Another trick courts are using re: R4C

[KnowLaw]

The amount of energy spent in trying to keep this fraud (non-recognition of R4C process) alive is just incredible. It's almost as though they (the so-called "authorities") view this as a game. Here's something I just discovered the other day. I'm sure old-timers here won't be surprised in the least, and I offer this as FYI to be on the lookout.

Three weeks ago, a curious LEO sped up from behind me to catch up with my auto and pulled me over for a stop. I have an expired plate along with a notice in the rear window explaining "Private Property, Not for Hire." This is the second time I've been stopped in the four years since I began traveling this way.

I also have noticed the state DOT and the county sheriff's office of my intent to travel this way in an affidavit, which I keep in the car at all times. The affidavit helped the first time I was stopped as it slowed down the DPS officer, who wasn't sure about the legal ramifications of the affidavit and thus subsequently wrote a citation for No registration, No DL.

In that incident, I immediately issued a refusal for cause that same day, drawing up a Certificate of Mailing so I had proof of service. I called the court at the end of the following week to see if the citation had made it onto the court docket and was told that it hadn't. (At this point in my journey, I wasn't quite sure what to expect from the "authorities" or how they were going to respond to this.)

The next week on a whim I decided to call again. I don't recall now just exactly how the conversation went (meaning I don't recall whether or not they asked for a name; I'm thinking they did and that I must have given one), but this time I was told that the citation had shown up and was in the system. I knew what I had to do. I took a photocopy of my original photocopy of the R4C along with the Cert. of Mailing down to the court and entered it into the court case file.

The court clerk asked me if I wanted a court date (after denying having seen any R4Cs ever having been filed). My initial thought was that this seemed strange, however I had written up a court order along with an affidavit describing the event of the traffic stop in great detail, and I wanted to see if the judge would approve it so I assented to a court date.

Two months later, when I went to court and the case was called, I didn't have to say a word before the judge dismissed the case. I handed the judge my affidavit and court order, but of course never heard back from her.

Fast forward to today. Got ticketed three weeks ago for the same issues and issued my R4C that same day, complete with a Cert. of Mailing (I create my own Cert of Mailing instead of using the Post Office form; this way I can describe the document being mailed and who is mailing it -- i.e. True name).

At the end of the first week I called the court to see if citation number so-and-so had been turned into the court. The person on the phone took a second to check the computer and said "No, it hasn't." I expected this as sometimes it takes more than a week for the court before the citation is turned in.

At the end of the second week I called the court again to check on the citation, and the person on the phone did a preliminary check on the computer and said "no." Then asked if I would hold on so she could check further. She then asked for a description of the violation and my name. I gave her the info on the violation, but declined to give my name. saying that she already had the ticket number and should be able to locate it by that. She excused herself, put me on hold for a couple of minutes, then came back on to say that she couldn't find any such citation.

I'm thinking, "Okay, this is interesting." And looking forward to the next week when I call, not really suspecting anything, but just wanting to confirm for a third and possibly fourth week that the citation hadn't been turned in.

When I call at the end of the third week to check on the citation, I get the same answer and runaround as the second week, only this time I provide a LAST NAME, just to see what will happen. Shazaam! The clerk just happens to find the citation buried in a stack (the same stack that she had just moments before checked and found nothing) and promises to enter it into the system as we are speaking. I tell her I'll be down next week to file a couple of documents that will clear this matter up and hang up.

I suppose if I had continued to refuse to provide a name I could have ridden out the time limit on the court date set on the citation, and the date would have gone by with no one claiming it! Who knew!

On a side note, is there anyone here who knows how we can begin to hold these officials (primarily the LEO) accountable in these situations where they neglect to inform the court of the R4C? Or are we at the mercy of the Thin Blue Line, which protects its own. Just wondering, that's all.

[shikamaru]

On a side note, is there anyone here who knows how we can begin to hold these officials (primarily the LEO) accountable in these situations where they neglect to inform the court of the R4C? Or are we at the mercy of the Thin Blue Line, which protects its own. Just wondering, that's all.

To do so, you probably must suffer a damage first.

