File No.

07 - E07089143305594 - 05
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,
A Criminal Investigator / Private,
1 A Civil Rights Investigator - Civil Rights Task Force / Private; and,
A Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a).
2
MUNICIPAL COURT OF LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
CLARK COUNTY , NEVADA
3
TRAFFIC DIVISION
4 STATE OF NEVADA INC., LAS VEGAS , ) COURT: Department VI
NV. INC, CLARK COUNTY INC. )
5 And All Other Persons Known And ) CASE NUMBER: E07089143305594
Unknown Whom May Be Concerned)
6 ) NOTICE OF RESTRICTED APPEARANCE
Plaintiff / Accusers)
7 ) CONTINUED NOTIFICATION OF
Vs. ) NON-WAIVER OF RIGHTS
8 )
) DEMAND FOR PROTECTION OF
PATRICK POTTER ) STATE CREATED LIBERTY INTEREST
9 )
Alleged Defendant ) DEMAND TO BE INFORMED OF THE
10 ) NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE
) INSTANT ACTION
11 )
Patrick-Richard-Christopher: Potter , ) CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE
12 Sui Juris )
A Man of GOD / Aggrieved Party ) NOTICE OF FRAUD UPON THIS COURT
___________________________________ )
13
14 NOTICE OF RESTRICTED APPEARANCE
15 Comes now, PATRICK POTTER in Proper Person by way of third party intervener -
16 Patrick-Richard-Christopher: Potter, Sui Juris - One Living , Breathing , Private Man -
Instrument
17 of and Man of God, Standing un-movable in God’s Kingdom at all times as an Ambassador/
18 Warrior for Jesus Christ, Creditor and Holder-in-Due-Course of One Titled PATRICK
RICHARD POTTER and All Derivatives Thereof, see U.C.C. 1 filing with Nevada
19 Secretary
of State #0103112 - March 5, 2001a.d., With Power Of Attorney In Fact , Hereby Declares
20 and
Decrees that the aforementioned appear always in a RESTRICTED manor pursuant to and
21 in
the nature of SUPPLEMENTAL RULES FOR CERTAIN ADMIRALTY AND
MARITIME
22 CLAIMS - RULE E (8). Alleged Defendant & Third Party Intervener are not party(s) to
this
23
action as their bonafide signature does not appear on any document, citation or
24
Page 1 of
25 18

26
27
 electronically
generated document produced by the moving party, whoever that is, in relation to the instant
action.
CONTINUED NOTIFICATION OF NON-WAIVER OF RIGHTS
Patrick-Richard-Christopher: Potter, is not a persona designate nom de guerre or a
1 CORPORATE NAME FOR PROFIT, or employee of the "STATE OF NEVADA" or the
2 “UNITED STATES”. Patrick-Richard: Potter is a good and Lawful Christian MAN
constantly
3 traveling in GOD’S KINGDOM as an Ambassador for Jesus Christ. Patrick-Richard-
Christopher:
4 Potter is a private un-enfranchised individual and a neutral party with all unalienable rights
5 reserved , to include , but not limited to , the rights to life , liberty , property , the right of
6 avoidance and all other rights and freedoms granted by GOD and contained within the
7 protections and limitations of government and it’s agents by " The Constitution for the united
States of America " and " The Constitution for the State Of Nevada ". Patrick-Richard-
8
Christopher: Potter is a common people ( singular ) of the sovereignty granted to me by
9 GOD
10 preceding the United States which authorized the Declaration of Independence for The
United
11 States , anno Domini 1776 as evidenced therein the Preamble of the Constitution for the
united-States of America - 1787, and which authorized the formation of the aforementioned
12
country and state and their governments. Patrick-Richard-Christopher: Potter is not subject to
13 the
14 admiralty - maritime, statutory-legislative, commercial-contractual , bankruptcy and/or equity -
venue
15
and jurisdiction thereof NO STATE, absent proof of claim thereto, but am not barred from
the
16 use of the protections thereof. PATRICK RICHARD POTTER, in Proper Person, and
Patrick-
17
Richard-Christopher: Potter, Sui Juris, reserves all rights at all times
18
19 DEMAND FOR PROTECTION OF
20
STATE CREATED LIBERTY INTEREST
This court is noticed of the DEMAND thereof PATRICK POTTER, in Proper Person, via
21
Patrick-Richard-Christopher: Potter, Sui Juris, that this court, the City of Las Vegas, Nevada,
22 Clark
23 County, Nevada,; as well as, the State of Nevada, are required to ‘secure’ PATRICK POTTER’S
and
24
Page 2 of
25 18

26
27
 Patrick-Richard-Christopher: Potter’s DUE PROCESS RIGHTS thereof their 14th Amendment
STATE CREATED LIBERTY INTEREST, as found therein NRS 482.069. Relevant Policies of
Nevada Law Enforcement Agencies, Nevada county, city and state courts; as well as, Nevada city,
county and state Prosecutors, prior to February 7, 2007a.d., in relation to what type of motorized
1 vehicles fit the Definition of a Moped there at NRS 482.069 created a ‘LIBERTY INTEREST’
2 protected by the 14 Amendment’s ‘DUE PROCESS CLAUSE’. THOMPSON, 490 U.S. 454
th

(1989).
3 The only Law Enforcement Agency in Nevada that is treating ‘MOPEDS’ as though they
have
4
now miraculously transformed themselves into ‘MOTORCYCLES’, to this person’s knowledge,
5 is
6 the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.
7
8
DEMAND TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE

9
OF THE INSTANT ACTION AND FOR

10
PROTECTION OF THE STATE CREATED LIBERTY INTEREST

11
THERETO SAID 6th AMENDMENT RIGHT.
PATRICK POTTER, in Proper Person; as well as, Patrick-Richard-Christopher: Potter,
12
Sui Juris, gives notice to the court and all parties of interest that the liberty interest thereto
13 the 6th Amendment requirement ‘to be informed of’ the Nature and Cause of the instant
14 action has, at this time, not occurred ! The alleged citation contains no Nevada Revised
15 Statutes cited.
16
It turns out that there is a ton of legal precedent on the "nature and cause of the accusation". Our
17 fundamental right to ignore vague and arbitrary laws is deeply rooted in our fundamental right
to due process.
18
19 The "void for vagueness" doctrine is deeply rooted in our right to due process (under the
Fifth Amendment) and our right to know the nature and cause of an accusation (under the Sixth
20
Amendment). The latter right goes far beyond the contents of any criminal indictment. The right
21 to know the nature and cause of an accusation starts with the statute which any defendant is
accused of violating. A statute must be sufficiently specific and unambiguous in all its terms, in
22 order to define and give adequate notice of the kind of conduct which it forbids. If it fails to
indicate with reasonable certainty just what conduct the ‘legislature’ prohibits, a statute is
23 necessarily void for uncertainty, or "void for vagueness" as it is usually phrased. Any prosecution
24 which is based upon a vague statute must fail together with the statute itself. A vague criminal
Page 3 of
25 18

26
27
 statute is unconstitutional for violating the 6th Amendment.

"Every person accused of an offense, under the Constitution and statutes of this State, has a
right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. ... It is difficult to see
how this can be safely and orderly accomplished without a definite written accusation or
1 complaint."
[Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196 (1948)]
2
Charging a person in the language of an unconstitutionally vague statute or ordinance is
3 violative of his constitutionally protected rights.
4
The Supreme Court has ruled that it violates due process for a state high court to affirm
5 convictions under a criminal statute for the violation of which the defendants had not been
6 charged. The Court stated:
7
No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the
8 specific charge, and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if
desired, are among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all
9 courts, state or federal. ... It is as much a violation of due process to send an accused to prison
following conviction of a charge on which he was never tried as it would be to convict him upon a
10
charge that was never made.
11 [Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196 (1948)]
12
In criminal cases, prosecuted under the laws of the United States, the accused has the
13
constitutional right "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation." Amend. VI. In
14 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 crime with which he
15 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 clearly alleged." It is an elementary
16 principle of criminal pleading, that where the definition of an offense, whether it be at
17 common law or by statute, "includes generic terms, it is not sufficient that the indictment
shall charge the offense in the same generic terms as in the definition; but it must state the species;
18 it must descend to particulars." 1 Arch. Cr. Pr. and Pl., 291.
The object of the indictment is, first, to furnish the accused with such a description of
19
the charge against him as will enable him to make his defense, and avail himself of his
20 conviction or acquittal for protection against a further prosecution for the same cause;
and, second, to inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide whether they are
21 sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one should 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
22 the indictment, with reasonable particularity of time, place and circumstances.
23
Judge Story says the indictment must charge the time and place and nature and
24
Page 4 of
25 18

26
27
 circumstances of the offense with clearness and certainty, so that the party may have
full notice of the charge, and be able to make his defense with all reasonable
knowledge and ability. 2 Story, Const., sec. 1785.

Descriptive allegations in criminal pleading are required to be reasonably definite and

certain, as a necessary safeguard to the accused against surprise, misconception and
1 error in conducting his defense, and in order that the judgment in the case may be a bar to a
second accusation for the same charge. Considerations of the kind are entitled to respect;
2 but it is obvious, that, if such a description of the ingredient of an offense created and defined by
3 an Act of Congress is held to be sufficient, the indictment must become a snare to the
accused; as it is scarcely possible that an allegation can be framed which would be less
4 certain, or more at variance with the universal rule that every ingredient of the offense must be
clearly and accurately described so as to bring the defendant within the true intent and
5 meaning of the provision defining the offense. Such a vague and indefinite description of a
material ingredient of the defense [sic] is not a compliance with the rules of pleading in
6
framing an indictment. On the contrary, such an indictment is insufficient, and must be held
7 bad on demurrer or in arrest of judgment.
[United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 557]
8
The words "nature and cause of the accusation" in Const. Bill of Rights, art. 1, section 13,
9 providing that an accused shall have the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation
10 against him, mean that the gist of an offense shall be charged in direct and unmistakable
terms. Hinshaw v. State, 122 N.E. 418, 420, 188 Ind. 147.
11
A constitutional requirement that a person accused of crime shall enjoy the right to be
12 "informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" against him means, by a long line of
precedents, resting on principle, that in a prosecution for the commission of a statutory
13
offense the words of the statute, or others of fully equivalent import, should be employed.
14 State v. Judge of Criminal Dist. Ct. for Parish of Orleans, 21 So. 690, 691, 49 La.Ann. 231.
15 Constitutional provision requiring indictment to inform accused of "nature and cause of
accusation" means that indictment to be valid must at least fully and plainly identify the
16 offense, so that defendant may defend properly and later plead a conviction or acquittal in
17 bar of a subsequent charge for the same offense, and so that court may pronounce sentence on
conviction according to the right of the case. Const. art. 1, section 10, State v. Domanski, R.I.,
18 190 A. 854, 857.
19 It is an elementary principle of criminal pleading, that where the definition of an offense,
whether it be at common law or by statute, 'includes generic terms, it is not sufficient
20
that the indictment shall charge the offense in the same generic terms as in the
21 definition; but it must state the species -- it must descend to the particulars.'"
[Hinshaw v. State, 122 N.E. 418, 420, emphasis added]
22 What is needed for a proper understanding of the nature and cause of the instant
23 action by PATRICK POTTER, in Proper Person; as well as, Patrick-Richard-
24
Page 5 of
25 18

26
27
 Christopher: Potter, Sui Juris, is as follows:

a.) The actual law and/or statute and how the Alleged Defendant has a liability thereto, in
writing.

b.) The rules of the court and/or where Petitioner can find them and an explanation of
1
what kind of court is being conducted so Petitioner can mount a proper defense / remedy
2
3 as defenses and remedies differ from Admiralty to Statutory to Equity to Common Law to
4 Contractual Law, etc........., in writing.
5 c.) What type of proceeding is the court handling the instant action under and attempting
6
to seek it’s remedy under, civil, criminal, administrative etc........., in writing.
7
d.) Pursuant to Faretta v California the court can not force the Alleged Defendant to accept
8
a public defender for the purpose of informing the alleged Defendant of the
9 aforementioned
10
as that is the job of the moving party and/or the court.
11
12
CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE
13 Petitioner Denies Jurisdiction and hereby Challenges any and all Court’s Jurisdiction

14 relation to CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL MISDEMEANOR CITATION NUMBER:

15 E07089143305594; and, Requires of the moving party and/or court thereto Citation
16
‘E07089143305594' to Exhaust it’s ‘Prescribed Administrative Requirement’ by Proving on
17 the
18 Record all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted, before the court can proceed
19 .
20 Petitioner also has not been informed of the Nature and Cause of the instant accusation(s).

21 Petitioner requires of the moving party and/or court thereto Citation ‘E07089143305594' to
22 Exhaust it’s ‘Prescribed Administrative Requirement’ by ‘informing’ Petitioner of the
23 Nature
and Cause of the instant action ‘in writing’ and before arraignment. This ‘Prescribed
24
Page 6 of
25 18

26
27
 Informing’ MUST descend to the Particulars to include, but not limited to, the definition(s)
of

the alleged ‘OFFENSE’, whether it be at Common Law, Statute, Admiralty/Maritime,

Admiralty
1
Libel, Contractual or other form of Law; and, the RULES the Accused is to follow at
2 least
3 ‘3 Days’ before arraignment so that he may properly avail himself of an adequate
Defense
4 and/or Plea.
5 Petitioner also denies, refutes and rebuts all assumptions and presumptions. As
such,
6
Petitioner requires the moving party to provide the nexus to the ‘particular kind of offense
7 and
law’ which makes Petitioner liable, should it be contractual, for example, provide the contract
8 with
9 Petitioner’s bonafide signature on the contract, etc., etc., etc......
10
Furthermore, when Informing the accused thereto CITATION NUMBER:
11 E07089143305594
of the Nature and Cause of the action, Petitioner hereto DEMANDS to be informed of,
12 not
13
only, ‘who is the moving party/plaintiff, real and/or fictional, if fictional, then the attorney’s
14 name
15 etc..., But Also, who has moved CITATION NUMBER: E07089143305594 to Department 6 -
Las
16
17 Vegas, Nevada Municipa l Court and by ‘What Authority’ they have done so; and, where is
the
18 moving party at arraignment as required by law for the purpose of moving forward WITH
19 the arraignment?
20
The aforementioned Exhaustion of Administrative Requirements MUST occur
21 before
the Court moves forward to ‘Arraignment’ to prevent a further counterclaim of Fraud Upon
22 the
Court where all Respondents would carry the further burden of ‘Intent to commit’ where
23 ALL
24
Page 7 of
25 18

26
27
 Respondents will be without ALL Immunities.

"Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court
of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or
attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by
1 officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not
perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging
2
cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387
3 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, 60.23.
4
5 NOTICE OF FRAUD UPON THIS COURT
BY OFFICERS OF THIS COURT
6
7
THE FACTS

8 1.) Before Feburary 7, 2007, ALL scooters operating upon the roads and highways of Nevada
that
9
are “propelled by a small engine which produces not more than 2 gross brake horsepower and
10 which
11 has a displacement of not more than 50 cubic centimeters” were treated as a ‘moped’ by all law
12 enforcement agencies in Nevada, as the courts determined the Legislature had intended.
13 2.) In Nevada Law the definition of a Moped is defined at NRS 482.069 as follows:
14 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
15 horsepower and which has a displacement of not more than 50 cubic centimeters, and:
1. Is designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground but is not a
16 tractor; and
2. Is capable of a maximum speed of not more than 30 miles per hour on a flat surface with
17 not more than 1 percent grade in any direction when the motor is engaged.
18 (Added to NRS by 1975, 1075; A 1983, 895)

19 This is where MOPED is defined at in Nevada law, not under bicycles, not under motorcycles,
automobiles, tri-cycles or farm equipment, but HERE and nowhere else.
20
3.) Wikipedia, the free on-line internet encyclopedia defines moped at
21 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moped , as follows:
Mopeds are a class of low-powered motorized vehicles, generally two-wheeled. Moped
22 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
23 scooters, and small motorcycles fit the definition of a moped.
In legal literature, mopeds are normally defined by limits on engine displacement, speed, power
24
Page 8 of
25 18

26
27
 output, transmissions, or the requirement of pedals. In some countries, the legal driving age for a
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.
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 "limited
speed motorcycles."
4.) Earlier models of mopeds did not have starters. They had a small flip valve on the cylinder
1
head that, when in the open position, eliminated compression in the piston chamber, thus making
2
it easier to peddle the moped up to starting speed, where the rider would then flip the compression
3
switch to the closed position, thus starting the motor. The gearing of the peddles was such that
4
made it difficult to peddle very far without wearing the rider out. The length of time the peddles
5
were designed to propel a moped was for just long enough to start the engine. Out of the
6
hundreds of models of mopeds manufactured today, I can find only ONE model that even has
7
peddles today. The peddles are still used to start the motor. For the most part, when someone
8
wants to peddle themselves down the road, they buy a bicycle!
9
5.) What is ‘included’ in the wording of a defined widget (moped) is the widget legally defined.
10
What is NOT included in the wording of a defined widget eliminates the un-included from the
11
12 definition of a widget (moped).
13 6.) By definition of a moped there at NRS 482.069, the type of moped defined thereto is the kind
14 that is NOT propelled by peddles.
15 7.) The LAW in Nevada at NRS 482.069 clarifies the type of moped defined thereat as :
16 “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”.
17
The wording “Propelled by peddles” is nowhere therein the language of NRS 482.069, thus
18
clearly demonstrating the intent of the legislators that it is NOT peddles that make a moped.
19
8.) The assertion by non-legislative entities that mopeds must have peddles to be included under
20
NRS 482.069 is absurd. This is just police mentality trying to usurp their authority. Peddles are
21
not included into the wording of NRS 482.069. Therefore, mopeds with peddles are NOT the type
22
of moped being defined therein NRS 482.069; and, as such, mopeds with peddles may actually
23
24 be OUTLAWED for not being included in the wording of NRS 482.069.
Page 9 of
25 18

26
27
 9.) On February 7, 2007 a ‘MEMO’ from the Las Vegas City Attorney’s Office went out to at

least one Captain Conlin and one Sgt. H. Monty Hall. They got together at a closed door meeting
and

decided to damage Moped Operators in Nevada.

1
10.) Said ‘MEMO’, about 2 pages, directed the LVMPD to immediately, and without prior notice,
2
start treating mopeds without peddles as motorcycles, where the riders could now be cited for - a.)
3
No Registration, b.) No Helmet, c.) No Protective Eye Ware, d.) NO Insurance; and, e.) No
4
Motorcycle Endorsement or License, etc...
5
6 11.) LVMPD Officers are now writing citations pursuant to #10 above without prior notice of the
7 LVMPD’s change in policy and without warnings.
8 12.) Prior to February 7, 2007 hundreds of LVMPD officers had testified under oath thousands of
9 times since 1975 when NRS 482.069 was first enacted into law, that mopeds without peddles, that
10 met the power requirements set forth therein NRS 482.069, do in fact, meet the requirements of a
11 moped as set forth therein NRS 482.069. Nevada Prosecutors are similarily situated as they’ve
12 never prosecuted anyone for violations of NRS 482.069 who were operating a moped without
13 peddles, for 32 years.
14 13.) Likewise, prior to February 7, 2007, hundreds of judges that handled those thousands of cases
15 in the last Thirty Two Years involving said mopeds without peddles, ruled with the understanding
16 that it must have been the intent of the legislature that mopeds without peddles were included in
17 the meaning of moped under NRS 482.069.
18 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
19 14.) The activities and inactivities and policies set forth above are precedent setting; and, are
20
incorporated herein as all parties enjoy the RIGHT of precedent. PATRICK POTTER, in
21 Proper
22 Person; as well as, Patrick-Richard: Potter, Sui Juris, have a RIGHT to have the ‘Doctrine of
23 Precedent’ applied to the instant action. “ The framers of the constitution have inherited a
very
24 favorable view of precedent from the Seventeenth Century........ The assertion of the
Page 10 of
25 18

26
27
 authority
of precedent had been effective in past struggles of the English People against Royal

usurpations, and for the Rule of Law against the arbitrary rule of government. In sum, the
doctrine of precedent was not merely well established; it was the historic method of
judicial
decision making , and well regarded as a bulwark of judicial independence in past
1 struggles
for liberty.” Anastasoff -v- United States, No. 99-3917EM (8th Circuit 08/22/200).
2
15.) Cox (vs) Louisiana, 379 US 559, 85 S Ct. 476 (1965) States that an American Citizen such
3
as the Defendant has a right to rely upon representations and statements made by the government.
4
16.) Pursuant to RALEY v. OHIO, 360 U.S. 423 (1959) in light of the 32 years of the above
5
aforementioned precedent conduct of the Police, Judges and Prosecutors, it would be a violation
6
of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process to the US Constitution in the form of
7
8 ‘ENTRAPMENT’ for charging moped operators for exercising conduct that the Police, Judges and
9 Prosecutors led them to believe, for Thirty Two Years, was available to them.
10 17.) It is alleged herein that members of the Las Vegas City Attorney’s Office, acting in concert
with
11 LVMPD Captain Conlin, Sgt. H. Monty Hall and other LVMPD officers are conspiring to violate
the
12
rights of Alleged Defendant PATRICK POTTER, as well as, a complete class of Nevadans known
13
as “Moped Operators” in violation of Title 18 § 241 & 242, as well as, Title 42 § 1983, 1985 &
14 1986.
15 18.) Neither PATRICK RICHARD POTTER nor Patrick-Richard: Potter is a party to CLARK
16 COUNTY REGIONAL MISDEMEANOR CITATION; NUMBER E07089143305594,
hereinafter
17
‘ticket’, as Defendant’s signature appears nowhere on any document therein the file of CLARK
18
COUNTY REGIONAL MISDEMEANOR CITATION; NUMBER E07089143305594, including,
19
but not limited to, an electronic signature.
20
19.) For Thirty Two Years prior to February 7, 2007a.d. Nevada Judges all over Nevada have
21
ruled on the law thereat NRS 482.069 and have either FOUND that the type of moped at issue
22
thereto the ticket, ones without peddles, or have acquiesced that the type of moped at issue thereto
23
the ticket, ones without peddles, are in deed the type of moped Nevada Legislators intended NRS
24
Page 11 of
25 18

26
27
 482.069 to apply to.

20.) 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 usurp
the
1
authority of the Nevada Legislature and change the Legislative intent and/or definition thereat
2 NRS
3 482.069 in violation of Title 18 § 241 & 242, as well as, Title 42 § 1983, 1985 & 1986.
4 21.) It is alleged herein that members of the Las Vegas City Attorney’s Office, acting in concert
with
5 LVMPD Captain Conlin, Sgt. H. Monty Hall and other LVMPD officers are conspiring to wage
war
6
against Nevada moped operators, without notice, “Jap them”, in violation of Title 18 § 241 &
7 242,
8 as well as, Title 42 § 1983, 1985 & 1986.
9 22.) Most moped operators can not afford other means of travel, cars or trucks, which include the
10 extra cost of insurance and registration. This is why, in reliance on 32 years of the Nevada
11 governments position that mopeds without peddles comply with NRS 482.069, chose a moped for
12 their means of travel. With the average cost of fines being $1,700.00, the aforementioned actions
of
13 the Las Vegas City Attorney’s Office, acting in concert with LVMPD Captain Conlin, Sgt. H.
Monty
14
Hall and other LVMPD officers amount to Oppression Under Color Of Law, in violation of Title
15 18
16 § 241 & 242, as well as, Title 42 § 1983, 1985 & 1986.
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, ONLY, give rise to Respondeat
19
Superior (let the master answer); and, subsequent to this notice, all future instances where
20
LVMPD officers engage in activities like the ones complained of herein, shell be deemed
21 as
being done with intent.
22
DEMAND FOR PROTECTION OF
23
STATE CREATED LIBERTY INTEREST
24
Page 12 of
25 18

26
27
 PATRICK POTTER, in Proper Person; as well as, Patrick-Richard: Potter, Sui Juris,
once again give notice of demand that the City of Las Vegas, the State of Nevada; as well as,

Las Vegas Justice Court are required to secure Defendant’s due process rights of the state-
1
created liberty interest of the defendant as required by the 14th amendment as found in the Second
2
irrevocable ordinance in the Ordinance section of the Nevada Constitution which requires:
3
4 “That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state
5 shall ever be molested, in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious
6 worship.”
7
And that said ordinance has remained in effect by the authority of its own authority and by the
8
17th Article of the Nevada constitution at Section: 2 which states:
9
“Territorial laws to remain in force. All laws of the Territory of Nevada in force at the time of
10
the admission of this State, not repugnant to this Constitution, shall remain in force until they
11 expire by their own limitations or be altered or repealed by the Legislature.”

12 That this state-created liberty interest meets the standards as established by the United States
13 Supreme Court. This state-created liberty interest arises because the second irrevocable ordinance
14
imposes upon the State of Nevada "substantive limitations on official discretion." Olim v.
15
Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983) as the state shall secure
16
a “perfect toleration of religious sentiment” and that said ordinance creates an enforceable liberty
17
18 interest. Thompson, 490 U.S. at 461, 109 S.Ct. 1904. "[T]he most common manner in which a

19 State creates a liberty interest is by establishing 'substantive predicates' to govern official

20 decision-making, and, further, by mandating the outcome to be reached upon a finding that the
21
relevant criteria have been met." Id. at 462, 109 S.Ct. 1904 (citation omitted). The Court also
22
articulated a requirement that statutes and regulations must contain " 'explicitly mandatory
23
language,' i.e., specific directives to the decision maker that if the regulations' substantive
24
Page 13 of
25 18

26
27
 predicates are present, a particular outcome must follow, in order to create a liberty interest." Id.

at 463, 109 S.Ct. 1904. This standard is clearly established as the ordinance uses the mandatory

language of “shall secure.” “In sum, the use of 'explicitly mandatory language,' in connection

1 with the establishment of 'specified substantive predicates' to limit discretion, forces a conclusion
2 that the State has created a liberty interest." Id. Therefore any failure by the judicial or executive
3
branches of the State of Nevada or its sub-sections which fail to secure a perfect toleration of
4
defendant’s religious sentiment is actionable under USC 42 section 1983 which protections help
5
secure such state-created liberty interests of the defendant and can even remove judicial and
6
7 prosecutorial immunity from judgments as failure to secure such required perfect toleration of

8 Defendant’s religious sentiment would be a violation of my right to Due process. See also
9 Meachum v. Fano 427 U.S. 215, 96 S.Ct. 2532, U.S.Mass.,1976.
10
“We concluded: ‘(A) person's liberty is equally protected, even when the liberty
11 itself is a statutory creation of the State. The touchstone of due process is protection
of the individual against arbitrary action of government, Dent v. West Virginia,
12 129 U.S. 114, 123, 9 S.Ct. 231, 233, 32 L.Ed. 623 (1889).’”
And:
13
14 “Procedural due process is only available to plaintiffs that establish the existence of
a recognized . . . liberty interest. See Setliff v. Mem'l
15 Hosp.,PERLINK"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?
DB=350&SerialNum=1988086479&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&Ref
16 erencePosition=1394&AP=&mt=Nevada&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5
17 .02"\t"_top" 850 F.2d 1384, 1394 (10th Cir.1988) (citing Bd. of Regents v. Roth,
408 U.S. 564, 569, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972)).”
18
Accordingly, extensive protection to Defendant’s religious liberty must be afforded. It
19
was the opinion of the attorney general of Nevada that:
20
21 There is no question but that the framers of the Nevada Constitution recognized the
import of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and in the Constitution
22 provided that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship,
without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in [Nevada]; thus
23 the Nevada Constitution, aside from the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,
24 prohibits the Legislature from making any law respecting the establishment of
Page 14 of
25 18

26
27
 religion or the free exercise thereof. (Nevada AGO 320 (3/3/1954))

This Court has no say in determining whether my deeply held spiritual beliefs and

training are a “meritorious” exercise of his faith, nor may this Court weigh the verities of

1 Plaintiff’s beliefs. This Court may not even weigh the theological merits of Defendant’s religious
2 beliefs. This Court may only ascertain whether Defendant’s beliefs are religiously motivated and
3
whether they are sincerely held.
4
The door of the Free Exercise Clause stands tightly closed against any
5 governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such, Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310
U.S. 296, 303. Government may neither compel affirmation of a repugnant belief,
6
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488; nor penalize or discriminate against individuals
7 or groups because they hold religious views abhorrent to the authorities, Fowler
v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67; nor employ the taxing power to inhibit the
8 dissemination of particular religious views, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S.
105; Follett v. McCormick, 321 U.S. 573; cf. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297
9 U.S. 233. On the other hand, the Court has rejected challenges under the Free
10 Exercise Clause to governmental regulation of certain overt acts prompted by
religious beliefs or principles, for "even when the action is in accord with one's
11 religious convictions, [it] is not totally free from legislative restrictions." Braunfeld
v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 603. The conduct or actions so regulated have invariably
12 posed some substantial threat to public safety, peace or order. See, e. g., Reynolds
v. United States, 98 U.S. 145; Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11; Prince v.
13
Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158; Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14. (Sherbert v.
14 Verner, supra.)

15 On October 4, 1982, the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
16 America in Congress assembled resolved the following:
17
That the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national
18 “Year of the Bible” in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has
been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the
19 Holy Scriptures. (Public Law 97-280 (96 Stat. 1211)).
20
This public law was only a conformation of the words of James Madison where he
21
22 wrote in The Memorial and Remonstrance which begins with the recognition that “[t]he

23 Religion... of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is

24 the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.” (2 Writings of James Madison 184
Page 15 of
25 18

26
27
 (G. Hunt ed. 1901). By its very nature, Madison wrote, the right to free exercise is

‘unalienable,’ both because a person's opinion ‘cannot follow the dictates of other[s],’ and

because it entails “a duty toward the Creator.” Ibid. Madison continued:

1
"This duty [owed the Creator] is precedent both in order of time and degree of
2 obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.... [E]very man who becomes a member of
3 any Civil Society, [must] do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal
Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is
4 abridged by the institution of Civil Society, and that Religion is wholly exempt from
its cognizance." Id., at 184–185.
5
Defendant is required by to apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures in his life and this
6
7 court is required by the state-created liberty interest and/or the constitutions of Nevada and the

8 United States of America to allow said defendant to worship God according to the dictates of his

9 own conscience unless it creates some substantial threat to public safety, peace or order
10
which would be up to the State to demonstrate BEFORE it could impose a restriction on
11
Alleged Defendant’s “liberty interests.” This includes Matthew Chapter 22 which reads:
12
35. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him,
13 and saying,
14 36. Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and
15 with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38. This is the first and great commandment.
16
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
17 ////////
18
////////
19
////////
20
////////
21
22 ////////

23 ////////
24
Page 16 of
25 18

26
27
 ////////

////////

////////

1 ////////
2 ////////
3
////////
4
////////
5
////////
6
7 ////////

8 ///////
9 ///////
10
///////
11
///////
12
///////
13
14 VERIFICATION AND ACKNOWLEDGE

15 The State of Nevada )

) ss Know All Men By These Presents
16 The County of Clark )
17
Patrick-Richard: Potter, under penalty of perjury, deposes and says :
18 I , Patrick - Richard : Potter , a living breathing flesh-and-blood man, does swear and affirm on
my own unlimited Commercial liability, that I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled action, and
19 have scribed and read the foregoing and that in accordance with the best of my firsthand
knowledge and conviction, such are true, correct, complete, and not misleading, the truth, the
20
whole truth, and nothing but the truth .
21
PATRICK POTTER, In Proper Person,
22
_____________________________________________
23 Patrick-Richard: Potter, Sui Juris,
24 “Without Prejudice”
Page 17 of
25 18

26
27
 NOTORIAL

Subscribed and Sworn to at Las Vegas , Nevada before me this 7th day of May, 2007 a.d.

1 Notary Public ________________________________

2 My Commission Expires_______________________
3 WITNESS my hand and official seal .
_________________________________________
4
Signature of Notary
5
////////
6
7 ////////

8 ////////
9 ////////
10
////////
11
////////
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 18 of
25 18

26
27