Lesson 1 Advice

INTRODUCTION

Read the lessons when you have quality time to real well, several times to make sure you get the message presented. If you don’t understand something form a question in a special file where you know where it will be and if that question is still unanswered at the end of the course, bring them out then. So please hold your question to the end but do put them in a file so you won’t forget. Always, no matter where you go or what you do, carry a pen and paper with you so that if you get inspiration, you can write it down right away and review it later. Don’t rely on memory to hold it, memory is flighty. You will find you will not waste that rare moment when out of the blue a revelation comes to you and no matter what or when, be prepared to record it in some meaningful manner. If you are driving, pull over to the side of the road and take a few minutes to note it. Some of my most notable revelations has come during time I was either driving, in bed or on the toilet. Even at night I would at relevant times get out of bed and write it down before going back to sleep. Don’t miss the opportunity because you are too busy to note it at the time. You might want to print out the lessons to read them. Often it is easier to read in printed form and you can make notes on the paper. I would suggest that you also print out the file Proc.txt and the individual files that are listed there and put them in the sequence as set out in Proc.txt, then carefully read them for a fore knowledge. If you have used them already, then review them. SEE files court.txt in L.zip; code.txt, courts.txt, on courts in L1.zip; invite.txt in L2.zip and basic common law being the law of the land as exemplified in “Common Law.zip” in the files section of the group webpage. If you have some time visit the law library and read about common law defaults. You might even find information on law procedure in your local library. Visit a traffic court to see how make hundreds of thousands a day moving tickets. Get on the net and find a copy of the court rules including “local court rules” and the code for future reference. You will need both. You will need to be familiar with the rules for courts of limited jurisdiction and at least the general outline of your state code, in particular the Motor Vehicle Traffic Rules and code or statutes. Start building your own law library in your home. Seek out good used law books at second hand stores. Remember that those books you pay a couple of dollars, were bought for hundreds of dollars. While you may think old law books discarded for new ones are outdated, think about that outdated common law we brought with us to this country from England still exists and those old law cases that we use everyday to support our contentions, including 1886 Yick Wo. Don’t
Page 1 of 129

pass up a good thing because it is old, some of those books may inspire you like they did me to dream up winning strategies. Please be responsible and save these lessons in a secure place for future reference and back them up as you should the L series files. They will always be available as long as I am alive in case you lose them, but don’t count on me always being around. The material in this course and the application can be used in many and varied circumstances. The procedure is ancient in origin and well founded in all law. It is so powerful in the hands of a skilled opponent who is supported by foundational law; it is a threat to government which most often works from an inferior position (founded on deceit) and law. The key is to lay the foundational facts out in such a way as to show that the opponent’s case is without merit. History of the Creation of the Traffic Default Procedure For years we fumbled our way through traffic courts. We met as an organized body several times a month to discuss and review what we had learned during the interval between meetings. We had found valuable tools but nothing that was consistent or easy to use. There were specifics for various infractions but nothing generic. For instance if the cop lost sight of the vehicle, we could usually win those cases. Failure to file the ticket in 48 hours was an easy win as well, but we still lacked a good method. Then, along came the “tacit procreations” which looked good but were hard to enforce. Usually the prosecutor ignored them and just did his little introduction and examination of the officer on the stand and the judge would rule against us. It seemed as if it were rigged against us and there seemed no way to beat them at the game. One day I was shopping for law books as I always did in used book departments of second hand stores and bought a Federal book on Forms and Procedures. I started using it for the forms and procedures in it and found it a good general self help of endless examples of forms. Eventually I run into the “Default Judgment” part of the book and it hit me as being the long sought after procedure for put the prosecutor in his place. To set the stage for a default, I would need a good affidavit which couldn’t be rebutted. Then it was simply giving notice of the default with a chance to cure it, a Final Default and Praecipe to the clerk to enter the default as laid out in the Federal Forms book. But I knew by this time how clerks work, they go to the judge to see what they should do if it is out of the ordinary and then the judge will instruct them as to how to handle the situation. I had seen this played out in my experience with the court clerks. I knew the judge would tell the clerk not to do it because they don’t
Page 2 of 129

want to allow it. I also knew that there had to be a way to force the clerk to do it, and I knew the remedy was Petition for Writ of Mandamus. I also knew the judge would not want to rule on the Petition unless pressed into doing it. So, I had to come up with a way to let the Judge off the hook in a collateral way, leads to the Motions to Dismiss, which gives him a good excuse if he is so dumb he can’t come up a reason to dismiss the whole thing on his own. It wasn’t long before my Friend Dana Beaver an American Indian came to me for help with his ticket. I told him about my ideas and he said let’s try it. I prepared all the paper for him in about two hours and told him to file it on the dates on the paper. He came back several weeks later and told me they dismissed without him saying a word. I was shocked because this court was notorious for being corrupt. Soon others came and went, coming back telling me their cases were dismissed as well. One even told me the Judge wrote a Findings of Facts and Conclusions at law upon his false arrest and imprisonment. I was totally shocked and continued to do the paper for all who came to me, and they were all winning. One prosecutor even admitted in open court a driver’s license was not required. Always keep in mind, the motions are fluff, the meat is the default and the tool that makes it work is the mandate. The motions to dismiss also give you good cause for Writ of Error to the Trial Court should the judge not dismiss your case on the default alone. What you don’t bring up in the trial court, can’t normally later be brought up in any other court. This just puts more pressure on the judge as these issues are issues he doesn’t want you to pursue. Constitutional Law Course I jumped at the chance to take a Continuing Education law class offered by a retired judge professor at the local state college. It was a special class, open to anyone, one of those community learning forums but with credits if desired. I took the class and one Saturday we were discussing the Indian Burial Grounds Case in Northern California. There was a sweet young innocent Indian Woman in the class who was very quiet but interested in the case and at one point in the conversation a brash young man sitting beside her derogatorily said, “The Indians want to under the tribal law when it suits them, and at other times under the Constitution when that suits them.” I saw the offense on this Indian Woman’s face and raised my hand to speak. Before being called upon to speak, the professor went to the board and wrote, “Sovereignty” on it as he knew what the first word out of mouth was going to be as I proceeded to quote Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 from memory. "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it

Page 3

of

129

is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.” Then I asked if I could go to the board and draw out the chain of command in our country. I drew what you will see in the file “law.jpg” in L1.zip which both concepts were verified by the professor to the class. This would prove to me and the class that I was not some radical but had a true rational concept of the law. It also demonstrates that they know the secret and while on the bench deny it in the most hypocritical ways to the injury of those who trust them to make righteous judgments. I am sure this judge and professor knew exactly who I was and that I had observed him on the bench in the past. He obviously knew my reputation based on the fact that he knew what I would say, before I said it. He also must have known that he was giving away a professional secret which he himself had abused. Obviously however, he also knew that I was the only one in the class who knew, that he knew what I suspected he knew. Fundamental Forms of Law and Procedure In our system of law, there are fundamentally four forms of law. Natural Law Common Law Constitutional Law Codified Law Natural Law is the highest form of Law because it is The Law of our Creator. The Natural law of prudent Man is He shall defend his claims or actions. One of the earliest recorded demure was in the Garden of Eden when Adam was confronted by God and where he confessed but tried to shift blame to the woman. All unalienable rights emanate from our Creator and are carried into society by long honored and generally accepted law. Natural being that which exists in Nature, or in other words, established in Society as custom and not form any statute or man made law. Thus natural law is the highest order of law, some of which has been codified as is some of the common law. Natural Law defined: “An ethical belief or system of beliefs supposed to be inherent in human nature and discoverable by reason rather than revelation a nonlogically necessary truth; law of nature. See also nomological (law of nature) and in a second sense, the philosophical doctrine that the authority of the legal system or of certain laws derives from their justifiability by reason, and
Page 4 of 129

indeed that a legal system which cannot be so justified has no authority.” Collins Dictionary More basically, God's law is never changing natural law as differentiated from man made law subject to constant change. There however are overlapping aspects of each form of law. Constitutional law is basically derived from the common law and natural law or sometimes called the law of nature. "Hence also, the origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact, between the rulers and the ruled; and must be liable to such limitations, as are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the latter; for what original title can any man or set of men have, to govern others, except their own consent? To usurp dominion over a people, in their own despite, or to grasp at more extensive power than they are willing to entrust, is to violate that law of nature, which gives every man the right to his personal liberty; and can, therefore, confer no obligation to obedience." "When human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void." Alexander Hamilton, 23 Feb. 1775 “We understand all laws to be either human or divine, according as they have man or God for their author; and divine laws are of two kinds, that is to say: (1) Natural laws; (2) positive or revealed laws. A natural law is deemed to Burlamaqui to be “a rule which so necessarily agrees with the nature and state of man that, without observing its maxims, the peace and happiness of society can never be preserved.” And he says that these are called “natural laws” because a knowledge of them may be attained merely by the light of reason, from the fact of their essential agreeableness with the constitution of human nature; while, on the contrary, positive or revealed laws are not founded upon the general constitution of human nature, but only upon the will of God; though in other respects such law is established upon very good reason, and procures the advantage of those to whom it is sent. The ceremonial or political laws of the Jews are of this latter class.” Borden v. State, 11 Ark. 527, 44 Am. Dec. 217. “The Founders believed that self-representation was a basic right of a free people. Underlying this belief was not only the anti-lawyer sentiment of the populace, but also the "natural law" thinking that characterized the Revolution's spokesmen.” See P. Kauper, The Higher Law and the Rights of Man in a Revolutionary Society, a lecture in the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research series on the American
Page 5 of 129

Revolution, Nov. 7, 1973 quoted in Faretta v California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). Justice Souter has numerous times dissented on the Natural Law. The following is the last time he has done so and it is a very interesting case to read for the principles involved, its discussion of common law and natural law, and the Constitution. It demonstrates how closely related these different forms of law are related and sometimes difficult to distinguish from each other, if such a distinction is really important in the first instance. Speaking of Souter's dissent: "The dissenting opinion seeks to reopen these precedents, contending that state sovereign immunity must derive either from the common law (in which case the dissent contends it is defeasible by statute) or from natural law (in which case the dissent believes it cannot bar a federal claim). See post at 797-798. As should be obvious to all, this is a false dichotomy. The text and the structure of the Constitution protect various rights and principles. Many of these, such as the right to trial by jury and the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, derive from the common law. The common law lineage of these rights does not mean they are defeasible by statute or remain mere common law rights, however. They are, rather, constitutional rights, and form the fundamental law of the land." Alden v Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 733 (1999) "The protection against unreasonable search and seizure might have primacy for one judge, while trial by a jury of twelve for every claim above twenty dollars might appear to another as an ultimate need in a free society. In the history of thought, "natural law" has a much longer and much better founded meaning and justification than such subjective selection of the first eight Amendments for incorporation into the Fourteenth. If all that is meant is that due process contains within itself certain minimal standards which are "of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325, putting upon this Court the duty of applying these standards from time to time, then we have merely arrived at the insight which our predecessors long ago expressed." Adamson v California, 332 U.S. 46, (1947) "In these cases the common law adopts the principle of the natural law, and finds the right and the justification in the same imperative necessity." Burlem. 145, sec. 6; id., 159, c. 5, secs. 24-29; Puffendorf, B. 2, c. 6. Bowditch v. Boston, 101 U.S. 16. These cases show the close relationship between the natural and common law. Indeed the first book in the course of study in the Constitutional Law Class was the Bible as a reference to show the origin of most of our fundamental law.
Page 6 of 129

"It must be interpreted in the light of Common Law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. The language of the Constitution could not be understood without reference to the Common Law." U.S. Vs. Won Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456. Much of the natural, common law and of course Constitutional law has been codified in the statute or codes of various states and the USA. In fact our law is much the same as those of all other countries of the World. "Law of the Land" means "The Common Law." Taylor V. Porter, 4 Hill. 140, 146 (1843) See also the oft quoted by the Supreme court, Wynehamer v. People, 13 N.Y. 378 (1856) Nature of Traffic Law Traffic acts with the exception of vehicular homicide in general are Malum prohibitum as opposed to common law crimes which are said to be Mala in se (intentional homicide for instance). Such prohibited crimes or infractions are victimless for the most part. Infraction or crime is mostly dependent upon state laws. In states that have “decriminalized” infractions, normal traffic infractions are not crimes, however reserve protection from abuse of courts as if they were in a sense criminal. This leads to a perverse concept that they are in essence criminal but there is no solid evidence that is the case when the intent to introduce a new form of offense as an infraction was to effect the purpose of “decriminalizing” the various acts of the states. Kan.Stat.Ann. § 22-2401(d) (1999 Cum.Supp.) (for "[a]ny crime, except a traffic infraction or a cigarette or tobacco infraction," committed in the officer's view) For instance, Texas traffic violations are petty misdemeanor crimes, while Washington’s are mostly infractions and civil in nature. However, some acts might be infractions of criminal law but criminal acts are never infractions. The distinction here is that the use of the word as a noun means the act, where used as an adjective or verb is equivalent to breaking of the law. So it is easy for some to read law and come to wrong conclusions based on the use of the term “Infraction”. The infraction scheme is nothing more than a tax and revenue method today and for this reason does very little to effect safety which is the ploy used to justify the common tax. Common Law of Default
Page 7 of 129

A good lawyer, if there is such an animal will always frame his paper to box the victim into either defending or defaulting. Thus it is common to always put reciprocating acts into a time frame, such as you must act by a certain date or some action will befall you. “Once a defendant is served, the next step is for the defendant to either answer the lawsuit or have its default entered. Entry of Default is a separate step from obtaining a default judgment. The entry of default merely cuts off the defendant's right to answer. This is a relatively simple step which occurs by following a one-page document. In a simple case based upon a book account, the clerk can enter judgment with little documentation. However, in a more complex case involving a bad check, lease payment, etc., the attorney may need to obtain an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury signed by the client along with appropriate supporting information.” Commercial Law by Steven Lovett There are four kinds of judgments in civil cases, namely: 1. When the facts are admitted by the parties, but the law is disputed; as in case of judgment upon demurrer; 2. When the law is admitted, but the facts are disputed; as in, case of judgment upon a verdict; 3. When both the law and the facts are admitted by confession; as in the case of cognovit actionem, on the part of the defendant; or nolle prosequi, on the part of the plaintiff; 4. By default of either party in the course of legal proceedings, as in the case of judgment by nihil disit or non sum informatus, when the defendant has omitted to plead or instruct his attorney to do so after a proper notice or in cases of judgment by non pros; or as in case of nonsuit, when the plaintiff omits to follow up his proceedings. These four species of judgments, again, are either interlocutory or final. JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT, is a judgment rendered in consequence of the nonappearance of the defendant and is either by nil dicit or by non sum informatus. This judgment is interlocutory in assumpsit, covenant, trespass, case and replevin, where the sole object of the action is damages; but in debt, damages not being the principal object of the action, the plaintiff usually signs final judgment in the first instance. JUDGMENT BY NIL DICIT, is one rendered against a defendant for want of a plea. The plaintiff obtains a rule on the defendant to plead within a time specified, of which he serves a notice on the defendant or his attorney; if the defendant neglect to enter a plea within the time specified, the plaintiff may sign judgment against him.
Page 8 of 129

JUDGMENT OF NOLLE PROSEQUI, is a judgment entered against the plaintiff, where, after appearance and before judgment, he says, 'he will not further prosecute his suit.' JUDGMENT BY NON SUM INFORMATUS, is one which is rendered, when instead of entering a plea, the defendant's attorney says he is not informed of any answer to be given to the action. . JUDGMENT OF NON PROS. (from non prosequitur,) is one given against the plaintiff, in any class of actions, for not declaring or replying or surrejoining, etc. or for not entering the issue. See http://www.lectlaw.com/def/j009.htm "Judgments" "The principle which governs the practice in both these courts is that [93 U.S. 153] the defendant stall not be taken by surprise, but shall have sufficient warning before a decree is entered against him by default." O'Hara v McConnell, 93 U.S. 150, (1876) Notice is one of the most important principles of default as will be explained by the above quote as well as basic default history in common law. It is absolutely mandatory that you give proper notice and time to respond. Any failure to do so, is fatal to the cause if objected to by the other party and a default taken without notice can and should be set aside for lack of due process. This is why the proc.txt outline must be followed and the timeline as set by individual court rules and established law to effect due process in the matter and issues brought before the court. Like playing chess it is improper to take the Queen without warning when you are the moving party. "It is also contended for the appellant that if the truth of the general rule must be admitted, that he who seeks judicially to establish a claim based upon an alleged default of his adversary must affirmatively establish by proof the facts which justify his complaint, and that the burden of proof, as a principle of general jurisprudence, is assumed by the plaintiff, unless the cause of action is confessed or admitted judicially by the defendant; yet it is also true that if the defendant accompanies a general denial of the alleged cause of action with the admission of such facts as in law constitute his liability, the plaintiff's case is in fact admitted without other proof, and that in this aspect the libellant was entitled to a decree below on the basis of certain admissions of fact in each of the answers inconsistent with the general denials of fault." The L P Dayton, 120 U.S. 337 (1887) While we are defendants in a traffic case, the same principles apply as if it were a counter complaint. The intent of the above reference is to show that the
Page 9 of 129

burden is upon you however in this case the Plaintiff will never defend and such is fatal to any claim he may have made. "...that these defendants had not by any neglect or default brought themselves within any just principle of estoppel, and upon a careful review of all the evidence adduced upon the trial..." Glenn v Garth, 147 U.S. 360 (1893) The default naturally implies bars and estoppel on the order of lach against further action on the part of the party who neglects or fails to defend. The only remedy in case of outright misrepresentation is to “set aside the default” so it isn’t fatal till the point the failure to defend is sealed by the defaulted party in his neglect to motion to set aside the default for good cause, then proceeds to announce his good cause to the court. The court then has discretion to set aside the default, but until that time the default can’t be ignored because it is a ministerial duty to enforce it as a matter of law. Courts of Limited Jurisdiction Traffic infractions and lesser traffic crimes are held in courts of limited jurisdiction. The name limited jurisdiction is determined by code to have limits in value amounts generally and in certain matters, traffic offenses being one of the matters. Often misdemeanor crimes are heard and adjudicated in courts of limited jurisdiction while mala in se crimes and felony matters are held in the courts of general jurisdiction. Appeals from these courts of limited jurisdiction are generally heard in the courts of general jurisdiction. You need to be familiar with your state law to know where the appeals are heard. Always be several steps ahead of the game so that you are prepared to move your case quickly with anticipation of what will likely happen next. Normally the one who is supported in law and the moving party is the winner in any case. Learn to move your case and make the other party work for every inch of ground they retain. This is one of the secrets of success of the default process and changes roles for the prosecutor as he now becomes defensive and few will defend. I have only heard of two times when the prosecutor tried to defend and in those cases the defense was obviously flawed by personal opinion without any facts being established. You can proceed with the papers as if you don’t expect any action on behalf of the prosecution because it will be rare indeed if they move against you. Later we will explain why even if they answer, they don’t establish any facts. In our country, courts are courts of common law and equity at the same time, but traffic courts are notorious common law courts. If you don’t know the difference
Page 10 of 129

