Motofixxer
Regular Member
So you get confronted by law enforcement for whatever cause they claim. They charge you with some Ordinance, traffic, or statute violation. So now you have to defend yourself. Now what?
Here are some notes from Marc Stevens videos and the links.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Ask am I entitled to a fair trial?
Am I entitled to confront my accuser? Answer will be of course
Am I entitled to be informed? Answer will be of course
Am I entitled to demand the nature and cause of the charges and proceedings? Well yes of course
Also ask the prosecutor "IS there evidence of the complaining party?"
Nobody will answer, or the judge will mumble something...
State ok that's non responsive I asked a yes or no question
Also Rules of evidence don't permit the Judge to testify for the prosecutor
Look into rules for Discovery...If you ask for it, they must provide it or there is no trial. So insist on the evidence of a complaining party
Who is the complaining party? Is the Judge claiming injury, the prosecutor, the Bailiff, the stenographer? who???
"...The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief." Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984)
1. Court needs “Standing”
Clifford S. v Superior Court, 45 Cal. Rptr.2d 333,335“Without Standing, there is no actual or justiciable controversy, and courts will not entertain such cases.”
If a party is found to lack standing, the court is without subject matter jurisdiction to determine the cause...|A| court lacks discretion to consider the merits of a case over which it's without jurisdiction. Miss. Soc of Pardons & Paroles, 896 A. 2d 809 812 (Conn. 2006)
“As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury.” People v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793.
Complaint ticket is NOT synonymous with cause of action
“Standing is a necessary component of subject matter jurisdiction” Rames v. Bryrd, 521 US 811
“Standing is perhaps the most important of {the jurisdictional} doctrines..standing represents a jurisdictional requirement which remains open to the review at all stages of the litigation...” NOW, Inc., v. Scheidler, 510 US 249
“The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendent's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984)
Who is alleging personal injury??? Officer injured? State injured? A complainant injured? NO
There is no violation of legal right, which means no subject matter jurisdiction Court has no Jurisdiction\validity
2.Impeach Witness(Officer)
Courts are for protection of individuals rights
A plaintiff must allege personal injury Allen v. Wright 468 US 737, 751 US Supreme Court
Ask Witness 1. “Did you file a valid cause of action?” Officer will answer yes
2.”How many elements are in a valid cause of action?”
Loud Objection from prosecuters calling for a legal conclusion the witness is not competent to testify
Might say he is unable, or outside the scope of his knowledge = he is incompetent to answer the 2nd, but not the first
Judge is forced to strike all testimony
Ask Cop witness:
Is it your testimony that I was in the State on this day?
Cop answers...well yes
Would there be any crime or case or Jurisdiction if I was not within the State on this day
Cop answers: no
Ask, so your confident that I was in the State on this day?
Cop answers: yes
Ask: is that an arbitrary opinion?
Cop answers: well no
Ask: so it's based on facts currently in your knowledge?
Cop answers yes
Ask: Ok then factually what is a State?
Prosecutor and Judge will jump in and object to defend the system saying “Calls for a legal conclusion the witness can't testify”
Cop already admitted and made a legal opinion, on your citation saying you broke the law
Cop or judge may say the state is the ground, or an act of Congress passed back in ???
Ok but the cop isn't testifying that he saw me on the ground, because that would mean the state existed before that act of congress. But that clearly isn't the case.
Or an act of Congress creating the State...Ok but the cop isn't testifying he seen me in a piece of paper.
The Judge can't testify on behalf of the witness' own knowledge
3.Ask Judge
“I am entitled to a Fair Trial” Will say yes
Ask “Can I get a fair trial if there is conflict of interest” will answer no
Ask Judge “Who do you represent here?” It is required that you do disclose the information parties might consider relevant to question of disqualification. The judge actually represents the state. He gets his paycheck from the State. If he refuses to answer assert a statement on the record that the judge is a representative of the state. And that he is a party to the action and therefore must recuse himself. Ever looked at the Docket? The State vs You...see the problem.
You as a Judge represent a party to the action. Therefore no possibility of a fair trial. Think about it this way, if your brother is on trial for murder, do you want the murderers mother presiding over the trial????? No of course not, why? Because there is a conflict of interest. No possibility of a fair trial.
Calif. Judicial Canons 3(E)(2)
“In all trial court proceedings, a judge shall disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties...might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for disqualification.”
So you then feel your being trampled on, and have no Rights. Well consider this:
A Belligerent Claimant
by Michael H. Keehn
November 22, 2006
I have a friend who was recently charged with numerous misdemeanors. He was charged
because he had the audacity to confront County Government and government officials with
doing their jobs and answering some basic questions. In the world of legal issues, there is this
rule called tacit admission. Which government uses against ‘we the people’ on a regular basis.
The rule works as follows:
Government, or more likely one of its agents, accuses us of a wrong doing, perhaps
speeding or driving without a valid drivers license. If we do not contest or dispute this
accusation, in writing, signed under penalty of perjury, and file it with the court clerk
under our case number, then the accusation against us stands by virtue of our silence...
TACIT ADMISSION.
In my friends many written communications (sent certified mail, return receipt requested), with
government officials, they were given 30 days with which to respond to the questions and legal
determinations that were asserted. A legal determination asserted would be no different than a
policeman writing you a ticket for speeding. The officer has asserted a legal determination that
you were speeding. It is no different. You can make legal determinations and assert them, same
as they do.
And if government officials do not contest nor dispute the legal determinations you’ve asserted,
then under the rule of Tacit Admission, the asserted legal determination is accepted as fact. This
is how it would work if government and its courts did not operate criminally. In my friends case,
they excluded all such cases of Tacit Admission, the court excluded his affidavit of facts on the
matter which had been signed under penalty of perjury and filed with the court clerk on his case.
Then the court, item by item, excluded the foundations of his defense.
The question here proposed is ‘what to do if faced with a similar experience?’ Fortunately we
occasionally have a judge that is on our side. We don’t always see them as such, but, at times,
they are truly trying to help us. Such is the case of Federal Judge James Alger Fee. In U.S. vs.
JOHNSON (76 Fed, Supp. 538), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that...
"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, not
to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one who is indifferent thereto. It is a
FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be
claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT
claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkle, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671;
Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am. Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App.
171, 175 N.E. 876.
In this ruling the judge has just instructed you how to proceed. He has said that rights are not
accorded the passive resistant. Rights are not available to the individual who is ignorant of his
rights. Nor are rights available to a person who is indifferent, or in other words, a person who
simply doesn’t care. And further, judge Fee has clearly informed you that your attorney can not
claim your rights for you. Which is another way of saying that your attorney can not truly
represent you. Judge Fee tells you that rights are only available to a belligerent claimant in
person. He further stated that to claim your rights in a court of this country, you must be willing
to engage in sustained combat.
There you have it. You are charged with negligent homicide for shooting a crazed drug addict
who entered your home and nearly hacked the arm off your wife with a machete and was going
after your child with the same machete when you shot and killed him. And in a pre-trial motion
hearing the judge rules that you can not mention the machete nor the injury to your wife. That
you can not mention the fact that this crazed individual drove his car into the front room of your
home. Nor can you mention that he set fire to your house. While this might seem a reach to
you, if the crazed drug addict is actually a government agent acting to take your money, then
this is the type of logic you can expect. It is the type of logic that was applied to my friend in the
structuring of his defense. Anything that makes your case, anything that enhances your defense,
anything that works against the government case against you, WILL NOT BE ALLOWED if at
all possible.
While the judge may rule that these matters are not allowed, the fact is that you and your family
have paid for time in court. You would proceed as though the motions that limit your defense
were never heard or approved. And when you are ruled in contempt you still don’t give up.
Even if the judge puts you in jail for contempt, you don’t give up... remember, sustained
combat. You’ve paid the price to be here, its your defense, not the courts. You become that
Belligerent Claimant in person that Judge James Alger Fee told you to become in order to
secure your rights. Not the courts rights, not the prosecutions rights... your rights.
It’s your life. You can lay down and play dead, be passive, ignorant or indifferent and go to jail
or pay the fine, or you can stand up like an adult and make your case
So the choice is yours, what are you gonna do?
The contents of this post are a reference only and are NOT a substitute for sound legal advise from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction!!!
Here are some notes from Marc Stevens videos and the links.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Ask am I entitled to a fair trial?
Am I entitled to confront my accuser? Answer will be of course
Am I entitled to be informed? Answer will be of course
Am I entitled to demand the nature and cause of the charges and proceedings? Well yes of course
Also ask the prosecutor "IS there evidence of the complaining party?"
Nobody will answer, or the judge will mumble something...
State ok that's non responsive I asked a yes or no question
Also Rules of evidence don't permit the Judge to testify for the prosecutor
Look into rules for Discovery...If you ask for it, they must provide it or there is no trial. So insist on the evidence of a complaining party
Who is the complaining party? Is the Judge claiming injury, the prosecutor, the Bailiff, the stenographer? who???
"...The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief." Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984)
1. Court needs “Standing”
Clifford S. v Superior Court, 45 Cal. Rptr.2d 333,335“Without Standing, there is no actual or justiciable controversy, and courts will not entertain such cases.”
If a party is found to lack standing, the court is without subject matter jurisdiction to determine the cause...|A| court lacks discretion to consider the merits of a case over which it's without jurisdiction. Miss. Soc of Pardons & Paroles, 896 A. 2d 809 812 (Conn. 2006)
“As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury.” People v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793.
Complaint ticket is NOT synonymous with cause of action
“Standing is a necessary component of subject matter jurisdiction” Rames v. Bryrd, 521 US 811
“Standing is perhaps the most important of {the jurisdictional} doctrines..standing represents a jurisdictional requirement which remains open to the review at all stages of the litigation...” NOW, Inc., v. Scheidler, 510 US 249
“The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendent's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984)
Who is alleging personal injury??? Officer injured? State injured? A complainant injured? NO
There is no violation of legal right, which means no subject matter jurisdiction Court has no Jurisdiction\validity
2.Impeach Witness(Officer)
Courts are for protection of individuals rights
A plaintiff must allege personal injury Allen v. Wright 468 US 737, 751 US Supreme Court
Ask Witness 1. “Did you file a valid cause of action?” Officer will answer yes
2.”How many elements are in a valid cause of action?”
Loud Objection from prosecuters calling for a legal conclusion the witness is not competent to testify
Might say he is unable, or outside the scope of his knowledge = he is incompetent to answer the 2nd, but not the first
Judge is forced to strike all testimony
Ask Cop witness:
Is it your testimony that I was in the State on this day?
Cop answers...well yes
Would there be any crime or case or Jurisdiction if I was not within the State on this day
Cop answers: no
Ask, so your confident that I was in the State on this day?
Cop answers: yes
Ask: is that an arbitrary opinion?
Cop answers: well no
Ask: so it's based on facts currently in your knowledge?
Cop answers yes
Ask: Ok then factually what is a State?
Prosecutor and Judge will jump in and object to defend the system saying “Calls for a legal conclusion the witness can't testify”
Cop already admitted and made a legal opinion, on your citation saying you broke the law
Cop or judge may say the state is the ground, or an act of Congress passed back in ???
Ok but the cop isn't testifying that he saw me on the ground, because that would mean the state existed before that act of congress. But that clearly isn't the case.
Or an act of Congress creating the State...Ok but the cop isn't testifying he seen me in a piece of paper.
The Judge can't testify on behalf of the witness' own knowledge
3.Ask Judge
“I am entitled to a Fair Trial” Will say yes
Ask “Can I get a fair trial if there is conflict of interest” will answer no
Ask Judge “Who do you represent here?” It is required that you do disclose the information parties might consider relevant to question of disqualification. The judge actually represents the state. He gets his paycheck from the State. If he refuses to answer assert a statement on the record that the judge is a representative of the state. And that he is a party to the action and therefore must recuse himself. Ever looked at the Docket? The State vs You...see the problem.
You as a Judge represent a party to the action. Therefore no possibility of a fair trial. Think about it this way, if your brother is on trial for murder, do you want the murderers mother presiding over the trial????? No of course not, why? Because there is a conflict of interest. No possibility of a fair trial.
Calif. Judicial Canons 3(E)(2)
“In all trial court proceedings, a judge shall disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties...might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for disqualification.”
So you then feel your being trampled on, and have no Rights. Well consider this:
A Belligerent Claimant
by Michael H. Keehn
November 22, 2006
I have a friend who was recently charged with numerous misdemeanors. He was charged
because he had the audacity to confront County Government and government officials with
doing their jobs and answering some basic questions. In the world of legal issues, there is this
rule called tacit admission. Which government uses against ‘we the people’ on a regular basis.
The rule works as follows:
Government, or more likely one of its agents, accuses us of a wrong doing, perhaps
speeding or driving without a valid drivers license. If we do not contest or dispute this
accusation, in writing, signed under penalty of perjury, and file it with the court clerk
under our case number, then the accusation against us stands by virtue of our silence...
TACIT ADMISSION.
In my friends many written communications (sent certified mail, return receipt requested), with
government officials, they were given 30 days with which to respond to the questions and legal
determinations that were asserted. A legal determination asserted would be no different than a
policeman writing you a ticket for speeding. The officer has asserted a legal determination that
you were speeding. It is no different. You can make legal determinations and assert them, same
as they do.
And if government officials do not contest nor dispute the legal determinations you’ve asserted,
then under the rule of Tacit Admission, the asserted legal determination is accepted as fact. This
is how it would work if government and its courts did not operate criminally. In my friends case,
they excluded all such cases of Tacit Admission, the court excluded his affidavit of facts on the
matter which had been signed under penalty of perjury and filed with the court clerk on his case.
Then the court, item by item, excluded the foundations of his defense.
The question here proposed is ‘what to do if faced with a similar experience?’ Fortunately we
occasionally have a judge that is on our side. We don’t always see them as such, but, at times,
they are truly trying to help us. Such is the case of Federal Judge James Alger Fee. In U.S. vs.
JOHNSON (76 Fed, Supp. 538), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that...
"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, not
to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one who is indifferent thereto. It is a
FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be
claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT
claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkle, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671;
Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am. Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App.
171, 175 N.E. 876.
In this ruling the judge has just instructed you how to proceed. He has said that rights are not
accorded the passive resistant. Rights are not available to the individual who is ignorant of his
rights. Nor are rights available to a person who is indifferent, or in other words, a person who
simply doesn’t care. And further, judge Fee has clearly informed you that your attorney can not
claim your rights for you. Which is another way of saying that your attorney can not truly
represent you. Judge Fee tells you that rights are only available to a belligerent claimant in
person. He further stated that to claim your rights in a court of this country, you must be willing
to engage in sustained combat.
There you have it. You are charged with negligent homicide for shooting a crazed drug addict
who entered your home and nearly hacked the arm off your wife with a machete and was going
after your child with the same machete when you shot and killed him. And in a pre-trial motion
hearing the judge rules that you can not mention the machete nor the injury to your wife. That
you can not mention the fact that this crazed individual drove his car into the front room of your
home. Nor can you mention that he set fire to your house. While this might seem a reach to
you, if the crazed drug addict is actually a government agent acting to take your money, then
this is the type of logic you can expect. It is the type of logic that was applied to my friend in the
structuring of his defense. Anything that makes your case, anything that enhances your defense,
anything that works against the government case against you, WILL NOT BE ALLOWED if at
all possible.
While the judge may rule that these matters are not allowed, the fact is that you and your family
have paid for time in court. You would proceed as though the motions that limit your defense
were never heard or approved. And when you are ruled in contempt you still don’t give up.
Even if the judge puts you in jail for contempt, you don’t give up... remember, sustained
combat. You’ve paid the price to be here, its your defense, not the courts. You become that
Belligerent Claimant in person that Judge James Alger Fee told you to become in order to
secure your rights. Not the courts rights, not the prosecutions rights... your rights.
It’s your life. You can lay down and play dead, be passive, ignorant or indifferent and go to jail
or pay the fine, or you can stand up like an adult and make your case
So the choice is yours, what are you gonna do?
The contents of this post are a reference only and are NOT a substitute for sound legal advise from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction!!!
Last edited:
