Your comment to your protogete shows you know how to think on your feet. Makes me wonder what the police officer thought.Originally Posted by Michael Joseph
Your comment to your protogete shows you know how to think on your feet. Makes me wonder what the police officer thought.
Okay. I was thinking that they (the courts) have come up with a way to preclude that kind of thing. So, that information about Withdrawal of Plea is probably dated and not useful now. They've seen it before, and come up with a way to get around it. (Just speculating here.)
What I need to know is the procedure about this appointing an attorney. From what you just wrote, it doesn't seem as though I am locked in yet. I'm not sure the judge gave me anything of the kind with regard to finding an attorney. I don't remember a lot of what he was saying at the hearing. It went by pretty quickly, and I have trouble keeping up with things. But perhaps you are correct. Might the Muni court have a transcript of the hearing (tape recorded, I presume) that I could apply for a copy of in forma pauperis?
At present, I'm not sure what is the best option for me to take, so I will keep this in the background. I haven't returned the attorney's letter yet. Just marked it. Will need to ask more questions in order to better determine an answer. It may be that it's more advantageous to go through the trial, and wait for an opportunity at allocution. What do you think, given the circumstances? It seems like my best chance to get the truth on the record.
Yes, the bolded statement above is what I had planned to do. I believe it's $30K here in Arizona also. I've downloaded information about creating a bond; I'll have to dig it out and see if you think it will fly. It worked at one time.
The last time I was in court for this I still had insurance on the auto. That probably had something to do with the outcome at that time. Do you think?
You lost me here. I have little idea what you are talking about. I'm not familiar with the info. This would need to be explained more fully for me to understand.
Before I read your reply above, I typed out a brief outline of the situation as it currently stands, at least as I understand it. I will post that next to see what kind of comment it draws.
(Preface: My phone, and therefore Internet capability, is going to be impaired for at least another week due to the demand for repairs in my area after the storm that went through on the 9th, so I'm unable to research this at home and must find WiFi spots to connect.)
Let me try to outline the situation as it presently stands.
1. The Muni court judge has assumed jurisdiction based on my not having objected to his assertion of such at the arraignment.
2. After the above mentioned occurrence in #1, the judge then accepted my papers proving "refused for cause" was properly served, because now he has jurisdiction and the papers can be ignored. The refused citation clearly shows a reservation of rights (without prejudice) signed above my First Middle signature, which the judge acknowledged after gaining jurisdiction.
3. The judge then, over my stated objection which he recognized in court, created paperwork to appoint an attorney for me. The paperwork states that I am not to contact the attorney before Sept. 24. (So, I'm wondering if there is something I can do before then -- make motions, submit affidavits or whatever -- in an attempt to regain some personal control over the proceedings.) Does anyone know the significance of not contacting the attorney?
4. The judge then created paper work for the setting of a trial, bypassing Preliminary Hearing and Pretrial. There's a box checked that reads: "Appear at a mandatory pretrial conference per attached notice." I'm not sure what this is in reference to. And I don't know what the "attached notice" is in reference to since there isn't any. The only papers I have are: a document stating the name address and phone number of the appointed attorney; an Order Regarding Counsel appointing the attorney; and the document ordering me to appear at trial on Nov. 27th. So, I'm not sure what this "attached notice" is in reference to.
5. Trial was set for November 27 at 2:00 pm.
6. Judge asked before closing the proceeding: "Do you have anything you want to say?" Not being aware (at that moment) of the opportunity to object, I missed an opportunity to object to the proceedings and withdraw consent.
7. I was released on my own recognizance and ordered not to "drive."
Given these circumstances, I need to know how I can proceed to endeavor to get the truth of the situation on the record, and also what I can legally do to influence the situation from this point on, seeing as an attorney has been appointed (who I have yet to see or contract with).
Some thoughts that have occurred to me, although I don't know if I am allowed to file anything to get it on the record (even though I haven't accepted the attorney; I realize the attorney is being forced on me at this point "under protest"). I'm just putting these out to see if there is something positive I can do to begin influencing the direction of things:
1. File an affidavit revoking power of attorney of gov't officials.
2. File an affidavit accepting the oath of office of the judge and prosecuting attorney (supplied with certified copies of said oaths to establish a record) putting them on notice to follow their constitutional duties. (I also have an Affidavit of Administrative Notice, which was recorded and sent four years ago to the State Dept. of Transportation and the County Sheriff -- with proof by certificate of mailing -- but these would need to be recognized in a court that is superior to the inferior court with which I am presently entangled to be effective.)
3. File a Motion to Withdraw Plea (to establish a hearing). I don't think this would do any good if I were still under the power of attorney of the attorney appointed. Am I correct in that assumption? In other words, he would be in control of any dealing with the judge at the hearing and not myself. I would not be able to ask my questions in the way and under the circumstance that I want in order to establish on the record certain facts. (David made this clear in his last reply, so this point can be disregarded.)
4. There is something I read recently about "assistance of counsel" I believe it is called. Does anyone know anything about this and its significance?
5. Will a notice of violation of Title 18 Sec. 241 (Conspiracy against rights) to the gov't "actors" have any effect on these actors? Or will it just cause them to fly off the handle and issue threats. (On second thought, this might not be a good idea.)
What I'm endeavoring to determine is: what procedures am I able to use that they cannot block. If I'm unable to accomplish anything in the above list, then it seems that I have no other alternative than to endure the trial. At which point I will have an opportunity at allocution to enter testimony.
I need some clarification about allocution and what, beyond saying "I do not consent to these proceedings," that I can bring out. I read that one can bring out defects in pleadings, at which point I can point out that I am not in receipt of a verified complaint, etc. The plaintiff has an obligation under the ruling in Hagans vs Lavine (415 US 533) to provide evidence on the record to rebut the challenge. But also that this matter was "refused for cause" at the outset, but said refusal was not recognized by the court. This would also be a good point to bring in the Affidavit of Administrative Notice recorded at the county recorder.
Right about now, I'm feeling as though that sinking feeling has abated somewhat, and that I have a chance to set the record straight. (On second thought, maybe not.)
The system of thought is become the court of record by keeping the record.
So you keep an audio recorder in your shirt pocket. Then you can order up the transcript and compare. There is a lot of intelligence to be found in what the "judge" instructs be removed by the transcriber. If he adjusts it at all, then he is not a court of record any more. But since you have an accurate recording, you are. You might use the Libel of Review to set up an evidence repository; a Record in the care and custody (trust) of the US clerk of court. You become the court of record. [The case gets dismissed but you continue using it for an evidence repository - the Record.]I don't remember a lot of what he was saying at the hearing. It went by pretty quickly, and I have trouble keeping up with things.
The approach you are using here and on SuiJurisClub is quite uneffective in my opinion. You are silly to try allowing voices on the Internet to advise you in such hybrid and scripted responses. Awaiting that magic moment - the window of allocution - that is just plain risky. In my opinion you would be best off to get your mind wrapped around these topics while able to enjoy yourself and the learning process. Not while under the gun.
Did you put together a portfolio of the actors' oaths of office yet?
What I teach record-forming. When you get that between your ears you grasp how to redact the situation to simply holding the actors to their oath as a fungible fidelity bond. Look at that Lien. It has the oaths being violated in the "collateral" field.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Last edited by David Merrill; 09-17-12 at 01:45 PM.
Okay. I'm beginning to focus in on this. This not having access to the Internet is killing me. I just spent the whole day writing a reply which I'm not going to post because I can see that it is mostly irrelevant to what you are trying to pound into my head. If I had seen your comment earlier [it's 8 PM here as I write] I wouldn't have wasted so much time accomplishing nothing.
I'm not able to sneak an audio recorder into the courtroom. (Don't even have one to begin with.) So, I'm up a creak on that. But yes, I see your point about keeping my own record. I've been hoping to do that with affidavits, to establish a record. Any chance I can use affidavits?
Also, I haven't pulled the trigger yet on canning the appointed attorney. Just holding onto the letter they sent without opening it. I'm not sure the judge will allow me to go pro se. I need more clarity about what course of action to take and why I'm taking it.
Had a chance to glance briefly over the Libel in Review (on the fly while composing this reply, so will need more time to study it later). That certainly looks interesting. I see why you recommend it. It gets the matter on record.
Haven't had an opportunity yet. I need all three oaths, is that correct? Won't fly with just two? Need to bring the District Attny into it? (I'm thinking out loud here; please indulge me.) The DA because that ties him to the Libel of Review? I'm just trying to understand.
I've mostly been trying to come to some clarification about the real situation that's facing me before taking any action. That's why I've been asking so many questions. My questions have been in the vein of elimination of methods of approach, asking people's opinions, attempting to ascertain their experiences.
I agree about the comment about allocution. But at the moment, that's the only thing that's providing me with any hope.
I'm trying to follow you here, but I'm not sure I correctly understand. What do you mean by the term "fungible fidelity bond"? You're using terms I have no idea what you are talking about until you explain them to me.
I presume you are referring to the following, which I still do not understand what it is or how it is created! Or how it might effect things.
Last edited by KnowLaw; 09-18-12 at 03:49 AM.
David, thank you for your kind indulgence.
I think I'm now seeing (connecting all the pieces) what you've been trying to drill into my head all along. I can see the reason and logic in it. That other advice was clouding my thinking, but I think I'm clear of that now. I'm now listening only to you.
I'm now ready to execute the instructions you've given, beginning with returning the letter from the attorney. I'm also preparing to obtain the 3 oaths of office: the judge, the city prosecutor, and the DA (once I can find out who that is). I'll swear out an affidavit of acceptance of the oaths to file into the case.
So, will anything I file in the muni court (like affidavits) be open to recognition by the court? Or do I first have to force them to recognize, through the acceptance of the oaths placed into the record, so that my demands can be met and I can be heard in my own proper person? In other words, what triggers that recognition? I just want to be clear about this.
Also, at one point you made the following statement:
David: There is a recognized legal principle that, if "all" judges have conflicts of interest, then "any" judge can hear the case. (The issue comes up from time to time in cases involving the compensation of judges or other matters affecting all judges.) - United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980).
Could you please tell me the significance of this? I want to be clear about the implication of what you're trying to point out.
One step at a time. Depending on how things play out, I'm seriously considering your suggestion about filing the Libel of Review with the district court, now that I understand how it can be used.
I called the state Sec. of State office, but they don't handle Dist. Atty oaths of office. I assume I need to contact the U.S. Sec. of State to obtain this? If so, do they have local offices in the districts where I can get the copies of the attorney's letter being returned stamped "Received, time and date with initials"?
David, would it be accurate to summarize the "USDC case file" as an "evidence repository" wherein admissible evidence is collected and held for future (or present) use?
Thanks David & Treefarmer,
What's the difference between a LoR/evidence repository for filing oaths of office, etc. and recording the same at a (county) recorder? If the objective is to create admissible evidence, would not the latter be equally sufficient since certified copies of public records are self-authenticating (e.g. Fed. Rules of Evidence Rule 902) and therefore admissible?
The Default Judgment from the LoR is indeed filed in both offices - local and federal.
Read this carefully.
That is an intense little clause of American history and remedy, the 'saving to suitors' clause. Incompetence in common law always defaults to admiralty. But you get the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States government. That is the basis of the LoR.
You keep the receipt. Look at the receipt here - a $46 Miscellaneous Case (no Default Judgment). Two years down the road you might R4C a traffic ticket, the US clerk of court might send it back, This case was dismissed in early 2013... You send it back with a copy of the receipt and remind him about 'saving to suitors' - Congress has guaranteed me the 'exclusive original cognizance' of the US government since 1789! You are in breach of contract...
REGISTRATION OF FOREIGN JUDGMNT
That is revealing right there but also note that he proved out his affidavit with a Certification of Commission on his notary too.
When you get the exclusive original cognizance of the US government then you can effectively explore any and all the techniques being explored here because you are getting all of it on the record.
As KnowLaw gets some of the faulty oaths of office together he might publish an affidavit at the county clerk and recorder that he has not given consent to be prosecuted by vacant offices and recognizes the court not of record not. [SUTHERS was cleaning out his office the next morning; and look at his Oath today! It is clearly a fungible fidelity bond - even a stock certificate!] Then he gets certified copies - actually the original from the C&R into the case with the local clerk of court marking his certified copies FILED, including markings from the district attorney too, into the case file. Pretty quick things start happening like the prosecutor leaves the courtoom when his case is called?
So the judge asks, What can I do for you?
Instead of pleading or making a motion KnowLaw might become aware enough:
Business here is concluded. Have a nice day!
More likely though he will move for a dismissal and the prosecutor will come back into the room and they will resume the business of charging and prosecuting...
So it takes getting the remedy between your ears. If you are incompetent then the law will have its effect, thank God. You become like a vessel being blown about by the winds and tides. I want my trustees to control you until you get on your feet but then again I want you on your feet.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Last edited by David Merrill; 09-20-12 at 10:14 AM.
Bingo, Jethro!
You said it! Make it happen!
That's what I do (file documents at the county recorder). Become your own court of competent jurisdiction. That's what sovereignty it all about. Like David says, become a competent record keeper. Form and keep your own record of events.
The LoR filed with the USDC is a significantly better method of being able to deal with the court system. But it accomplishes essentially the same thing as keeping your own record by filing at the county recorder. And filing at the county recorder is less expensive (if cost becomes a factor).
Last edited by KnowLaw; 09-20-12 at 10:28 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote