‘ TRUE BILL’ File No.

07 - E07089143305594 - 01
PATRICK RICHARD POTTER, in proper person,
Patrick-Richard-Christopher: Potter, sui juris,
“ Without Prejudice "
A Man Of God Standing In God’s Kingdom At All Times as an,
Ambassador/Warrior For Jesus Christ,
A Private Attorney General,
1 A Criminal Investigator / Private,
A Civil Rights Investigator - Civil Rights Task Force / Private; and,
2
A Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a).
3
Patrick-Richard-Christopher: Potter
4
One Living , Breathing , Private-Man - Instrument of and Man of God
5
Standing in God’s Kingdom at All Times as an
6
Ambassador/Warrior for Jesus Christ,
7
Creditor and Holder-in-Due-Course of One Titled ‘PATRICK RICHARD
8
POTTER’ and All Derivatives Thereof, see U.C.C. 1 filing with Nevada
9
Secretary of State #0103112 - March 5, 2001a.d.
10
With Power Of Attorney In Fact , Hereby Declares and Decrees;
11
This Document is PRIVATE Among and Between the Parties
12
set forth herein, No Unauthorized Trespassing, As Follows:
13
_________________________________________________________
14
15
16
ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE
In Your Administrative Capacity
17
In Compliance With Law and in the Nature of
18
Civil Rule 9 (d) - Effect of Failure to Deny
19
Notice of FAULT and
20
21
COUNTERCLAIM
22
thereto:
23
CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL MISDEMEANOR CITATION
24
25 Page 1 of
21
26
27
 NUMBER: E07089143305594
Petition for Redress of Grievance
in the nature of this
Private International Administrative Remedy
1
______________________________________________________
2
3
NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPAL
4
NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO THE AGENT
5
Applicable to all successors , heirs and assigns .
6
_________________________________________________________
7
8
Patrick-Richard-Christopher: Potter - Aggrieved Party - Petitioner Sui Juris
9
c/o 1481 S. Palm # 316
10
Las Vegas, Nevada near [89104]
11
-vs-
12
Respondents as follows ;
13
a.) Bradford Jerbic , b.) Las Vegas City Attorney’s Office, c.) City of Las Vegas, Nevada,
14
d.) LVMPD Officer/Captain Conlin, e.) LVMPD Officer/Sgt. H. Monty Hall,
15
f.) LVMPD Officer J. James- Badge # 5594, g.) Judge Abby Silver and/or
16
Judge of this action in Dept 6, Las Vegas, Nevada Municipal Court,
17
h.) 1-100 Roes and Does, i.) 1-100 Roe and Doe Corporations,
18
400 Stewart Ave , Las Vegas , Nevada.
19
20
VOID WHERE PROHIBITED BY LAW
21
22
Petitioner’s intent is peaceful with ‘no intent’ to violate any laws , address any threat
23
orintimidation to any ‘person’, public officer, public employee, juror, referee, arbitrator,
24
25 Page 2 of
21
26
27
 appraiser, assessor or any person authorized by law to hear or determine any controversy or
matter, with any intent to induce said person, contrary to said person’s duty to do, make, omit or
delay any act, decision or determination, either immediately or in the future. Petitioner’s
peaceful intent is to uncover the truth and the facts hereto; and contract thereto.
1
Any party claiming a Violation of Law hereby , has the duty to prove , and must prove, with
2
competent evidence supported by commercial affidavit of truth, sworn under penalty of
3
perjury, under the laws of the United States of America , complete with Social Security Number
4
; and , pursuant to 28 USC § 1746 , any and all claims as to any laws prohibiting this,
5
‘Private International Administrative Remedy’
6
or any part thereof. All un-refuted aspects of this pleading remain in force.
7
_______________________________________________________________
8
CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE
9
Petitioner Denies Jurisdiction and hereby Challenges any & all
10
Court’s Jurisdiction relating to CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL
11
MISDEMEANOR CITATION NUMBER: E07089143305594; and,
12
Requires of the moving party and/or court thereto Citation
13
‘E07089143305594' to Exhaust it’s ‘Prescribed Administrative
14
Requirement’ by Proving on the Record all jurisdiction facts related to
15
the jurisdiction asserted, before the court can proceed .
16
Petitioner also has not been informed of the Nature and Cause of the
17
instant accusation(s). Petitioner requires of the moving party and/or
18
court thereto Citation ‘E07089143305594' to Exhaust it’s ‘Prescribed
19
Administrative Requirement’ by ‘informing’ Petitioner of the Nature
20
and Cause of the instant action ‘in writing’ and before arraignment.
21
This ‘Prescribed Informing’ MUST descend to the Particulars to
22
include, but not limited to, the definition(s) of the alleged ‘OFFENSE’,
23
whether it be at Common Law, Statute, Admiralty/Maritime, Admiralty
24
25 Page 3 of
21
26
27
 Libel, Contractual or other form of Law; and, the RULES the Accused
is to follow at least ‘3 Days’ before arraignment so that he may
properly avail himself of an adequate Defense and/or Plea.
Petitioner also denies, refutes and rebuts all assumptions and
1
presumptions. As such, Petitioner requires the moving party to provide
2
the nexus to the ‘particular kind of offense and law’ which makes
3
Petitioner liable, should it be contractual, for example, provide the contract
4
with Petitioner’s bonafide signature on the contract, etc., etc., etc......
5
Furthermore, when Informing the accused thereto CITATION
6
NUMBER: E07089143305594 of the Nature and Cause of the action,
7
Petitioner hereto DEMANDS to be informed of, not only, ‘who is the
8
moving party/plaintiff, real and/or fictional, if fictional, then the attorney’s
9
name etc..., But Also, who has moved CITATION NUMBER:
10
E07089143305594 to Department 6 - Las Vegas, Nevada Municipa l Court
11
and by ‘What Authority’ they have done so; and, where is the moving
12
party at arraignment as required by law for the purpose of moving
13
forward WITH the arraignment?
14
The aforementioned Exhaustion of Administrative Requirements
15
MUST occur before the Court moves forward to ‘Arraignment’ to
16
prevent a further counterclaim of Fraud Upon the Court where all
17
Respondents would carry the further burden of ‘Intent to commit’ where
18
ALL Respondents will be without ALL Immunities.
19
20
"Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court
21
of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or
22
attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by
23
officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not
24
25 Page 4 of
21
26
27
 perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging
cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387
F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, 60.23.

1
“ Caveat ”
2
3
NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY
4
PROCEDURE
5
6
Full disclosure is intended herein . If you have any questions please
7
contact me in writing at the address set forth above .
8
Patrick-Richard-Christopher: Potter , a people of the ‘land’ of Nevada -
9
North America , hereby decrees the rules and the laws hereto this action and
10
the substance thereof.
11
12
“ Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or
13
moral duty to speak , or when an inquiry left unanswered would be
14
intentionally misleading... We cannot condone this shocking conduct... If that is
15
the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be
16
tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately ” U. S. v.
17
Tweel 550 F2d 297, 299-300
18
Patrick-Richard-Christopher: Potter, hereinafter “ Petitioner ”, is
19
hereby exhausting his administrative remedies, as required thereby Title 42
20
USC § 1983, 1985 & 1986; and, attempting to determine the nature and
21
cause of Respondents actions as set forth herein.
22
Petitioner does so in the nature of Private International Commercial
23
Law Remedy, but may , in an effort to aid you in understanding this
24
25 Page 5 of
21
26
27
 process, use, but not necessarily recognize as applicable to this Private
International Commercial Law Remedy, other law as examples which will verify
the validity of this process in all law, for your benefit. This is an operation of
existing law. Once Jurisdiction is challenged, The ‘Moving Party’ must prove on
1
the record the jurisdiction asserted.
2
////////
3
In OKC CORP. -v- WILLIAMS 461 F. Supp. 540, the court said that
4
“ unless it has exhausted prescribed administrative remedies , a party
5
involved in an administrative proceeding is not entitled to judicial
6
relief .”
7
8
The prescribed remedy to a challenge of jurisdiction is , the moving party
9
must prove on the record all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.
10
"Every person accused of an offense, under the Constitution and statutes of this
11 State, has a right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
12 against him. ... It is difficult to see how this can be safely and orderly accomplished
without a definite written accusation or complaint." [Cole vs Arkansas, 333 U.S.
13
196 (1948)]
14
15 [following quotes from United States vs Cruikshank]:
In criminal cases, prosecuted under the laws of the United States, the accused has the
16
constitutional right "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation." Amend.
17 VI. In U.S. v. Mills, 7 Pet., 142, this was construed to mean that the indictment must set
forth the offense "with clearness and all necessary certainty, to apprise the accused of the
18 crime with which he stands charged;" and in U.S. v. Cook, 17 Wall., 174 [84 U.S., XXI.,
539], that "Every ingredient of which the offense is composed must be accurately and
19
clearly alleged." It is an elementary principle of criminal pleading, that where the
20 definition of an offense, whether it be at common law or by statute, "includes generic
terms, it is not sufficient that the indictment shall charge the offense in the same generic
21 terms as in the definition; but it must state the species; it must descend to particulars." 1
Arch. Cr. Pr. and Pl., 291. The object of the indictment is, first, to furnish the accused
22
with such a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make his defense,
23 and avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against a further
prosecution for the same cause; and, second, to inform the court of the facts alleged, so
24 that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one should
25 Page 6 of
21
26
27
 be had. For this, facts are to be stated, not conclusions of law alone. A crime is made up
of acts and intent; and these must be set forth in the indictment, with reasonable
particularity of time, place and circumstances.

"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly

appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to
1 reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action."
2 Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.

3 “ Generally , court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over action if Plaintiff has not
exhausted his of her administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial relief .”
4
( Leete -v- Colorado Bd. Of Medical Examiners , 807 P. 2d 249 )
5
“ If the parties fail to satisfy the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement ,
6 the District court is without jurisdiction to here the Action .” ( State -v- Goldens
Concrete Co., 962 P 2d 919 )
7
8 “ If the applicant for judicial intervention has not exhausted his of her administrative
remedies , court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief .” ( Gramiger -v- Crowley , 683
9 P 2d 783 )
“ Party must exhaust administrative remedies before invoking jurisdiction of courts .”
10
( Neff -v- State 861 P 2d 281 )
11
“ Well settled principle that exhaustion of administrative remedies is prerequisite
12 to judicial intervention does not require merely initiation of prescribed administrative
remedies , but exhaustion of them , that is , pursuing them to their appropriate
13
conclusion and correlatively, awaiting their final outcome before seeking judicial
14 intervention .” ( Sipes -v- State ex rel. Dept. Of Public Safety , 950 P 2d 881 )

15 "There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction."

Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.
16
17 "The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction."
Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.
18
"Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the
19
jurisdiction asserted." Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F2d 188; Chicago v. New York,
20 37 F Supp 150.

21 "A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court

without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect
22
either on person or property."
23 Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.

24 "Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does

25 Page 7 of
21
26
27
 not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio."
In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.

"Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter

on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the
fullest sense of the term." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.
1
//////// "A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic
2 issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must
have the authority to decide that question in the first instance."
3 Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L.
ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.
4
5 "A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements
of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of
6 procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right,
is an excess of jurisdiction."
7
Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.
8
"Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due
9 process of law, court is deprived of juris."
Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.
10
11 Furthermore , the court can not make the case for the Plaintiff and/or use as a
basis for claiming that it properly acquired any form of jurisdiction by the entering of a
12 plea for the alleged Defense and/or the forcing of the judicial plea process upon the
alleged Defense before and/or in lieu of the exhaustion of the established policy of
13
Administrative negotiations and the exhaustion of Administrative Remedies. To do so is
14 deemed as compelling the judicial legal process upon the accused, thus compelling the
accused to witness against self in an action where the parties have not exhausted
15 the Administrative Process; and, the court has not properly acquired subject-
matter/personam jurisdiction . This amounts to irregular process and/or Simulated Legal
16
Process which is unlawful and absolutely VOID. ( Gondas v. Gondas. 99 N.J.Eq. 473,
17 134A. 615, 618 Royal Exchange Assurance of London v. Benettsville & C.R. Co., 95 S.C.
375 , 70 S.E. 104, 105 , Bryan v. Congdon, 86 F. 221, 29 C.C.A. 670 , )
18 The policy of negotiating a remedy pre-judicially and administratively is a policy
that has been adopted, condoned, ratified and enforced by this court, it’s officers, the
19
alleged Plaintiff and it’s alleged attorneys as well as the state, that must be exhausted
20 before a plea can be entered and before this court can properly acquire jurisdiction.
Any action by the people holding the offices related to this court and/or the above
21 captioned action who act contrary to the aforementioned do so ‘under color of law’,
clothed with the authority of their alleged offices and most assuredly in their personal
22
capacity(s) without any and all immunity.
23
This document also serves as a “ Fair Warning Notice ” in the Nature Of
24 and pursuant to U.S. -v- Lanier - 520 US 259 (1997).
25 Page 8 of
21
26
27
 As an operation of law Petitioner requires of himself and all others to
exhaust administrative remedies/requirements before Petitioner as well as all
others may bring any judicial and/or commercial action for remedy or relief,
if such is warranted by the results of this or other administrative process.
1
The pre-determined responses , or assent(s) set forth after each
2 INQUIRY, in the absence of a response by the Respondents hereto will
3 provide Petitioner a means to determine the nature and cause of
Respondents actions upon the event of the Respondent’s refusal and/or
4 neglect to do so themselves .
5
As with any administrative process , Respondents may controvert the
6 statements and/or claims made by Petitioner therein Petitioners pleadings by
7 executing and delivering a verified response - point by point , with evidence
in support . Otherwise , in the absence thereof any responses , claims or
8
specific negative averments , Respondents agree and admit to all statements
9 and claims and supplied answers to inquiries made by petitioner via TACIT
10 PROCURATION by simply remaining silent , evidencing Respondents tacit -
contractual understanding of same , resulting in a contract between Petitioner
11 and Respondent(s) via Respondents failure to respond , controvert and / or
12 deny.
13 This pleading falls in the realm of and “ in the nature of ” civil rule 8(d)
14 - Effect of failure to deny . “ Averments in a pleading to which a responsive
pleading is required ( as is noticed to the Respondents herein ) are admitted
15
when not denied ” , as well as in the nature of other administrative
16 procedures such as , but not limited to , loan defaults , I.R.S. LIENS , Title 5 of
17 the United States Code, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3716 (a) & 3711 ( a ) and the
administrative procedures leading to summary eviction as set forth therein
18 the Nevada Revised Statutes @ NRS 40.290 - “ but when it appears that
19 any of the parties served with process or appearing in the pleading is guilty
of the offense charged, (see civil rule 8d), judgement must be rendered against
20 him ”, AND NRS 40.253(5)(b) - “ Except when the tenant has timely filed the
21 affidavit described in subsection 3 ( i.e. Responded to, refuted and/or denied
in verified form , as is required hereto this pleading ) and a file stamped copy
22
has been received by the landlord or his agent , and except when the
23 landlord is prohibited pursuant to NRS 118A.480, the landlord or his agent
24 may, in a peaceable manor ( and in compliance with civil rule 8(d) - “

25 Page 9 of
21
26
27
 Effect of failure to deny ” ) , provide for the non- admittance of the tenant
to the premises by locking or otherwise.” The foregoing are examples of
administrative remedies that do not require judicial authority or permission to
be valid lawful remedies . Upon going to his tenant “ PRIVATELY ” and
receiving no response to his private administrative procedure remedy the
Landlord has contracted with his tenant via tacit procuration a Rule 9(d), a
1
tacit understanding - implied contract that the tenant agrees with the Landlord
2 subsequent to and in compliance with said prescribed Administrative
3 Remedy and NEVADA LAW ALLOWS / PRESCRIBES the Landlord to
execute said implied contract as his lawful remedy . Subsequently , an
4 estoppel is created and the noticed party ( tenant ) is barred from
5 controverting the issue at a later time and date . Private Administrative
Procedures are actually prescribed by NEVADA LAW . They are simply
6 operations of law , common law and administrative law ! The precedency of
7 non-judicial administrative remedies is res judicata .
8
////////
9
10 ////////
11 THE FACTS
12
1.) Before Feburary 7, 2007, ALL scooters operating upon the roads and highways of Nevada
13 that are “propelled by a small engine which produces not more than 2 gross brake horsepower
and which has a displacement of not more than 50 cubic centimeters” were treated as a ‘moped’
14
by all law enforcement agencies in Nevada, as the courts determined the Legislature had
15 intended.
2.) In Nevada Law the definition of a Moped is defined at NRS 482.069 as follows:
16 NRS 482.069 “Moped” defined. “Moped” means a vehicle which looks and handles essentially
like a bicycle and is propelled by a small engine which produces not more than 2 gross brake
17
horsepower and which has a displacement of not more than 50 cubic centimeters, and:
18 1. Is designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground but is not a
tractor; and
19 2. Is capable of a maximum speed of not more than 30 miles per hour on a flat surface with
not more than 1 percent grade in any direction when the motor is engaged.
20
(Added to NRS by 1975, 1075; A 1983, 895)
21
This is where MOPED is defined at in Nevada law, not under bicycles, not under motorcycles,
22 automobiles, tri-cycles or farm equipment, but HERE and nowhere else.
23
3.) Wikipedia, the free on-line internet encyclopedia defines moped at
24 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moped , as follows:
25 Page 10 of
21
26
27
 Mopeds are a class of low-powered motorized vehicles, generally two-wheeled. Moped
classification is designed to allow the use of small motorized vehicles, avoiding the safety
restrictions and licensing charges required of larger motorcycles. Some motorized bicycles, small
scooters, and small motorcycles fit the definition of a moped.
In legal literature, mopeds are normally defined by limits on engine displacement, speed, power
output, transmissions, or the requirement of pedals. In some countries, the legal driving age for a
1 moped is lower than for larger motorcycles, and consequently mopeds are popular among the
youth. Typically, mopeds are restricted to 30-50 km/h (19-31 mph) and engines less than 50 cm³.
2 Some localities require pedals, thus making them a form of hybrid vehicle, using both human
power and machine power. Because of their small size, many jurisdictions consider them
3
"limited speed motorcycles."
4
4.) Earlier models of mopeds did not have starters. They had a small flip valve on the cylinder
5
head that, when in the open position, eliminated compression in the piston chamber, thus
6
making
7
it easier to peddle the moped up to starting speed, where the rider would then flip the
8 compression
9
switch to the closed position, thus starting the motor. The gearing of the peddles was such that
10
made it difficult to peddle very far without wearing the rider out. The length of time the
11 peddles
12
were designed to propel a moped was for just long enough to start the engine. Out of the
13
hundreds of models of mopeds manufactured today, Petitioner can find only ONE model that
14 even
15
has peddles today. The peddles are still used to start the motor. For the most part, when someone
16
wants to peddle themselves down the road, they buy a bicycle!
17
5.) What is ‘included’ in the wording of a defined widget (moped) is the widget legally defined.
18
19 What is NOT included in the wording of a defined widget eliminates the un-included from the
20 definition of a widget (moped).
21
6.) By definition of a moped thereat NRS 482.069, the type of moped defined thereto is
22 the
kind that is NOT propelled by peddles.
23
7.) The LAW in Nevada at NRS 482.069 clarifies the type of moped defined thereat as :
24
25 Page 11 of
21
26
27
 “and is propelled by a small engine which produces not more than 2 gross brake horsepower and
which has a displacement of not more than 50 cubic centimeters”.
The wording “Propelled by peddles” is nowhere therein the language of NRS 482.069,
thus

clearly demonstrating the intent of the legislators that it is NOT peddles that make a
1
moped.
2
8.) The assertion by non-legislative entities that mopeds must have peddles to be included
3 under
4
NRS 482.069 is absurd. This is just police mentality trying to usurp their authority. Peddles
5 are
6 not included into the wording of NRS 482.069. Therefore, mopeds with peddles are NOT the
type
7
8 of moped being defined therein NRS 482.069; and, as such, mopeds with peddles may
actually
9
be OUTLAWED for not being included in the wording of NRS 482.069.
10
11 9.) On February 7, 2007 a ‘MEMO’ from the Las Vegas City Attorney’s Office went out to
at
12
least one Captain Conlin and one Sgt. H. Monty Hall of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
13
Dept.
14
10.) Said ‘MEMO’, about 2 pages, directed the LVMPD to immediately start treating mopeds
15
without peddles as motorcycles, where the riders could now be cited for - a.) No Registration,
16
b.)
17
No Helmet, c.) No Protective Eye Ware, d.) NO Insurance; and, e.) No Motorcycle
18 Endorsement
19
or License, etc...
20
11.) LVMPD Officers are now writing citations pursuant to #10 above without prior notice of
21 the
22
LVMPD’s change in policy and without warnings; and, without citing the documentation they
23 are
24 relying on to facilitate said change in policy.
25 Page 12 of
21
26
27
 12.) Prior to February 7, 2007 hundreds of LVMPD officers had testified under oath thousands
of

times since 1975 when NRS 482.069 was first enacted into law, that mopeds without peddles,
that
1
met the power requirements set forth therein NRS 482.069, do in fact, meet the requirements of a
2
moped as set forth therein NRS 482.069. Nevada Prosecutors are similarily situated as they’ve
3
never prosecuted anyone for violations of NRS 482.069 who were operating a moped without
4
5 peddles, for 32 years.
6 13.) Likewise, prior to February 7, 2007, hundreds of judges that handled those thousands of
cases
7
8 in the last Thirty Two Years involving said mopeds without peddles, ruled with the
understanding
9
that it must have been the intent of the legislature that mopeds without peddles were included in
10
11 the meaning of moped under NRS 482.069.
12 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
13
14.) The activities and inactivities set forth therein numbers 12 and 13 above are precedent
14
setting; and, incorporated herein.
15
15.) Cox (vs) Louisiana, 379 US 559, 85 S Ct. 476 (1965) States that an American Citizen such
16
17 as the accused has a right to rely upon representations and statements made by the
government.
18
16.) Pursuant to RALEY v. OHIO, 360 U.S. 423 (1959) in light of the 32 years of the
19
above
20
aforementioned precedent conduct of the Police, Judges and Prosecutors, it would be a
21 violation
22
of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process to the US Constitution in the form of
23
‘ENTRAPMENT’ for charging moped operators for exercising conduct that the Police,
24 Judges
25 Page 13 of
21
26
27
 and Prosecutors led them to believe, for Thirty Two Years, was available to them.

17.) It is alleged herein that members of the Las Vegas City Attorney’s Office, acting in concert
with
LVMPD Captain Conlin, Sgt. H. Monty Hall and other LVMPD officers are conspiring to
violate the
1
2 rights of accused PATRICK POTTER, as well as, possibly a complete class of Nevadans
known
3
as “Moped Operators” in violation of Title 18 § 241 & 242, as well as, Title 42 § 1983, 1985 &
4
1986.
5
18.) Neither PATRICK RICHARD POTTER nor Patrick-Richard-Christopher: Potter is a party
6 to
7
CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL MISDEMEANOR CITATION; NUMBER E07089143305594,
8
hereinafter ‘ticket’, as Defendant’s bonafide signature appears nowhere on any document
9
therein the file of CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL MISDEMEANOR CITATION;
10
NUMBER
11
E07089143305594, including, but not limited to, an electronic signature.
12
19.) For Thirty Two Years prior to February 7, 2007a.d. Nevada Judges all over Nevada have
13
14 ruled on the law thereat NRS 482.069 and have either FOUND that the type of moped at
issue
15
thereto the ticket, ones without peddles, or have acquiesced that the type of moped at issue
16
thereto
17
the ticket, ones without peddles, are in deed the type of moped Nevada Legislators intended
18 NRS
19
482.069 to apply to.
20
20.) It is alleged herein that members of the Las Vegas City Attorney’s Office, acting in concert
21 with
LVMPD Captain Conlin, Sgt. H. Monty Hall and other LVMPD officers are conspiring to usurp
22
the
23
authority of the Nevada Legislature and change the Legislative intent and/or definition thereat
24 NRS
25 Page 14 of
21
26
27
 482.069 in violation of Title 18 § 241 & 242, as well as, Title 42 § 1983, 1985 & 1986.

21.) It is alleged herein that members of the Las Vegas City Attorney’s Office, acting in concert
with
LVMPD Captain Conlin, Sgt. H. Monty Hall and other LVMPD officers are conspiring to wage
war
1
2 against Nevada moped operators, without notice, “Jap them”, in violation of Title 18 § 241 &
242,
3
as well as, Title 42 § 1983, 1985 & 1986.
4
5 22.) Most moped operators usually can no t afford other means of travel, cars or trucks,
which
6
include the extra cost of insurance and registration. This is why, in reliance on 32 years of the
7
Nevada
8
governments position that mopeds without peddles comply with NRS 482.069, chose a moped
9 for
10
their means of travel. With the average cost of fines being $1,700.00, the aforementioned actions
11 of
the Las Vegas City Attorney’s Office, acting in concert with LVMPD Captain Conlin, Sgt. H.
12 Monty
13
Hall and other LVMPD officers amount to Oppression Under Color Of Law, in violation of
14 Title 18
15 § 241 & 242, as well as, Title 42 § 1983, 1985 & 1986; also, Perjury of Oath of Office, Treason
16
and armed insurection.
17
23.) All of the foregoing being condoned and ratified as official policy of the City of Las Vegas,
18
Nevada and of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, may give rise to Respondeat
19
20 Superior (let the master answer); and, subsequent to this notice, all future instances where
LVMPD
21
officers engage in activities like the ones complained of herein, shell be deemed as being done
22
with
23
intent.
24
25 Page 15 of
21
26
27
 24.) The activities of Respondents set forth herein amount to fraud upon Petitioner. Said fraud
has

damaged petitioner.

25.) The processing through the court system of the aforementioned fraud amounts to
Fraud
1
Upon the Court by an Officer of the Court. Said Fraud and Fraud Upon the Court has
2
Damaged Petitioner.
3
26.) The aforementioned fraud is further alleged to have been perpetrated with the intent
4
to
5 cause damage to Petitioner; and, did cause damage to Petitioner.
6 INQUIRY
7
27.) Did the Nevada Legislature change in any way, any part thereof NRS 482.069 which gave
8 rise
9 to the City of Las Vegas, Nevada and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department changing
their
10
11 policy and now citing mopeds without peddles for not complying with NRS 482.069 and then
writing
12
moped operators citations for No Proof of Insurance, Unregistered Vehicle, No Head Gear,
13
glasses
14
or windscreen, etc. ?
15
IF THERE IS NO RESPONSE FROM RESPONDENT, THE ANSWER IS -‘ NO’.
16
17 28.) Did members of the Las Vegas City Attorney’s Office, acting in concert with LVMPD
18 Captain Conlin, Sgt. H. Monty Hall and other LVMPD officers conspire to violate the rights of
19
Alleged Defendant PATRICK POTTER, as well as, a complete class of Nevadans known
20 as
21 “Moped Operators” ?
22
IF THERE IS NO RESPONSE FROM RESPONDENT, THE ANSWER IS -‘ NO’.
23
29.) Did members of the Las Vegas City Attorney’s Office, acting in concert with LVMPD
24 Captain
25 Page 16 of
21
26
27
 Conlin, Sgt. H. Monty Hall and other LVMPD officers conspire to wage war against Nevada
moped

operators, without notice, “Jap them” ?

IF THERE IS NO RESPONSE FROM RESPONDENT, THE ANSWER IS -‘ NO’.

1
2 30.) Did members of the Las Vegas City Attorney’s Office, acting in concert with LVMPD
Captain
3
Conlin, Sgt. H. Monty Hall and other LVMPD officers engage in Oppression Under Color of
4
Law
5
in regards to the aforementioned actions relating to NRS 482.069.
6
IF THERE IS NO RESPONSE FROM RESPONDENT, THE ANSWER IS -‘ NO’.
7
8 31.) Did the Las Vegas City Attorney’s Office, acting in concert with LVMPD Captain Conlin,
Sgt.
9
H. Monty Hall and other LVMPD officers have any authority to change the common
10
understanding
11
of NRS 482-069 that mopeds without peddles do comply with NRS 482.069 ?
12
IF THERE IS NO RESPONSE FROM RESPONDENT, THE ANSWER IS -‘ NO’.
13
14 32.) By submitting Citation Number: E07089143305594 to the Nevada Court system ,
either
15
via the Las Vegas, Nevada Justice Court or the Las Vegas, Nevada Municipal Court, did
16
17 LVMPD officer J. James- Badge # 5594, in concert with the all other Respondents hereto,
18 intentionally act to perpetrate a FRAUD UPON THE COURT ?
19
IF THERE IS NO RESPONSE FROM RESPONDENT, THE ANSWER IS -‘ YES’.
20
33.) If the answer to ‘Number 29' above is YES, did the artifice or scheme of said
21 FRAUD
UPON THE COURT involve telling the court that a moped operator was actually
22
operating
23 a motorcycle ?
24 IF THERE IS NO RESPONSE FROM RESPONDENT, THE ANSWER IS -‘ YES’.
25 Page 17 of
21
26
27
 34.) Does the bonafide signature, written or electronic, of PATRICK POTTER, PATRICK

RICHARD POTTER or Patrick-Richard-Christopher: Potter appear anywhere thereon any

document thereto CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL MISDEMEANOR CITATION;

NUMBER
1
E07089143305594 ?
2
IF THERE IS NO RESPONSE FROM RESPONDENT, THE ANSWER IS -‘ NO’.
3
35.) Is PATRICK POTTER, PATRICK RICHARD POTTER or Patrick-Richard-Christopher:
4
5 Potter a party thereto CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL MISDEMEANOR CITATION;
NUMBER
6
E07089143305594 ?
7
8 IF THERE IS NO RESPONSE FROM RESPONDENT, THE ANSWER IS -‘ NO’.
9 36.) Did members of the Las Vegas City Attorney’s Office, acting in concert with LVMPD
Captain
10
11 Conlin, Sgt. H. Monty Hall and other LVMPD officers conspire to usurp the authority of the
Nevada
12
Legislature and change the Legislative intent and/or definition thereat NRS 482.069 ?
13
14 IF THERE IS NO RESPONSE FROM RESPONDENT, THE ANSWER IS -‘ NO’.
15 37.) Is there anything about Numbers One through Thirty One hereto that is false and/or
16
misleading ? If YES, explain in detail what leads you to this answer.
17
IF THERE IS NO RESPONSE FROM RESPONDENT, THE ANSWER IS -‘ NO’.
18
38.) Are the Respondents ‘in fault/at fault’ thereto numbers one through thirty eight herein?
19
20 IF THERE IS NO RESPONSE FROM RESPONDENT, THE ANSWER IS -‘ YES’.
21 ////////
22
////////
23
////////
24
25 Page 18 of
21
26
27
 NOTICE FOR NEED TO RESPOND
OPPORTUNITY TO CURE
" Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak ,
or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading... We cannot
1 condone this shocking conduct... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort
2 of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately
" U.S. v. Tweel 550 F2d 297, 299-300.
3
Petitioner is now , in good faith , offering Respondents the opportunity
4
to CURE said fault pursuant to the manor set forth therein said NOTICE
5 OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY PROCEDURES as set forth herein.
6 Also, Failure to respond hereto , in affidavit form - true , correct , complete
and not misleading, shall constitute as an “ operation of Law ”, a correction of
7 the administrative record hereto and the admission of all Respondents by
8 tacit procuration and tacit understanding via the establishment of an implied
contract with and by Respondents , between Respondents and Petitioner , in
9 agreement with each of the verified statements , claims and answers to
10 inquiries provided above. Said statements , claims and answers to inquiries
shall be deemed stipulated to and STARE DECISIS. In the event
11
Respondents default by not responding hereto with objections and/or refuting
12 Petitioner’s administrative process - pleadings , Respondents are estopped,
13 barred from and shall not argue , controvert or otherwise protest the
administrative findings/record agreed upon hereby in any subsequent
14 commercial, administrative and/or judicial proceedings.
15
Respondents have 72 hours to answer, refute and/or deny in verified
16 form and must respond to each claim and inquiry or final default occurs.
17 Failure to respond as noticed shall be deemed an automatic dishonor and
default to this good faith negotiation and shall be deemed prima facie
18
evidence that all parties stipulate to the facts stated herein said notice as
19 being true , correct and complete , agreeing entirely with the claims of the
20 Petitioner . You MUST respond as to your intentions within 72 hours. Otherwise ,
Petitioner will proceed accordingly against you using all lawful remedies as it shall
21 then be deemed that Petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies. You
22 have 72 hours , exclusive from the day of receipt of this notice to respond as
noticed . Should you need more time to respond , you may contract for more time
23 in writing by mailing your request , within 72 hours , to the address above .
24 Additional time shall not exceed 21 days .
25 Page 19 of
21
26
27
 You are herein noticed of Petitioner’s intent to seek Remedy as stipulated
to in the Notice of Waiver of Tort - hereto under Title 42 USC § 1983, 1984,
1985 and/or file a consentual commercial lien as well as other available liens
and notices thereof and/or seek a judicial judgement pursuant to N.R.S.
29.010 for damages and/or enforcement of contract and contract(s) entered
1
into and stipulated to hereby this Private International Administrative Remedy
2 should respondents fail to respond hereto and/or default hereto and/or fail to
3 comply exactly as prescriber above.
4 Further Petitioner Saith Not.
5
////////
6
////////
7
8 ////////
9 ////////
10 ////////
11
////////
12
////////
13
14 ////////
15 ////////
16 ////////
17
////////
18
////////
19
20 ////////
21 ////////
22 ////////
23
////////
24
25 Page 20 of
21
26
27
 VERIFICATION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
_________________________________________________

The State of Nevada )

) ss Know All Men By These Presents
The County of Clark )
1
Patrick-Richard-Christopher: Potter, under penalty of perjury, deposes and says :
2
I , Patrick-Richard-Christopher: Potter , a living breathing flesh-and-blood man of God, does
3 swear and affirm on my own unlimited Commercial liability, that I am the Petitioner in the
above-entitled action, and have scribed and read the foregoing and that in accordance with the
4
best of my firsthand knowledge and conviction, such are true, correct, complete, and not
5 misleading, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth .
6 PATRICK POTTER, In Proper Person,
7
_____________________________________
8 Patrick-Richard-Christopher: Potter, Sui Juris,
Without Prejudice.
9
NOTORIAL
10
11 Subscribed and Sworn to at Las Vegas , Nevada before me this 7 day of May, 2007 a.d.
th

12 Notary Public ________________________________

13
My Commission Expires_______________________
14
WITNESS my hand and official seal .
15
_________________________________________
16
Signature of Notary
17
////////
18
////////
19
20 ////////
21 ////////
22
////////
23
24
25 Page 21 of
21
26
27