Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Verified Complaint Required For Prosecution

  1. #1
    Regular Member Lawful Aim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    129

    Verified Complaint Required For Prosecution

    In another thread the discussion is - Without a competent fact witness the court does not have jurisdiction. This also means that the prosecution CANNOT produce a VALID COMPLAINT which is required under their own rules. No valid complaint, no further proceedings UNLESS one consents to proceed. Once consent is obtained PRESUMED jurisdiction is deceptively satisfied. I say "presumed" because the courts jurisdiction is ALWAYS presumed as it can be challenged at anytime to which it CANNOT be proven but again, only consented to. Without jurisdiction ANY judgment in the matter is VOID; http://mysite.verizon.net/~vze2snju/void/22reasons.htm

    ANYONE who has faced charges in the past may petition the court to declare the judgment void.

    Below is a testimony of an instance where the accused challenged the court for a valid complaint. It is a traffic matter but this also applies in ALL criminal matters too. I have witnessed a misdemeanor matter where a FALSE charging instrument was produced by the court. The instrument did not contain two signatures and even the signature that was provided wasn't given under oath as required by one who is authorized to certify oaths. The charge was dropped.
    Last edited by Lawful Aim; 07-02-2011 at 03:41 AM.
    The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it. -Albert Einstein
    Liberty that was diminished in increments has never been restored by the same. -Lawful Aim
    One who compromises in steps toward freedom will always be compromising. -Lawful Aim
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  2. #2
    Regular Member Lawful Aim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    129
    [Reposted with permission by the author]

    In Sonoma County, California September 12, 2006


    This is a rough sequence of events that led up to the dismissal of a Traffic Ticket in California. It is my personal experience.

    Several days ago I went to the Clerk’s Office in Santa Rosa that handles Traffic matters in Sonoma County, California. It was my intention to file a “Motion to Dismiss and Counter Claim” for a speeding ticket that I got from the Petaluma Police in a speed trap just south of town. The “Motion to Dismiss” is a paper that my Paralegal, Jeff, wrote for me – using strictly Statutes (Vehicle Code) to move for dismissal, based on the fact that there was no “Verified Complaint.”


    In California the Codes are written so that a “Verified Complaint” sworn under oath with two signatures, is needed to prosecute for most “offenses” – including Traffic, Misdemeanors, Criminal and Civil. 99% of the time there is no such “Complaint” because the Plaintiff would have to swear under oath that there was an Injured Party. In rare occasions such a Complaint is issued by crime victims. But neither the District Attorney nor the Police Officer are going to issue such a Complaint, because they are part of the Government “fiction,” which by definition cannot be injured.


    So when I attempted to file my 47-page Motion to Dismiss, the Clerk there went to her supervisor, not knowing what to do. These types of Motions are very rare in the Traffic Division, because most people have NO CLUE about the rules. They normally roll over, pay the fine and go to Traffic School, which of course is what The Beast is counting on. Or else they ARGUE THE FACTS in Traffic Court, hoping to get out of the Ticket or have it reduced.


    OF COURSE THEY ALWAYS LOSE – because they are dumb-asses who have NO CLUE that “The System” is completely stacked against them. TO ARGUE in court, is to LOSE because ARGUING IS A DISHONOR in the Equity System of Justice. When they plead “Not Guilty,” they do not understand that such a plea ARGUES THE FACTS of the case. So what? – They are going to deny that the Ticket was issued on the date specified? That the Officer pulled them over? That they gave their name and Drivers License? This is INSANITY – because 99% of the time THE FACTS ARE INCONTROVERTIBLE. So arguing against them gets an immediate judgment of “Guilty!”


    The correct strategy is to ACCEPT THE FACTS as true – because they ARE.


    A better strategy is to CHALLENGE JURISDICTION before anything else happens. You do this by bringing up the FACT that their own procedure (Due Process) was not followed, as defined by THEIR Constitution and Codes. IF you do not challenge jurisdiction at the VERY BEGINNING, then you are lost. Although the Supreme Court has ruled that “jurisdiction can be challenged at any time,” the practical situation is that most people GIVE UP JURISDICTION WHEN THEY FIRST OPEN THEIR MOUTH. After that, it is completely useless to “challenge jurisdiction,” having already given it away.


    But of course, The Beast will NEVER tell you this.


    Really, you should challenge jurisdiction at the side of the road, when the “Officer” first pulls you over. But that is another matter.


    The Traffic Clerk Supervisor refused to file my Motion to Dismiss, because you have to do it within a certain time – usually 10-30 days after the Ticket was issued, depending on their rules. So even though the Appearance Date was not yet up, that window had closed for me. The Supervisor Clerk said that I needed to submit my Motion in open Court.


    So I boned up on “the law” (their rules) the next night, in preparation for going to Court the following day.

    There was a long line at the Traffic Window, as usual. It snaked out the Office door, down the hallway to the Building door, and outside to the Courtyard. AMAZING! – How people STAND IN LINE to be RAPED!!!

    Finally I got to the Clerk’s Window and said that I wanted a Hearing, so she put me on the list, and I proceeded to the Hearing Room. It was another half-hour before the “Judge” walked in. The Bailiff said, “All rise!” To which I responded by remaining seated.

    When it was finally my turn to enter the Bar, I stepped up and said,
    “I am here by Restricted Appearance, to challenge Jurisdiction ONLY. I am NOT here to Testify or to Plead, and I do NOT swear to Oaths. Are you, SIR, a DULLY ELECTED JUDICIAL OFFICER?”
    (I NEVER call them “Your Honor” or “Judge”!)


    To which he replied “No. I see that you have been ticketed for speeding. How do you plead?”

    So I said, “Excuse me, SIR, but according to the California Constitution, Article 6, I am allowed a DULLY ELECTED JUDICIAL OFFICER. If you are NOT one of those, then I disqualify you for cause.”

    The “Judge” had no alternative but to grant me a Hearing before an elected “Judge”, so he scheduled another hearing “Upstairs” in the Superior Court, three weeks hence. Normally they would have you go “Upstairs” immediately, but it was late in the day, and those sessions upstairs had ended.



    Finally the fateful day arrived, and I passed the Electronic Surveillance Station. They not only do not want you to bring guns and knives into the Courtroom, but Voice Recorders are also not allowed. I think you may surmise the reason.


    This was a “court” that recorded proceedings anyway, so those recordings were OSTENSIBLY available for a small fee. I wanted to be in a court that recorded proceedings, because a Prosecuting Attorney is always there, unlike in Traffic Court. NONE of these “courts” are Courts of Record.


    After finding the correct Courtroom and sitting down, I waited for about an hour until my case was called. When I reached the Bar, I immediately stated, “I am here by Restricted Appearance in the matter of (John James), to challenge Jurisdiction ONLY. I am not here to plead or to testify, and I do not swear to Oaths.”

    That perked up the woman Judge’s ears, because 99.9% of Defendants do not say anything like that. Most just whimper in, accept the “authority” of the “court,” and plead for mercy. Or worse, they try to “explain” their situation, hoping for mercy. Little do most people know, that the “court” has
    NO Jurisdiction, UNTIL you CONSENT to it – by “appearing” as the “Defendant” before the “court”. Then you are AUTOMATICALLY guilty, having agreed to their terms and conditions. All that remains is the amount of “fine.” That is why you lose 99% of the time. It is a VERY profitable RACKET.


    So the Judge tried to trap me into contracting with the Court, by asking “Mr. James, I see that you are charged with speeding. How do you plead?”

    Since I fully understood her ploy, I responded with, “Do you have the CHARGING INSTRUMENT?” (This is a SWORN record, or “Verified Complaint” by the District Attorney, of the charges against you. They NEVER have this!)


    The Judge then looked at the Assistant DA and asked if she had the Charging Instrument. The Assistant DA said “No,” keeping her head bowed low at her table.

    So the Judge then just shrugged, and said, “Dismissed.”

    Last edited by Lawful Aim; 07-02-2011 at 03:43 AM.
    The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it. -Albert Einstein
    Liberty that was diminished in increments has never been restored by the same. -Lawful Aim
    One who compromises in steps toward freedom will always be compromising. -Lawful Aim
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  3. #3
    Regular Member Lawful Aim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    129
    Here is another testimony with "John" back in court again;

    Traffic Court -- Success Story #2

    October 16, 2007

    My wife, "Maria", got a traffic ticket the other month. She was not wearing her seat belt. Naughty-naughty!! (Like – we NEED the “government” to wipe our butt??? Or what?? What’s next – the smoking police?? [Fast-forward to 2011 and we such has since been implemented!] The cholesterol police?? The fashion police??)


    Anyway, we went to “Traffic Court” the first time, several weeks ago. Since she does not speak English well, I was prepared to file Notices to speak for her, as her Counsel. Apparently that was not necessary, because “THEY” did not object to my translating for her and speaking for her.

    We immediately asked to replace the “pro tem” (temporary appointed) “judge” with a “Duly Elected Judicial Officer” (elected “judge”). This is our right under the California Constitution. Unfortunately, the “judge” said that this did not apply to minor matters such as “Traffic Violations.” Which is a LIE, because nothing of the sort is mentioned in that Section of the Constitution. But I did not feel like quibbling. So we RECUSED (disqualified) the “judge”. This is also our right under the California Constitution, but it can be done only once for any particular “case,” if it is not “for cause” (an egregious error by the “judge”).

    We wanted to be in a “Court of Record,” where every word is recorded. A Prosecuting Attorney is always present in those “Courts,” unlike the “minor” ones for Traffic. Most “Courts” are NOT “Courts of Record,” so “THEY” can LIE and get away with it, which is often the case. We did not have Witnesses present, so we could not hold “THEM” to account otherwise. And hiring a private Court Reporter is too expensive, not to mention the hassle, so completely not worth it. Anyway, the “judge” accepted our recusal and scheduled a hearing for the “upstairs court” in two weeks – where more serious matters are heard.
    When she was pulled over, "Maria" did not show the “Officer” her License, because I told her not to do so. Else she would be forever numbered in “THEIR” Computers. She has no Social Security Number, which I would not allow her to obtain, because the consequences of that are severe (income taxes). It was a hassle to get her a “Drivers License” because of the “Patriot Act,” but there are loopholes if you look for them. She got upset at being stopped, so she could not find the Registration and Insurance, either. After the officer got finished with her, she was looking at a fine of $601.00 So you can imagine her distress, having lived in America only a couple of years, not knowing English well, and only recently having received her License.

    But it all turned out well in the end. In fact, the second “hearing” went exactly as planned, and lasted all of two minutes. After waiting a couple of hours while other “cases” (victims) were heard, her NAME was called, and we went forward.

    (BTW – when the “judge” entered the room and the Bailiff said, “All rise!” We remained seated--at both “hearings.” Since we were in the very front row at the first “hearing,” and everyone could see we did not stand, the Bailiff came over and asked us to rise, saying it was a sign of respect. To which I asked, “Please state the law REQUIRING us to rise.” And she could not, so we remained seated. Because the “judge” KNEW “something was up,” she held our “case” to the end, so none of the “sheeple” there would get any ideas for an effective defense, as the room was packed with “victims.”)

    The “judge” at the second “hearing” TRIED to begin as she had done all morning. But when we got inside the BAR, I immediately stated, “We are here by RESTRICTED APPEARANCE, to challenge Jurisdiction.” That immediately got the “judge’s” attention, and she looked up from her case file to get a good look at this snicketty trouble-maker. NONE of the dozens of “victims” before us, dared to say any such thing. They all came forward with their heads bowed, meekly looking for any sign of mercy, to escape the ravages of the “Justice System.”

    I then asked for the CHARGING INSTRUMENT. To which the “judge” tried to get Maria to respond, but allowed me to speak when it became clear that "Maria" did not understand English well. I again asked for the CHARGING INSTRUMENT, to which the “judge” responded by trying to trick me into arguing the “merits” of the “case.” She said, “It appears Maria was not wearing a seat belt.” So I interrupted her, to which the Bailiff got annoyed and instructed me not to do so. But I continued and said, “Do you or do you not have a CHARGING INSTRUMENT?? If not, then please DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE!!!”

    Finally the “judge” relented, seeing that I knew what was going on, and said, “Case dismissed!” We waited for a copy of the Court Minutes then left to celebrate at our favorite Mexican restaurant.

    Also following, are documents that explain our strategy, with background information to help you understand everything.
    Last edited by Lawful Aim; 07-02-2011 at 04:14 AM.
    The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it. -Albert Einstein
    Liberty that was diminished in increments has never been restored by the same. -Lawful Aim
    One who compromises in steps toward freedom will always be compromising. -Lawful Aim
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  4. #4
    Regular Member Lawful Aim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    129
    General Court Procedure - Notes

    1. “I am here by Restricted Appearance, ONLY to challenge Jurisdiction. I am NOT here to testify, nor to plead, and I do NOT swear to oaths.”


    CITES --


    “Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven.” (Jagens v. Lavine, 415 S.Ct.768). “Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination.” (Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910).


    “Where there is an absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack.” (Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 382; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471).


    NOTES –


    The above is the FIRST THING that must come out of your mouth, NO MATTER WHAT else happens, and no matter what the “judge” says, does, or asks you.


    “Restricted Appearance” does NOT give Jurisdiction to the “court.” “General Appearance” does. Unless you SPECIFICALLY state that you are there by “Restricted Appearance,” then THEY will PRESUME that you give them Jurisdiction by “appearing” Generally.


    The ONLY thing that you are there for, is to make them PROVE that they have Jurisdiction. IF you fail to do that, and they trap you into arguing the “merits” of the “case,” then you have already lost. The only question then is, how MUCH you must pay.


    When talking to the “judge,” do NOT address them as “your honor” or “judge.” Address them as “sir” or “madam,” or by their personal name. They are NOT real “judges.” They are bureaucratic ADMINISTRATORS--and you are in an administrative body, NOT in a judicial court as defined in the Constitution.


    If you notice the FLAG that is placed in the “courtroom,” it has gold fringe around the edges, and is placed on a mast with an eagle on top. The correct way to display a flag indoors, is to pin it to the wall, either with the stripes running horizontally or vertically. The flag on the mast with the gold fringe, is the STANDARD OF THE PRESIDENT of the U. S. Therefore, you are in a MILITARY TRIBUNAL, a Court of Equity, and the ADMINISTRATIVE BODY in which you find yourself, convenes at the behest, under the authority, of the Commander-In-Chief.


    2. Ask for a “Duly elected Judicial Officer,” per California Constitution, Article 6, Section 21” – also ask that “this matter” be heard in a “Court of Record.”


    CITES –


    “On stipulation [agreement] of the parties litigant the court may order a cause to be tried by a temporary judge who is a member of the State Bar, sworn and empowered to act until final determination of the cause.“ --California Constitution, Article 6, Section 21” –


    I do NOT stipulate this matter be heard by a “temporary judge.”


    NOTES –


    Most “traffic courts” are run by appointed pro tem (temporary) “judges” [commissioner]. This saves them money on less important “cases.” Many states allow you the right to be heard by elected “judges” in a “Court of Record” (where they record every word of the proceedings.) You want to be heard in such a “court” because THEY LIE. Since there is no record of the proceedings, any Appeal of their misconduct, is your word against theirs. Also, a Court of Record will have a Prosecuting Attorney, while Traffic Court does not. Often you will want to serve the Prosecutor with certain paperwork, which you cannot easily do if he is not present.


    ALWAYS refer to your “case” as “this matter.” NEVER call it a “case,” else you give them Jurisdiction BY PRESUMPTION. They will PRESUME that they have Jurisdiction if you ADMIT that they have a “case” against you.


    3. If the "judge" absolutely denies your request. Then say -- "I accept Your Flag, your Oath and your Bond as affirmations, declaring that YOU are Under Penalty of Perjury."

    Attempt to RECUSE the “judge” if all else fails. California allows this for ANY reason, but only once in the course of a particular “case.” Remember that you want a Court of Record.

    You MUST invoke the NOTICE that you accept their Oath of Office, else they will PRESUME that the Constitution does not apply. Remember that they can PRESUME anything that they damn well please, so you MUST rebut their presumptions from the git-go. NOW they are bound to follow the Federal and State Constitutions, and you can claim your RIGHTS under those terms.

    4. "Please produce the CHARGING INSTRUMENT.”

    The Charging Instrument is a document outlining the CHARGES against you. By law, THEY CANNOT proceed without this. In most states, for minor cases, THEY do not have this, because it costs them a lot of resources to produce these. Unfortunately, most people do not know this fact, and so do not challenge THEM. And if you do not CHALLENGE THEM at EVERY STEP, then they PRESUME that you give up your right to do so. And they then proceed to steamroll over you, since it is evident to them that they have caught another “pigeon.”

    The Prosecuting Attorney is responsible for bringing forth the Charges against you, via the Charging Instrument. If the “judge” asks you to “plead” (“guilty” or “not guilty”), then ask “Where is the Prosecuting Attorney? Are you, sir (madam) prosecuting this matter?” They will deny that they are prosecuting, since that would be a violation of the “Separation of Powers Doctrine.” You can bring up this phrase in your statements.

    But usually the “judge” will say something like, “This is the Arraignment Hearing. The Prosecutor does not need to be here.” In which case you can then RECUSE the “judge” and ask for a Court of Record. Because they just fed you a load of conniving BS.


    BUT – if for some reason you cannot recuse the “judge,” then ask them to produce the Charging Instrument. Because if they say something like, “There is no Charging Instrument,” you ask, “To what, then, am I to plead?” Because you cannot plead to nothing.

    IF they cannot produce the Charging Instrument, then ask, “Please dismiss this matter with prejudice.” “With prejudice” is a legal term meaning without recourse to THEM. It is final. If you do not specify this, then THEY will dismiss “without prejudice,” meaning that they can re-open this “case” anytime in the future, though they are not likely to do so.


    KEEP ON POINT. When you ask for the Charging Instrument, the “judge” will try to throw you off track. REMEMBER – you look like a sheep to a wolf (THEM) so they do not give up their lunch easily. If the “judge” starts to bring up that you “violated” such-and-such code, and what do you want to do about it? (Note how helpful they try to be, asking you what you want to do!) THEN remind the “judge” that you are here by Restricted Appearance, to challenge Jurisdiction ONLY, and to please stay on point!!! Then ask again for the Charging Instrument. Keep doing this, for as long as it takes the “judge” to realize that you know what they are up to.




    5. "Please read the Charges into the Record and then CERTIFY THEM."


    CITES –


    The language of the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, that “. . . no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing . . . the person or things to be seized,” of course applies to arrest as well as search warrants.” Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480, 485-86 (June 30, 1958). See also; Albrecht v. United States, 273 U.S. 1, at pages 2-3 (OCTOBER TERM 1926).


    Nonetheless, this complaint must have for its basis a valid foundation and must rest upon a charge supported by affidavit as required by law. Miles v. State, 94 Ala. 100, 11 So. 403.” HORN v. STATE, 117 So. 283, 284 (Jan. 17, 1928).


    NOTES --


    This is your final strategy. IF they pull a rabbit out of a hat and have a Charging Instrument [Or a false one] THEN ask the Prosecuting Attorney to CERTIFY the Charges, as above. This means that he must SWEAR under oath to the truth of the Charges. The “judge” or other “officer” empowered to take Oaths, must SIGN the Charges as well. So TWO signatures are required.

    If EVIDENCE is not CERTIFIED, then it is considered “hearsay” and is not admissible. Therefore if you do not CHALLENGE the evidence, then they PRESUME that you gave up that right. Here we go again, with the PRESUMPTION crap!!! BUT – you MUST understand -- that is how THEY operate. You can ask the “judge” -- “Sir, is hearsay evidence admissible in this court, to convict?” He had better say “NO,” else it goes against all rules, and you must object.

    If the “judge” says that the “ticket” is the Charging Instrument (which it technically is) then object that there is no formal Complaint. If they persist, then just ask them the above Point #5. If they refuse, then ask to “dismiss this matter, with prejudice.” Otherwise they are operating outside the law, in their private capacity, and can be sued for fraud and subsequent damages. This is because they are under obligation to uphold the Constitution. Remember the part about the Oath?


    THEY WILL NEVER CERTIFY THE CHARGES. Why not? Because IT IS ALL FRAUD from the git-go, and THEY know it!!! So THEY will never take the chance that you will come after them for fraud and damages. Because they then stand to lose everything that they own.
    Last edited by Lawful Aim; 07-02-2011 at 04:29 AM.
    The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it. -Albert Einstein
    Liberty that was diminished in increments has never been restored by the same. -Lawful Aim
    One who compromises in steps toward freedom will always be compromising. -Lawful Aim
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  5. #5
    Regular Member Lawful Aim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    129
    Additional notes, background and strategy --

    Arrive EARLY – Bring Audio Recorder if allowed. Sneak one in, if not allowed.

    Do NOT stand for the “judge.” Remain seated! Look him in the eye!

    Optional statements - A


    If there is a negative response from the “judge,”

    I do not ask that you prove that any constitution operates on me, either directly or indirectly, because to do so, you would assume the position of a prosecutor, which is a function of the executive branch of government and , as a result, you would be in violation of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers as recognized in California Constitution at Article III, Section 3 and further, you would be in violation of the California Constitution at Article VI, Section 17, Stats 1971 ch 1056 §1 and Judicial Canon 4G which provide that a judge may not practice law and finally you would be in serious violation of a breach of the guarantee of a republican form of government as mandated in Article IV, section 4 of the American Constitution, which is misconduct and serves as the basis for removal from office. Meanwhile, your court bench would stand legally vacant by operation of law. Coram non judice rendering nothing by Brutum Fulmen.

    You: Thus in light of the foregoing, the burden of clarifying the purpose of this accusation falls upon the shoulders of the moving party who brought this action and not the court.

    You: Now I ask that you kindly direct the plaintiff or prosecutor to prove by judicial determination or foundational documentation that any constitution operates either directly or indirectly on me.

    You: If it cannot be proved that any constitution operates on me, then it follows that the legislature, created under the power of such constitution, also does not operate on me.

    You: Due to the fact that no legislature can be proved to operate on me, those codes/titles/statutes/rules/ and regulations promulgated by such legislature also cannot be demonstrated to operate on me, and absent a proving on the record that your constitution operates on me, this court is without subject matter jurisdiction.

    You: In light of the foregoing, this court must abate this entire matter in the interest of justice and due process of law.


    Optional statements - B

    Judge: You have been charged with violation of code sections 1, 2, 3, dot, dot, dot. Sir, how do you plead?

    You: Point of order sir,

    Judge: What is it?

    You: Is it not true sir, that you are required to execute an oath of allegiance pursuant to Article XX, Section 3 of the California Constitution?

    Well then sir can I see if your oath of allegiance is up for the record? Because it says in Article XX Section 3 that “before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath . . .”, thus I am demanding that you produce your mandatory oath of allegiance as mandated by California Constitution at Article XX Section 3 prior to the commencement of this instant matter before the court. I further cite Government Code Sections 1360, 3103 and Elections Code section 200 which echos Art. XX, Sec. 3.

    I can wait if you like, however I must insist that you produce the required oath of allegiance for the record prior to going forward with the instant matter before the court pursuant to the principles of good faith, fair dealing and due process in or at law. The basic reason of this demand is, if it later comes out that you did not take the prescribed oath of allegiance and went ahead and presided over a matter of law that you did not have the lawful right or authority to do so then, I would receive a damage from your unlawful actions. Namely impersonating a judicial officer. So to clear the air on this matter I am demanding in good faith that you produce the required mandatory oath of allegiance at this time sir. Produce your bond, job description and financial disclosure statement as well sir.

    You: Sir, surely you are aware that “The constitution is the voice of the people speaking in their sovereign capacity, and it must be heeded; when the constitution speaks with reference to a particular matter, it must be given effect as the paramount law of the land.” People v Parks, 58 Cal 624. Where then is your mandatory oath of allegiance pursuant to Article XX § 3 in light of the Election Code § 200, Government Code §§ 1360, 1770(i), 3103, 3106, Attorney Generals’ Opinion of March 20, 1997 in volume 80 beginning on page 70 sir?

    You: Now if you cannot produce said oath I must insist that you recuse yourself off this case in the interest of justice and due process of law and get somebody else out here who has complied with the fundamental law of California. If you refuse to recuse yourself I will order the bailiff to remove you off the bench for impersonating a judicial officer and place you in hold in your back room. And if the bailiff refuses to do his mandatory sworn duty, I will sue him civilly in a court of proper jurisdiction in the interest of justice.
    Last edited by Lawful Aim; 07-02-2011 at 04:39 AM.
    The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it. -Albert Einstein
    Liberty that was diminished in increments has never been restored by the same. -Lawful Aim
    One who compromises in steps toward freedom will always be compromising. -Lawful Aim
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  6. #6
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    When she was pulled over, "Maria" did not show the “Officer” her License, because I told her not to do so. Else she would be forever numbered in “THEIR” Computers. She has no Social Security Number, which I would not allow her to obtain, because the consequences of that are severe (income taxes). It was a hassle to get her a “Drivers License” because of the “Patriot Act,” but there are loopholes if you look for them. She got upset at being stopped, so she could not find the Registration and Insurance, either. After the officer got finished with her, she was looking at a fine of $601.00 So you can imagine her distress, having lived in America only a couple of years, not knowing English well, and only recently having received her License.
    Does Maria know that women have been emancipated in California?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    riverside, ca.
    Posts
    1

    Awesome informaton;

    We have one of those Commisioners here that refuses any request, denies every motion, interrupts any statement you try to make, is rude, arrogant, only allows an officer to be cross examined by his means, etc., etc., etc. I have to go before him in a couple of weeks. i want to use your way....(which should be the only and right way).
    THANKS FOR THIS INFO.
    I WILL CONTINUE TO EDUCATE MYSELF.
    tHANKS FOR ANY INFO. OR ADVISE YOU CAN OFFER AND FOR YOUR TIME.
    JIM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lawful Aim View Post
    Additional notes, background and strategy --

    Arrive EARLY – Bring Audio Recorder if allowed. Sneak one in, if not allowed.

    Do NOT stand for the “judge.” Remain seated! Look him in the eye!

    Optional statements - A


    If there is a negative response from the “judge,”

    I do not ask that you prove that any constitution operates on me, either directly or indirectly, because to do so, you would assume the position of a prosecutor, which is a function of the executive branch of government and , as a result, you would be in violation of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers as recognized in California Constitution at Article III, Section 3 and further, you would be in violation of the California Constitution at Article VI, Section 17, Stats 1971 ch 1056 §1 and Judicial Canon 4G which provide that a judge may not practice law and finally you would be in serious violation of a breach of the guarantee of a republican form of government as mandated in Article IV, section 4 of the American Constitution, which is misconduct and serves as the basis for removal from office. Meanwhile, your court bench would stand legally vacant by operation of law. Coram non judice rendering nothing by Brutum Fulmen.

    You: Thus in light of the foregoing, the burden of clarifying the purpose of this accusation falls upon the shoulders of the moving party who brought this action and not the court.

    You: Now I ask that you kindly direct the plaintiff or prosecutor to prove by judicial determination or foundational documentation that any constitution operates either directly or indirectly on me.

    You: If it cannot be proved that any constitution operates on me, then it follows that the legislature, created under the power of such constitution, also does not operate on me.

    You: Due to the fact that no legislature can be proved to operate on me, those codes/titles/statutes/rules/ and regulations promulgated by such legislature also cannot be demonstrated to operate on me, and absent a proving on the record that your constitution operates on me, this court is without subject matter jurisdiction.

    You: In light of the foregoing, this court must abate this entire matter in the interest of justice and due process of law.


    Optional statements - B

    Judge: You have been charged with violation of code sections 1, 2, 3, dot, dot, dot. Sir, how do you plead?

    You: Point of order sir,

    Judge: What is it?

    You: Is it not true sir, that you are required to execute an oath of allegiance pursuant to Article XX, Section 3 of the California Constitution?

    Well then sir can I see if your oath of allegiance is up for the record? Because it says in Article XX Section 3 that “before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath . . .”, thus I am demanding that you produce your mandatory oath of allegiance as mandated by California Constitution at Article XX Section 3 prior to the commencement of this instant matter before the court. I further cite Government Code Sections 1360, 3103 and Elections Code section 200 which echos Art. XX, Sec. 3.

    I can wait if you like, however I must insist that you produce the required oath of allegiance for the record prior to going forward with the instant matter before the court pursuant to the principles of good faith, fair dealing and due process in or at law. The basic reason of this demand is, if it later comes out that you did not take the prescribed oath of allegiance and went ahead and presided over a matter of law that you did not have the lawful right or authority to do so then, I would receive a damage from your unlawful actions. Namely impersonating a judicial officer. So to clear the air on this matter I am demanding in good faith that you produce the required mandatory oath of allegiance at this time sir. Produce your bond, job description and financial disclosure statement as well sir.

    You: Sir, surely you are aware that “The constitution is the voice of the people speaking in their sovereign capacity, and it must be heeded; when the constitution speaks with reference to a particular matter, it must be given effect as the paramount law of the land.” People v Parks, 58 Cal 624. Where then is your mandatory oath of allegiance pursuant to Article XX § 3 in light of the Election Code § 200, Government Code §§ 1360, 1770(i), 3103, 3106, Attorney Generals’ Opinion of March 20, 1997 in volume 80 beginning on page 70 sir?

    You: Now if you cannot produce said oath I must insist that you recuse yourself off this case in the interest of justice and due process of law and get somebody else out here who has complied with the fundamental law of California. If you refuse to recuse yourself I will order the bailiff to remove you off the bench for impersonating a judicial officer and place you in hold in your back room. And if the bailiff refuses to do his mandatory sworn duty, I will sue him civilly in a court of proper jurisdiction in the interest of justice.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawful Aim View Post
    Additional notes, background and strategy --

    Arrive EARLY – Bring Audio Recorder if allowed. Sneak one in, if not allowed.

    Do NOT stand for the “judge.” Remain seated! Look him in the eye!

    Optional statements - A


    If there is a negative response from the “judge,”

    I do not ask that you prove that any constitution operates on me, either directly or indirectly, because to do so, you would assume the position of a prosecutor, which is a function of the executive branch of government and , as a result, you would be in violation of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers as recognized in California Constitution at Article III, Section 3 and further, you would be in violation of the California Constitution at Article VI, Section 17, Stats 1971 ch 1056 §1 and Judicial Canon 4G which provide that a judge may not practice law and finally you would be in serious violation of a breach of the guarantee of a republican form of government as mandated in Article IV, section 4 of the American Constitution, which is misconduct and serves as the basis for removal from office. Meanwhile, your court bench would stand legally vacant by operation of law. Coram non judice rendering nothing by Brutum Fulmen.

    You: Thus in light of the foregoing, the burden of clarifying the purpose of this accusation falls upon the shoulders of the moving party who brought this action and not the court.

    You: Now I ask that you kindly direct the plaintiff or prosecutor to prove by judicial determination or foundational documentation that any constitution operates either directly or indirectly on me.

    You: If it cannot be proved that any constitution operates on me, then it follows that the legislature, created under the power of such constitution, also does not operate on me.

    You: Due to the fact that no legislature can be proved to operate on me, those codes/titles/statutes/rules/ and regulations promulgated by such legislature also cannot be demonstrated to operate on me, and absent a proving on the record that your constitution operates on me, this court is without subject matter jurisdiction.

    You: In light of the foregoing, this court must abate this entire matter in the interest of justice and due process of law.


    Optional statements - B

    Judge: You have been charged with violation of code sections 1, 2, 3, dot, dot, dot. Sir, how do you plead?

    You: Point of order sir,

    Judge: What is it?

    You: Is it not true sir, that you are required to execute an oath of allegiance pursuant to Article XX, Section 3 of the California Constitution?

    Well then sir can I see if your oath of allegiance is up for the record? Because it says in Article XX Section 3 that “before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath . . .”, thus I am demanding that you produce your mandatory oath of allegiance as mandated by California Constitution at Article XX Section 3 prior to the commencement of this instant matter before the court. I further cite Government Code Sections 1360, 3103 and Elections Code section 200 which echos Art. XX, Sec. 3.

    I can wait if you like, however I must insist that you produce the required oath of allegiance for the record prior to going forward with the instant matter before the court pursuant to the principles of good faith, fair dealing and due process in or at law. The basic reason of this demand is, if it later comes out that you did not take the prescribed oath of allegiance and went ahead and presided over a matter of law that you did not have the lawful right or authority to do so then, I would receive a damage from your unlawful actions. Namely impersonating a judicial officer. So to clear the air on this matter I am demanding in good faith that you produce the required mandatory oath of allegiance at this time sir. Produce your bond, job description and financial disclosure statement as well sir.

    You: Sir, surely you are aware that “The constitution is the voice of the people speaking in their sovereign capacity, and it must be heeded; when the constitution speaks with reference to a particular matter, it must be given effect as the paramount law of the land.” People v Parks, 58 Cal 624. Where then is your mandatory oath of allegiance pursuant to Article XX § 3 in light of the Election Code § 200, Government Code §§ 1360, 1770(i), 3103, 3106, Attorney Generals’ Opinion of March 20, 1997 in volume 80 beginning on page 70 sir?

    You: Now if you cannot produce said oath I must insist that you recuse yourself off this case in the interest of justice and due process of law and get somebody else out here who has complied with the fundamental law of California. If you refuse to recuse yourself I will order the bailiff to remove you off the bench for impersonating a judicial officer and place you in hold in your back room. And if the bailiff refuses to do his mandatory sworn duty, I will sue him civilly in a court of proper jurisdiction in the interest of justice.
    Big Thanks Lawful Aim,

    Yeah I to am one of the few who don't swear and Oath, and I to call the judge Sir, rather then your honor.
    I don't stand when the judge comes in either.
    I to have a couple of stories on this subject.
    The court record is the only protection we have, and one must be in that court for our safety.
    This is also good Info for our cause, in OCing, These 4th violations are really getting out of hand, 12031e.
    And now AB144.
    Thanks again ,that's one for our side ! Robin47

  9. #9
    Regular Member Lawful Aim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    129
    You all are Very Welcome! There is process for getting on the record whatever you desire to which the commissioner will have one interesting time if he desires to ignore or roll over it. Some matters can be handled all by mail. Send me a PM.
    Last edited by Lawful Aim; 12-02-2011 at 01:28 AM.
    The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it. -Albert Einstein
    Liberty that was diminished in increments has never been restored by the same. -Lawful Aim
    One who compromises in steps toward freedom will always be compromising. -Lawful Aim
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  10. #10
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Nowhere in article xx, sec 3, does it say a judicial officer must have in their possession, a copy of their oath. it just requires they take and subscribe to it. Further, there is no mention or directive that any officer who cannot produce one, cannot discharge their duties. I do think you would be required to submit a public records act request to verify one was in order, and then you might have grounds to challenge a proceeding, or an outcome.

    You: Is it not true sir, that you are required to execute an oath of allegiance pursuant to Article XX, Section 3 of the California Constitution?

    Well then sir can I see if your oath of allegiance is up for the record? Because it says in Article XX Section 3 that “before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath . . .”, thus I am demanding that you produce your mandatory oath of allegiance as mandated by California Constitution at Article XX Section 3 prior to the commencement of this instant matter before the court. I further cite Government Code Sections 1360, 3103 and Elections Code section 200 which echos Art. XX, Sec. 3.

    I can wait if you like, however I must insist that you produce the required oath of allegiance for the record prior to going forward with the instant matter before the court pursuant to the principles of good faith, fair dealing and due process in or at law.
    Judge, commissioner, or hearing officer: Yes, I have taken and subscribed to the oath as per article xx, sec 3. It is a matter of public record, and you may obtain a copy as per article 1, section 3, b (1). Now, how do you plead?
    Last edited by Save Our State; 12-02-2011 at 03:02 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Lawful Aim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by Save Our State View Post
    Nowhere in article xx, sec 3, does it say a judicial officer must have in their possession, a copy of their oath. it just requires they take and subscribe to it. Further, there is no mention or directive that any officer who cannot produce one, cannot discharge their duties. I do think you would be required to submit a public records act request to verify one was in order, and then you might have grounds to challenge a proceeding, or an outcome.



    Judge, commissioner, or hearing officer: Yes, I have taken and subscribed to the oath as per article xx, sec 3. It is a matter of public record, and you may obtain a copy as per article 1, section 3, b (1). Now, how do you plead?
    Correct, an officer is not required to produce their oath although if someone wants to verify that the officer has recorded one, I believe the requirement is within 30 days of taking office, and that it is the correct oath, they may obtain a certified copy from the county clerk or secretary of state respectively. No public records act request is required. An updated version of the above example would be to say something like, "For and on the record, I accept your oath of office."
    The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it. -Albert Einstein
    Liberty that was diminished in increments has never been restored by the same. -Lawful Aim
    One who compromises in steps toward freedom will always be compromising. -Lawful Aim
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  12. #12
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    co
    Posts
    1

    riley13b

    I have to say in my experience this is all bs! 1) If the courts are corrupt (as they are) why do you think they are gonna change for you?? 2) that stuff about the gold fringe flag....while compelling and it makes it you wonder. But factually it is rooted in just theories. Not all traffic courts I've been in have them, not to mention in Britain and other countries they don't have flags in most of their courtrooms. 3) I've tried this approach before and it never works again NEVER, I wish it was different. It just pisses off the judge. They have traffic courts and laws completely designed to favor them. I was once told tickets are essentially modern day bill of attainders, with the illusion of a trial. I agree with that. 4) have you ever noticed all these people say "in this succesful court case"or " "this is how I got my cased dismissed" etc etc. Yet they never supply you with the case #, name of judge, date of hearing or ticket #????? Makes you wonder. ....I figure these people would be yea look it up etc its public record, but conveniently they dont. The Constitutions of the US and States are dead. Those in power deny it, change, manipulate or alter it to suit them. They even overturn the peoples vote nowadays. So just accept it and it realize and stop trying to b.s. people with your sensational claims and radical ideas that will only help people get their ass handed to them in court. I know the system is broke and corrupted extremely broke and corrupted! Most Judges are really just policing from the bench, peace officer's have been converted to police officers, legislators are corrupt as hell and have no respect for the rule of law etc. So just deal with it!!!!!!!!!

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Still believe that we have the best and most workable solution available in modern times.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,200
    Some states some court systems are better then others. Knowing your rights knowing how the system works is a very big help.

    I am a firm believer after being involved in hundreds of trials and watching hundreds of more.

    That of a case of any importance to the defendant in the old saying "Man who has self for attorney has fool for lawyer".

    I have watch large numbers of people convict themselves.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,200
    Quote Originally Posted by JTHunter View Post
    Not always.
    I tend to oppose any traffic violation I get on general principles. A recent fiasco in an Illinois court reinforces just how the deck is stacked against us.
    I was given a "seatbelt" citation in July 2010 and signed the back of the ticket in the area marked "To avoid multiple appearences". In due time, I received a letter from St. Clair county informing me of a trial date in early October. HOWEVER, when my case came up, the asst. State's Attorney handling the case "claimed" the officer was "unavailable". The judge proceeded to continue the case and when I objected, citing the "multiple appearences" clause, the scum-sucking S.O.B. threatened me with contempt!
    The second appearence came in late December 2010. Naturally, I got the same judge. After having me laze around for 2 1/2 hours, they finally admitted that the cop was "unavailable" AGAIN.
    Case dismissed.
    There can be valid reasons and not valid reasons for an officer not to show. In the 8 or 10 Wis. courts that I dealt with traffic cases if the reason wasn't valid The cases were dismissed.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by JTHunter View Post
    Not always.
    I tend to oppose any traffic violation I get on general principles. A recent fiasco in an Illinois court reinforces just how the deck is stacked against us.
    I was given a "seatbelt" citation in July 2010 and signed the back of the ticket in the area marked "To avoid multiple appearences". In due time, I received a letter from St. Clair county informing me of a trial date in early October. HOWEVER, when my case came up, the asst. State's Attorney handling the case "claimed" the officer was "unavailable". The judge proceeded to continue the case and when I objected, citing the "multiple appearences" clause, the scum-sucking S.O.B. threatened me with contempt!
    The second appearence came in late December 2010. Naturally, I got the same judge. After having me laze around for 2 1/2 hours, they finally admitted that the cop was "unavailable" AGAIN.
    Case dismissed.
    You plead not guilty? You should have asked for the notice to be replaced by an information or complaint before you plead not guilty.

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/32822372/...nt-in-Illinois

    In CT, you can demand the same... Practice Book Rule 36-11. No DA/SA is going to waste his time .. they just drop the case usually.

    And you are lucky, I've been to court much more than 2x for a traffic ticket where the judge gives out continuance after continuance.

    You won your case, that's good .

  17. #17
    Regular Member garand_guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    495


    Why go to court at all? I see all of this as someone's personal, conflated mumbo-jumbo to get out of a ticket. Don't speed next time.

    Regardless of what myopic connect the dots game you made up, this is our system. You play by it's rules, not the ones you want or the ones you make up.

    Using these kind of tactics, you either lose because the judge gets annoyed with you and finds you guilty or he doesn't want to deal with you any longer.

    Regardless of the validity of the argument, it's a moot point because how you think it should work isn't how it actually works. The de facto system IS the real system.
    Nevada Carry and Frontier Carry

    Helpful guide to gun laws in the Intermountain West

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by garand_guy View Post


    Why go to court at all? I see all of this as someone's personal, conflated mumbo-jumbo to get out of a ticket. Don't speed next time.

    Regardless of what myopic connect the dots game you made up, this is our system. You play by it's rules, not the ones you want or the ones you make up.

    Using these kind of tactics, you either lose because the judge gets annoyed with you and finds you guilty or he doesn't want to deal with you any longer.

    Regardless of the validity of the argument, it's a moot point because how you think it should work isn't how it actually works. The de facto system IS the real system.
    .....says the guy who pays his tickets

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •