Went To Court Today

amzbrady said:

OK, next time don't put your camera in the squirrel cage because it obviously made them mad, I could hear them ranting about it.

Click to expand...

At first I thought you were implying put it in the lockbox too so you could hear what they said when he left. Which raises some interesting prospects as well as interesting questions about the legality of "bugging" them, and not in the annoying them sense of the word.

Knowledge said:

Ok, I appreciate the help.
I lost my case, the judge thought it was ok to stop me in the middle of my argument and literally say "I'm gonna stop you there" and charge me for the full fine. I was challenging the courts jurisdiction be cause they lacked subject matter jurisdiction because nobody filed a valid cause of action against me.

Click to expand...

As far as I know if you challenge jurisdiction and they don't formally resolve the matter of jurisdiction before they move on to any other proceedings they have to dismiss with prejudice.
I found a while ago an audio program where some guys discussed that point and detailed all the old SCOTUS cases where that very fact came up. I'm going through the network of sites where I found it, I'd seen a few months ago it was still up and I'll link it if I find it, but you know how those old school sovereign sites are about as organized as their legal briefings...
But should the cases still be precedential, you should have grounds for an appeal.
Also, I believe stopping you in the middle of your argument may be a violation of your right to defend yourself in court as well as due process.

[Edit: I found it It's an old school but post-posse sovereign thing, but that's no reason to disregard it. A lot of the older sovereign arguments before sovereignity became cool made at least some sense.]

It's based on the "Pennoyer Rule." The 2 hour mp3 explains the rest. But if it's something you want to challenge, by all means go for it.
http://usa-the-republic.com/audio/jurisprudentia/TrueSpeech/jurisdiction_(DSP).wav

This is the page I got it from. I wouldn't vouch for ANYTHING else on the page, but that's where I found it. http://usa-the-republic.com/audio/index.html#Law

509rifas said:

I'd like to hear how you managed to pull that off.

Click to expand...

Me too but I wasn't there....I was fully expecting an arrest warrant and when I called to see if one was issued, they informed me the court dismissed the case for not having PC.

I did make the judge raise an eye brow and chuckle when he asked at the original plea if I understood the charges and I said no, and gave him an explanation of why the ticket was bogus, he had asked the prosecutor then if he wanted to drop the charge prosecutor offered a deal, I said nope. :lol:

sudden valley gunner said:

Me too but I wasn't there....I was fully expecting an arrest warrant and when I called to see if one was issued, they informed me the court dismissed the case for not having PC.

I did make the judge raise an eye brow and chuckle when he asked at the original plea if I understood the charges and I said no, and gave him an explanation of why the ticket was bogus, he had asked the prosecutor then if he wanted to drop the charge prosecutor offered a deal, I said nope. :lol:

Click to expand...

What was the charge?

Knowledge said:

Ok, I appreciate the help.
I lost my case, the judge thought it was ok to stop me in the middle of my argument and literally say "I'm gonna stop you there" and charge me for the full fine. I was challenging the courts jurisdiction be cause they lacked subject matter jurisdiction because nobody filed a valid cause of action against me.

Click to expand...

I promise you that the court does not care whether they "have jurisdiction". If you are there, you are subject to their powers. It's called a Glock.

509rifas said:

What was the charge?

Click to expand...

Driving without a license. The reason I didn't understand the charges is because the car was attached by cable and chain to a towtruck.....

sudden valley gunner said:

Driving without a license. The reason I didn't understand the charges is because the car was attached by cable and chain to a towtruck.....

Click to expand...

You vicious criminal!

marshaul said:

You vicious criminal!

Click to expand...

I know the horror how dare I !

The prosecutor tried to get me three times for that charge before I decided to be denied entry to courts for sterile carry.

amzbrady said:

Bless the children, but F yo momma, Classic.

OK, next time don't put your camera in the squirrel cage because it obviously made them mad, I could hear them ranting about it.
Need ID? Should have asked for the chief of police, they have the ability to run your name and ID you, and I would pretty much bet they have you on video they could play back, and have a camera they could take your picture with.
Did you get to keep the key, or did they take it from you? If you got to keep it, why do they need ID to release anything to you? I would think they could sell your gun and recoup the cost of the key if you left with it.
If they kept the key, how could you possibly leave with it and they would have to make another.
I would have taken the gun in the box and set it out and put my gun in. Let the other person lose his and explain it. No really you did the right thing there, by telling them.
I hope to see you file a complaint to get the ID thing resolved.

Overall good job.

Click to expand...

I don't think they knew I was recording I was descret and was just holding my iPad at my waist with a notebook. I got to keep the key (I tried to show that in the video). I'll write up a brief complaint and try to send it out in the next few days, just been busy.

509rifas said:

As far as I know if you challenge jurisdiction and they don't formally resolve the matter of jurisdiction before they move on to any other proceedings they have to dismiss with prejudice.
I found a while ago an audio program where some guys discussed that point and detailed all the old SCOTUS cases where that very fact came up. I'm going through the network of sites where I found it, I'd seen a few months ago it was still up and I'll link it if I find it, but you know how those old school sovereign sites are about as organized as their legal briefings...
But should the cases still be precedential, you should have grounds for an appeal.
Also, I believe stopping you in the middle of your argument may be a violation of your right to defend yourself in court as well as due process.

[Edit: I found it It's an old school but post-posse sovereign thing, but that's no reason to disregard it. A lot of the older sovereign arguments before sovereignity became cool made at least some sense.]

It's based on the "Pennoyer Rule." The 2 hour mp3 explains the rest. But if it's something you want to challenge, by all means go for it.
http://usa-the-republic.com/audio/jurisprudentia/TrueSpeech/jurisdiction_(DSP).wav

This is the page I got it from. I wouldn't vouch for ANYTHING else on the page, but that's where I found it. http://usa-the-republic.com/audio/index.html#Law

Click to expand...

I actually have audio of the entire proceedings if anyone is interested, I can upload them.

I emailed my complaint

Deputy Chief Karen Manser,

I am writing to inform you of an event that occurred October 11th 2013 approximately 12:30 pm. I arrived at the Lynnwood Police Station for a scheduled court hearing. I entered the station legally carrying my holstered firearm and approached the window to inform the staff and acquire a lockbox. The officer I dealt with asked if I had ID and I let her know that I did not have ID on my person at the time. She politely asked me to wait and she walked into a back office to ask what to do. After returning she told me I could not use a lockbox without ID. I proceeded by handing her a printed copy of the RCW 9.41.300 which requires the local legislative authority to provide either a stationary locked box sufficient in size for pistols and key to a weapon owner for weapon storage, or designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping, during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building. The officer then returned to the office and a second lady came out. She was a shorter lady with a medium build, shoulder length wavy light-brownish red hair with thin framed glasses. Immediately upon which she made contact with me she was exceptionally rude and condescending. She informed me that it was the stations policy to require ID in order to use a lockbox. I had the unfortunate obligation to comply with this policy and having left and returned with my ID, only then did she provide me with a lockbox. I handed my ID over and she handed me the key to lockbox #4. I then opened lockbox #4 and found another persons firearm, which I later found out was actually the Jail Commander's firearm. I turned and let her know that someone else's firearm was already occupying the lockbox. Beyond the security risk involved with this incident, my intent for writing this is to address the unlawful policy that was enforced upon me during my visit. This policy is in violation of RCW 41.9.290 & RCW 41.9.300. Please contact me when this issue is resolved, thank you for your time.

Respectfully,

I'm interested in the audio of the proceedings. Many cities have the audio on their websites alolng with city council meeting and other city business.

This is kinda exemplary of why the key should be turned over the the person who is storing the weapon. That could've been your gun they gave to the next guy that asked for a box.

They wanted ID so they would know who it was that took the commanders pistol. Makes an easier investigation.

509rifas said:

I'm interested in the audio of the proceedings. Many cities have the audio on their websites alolng with city council meeting and other city business.

This is kinda exemplary of why the key should be turned over the the person who is storing the weapon. That could've been your gun they gave to the next guy that asked for a box.

Click to expand...

There were two keys. That was the issue here.

They are liable for any loss/damage though so that is the good news.

Freedom1Man said:

There were two keys. That was the issue here.

They are liable for any loss/damage though so that is the good news.

Click to expand...

They were in violation of the law,
They placed property of another in jeopardy
They infringed upon the rights of a citizen

So.....That is the BAD news.

The Hearing

509rifas said:

I'm interested in the audio of the proceedings. Many cities have the audio on their websites alolng with city council meeting and other city business.

This is kinda exemplary of why the key should be turned over the the person who is storing the weapon. That could've been your gun they gave to the next guy that asked for a box.

Click to expand...

Here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXETPMMnFVw

Trigger Dr said:

They were in violation of the law,
They placed property of another in jeopardy
They infringed upon the rights of a citizen

So.....That is the BAD news.

Click to expand...

He could have gotten a new pistol out of the deal.