Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Comments From the Professor on Traffic Citations and Introdu

Comments From the Professor on Traffic Citations and Introdu

|Views: 38|Likes:
Published by alanbwilliams

More info:

Published by: alanbwilliams on Jan 23, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





There are many that believe that special appearances (by paper work, motions, etc.)nullify a court jurisdiction. Under emergency powers, this is false doctrine. There is noremedy  in  challenging  a  court  jurisdiction,  except  by  abating  its  process,  first.Abatements are not a challenge to a court jurisdiction, merely a good faith attempt tocorrect errors in process, "clear up the errors, judge, and I'll appear." Special appearances fail when a judge knows what he is doing. Under martial rule, judges dowhatever they want, whenever they want so long as he/she does not alarm the public or disturb the peace. Jurisdiction is always granted to try jurisdictional questions, even if one goes to higher courts. Defendants grant jurisdiction without knowing it, because theynever challenge the process that creates the jurisdiction in the first place. (See FRCP §2.4 (2)(4)) Process is perfected by appearance, special or otherwise. Also remember thecourt is not the building the judge or anyone else, it is the paperwork. If the court paperwork is defective, there is no court and it ceases to exist. The only way to overcomethe War Powers court process is by Abatement.Traffic tickets are a pain for all of us. When using this abatement strategy, first send inthe Notice of Abatement, Memorandum of Law and Denial of Corporate Existence to theClerk of Court.  That generally takes care of the annoying ticket. If you do not hear fromhim within 15 days, send in the Default Notice of the Notary to the Clerk. If you receive asummons, which has the proper signature of the judge and the court seal, send in theSubpoena and Discovery Interrogatories to the Prosecuting Attorney and the court. Your challenging jurisdiction and the opposing party must traverse your challenge or thecourt cannot proceed. In most cases they will never give you the documents you haverequested or answer your questions, if they do, you won. The people granted authority tothe state legislature to adjudicate only a few matters: Actions at law, actions in equity,and actions under the rule of necessity (military). Admiralty was remanded to the federal government and the states (are supposed to) have no authority to legislate in thisjurisdiction. There was a time when someone aggrieved of harm would file a tort at law.Moreover, the nature of the action governed the rules of the procedure. If there was abreach of contract, then this was an equity matter. If the aggrieved party could allege atortious breach of contract, this matter was moved from the equity side of the court intothe law side.This is because the people must have access to a remedy at law if this type of actioncould give relief. If one were in the military, or if one were under territory under martial law, the court was a military court. If there was a breach of an international contract,the matter was federal and heard under admiralty.The state legislature cannot vest a "court" with authority that has not been delegated to it by the people via the constitution of the state. They cannot create a new "nature of action" out of thin air. Later on, when the Constitutions of the several states wereamended to recognize and administrate corporations, a separate court was established,and the action was in the nature of administrative.
Human beings could not be brought into administrative courts, as the only matter at issue was a breach of corporate charter by an artificial person. Somewhere along theline, the announcement in the complaint of the nature of the action was lost.The attorneys all got together and decided that it would be much "simpler" (for them) if there were only one form of action. So today, there is no disclosure of the nature of theaction, unless one demands to know the nature and cause of the accusation by using ademand for a bill of particulars.I have been quite successful with this procedure, even in states that have decided that ademand for bill of particulars is a discretionary motion before the court. For example, inPennsylvania, the demand for bill of particulars used to be before arraignment so that one had an opportunity to raise a meaningful defense against the elements of personal jurisdiction and "venue" (to include territorial jurisdiction as well as the "nature of theaction" that used to be a part of subject matter jurisdiction).Within  the  past couple  decades,  they  moved  it  into  "discovery",  which  is  after arraignment, so the ability of one to challenge the jurisdiction and venue of the court waslost.This is because entering a plea ACCEPTS the jurisdiction. In this way, only subject matter jurisdiction was challengeable. If they say this is a matter at law, my defenseagainst this jurisdiction is whether there is a damaged party. I do not ask if this is anequity jurisdiction because equity is not a criminal type of action.If they say this is a matter in hustings (which is the true nature of action of all administrative law), my defense against this jurisdiction is that I am not an artificial person (unless I am a federal citizen - but that is quite another matter entirely), unlessthey can show from the records in the Secretary of State's office that I have charted assuch.If they say this is an admiralty matter, my defense against this jurisdiction is whether theoffense was committed on federal territory, over which the state has retained concurrent jurisdiction (although I still have-not found how the state exercises an admiraltyjurisdiction in light of 28 USC § 1333).If they say this is a military matter, my defense against this jurisdiction is that1) I am not a member of their military (I am, however, a member of the militia of one of the several states - but they do not operate as such anymore), 2) the nation is not under martial law(or is it?).Given the fact that there are currently 14 Notices from the President’s of a Declarationof National Emergency published in the Federal Register, we may very well be in a stateof martial law. The one from March 6, 1933 is still in effect today.
However, they are not going to admit the nature of the action, as this will admit their want of jurisdiction on the record for all to see, so THEY move to dismiss the charges.Every time.While I will never succeed in bringing down the current regime in this manner, at least other folks see what I am doing and some decide along the way that they want to learnthis procedure.I contend that if only 10% of the people enforced their right to know the "nature and cause" of the accusation, that we could most certainly shut down the incessant stream of revenue being fleeced from the people by these "administrative" courts. As far as the"compelling government interest" doctrine, this is clearly matter founded in law martial rule - the military authority is in the process of returning control to the civil authorities,but has not yet completed the processI simply do not understand the nature and cause of the accusation with regard to theelements  of personal jurisdiction,  venue,  and  the  nature of the  action  until  theprosecution properly alleges them. I am therefore unable to enter a plea to the chargeuntil I have had an opportunity to raise a meaningful defense against these elements. I cannot rebut an unstated presumption.The courts operate on silent judicial notice of presumption all the time. It is time for thisto end.Generally, when you appear the Police Officer is not there because he has beeninstructed to stay home that day. You simply move for a dismissal for lack of prosecution,as the Prosecutor cannot testify to facts, which he has no first hand knowledge of. Beespecially careful of the judge’s conduct, he is required by his Oath of Office to be animpartial trier of fact, not the assistant prosecutor.Have fun but please do not abuse this procedure or it may become ineffective because of the abuse.Professor of LawDon Quijote, JD.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->