between common law and equity, then you need to read the file “Basic Equity” in the files section of the lawwork group webpage. You will also find files on the common law and other subjects which will magnify your knowledge of law in general. Ignore those who claim the courts all rule in equity, these are those who don’t know the difference between the common law and equity. One of the maxims of equity is that it always follows the common law, that is, where there is no remedy in common law, equity will provide a remedy. Conclusion The default is well supported as a basic principle of law in Natural, Common and statute law. It is based on notice, opportunity to defend and judgment based upon failure to defend Nil Dicit (when plaintiff or petitioner) or Nolle Prosequi (defendant or respondent) in the case where the prosecutor fails to prosecute the case, both comprising Default Judgments in general. You must not be passive to win, you must move quickly in your case in all instances. The prosecutor will rarely if ever defend his position so you can move without making any assumptions that you have to modify your paper in any significant way. Thus you can calculate the time in advance for each paper and date them accordingly, file them in the proper order and wait for the hearing. Always remember the judge knows the law, he knows you are right, and he has a ministerial duty to give some kind of judgment in your favor. Show confidence in the courtroom like you are a professional who can’t be buffaloed with non sense. The courtroom is yours, bought and paid for by you either directly or indirectly, so make it your home for the time you are there. Make wise use of the resources on the lawwork AND lawworks group web pages especially the files section and former messages on lawworks where only I post. Some of the best of the best messages are located on the lawworks group. Build your own library from published works from attorneys libraries donated to second hand stores. Always carry pen and paper everywhere you go. Save any questions on this text in a special file till the conclusion of the course, so you won’t lose them. Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst. With the knowledge you receive in this course, you should be an expert in your cause. Next lesson is: The Arrest The lesson will cover the basic necessities to be prepared for the stop and to lay the foundation for your case. It will also cover the legal aspects of the stop and
Page 11 of 129

how it plays in with the overall process of preparation for the default depending on your personal situation. You will be given some choices of approach depending on your nature and disposition at the time. What you do here could mean you win or have to go to court to win. The lesson covers your choices with or without license and how to set the officer up for the administrative review or contest of wits in court better known as contested hearing. You should be mentally prepared for the traffic stop after this lesson. Your homework assignment is to visit and become acquainted with your local law library. At least learn how to find Yick Wo v Hopkins in the United States Supreme Court Case Citations. If there is a handy librarian available, ask her to give you a tour. If you are fortunate to live near Olympia, go to the State Supreme Court, visit the library and ask Dawn at the reference desk to give you the grand tour and tell her Clyde sent you. Dawn is one handy woman to know and if you need something urgently, she will help you all she can, even if you are from out of state. By the way, she is on our side. Dawn P. Kendrick, MLIS, Reference Librarian. Washington State Law Library Temple of Justice, Box 40751 Olympia, Wa 98504-0751 360-357-2138 voice 360-357-2153 fax dawn.kendrick@courts.wa.gov For U.S. Supreme court news: http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/supreme_court

Page 12

of

129

Lesson 2

THE ARREST

Don't try to get tickets to test this process; drive the best you can. The rules are good cause for orderly traffic flow, but are not law in the respect which are meant to be broken for good cause. In other words, you drive on the wrong side of the road to pass, or it is acceptable to speed to pass, so you can clear the lane. This is the reason they are called “Rules of the Road”, even in the code. Please do not use this process for inherently evil crimes or drunk driving cases because it will be abuse of the process and will surely cause its demise in the long run as well as yours. Use it responsibly as it is a powerful, plain, speedy and effective remedy at law. I have had one fellow that abused it and ended up much worse off than if he had never used it. Remember the sword of justice cuts both ways, which means it can be a powerful tool for you and against you, so bottom line is be responsible. I use Washington code herein because I am most familiar with it, because I must use some code and because to list all the state codes would take untold volumes of paper and time. Please be familiar with your own state codes, court rules, and cases so that you can properly help yourself and others. For your own occasional use, it may be impractical to make a detailed study of your state codes but you should be at least familiar with the court rules and a few code provisions to adequately defend, even though the papers are largely generic to the extent you can use most of the material without much reference to your codes or court cases. The more you know, the better you will be able to put together some good motions to dismiss and the more the merrier is my motto. Traffic Stop Is An Arrest The Court reasoned that, although the stop was unquestionably a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, such traffic stops typically are brief, unlike a prolonged station house interrogation. Second, the Court emphasized that traffic stops commonly occur in the "public view," in an atmosphere far "less `police dominated' than that surrounding the kinds of interrogation at issue in Miranda itself." Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420438-439. While playing word games the court distinguishes the traffic stop like the Terry stop which assumes probable cause to detain you for questioning and to issue process against you. The Terry being a walking stop and the traffic stop usually a moving stop. So, how many times do you find “arrest” in the following Washingtoon code?

Page 13

of

129

RCW 46.64.015 Citation and notice to appear in court -- Issuance -- Contents -Written promise -- Arrest -- Detention. Whenever any person is arrested for any violation of the traffic laws or regulations which is punishable as a misdemeanor or by imposition of a fine, the arresting officer may serve upon him or her a traffic citation and notice to appear in court. Such citation and notice shall conform to the requirements of RCW 46.64.010, and in addition, shall include spaces for the name and address of the person arrested, the license number of the vehicle involved, the driver's license number of such person, if any, the offense or violation charged, the time and place where such person shall appear in court, and a place where the person arrested may sign. Such spaces shall be filled with the appropriate information by the arresting officer. The arrested person, in order to secure release, and when permitted by the arresting officer, must give his or her written promise to appear in court as required by the citation and notice by signing in the appropriate place the written or electronic citation and notice served by the arresting officer, and if the arrested person is a nonresident of the state, shall also post a bond, cash security, or bail as required under RCW 46.64.035. An officer may not serve or issue any traffic citation or notice for any offense or violation except either when the offense or violation is committed in his or her presence or when a person may be arrested pursuant to RCW 10.31.100, as now or hereafter amended. The detention arising from an arrest under this section may not be for a period of time longer than is reasonably necessary to issue and serve a citation and notice, except that the time limitation does not apply under any of the following circumstances: (1) Where the arrested person refuses to sign a written promise to appear in court as required by the citation and notice provisions of this section; (2) Where the arresting officer has probable cause to believe that the arrested person has committed any of the offenses enumerated in RCW 10.31.100(3), as now or hereafter amended; (3) When the arrested person is a nonresident and is being detained for a hearing under RCW 46.64.035. [2004 c 43 § 5; 1987 c 345 § 2; 1985 c 303 § 11; 1979 ex.s. c 28 § 2; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 95 § 2; 1975 c 56 § 1; 1967 c 32 § 70; 1961 c 12 §46.64.015 . Prior: 1951 c 175 § 1.] NOTES:
Page 14 of 129

Effective date -- 2004 c 43: See note following RCW 7.80.150. If you said arrest or some form of the word appears 16 times, you are probably right and as such there should be no doubt that the law defines the traffic stop as an arrest and subsequently a seizure in all respects. The real test if you ask if you are free to go and the officer will say, “No”. If you ask him if you are under arrest he will say, “No” as well. Don’t do this however unless you want the stop to drag out and the officer to become suspicious that you might be savvy to the law. To him and the court it is not an arrest, they think real arrest is custodial arrest which is a constructive flaw in law. But is not a restriction of your liberty an arrest no matter where or when it occurs? This is one constrictive flaw in law which you can exploit as you will see, later when we talk about trial. Notice also it calls the ticket a “Citation and Notice”, but the actual name on the paper ticket in this case is “Washington Uniform Court Docket” which explicit term is found nowhere in a digital search of the code. State v. Stortroen, 53 Wn.App. at 659 n.5. It noted that RCW 10.31.100(3) provides that an officer "shall have the authority to arrest" a person for offenses such as driving with a revoked license. It contrasted this language with that in the preceding subsection, RCW 10.31.100(2), which states that a police officer "shall arrest and take into custody" an individual who has committed some act of domestic violence. The court felt that such a difference in language could not be inadvertent. Therefore it concluded that RCW 10.31.100(3) did not authorize custodial arrests. ...Although RCW 10.31.100 may use the word "arrest" in a generic fashion, RCW 46.64.015 ANSWERS THE SEPARATE QUESTION OF WHAT FORM A TRAFFIC ARREST MUST TAKE. It provides that the detention arising from such an arrest must generally be no longer than "reasonably necessary to issue and serve a citation and notice". RCW 46.64.015. Requirements, License and Registration. Here is the part of the code which defines who must have a driver’s license. Notice all you have to do is declare you are a “resident” to get a license. They make it really easy for you. Now, just what does welfare have to do with the license? You might want to ask yourself if you intend to live or be located on (in) state property. RCW 46.20.021 New residents. (3) For the purposes of obtaining a valid driver's license, a resident is a person who manifests an intent to live or be located in this state on more than a temporary or transient basis. Evidence of residency includes but is not limited to:
Page 15 of 129

(a) Becoming a registered voter in this state; or (b) Receiving benefits under one of the Washington public assistance programs; or (c) Declaring residency for the purpose of obtaining a state license or tuition fees at resident rates. (4)(a) "Washington public assistance programs" means public assistance programs that receive more than fifty percent of the combined costs of benefits and administration from state funds. (b) "Washington public assistance programs" does not include: (i) The Food Stamp program under the federal Food Stamp Act of 1964; (ii) Programs under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1771 through 1788; (iii) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; and (iv) Any other program that does not meet the criteria of (a) of this subsection. Now, don’t you only want to be transient to state property? Notice you can participate in Federal Programs run by the State with impunity as far as liability for license. However and unfortunately, most of the state has fallen for this ambiguous code and lulled into thinking they are required to obtain a license because they are residents. Who is a resident? When I was a dependent of an Air Force Major Officer, I was instructed to answer the phone with: “Clyde Hyde’s Residence, Clyde Jr. speaking”. This was not our permanent home, it did not belong to us, it was military housing on Federal Soil. It was a temporary home and we were residents, just like the Governor is resident, when he lives in the Governor’s mansion during his term of office. The term is used to describe everyone today no matter why or where they live or who they are. This is a misleading and abused term to bring you under domination of that government who claims everything within the outer limits of the state. You are absolutely not a resident unless you live on state owned property. While this is a point of fact and law, it is difficult to establish that fact

Page 16

of

129

and law in arguments, because the term is used both as a term of art and term of law in the same breath. Terms of art and terms of law are very confusing till you understand the concept and usage. Often it helps to diagram a legal sentence to discover the true meaning so if you were sleeping in English lessons, you are definitely at a handicap when working with law. Some terms are used as descriptive terms and some as nouns and you need to know the difference. Terms of art are usually common terms, thus abroad an American Citizen may be called a national as a descriptive term but can not be a lawful “National” as a noun. US Nationals come only from unincorporated territories of the US (Samoa) and states have Citizens. Legislative finding and purpose -- 1990 c 232: "The legislature recognizes the extraordinary value of the vehicle title and registration records for law enforcement and commerce within the state. There are only two Constitutional justifications for registration which are law enforcement and commerce. You are engaged in commerce if you drive a vehicle with goods belonging to someone else for profit. Any other application is a scam revenue enhancement scheme. It is no different in the interstate commerce Federal jurisdiction realm and similarly abused as shown in the famous Lopez and Jones cases. As we know to transport your self and your goods upon the dedicated Rights of Way is inherently a basic right and not a privilege which can be licensed. Commercial use of the highways, are licensable activities because that is a secondary purpose and a privilege. The highways are called RIGHTS of Way because they are used by right or upon license for privilege use, however our law has been covertly perverted. RCW 46.04.405 Person. "Person" includes every natural person, firm, corporation, association, or organization.

copartnership,

RCW 9A.04.110 Definitions. (17) "Person", "he", and "actor" include any natural person and, where relevant, a corporation, joint stock association, or an unincorporated association; Compare the definition of “Person” in the criminal code (9A) and the traffic code (46), then ask, why is it different? Remember there are inherently evil crimes, “mala in se” and those which are prohibited, Malum Prohibitum and herein lies
Page 17 of 129

the reason for the difference as “he” is applied to Men. It is to misguide the unwary to think “natural person” is different from the artificial entities listed. Why couldn’t they say, here “Man, Woman, Child, he, or actor? The last two terms appear in the definition of person in the criminal code, actor of course being the artificial entity or the people behind the mask of incorporation. RCW 46.63.010 Legislative intent. It is the legislative intent in the adoption of this chapter in decriminalizing certain traffic offenses to promote the public safety and welfare on public highways and to facilitate the implementation of a uniform and expeditious system for the disposition of traffic infractions. [1979 ex.s. c 136 § 1.] In some states the traffic offenses are criminal and in others it is civil so it is up to Man or Woman to know the intent of their state as to whether it is civil or criminal. Most states have decriminalized the traffic tickets and offenses. Severability -- 1983 c 200: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." The severability clause is the most obnoxious of all code because it makes the code bullet proof, as every person and circumstances makes an attack on it, virtually impossible. It would take a suit by all People and under all circumstances to defeat it which is a practical impossibility. Terms and Their Meanings If you don’t know what a term means, look it up in a law dictionary or even in a normal home dictionary which often defines words where the meaning differs in law and medicine as well as other disciplines. It would be wise to invest in a good Law Dictionary but in a pinch, you will find online dictionaries on the net. To find them, just do a search for “Law Dictionary Online”, then if you like the page, mark it as a favorite, so you don’t have search again. The web can be a good reference source but you have to be really careful quoting sources from the net as some cases are condensed, usually by design omit and misquote parts. The best Dictionaries are those which cite relatively recent cases and landmark Supreme court cases for reference. Barron,s Law Dictionary by Steven M. Grifis, a second source is a must and this one is compact sized and priced right.
Page 18 of 129

Don’t pass up used book stores for old editions of Law Dictionaries at a fraction of the price of the new volumes. Although there is a story about Black’s Law Dictionary starting out as a poking joke at the legal system, today it is used by the Supreme court, comes in paper back editions and is reasonable in price. Older volumes are premium because of the changes in the definitions over time which often give expanded meaning to the words and show the evolution of the definition with changes in society. A used Second Edition is a prize worth finding and having. In the law library often you will find a series called “Words and Phrases” which will give you many case cites for special words and phrases and is valuable for collecting cases on certain terms and further research. Having a small law library of your own is desirable, especially if you want to do more than just your own cases. Administrative Trial At Your Car RCW 46.63.060 Notice of traffic infraction -- Determination final unless contested -- Form. (1) A notice of traffic infraction represents a determination that an infraction has been committed. The determination will be final unless contested as provided in this chapter. If you had any doubts about where the actual trial is held, this should dispel those doubts. This is where the scam revenue scheme starts and falls on its face. To Contest is to Appeal the determination of the officer. To pay it admits a default. What you say at the stop to the officer will be noted by him, so it is imperative that you be really careful what you say. My wife was shocked that I talked my way out of two speeding tickets in the same day, one on the way into Olympia and one on the way home because I understood this concept. Never admit to anything and deny any infraction since we know we are not subject to that strict liability statute code. There are two extremes which are fatal mistakes that some People make at the scene of the arrest (stop). The first is to make statements about your guilt and the second is to argue with the officer or use abusive language or gestures. You should find some middle ground and be really careful what you say and how you say it. First, you don’t want to tip him off about how much you know and second you want to maintain some control over the situation. If there is any doubt it is better to keep your mouth shut and only answer his questions without admitting guilt and proclaiming your innocence.

Page 19

of

129

There are also several approaches each with its drawbacks and each with its positive attributes. Which you choose, should be determined by your knowledge of the law and you willingness to take a chance on offending the cop. You may just allow the stop to be casual and non threatening, but you may want to challenge the stop with some questions of your own. If it is a bad day for the officer and he is itching for a fight, it might be well to back off if you denote any antagonism. You could for instance, start with: A clear concise statement such as: As a Superior Sovereign Man (Woman) I refuse to join in this cause because I exercise my immunity not to be sued in my own courts. Let this be your only statement if you are timid or unsure of yourself for it is sufficient with TDC following a signature such as sloppy written “U R Fraud”. Never use your real signature. (I have used this signature for delivery of certified and registered mail for instance) I would use it in any adversarial instrument. And/or Why did you arrest me? His reply will likely be, “I didn’t arrest you”. “Am I free to go?” Reply: “No” “Then I am indeed under arrest, right?” Reply: “No, but you can go as soon as we finish this business”. Right here, you have made the record that this officer doesn’t know what he is doing because arrest is mentioned 16 times in the code definition of the stop or arrest. This makes him look really bad. “What was your probable cause for the arrest?” His reply will probably tell you why he stopped you. It is important to establish this reason for the stop quickly so he can’t later claim he stopped you for something he didn’t see, like no license, registration, insurance, etc. If he should leave out the primary offense, then it appears he had no justifiable reason to stop you. In any event you will likely get the citation. At this point you might ask: Exactly where in the code do you get your authority to issue a “Washington Uniform Court Docket” or whatever the form is labeled, usually in the margin. Be prepared to write down his answer but he will not know the code and will likely tell you it is just the code.
Page 20 of 129

Remember, I told you to always carry pen and paper to make notes on. This is the time to be recording and/or making notes of everything that is said and done. Make extensive notes, where, when, weather, witnesses, observations, land marks, traffic, names, badge numbers, license plate of the police car, gun on cop, demeanor, talk and other details as if you were preparing for hearing which could happen. This is the time to start writing down questions that come to mind or questions you should ask the cop if the case goes to trial. Even if it seems insignificant write it down and decide later on the significance of the question. When the cop comes back with the ticket and asks you to sign it you have several options, again each with consequences. You can sign the ticket with your name followed by TDC for threat, duress and coercion, like it was part of the name. You can ask: Do you have a crystal ball that you can consult to let me know that I will be alive and well such that I could make a promise that I don’t know I can keep? He is going to tell you to just sign the ticket or he may threaten you with custodial arrest if you don’t. It is good when you make them threaten you because you have lawfully established the fraud, threat, duress and coercion. Then you can either sign it under TDC or not sign it. You might want to ask the cop what he will do if you don’t sign it. Signature is defined in law as meant to ratify the created instrument so it is important to sign it in such a way that it is obvious that you don’t ratify it. Signing “U R Fraud TDC” is more than ample to make that point. You call the officer to the stand and ask him to read the signature, can you imagine his shock when he reads “U R Fraud”? Then you ask him, “Does that signature match the name on the ticket”? “Let the record show that this ticket was issued to U R Fraud whoever that is and there is a personal jurisdiction issue on the ticket as well as other issues.” When he sees you sign it as you would your own signature, he likely won’t look close at the signature as not one has yet questioned mine. If you don’t sign the ticket, you better know the law for sure. In Washingtoon the case is Port Orchard v. Tilton, 77 Wash. App. 178 (1995) that you have no duty to sign a “Washington Uniform Court Docket” because the code says literally "Acknowledgment of Receipt of Notice of Infraction" which is not the promise to appear or notice of infraction. RCW 46.61.021
Page 21 of 129

Duty to obey law enforcement officer -- Authority of officer. (3) Any person requested to identify himself or herself to a law enforcement officer pursuant to an investigation of a traffic infraction has a duty to identify himself or herself, give his or her current address, and sign an acknowledgement of receipt of the notice of infraction. RCW 9A.60.030 Obtaining a signature by deception or duress. (1) A person is guilty of obtaining a signature by deception or duress if by deception or duress and with intent to defraud or deprive he causes another person to sign or execute a written instrument. (2) Obtaining a signature by deception or duress is a class C felony. If you do not sign the ticket, be prepared for a free ride as the cops don’t know the meaning of, “acknowledgement of receipt” and they could care less. However, if you want a wrongful arrest and imprisonment suit, this is a good way to get it. You will likely find out what “custodial arrest” is but it will be false unless the Tilton case has been overturned which it can’t be without modification of the code. Now, you should be getting a real feel for the fraud built into the code by the deceit of the legislature. What the code says and what happens in practice are like night and day. It is important to know at least some of the code before the traffic stop and after you will want to look up the specific elements of the complaint against you. For instance, I was stopped for a defective tail light at night in the city. Because I was involved in fighting traffic tickets, I looked up the code for tail light requirements before the stop to see if the car complied with the code. The code says you need two lights which can be seen for 1000 feet at night. I had four tail lights and only one was defective so it complied with the code. At the stop, I asked the officer to show me the law because I knew upfront what it said and she said she would. What she showed me was her cheat sheet that said merely, Tail lights $35. I told her to show me the law book law and asked her if she carried it with her and she said no. I warned her that I had read it and that what she was enforcing was not the code or law. I told her to go back to the office and read what the code said. She warned me that if she ever caught me with that defect, that I would be ticketed. It was no use to argue with her, she had her mind made up that the car had to be to factory specs.

Page 22

of

129

I continued to drive with the lens off the tail light and the bulb removed and she stopped me in daylight conditions and ticketed me for it. Of course tail lights aren’t required during the day. There was also at the time an old warrant for my arrest for animals at large so she took me to the jail. I am not going to continue with the story because it is long, but the point I am making is that the cops don’t read and know the code they enforce. Criminal Traffic States If your state is one of those Criminal traffic states you either need to reduce the traffic offense to elements of the crime or get a copy of the “Patent Jury Instructions” for foundation of case “elements of the crime”. If the state has a modified form of defense this may not be necessary, and generally is not. However this has no bearing on anything other than the motions to dismiss, unless you go to trial and the court rules specify introduction of jury instructions. Be Prepared Time the traffic stop and voice record it when able without being obvious (wire your car and have a switch to start the recorder). Be creative in how you do it ahead of time. Obviously it isn’t practical if you are only stopped on the average of once every five years. You might want to have on hand at least in Washington the Tilton case and a copy of your declaration of status in case you want to challenge the authority for custodial arrest for not signing a traffic ticket. In any event think ahead before it happens just what you intend to do and how you are going to handle the stop so you are prepared when it happens. There are limits to jurisdiction, for instance private property search needs a warrant for lawful entry except by normal route (on unposted ground) to the door of a dwelling or in plain sight of the party if outside. A car is not much different, they can’t go through the car without permission to search and you would be surprised how many fools who shouldn’t, will allow permission to search. Technically, you can’t be ticketed for rules of the road on private property even open to the public. You need to be aware of your rights ahead of the confrontation. Code and court rules define the filing of the ticket in the court after being issued to you. This filing of the ticket is timely probable cause determination, without which they can't demand a payment, generally. The civil infraction being decriminalized is found within the never-never no Man’s land of civil and criminal but is declared civil for law purposes, however still contains some criminal
Page 23 of 129

procedure and so in the Washingtoon courts, they have to be filed within two court days or specifically 48 hours of issuance. You would be surprised how many don’t do it. No Driver’s License Cases If you are one of those rare cases that haven’t run right down to DMV, proclaimed your residency and procured a driver’s license, then you have another choice after getting a ticket. No matter if it is criminal or infraction, you can choose not to appear as you have no duty and nothing to loose. Make them come and get you, which they might or might not do. They will usually hope to pick you up at a traffic stop. If you are a careful driver, you might go well past the statute of limitations before they catch you which is another motion to dismiss. It is usually one year for infractions and misdemeanors. In one criminal case, I waited them out on a warrant then got the warrant quashed on a letter to the judge (see stilz.txt in L.zip). Later another warrant was issued by another stupid judge and I let it ride because I was hoping they would come and get me as the law was clearly not criminal. I waited till well past the statute of limitations (one year for misdemeanor) and was thereafter arrested and imprisoned for 6 hours. I am not going into the disposition of that case except to say I easily won it without even getting to the plea part and it was dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to charge a crime. The main point is just because you are summonsed doesn’t mean you necessary should run down and put yourself on the chopping block. It is their duty to come and give you a taxi ride to the court and they will likely not make it easy for you. It is much easier to just do the paperwork and make an appearance, if you want a controlled contest. My waiting made it impossible for them to try me without coming up with a gross misdemeanor because of the statute of limitation and the fact they couldn’t toll it because I wasn’t hiding out, but going to work everyday as I always did. You need to know you do have this option and don’t have to make it easy for them. What they have been doing to try to overcome this limitation of their law, is to issue you a license file and then suspend the license to make the infraction a crime. This however is blatantly unconstitutional because it is like an obvious fraud to impress something upon you against your will. This cheap trick you need to be aware of if you deface and send your license back to them.

Page 24

of

129

Next Lesson is: Administrative Review of Acts of the Officer This lesson will cover your “contesting” the ticket and how you should prepare your paperwork. It will teach you how to file the paper and serve the prosecuting attorney. It will also cover special situations and some logical solutions for them. The lesson will cover the first paper which you can send with the ticket, the “Refusal for Fraud”. A good homework assignment here is to cross reference your code to the ones demonstrated in this lesson 2, to see how yours compare. This can be done by word search in your code. Note: If the use of “Washingtoon” on this paper bothered you, it is intentional that I used that word, as its administration is literally “Loony”.

Page 25

of

129

Lesson 3

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF ACTS OF THE OFFICER

During the two days after the traffic stop (arrest) you should have found and studied the court rules for the court you are invited to appear in. I say this is an invitation because that is exactly what it is. You are going to walk down at the appointed time and defend provided you have a driver’s license. If you don’t they will put out an arrest warrant for you and if that doesn’t work they will demand the license back. When they did this to me, I gave it back cut into three pieces along with big red felt tip pen “VOID” on the registration and certificate of title, and with the plates cut corner to corner through the yearly numbered tab. I don’t advise anyone to do this unless they are prepared for what can happen. Things can get pretty ugly if they want to press the issues, as they have the guns. If they extracted a promise from you, you had better go and you want to be ready to make that appearance but it will be a special appearance. Under the common law, you could make a special appearance only to challenge jurisdiction. If you make a motion, you accept jurisdiction. "APPEARANCE. In practice. A coming into court as party to a suit, whether as plaintiff or defendant. The formal proceeding by which a defendant submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court. Flint v. Comly, 97 Me. 251, 49 Atl. 1044; Crawford v. Vinton, 102 Mich. 83, 62 N.W. 988. Classification. An appearance may be either general or special; the former is a simple unqualified or unrestricted submission to the jurisdiction of the court, the latter a submission to the jurisdiction for some specific purpose only, not for all the purposes of the suit. National Furnace Co. v. Moline Mallebale Iron Work (cc.) 18 Fed 864." Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (1910), p. 89, Title "Appearance." Also see Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. (1990), p. 97, title: "Appearance". "A special appearance is an appearance solely for the purpose of testing the jurisdiction: Bailey v. Schrada, 34 Ind 261; Huff v. Shepard, 58 Mo 246. Court Files Check to see when the ticket is filed after a couple of days or the time designated by the court rules and/or code. Check the court file regularly to make sure you don’t miss something you didn’t get in the mail. For instance if you file a default when the prosecutor has filed papers that you didn’t know were in the file, it will void the default, so check the file before you file.
Page 26 of 129

You can either check the file in person, which is the recommended way, or you can call the clerk and ask if there has been anything filed by the prosecutor. You just can’t trust the mail, prosecutor or sometimes even the clerk. Although we don’t expect anything, always make sure the unexpected isn’t going to sneak up and bite you on the butt. Refusal of the Ticket for Fraud If you signed the ticket under TDC (threat, duress and coercion) you already have one excuse to refuse the ticket. There are others as well to wit (short for witness): Promise to appear = Fraud because how can you be forced to agree to something you don’t know you will be able to fulfill? Do you know for sure you will even be alive tomorrow? Ticket is not authorized under code = Fraud as a “Washington Uniform Court Docket” appears no where in the code, thus the officer has no authority to issue it. A word search comes up with zero hits. Bail or Penalty amounts are more than authorized by code = Fraud and is a little tricky because it requires some research which should be done ahead of time you need it. For instance the cops like to boost the cost to pad the account but there are only code authorizations for certain extra tax (statutory assessments) upon the tax (penalty for acts). In Washington those are generally “Jural Information System” or JIS tax of $25. In some cases an EMS tax of $5 and Restitution Tax of $20. The legislature abrogates their responsibility and asks the Supreme Court to fix the amounts. Those amounts are listed in the court rules for courts of limited jurisdiction as rule 6.2 or local court rules. For instance here is an auditor’s report from Oklahoma. You might want to demand under the common law right to know and your open public records acts an audit report on any report having to do with traffic monies. Audit report VI. CONCERN: Possible irregularities in traffic ticket monies. “The fine for each violation is different and there appears to be no consistent fine or fees for offenders.” FINDING NO. 1: According to the relevant parts of 11 O.S. §14-111(C), “Municipalities having a municipal court not of record may enact ordinances prescribing maximum fines pursuant to the provisions of this subsection. A municipal ordinance may not impose a penalty, including
Page 27 of 129

fine and costs, which is greater than that established by statute for the same offense. The maximum fine for traffic-related offenses relating to speeding and parking shall not exceed Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00). For all other offenses, the maximum fine shall not exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00).” (ea) According to the Town of Cromwell Municipal Ordinances Section 15-601 some of the fines are not in compliance with the above-stated Oklahoma State Statute. The specific fines which appear to be out of compliance are as follows: DETAILS OMITTED RECOMMENDATION: We recommend the proper authorities review this finding to determine what action, if any, may be necessary. “The monies are not being deposited in the appropriate account after the fines have been paid.” END OF REPORT It is difficult to find the justification for “statutory assessments” but not impossible. Over the years these assessments as well as the penalties themselves have been given greater latitude such that it causes a lot of research to keep the municipal governments honest, so much so that few will challenge the amounts because of the hidden factors of assessments. For instance for those infractions not listed specifically in (infraction rules) IRLJ 6.2 (c) “…..Penalties for those infractions are established by statute or local court rule, but shall be consistent with the philosophy of these rules.” Philosophy is not law = Fraud as “philosophy” nonsense has no place in law as law is supposed to be technical and not philosophical because in philosophy anything can be proven with reason only. This wishy-washy penalty system has become over the years a fraud in itself as the penalties can be changed by philosophy and not law. For instance why doesn’t the Supreme Court who knows the law, automatically add the statutory assessments to the base penalty? This would make it easy for everyone concerned. A note would be sufficient to say, “All penalties include $25 for JIS”. And, why should a local court have authority given it to fix the amounts when the only body given authority is the Supreme Court and that authority is not been granted legislative authority for redelegation? Violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine = Fraud and an unconstitutional redelegation of powers. This redelegation leads to further unconstitutional abuse of office (criminal), for unless the legislature authorizes it, it can’t be passed on and the initial fraud of even passing it on to the Supreme court is a fraud from the legislature, as a violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine.

Page 28

of

129

As if there wasn’t enough fraud or abuse of law, there are others as well which qualify right up front for initial motions to dismiss attached to the Refusal for fraud which gives justifiable reason to not join in the matter. Officer Loses Sight during Chase An actual case came to me where my commercial driver friend says he zoomed past a deputy on his motorcycle and the deputy gave chase. However, by the time he caught up with then slowed down motorcycle, Craig had crossed the river and turned right on a winding road. There was no way the cop could have retained eyesight of the car during this whole time. If the officer loses sight of the suspect, then he has no idea if the one he stops is the same one he claims to have seen violating the law. Craig had a nasty habit of calling me the night before his trial and asking me how to bet the ticket. In this case, I told him about this provision in law and his case was dismissed after he motioned to dismiss. Officer is in Violation of the Law before, during or after the Chase Always obtain the officers report for several reasons. One, so you know what notes they will have before them if you go to trial, but also to condemn them for their violations of the law. An officer can only violate the law in the “emergency” mode which means with lights flashing or siren for warning others to move out of the way. In one case the officers said they were sitting at the side of the road under the overpass by the “No Parking” sign. I guess you can guess that these rogue officers were illegally parked before the chase so were violating the code and as such are not competent to enforce the same law they are violating. In another case a lawyer representing marijuana growers got the court to throw out the case because they had walked through the woods, approaching the house from the back, stepped over a broken down barbed wire fence and looked over a board fence around the back of the house and discovered and photographed root balls. Since this was grounds to suppress the evidence for illegal entry (trespass) onto the property and illegal search (without warrant) the case was dismissed as there was no longer any evidence. False Reporting False reporting is a crime and in one case the officer wrote me up for defective tail light in daytime conditions. The officer should have known that tail lights are not required during the day. False reporting is a crime and barratry as well. Delay in Bringing Action The only reason for delay in bringing action on a cause is further investigation. Some infractions or crimes inherently don’t have cause for further investigation,
Page 29 of 129

so an action brought at a later time is harassment and barratry and void for delay as such a fraud. Oaths of Office You can use the state open public records acts to obtain copies of oath of office for judges, police and other officials involved in your case. Failure to file as directed by law a current oath of office is usually a gross misdemeanor offence and leaves the office vacant per the law. You have to find the codes in your state law and apply them. When the local nuke power plant was abandoned retraining was offered the workers and one of my friends acquaintances went back to school and got a law degree. We went to her office and chatted with her and she expressed that the Constitution was an outdated document and of little use today. She eventually became a pro tem judge for the city and I eventually got a ticket for driving with a suspended license. We affectionately made reference to her as Cottonmouth because her family name was Cotton. Because of the animal at large case and its subsequent arrest and incarceration on a false warrant and my involvement with the city judge on the tail light issue, I involved him in the federal suit as well as the city and that was part of the reason they laid to pick me up on the driving without a license charge as they knew I had sued because of the fraud. Since I had sued the judge, I recused (fired) him right off the bat with an affidavit of prejudice. All you have to say is that you don’t think you can get a fair trial with the judge and he should step down, then another judge or pro tem takes over. You can only do this once in a trial normally per the rules and it has to be done before any motions are submitted to the court. Knowing how Cottonmouth felt about the Constitution, I checked for her oath and there was nothing in the file. Just before the last hearing I submitted to the court a letter from the auditor saying there was no oath on file. Neither did the prosecutor have an oath on file, so they were actually by law impersonating officers, a gross misdemeanor. They both moved right along as if I never exposed them and the jury found me guilty. I moved to the void the trial with a Petition for Writ of Prohibition and then added a Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto. Because of the legal problems this generated Cottonmouth got fired and I never paid anything and kept driving without license and without further trouble with the city. So, it pays to investigate those who are involved to see that they are clean because unclean hands can’t point out the faults of others in real law. See file QW.txt in L.zip.

Page 30

of

129

Defacing the Ticket for Fraud and Return to court Before you deface the ticket make a copy or two of it. After you deface the ticket make a copy or two of it. If you need other copies later you can get them from the court clerk, but you need at least one copy for your files before you deface and send the ticket back to the court. “Refused for Fraud” should be written diagonally on the ticket in very prominent permanent ink. Defacing a document to void it destroys it acceptance by the party in possession of it. Common law voiding is done by verbal renunciation, defacing, destruction by burning, tearing, cutting or otherwise making the instrument clearly voided or unrecognizable, but the best method for lawful purposes is to void it by defacing in writing on the face of the instrument. Return the ticket within a few days with a cover letter briefly listing any fraud noted thus far and with a demand to quash it for fraud, alternatively demand a contested hearing and speedy trial with subpoenas for any and all witnesses. Superior Sovereign The concept of Sovereignty is nothing new to most of the members of our group however the term “Superior Sovereign” may not be so it deserves some definition at this point for a clear understanding. Since the code doesn’t address the status of the People generally in all cases, some codes do where specific rights are applicable to the People. "The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created." California Government code §§ 11120 and 54950, RCW 42.30.010;RCW 42.17.251 In the codes codifying the common law right to know or Open Public Records and Open Public Meetings Acts this relationship is spelled out in the intent of the legislation. The courts have likewise made it clear not only in Yick Wo, but other cases as well. When individuals sued States to enforce federal rights, the Government that corresponded to the "sovereign" in the traditional common law sense was not the State but the National Government, and any state immunity from the jurisdiction of the Nation's courts would have required a grant from the true sovereign, the people, in their Constitution, or from the
Page 31 of 129

Congress that the Constitution had empowered. Seminole Tribe v. Florida 517 U.S. 44, 153 (1996) Souter dissenting Thus, we see that the “true sovereign” is the People because all governments are created by the People and the source of the law is the People, all else being but artificial in nature. However most law, in all sources, makes reference to the government as the sovereign. "We tend to overlook the basic political and legal reality that the people, not the bureaucracy, are the sovereign. Our Federal Government was created for the security and happiness of the people. Executives, lawmakers, and members of the Judiciary are inferior in the sense that they are in office only to carry out and execute the constitutional regime." Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 232-3 (1974) Here there can be no doubt as to who is the inferior and who is the Superior Sovereign. This is important when bringing an action before the court to prohibit assumptions as to who is the inferior as you should see in the following case, speaking on government sovereign immunity. “The reason usually assigned for this prerogative is that the sovereign is not answerable for the delinquencies of his agents. But whatever the true reason may be, such is the general law -- such the universal law except where it is expressly waived. The privilege, however, is a prerogative one, and cannot be challenged by any person inferior to the sovereign, whether that person be natural or corporate. Metropolitan Railroad Company v. District of Columbia, 132 U.S. 1, 11 (1889). You must assert your status as the Superior Sovereign in writing and submit it before the court so there can be no assumption to the contrary. Natural “person” or People can occupy two offices at the same time which puts different duties and responsibilities upon them and changes the character of their immunities and privileges. Thus the President may be both a natural person and a inferior officer or public servant to the People. As soon as he leaves office, he becomes a Superior Sovereign. The reason for government sovereign immunity is to limit claims by individuals to the public or jointly owned trust accounts (in common with all others). In other words if I sue a public official, who pays? If the government pays, it pays with common tax funds which ultimately come from the People. Thus it is really the People who pay. To get around the immunity aspect, you sue the official in his private capacity because he acts outside the office and should pay from his pocket.
Page 32 of 129

The “Natural Law of Creation” as expressed in Yick Wo, universal in nature and is accepted like the common law from earliest of times in our society, and the Creator can not be taxed (ticket is another tax) by his created government. "All subjects over which the sovereign power of a State extends are objects of taxation, but those over which it does not extend are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation..... The sovereignty of a State extends to everything which exists by its own authority or is introduced by its permission, but does it extend to those means which are employed by Congress to carry into execution powers conferred on that body by the people of the United States?" McCulloch v Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 429 (1819) Refusal For Fraud (Affidavit of Truth) The Refusal for Fraud can be included in Affidavit of Truth if done within 5 days of the ticket and can be put on the paper either before or after the Affidavit and (not or) may also be a part of the Affidavit itself as a fact. For instance, if you signed the ticket under TDC or with U.R. Fraud for a signature, you can say that the signature appearing on the ticket is not your signature (because a signature in law is meant to ratify the instrument that is the object of the signature). If you signed U.R. Fraud you can claim there must be an identity error as that is not your name. The Refusal For Fraud can incorporate motions to dismiss as well or these motions can be separate entirely from the refusal. The motions to dismiss are based upon the frauds previously mentioned for excuse to return the ticket to the court defaced. There are also others which may be obvious from the ticket itself. For instance the ticket may be unreadable, cite errors of law, may have incorrect data on it, may be made out to the wrong name, wrong address, claim a violation of law that hasn’t any or all of the elements of the indiscretion, and any number of other errors in law which would lead a reasonable man to question the nature of the offense or the facts constituting an indiscretion of the code. This is where the more critical you are the better. Some errors are called Scribner Errors which are minor and easily corrected but others might be fatal to the ticket. In a recent case a ticket was given for speeding in a 65 mph. zone and the speed was written as 65+. So, is that 65.001, or 65.1, or 65+10 or maybe 65=100? In my case of the tail light, it was obvious that a daytime ticket can’t include equipment not required in day light conditions. In another case that went to jury trial, a man was given a ticket for driving on the highway without a license but he was not seen on the highway and in fact was well off the highway. The jury found him innocent of the charge.

Page 33

of

129

Completely Fed Up If you reach the point where you have documented the fraud and you want to divorce yourself from Dept. of Licensing or Motor Vehicles then you can use the same process as described above to deface, void and return documents and plates. Warning: This is a serious step and you certainly want to have prepared yourself before hand for this discussion and it is not to be taken lightly nor frivolously. If you decide to return all your excess baggage to DOL or DMV, deface your certificates of title and registration as the ticket with “VOID” and not refused for fraud. Cut your driver’s license into three pieces and through the picture with at least one cut. Cut your plates corner to corner with tin snips, through the tab if any and tape the sharp edges with duct tape so no one will cut themselves with it. Package up the defaced items and send them with a cover letter or deliver them to the appropriate licensing office in person. Sometimes the look on their face can be worth a thousand postage stamps. The cover letter should be simple and to the point, express and explain the particular fraud which gives rise to the return and that you won’t be a party to it. For instance for me it was a daylight ticket for one of four tail lights which lost its lens and a direct challenge to the courts jurisdiction in the matter. Because I didn’t physically appear to defend standing on my special appearance and the courts lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the matter, they suspended my driver’s license and demanded it back. So they got what they asked for a more; I turned the other check, gave them all their trash back and drove without license, registration, certificate of title, or plates. Paper Standards – Court Rules Leave 7-8 spaces at the top of any court papers, before starting the caption, leaving room for file stamps. Since you are the Superior Sovereign, always capitalize any reference to you and make sure that you do not capitalize any reference to the court or any public servant. This means that if you must use the office or officer reference in the beginning of a sentence that you start the sentence with “The”, for instance, “The respondent” (petition), instead of “Respondent” Don't put exhibits in your initial papers, just describe the document and where it can be found, in case anyone wants to examine it. For instance if you want to show your status is a matter of public record, just list the office it was filed in and the number of the filing. Your verified motions, petitions, complaints are taken at face value till proved different, and that burden is upon the proponent in rebuttal.
Page 34 of 129

If there is any rebuttal then you can use an exhibit to prove your point by attaching it. Do not use originals in any circumstance. Take the original and a copy or two to a notary and have them certify the copies are a true copy of the origional and use these for any court filings. A simple copy is sufficient for the prosecutor. Always keep the origional in your possession. Don't use personal pronouns in your papers, as they are often ambiguous, but do use either names (preferred for our purposes), Plaintiff (complaints), Petitioner (Petitions) or Aggrieved (Injured) Complainant (if complaining). Try to make your papers to the Supreme court standards and use bookman old style print for your fonts. Always consult your local rules and state rules for paper standards as a guide. Court Rules often give time elements or deadlines for filing of the complaint or ticket so it is well worth the effort to review them in each case. In Washington for instance a ticket not filed within 48 hours can be dismissed upon motion to dismiss. Any Motions must be noted for hearing or they won’t hear them. So notice in particular how this is done in your court. Ask the clerk when you can have it heard or make I it out to be heard at the next scheduled hearing date. Some courts have an administrator which schedules hearings, so do some inquiry with the clerk to see how hearings are scheduled if you need to bring something before a court between the courts scheduled hearing dates. Court rules and information can often be found on the net, so be sure to make use of this resource before asking a lot of questions. Most of your questions will be answered with this resource. As far as procedure is concerned, the law library and you local library often have books that will help you in that aspect of your case. In the local library reference law section is generally a book with your states procedures outlined for you. Something the court won’t tell you is the speedy trial time starts from the traffic stop and not the first hearing. Court rules often obscure this fact but it is well settled law. More will forthcoming on this topic. Filing Papers with the Court and the Prosecutor’s Office Always file a copy of your papers with the Prosecuting Attorney office without fail. Ask the prosecutors clerk to stamp all your copies received by the prosecutor, then file your papers with the clerk of the court. Generally they are helpful and it doesn't hurt to have two extra copies left after both filings. You should also keep a file on each case with the papers in the order they are filed.

Page 35

of

129

If you live far enough away or it is inconvenient for you to visit the court, you can send paperwork to be filed in the mail. If you do this, you must take into consideration a reasonable amount of time for mail delivery. Court rules often define this amount of time. Be sure you make allowance for this time. Also when figuring timing, you want to give the opponent time for mailing as worst case. When you send paper to the court or file in person, you should have at least two extra copies with ink signature on them. When you file in person, file stamp your originals or copies after the clerk file stamps theirs if they don’t offer to do it for you. If you send originals or copies to the court by mail, ask them in a cover letter to stamp the two extra originals or copies which you identify as copies on the top face page and return them in the SASE (Self Addressed Stamped Envelope with sufficient postage) you provide for that purpose. There are a number of ways to identify your copies, such as printed “copies” at the top left margin, sticky notes, or note stapled with the other pages. If they are all ink signatures there is no need to identify any copies as they are all originals. I recommend that you make all originals and let them chose the ones they file and either give you (in person) or send the extras (mail) back to you in the provided SASE. The reason you want two file stamped copies, is in case you need them for exhibits on appeal or further Petition. You need one for your records with a file stamp on it. The tax court for instance doesn't send the entire record to the circuit court and often only sends just the order and select papers. They make the excuse that the court doesn't need all the paperwork and this conserves on resources. Bologna, this is to hide the record, and that is why you should do a “designation of clerks papers” to instruct the clerk to send the whole record in any case. Then you have covered your backside if it becomes an issue. Your extra originals will be able to fulfill this necessity in any case of application to higher courts. Just get into the habit of correct filing habits as outlined here in all courts and in the court rules as far as times for mailing if necessary. The whole idea of what you are doing here is to turn the tables on the government entity and make them look like a bunch of criminals in fraud. The worse you make them look, the better chance you have of winning your case as they can’t stand the light of day. The Next lesson is “Affidavit of Truth” where this paper will be explained in the detail necessary for you to understand it. Your homework assignment is to read file QW.txt in L.zip. Using Quo Warranto is a little tricky as you have to give an opportunity to the prosecutor to do it before
Page 36 of 129

you can do it yourself by common law. It is the job of the prosecutor to make sure all is in order in the court as far as the officers of the court. If the prosecutor neglects or refuses then you are free to bring action against the official as it has injured you. In this particular case the prosecutor was usurping his office with no oath so he couldn’t use that argument to defeat my Petition. Remember, always carry pen and paper with you at all times, look forward to inspiration in your case and write it down immediately.

Page 37

of

129

Lesson 4

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

Some have condemned the fact that I call this an “Affidavit of Truth” but I have seen unscrupulous attorneys use affidavits to lie. It is a common fact in legal circles that it is permissible under necessary circumstances to get around minor legal problems and errors. Thus the double implication here is that it is an Affidavit filled with truth, so be sure it is all truth. If you are one of the nit picking cotton pickers, then just call it an Affidavit. Definitions and Examples “The State of Washington” is precisely what the Washington Constitution calls for all process to be. To show that we follow that Constitution we call the plaintiff exactly who it should be. Notice it isn’t, “STATE OF WASHINGTON” as the ticket says the entity is that is serving process. In other states you are likely to find the same abuse of process and I believe it is intentional as the judges hate to see this as they know the truth. We know this for a fact because we presented a judge an order to sign in about 1994 with “The State of Washington” written in the caption and he hit the ceiling, yelled and said emphatically that he would not sign an order with that name on it. If it didn’t mean anything, why would he object, refuse or make mention of it? He obviously knew that we knew the process they were using was dummy process and an outright fraud. So do always use exactly what your state Constitution calls for all process in the courts to be, in the same case letters as in the Constitution. “The court reasoned and concluded that what the city did was done not in its governmental capacity -- an exertion of the police power -- but in its "proprietary or quasi-private capacity," and that therefore the city was subordinate in right to the corporation, the latter being an earlier and lawful occupant of the filed. The difference in the capacities is recognized, and the difference in attendant powers pointed out, in decisions of this Court. Vilas v. Manila, 220 U.S. 345; Russell v. Sebastian, 233 U.S. 195; South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437; New Orleans v. Drainage Commission, 197 U.S. 453; Vicksburg v. Vicksburg Waterworks Co., 206 U.S. 496, 508.” Los Angeles v Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corporation, 251 U.S. 32, 39 (1919) I maintain that the states and their subordinate municipalities operate most of the time by pressing the People with code in fraud in that proprietary mode and they know exactly what they are doing. Once they think we know by bringing the process in the real Constitutional name of the state, they drop it like a super hot potato because they don’t want to take the chance on getting burned over it.

Page 38

of

129

There can be no doubt that the state has a police power to regulate traffic and to protect the People but not to use the roads like highway men to extract revenue. This is a very modern protection racket. While safety is an obviously good government function, what safe function is intended in most traffic stops? To stop a drunk who is driving on the wrong side of the road is admirable, to stop someone for not coming to a complete stop in the middle of the night on a deserted road is nothing more than revenue generation harassment. The whole process is a fiction of proprietary taxation or necessity operating in emergency conditions to supply revenue. In other words it is a “Wizard of Oz” smoke and mirror trick but far more oppressive than the good Wizard put on for he had a heart and mind. In this deception the state and its highway gang of criminals actually work in pure deception to enslave the People in most cases. Now, in light of the “Natural Law of Creation”, see what the court says: “therefore the city was subordinate in right to the corporation”, and there can be no denial that when we act, we have superior rights and all governments are subordinate, and if they are subordinate in proprietary acts to corporations, they fall at the extreme bottom in all rights and interests. The court no longer talks about this condition, but in light of the facts of what happened about this time period, it would be to their advantage to keep this information as quiet as possible. All courts know this and only a stupid judge will not dismiss the case by sweeping it under the carpet. In the caption you will notice <sic><misnomer> which makes reference to the name on the ticket. “Sic” means misspelled generally and misnomer means wrong name generally. So, in essence you are saying it is not only misspelled but the wrong name because it appears in all caps. You don’t sign your name in all caps, nor do you print it that way, and you have a right to be called what you want and not what they desire because you are the Superior Sovereign. Also note that “The State of Washington” is the government organization and it appears that “STATE OF WASHINGTON” is the corporate quasi-private or proprietary entity which can do virtually no wrong. Thus your name, “John Doe” is also converted to another form in the ticket, that of “JOHN DOE” and I don’t believe it isn’t for good reason, just like if I am a cop, I can slap you around but if you slap me around you will be in jail for a long time or in other words this is the big bully syndrome. Misidentification is a cause for dismissal. The term “sui juris” in most cases, simply means you are an adult, have legal capacity and competent in all ways to testify to the facts of the case. This says you are over the age of maturity, mentally sound and of good reputation, such that your word means what you say. There is no real magic to this word like some want to prescribe to it as you can be sui juris and a public servant as well as illustrated in Umbehr.
Page 39 of 129

Justice Scalia dissenting said in condemnation of the court (sui juris) subverting the Constitution, going on to name recent cases, “Each major step in the abridgment of the people's right to govern themselves is portrayed as extremely limited or indeed sui juris.” Board of Commissioners v Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 709 (1996) “In adopting the restrictions, Congress was not imposing restraints on a class of persons who were sui juris, but on Indians who were being conducted from a state of dependent wardship to one of full emancipation, and needed to be safeguarded against their own improvidence during the period of transition.” Smith v McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 466 (1926) Here we see in Smith that those under wardship are protected because they are not legally responsible. Now go and read file AG.txt in L.zip. Aren’t you treated as legally incompetent when you obtain a license and registration? Aren’t you reminded to obtain new tabs, license before the expiration of those? Aren’t you told you can have an attorney appointed by the court (court now uses your power of appointment for you) to make sure you are protected? These are points to ponder a little to see how playing the STATE game leads you to a Father – Ward relationship. The French term “nom de guerre” literally means “War Name” kind of like what we call “Terrorist” or “Insurgent”, but specifically a name used which gives some necessity for the government to make war upon the People which is called “mixed war”. The governments have no right to make war upon their own People because that is called “anarchy” or lawlessness, akin to biting the hand that feeds you. The terms, “politic or corporate” make reference to “office” obviously either corporate or political. This is the body subject to the code. “As to corporations, all States whatever are corporations or bodies politic.” Chisholm v Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793) “…municipal corporations and private ones were simply two species of "body politic and corporate," treated alike in terms of their legal status as persons capable of suing and being sued.” Cook County v U.S. ex Rel. Chandler, 538 U.S. 119 (2003) “Both before and after the time when the Dictionary Act and § 1983 were passed, the phrase "bodies politic and corporate" was understood to include the States.” "Every sovereign State is of necessity a body politic, or artificial person" (Brennan dissenting) Will v Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989).
Page 40 of 129

Of course, the United States were not bound by the laws of the State, yet the word "person" in the statute would include them as a body politic and corporate. Sayles, Art. 3140; Martin v State, 24 Texas, 61, 68, also Stanley v Schwalby, 147 U.S. 508 Joinder, literally “to join in the cause” can be forced by the court but must be done by open and notorious declaration of the court. If you appear specially without joinder and not admitting to the jurisdiction of the court, the only recourse is for the court either to force joinder or dismiss the case. I have never seen the court force joinder however that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. “Special Appearance” is an appearance only to challenge jurisdiction. If you make any motions other than motions to dismiss or quash, you join in the cause. If you join in the cause, you have to defend or acquiesce by default, even if you stand there and say nothing. This was defined in Lesson 3 however it bears some repetition as it is often misunderstood and is closely related to Joinder. “Demurrer” is where you admit to the facts but challenge the sufficiently of the process or law. Demurrers are motions to dismiss, motion to suppress evidence, motions for lack of service, due process, valid complaint, proper official office and powers, constitutionality and special circumstances like the officer lost sight in the chase or was outside his jurisdiction as well as common law defenses to the act complained of such as intent or lawful defense. For instance a clear case of demurrer is when Charlie came to me with a ticket for assault after he was found standing over the man he decked who was bleeding from the mouth. Charlie hit him alright but not till Charlie was threatened with being hit and slammed up against a brick wall. 10 others saw it and wrote statements in support of Charlie but the prosecutor still moved against Charlie. Under the common law if you don’t want to be touched and someone touches you, it is assault and Charlie had obviously done it. The common law however recognizes defenses to assault and says that if you perceive a threat (real or imaginary), you are in a place you have a right to be (sidewalk in this case), you can stand your ground and counter the threat with necessary force. The wicked prostitutor of law, moved till the time we submitted the jury instructions with the defenses to assault in them. Had Charlie not put those jury instructions in the record, he would have obviously been found guilty of assault unless he got a honest judge (there was nothing honest is this little town court). Once the jury instructions were in place the prosecutor moved to dismiss. Charlie walked out of the court with an attorney there for another matter and he told him that he had a perfect case of false arrest, prosecution and imprisonment.

Page 41

of

129

“Traverse” is where you have facts necessary to prove you weren’t the one doing the act. Examples here are mistaken identity, alibi, inability to do the act, statistical probability and circumstantial evidence. The main reason to explain demurrer and traverse is because there is a really serious mistaken saying in patriot circles that you never want to traverse, always demurrer. While this might work when demurrer is the logical thing to do it is not wise to shun traverse because each has a place in defense of your cause. This is a serious flaw in legal reasoning on behalf of many who profess this error. To demonstrate how serious this flaw is, let’s say you are accused of theft but you didn’t do it. You are arrested and they won’t believe your testimony that you had no knowledge of any of the facts they present to you. Now, everyone knows a common criminal defense is to lie and they think you are evading the questions with your claims of innocence. They have a description of the bandito and his car and sure enough you and your car fit that fit that description, they put you in a line up and you are identified by the only witness. But how do you prove it wasn’t you, they have found you guilty without a trial and are threatening you with lots of jail time unless you sign a confession and plea bargain with the prosecution. Your whole life is a mess because they don’t believe you. You have also had this crazy thought placed in your mind not to traverse in the case, so you try to get your case dismissed but your demurrers just don’t work. You shun the perfect traverse because you have always been told not to traverse. You paid for a new shirt with a check, showed your driver’s license two hours travel from the crime scene and not only the clerk knows you from previous purchases but a friend was with you as well. Finally you decide to go against the bad advice you were given and you file an affidavit from your friend and one you made up and asked the store clerk to sign as well, then you traverse to the charges with your alibi. Now the prosecutor goes to the cops and asks what gives here, and why didn’t you check it out? They say, “Well he was picked out of the line up, his car matches the description and you know all crooks lie, it wasn’t worth our time to check out what appeared to be a lie with the solid facts we had in the case. The prosecutor calls the clerk at the store and sure enough he says it was you in the store and you have been buying there for years, he knows you on sight and the prosecution obviously has the wrong man. The prosecutor goes in and makes all kinds of excuses for the cops but in the end motions to dismiss the case because he knows when the two witnesses get on the stand and testify against a stranger who picked a stranger out of a line up, he knows who the judge will believe.

Page 42

of

129

If you remember nothing else, remember: “There is a time to demurrer and a time to traverse and many times an opportunity to do both.” In the default we will do both. Later I will show you how you can have a little fun with this concept during any trial. Standing Armies can make mixed war upon the People and the founders knew all too well how they could be used to force obedience to any command so it was necessary to limit funding for Armies to two years as no conflict should last more than two years. For today, it should only be two months if you use Iraq for an example. The purpose of the minutemen Militia was to provide trained Men who could be called up on a minutes notice to defend the nation. Only a Navy had permanent appropriations as needed to protect our shores and shipping interests. Article 1 (Bill of Rights) § 24 of the Washington Constitution is designed to back up that proposition in a meaningful way. Washington founders wanted to make sure there never were any standing armies by making sure the government didn’t have weapons and armies. ‘The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.” Since all states are basically subject to this common law principle, the same application to Washington of these limits is applicable to other states as well under the restriction of standing armies principles. Notice how opinions of judges compare the laws of other states. See the AGO (opinion) in Prohibitum.zip in the files section of the lawwork group homepage. Thus you can safely use this for your paperwork. In your affidavit of truth you might want to affirm the facts of the police arrest (stop=detention) by notice that the cop wore a gun and was armed with other weapons (MACE, shotgun in patrol car, billy club) of war as well. How You Come Before the Court “Pro Se” means you are representing yourself, so why do you need to represent yourself, if you are yourself? This makes absolutely no sense unless you are a lawyer called before the bar to defend yourself. The attorney for the Plaintiff may want to call you “pro se” but it matters little as you have already made it plain you are not a party of the body politic or corporate and you are indeed a Man taking care of your own business. Don’t let yourself be drug into a go nowhere argument, and when you are right there is no need to argue anyway. A cheap trick is for the other party in a suit to lead the arguments off the track and get you engrossed in something utterly senseless. Just
Page 43 of 129

because they call you a worm doesn’t mean you ARE 20x longer than your diameter, round and pointed at both ends? Don’t fall for cheap tricks of the attorney, stay on point and don’t move off solid ground. Stay on track and let him make a fool of himself. You have to ask yourself, does this really make a difference in the issues before the court? If you can answer no or it is outside the pleadings, don’t make an issue of it. “Pro Per” means in your proper person which is getting a little closer but what is “Person” as we have previously explained and defined in lesson 2. This is also a dangerous term to use as it is ambiguous. “Unrepresented Man” (Woman) means you are without legal representation and you are a Man not to be confused with “Person” under the law. This term leaves no doubt as to your real and true character and your legal capacity to take care of your own business in or out of courts. “Aggrieved Defendant” as used in the Affidavit of Truth is self explanatory, however it needs to be emphasized that you are injured in the stop and citation of unlawful conduct. The conduct was likely not unlawful for a Man (or Woman is indicative at all times as matter of fact, which means if I leave out the Woman it is implied in Man) because of status. When you are arrested in your travels you have just lost life, liberty and property and threatened to loose more by being unlawfully summons to defend you life, liberty and property. In other words, Life is doing what you want to be doing (govern yourself) and not what someone else thinks you should be doing. Life, Liberty and Property or Pursuit of happiness are all so intrinsic as to be almost one in the same. Liberty is closely related and inseparable, in that you lose the liberty to proceed to travel to your intended destination in the time you intended. Liberty interests are or should be most cherished above all other temporal interests. Property is rights and your property interests (rights) are taken from you at this point under threat of severe penalty for failure to stop upon signal of the powers that be. Part of property is the right to use your property (car) as your needs require, on the rights of way (property) dedicated for that purpose. Property, constitutionally implies the pursuit of happiness and if anyone enjoys a traffic stop they are masochistic. In that particular case, give them back at least the plates from your car, so they will stop you more often.

Page 44

of

129

Preparation of Affidavits All facts are expressed in first person experience with all the “W” words, what, when, where, who, ect, writing only facts relevant to your case. Do not draw any conclusions from your facts. Upon information and belief can be a basis for facts that are not concrete on their face. In other words, I have searched the law for penalties and have found none, so upon information and belief, I don’t think a penalty exists. Recusal Affidavit for Those Unruly Judges Sometimes you may have cause to “fire the judge” and you do this with an affidavit that essentially says you can not get a fair trial with this judge because of his bias and prejudice. If you have good reason you should include them, such as: He is named in a suit that you are involved with, has personal knowledge of the facts or is a material witness of the case, has expressed an opinion of the case or has been council for either party in the past. He has a conflict of interests of any kind, such as you personally know or have known him, he has represented you in the past, he has common friends, his law business has had commercial dealings with you in the past, you have the same last name even if not related or he or a relative have some kind of stake in the outcome of this case however remote. You believe he has some bias or prejudice against you, which could be racial, business related, even general misdemeanor or any condition where "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." See Liteky v U.S., 510 U.S. 540 (1994) and your state court rules annotated. The judge himself, if he feels he can’t be impartial or there is a conflict of interests known even only to him, must recuse himself. At one time, I had a minor citation before I ever became involved in law and the judge told me that he had known me as a teenager and we had associated together. I didn’t even remember him but he remembered me for some reason. He said, that he would step down if I wanted him to, but I declined. The next time I came in his court, I was mad as hell and he knew it. I demanded he produce the warrant that I was arrested on, he recused himself and threatened to throw me back in jail. I turned around and walked out. He had issued the first warrant and then recalled it because I had written him a letter (stilz.txt in L.zip) over the issue that the complaint failed to charge a crime.
Page 45 of 129

A second judge had then taken up the ball and reissued the summons and I again challenged the courts jurisdiction and again I only appeared by paper specially and a second defective warrant was issued. This warrant, I made no effort to quash because I figured it would sooner or later move to a showdown with a false arrest which I could sue on in Federal court. Generally per the rules of the court, you have to file the affidavit of prejudice before any hearing or motions are made. Not every judge will step down but it is a point of contention if he doesn’t. If he doesn’t step down, then just move on, after objection. Now, let’s take the Affidavit (AFT.txt) one bite at a time and explain the contents: “district court of Thurston county” The only name here is Thurston which is why it is capitalized and all the rest is descriptive of an artificial body belonging to Thurston which is the name of the People collectively. “Of” has special significance in law, it is indicative of ownership. Thus you would say this is the house of Jack or Jack’s house. A citizen of the United States is owned by the United States, where an American Citizen is described as American, the name of the People collectively living in the USA. The State of Washington (government capacity) is the small p “plaintiff” as it is inferior to the Superior Sovereign, listed as Aggrieved Defendant (all cap first letters). Your Name in the Caption is as written on the ticket which is in all caps. The rest of the caption is self evident. The venue of the Affidavit is defined by the next few lines to wit: The State of Washington The county of Thurston ) ) ) ss.

This represents the venue where the affidavit is signed and sealed (witnesses, notary or other official of competent authority) The first paragraph of the body contains, “declares and affirms” which are powerful words for several reasons. As a Superior Sovereign you have a right to declare and you can affirm without an oath. Affirmation is an oathless statement of truth to accommodate those who are admonished not to swear by religious belief. In the first fact you identify yourself in the manner that Christians normally do and state who your Creator is and your capacity as a flesh and blood (leaves no

Page 46

of

129

doubt) Man or Woman. This is to counter any presumption that you appear as an artificial entity subject to law. You then state for the record that you are not the all caps entity which has been invited to the court, which is a misidentification. Three, you state you have never been known by that name to further support misidentification. Four, you declare your Creator and the law you are subject to by inference. Five and Six, establishes you have no contract or agreement which could form an equity court and give the court discretion. Seven, breaks any assumption that you are any kind of public servant subject to the law as a body “politic or corporate”. Eight, breaks any presumption that you have voluntarily joined in the cause. The court now must either force joinder or dismiss as there is no personal jurisdiction till you are joined. See your court rules on joinder. This comprises the bare necessities of the Affidavit in its simplest form. At this point it is not necessary to express more unless you want to play, or are expecting to have to go to trial. If you have reason to express something special, for instance to support a motion to dismiss on say for instance the cop lost sight in the chase it might be better to do that later in the motion by verification if the case is not dismissed. You might say: I have read and understand Yick Wo v. Hopkins in particular the plain words of the first paragraph on page 370 which says: "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.” By affirming your first hand experience you can introduce law into an affidavit just as you would affirm anything else, however it would be an error not to speak in the first person from fact on the issue. Only very general applications of law and few should be put in the affidavit if at all. “Further Affiant saith naught” concludes the body of the Affidavit and prevents any further additions to it. The Jurat follows as your affirmation that the facts are true and correct.

Page 47

of

129

“Seal" is positive identification which you might want to use if you have been fingerprinted. It is your right thumb print over the end of your signature. This seal is always with you and can demonstrate proof on the spot if need be. It adds a BOLD touch to the document showing clear intent and positive motive. “De Jure Soli, Sanguinis, Coronea” These terms are Citizenship specific which defines your right to immunities. De Jure literally means “real”. “Soli” means born on the soil or “natural born”. “Sanguinis” means born to Citizen Parents anywhere in the World. “Coronea” means you are of royal birth by virtue of being Sons and Daughters of the King of Kings. “near (98589)” Is a way to use the zip code which breaks any possible presumption that you live in a federal area defined by such numbers. Putting the number is prentices or brackets, effectively keeps it outside the document or isolates it. You generally live on private property not within the confines of any government property unless you work for such government and have housing on government property. Under the common law, you could have witnesses acknowledge your affirmation and signature. This has the same effect as a notary but you can use a notary in leu of witnesses. Where we lived we had meetings a couple of times a month and in these meetings we would pass the documents around the room for witness signatures. It turns out looking like the Declaration of Independence with all the signatures upon it. Indeed every one of these witnesses would appear in court if necessary to attest to the fact that you signed it and you were who you said you were by personal knowledge of those facts. While two signatures by disinterested parties are all that is necessary, many signatures shows power in numbers. When those same parties walk into the court room with you, it is impressive. In some cases it scares the Hell out of judges, like seeing someone taking notes among the People waiting for their case to be called. Having a large number of witnesses also intimidates the judge into thinking about what he is doing, taking him out of his comfort zone. After the witness signatures is the challenge to rebut and time for rebuttal. In this example they are given 15 days. If you are really pressed for time to complete the default, then you would give less time, but never less than 10 days generally. Don’t procrastinate here as it can mean the difference in winning or losing of course, get your paper moving. Stipulation means they accept it as true. “joined the true party of interest” Now remember there are two capacities for government which is one party and you are the other party. You and the government capacity are not the all caps representation they have prescribed to you and it and you have made this clear as well as you positive status. You and it have not voluntarily joined and therefore the court must join you per the rules.
Page 48 of 129

So, it appears as there are no parties and if there are no parties there is no case and it is a void proceeding. “sua sponte for failure to join an indispensable party, rule 19, rule 12 (b) (6), and as such relieves the court of jurisdiction over the parties under rule 12 (b) (2).” When the court acts on its own accord it is called sua sponte. When the court sees it has no properly identified and joined parties it lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss by its rules. The last paragraph is a protest of the way the traffic court acts upon the people generally in mixed war with summary judgment in proprietary manner and capacity, akin to a dictatorship. “suae potestate esse” is Latin and means the lawful competent power exists herein with reference to the signer or literally his power exists. In other words the Superior Sovereign.

Page 49

of

129

Lesson 5

Motions to dismiss, a way out for judge.

The motions to dismiss are primarily to give the judge an easy way out of his mess without attaching a smell to himself. They are additive to, but not an absolute essential part of the default. Your homework assignment is to read rule 19 Joinder and rule 12 Jurisdiction. The best place to look is the rules annotated, generally found in a law library, which will give you some cases relating to the rules and a greater understanding of them. You can look under the rules for your courts of limited jurisdiction or the Federal Rules of civil procedure to give you an idea of what to look for and where to look if you can’t find them in your local court rules. Additionally, read your state constitution and see what the prescribed process name of the state is. Then determine if they are following the constitutional process by specified name (exactly in words and spelling case). You might need to look for a traffic ticket, not on the road hopefully, but ask your friends if they have a copy of one for you to look at. If you are in a group, that might be the best place to ask. If worse came to worse you could take your digital camera down to local police station and ask them if they would show you an example for you to photocopy. This will give them something to talk about for a long time and ponder why you are interested. Please don’t tell them the secrets you know, it is better for them to be dumb as a post, as they obviously are. If you can’t find another way, when you see a cop in a reduced speed zone or school zone, just step on the gas, be sure to squeal your tires if you can or honk the horn if you have ABS brakes so you get his attention and you will get your own copy of one. Make sure there is no one who can get hurt when you do this however. A safer way would be to take off your plates, drive to the local police station and park crossways in the middle of the road straddling the yellow line and blocking traffic in both directions. Honk you horn from time to time or activate your antitheft alarm and wave an American flag out your window to get those inside to look out. Be sure that the back of the car faces the police station for maximum effect. This should also give them something to talk about around the water cooler for some time to come.

Page 50

of

129

Lesson 5

MOTIONS TO DISMISS, A WAY OUT FOR JUDGE

Motions to dismiss give a easy way out for judge, in case he needs one. They have virtually nothing to do with the default itself, but they do bring the law into the case. The two cases represented in the files in Mtd.txt and Mtd1.txt were Dana Beaver (an American Indian Citizen) and Wendy Dixon a driver without a license who never had a Washington license to drive and traveled by right. Due Process Preliminary hearings have been moving toward eliminating the prosecutor in courtroom which makes the judge then occupying two offices at the same time. This violates basic law and should be objected to on the grounds that it denies you due process right to be heard by an unbiased member of the judiciary. This is a money saving measure so that more time can be spent productively generating revenue. Don’t dwell on this issue however as it is only necessary to object. When you object, you always explain why. A naked objection is without meaning and only amounts to a veiled protest. It is grounds for dismissal in case for failure to prosecute. Motions themselves are consecutive so if you did motions in the refusal for fraud, you need to start here with the sequential appropriate number if the motions have not been heard yet. Some of the common motions made in the refusal for fraud are: Bail amounts fixed by the cop as opposed to those defined by the Supreme court rules for courts of limited jurisdiction and by statute additions (more taxes) not being in harmony with the court rules and the code. Failure to file the ticket in 48 working hours as defined by rule. Failure to maintain unrestricted sight of the vehicle from determination of an infraction till the pull over. Misidentification Violations of law by the cops before the determination of an infraction.
Page 51 of 129

Lack or failure to establish probable cause for the stop. Failure to state an offense or infraction. Acting outside jurisdictional bounds. Arrest and detention for unreasonable time (usually 10 minutes). Acting outside scope of job duties or office (personal capacity). Failure to file an oath with the county office as required by code. Using forms or acts not authorized by code or statute during the traffic stop. All of these Motions can be established within several days after the arrest, some before the fact by research in anticipation of the event. I recommend that you do some basic research in your codes to see and be aware of what they say before the event. For instance you can run a form search in the code for the name of the ticket. In Washington it is a “Washington Uniform Court Docket” which appears no place in the code, so they can’t have authority to issue it. Remember the law is to limit and DEFINE government. They have to have authority for everything they do. As I explained earlier, the code describes the process of the ticket by the officer who makes the complaint and in this case, it says that the arrested person will sign a “receipt of notice of traffic infraction” and such doesn’t exist, so you are not required to sign anything. Most of the code is this way, it misleads you into thinking you have to do things that aren’t actually what you could be required to do. They know this, they could change it but they won’t because it works 99.99% of the time and doesn’t infringe on individual protected freedoms. The legislature does change things though when it starts impacting them financially at times for instance they removed the definition of money because too many were using it to show them their money fraud. They really didn’t change a thing, they just took the definition out of the code but it still exists in the Federal code, since the Feds really control the money supply. Be sure to be familiar with the court rules and determine if the hearings are criminal or civil as the protections are different for the two and the procedure as well in some states. Most states have reduced these acts to a bastard somewhere between the two called infractions. It is not important what they call it as long as you know the court rules. In infraction cases the probable cause portion is fulfilled with the filing of the complaint by the officer or his representative. In criminal cases you are entitled
Page 52 of 129

to a probable cause hearing after any arrest. They will not likely give you one and it mostly a waste of your resources unless you want to press a point, or move for a preliminary dismissal with a strong point or two at issue. The same goes for Bills of Particulars, which is nothing more than the elements of the offense. In criminal trials jury instructions are a necessary part of the establishment of what the jury will hear. Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant should submit instructions by filing them with the court clerk prior to hearing, according to court rule. Jury instructions then are joined by argument for and against specific parts by the judge into a package. There is a book called “Patent Jury Instructions” usually in the law library but sometimes on the net, which you can use for a reference for the crime charged. You can add your own made up jury instructions for special issues in the cause. You need to object to any disapproval of your instructions on foundational grounds of law. As I explained earlier in the case of Charlie who was accused of assault, these are vitally important in all criminal trials. It can make the difference in winning or losing. In Charlie’s case he forced the court to consider the defenses to assault which caused the crooked prosecutor to drop the case. Motions to Dismiss The Motions to Dismiss is to give the judge a way out with grace. It also serves as points of contention and foundation in which to appeal or petition and enforce the lower court Petition for Writ of Mandamus. You can’t appeal something not brought up in the lower court, so this lays a foundation in law in case in the rare instance the judge is a revenue agent. It is up to you to force him to move your way, and weak undemanding paper never accomplishes the relief pleaded. A word about pleading and argument. These are two words you never want to use in any paper. Only lawyers argue, plead and pray, People do not. Lawyers are required to represent artificial entities because an artificial entity obviously can’t represent itself because it is a fiction. Artificial entities are creations of government therefore need to bow and pray to their creator (god), pay tribute and beg for relief. There is no need for the Sovereign Man to argue, there is no argument but there may be logical reasoning. Whatever you do, don’t use lawyers trash like, “Comes now” which means nothing. In addressing judges, don’t ever call a judge, “your honor”, talk to them like they were your public servant. Likely there is no honor in the judge although rarely you will find one that should be called “your honor” by attorneys. Talk to the judge like you would talk to your child and you will find you will be respected for not kissing butt, like lawyers need to do because they make their living there at the pleasure of the judge. A judge can ruin an attorney but he can’t hurt you,
Page 53 of 129

unless you get out of order and there is no reason for you to kiss his boots. That doesn’t mean however that you can abuse the relationship anymore than the relation with a friend. Behave yourself and expect the public servant judge to do the same. Public servants, need to be called such so they are reminded often what their role is, this includes prosecutors. Use those words in your paper freely and liberally. Even the court recognized this relationship to wit: "We tend to overlook the basic political and legal reality that the people, not the bureaucracy, are the sovereign. Our Federal Government was created for the security and happiness of the people. Executives, lawmakers, and members of the Judiciary are inferior in the sense that they are in office only to carry out and execute the constitutional regime." Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 232-3 (1974) The motions start off with identification and intent, state conflicts in law, facts and objections. For instance in the case of Wendy Dixon, notice she appeared against her will by TDC, the reason was to protect life, liberty and property (interests) and she is objecting to the fact that the prosecutor was not there for the arraignment, so a breach of due process right to adversarial trial was noted for the record. Notice she is now injured (aggrieved) and the court is now without immunity because it was done in private party capacity outside official duty, thus the court lacked jurisdiction. “Wendy Dixon, having appeared under threat, duress, and coercion, only to protect Aggrieved Defendant's interests, without any appearance of an adverse party, where the Judge was not an impartial party, but also prosecution, which is a conflict of interests and gives rise to violation of due process rights of the alleged defendant, who is now aggrieved because of such impartiality, and as such this court has lost immunity and any preconceived jurisdiction. This particular case was a criminal case of driving without a driver’s license but that was all that was cited, so they couldn’t have known that before the stop. I think they made the excuse there was a headlight out. Notice in this case we asked for a bill of particulars which we never got. Notice also that we specify what the elements of the crime should be in all cases, an injured party and intent which are requirements for all mala in se crimes as opposed to malum prohibitum crimes. The prosecutor is well aware of these two classes and he isn’t going to let the cat out of the bag by admission that it is a malum prohibitum crime because he can’t make any excuses that he didn’t know the difference. Further he knows that only artificial entities are subject to this class of crimes. Refer to

