Another trick courts are using re: R4C

[KnowLaw]

David, thank you for your kind indulgence.

I think I'm now seeing (connecting all the pieces) what you've been trying to drill into my head all along. I can see the reason and logic in it. That other advice was clouding my thinking, but I think I'm clear of that now. I'm now listening only to you.

I'm now ready to execute the instructions you've given, beginning with returning the letter from the attorney. I'm also preparing to obtain the 3 oaths of office: the judge, the city prosecutor, and the DA (once I can find out who that is). I'll swear out an affidavit of acceptance of the oaths to file into the case.

So, will anything I file in the muni court (like affidavits) be open to recognition by the court? Or do I first have to force them to recognize, through the acceptance of the oaths placed into the record, so that my demands can be met and I can be heard in my own proper person? In other words, what triggers that recognition? I just want to be clear about this.

Also, at one point you made the following statement:
David: There is a recognized legal principle that, if "all" judges have conflicts of interest, then "any" judge can hear the case. (The issue comes up from time to time in cases involving the compensation of judges or other matters affecting all judges.) - United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980).

Could you please tell me the significance of this? I want to be clear about the implication of what you're trying to point out.

One step at a time. Depending on how things play out, I'm seriously considering your suggestion about filing the Libel of Review with the district court, now that I understand how it can be used.

I called the state Sec. of State office, but they don't handle Dist. Atty oaths of office. I assume I need to contact the U.S. Sec. of State to obtain this? If so, do they have local offices in the districts where I can get the copies of the attorney's letter being returned stamped "Received, time and date with initials"?

[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?

[David Merrill]

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?

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.

[KnowLaw]

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.

All that was in the case file was the certified copy of the R4C. Nothing else.

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.

[Jethro]

David, would it be accurate to summarize the "USDC case file" as an "evidence repository" wherein admissible evidence is collected and held for future (or present) use?

[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.

[KnowLaw]

It does seem to work conversely though, for some metaphysical reason like how a dog can sense fear. If you train properly in the lesson plan and develop good record-forming skills with your evidence repository then it would seem you can confidently (competently) R4C a presentment with no evidence repository at all.

One suitor (understand this one is a former Army Ranger) had a traffic ticket just before we met and he filed his LoR. It was amazing how quickly he learned the principles but he had genuine fearless chutzpa too. A few days later he went in to the pre-trial traffic hearing and knew inherently that when the clerk gave him the yellow slip with the trial date on it that was a new Presentment. He pulled out a pen and wrote Refused for Cause across the Notice and boldly walked to the bench saying, Let the Record show that this presentment is Refused for Cause timely and returned to the Presenter. He then left the judge stuttering a little but asking, What am I supposed to do with this? - shaking the R4C/Notice in the air. He left and nothing more came of it.

The wonderful thing about this confidence (competence) is that he was utilizing the recording equipment and cattle court full of witnesses for his record-forming. He did not so much as keep a copy or carry an audio recorder!

What are the chances of success of putting it on the record by returning the copies of the Order for trial date (and other documents issued at arraignment) "Refused for cause" to the court clerk. Isn't that just like the traffic ticket? Or is there something I'm missing? I thought of doing this a few days ago, but wasn't certain of how the outcome might transpire and talked myself out of it. I guess it all hinges on how one handles future presentments. But given the type of judge I'm up against, what are his likely counter-moves? Would I be risking arrest?

I avoided one presentment in contract with the court, having returned the appointed attorney's paperwork to him unopened (as per David's instructions). I'm sure the judge was counting on that sealing consent.

Anyone here with any experience with a direct written Refusal to the court's presentments?

I'm not certain I ever gave consent, though. Since there is no contract with an attorney, doesn't that still make me IT? And if that's true, aren't I still able to file a R4C of their whole fraudulent "case" and have it recognized? As far as I'm aware, timeliness means before performance is due. And that isn't until the 27th of November.

I'm just looking for competent feedback, based on what David has written in the above anecdote.