[shikamaru]

On a side note, is there anyone here who knows how we can begin to hold these officials (primarily the LEO) accountable in these situations where they neglect to inform the court of the R4C? Or are we at the mercy of the Thin Blue Line, which protects its own. Just wondering, that's all.

I got it. I would study due process. The court and its officers has a duty not to trespass on your legal rights.

[BONMAN]

Counterclaim and cross claim

This is what we use in Washington



RULE 2
ONE FORM OF ACTION

There shall be one form of action to be known as "civil action."




RULE 13
COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSS CLAIM

(a) Compulsory Counterclaims. A pleading shall state as a counterclaim
any claim which at the time of serving the pleading the pleader has against
any opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that
is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require
for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot
acquire jurisdiction. But the pleader need not state the claim if (1) at
the time the action was commenced the claim was the subject of another
pending action, or (2) the opposing party brought suit upon his claim by
attachment or other process by which the court did not acquire jurisdiction
to render a personal judgment on that claim, and the pleader is not stating
any counterclaim under this rule.
(b) Permissive Counterclaims. A pleading may state as a counterclaim
any claim against an opposing party not arising out of the transaction or
occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim.
(c) Counterclaim Exceeding Opposing Claim. A counterclaim may or may
not diminish or defeat the recovery sought by the opposing party. It may
claim relief exceeding in amount or different in kind from that sought in
the pleading of the opposing party.
(d) Counterclaim Against the State. These rules shall not be construed
to enlarge beyond the limits now fixed by law the right to assert
counterclaims, or to claim credits against the State or an officer or
agency thereof.
(e) Counterclaim Maturing or Acquired After Pleading. A claim which
either matured or was acquired by the pleader after serving his pleading
may, with the permission of the court, be presented as a counterclaim by
supplemental pleading.
(f) Omitted Counterclaim. When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim
through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice
requires, he may by leave of court set up the counterclaim by amendment.
(g) Cross Claim Against Coparty. A pleading may state as a cross claim
any claim by one party against a coparty arising out of the transaction or
occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a
counterclaim therein or relating to any property that is the subject matter
of the original action. Such cross claim may include a claim that the party
against whom it is asserted is or may be liable to the cross claimant for
all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the cross claimant.
(h) Joinder of Additional Parties. Persons other than those made
parties to the original action may be made parties to a counterclaim or
cross claim in accordance with the provisions of rules 19 and 20.
(i) Separate Trials; Separate Judgment. If the court orders separate
trials as provided in rule 42(b), judgment on a counterclaim or cross claim
may be rendered in accordance with the terms of rule 54(b), even if the
claims of the opposing party have been dismissed or otherwise disposed of.
(j) Setoff Against Assignee. The defendant in a civil action upon a
contract express or implied, other than upon a negotiable promissory note
or bill of exchange, negotiated in good faith and without notice before
due, which has been assigned to the plaintiff, may set off a demand of a
like nature existing against the person to whom he was originally liable,
or any assignee prior to the plaintiff, of such contract, provided such
demand existed at the time of the assignment thereof, and belonging to the
defendant in good faith, before notice of such assignment, and was such a
demand as might have been set off against such person to whom he was
originally liable, or such assignee while the contract belonged to him.
(k) Setoff Against Beneficiary of Trust Estate. If the plaintiff be a
trustee to any other, or if the action be in a name of a plaintiff which
has no real interest in the contract upon which the action is founded, so
much a demand existing against those whom the plaintiff represents or for
whose benefit the action is brought may be set off as will satisfy the
plaintiffs debt, if the same might have been set off in an action brought
against those beneficially interested.
(l) Setoff Must Be Pleaded. To entitle a defendant to a setoff under
this rule, he must set forth the same in his answer.


RULE 18
JOINDER OF CLAIMS AND REMEDIES

(a) Joinder of Claims. A party asserting a claim to relief as an
original claim, counterclaim, cross claim, or third party claim, may join,
either as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims as he has
against an opposing party.
(b) Joinder of Remedies. Whenever a claim is one heretofore cognizable
only after another claim has been prosecuted to a conclusion, the two
claims may be joined in a single action; but the court shall grant relief
in that action only in accordance with the relative substantive rights of
the parties.


Courts Home>Court Rules Search | Site Map | eService Center



RULE 54
JUDGMENTS; COSTS

(a) Definition; Form. "Judgment" as used in these rules includes a
decree and any final order from which an appeal lies. A judgment shall not
contain a recital of pleadings or the record of prior proceedings.
Judgments may be in writing signed by the court or may be oral confirmed by
an entry in the record.
(b) Judgment Upon Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties. When
more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a
claim, counterclaim, cross claim, or third party claim, or when multiple
parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as
to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an
express determination in the judgment that there is no just reason for
delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. In the
absence of such determination and direction, any order or other form of
decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims
or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not
terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or
other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry
of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of
all the parties.
(c) Demand for Judgment. A judgment by default shall not be different
in kind from or exceed in amount that prayed for in the demand for
judgment. Except as to a party against whom a judgment is entered by
default, every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in
whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded
such relief in his pleadings. (d) Costs. Costs shall be fixed and allowed as provided in RCW
12.20.060 or by any other applicable statute.

[KnowLaw]

I got it. I would study due process. The court and its officers has a duty not to trespass on your legal rights.

Yeah. That's what I thought. I was just wondering if anyone here has had any experience with that. With how to go about pressing charges against the officer. Is that even possible? (Kind of like asking the fox whose duty is guarding the hen house to prosecute its own lawbreakers.) . . . Or whether the system will protect its own in such cases.

[shikamaru]

Yeah. That's what I thought. I was just wondering if anyone here has had any experience with that. With how to go about pressing charges against the officer. Is that even possible? (Kind of like asking the fox whose duty is guarding the hen house to prosecute its own lawbreakers.) . . . Or whether the system will protect its own in such cases.

You could file an administrative complaint.
This was what the administrative courts were intended for according to Rod Class.

[KnowLaw]

Holding officers accountable

You could file an administrative complaint.
This was what the administrative courts were intended for according to Rod Class.

Thanks for your input, shikamaru. Well appreciated.

I've been reading through some of my legal research material, and came across the following:

[9] It was made clear that true name has the right to travel and the state's failure to adequately train its officers or agent (concerning rights, concerning diversity of jurisdiction, etc) was tantamount to a conspiracy against rights in violation of 18 USC 241 *and* that any State ID or DL was done with reservation of rights, without any intent to become an accommodation party for DOE, JOHN H--that any attempt on their part to bypass the refusal for cause or the reservation of rights would be deemed to be a conspiracy against rights per 18 USC 241.

[8] Maintaining the false appearance that someone has willingly contracted with a State even where a reservation of rights is made, should a municipality introduce instruments into the public financial system of the United States they will have committed a financial crime (this was also pointed out in document filed) and if a warrant is issued they will have conspired to defraud the State AGAIN by causing valuable resources of the state to be deployed complicit with fraud and with a conspiracy to deny rights or kidnap;

The jist #8 was also part of the filing with the SoS's delegates. It was made clear that if they were in a quandary by setting out to enforce contracts that they knew were not enforceable without obeying the contract in statute binding upon them which required them to honor the right of avoidance, diversity of jurisdiction, etc.

While #8 seems to make clear that an actual trespass taking place would trigger a violation, as you suggested in your first response, #9 seems to suggest that "any attempt [such as fraud upon the court] . . . to bypass the refusal for cause or reservation of rights would be deemed to be a conspiracy against rights" because of the state's failure to train its officers.

Yet, in trying to look at it from both sides, while the DL was canceled by the state in 2008, and the registration was "STOPPED" (meaning that "the registration cannot be renewed until a matter is resolved"; which matter was resolved by my surrender that same year of state documents [two DLs and one ID card] returned to the state), in addition in 2008 the title was never canceled. This would give the officer pause to suspect he had "probably cause" in catching someone who was trying to "drive" an unregistered "motor vehicle" without a license.

A few years ago, when I was researching the cancellation of the title, I wasn't sure about some of the information I was reading regarding the junking of the title (the reasoning didn't make sense), and therefore never went that route. This means that the title, and therefore the "motor vehicle," still shows up in the system when they punch it into the computer. I'm not sure how to get the title canceled in order to preclude these presumptions, yet however that may be...

I can still keep the wolf away from the door by refusing nexus with the legal name.

Also in 2008 I recorded an Affidavit of Administrative Notice with the County Recorder and sent the state DOT and the county sheriff copies notifying them of my intent to operate my conveyance while reserving my rights and requesting a rebuttal point-by-point of my affidavit within 20 days or "be estopped from challenging these statements of fact or from asserting any future civil claims" against me. Of course, there was no rebuttal forthcoming.

I'm just trying to figure out what I need to do to keep from receiving these nuisance citations in the future when pulled over. It all depends on how you handle the LEO involved and what you can get him to recognize. Think I'm going to insist on his reading the Affidavit, word for word, to his supervisor before he decides to take any action. Then when it seems he is making a "legal determination," ask him if he has a license to do so. That should give him pause to think.

[David Merrill]

Thanks for sharing that!

The amount of energy spent in trying to keep this fraud (non-recognition of R4C process) alive is just incredible. It's almost as though they (the so-called "authorities") view this as a game. Here's something I just discovered the other day. I'm sure oldtimers here won't be surprised in the least, and I offer this as FYI to be on the lookout.

Three weeks ago, a curious LEO sped up from behind me to catch up with my auto and pulled me over for a stop. I have an expired plate along with a notice in the rear window explaining "Private Property, Not for Hire." This is the second time I've been stopped in the four years since I began travelling this way.

I also have noticed the state DOT and the county sheriff's office of my intent to travel this way in an affidavit, which I keep in the car at all times. The affidavit helped the first time I was stopped as it slowed down the DPS officer, who wasn't sure about the legal ramifications of the affidavit and thus subsequently wrote a citation for No registration, No DL.

In that incident, I immediately issued a refusal for cause that same day, drawing up a Certificate of Mailing so I had proof of service. I called the court at the end of the following week to see if the citation had made it onto the court docket and was told that it hadn't. (At this point in my journey, I wasn't quite sure what to expect from the "authorities" or how they were going to respond to this.)

Are you keeping a collateral evidence repository? ie. a Libel of Review? [Bonman's process is a counterclaim too!]


The next week on a whim I decided to call again. I don't recall now just exactly how the conversation went, but this time I was told that the citation had shown up and was in the system. I knew what I had to do. I took a photocopy of my original photocopy of the R4C along with the Cert. of Mailing down to the court and entered it into the court case file.

The court clerk asked me if I wanted a court date (after denying having seen any R4Cs ever having been filed). My initial thought was that this seemed strange, however I had written up a court order along with an affidavit describing the event of the traffic stop in great detail, and I wanted to see if the judge would approve it so I ascented to a court date.

Two months later, when I went to court and the case was called, I didn't have to say a word before the judge dismissed the case. I handed the judge my affidavit and court order, but of course never heard back from her.

Fast forward to today. Got ticketed three weeks ago for the same issues and issued my R4C that same day, complete with a Cert. of Mailing (I create my own Cert of Mailing instead of using the Post Office form; this way I can describe the document being mailed and who is mailing it -- i.e. True name).

At the end of the first week I called the court to see if citation number so-and-so had been turned into the court. The person on the phone took a second to check the computer and said "No, it hasn't." I expected this as sometimes it takes more than a week for the court before the citation is turned in.

At the end of the second week I called the court again to check on the citation, and the person on the phone did a preliminary check on the computer and said "no." Then asked if I would hold on so she could check further. She then asked for a description of the violation and my name. I gave her the info on the violation, but declined to give my name. saying that she already had the ticket number and should be able to locate it by that. She excused herself, put me on hold for a couple of minutes, then came back on to say that she couldn't find any such citation.

I'm thinking, "Okay, this is interesting." And looking forward to the next week when I call, not really suspecting anything, but just wanting to confirm for a third and possibly fourth week that the citation hadn't been turned in.

When I call at the end of the third week to check on the citation, I get the same answer and runaround as the second week, only this time I provide a LAST NAME, just to see what will happen. Shazaam! The clerk just happens to find the citation buried in a stack (the same stack that she had just moments before checked and found nothing) and promises to enter it into the system as we are speaking. I tell her I'll be down next week to file a couple of documents that will clear this matter up and hang up.

I suppose if I had continued to refuse to provide a name I could have ridden out the time limit on the court date set on the citation, and the date would have gone by with no one claiming it! Who knew!

On a side note, is there anyone here who knows how we can begin to hold these officials (primarily the LEO) accountable in these situations where they neglect to inform the court of the R4C? Or are we at the mercy of the Thin Blue Line, which protects its own. Just wondering, that's all.

If the chief of police or another principal official fails to forward the R4C to the court that is defrauding the judge and court. So you appear Restricted Appearance Rule E(8) to prevent fraud on the court. Make sure you have a certified copy from your evidence repository certified by the US clerk of court. There are instances where the suitor hands that over to the judge and the judge says, Okay. That seems to be the end of business.

A couple weeks later the suitor will revisit the clerk and find that what he handed over, the certified copy of the R4C from the USDC is all that is in the folder!

One suitor had a similar experience when the local clerk insisted he give a name. It developed into a warrant and the police were snooping around but would never arrest him. When they stopped his wife though, without cause he waited on the front porch until the next cop came pestering and approached the squad car and was arrested. The True Name is the real Key here.

[Chex]

"The True Name is the real Key here"

I guess it has it's application: http://www.dmvnv.com/pdfforms/vp154.pdf

Here's another: http://gacc.nifc.gov/eacc/administra...ontentId=16366

That's going back to here: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...n-not-required

[KnowLaw]

A couple weeks later the suitor will revisit the clerk and find that what he handed over, the certified copy of the R4C from the USDC is all that is in the folder!

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?

[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?

This would be the local clerk, probably county for traffic. All that was in the case file was the certified copy of the R4C. Nothing else.

[KnowLaw]

Cattle court visitation

I have a question for anyone who has been through this recently and has personal experience with visiting a municipal court to present your R4C.

Because of the way in which the court obtained "a response" from a presumed "fiduciary trust," I'm trying to figure out if traffic courts are now approaching this in a different way in order to catch more victims. Or whether they will recognize a R4C no matter what once it is presented.

The first time I went through this three years ago, it was a county Justice court that received the citation. At that time, once I learn that the citation was on the court docket, I went to the Justice court and entered a copy of the refusal along with the Cert. of Mailing into the case file. The clerk at the desk accepted it without problem.

This time, it is a city municipal court that is involved. I went to enter my copy of the R4C and Cert. of Mailing into the file, but the clerk would not accept it. Said that I had to file these with the "judge" on the day the court date was set. I'm presuming, at that time, they want to give the "judge" a chance to contract with me again.

I'm also assuming that as long as I stay on purpose: "I'm here by special visitation, Rule E(8), to make sure the plaintiff is not defrauding the court; I would like to tender a copy of this refused for cause presentment to the bench please..." and then shut up that I should be okay.

Does anyone here see a problem with this?

The reason I'm asking is: I don't trust courts of no record, and I'm not sure if they've devised a scheme to overcome R4C (i.e. other than what I've suggested above).

[David Merrill]

I have a question for anyone who has been through this recently and has personal experience with visiting a municipal court to present your R4C.

Because of the way in which the court obtained "a response" from a presumed "fiduciary trust," I'm trying to figure out if traffic courts are now approaching this in a different way in order to catch more victims. Or whether they will recognize a R4C no matter what once it is presented.

The first time I went through this three years ago, it was a county Justice court that received the citation. At that time, once I learn that the citation was on the court docket, I went to the Justice court and entered a copy of the refusal along with the Cert. of Mailing into the case file. The clerk at the desk accepted it without problem.

This time, it is a city municipal court that is involved. I went to enter my copy of the R4C and Cert. of Mailing into the file, but the clerk would not accept it. Said that I had to file these with the "judge" on the day the court date was set. I'm presuming, at that time, they want to give the "judge" a chance to contract with me again.

I'm also assuming that as long as I stay on purpose: "I'm here by special visitation, Rule E(8), to make sure the plaintiff is not defrauding the court; I would like to tender a copy of this refused for cause presentment to the bench please..." and then shut up that I should be okay.

Does anyone here see a problem with this?

