Another trick courts are using re: R4C

[David Merrill]

(Continued from above)

It says in the Court Survival Guide about this: "Immediately Motion for Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, as soon as they try to dance around it. If the judge doesn't dismiss the case now, then Object, or Recuse (dismiss) the Judge for obvious bias against you, and place him/her on notice of your intent to Appeal his/her judicial error. This is their mistake for sure." That is, recuse the judge and demand a hearing in a judicial court of record. So I guess that answers my question about what to do if the judge tries to wiggle out of dismissing the case.

Thank you for any information you may be able to provide.

I have never read the Court Survival Guide and do not even have an unread copy in my library.

One thing I note though is that most of these manuals do not consider that the judge considers you a willing actor and as such he has full jurisdiction until things are proven otherwise.

A court-martial always has jurisdiction to determine whether it has jurisdiction...

So is the condition of the ongoing Emergency still manifest in the economy. Page 1. Page 2.

A practical way to view the same scenario is that the judge is preparing you for your day in court. It is only after conviction (or under oath on the stand) that the court will be hearing from you. Until then all the judge hears is your attorney. It is called allocution.

See that? Entered into the record.

If you want my advice though, plead out and pay up. All this about record forming and being the court of record is something to have between your ears before you get into this kind of trouble. If you got into an accident and broke a little kid's arm could you be responsible? That is key to being competent.

The Suitors I speak of here mostly have driver licenses that they sign "First Middle" complete with registration (no tax) and insurance. The others who drive have a bond (they are wealthy). Suitors are competent and that is synonymous with responsible.

Mainly though you can teach yourself the proper redemption model of Jesus CHRIST by making your demand for lawful money. That can teach you to wrap your mind around remedy (redemption).

[Michael Joseph]

Speaking of tricks. A friend of mine showed me THIS today.

I heard recently that the CEO of Starbucks is pushing towards no cash policy. It won't be too long before the clerk is looking for your DL - and oh by the way, can you give me your SSN before I refill that cup. Just sign here.

Conditioning 101. Its Convenient.

[David Merrill]

Speaking of tricks. A friend of mine showed me THIS today.

I heard recently that the CEO of Starbucks is pushing towards no cash policy. It won't be too long before the clerk is looking for your DL - and oh by the way, can you give me your SSN before I refill that cup. Just sign here.

Conditioning 101. Its Convenient.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully?

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than

May I serve that with a Criminal Complaint?

[KnowLaw]

I just received an envelope from the law office of the appointed attorney. I'm not opening it. Depending on the ideas I express as you read throughout the rest of this reply, would you concur that I should refuse it as "Return to Sender improperly addressed." It's addressed to First, Middle Initial, Last name. Just checking, really. It's an offer to contract. If they try to force it on me, I'll use your suggestion: "My fee is half a million dollars if you want me to act in that capacity." Counter offer!

Might this affidavit [of Administrative Notice] be used in this instance as a prior "notice to principal is notice to agent" type thing where the gov't agencies were legally put on notice about this matter? A copy of the affidavit is attached. (Sorry for the wordpad text file; system wouldn't allow rich text format.) I ask this because of the following, which I found in my research:

Possibly. What I see is that you are getting your mind wrapped around record forming. Get it into the Record of the muni court. It should show that it is in the record of the Administrative Agency you mentioned though - marked by them and returned or have a certificate of mailing etc.

Yes, I have a certificate of mailing for that affidavit sent to the agencies from four years ago of which I will need to get a certified copy made so that I can preserve the original for future use.

I'm still needing some input on this as I'm thinking of possibly entering this document (Affidavit of Administrative Notice) at a certain stage in the proceedings in order to have the judge (after I have accepted his oath) sign an Order of the court testifying to the court's recognition of the validity of this affidavit. This Order would be so I could hand out the Court Order after serving notice with the affidavit to any LEO in the future who might stop me thinking he has a citation victim.

I'm not sure how a municipal court judge of no record would handle this submission. It is obviously coming from a jurisdiction (common law) foreign to his own. But when it said: It is pre-judicial and "No judge, court, government or any agencies thereof. . . can abrogate anyone's affidavit of truth," that pretty much told me that this was powerful stuff. It seems to override any government's jurisdiction. Whether or not they recognize it, though, is another story.

Maybe obtaining the oaths of office, swearing out an affidavit of accepting the oaths of office of both the judge and prosecuting attorney, and submitting that along with the Affidavit of Administrative Notice to the court somehow (not sure whether I can just submit it into the case file or whether I need to request a Special Appearance hearing to do it). Any ideas about this?

Yes! That sort of thing. If you have been keeping Return Receipts and such then you are keeping a record! The USDC evidence repository is a competent clerk for you to use in the cognizance of the US government.

Yes, I have been keeping certificates of mailing (they are less expensive than return receipts on registered mail) and forming a record. I've always had my head wrapped around record forming ever since I first read your recommendation for it.

Just occurred to me: In the Court Survival Guide it mentioned a strategy to put in a Motion To Withdraw Plea "to remove your implied consent to the court's jurisdiction. By vacating your plea of Not Guilty, technically the venue and Jurisdiction is removed. So here is where you can again use the Notice of Special Visitation and of Foreign Law, and the Judicial Notice of Military Flag and Challenge of Jurisdiction. Make sure the court agrees to vacate your previous Plea, before you say anything more. Before you are required to enter a new Plea, present these 2 notices and demand the resolution of jurisdiction.

Indeed you will screech the proceedings to a halt every time you mention, I have not been arraigned. However that continues from Square One and will land you an appointment with a court-appointed psychologist for a competency hearing. That could be deadly or destroy your mind over a traffic matter?

Okay. I didn't have in mind to follow the Court Survival Guide's strategy exactly as it is laid out after the plea was withdrawn (filing the notices and all). The idea I meant to imply was to use this method of backing the court out of its jurisdiction, then using that opportunity to guide the judge (forming an agreement) by asking for a clarification of certain things before I enter a new plea. This is a very tricky approach, because I need make certain that the old plea has first been vacated (jurisdiction removed) before I propose the idea of needing clarification so that I can make an informed and reasonable determination about which plea I wish to enter. You see?

For instance (to the judge), [Oh, by the way, I accept your oath and bond as binding placing you under penalty of perjury.] So, I can plead "guilty" or "nolo contendre." However, am I not entitled to understand these procedures before I undergo them? Isn't one of the duties of the court to make sure the defendant understands everything that is happening? I need some clarification about the implications of each of these pleas before I can make a reasonable determination which way I want to go. What are the differences in the legal significance of each of these pleas after the deed is done? (Let the judge make his statement.)

Just so I understand what occurred at the arraignment, because this would affect how I might plead, I need to clarify something about that occurrence and then ask you a question about that which I still don't understand. [Now we're back at the point where I screwed up at the arraignment and didn't object after the judge's outburst about the court's jurisdiction. This is just a rough sketch of what I have in mind. I need to think about this more, to improve on the limitations I'm placing on the judge in this instance.]

When you made your statement about jurisdiction and the statutes involved, there was nothing about what you were saying that I disagreed with, which was why I didn't object. Given the correct circumstances, of course the court must be able to establish jurisdiction over the matter before it can proceed.

No. What I had in mind, and what I failed to bring out in that instant, was the fact that the matter had been refused for cause, which means, if I understand this correctly, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that the plaintiff now has the obligation to bring verified proof of claim and enter that upon the court record. This is not the court's obligation in this instance. There is case law which states:

HAGANS vs LAVINE (415 US 533): "Once JURISDICTION is challenged it must be proven by the Plaintiff."

What I had in mind, but failed to communicate, because I'm not familiar with the ways of legal procedure in court, was the written established challenge to personam jurisdiction that was entered upon the record, and which the court was supposed to have cognizance of before I even entered the room. If the officer did not communicate that document to the court, then there was a fraud in the makings. And my intention was to correct that fraud. I do not see where the plaintiff has rebutted that challenge on the record with a verified complaint from a flesh and blood victim who has been injured. Isn't this a requirement in all criminal cases? That a competent witness come forward with a notarized affidavit demonstrating an injury. (Let the judge make his statement.)

In light of these facts, I fail to see how I am able to make a plea to a non-existent case.

[Treefarmer]

KnowLaw, it sounds as though you have embarked on a very difficult journey.
Would it not be easier just to pay the ticket?
Or are the charges against you so grossly unjust, trumped up, fabricated and expensive that you have to enter into this battle with the traffic court-of-no-record against such unfavorable circumstances?

[KnowLaw]

KnowLaw, it sounds as though you have embarked on a very difficult journey.
Would it not be easier just to pay the ticket?
Or are the charges against you so grossly unjust, trumped up, fabricated and expensive that you have to enter into this battle with the traffic court-of-no-record against such unfavorable circumstances?

No DL, no registration, no (at the moment) insurance. They want me off the road. I'm checking into supplying a bond for insurance.

I have no income at the moment (my Internet affiliate marketing is flat). I have no choice but to fight. Wish I could say otherwise. And yes, considering that I have noticed the state DOT and the county sheriff's office 4 years ago and not received a rebuttal to my affidavit, the charges are "grossly unjust, trumped up, fabricated and expensive."

[Treefarmer]

No DL, no registration, no (at the moment) insurance. They want me off the road. I'm checking into supplying a bond for insurance.

I have no income at the moment (my Internet affiliate marketing is flat). I have no choice but to fight. Wish I could say otherwise. And yes, considering that I have noticed the state DOT and the county sheriff's office 4 years ago and not received a rebuttal to my affidavit, the charges are "grossly unjust, trumped up, fabricated and expensive."

In this case, I would think a Libel of Review would be in your best interest.

And perhaps, depending on where you live, one of these?

[BONMAN]

No DL, no registration, no (at the moment) insurance. They want me off the road. I'm checking into supplying a bond for insurance.

I have no income at the moment (my Internet affiliate marketing is flat). I have no choice but to fight. Wish I could say otherwise. And yes, considering that I have noticed the state DOT and the county sheriff's office 4 years ago and not received a rebuttal to my affidavit, the charges are "grossly unjust, trumped up, fabricated and expensive."

YOU COULD ALWAYS USE THIS AFTER YOU INTRODUCED EVIDENCE OF YOUR TRUE NAME (written in proper grammar),IN THE FORM OF AN AFFIDAVIT, ---- NOT LEGAL ADVICE, JUST COMPILED FOR MY OWN ENTERTAINMENT, USE AT OWN RISK

Defendant, seeking specific relief in the form of removal of this case to the Supreme Court of the United States, in accordance with Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America or dismissal according to Rule 2.3 IRLJ.
2. The Supreme Court of the United States has original Jurisdiction pursuant to Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America, to wit;
The Constitution of the United States of America Article III
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--[between a state and citizens of another state;]--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
3. The STATE of WASHINGTON is a State, and is party to this action, the Constitution of the United States of America, places original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court of the United States in all cases where a State is a party.
4. The use of the mandatory command “shall” is quite clear and unambiguous as is used in the Constitution of the United States of America, at Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2, it is a command and not a request and must be followed without exception.
5. The STATE of WASHINGTON has attempted to seize jurisdiction and placed this case in Stevens County District Court without revealing the authority to do so, the Prosecutor must show the authority delegated from the Supreme Court of the United States and has not done so, there fore there is no authority and hence no jurisdiction.
“The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings”[Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533]
“No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction” [Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S. Ct.768]
“Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be ‘assumed’, it must be proved to exist.” [Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca2d 751.211 P2s 389]
“Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.”
[Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250]
Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction.” Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872)
6. All Judicial, Executive, and Legislative Officers are bound by oath and honor to adhere to and follow the Constitution(s), there does not appear to be anything anywhere to the contrary.
7. ---------------------------, Defendant, therefore demands this case No.I---------------------, be moved to the Supreme Court of the United States or its redirect, since it has original Jurisdiction, as stated above, pursuant to Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America, or dismissal according to Rule 2.3 IRLJ, to wit;
IRLJ RULE 2.3 VENUE
Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute (fn.1), an infraction case shall be brought in the district court district or the municipality where the infraction occurred. If a notice of infraction is filed in a court which is not the proper venue, the notice shall be dismissed without prejudice on motion of either party.


(fn.1), RCW 9A.04.110 Definitions. *** CHANGE IN 2005 *** (SEE 1934-S.SL) *** In this title unless a different meaning plainly is required: (24) "Statute" means the Constitution or an act of the legislature or initiative or referendum of this state;
Respectfully submitted this 31 day of March, 2008:

[KnowLaw]

YOU COULD ALWAYS USE THIS AFTER YOU INTRODUCED EVIDENCE OF YOUR TRUE NAME (written in proper grammar), IN THE FORM OF AN AFFIDAVIT, ---- NOT LEGAL ADVICE, JUST COMPILED FOR MY OWN ENTERTAINMENT, USE AT OWN RISK

The Constitution of the United States of America Article III
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--[between a state and citizens of another state;]--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.


7. ---------------------------, Defendant, therefore demands this case No.I---------------------, be moved to the Supreme Court of the United States or its redirect, since it has original Jurisdiction, as stated above, pursuant to Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America, or dismissal according to Rule 2.3 IRLJ, to wit;
IRLJ RULE 2.3 VENUE
Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute (fn.1), an infraction case shall be brought in the district court district or the municipality where the infraction occurred. If a notice of infraction is filed in a court which is not the proper venue, the notice shall be dismissed without prejudice on motion of either party.


(fn.1), RCW 9A.04.110 Definitions. *** CHANGE IN 2005 *** (SEE 1934-S.SL) *** In this title unless a different meaning plainly is required: (24) "Statute" means the Constitution or an act of the legislature or initiative or referendum of this state;
Respectfully submitted this 31 day of March, 2008:

Thanks, Bonman. That's useful information. It makes some of the same points made in David's Libel of Review, which would put the adversarial party on notice to mind their p's and q's according to the Constitution.

I do have some concern, though, regarding it's application to my own circumstance. Primary of which is that it is not the State which is bring charges, but rather home rule municipal corporation (City of XXXX). Wouldn't this fact eliminate this as a possible remedy, unless "City of" could be somehow connected as a subdivision of State? Or is it already presumed to be connected with the State? I'm asking because I don't know.

Also, I'm not sure that Arizona has an equivalent of "Infraction Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction." I just spent some time searching for such, but came up empty. That doesn't mean it isn't there. Just that I haven't found anything. Although isn't this a challenge to venue, a concept present as part of organic law. If so, it does apply no matter what State rules say or don't say.