Prosecutions WITHOUT an Actual Injured Party are a SHAM

[EZrhythm]

Any prosecuted statute, code, infraction, misdemeanor, felony, etc. to which there is NO competent fact witness who has been injured is a sham. The citing officer nor the district/prosecuting attorney can be the competent fact witness.

Statements of counsel, in their briefs or their arguments are not sufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.

Actual facts not mere allegations of complaint are determinative of issue of jurisdiction.
If there is no witness there are no facts, if there are no facts there is no jurisdiction.

The narrator in the video doesn't provide good examples but one may insert;
...didn't come to a complete stop.
...was fishing without a license.
...didn't file income tax returns, etc.

[Chex]

With Regards to Trinsey v. Pagliaro Good reference; great point EZrhythm, who doesn’t love earth shaking Supreme Court sit down and shut up statements, (facts).

The state and annotated statutes.

[AllanNR]

so if I understand this correctly, only the injured party can be a "competent witness"? In other words lets say for example you get pulled over for speeding. The "complaining witness" who is the cop who pulled you over is not a competent witness because he was not injured by how fast you were driving?

[EZrhythm]

That is correct! In fact he is acting as a foreign third party agent.

[AllanNR]

hmm interesting, I actually bring this up because I have to fight a couple of tickets next month and was looking for opinions on procedure. Normally I have gone before the bench and asked the court clerk to tell the judge that I am making "a reservation of my rights before the court" to which the clerk usually looks at you like you have three heads but has not been met with resistance by the judge. In fact my brother beat a $400 speeding ticket using this approach in which the cop never showed up to testify (wonder if they warn them ahead of time about stuff like this). anyway after doing that I want to follow up with "and ask this court to produce a competent witness"? or should I use the term injured party?

[Brian]

Do not plead to anything. When called ask the judge if pleadings perfect jurisdiction? If and when he says yes motion for dismissal.

See: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...ge1304915/pg50

about a quarter of the way down the page.

[AllanNR]

interesting as this has almost been revealed in court when they deal with the most ignorant of all people, non english speaking immigrants who don't understand the process or what is being asked of them. It usually leads the judge to have to explain that without a plea they can't proceed.

[EZrhythm]

...or should I use the term injured party?

I posted a method under Success Stories; http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...=3947#post3947

[AllanNR]

I noticed something interesting about the "tickets" the cop gave me, the court date says 8-14, which falls on a sunday. I dont think they normally screw up like that, could something be up there?

[EZrhythm]

Citations usually state that one promises to appear on or BEFORE the date indicated. If one wanted to appear before a judge then the court would schedule a new date for when the court would be in session.

A Notice to Appear may also be responded to by "Special Appearance" and demurrer through the mail. I know of instances where people have sent in jurisdiction questions or a Conditional Acceptance and the replies from the court are always "non-responsive".

[AllanNR]

what do you mean by "non-responsive"?

[shikamaru]

EZ ...
.. must you be awesome all of the time ?

Keep bringing the funk, my man.

[EZrhythm]

I humbly accept your offer to keep bringing the awesome funk but it's not me who is awesome, it is the Father in heaven who comes through all the way everyday.

Non-responsive is a term that means although a question is answered or a statement is made, the reply doesn't actually answer any of questions, some of the questions or doesn't answer the questions completely.
During witness testimony a party directing the questions may be heard stating, "Objection, the answer is non-responsive."
A court may send a reply to a Conditional Acceptance with a whole lot of words that further attempt to coerce a favorable response to their demands but is non-responsive just the same. At that point the court (Corporation) is in dishonor in the matter and the only obligation on one's part is to send a Notice of Non-response.
In commerce the one who leaves the battlefield first, defaults/loses.

[qt2t]

I humbly accept your offer to keep bringing the awesome funk but it's not me who is awesome, it is the Father in heaven who comes through all the way everyday.

Non-responsive is a term that means although a question is answered or a statement is made, the reply doesn't actually answer any of questions, some of the questions or doesn't answer the questions completely.
During witness testimony a party directing the questions may be heard stating, "Objection, the answer is non-responsive."
A court may send a reply to a Conditional Acceptance with a whole lot of words that further attempt to coerce a favorable response to their demands but is non-responsive just the same. At that point the court (Corporation) is in dishonor in the matter and the only obligation on one's part is to send a Notice of Non-response.
In commerce the one who leaves the battlefield first, defaults/loses.

So, I"ve been going back and forth with a judge via snail mail, he says what I sent him for payment (an a4v since all money is debt, no lawful way to pay!) he says that it has no basis in law or fact and so is that non responsive? I sent another one with fact for him on why my instrument had basis and he wrote back that I was "complaining" of no way to pay that has no basis in fact or law. Can I respond with a notice of non response? and if so how to do that? OR do I write and say that there is no injured party and insert case law? and if so how and what case law or could you please direct me on that? Thank you so much in advance as the revenue generators are trying to get over 500 bux from me and husband is on unemployment and when I didn't have insurance they have no proof I was on the road or that I did anything wrong (which I didn't!)

[David Merrill]

I believe the only thing you can accept for value has to have value. Most of the dogma around A4V seems to me that it supposes an account of some kind that you can draw upon like a checking account. Proving that account exists from a mere registry - like a birth certificate - is likely folly.

Oaths of office though, properly subscribed in correct form, published at the correct clerk are bonds but only have value if the judicial officer violates the constitutions or law. One likely angle would be that he has a fault in his oath; around here it is swearing without the name of God.

So get a look at your state constitution. Most likely this county judge has to have his oath published at the county clerk and recorder. For a couple bucks go get that. Somebody came across an new confirmation just yesterday. Look through these:

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/6332/formofoath.jpg

http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/5...ffirmation.pdf Yesterday's Find

http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/1953/formofaffirmation.jpg

See what is happening there? If one swears, they must mention the Witness - God. This aligns up with the bond on you. - Your driver license. Here that is a $250 bond indicated by a fellow who challenged jurisdiction. He got notice he had a warrant and went in to find that he needed to post a $250 bail bond. The magistrate determined he was a Patriot Sovereign etc. and that the state's driver license card might be worthless to him. So they hit him for $250 cash instead.

That $250 bail bond carries the Name of the Trust - IN GOD WE TRUST. Look on the Bills indicting the US through the Fed. Bills of Indictment. Therefore the judicial officer must be tied into the same Trust and bonding system. I swear by the ever-living God...

Now people and officers can solemnly affirm instead but that just defers to somebody up the line who has sworn. In other words Dan MAY might solemnly affirm and leave off the name of God, as DA because he is under John William SUTHERS.

Look closely though. Dan MAY is running a vacant office because he swears but without the Authority of the Witness - God.

This fellow Dan PETERSEN developed early (before James Timothy TURNER anyway) negative averment liens against public officials who had no oaths at all but I do not know how directly those instruments played to him spending his life since in prison.



Regards,

David Merrill.