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!