Page 54

of

129

Prohibitum.zip in the files section of the group homepage. The link is at the bottom of every group email for your convenience. If you are not given a bill of particulars, you wouldn’t understand the crime you are accused of and without that knowledge you can’t prepare an defence, so you would be prejudiced (hampered) and indicates that the prosecution doesn’t have a case against you or he would draw one up real quick and get it to you. Notice we use “Aggrieved Defendant” which is evidence that Wendy is already injured. “Further, a bill of particulars was demanded, in order to assess the appropriateness of the elements to be proven by the Plaintiff. Now therefore it is demanded that such bill of particulars include the elements of corpus delicti, which is that the Plaintiff is to produce a flesh and blood injured party and show that there was intent to injure such flesh and blood party, for without such corpus delicti, there can be no crime. Any denial of a timely bill of such particulars prejudices the case of the Aggrieved Defendant, and amounts to fraud on it's face.” We always challenge Jurisdiction and Venue, because it is always lacking. Municipalities have only charge to maintain public rights of way and make sure that traffic can flow smoothly. One cop told me once, I can’t allow you to drive on the city’s streets. I asked him who owned the streets and he told me the city which is not true. I ask him to show me a deed for proof of such ownership and I would get a license for myself and my car. I told him he was ignorant of the fact that the people owned those streets and the proof was the common law right upon abandonment for the land to revert back the owners. The reference to body politic and corporate and corporate by laws we have already discussed in lesson 4 along with the two capacities of government being quasi-private corporation (proprietary) and governmental (police powers). Therefore to continue the case would be barratry and in this case the prosecutor openly admitted that she needed no license and asked the court to dismiss. She even played the tape she made to prove to me what actually happened so I heard it with my own ears. “Jurisdiction and Venue is also challenged at this time and must be proven by the prosecution. Prosecution must have evidence to prove that the alleged injury was indeed committed on city property. Title must be shown to such property to verify that it is indeed owned by the city. Prosecution must also show that Wendy Dixon is a party of the body politic or corporate, that she should be governed by such corporate law, otherwise it is color of law, and a cause of action for false prosecution and barratry exists against all involved.”
Page 55 of 129

Probable cause determination in this bastard infraction jurisdiction is done by filing the ticket in a reasonable amount of time. This is necessary for two reasons. One the clock starts running for all process from the time of the arrest. And second, there is only so much time before the court must conclude the hearings or face dismissal for lack of due process, speedy process and trial. The court rules call for dismissal if the ticket isn’t filed timely, so we always check and about half the time they fail to file it. The same process applies to these quasicriminal and traffic civil citations. Even a criminal conviction for driving without license will not show up in a criminal record unless things have changed recently, which shows they are not really criminal but they make the show to scare People who are ignorant of the facts. “Further check of the court record, can not provide a time certain that the citation was filed. This leads to a right of the defendant to dismissal for failure to establish probable cause within 48 hours of arrest and seizure at the traffic stop, per RCW 7.80.050 and CrRLJ 2.1 (d) (2).” Here, we let them know, we know what they are doing under the common law which they know is the only law that can apply to the Man or Woman. They will never admit it was an arrest or seizure because that sounds like an affront to life, liberty and property, but it is true and if you read the code it will tell it like it is. 99.9999% of the People are ignorant of the code or even the meaning of these terms. We also let them know we are injured by a criminal act of obtaining a signature under TDC, which we have already discussed at length. “Further investigation shows that there was no probable cause for the arrest and seizure at the time of such arrest and seizure. There was no disturbance of the peace, felony, or warrant for such action, leading to another cause of action against the Plaintiff and Officer for harassment and obtaining a signature under threat, duress and coercion.” Here we incorporate by reference to the motions not having been heard from the Refusal for Fraud if you did one, into one giant group of motions which is overwhelming to most prosecutors and judges. You should be able to come up with a dozen or more motions in most cases and a few more in an insurance case which is discussed later in this lesson. So the first motion would be “Motion 4” in this case. “In the interest of justice and to preclude further injury to the Citizen and Aggrieved Defendant: Motions # 1, 2, and 3 are herein incorporated as if rewritten,
Page 56 of 129

for hearing on the merits.” This is in veiled reference to the requirement to file the ticket in 48 hours, although here we didn’t spell it out like in the Beaver case which will be covered later in this lesson. “Aggrieved Defendant hereby motions the court to dismiss for failure to establish probable cause within 48 hours, therefore jurisdiction in the matter.” Lack of due process loses court jurisdiction in the cause so we remind them and in this case it is demanded according to court rule and the court knows it. “Aggrieved Defendant hereby motions the court to dismiss for failure to establish probable cause for the traffic stop, therefore jurisdiction in the matter.” The court is cutting a fat hog, at least trying to cut corners to make the court more profitable by using the judge without an adversary as required by due process, thus the prosecutor having failed to establish jurisdiction in the cause gives rise to the motion to dismiss. “Aggrieved Defendant hereby motions the court to dismiss for lack of prosecution at alleged arraignment. Prosecution failed to invoke jurisdiction, wherefore this court has lost any alleged jurisdiction and has denied an adversarial proceeding amounting to lack of due process.” The Washington Constitution says at Art 1 § 24 that corporations can’t maintain standing armies which we discussed in the last two previous lessons which gives rise to this motion. Note how we tie in all aspects of the Affidavit into the motions, so there is justification by affidavit for the motion generally. When the officer violates the law in open rebellion to it, it justifies suppression of the evidence and this doctrine is called the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine. When the officer breaks the law, he acts in private capacity and he himself comes under condemnation in the court if his criminal acts come to the light of day to the court. This is why in many cases the officer will not appear as his appearance to testify will likely cause the judge to witness a crime by the officers own oath and testimony, then the judge has a ministerial duty to see that the prosecutor prosecutes the officer in his private capacity. The judge sees a can of worms here and is likely to back off the case by dismissal. “Aggrieved Defendant hereby motions the court to suppress all evidence unlawfully obtained by the traffic stop "arrest" by the
Page 57 of 129

arresting officer. The court will make a findings of fact and conclusions at law as provided by Rule 3.6. Included in such finding of fact and conclusions at law will be some lawful justification for the city of Tenino to blatantly violate Article 1 § 24 of the State Constitution, which declares that no corporation shall hire and maintain an armed body of men. Such constitutional abuse of war powers is further grounds for suppression.” Again this motion is set up in the Affidavit of Truth. The reference to the Flag is that I printed a color picture of a flag on the upper right had side of the paper above the caption. No government has a right to make mixed war upon the People. “Aggrieved Defendant hereby motions the court to dismiss for failure to obtain and correct the true name of the Defendant at arraignment. The Defendant has never been known as "WENDY DIXON" or any other nom de guerre, and comes into this court under the American Flag of Peace so appearing above the caption, and city of Tenino has no express authority to use marital war powers upon this Citizen without lawful declaration.” In every criminal case the judge must by rule and law explain the cause to the Defendant (notice capitalization of all reference to the Superior Sovereign). You must understand what you are charged with to understand how to defend. The Bill of Particulars does this in great detail, but if the judge neglects to ask you in open court if you understand the charges it is fatal to the cause. The only remedy they have upon realization of this fact is to start with arraignment all over but if there isn’t enough time for a speedy trial, they must dismiss. “Aggrieved Defendant hereby motions the court to dismiss the charge for failure to explain the nature and cause of the accusation, thereby leaving the Defendant in ignorance and without aid of knowledge to prepare a defense. Such denial of a bill of particulars till near time for trial further prejudices the Defendants ability for making an knowledgeable defense, and amounts to denial of due process.” We have already discussed the padding of the penalties by various governments and unless there is a statute which provides for it, it is arbitrary and capricious and an outright fraud because it isn’t authorized by law. Since they don’t want to be caught in fraud, they usually will try to sweep it under the carpet by making an excuse to dismiss.

Page 58

of

129

“Aggrieved Defendant further motions the court to inform this Citizen of the penalty to be sought and such statutory authority for any assessments over and in addition to those amounts of bail prescribed by Rule 3.2. (m) (4).” The legislature removed this code from the law because of our shoving it down their gullets, however removing it does little as I have said because it is codified from the federal code and common law. This puts them in a bind because you can ask them for a specific order in what kind of money they will accept, FRNs not being one of them, thus they can be set up for a very interesting default and void judgment which they often don’t want to chance. “Aggrieved Defendant further motions the court to identify lawful property, which will upon any conviction, will be demanded of the Aggrieved Defendant, as provided for by former RCW 84.04.060 "Money," "moneys." "Money" or "moneys" shall be held to mean gold and silver coin, gold and silver certificates, treasury notes, United States notes, and bank notes. Any attempt to demand Federal Reserve Notes will amount to a conflict of law preventing any lawful payment but upon the redemption of such Notes at par value of US minted silver dollars, such that the Defendant can obtain such silver dollars for discharge of the demand. Without such redemption the court will be demanding an impossibility at law, which will void the demand.” Here once again we have discussed the fact that there are “zero hits” in the code on the form the cop issues which therefore is evidence that he has no authority to issue it. If he issues a form for which he has no authority to do, he actually voids his acts by acting in private capacity without office and has arrested and seized you without authority in law. “The Aggrieved Defendant further motions the court to dismiss for statutory authorization of officer to issue a "WASHINGTON UNIFORM COURT DOCKET", or provide such statute that authorizes such form to be issued by a member of the executive branch.” If you don’t note your motions for hearing the court has no duty to hear them per the rules of court process. This can be done either in the motion with a note to the clerk in the caption, or in the paper if body if there is already a hearing scheduled by the court. It can also be a separate captioned paper devoted solely

Page 59

of

129

to that purpose. Be sure you serve a copy of everything to the office of prosecutor. “NOTE FOR HEARING The above motions are noted for hearing on 30 October 1996, with oral argument, however if the court deems a more appropriate time before or within a week of the 30 October hearing, Defendant will allow such latitude, as the time to hear twelve motions with oral argument and witness testimony may be considerable.” Here we hit them where it hurts, we subpoena our witness who is going to testify as to his criminal conduct. We double our bet with a prescription for a long hearing and trial which is going to take away he profit motive. The court rules generally require you to apply to the court for any subpoena because you are the Superior Sovereign although they claim that attorneys have the power and you don’t. The truth is, the court is duty bound to do it for you but not attorneys. “SUBPOENA OF WITNESSES The Aggrieved Defendant further demands the court subpoena the officer or officers present for testimony on the motion to suppress evidence obtained at the arrest by the arresting officer. Any denial of arrest will be evidence of further fraud, as RCW 42.64.015 is evidence that such was the case. Subpoena to be for hearing date of motions so set above.” Here we object generally to the way the court operates and that we will exercise our right to take the matter another step higher which reduces the profit motive and ties up the prosecutor in low priority cases which he hasn’t the time to effectively prosecute. You lay the foundation by objecting specifically to the actions of the court letting them know due process is lacking. Just the fact you do this, lets them know you are serious and gives them incentive to dismiss. “Aggrieved Defendant objects to the martial law war powers summary judgment of this court and lack of due process and I reserve all my rights under the common law including the right to appeal, without cost and do not voluntarily waive any rights.” Dana Beaver’s case was a speeding infraction so it is a little different than Wendy’s case. Some of the motions are a little stronger as well, so I have included a few of them here.

Page 60

of

129

This one is based on the speedy trial rule in Washington called the “Striker Rule” from the case by the same name where the court outlined the speedy trial rule based on Supreme court decisions. The important part of the rule is that time starts at the time of arrest which in traffic stops is the stop itself. “Aggrieved Defendant hereby motions the court to dismiss for failure to establish probable cause for the traffic stop, and a contested hearing within ninety days under rule 2.6, therefore any jurisdiction is lost in the matter.” Notice this is a little different than Wendy’s motion in that we call into account their knowledge that they must know what they are doing as they are trained in the law and we label it as a racket and fraud with intent to injure and that we intend to file a criminal cause against the court and all other actors. This is a pretty powerful motion and sure to draw some serious thought of what could happen to them if the right prosecutor got a hold of this and they all have enemies. They also don’t know who you know and certainly don’t know that you know no one who could or would go after them, but the uncertainly will likely weigh in on what they do with the consequences of their actions. In Dana’s case they decided to dismiss and this court was known as being one of the worst. “Aggrieved Defendant further motions the court to inform this Citizen of the penalty to be sought and such statutory authority for any assessments over and in addition to those amounts of penalty prescribed by Rule 6.2. (d) (1). If the prosecution cannot show statutory authority for such amount, written by the officer upon the "Washington Uniform Court Docket", then there is a unrebutted presumption by Defendant and this court that upon the superior knowlege of the law, of the officer, prosecution, and court, that a rackettering fraud has been committed openly by conspiracy to deny due process and other rights of this Citizen. Wherefore, upon failure to establish statutory authority for such penalty amount, this Citizen will file a criminal counterclaim for treble damages.” Insurance cases give rise to some interesting motions to dismiss although there are no examples here, these are the most noteworthy. Indemnification is important so you ask the court if they are willing to indemnify an insurance company so you don’t waste any of your resources on one. If the law requires you to buy insurance it should make sure to indemnify it so you don’t loose any value in your assets. They won’t of course. Recommendation is important if they want you to have insurance they should be able to give you a recommendation as to one which would be reliable but they

Page 61

of

129

know none are, and they never will do the fair thing and recommend a perfect one. Limited coverage is only available for a reasonable price and you certainly can’t afford a full coverage policy and they don’t require it. So, the fact that it is limited means you still could loose everything you own because of that limitation so the whole concept loses creditability and they have no answer as to how you can effectively unlimitedly cover or effectively cover anyone. Failure, bankruptcy or dissolution of the corporation is a realistic consideration because of recent events, like Enron, corporation failure, unable to meet its commitments, others filing for bankruptcy like United Airlines where they got pensions relief at the injury of the workers. There is no way the court can provide you with a 100% sure thing in insurance. Certified Reputable, of course by the court so you don’t get defrauded on claims, such as All State did to me once. They sent me to one of their special cut rate shops to get damage repaired to my almost new truck done by one of their clients. I was smart enough to get three estimates before hand and got suckered into this by a slick agent promising a fast fix. The fix was neither fast nor quality work and even the owner of the body shop complained that All State was forcing them to accept less and less for their work and they weren’t happy either about the “unconscionable” contract they made. The general idea here is to tell the court you are perfectly willing to obtain insurance if the court will Indemnify the company, recommend one which is approved which won’t bankrupt you in the process of a claim, which is certified reputable, stable enough and in which can satisfy any claim. Wendy’s husband got a $500 ticket for no insurance and he used my paper and the judge didn’t allow him to say a word (fortunately) and dismissed quickly. Next Lesson 6 Default on Affidavit, notice and opportunity to cure

Once time has expired on rebutting the affidavit, then you need to notice your adversary that they are in default and need to cure their neglect or refusal or experience a final default. We are totally upfront with what we are doing to them. They have adequate notice and have a ministerial duty to show us where we are wrong, otherwise they don’t prosecute the case and it is dead. Your homework assignments is to see if you can find any reference in your state codes defining “money” and report to the lawwork group what you find for your particular state.

Page 62

of

129

Since I have already done this for those in Washington, your assignment is to find and report all the statutory additions which are defined in the code which can be added to bail amount as prescribed by the Washington Supreme court in the CRLJ rules. Note: that the Supreme court often compares the laws of other states in cases it decides, so you can as well to establish your points of law.

Page 63

of

129

Lesson 6 DEFAULT ON AFFIDAVIT, NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE Should the prosecutor defend, which is rare, you need to be aware of what the court has said about Rule 56: “Rule 56 "with or without supporting affidavits." In cases like the instant one, where the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a summary judgment motion may properly be made in reliance solely on the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file." Such a motion, whether or not accompanied by affidavits, will be "made and supported as provided in this rule," and Rule 56(e) therefore requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the "depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file," designate "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(c)). (note "or" affidavits not required but verified facts are) "Where there are no depositions, admissions, or affidavits the court has no facts to rely on for a summary determination." Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647. Motion to dismiss or for summary judgment are dispositive issues because they prevent remedy in the matter. Note that there has to be some certain amount of discovery or some facts placed before the court for the court to make a determination on the dispositive motion. Thus the affidavit of truth and the motions to dismiss themselves are supported by facts necessary for them to granted. Due Process Notice Similar to a chess game, it is necessary to warn the adversary of the condition of default, thus the this notice is issued and filed with the court to give the adversary the opportunity to defend in the matter. It is not necessary to give a lot of time as they have been unresponsive however you should be liberal in adding a few days, in the case they mail a response. Normally court rules require two days for mailing but generally today the mail is a little slower. Plan your time frame to be as liberal as you can. Remember if the case falls into an equity situation, you want to be with clean hands and giving equity, however it should stay naturally on the law side of the court. Don’t jump the gun here, while the prosecutor rarely responds, they certainly can if they feel frivolous or have some time on their hands to play with you.
Page 64 of 129

“Notice is hereby given that a default exists, upon failure of the prosecution to rebut the Affidavit of Truth of Aggrieved Defendant submitted the 19th day of March 1997, with lawful evidence to the contrary of this affidavit, within TEN DAYS.” If there is no rebuttal, the affidavit is the facts of the case. There is a fault here as the affidavit gives reason to suspect the sufficiently of the complaint and summons “Now, therefore the prosecution is in default and is given three days to cure, and if not cured within such time, a final default upon this case will be entered by the clerk of the court according to the rules of court.” The court rules on default, very often lay the responsibility upon the clerk to enter the default when it appears by affidavit that the default actually occurred. That isn’t hard to show in a case such as this and the only remedy is to set aside the default for good cause. Good cause might be evident from a materially false affidavit, some violation of the court rules, lack of due process in gaining the default, or it could be because of some disability upon the office of the prosecutor but such is rare indeed. The only real issue in which the judge needs to get involved is where there is a monetary judgment to be made, such as a tort complaint. The rules make provision for a trial to fix the amounts of such complaints so the clerk is relieved of the duty in that case. The reason for this is that it is the duty of the court to protect the property of the People from being taken advantage of by unrealistic judgments. For an example of this kind of situation, let’s say you don’t pay your rent, but refuse to vacate the home and the landlord brings an action against you for eviction and judgment on the bill you owe. You default on both accounts, so it is necessary for an order from the judge giving authority to the sheriff to displace you and collect the debt. However, in a complaint, the landlord could very easily inflate the amount of the debt to an unreasonable amount upon which the judge would inquire as to the amount being excessive. When you default, the remedy asked for in the complaint is granted without trial, but if it is out of line, the judge must stand accountable on implication in any fraud. It is not a bad court rule as it gives accountability to the Petitioner or Plaintiff. It is a degree of protection for the defaulter, since he may be in no condition to contest the action for lack of financial backing or other disability.
Page 65 of 129

It matters little if the court is administrative or judicial in reality as the process is the same in fact. To illustrate this fact the FMC case is one of the best, although there are others. A review of the FMC's Rules of Practice and Procedure confirms that FMC administrative proceedings bear a remarkably strong resemblance to civil litigation in federal courts. For example, the FMC's Rules governing pleadings are quite similar to those found in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A case is commenced by the filing of a complaint. See 46 CFR § 502.61 (2001); Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 3. The defendant then must file an answer, generally within 20 days of the date of service of the complaint, see § 502.64(a); Rule 12(a)(1), and may also file a motion to dismiss, see § 502.227(b)(1); Rule 12(b). A defendant is also allowed to file counterclaims against the plaintiff. See § 502.64(d); Rule 13. If a defendant fails to respond to a complaint, default judgment may be entered on behalf of the plaintiff. See § 502.64(b); Rule 55. Intervention is also allowed. See § 502.72; Rule 24. Likewise, discovery in FMC adjudications largely mirrors discovery in federal civil litigation. See 46 U.S.C.App. § 1711(a)(1) (1994 ed.) (instructing that in FMC adjudicatory proceedings "discovery procedures . . . to the extent practicable, shall be in conformity with the rules applicable in civil proceedings in the district courts of the United States"). In both types of proceedings, parties may conduct depositions, see, e.g., 46 CFR § 502.202 (2001); Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 28, which are governed by similar requirements. Compare §§ 502.202, 502.203, and 502.204, with Rules 28, 29, 30, and 31. Parties may also discover evidence by: (1) serving written interrogatories, see § 502.205; Rule 33; (2) requesting that another party either produce documents, see § 502.206(a)(1); Rule 34(a)(1), or allow entry on that party's property for the purpose of inspecting the property or designated objects thereon, § 502.206(a)(2); Rule 34(a)(2); and (3) submitting requests for admissions, § 502.207; Rule 36. And a party failing to obey discovery orders in either type of proceeding is subject to a variety of sanctions, including the entry of default judgment. See § 502.210(a); Rule 37(b)(2). Not only are discovery procedures virtually indistinguishable, but the role of the ALJ, the impartial officer {FN 9} designated to hear a case, see § 502.147, is similar to that of an Article III judge. An ALJ has the authority to "arrange and give notice of hearing." Ibid. At that hearing, he may prescribe the order in which evidence shall be presented; dispose of procedural requests or similar matters; hear and rule upon motions; administer oaths and affirmations; examine witnesses; direct witnesses to testify or produce evidence available to them which will aid in the determination of any question of fact in issue;
Page 66 of 129

rule [535 U.S. 759] upon offers of proof . . . and dispose of any other matter that normally and properly arises in the course of proceedings. In short, the similarities between FMC proceedings and civil litigation are overwhelming. In fact, to the extent that situations arise in the course of FMC adjudications "which are not covered by a specific Commission rule," the FMC's own Rules of Practice and Procedure specifically provide that "the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be followed to the extent that they are consistent with sound administrative practice." {FN 10} § 502.12. FMC v State Ports Authority, 535 U.S. 743, 757 - 760 (2002). This shows us the administrative and judicial rules are mostly identical as a means to effect due process. As I have mentioned before the traffic stop administrative judgment occurs at the traffic stop with the officer and the trial is merely a quasi-appeal of that judgment, is a de novo proceeding as it is assumed that the officer’s complaint is final. The summonsed party can convert the complaint to administrative judgment by, simply defaulting on the provision to demand a trial on the issue and paying the fine to the court. In this manner, you judge yourself, and default on any defense. This provides easy money for the court and a self judgment. Notice also the standard for actions not spelled out in the regulations are to follow to the rules of civil court rules. Thus a default of the prosecutor can be applied to this cause and any other administrative (does IRS ring any bells) cause if such is not presented in the regulations or code, simply default by court rule. We exploit the opportunity to be heard on the issues. Our issues are not so much the facts of the case as the law of the cause. In all cases of default, it is necessary to exploit the weaknesses of the adversaries fact and law in the case. The first step is to draw up specific issues which box the adversary into a position of compromise, where they can’t win if they participate. You should by now see the implication of this process to many other controversies in which we are forced into by government. In prior lessons on the affidavit, we brought out the fact that we claim not to be a party to the body corporate or politic. In lesson 4, we showed where there are two capacities to all government, that of the corporate proprietary side and the government side. It should be obvious by now that this procedure exploits the corporate proprietary side and that the government police power side is not the source of the complaint.

Page 67

of

129

Under the common law, you were free to move about freely as long as you didn’t hamper or injure your neighbor or fellow man in the process. That law has not really changed today but because of the expanse of corporate existence and greed for revenue, we have used the excuse of prior restraint to justify frequent stops under some of the most trivial of excuses. These laws are nothing more than taxation laws for the most part provided by corporate entities by-laws which codes are an illusion of real law (see code.txt in L1.zip). PRIVATE LAW In the court rules you might see rules about pleading private law. To understand what private law is we need to look at what the court has said about it, lest we even be unaware or ignorance of its existence. As to experience, the court observed that all 50 States have adopted some form of the psychotherapist-patient privilege. 51 F.3d 1346, 1355 at 1356 (1995). The court attached particular significance to the fact that Illinois law expressly extends such a privilege to social workers like Karen Beyer. {FN 4} FN 4. These ever-multiplying evidentiary privilege statutes, which the Court today emulates, recall us to the original meaning of the word "privilege." It is a composite derived from the Latin words "privus" and "lex": private law. Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 FN 18 …..State-controlled enterprises, with legal personality, ability to trade and to enter into contracts of private law, though wholly subject to the control of their state, are a well-known feature of the modern commercial scene. The distinction between them, and their governing state, may appear artificial: but it is an accepted distinction in the law of England and other states. Quite different considerations apply to a statecontrolled enterprise acting on government directions on the one hand, and a state, exercising sovereign functions, on the other. First National City Bank v. Banco Para el Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611. While this case is talking about a British case, it is none the less generic to this lesson to show the nature of private or quasi-private municipal corporations which function with some degree of government authority. You should be able to see now that what we perceived as government police power is not what it appears to be, but in some cases is an application of private law. Almost any system of private or quasi-private law could be subject to the same objection. Court approval of an eviction, for example, becomes necessary only when the tenant protests his eviction, and he alone decides whether he will protest. An otherwise valid regulation is not
Page 68 of 129

rendered invalid simply because those whom the regulation is designed to safeguard may elect to forgo its protection. New Motor Vehicle Bd. v Orrin W. Fox Co., 439 U.S. 96 (1978). Thus we see that privilege and such laws to protect enterprise such as landlords are private law as well as law which allow for enforcing damages to private rights (1983 civil rights). Lien laws for mechanic liens are private law, as well as mortgage laws to protect lenders. Some private law is readily identifiable, but some is obscure. FN 12. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 581. See also Vanzant v. Waddel, 10 Tenn. 260, in which Judge Catron, later Mr. Justice Catron, speaking for the Supreme Court of Tennessee, observed: The right to life, liberty and property, of every individual, must stand or fall by the same rule or law that governs every other member of the body politic, or "LAND," under similar circumstances; and every partial or private law, which directly proposes to destroy or affect individual rights, or does the same thing by affording remedies leading to similar consequences, is unconstitutional and void. Id. at 270. The views expressed by Webster and Judge Catron go back at least as far as 1215 and Magna Charta, in which it was provided: No free man shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or anywise destroyed; nor shall we go upon him nor send upon him, but by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U.S. 117 We think that this statutory system for the selection of party nominees for inclusion on the general election ballot makes the party which is required to follow these legislative directions an agency of the state insofar as it determines the participants in a primary election. The party takes its character as a state agency from the duties imposed upon it by state statutes; the duties do not become matters of private law because they are performed by a political party. Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 663. quoted in Terry v Adams 345 U.S. 461 (1953) If body politic doesn’t ring a bell here, it should. As shown in these cases there is private law and public law. There is proprietary law and government police powers. Don’t let the name “police” equate to all law enforced by law enforcers. There is positive law to provide for the protection of society such as the criminal code and there is proprietary law meant to protect, limit and define agencies of government such as the Internal Revenue Code.

Page 69

of

129

These words of Dr. Whewell, which occur in his vill and in the statute regulating his professorship, undoubtedly contain both a condemnation and a direction. International Law in its earlier stages was developed by a method of treatment which has been applied to many important subjects of thought when their growth has reached the point at which they are included in books to theology, to morals, and even, in some cases, to positive private law. International law lecture at Neuschwanstein Castle - Bavaria, Germany - McMaster University Archive for Economic Thought. THE rights, the powers, the duties, and the privileges of ambassadors are determined by the law of nature and nations, and not by any municipal constitutions. For, as they represent the persons of their respective matters, who owe no subjection to any laws but those of their own country, their actions are not subject to the control of the private law of that state, wherein they are appointed to reside. The Rights of Persons, Book 1 Chapter 7 Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England From Blackstone we see the law of immunity enjoyed by ambassadors abroad in foreign countries which is near absolute immunity by international law. We see here that the private law of the state (country) goes back many years in history. I think the term is used rather loose at times and in this instant case to speak of all inclusive law, other times to talk about contract law, private privileges, enforcement of rights of the People and relevant today is corporate law or that proprietary law we exposed in lesson 4. For instance the Washington Constitution gives the People the right to make law, not the legislature, at least since just after 1910. I think the People didn’t trust the legislature and made the amendment to destroy their power. All Washington code is traced back to the Remington Revised Code which was the territorial code at the time of statehood. The lawmakers in Washington are nothing more than puppet code revisers. The reason I call them puppets, is because they work largely at the pleasure of the AG, Governor and Sec. of State to do their bidding. I have already given you an example of this when they deleted the code definition of “money” because of the trouble it was causing being quoted in numerous law cases. The fact that the judge in a case got extremely hot when we used Constitutional process on him was an indication that he was supporting nothing but “private law” and not public law. This case was a child custody case which of course deals with the state interest in protecting minors from a marriage corporation which was dissolved in divorce. The process defined by the Constitution is, “The State of Washington” and the process they use is, “STATE OF WASHINGTON”. In light of what I have said, does it now make sense they are acting on the corporate side?
Page 70 of 129

Now think of the case in Lesson 4 about the two capacities of government, the specified constitutional process specified for the state, and the Clearfield Doctrine and see if you can’t tie them all together in your mind. It should be rather obvious that the reason you think the courts are corrupt is because they are supporting the legislature and its corporate by-laws while you think the court is sitting under constitutional law. Now that you know the difference, with this process you can exploit the weakness of the proprietary capacity of the courts. Of course all this is largely unknown by the People at large, but understanding all the complications of the law system is the key to knowing how to use it. While I don’t advocate we use this information directly, it does help you to understand the fraud involved and to counter it with knowledge that you are right. Being right and confident in what you are doing shows in court and it is this confidence that causes a loss of confidence in what they are doing. SHOW CONFIDENCE IN THE COURT Even if you don’t know what you are doing, you need to show confidence in what you are doing. If you don’t believe in it, then study it till you do, which may mean going far beyond the bounds of this course. Some of the study tools in the L series files and on the lawwork group files section as well as the lawworks group posts which are only my posts will help you in this quest. It is essential that you know at least the basics of your codes, like who is a resident for license and registration purposes, what the traffic stop actually represents (arrest) and what the limitations are on the actors who bring a case against you including the court by its own rules. When you walk into the court room, be alert and listen carefully to what is happening and the demeanor of the judge and prosecutor. Most People are there to plead for mercy, but they know you are there not to so plead, so they will likely save you to last. If they call you earlier, it probably means they are going to summarily dismiss your case with just a few words and you won’t be called upon to defend. It is to their advantage to keep what you are doing from the general knowledge of the People in the court room, so by quick dismissal it prevents any discussion on the matters before the court. Can you imagine how it would look for you to demand your due process because you defaulted the prosecutor instead of him prosecuting you, in a packed court room? So, when you go to court, try to have a support group established to pack the court. You would be surprised how this helps your case especially if they are taking notes. Let there be a lot of witnesses.

Page 71

of

129

When your turn does come, be prepared to look like a polished serious contender. You will walk up to the defense table like it is your courtroom (literally is) and sit down relaxed and confident. You will open your folder and lay out your papers for ready reference should the need arise. Do not rise to talk like the prosecutor will, stay sitting and if you can recline a little in the chair. This could be a preliminary hearing like arraignment or it could be later in the proceedings, but hopefully by this time you will have the prosecutor in default. If you don’t have the default finished at a preliminary hearing, it will just be a matter of saying you are not guilty of any violation of law. If you have the default finished you will be concentrating on the Petition and nothing else. It is temping to bring up the motions to dismiss, however you want to refrain on that score till you take care of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus as that is the deciding issue at this point. Remember, I told you the motions to dismiss were just a way out for the judge, so don’t dwell on them. Do not at any time address the judge as, “Your Honor”. It should be evident that there is no honor in most judges and even the few that have some, still abuse their office. In a later lesson we will explore the objections for refusal to honor your Petition. Many of these objections are self evident.

Page 72

of

129

Next Lesson 7: THE FINAL DEFAULT AT LAW The final default is the “coup de grace” of the process because you have succeeded in your goal to default the prosecutor, which puts you in command. The one who moves his paper is usually the winner in any case. Remember, don’t sit and wait for something to happen, take the lead away from your opponent. This is your declaration of judgment in the case. Homework assignment is search for any reference to private law pleading in your court rules and code. If you don’t know what the Clearfield doctrine is, look that up as well.

Page 73

of

129

Lesson 7: THE FINAL DEFAULT AT LAW The final default, “NOTICES the prosecution that a FINAL DEFAULT is noted for the record. This lets the prosecutor know he is in a condition of default because: “The prosecution's failure to rebut on a point by point basis equates to stipulation of the facts that the court has failed to join an indispensable party, or proper party, failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and lack of jurisdiction, that the county is employing war powers against it's citizenry contrary to constitutions and Aggrieved Defendant's law is the law of his creator and is severable, not being a party to the body corporate or politic.” In this case, they didn’t join JOHN WAMBOLT because no such entity exists. This is affirmed in the affidavit of truth. JOHN WAMBOLT would be an indispensable party to the case and they know the entity doesn’t physically exist nor is it registered as a corporation with the state. The fiction nor the Man are proper parties to the suit. If no such entity exists, then they fail to state a claim upon which relief can be given. You can’t make a claim against a pure fiction, like making claim against Mickey Mouse who only exists as a figment of someone’s imagination. They could claim you were Mickey Mouse but it would be ridiculous to the extreme. Thus the claim they make is an outright fraud. In other words, try collecting a judgment from Mickey Mouse. The court has claimed jurisdiction to hear a case against JOHN WAMBOLT but it (entity) is nowhere to be found, so there can’t be personal jurisdiction and if there isn’t personal jurisdiction, there is no subject matter nor rem jurisdiction either. The state or its subdivisions have no war powers but they perpetrate a state of mixed war upon the People. In other words, there is no constitutional or statute authority to wage war against you at any level of government. Again we show them that John Wambolt is severable because his law is not the proprietary corporate law of the state and its subdivisions, but only of his Creator. We have backed up all the facts by affidavit, there is nowhere for the court to turn as there is no foundation laid by the prosecutor and instead he has defaulted. We will cover “severability” later in this lesson.

Page 74

of

129

“Wherefore in the interest of justice the court must dismiss the case sua sponte. Any refusal to ministerially dismiss shows bias and prejudice and perjury of oath of office, causing an actionable injury to the Defendant through and by use of war powers.” The term sua sponte means on the courts own power or prerogative. Here we also show an injury with open intent, if the court doesn’t dismiss by ministerial duty. A ministerial duty required by law or logical reason can be effectively mandated by Petition for Writ of Mandamus. “Plaintiff, having received Aggrieved Defendant's Affidavit of Truth on 19 March 1997, and Notice of Default and 3 Day Notice to Cure on 2 April 1997, as filed in the record, and having failed to plead, with time now expired to do so, wherefore Plaintiff is in final default.” Once a final default is found there is no more representation by the default party by law. It is finished, done and can only be set aside by motion with good cause shown. Severablity All governments have instituted severability clauses to protect its law (code) from challenge, and fraudulently apply its law against the Citizen, who is not subject to its venue or jurisdiction, without a First Amendment complaint of injury. Such severability clauses make it impossible for the Citizens to attack the code as unconstitutional, not applicable to People generally or outside the lawful exercise of government powers. The severability clause is not part of the law but an addition to it to protect it from judicial attack, such that every Citizen in the land would have to attack it and every aspect of it to remove it, creating impossibility in law and outright fraud. “Severability -- 1977 ex.s. c 336: "If any provision of this 1977 amendatory act, or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [1977 ex.s. c 336 § 8.]” Severability or sometimes called separability which is legally the same is an insidious tool to protect the code. Without this clause the code wouldn’t last a day before it would be destroyed, but the clause artificially gives it near absolute immortality.