The reason I'm asking is: I don't trust courts of no record, and I'm not sure if they've devised a scheme to overcome R4C (i.e. other than what I've suggested above).

Please carry an audio recorder and don't get beat up over a traffic ticket. The home rule judiciary is actually of a higher authority than the county/state. I am learning how to explain this over the last couple days from a new experience. I identify with METRO organization though UN combinatorial mathematics - WSA ID and Passport. World Services Authority presumes UN charter law.

Look here though:

[IMG]www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Resignation.gif[/IMG]

That is something to contemplate; that municipal home rule is the next stage of self-governance that constitutions are drafted to create and protect.

My heritage is in METRO organization. I was drafting a coram vobis the other day and ending it with a Delegation of Authority - Bond. My first draft I was explaining how I had the authority in my estate - perpetual inheritance - to pass this to the suitor. Then it dawned on me to use Article XX instead and write myself out of the process as priest.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[KnowLaw]

Cattle court visitation

Please carry an audio recorder and don't get beat up over a traffic ticket. The home rule judiciary is actually of a higher authority than the county/state. I am learning how to explain this over the last couple days from a new experience. I identify with METRO organization though UN combinatorial mathematics - WSA ID and Passport. World Services Authority presumes UN charter law.

Thanks David.

Yes. The officer who issued the citation seemed convinced that his homey (attorney in black robe) could overcome what the county justice court was not able to. I'm unconvinced about this as a R4C stands as incontrovertible if not properly rebutted. It's all in the paperwork the "judge" has before him. I'm going by what you have previously written: "All that judge is doing is finding facts, or guiding a jury to. So establish all the facts around your R4C."

I made the mistake of consenting to contact when the officer came up to the window. I was interested in gathering intelligence, to see if certain approaches would deter the LEO. Last time I do that! Went through the whole not traveling in commerce response. Officer was unconvinced; thought he had another victim. Then explained that I had already been to court about this matter and the matter had been dismissed. Showed him a document setting the previous court date and a copy of the refusal of that citation. Looking back in retrospect, there were better actions I could have taken, starting with not consenting to the contact in the first place. And then questioning the officer and not responding to any of his questions.

What I was asking about in the post of mine you referenced was any tips on handling the "restricted appearance" so that I could have straight in my mind what I needed to accomplish. Do this, don't do that; step by step advice about what I needed to be aware of. I came across some very good information while tooling around on this site, and would like to recommend it to anyone else who might be caught up in a similar matter. The thread is listed below along with the document download links to the information. Much thanks to EZrhythm for posting this. Excellent examples to learn from.

No Verified Complaint

Testimony - George's Wife - Charging Inst..doc
File Type: doc Testimony - George - Verified Complaint.doc


The information in these two docs doesn't presume presenting a R4C, but rather a more difficult situation wherein R4C was not used, and you have to challenge jurisdiction before a hostile traffic court "judge." What are the things you need to watch out for when confronting the court, what pitfalls can you fall into and how to avoid them, and how can you get your points across without entering into their jurisdiction. The tips in these two Word documents are priceless. They show you how to hold the public official accountable to the constitution and due process. This is the kind of information I was looking for when I asked my question.

After researching my situation more (and going on previous experience when facing "the system"), I realized that standing mute after presenting the R4C to the court was the paramount thing I had to keep in mind (and not responding to any of the babble coming out of the "attorney in black robe"). No testimony, no contract. And make your stand for however long it takes for the "judge" to realize you're not going to fall for his ruse.

Keep the procedure simple:

When name is called, answer: "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. I would like to tender a copy of this refused for cause presentment to the bench please...to prevent fraud upon this court." Then STAND MUTE!

If the judge asks anything not having to do with the R4C, THEN remind the ?judge? that you are here by Restricted Appearance, to challenge Jurisdiction ONLY, and to please stay on point!

Only if it becomes apparent that you have made a mistake and ventured into jurisdiction, say ? "I accept Your Flag, your Oath and your Bond as affirmations, declaring that You are Under Penalty of Perjury." Then attempt to recuse the "judge," and ask for a hearing in Court of Record.

If anyone can see anything that can be added or subtracted from the above, please speak up.

[KnowLaw]

Fall back and regroup... Update

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!