled the objection and kept writing. He did acknowledge my objection (supposedly on the record; although I doubt it). The "Order Regarding Counsel" document states: "Good cause appearing, the court enters the following orders: Counsel appointed - Defendant is given court-appointed counsel. The court clerk shall provide defendant with a card/notice with the attorney's name, address and telephone number. If the defendant fails to contact attorney and stay in contact with said attorney or fails to appear in court as needed, a warrant for defendant's arrest may be issued." When handed this document, I refused to sign. The court officer put in place of the signature: "Refused to sign dAF# 1991." I'm not sure what this signifies!
The judge then went to another form titled: "Determination of release Conditions and Release Order." This read: "It is ordered that Defendant be released, provided that he comply with the 'Standard Contitions of Release' and all other conditions checked below. If released, Defendant shall appear as indicated: Date XX-XX-XX Time: 2:00 pm Location: Municipal Court." The boxes for "Trial" and "Other, w/ Atty John Smith" (the name of the attorney being appointed) were checked.
Following this, a boilerplate section stated: "During the pendency of this case Defendant will:
"1. Appear to answer and submit himself to all further orders and processes of the court having jurisdiction in this case;
"2. Not commit any criminal offense;
"3. Notify the Court of any change of address and not leave the state without permission of the Court; and
"4. If released during an appeal, prosecute the appeal with due diligence.
"5. Defendant has an obligation to remain in contact with the Court and Defendant's attorney during the pendency of this case."
Two additional boxes were checked:
"The Court finds that it is not necessary to impose additional conditions to assure Defendant's appearance as required.
"The Defendant is not to drive without a valid driver's license."
The document was dated, and this document I signed as follows: "without prejudice" above the line for the defendant to sign, on which was written "Non assumpsit." The judge wrote in the margin "refused to sign" and initialed it. That was basically the end of the proceeding.
At this point I'm thinking that I need to accept this this judge's oath, declaring him under penalty of perjury, and disqualify him for cause, and demand a hearing in a judicial court of record. Not quite sure how to go about doing this, though! It may be too late for this?
I've been reading Bill Thornton's material where he states that: "It is a matter of right that one may demand to be tried in a court of record. By sheer definition, that means that the court must proceed according to the common law (not the statutory law). The only way that a court can suspend that right is by the prior agreement of the parties."
I'm not exactly certain what actions need to take place in order to do this. Whether I need to write up an affidavit and submit it or what. If you need to ask more questions for further clarification, please ask and I will answer to the best of my recollection.
I have a couple of questions of my own:
1. Did I error in not saying anything (objecting) as the judge was reading the statute in order to assert jurisdiction? This seems to me where I likely made an egregious error. Yet if I did, can it be fixed?
2. Assuming I just screwed myself by consenting to jurisdiction, is there a way to appeal this in a court of record? Or some other way to handle it?
3. Can my objection at the bar gate be used to override these whole proceedings, since this objection occurred prior to the judge's shenanigans? Can this be stated in an affidavit and used to override everything that went after it?
At the moment, I've got a real sinking feeling. I'm hoping someone here can help me to correct that!
I should not speak for William THORNTON just because I have seen him lecture. What I am saying is that he would not disagree with the statute-described definition.
Look at the Colorado Constitution though:ANNOTATION
The acts of a court of record are known by its records. Judicial records are not only necessary but indispensable to the administration of justice. The court judgments can be evidenced only by its records. The acts of a court of record are known by its records alone and cannot be established by parol testimony. The court speaks only through its records, and the judge speaks only through the court. Herren v. People, 147 Colo. 442, 363 P.2d 1044 (1961).
But you saw in the statutes:Section 23. Trial by jury - grand jury. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate in criminal cases; but a jury in civil cases in all courts, or in criminal cases in courts not of record, may consist of less than twelve persons, as may be prescribed by law. Hereafter a grand jury shall consist of twelve persons, any nine of whom concurring may find an indictment; provided, the general assembly may change, regulate or abolish the grand jury system; and provided, further, the right of any person to serve on any jury shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex, and the general assembly may provide by law for the exemption from jury service of persons or classes of persons.
TITLE 13. COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE
COURTS OF RECORD
ARTICLE 1.GENERAL PROVISIONS
PART 1. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
C.R.S. 13-1-111 (2012)
13-1-111. Courts of record
(1) Each of the following courts shall have a seal and shall be a court of record:
(a) The supreme court;
(b) The district courts;
(c) The county courts;
(d) The juvenile court in the city and county of Denver;
(e) The probate court in the city and county of Denver;
(f) Any court established by law and expressly denominated a court of record;
(g) Repealed.
(h) The court of appeals.
Therefore a traffic trial in front of a jury of six is a court not of record, with no authority except what you have granted by letting it get that far.
I hope you are starting to get clear of the sinking feeling.
If you become the court of record then start keeping a record of the judge's and prosecutor's oaths of office - the DA too. Know the bill of rights and put them on notice in open court that they cannot proceed as a court not of record. If it was here then that means the judge would have to set a panel of twelve and of course his oath would be in the record etc. If you know the Bills of Rights then mind his "p"s and "q"s for him. As soon as he has violated your rights tell him the deal is off. If he insists on proceeding then let him know what you charge for such a performance if he forces you to be an actor.
A lien is not the way to go for you though, from what I have read above. You will likely end up in prison unless you can get your mind wrapped around record forming.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Last edited by David Merrill; 09-12-12 at 12:59 AM.
The local court - typically the county court where they hear traffic matters. Maybe municipal court. The USDC case file will have all the suitor's R4C's in it.
So what you're saying (and Treefarmer, too) is that I need to open up a counterclaim in the USDC using the Libel of Review.
What about all these other things you've been recommending? Are they still important; or is the LoR the most important piece of the puzzle to get these "gangstas" off my back? (Please excuse my slowness.)
I'll be working at getting the oaths of office next. Or maybe searching out the district court in this area to file the LoR.
Last edited by KnowLaw; 09-19-12 at 03:40 AM.
Jethro too;
The Libel of Review (LoR) is dismissed out leaving you with an evidence repository wherein you build your Record. In this case with KnowLaw there will be some kind of flaw in the oaths of office (almost certainly). So you get that into the record and serve a certified copy on the local court. There will be likely then a bunch of obvious loopholes in process indicating that the prosecution has become voluntary. Of course if you cannot see them, and you do not understand arraignment and some of the other things we have spoken of here then you will perfect jurisdiction around you anyway.
The LoR does a lot more than set up an evidence repository.
Here is some Crosstalk between echo chambers:
That is a lot of trust law and the experience of a Libel of Review several years ago. That is what you are hearing. That kind of understanding enables one to speak to officials in a manner they not only understand but appreciate.What pray tell does a LoR do for me? It gives me cognizance of the United States Trust - prior to [1789] the Corporation and its Persons - created - Under its SEAL.
IT IS ALL VOLUNTARY - where do you place your trust? Be sure to vote - indictments are based on evidence - registration. Registration of Trust. For the Settlor is Sovereign and liable internationally to other States regarding its domestic affairs; therefore, the Settlor keeps books in regard to the acts of its Persons - it is called a Register of Deeds.
Peaceful inhabitant. Heir to the original estate.
Last edited by David Merrill; 09-20-12 at 02:27 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote