Two traffic stops snubbed.

[David Merrill]

One suitor told us the other day that for the second time, he handed the driver license over to a police officer during a traffic stop; Officer, I am not giving you that card for identification purposes. It is for competency only.

Both times the police officer went to his car for ten minutes and returned with a mild verbal warning.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[KnowLaw]

One suitor told us the other day that for the second time, he handed the driver license over to a police officer during a traffic stop; Officer, I am not giving you that card for identification purposes. It is for competency only.

Both times the police officer went to his car for ten minutes and returned with a mild verbal warning.

Interesting. What part of the country did this take place in?

I can tell you from experience that as of October 2009 the Highway Patrol in Arizona were not that observant. But then, I didn't have a driver license to begin with, so the LEO thought he had gotten a sucker...until I pulled out my copy of the law and began reading that to him. From that point on, he took a more cautious approach. But still insisted on issuing me a ticket, which I gladly took as he might just as easily have impounded my property for no tags and no driver license. I knew I could defeat him in court, that's why I was pleased to only receive the ticket.

[David Merrill]

Very good. Glad to hear it.

I am not certain where it took place. My thought was the suitor might chime in to the thread with details but I must respect his right to be quiet about his victories.

That is something to work out in the near future - the intellectual property we call crosstalk. All the anecdotes but these are more. I can sanitize the images of the evidence that goes along with the anecdotes and they are elevated to supported fact? Well almost, anyway. I have done this with sanitized support docs for some while but seldom in a fashion like here, where if the person chimes in you have a true name to attach with the anecdote.

So I am just feeling my way around here in this new forum. It looks like a regular chat room at first glance but there is a brain trust of suitors here and that makes it unique; a cut above. I have to wade in slowly. I was hoping to prompt a suitor to share the experience in detail.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. With my own docs, since I have been going by true name for over a decade, that simplifies things, even when officials commit forgery.

[stoneFree]

Oh, David could well be relating my experience, as I have twice used his declaration at traffic stops.

Interesting. What part of the country did this take place in?

Let's just say, it happened in one of the original 13 colonies. I probably never would have used it, had I first not witnessed some interesting behavior of the court on an earlier citation. After reading success stories over at SJC, I attempted a common-law defense (much like what www.ticketslayer.com sells). Correct me if I'm wrong but this defense is based on the theory that the state is not alleging/charging you the living person with a violation, but a separate entity with a similar name as you (constructive trust?). I raised this defense, filing some documents into the traffic case. Well at the court hearing with the judge, I noticed there was no prosecution, no police accusers. All those appealing their traffic tickets were being dismissed with "Not responsible, lack of prosecution" as was mine.

I realize that court experience isn't positive proof of anything and that the logistics of scheduling accusing officers for court may not be cost effective for the state. However, I think it's also possible this is an issue the state/court wasn't prepared to contest; that they don't want to go there. If true, Greg's claim of "Over 80% nationwide Traffic Ticket Dismissal Rate" is further evidence that something is going on here.

We also made another observation regarding citations - that many of them seem to include an error! For what purpose, do you imagine?

[KnowLaw]

Well at the court hearing with the judge, I noticed there was no prosecution, no police accusers. All those appealing their traffic tickets were being dismissed with "Not responsible, lack of prosecution" as was mine.

That phrase sounds familiar. That's what was mentioned to me in a phone call to the court when checking on whether or not a ticket had been submitted to the court. I had "refused it for cause" sending the original back to the presenter (a highway patrol officer with the DPS who apparently hadn't informed the court yet of the refusal).

The person on the other end of the phone told me after I mentioned having "refused for cause" the ticket that I would need to come in and enter a "not responsible" something or other (it was unclear what she was talking about; and I wasn't all that certain that she wasn't attempting to coax me into pleading into the case, so I approached it with caution). But yes, she used that phrase about "not responsible."

They are apparently trying to separate those who know from those who don't know the law, was my take on the situation. Because all those who knew about this method were separated into a separate group (separate court date and time) from those who were unaware and therefore "easy pickins" for the state legal machine.

I'll be re-posting my victory story in the "Success Stories" section once I have some time to sit down and format the post. It should help some people gain some sense of confidence in the "refused for cause" movement as well as a peek at one person's practical experience in the matter and how it was handled.

We also made another observation regarding citations - that many of them seem to include an error! For what purpose, do you imagine?

Well, don't stop there! What, pray tell, was the error you observed? If I knew what you were speaking about, I might be able to proffer an answer to the question you posed.

[osbogosley]

Here's an interesting email I recieved:

Hey Colonel;

We talked on the phone several weeks ago. I am the guy in Mississippi who beat the ticket.

The recording of it became corrupted on the computer. I've been having a guy try to recover it. Might work later. If yes, I'll let you know.

BUT, I wrote the transcript the next day. Here it is, exactly as it went down.

Prelim remarks. I believe the reason it worked is simply because I did not plead along the way. In other words, I talked with the clerk on at least 2 occasions before the date to move the date, etc., and on each occasion, she tried to get me to state how I pled or would plea.

Having gone to court and won on a wildlife charge and come to understand that "pleadings perfects jurisdiction," I had figured out the game. So, I fastidiously did NOT plead, and I made it abundantly clear to the clerk that although she is Christian and good person, she was, after all, an officer of the court and as such, she should, in no way, say or intimate to the 'judge' that I pled anything, and if she did, I was going to be very upset and sue her.

So, in court, here's the transcript:

judge: "So, Mr. File, are you here today to plead not guilty."

Me: "Your Honor, I have not pled anything." (my way of saying have not, will not be doing it now because I know you do not have jurisdiction now unless I screw up and give it to you.)

I waited 2 Mississippi:

Me: "Your Honor, may I ask the Court a question?"

judge: "Yes, you may."

Me: "Do pleadings perfect jurisdiction?"

Here, it was as though I farted in church on a wooden bench on the front row. Pussel-gutted prosecutor almost had a heart attack and started blurting out 'jurisdiction' stuff cause he had some more money to collect and they didn't see this coming.

Judge was taken aback and blurted,...

judge: "Yes."

I waited 2 Mississippi:

Me: "Therefore, your Honor, may I MOVE the court to dismiss the charges, immediately?"

judge had his head down writing. He needed a story like the prosecutor did. He said,

judge: "Yes, you may. The officer is not present anyway."

Officer WAS present in street clothes. judge needed a story for the other people cause they were domestic charges and didn't have an officer. Reason I know that is because I listened to all the attorneys talking with them before. I just sat there with my head down like I was napping and listened so hard I could hear the mice in the damn wall. I had everybody pegged. Lambs to the damn slaughter for Fed Res Notes.

10 seconds went by, maybe.

judge said: "You are free to go, Mr. File. Have a nice day."

I walked out through 5 attorneys and 2 police officers sporting 9 MM's and Tasers like I was Barac, 'Insane,' Obama.

Whole thing took less than 30 words from me. Saved me $168 Federal Res Notes.

You and I already talked about the procedure problems I set up on them using these words and getting the question before the court, first.

He had to address the question. If he didn't, I'd get it on the record and beat, and embarass him on appeal as the record is all that matters on appeal unless, of course, well, no matter right now.

The thing that made me figure it this way is I heard an attorney on the radio the day after my Fed Court Wildlife thing talking about pleadings. He was showing out and didn't even know what he said. He go broke lawyering if he practiced what he preached because no court, save a victim case of murder or rape, could get one of his clients into jurisdiction.

Hence, the Bar would sanction me if I were an attorney. Hee hee.

[David Merrill]

Yes!! That's what I'm talking about! It may just be me but you two just bumped the Fun Meter around here triple.


Dipping back into the hearsay - (meaning that the suitor is around and he might pick this up in detail if he does not mind the general readers knowing which member did this).

This fellow formed his Libel of Review (LoR) around a ticket for no papers while traveling. That means he had a certified copy of the Refusal for Cause (R4C) with him when he went to see if the CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST still appeared on the docket anyway - meaning that the Chief of Police was likely defrauding the court by not sharing the additional Information - the R4C.

When he entered cattle court he had three chutes:

1) Go to the cash register last minute, pay the fine and plead guilty - leave.
2) Go visit with the DA and hear your deal for pleading guilty, then to option 1).
3) Go to the court and plead not guilty before the judge, set for trial.

He and his witness (another suitors) mistakenly went down chute 2). When they showed the R4C (marked by the US Court) to the ADA (Assistant District Attorney/prosecutor) the ADA showed it off to his ADA friends for loud ridicule and threw it in the wastepaper basket. My pals called me from the steps of the courthouse. I suggested they go get another copy of the R4C but that was 20 minutes each way back home so I amended that they might go fish the one out of the wastepaper basket.

They went back in and found that the ADA had already fished it out and sent it up to the court on the fifth floor. The ADA beat them to the courtroom to and retrieved it for him from the bailiff; he was immediately called to the podium; which felt like an altar so he stood in front of it - just for safe measure. He announced that he was there, To prevent fraud on the court. The judge asked to see the paper so he brought it to the bench and tendered it. The judge examined it a moment and said, Okay. - As he placed it in the case file. The suitor left.

Two weeks later the suitor returned and asked to see the case files (as there were more than one case) but there was now only one folder. Nothing was in the folder except the Copy of the R4C that he had tendered to the judge.

Keep in mind these are commercial financial transactions. That is why they call them charges.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

That one is a lot of fun too Osbogosly.

The other way to convey jurisdiction is to swear or affirm. But that would usually be limited to consent for perjury or contempt. Here it is in the Colorado constitution:

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,

Courts not of record are a waste of time all around because they have no authority to fine or imprison you. They can proceed though, on your consent. You plead and you volunteer into the jurisdiction.

However, in many instances the judge might correctly presume that by identifying yourself First Middle Last - a full legal name matching the LAST, FIRST M. spelling on the driver license card, that you have plead into the jurisdiction. Therefore change the signature on your driver license card to First Middle. When you give it to an officer announce clearly:

Officer, I am not showing you this driver license card for identification purposes. I am only showing it to you to prove my competency to operate this vehicle and so you know I keep a valid insurance policy active on it. I am noting your name and hope that you will recall this conversation accurately on the witness stand at trial - how I just identified myself to you. My name is clearly spelled there on the signature line.

Furthermore you might be sure to pay for your driver license card with redeemed lawful money. But it really comes down to risk management on their part. The prosecutor did not seem willing in the anecdote to step up, Judge, the stopping officer is right here.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Crosstalk;

Anyway, just had occasion to use the line I learned from David again. While handing over the DL: "I'm showing this for competency not for identification." Well after several minutes in his cruiser, presumably some onboard communications, the officer hands back the DL saying: "come to a complete stop next time." No citation, no written warning, no nothing, nada. (!) My second success with this line.

P.P.S. I saw Adjustment Bureau last night. It is the kind of SciFi that builds a great legacy for SciFi! Of course for me it was about through responsibility and competence (in the movie, laying it all on the line for true love) we break through having others govern our path and develop self-governance.

[Axe]

So, the drivers license sig should just be True Name printed? I just got my
new Drivers license and signed it Legal Name UCC 1-308.

Did that based on what I found at SJC.

Also based on this post http://chat.lawinfo.com/showpost.php...6&postcount=11
I also thought about writing 8 USC 1408.

[David Merrill]

It was worth a look.


I was born in Colorado. So I think that must go on the theory and some limited definitions about the territorial US being limited to the District?

That's the tricky thing about definitions of the United States - even according to the Supreme Court there are three. So what you might do is explore around that section of code and see if you can bring us the applicable definition for the US?

The method of identification I describe can be found in law. Abatement for misnomer, or prolonging arraignment (pleading) until the prosecution gets nervous enough to dismiss. A Refusal for Cause would only be based on your God-given unalienable rights and if you identify yourself with the legal name, you show prima facie evidence you have accepted the fiduciary responsibility for the charges against the FULL or LEGAL NAME on the card. If you identify yourself properly the officer will not likely proceed against a different name than that of the CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST.

It is possible for the court to proceed against the man in his true name. I have not heard of it happening though. As for my persecution about the $20M lien, the officer lied on the Affidavit of Probable Cause so it could never get to trial, because the only alleged witness committed perjury about how I identified myself.

The way I remember it:

JACOBSEN: What is your name?
David Merrill: David Merrill.
JACOBSEN: What is your last name?
David Merrill: (Silence.)
JACOBSEN: What is your last name?
David Merrill: Nobody can be compelled to incriminate himself.

The perjury there is that JACOBSEN said I would not tell him who I was. I am David Merrill and I told him my name.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[stoneFree]

KnowLaw & Osbogosley, thanks for that & congrats on the victories! Yes, afraid I was "easy pickins" for quite some time.

Regarding ticket errors: The error I noticed was the ticket was written up "62 MPH IN A 15 MPH ZONE" when I'm fairly certain the limit was more than 15. I never raised that as an issue. Just a beginner here but my take is ... the citation error leaves the state/court another out; another avenue out of revealing the true nature of their administrative proceeding. They can say "case dismissed; ticket error. Not because of your wacky ALL CAPS strawman theory."

Also, David once related an instance of a R4C ticket dismissed and they wrote down something like "dismissed, error on the ticket, not for cause."

[Axe]

A Refusal for Cause would only be based on your God-given unalienable rights and if you identify yourself with the legal name, you show prima facie evidence you have accepted the fiduciary responsibility for the charges against the FULL or LEGAL NAME on the card.

Okay I see your logic, that makes sense to me.

My question would then be; Haven't you already taken fiduciary responsibility
by signing the state document for the Trust?

Sorry if the question is rudimentary, I appreciate your patience.

Tom

[David Merrill]

Okay I see your logic, that makes sense to me.

My question would then be; Haven't you already taken fiduciary responsibility
by signing the state document for the Trust?

Sorry if the question is rudimentary, I appreciate your patience.

Tom

You might be correct. The other line of thought is that, We can proceed in the name JOHN DOE, we do those prosecutions all the time.

The point is that this is not a silver bullet. It is quite effective and that makes sense when you shed a certain light on it. The presentment, the Uniform Summons and Complaint and Penalty Assessment says the legal name on it. If you specify to the police officer you are not identifying yourself with the card then there is an error of misnomer.

A lot of the time the officer will give you a verbal warning when it becomes apparent you are going to be taking this to trial.

Understand that I just read that post again. I presumed by the State document you meant the driver license. Now I will presume you mean the Presentment, the ticket.

If you accept the position of fiduciary then yes, you are there. You don't have the right to R4C if you are already the fiduciary. If you are not the fiduciary, then you have three days to consider that contract - the right of refusal. If you identify yourself correctly the police officer has forged a title for you. You have three days to consider whether you accept or not.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. You mentioned this:

[Axe]

Sorry for not being clear.

I was talking about the DL.

The name of the trust is on the DL (at the top)
You true name sig is at the bottom (or is it printed, I still don't know)

If it is signed, then your true name is "signing for" your
legal name, so my question is isn't that all the same to the state
from a legal perspective?

I think what you're saying is the officer is going to write the
ticket out to LEGAL NAME, because it's at the top.

But you have true name in the sig, giving you separation
at court.

"That ticket is not for me."?

[David Merrill]

Sorry for not being clear.

I was talking about the DL.

The name of the trust is on the DL (at the top)
You true name sig is at the bottom (or is it printed, I still don't know)

If it is signed, then your true name is "signing for" your
legal name, so my question is isn't that all the same to the state
from a legal perspective?

I think what you're saying is the officer is going to write the
ticket out to LEGAL NAME, because it's at the top.

But you have true name in the sig, giving you separation
at court.

"That ticket is not for me."?

It is impossible to arraign you. You R4C on the cause being misnomer. You do not specify because it is a fact, you do not need to teach the court or DA law. If things get serious abate the cause for misnomer.