DL was NOT provided or used as ID

[Frederick Burrell]

Why is it you seek martyrdom. Your appearance is their demand and you are agreeing to it. I would say they are in control of the situation and hence have jurisdiction. But what do I know. Frederick Burrell

[Frederick Burrell]

What makes you think they will act more honorably if you appear before them. hmmmmm

Frederick Burrell

[Anthony Joseph]

Why is it you seek martyrdom. Your appearance is their demand and you are agreeing to it. I would say they are in control of the situation and hence have jurisdiction. But what do I know. Frederick Burrell

I do not understand your "martyrdom" comment. You keep insisting on the word "appearance" as if it applies to me or my process. I have explained and outlined what my process will be and that I am exercising my right of refusal as a court of competent jurisdiction. I have a published judgment on the record which makes my opinion as relevant as any "judge" and, at the very least, on equal standing.

They should be in control of their situation and they do have jurisdiction over that matter. What you fail to comprehend is that my actions are absent ANY consent to be fiduciary/surety for the cause on their agenda; I do not grant my substance and energy to alleviate their burdens via "appearance" because I do not claim or answer to the NAME of their vessel on their docket. I will show up of my own volition, in my own right and for the sole purposes already stated.

Let me repeat it for you one more time; NONE OF MY ACTIONS OUTLINED WILL CONSTITUTE "APPEARANCE" AS IT IS DEFINED LEGALLY. "Appearance" means something different when the word is uttered in a courtroom as opposed to when the word is used in casual conversation. In a courtroom, "appearance" is putting on the mask/persona of the LEGALLY NAMED defendant in question. You can do this in a number of ways including answering to the NAME, claiming the NAME or acquiescing to the NAME.

Obviously, I am absent any of those actions.

[David Merrill]

I do have the officer's name and more than likely he will not show up to court; lack of testimony. Thanks for the tip of including a copy of the current and valid insurance card with the correspondance. My signature on the DL card expresses clearly that the STATE OF FLORIDA already recognizes and accepts my intents and True Name; Anthony Joseph dba ANTHONY J XXXXXXX. The officer will have to lie on the stand when questioned...

I reviewed this thread this morning looking for that.

After a proper R4C a suitor showed up to cattle court (arraignment/First Appearance Center etc.) with a certified copy of his R4C from the USDC. He mistakenly took the wrong chute - to the ADA who rediculed the R4C in front of his ADA friends and threw it in the garbage pail. The suitor and his witness called me from the courthouse steps and I admonished them to get to the judge with it, to go get another copy of the R4C. That was twenty minutes each way so I suggested they go get the one out of the ADA's garbage pail.

They went back in and found that the ADA had already taken it out of the garbage and ran it up to the courtroom. By the time they got up there the ADA was retrieving it from the bailiff and the judge called up the legal name. This suitor stood in front of the podium because it looked too much like a sacrificial altar (which might be a very important point of protocol if you model trust processes as priestcrafting). He informed the judge that he was there by restricted appearance to avoid a fraud on the court. [The chief of police failing to update* the court about the R4C would be fraud by omission.] The judge was very interested and allowed him to bring the R4C up to the bench, took it and looked it over. He said, Okay as he put it in the file folder.

A couple weeks later the suitor went to the clerk of court and asked to see the case. It had nothing in it at all except that copy of the R4C!



Regards,

David Merrill.


* The process being expedited, like your revenue-frenzied officer seems to be the retaliation against the True Name execution. For example law enforcement traditionally waits for at least three days to present the tickets to the courthouse, presumably because of the three-day right of refusal. There is even a technique of getting right to the courthouse with your ticket and the clerk of court will say you have to come back in a few days; and you honorably insist on paying it, the clerk refuses and it is over. However, I have a report last week from a potential suitor, that he got a ticket on Friday evening and called Monday morning and the clerk was ready for payment.

With electronics and the new legislation you mentioned AJ, it is possible that the courthouse is informed simultaneously without you even signing the agreement/presentment/ticket.

[Frederick Burrell]

Nice way to spend the day I suppose. Enjoy the experience and tell us all about it when you finish. Frederick Burrell

[Michael Joseph]

I will wager they will dismiss with leave. Basically means they "put it on the shelf" - until a later time that they can gain a better toe hold in order to prosecute this matter.

[Anthony Joseph]

Nice way to spend the day I suppose. Enjoy the experience and tell us all about it when you finish. Frederick Burrell

Nice way??? Not really, but for a responsible and competent man on the land, this, at times, becomes a necessary way to spend a day. I do intend to share the experience, whether it is enjoyable or not, as best I can.

[shikamaru]

Why is it you seek martyrdom. Your appearance is their demand and you are agreeing to it. I would say they are in control of the situation and hence have jurisdiction. But what do I know. Frederick Burrell

General appearance and special appearance are different beasts .

There is more than one form of appearance ....

[David Merrill]

Why is it you seek martyrdom. Your appearance is their demand and you are agreeing to it. I would say they are in control of the situation and hence have jurisdiction. But what do I know. Frederick Burrell

It may not go the way I say it should. But this way, Anthony Joseph will R4C timely and have a certified copy of that from his USDC evidence repository and the judge will deal with that. Even if AJ shows up restricted appearance (Rule E(8)) to prevent fraud on the court, the judge will have difficulty saying that he Failed to Appear, wont he? Imagine that! AJ is standing right there and the judge acknowledges his right to appear restricted instead of generally by complaining that he has failed to appear?

[Frederick Burrell]

I have a very similar situation going. I R4C'd two tickets. One for no safety and one for no current registration. Return the contract to the Chief of Police. So far I have not received an invitation to appear. It has been 3 weeks. Should they demand an appearance, since I am in Thailand, I will have to R4C the invitation. So it will be interesting to see how both cases work out. Frederick Burrell

[Michael Joseph]

more than likely it is dismissed with leave [DWL] since these are infractions. There is probably a FTA but DWL. Awaiting you to really screw up and they will haul out all of this again. But then again, who knows.

[Frederick Burrell]

One thing I find interesting in my case is the officer wrote the ticket out to my true name and not the my legal name. Not sure how this will effect things. Frederick Burrell

[Michael Joseph]

this is exactly my point found HERE.

The officer is attempting to Construct a Trust. The NAME does not matter at Contract Law it can easily be overcome. DA to Officer - "is that him?" Officer: "Yes sir."

The name game at commercial law is not grounds for abatement. See the following Sanitized Report:

-----

17 MR. DA: --- Who -- whoever he
18 is, he's the person we're seeking to put on trial
19 today.
20 True Name: Does -- does the one
21 being put on trial not have to be named?
22 THE COURT: No.
23 True Name: Oh, so they don't have
24 to be named?
25 THE COURT: No. We -- we've tried

00047

1 John Doe's/

-----

4 MR. DA: Judge, the state is
5 contending, no matter what he may call himself today
6 -- he can call himself Mickey Mouse if that's what he
7 wants to call himself, but his body, that person, is
8 the one that this officer says was on that occasion
9 driving that motor vehicle.
10 What he wants to call himself, I really
11 don't care. We're here to try this person for the
12 charges issued by this officer. And we're ---
13 THE COURT: --- That's what the
14 trial will determine.
15 MR. DA: Right. .........

blah, blah, blah....


25 THE COURT: Well, we understand --

00015

1 and I'll be happy to refer to you as True Name --
2 that True Name is here for the trial of driving
3 with an expired registration plate and driving a
4 vehicle -- operating a vehicle without any license.
5 That's what we're here for trial.
6 The state will present any evidence that
7 you were the person that was present on......

-----

Your actions imply your trust! What you call yourself at commercial law really does not matter.

If he found TRUE NAME in the Federal Reserve Districts - moving on STREET/ROAD/HIGHWAY and TRUE NAME is with a Residential Address - well he has then conducted his Survey and found TRUE NAME within the STATE.

Was his survey correct? Only you know! A choice, yes?

[Frederick Burrell]

Michael David

It would seem you are right in this regard. Interesting. Frederick Burrell

[motla68]

What came first man or name? Does law say man must accept whatever name given?