Page 75

of

129

“Relying on BCRA's severability provision,{FN 80} the court held that invalidation of the executory contracts subsection did not render the balance of BCRA's amendments to FECA § 304 unconstitutional. 251 F.Supp.2d at 242 (per curiam). FN 80. Section 401 of BCRA provides: If any provision of this Act or amendment made by this Act . . . , or the application of a provision or amendment to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act and amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions and amendment to any person or circumstance, shall not be affected by the holding.” 2 U.S.C. § 454 note. McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 2003-009 “Here, however, we need not embark on that elusive inquiry, since Congress itself has provided the answer to the question of severability in § 406 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, note following 8 U.S.C. § 1101, which provides: If any particular provision of this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. (Emphasis added.) This language is unambiguous, and gives rise to a presumption that Congress did not intend the validity of the Act as a whole, or of any part of the Act, to depend upon whether the veto clause of § 244(c)(2) was invalid. The one-House veto provision in § 244(c)(2) is clearly a "particular provision" of the Act as that language is used in the severability clause. Congress clearly intended "the remainder of the Act" to stand if "any particular provision" were held invalid. Congress could not have more plainly authorized the presumption that the provision for a oneHouse veto in § 244(c)(2) is severable from the remainder of § 244 and the Act of which it is a part. See Electric Bond & Share Co. v. SEC, 303 U.S. 419, 434 (1938). INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, (1983)” “A violation of any section of the ordinance is punishable as a criminal misdemeanor. § 1870.18. If any provision is invalidated, it is to be severed from the remainder of the ordinance.{FN 8} The ordinance became effective on May 1, 1978. FN 8. § 1870.19 SEVERABILITY Should any provision of this Chapter be construed by any court of law to be invalid, illegal, unconstitutional, or otherwise unenforceable,
Page 76 of 129

such invalidity, illegality, unconstitutionality, or unenforceability shall not extend to any other provision or provisions of this Chapter.” Akron v. Akron center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 462 U.S. 416 (1983) Thus we can see the clause is found in all levels of code and ordinance, is rampant in effect and gives the law 99.99999% mortality in fact. If the court finds a part unconstitutional, it then goes about an analysis to determine how narrow the severable part can be, such as not to destroy any more than absolutely necessary so the rest can stand. SPEEDY TRIAL PROCESS One of the colonists worst fears was loss of life, liberty and property and such was to be protected in the new World. To be sure they purposely and expressly set out in our common law to set limits of the abuses of government. Of course everyone knows today, as they have throughout the history of this nation, speedy trial is a basic right. Recent events have lead to a steady breakdown of those long established rights with many exceptions to the rule of law. Court rules are purposely misleading and economic necessity moves unscrupulous prosecutors to fudge on the rule to make a heavy workload generated by overzealous police actions into a manageable schedule. Speedy trial is not only a part of the trial itself but all phases of the prosecution from the start to the finish of the prosecution involvement in the case. “Failure to Prosecute” can be fatal to the cause as well as failure of the court to hold hearings on matters time limited by rule and long establish practice. Thus “Speedy Trial” is not just the culminating assembly of witnesses and proof offered for conviction, but the whole process started from the moment in time there is a threat to life, liberty or property. Failure to Prosecute is the common denominator of the default itself and is evidenced by prosecutions failure to abide by the rules of common law. Several court cases show this progression although the rule still holds by threads and it is our duty to support and defend that rule by expounding it when the opportunity is at hand. Not only is actual trial itself subject to the rule, but bringing the case to the court in the first place, arraignments and probable cause hearings as well. As promised in lesson 3, we will now examine Speedy Process or Speedy Trial Rights. Generally time limits are:

Page 77

of

129

Bringing the complaint; immediate within two days with the only justification for delay being investigation. Probable Cause Hearing – immediate upon arrest without warrant; commonly 48 hours or less. Arraignment – 14 days or less, must be objected upfront if scheduled outside of the limits. Trial – upon incarceration or subject to terms of release 60 days, otherwise 90 days from the time of complaint (amendable to process) and can’t be within 30 days of arraignment generally (railroading). Unavailable either outside the jurisdiction or in hiding tolls (extends) the statutory times. Due diligence is required to bring the accused to the court in a timely manner. Delays are acceptable if absolutely necessary, short or agreed to. In Washington as well as most states, if you are physically arrested, taken into custody and placed into confinement, you can’t be forgotten under the law of the land. Within two days, you are to be brought before a magistrate for a probable cause hearing. This probable cause hearing should be immediate however in the case where false arrest is maintained by logical reason and notice, it is imperative. Because judges don’t like to work around the clock as they used to, they often delay the hearing till the last minute to fit their schedule. However the common law demands otherwise. “It was the purpose of the Fourth Amendment to put this matter beyond time, place and judicial predilection, incorporating the traditional common law guarantees against unlawful arrest. The Court says not a word about these guarantees, and they are determinative. Gerstein's approval of a "brief period" of delay to accomplish "administrative steps incident to an arrest" is already a questionable extension of the traditional formulation, though it probably has little practical effect, and can perhaps be justified on de minimis grounds. {FN2} To expand Gerstein, however, into an authorization for 48-hour detention related neither to the obtaining of a magistrate nor the administrative "completion" of the arrest seems to me utterly unjustified. Mr. McLaughlin was entitled to have a prompt impartial determination that there was reason to deprive him of his liberty -- not according to a schedule that suits the State's convenience in piggybacking various proceedings, but as soon as his arrest was completed and the magistrate could be procured.
Page 78 of 129

FN 2. Ordinarily, I think, there would be plenty of time for "administrative steps" while the arrangements for a hearing are being made. But if, for example, a magistrate is present in the precinct and entertaining probable cause hearings at the very moment a wrongfully arrested person is brought in, I see no basis for intentionally delaying the hearing in order to subject the person to a cataloging of his personal effects, fingerprinting, photographing, etc. He ought not be exposed to those indignities if there is no proper basis for constraining his freedom of movement, and if that can immediately be determined.” Scalia J dissent in County of Riverside v McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) quoting Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975). The common law requires, and is codified in the state codes, upon a warrantless arrest, you will be taken directly and without delay to a magistrate for probable cause hearing. This doesn’t include booking or any other processing. Here Justice Scalia echoes the common law. This procedure however is seldom followed law because the judges do not want to service the system all hours of the day or disrupt their schedules. Liberty is no longer so sacred as to require around the clock service but enforcement is so important that it does require it. This modern concept sets up dictatorial draconian standards of due process. As one lawyer put it, this prays upon those too weak either in knowledge, time or ability to defend themselves and is abused by overzealous enforcers. This was in response to a complaint against a Korean POW veteran who had had a stroke, heart attack and had to walk with a walker but lived independent. He had put a tarp over his driveway to keep it dry to aid in secure footing and had been ordered by a code enforcer to remove it or face daily fines. At one time, I was arrested on a bogus warrant and taken to jail to be transported to another county. I demanded to be taken directly and without delay to a magistrate or judge to explain why the warrant was defective, but the cops refused to take me anywhere but jail so they could get back to work harassing the populous. I sued them in Federal court and never had a problem after that, even though I lost the suit.

Page 79

of

129

Federal Speedy Trial The landmark decision which established the rock solid right to speedy trial is Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 221-222 (1967), and notice this was a case of failure to prosecute. “We, too, believe that the position taken by the court below was erroneous. The petitioner is not relieved of the limitations placed upon his liberty by this prosecution merely because its suspension permits him to go "whithersoever he will." The pendency of the indictment may subject him to public scorn and deprive him of employment, and almost certainly will force curtailment of his speech, associations and participation in unpopular causes. By indefinitely prolonging this oppression, as well as the "anxiety and concern accompanying public accusation,"{FN 6} the criminal procedure condoned in this case by the Supreme Court of North Carolina clearly denies the petitioner the right to a speedy trial which we hold is guaranteed to him by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.” The common law time for speedy trial is established (codified) by Congress in the Speedy Trial Act as explained by US v Rojas-Contreras, 474 U.S. 231 (1985) “That conclusion finds additional support in the language of § 3161(c)(1). That section establishes the outside time limit within which trial must commence under the Act, and explicitly refers to the date of the indictment as one of the relevant dates for determining that time limit: [T]he trial of a defendant charged in an information or indictment with the commission of an offense shall commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date last occurs. (Emphasis added.) It is clear that Congress knew how to provide for the computation of time periods under the Act relative to the date of an indictment.” Thus we can see the application of the rule, the time starts at the filing date when the Man first becomes amendable to the court which is normally when the arrest is made or information / indictment is filed with the court. The later reference to appearing before the judicial officer is in reference to a probable cause hearing upon a warrantless arrest. In any event, the time between these events are generally negligible.

Page 80

of

129

Any delays between filing of the information or indictment and trial are dealt with on the basis of expression of rights and damage factors. Also a speedy trial doesn’t mean immediate, the federal law requires at least a 30 day preparation period for the Defendant-Respondent so there is no railroading to trial. “The Speedy Trial Act of 1974, as amended in 1979, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq., establishes inside and outside time limits for commencing trial in criminal cases. Section 3161(c)(2), the provision at issue in this case, provides: Unless the defendant consents in writing to the contrary, the trial shall not commence less than thirty days from the date on which the defendant first appears through counsel or expressly waives counsel and elects to proceed pro se.” (Emphasis added.) Rojas-Contreras “We can do little more than identify some of the factors which courts should assess in determining whether a particular defendant has been deprived of his right. Though some might express them in different ways, we identify four such factors: length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant. {FN 30} The length of the delay is to some extent a triggering mechanism. Until there is some delay which is presumptively prejudicial, there is no necessity for inquiry into the other factors that go into the balance. Nevertheless, because of the imprecision of the right to speedy trial, the length of delay that will provoke such an inquiry is necessarily dependent upon the peculiar [407 U.S. 531] circumstances of the case. {FN 31} To take but one example, the delay that can be tolerated for an ordinary street crime is considerably less than for a serious, complex conspiracy charge. Closely related to length of delay is the reason the government assigns to justify the delay. Here, too, different weights should be assigned to different reasons. A deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense should be weighted heavily against the government. {FN 32} A more neutral reason such as negligence or overcrowded courts should be weighted less heavily but nevertheless should be considered since the ultimate responsibility for such circumstances must rest with the government, rather than with the defendant. Finally, a valid reason, such as a missing witness, should serve to justify appropriate delay.” Barker v Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) Thus we see on the federal level that the time runs for speedy trial at the filing of the complaint, but you can’t be railroaded to trial before 30 days and the time for
Page 81 of 129

trial is within 70 days unless you waive the right to speedy trial in writing or there are justifiable and non damaging delays. States have likewise conformed to the speedy trial rule based on the Federal common law codified example. Most of the state rules cite federal law but differ to some degrees in times and process. Washington State examples - Speedy Trial/Speedy Arraignment "Speedy trial" rule of subsection (g)(6) of CrR 3.3 mandates "due diligence" by state to obtain presence for trial of defendant incarcerated by federal government or other state. State v. Anderson, 121 Wn.2d 852 (1993) Speedy trial rule of CrR 3.3/Striker -- "due diligence" of state, or lack thereof, irrelevant when delay between charge-filing and arraignment is fault of defendant. State v. Bryant, 74 Wn. App. 301 (Div. I, 1994) CrR 3.3/Striker speedy trial rule's "due diligence" requirement met with mailing of notice of arraignment. State v. Hunsaker, 74 Wn. App. 209 (Div. I, 1994) Mailing of arraignment notice establishes rebuttable presumption of notice under speedy trial rule of CrR 3.3/Striker. State v. Kitchen, 75 Wn. App. 295 (Div. I, 1994) Note that the notice is rebuttable and if you want to run the statute of limitations and are not hiding from the authorities, all that is needed is an affidavit that you didn’t receive it. However if you signed you name to a return receipt, you can’t say you didn’t get it, because that itself could be rebuttable by the prosecution. However if you signed it, “UR Fraud”, it would be hard to rebut without producing an actual witness. Speedy trial rule of CrR 3.3/Striker not satisfied where summons sent by certified letter and letter returned unclaimed. State v. Williams, 74 Wn. App. 600 (Div. I, 1994) Constitutional speedy trial requirement not violated where out-of-state prisoner not transported for trial for several years. State v. Davis, 69 Wn. App. 634 (Div. I, 1993) State prisoner's written request to warden that county prosecutor proceed on pending information for different crime triggers special 120-day "speedy trial" rule under RCW 9.98.010. State v. Morris, 74 Wn. App. 293 (Div. III, 1994) "Speedy trial" clock starts with citation issuance, even if citation not filed. Seattle v. Bonifacio, 127 Wn.2d 482 (1995)
Page 82 of 129

Bonifacio reinforces the concept that the time starts running from the citation, thus they can’t come back several months later and try to file the matter, it must be done timely in all cases. Normally this doesn’t happen where the ticket is not filed, except in rare cases where something out of the ordinary happens between the time of citation and the time when the ticket would have been filed. The important aspect of this case is the time when the clock starts. Striker speedy trial: out-of-state defendant not amenable to process. State v. Stewart, 78 Wn. App. 931 (Div. II, 1995) No Striker speedy trial problem where defendant resided in Arizona throughout pertinent time period. State v. Hudson, 79 Wn. App. 193 (Div. I, 1995) Striker speedy trial rule: due diligence lacking where defendant moved back and forth between Alaska and known residence in Seattle during pertinent time period. State v. Jones, 79 Wn. App. 7 (Div. I, 1995) Striker speedy trial "due diligence" failure where state didn’t follow up on unclaimed certified letter to known or probable addresses. State v. Bazan, 79 Wn. App. 723 (Div. I, 1995) Striker speedy trial rule deems out-of-state person not "amenable to process". State v. Cintron-Cartegena, 79 Wn. App. 600 (Div. I, 1995) Speedy trial: no due diligence problem if address given police is wrong. State v. Vailencour, 81 Wn. App. 372 (Div. I, 1996) Striker/Greenwood "speedy trial" rule bars prosecution in welfare theft cases where DSHS, not prosecutor, notified defendants of pending charges. State v. Marler, 80 Wn. App. 765 (Div. III, 1996) Nonincarcerated out-of-state time, and in-state time where state does not know defendant’s whereabouts, don’t count under striker speedy trial rule (CrR 3.3). State v. Monson, 84 Wn. App. 703 (Div. III, 1997) "Speedy trial" rule of CrR 3.3(g)(6) for persons incarcerated out of state -- state failed to exercise due diligence to bring defendant to trial. State v. Simon, 84 Wn. App. 460 (Div. I, 1996) Electronic home detention not "jail" time for purposes of speedy trial rule. State v. Perrett, 86 Wn. App. 312 (Div. II, 1997) These cases show various situations out of the ordinary course of process and reasons for tolling the statutes and common law on due process. Thus if you are traveling and get a ticket, you will still be held amendable if stopped in the state
Page 83 of 129

on a subsequent travel and likely held in jail for trial or subject to release on bail. In any event, they will get their tax from you. However if you avoid the state you may have problems with your license and registration in your home state by state compacts and agreements to support each others process. Most states have interstate compacts and report all citations and warrants to other states. While it won’t be worth their efforts to extradite you, it may force you to submit to trial when it comes time to renew your license and registrations. You can always try to arrange telephonic trial or paper trial although they might not agree to it. It would be best to default them anyway, just in case it comes to an issue. Line Up Identification Since we are laying out the law of pretrial process, if the state in discovery reveals a witness there should be a motion for line up identification with witnesses in the room with the prosecutor. Obviously, if you have a witness of your choice with the prosecutions witness when the line up produces the positive identification there is no room for fraud. It should be obvious that when a party is put on the stand and you are sitting alone at the defense table that the witness is going to point to you to identify you as the guilty party. Prosecutors use this trick constantly and it hangs innocent as well as guilty Men. The way to stop the abuse is the line up and you should be aware of that procedure in case it may be necessary. This line up tool was helpful in one traffic case where a man was ticketed in his home on a complaint of a stranger several blocks away, when he wasn’t even on the road at the time. So, it is necessary to know for many cases and someday your very life might depend on it. Next Lesson 8 Order the clerk to Enter the Default by Writ Your homework assignment is to find reference in your code or state courts to immediate hearings according to the common law upon arrests without warrant.

Page 84

of

129

Lesson 8 ORDER THE CLERK TO ENTER THE DEFAULT BY WRIT WRIT OF PRAECIPE The WRIT OF PRAECIPE is a command to the clerk to enter the default. As I have always said about old England, the writs were the kings commands to his subjects. In America, all the People are kings and the public servants are the subjects. The clerk therefore can be ordered to do a ministerial duty with the WRIT OF PRAECIPE. We start the Writ by giving a brief history of the case showing the default was initiated by affidavit, that the errant party was noticed they didn’t prosecute against the affidavit, they failed to cure their fatal error and now time is over and you are entitled to have a default judgment entered into the record of the case. Notice the example, which was a real case which was dismissed by a court considered “fixed” (to always win) by others, and The Writ says: “1. Plaintiff, having received Aggrieved Defendant's Affidavit of Truth with 10 day notice to refute on 4 November 1996, and Notice of Default and 3 day notice to cure on 15 November 1996, as filed in the record, and having failed to plead, with time now expired to do so,” This shows the times were appropriate, adequate notice was given and there could be no good cause to set it aside. In this case we were in a hurry so only gave 10 days to rebut the affidavit. Normally, you would give more time and give some time for replay in case it was done by mail. Next, we order the clerk to enter the default, certify it and notice all parties of what has happened. If there is some error, this gives the other party notice if they want to motion to set aside the default and if they don’t, they accept it by silence. If the clerk does its duty, then you will know it because you will get notice. This is an extremely easy procedure and not difficult to understand. If you don’t get notice that the default is entered, then you can be sure it isn’t however you still need to check the court file itself to make sure of the fact. “2. Therefore you are respectfully ordered to enter a default judgment against the Plaintiff and prepare a Certificate declaring that the Plaintiff has failed to join the correct party in this suit and therefore the case is dismissed for failure to state a claim, and lack of jurisdiction.” It is not necessary to cite court rules as the clerk knows the rules. It is only necessary to show the record which the clerk can check and see if it is as you claim, and everything is affirmed so it is all evidence in of the case.
Page 85 of 129

“3. Seal the Certificate with the seal of the court and send to parties of interest.” The certified Certificate of default should bear the court seal. The courts are reluctant to use the seal and make official records. Evidently the lawyers don’t want to make real records because they would be open to fault, but by making records which appear real, they bluff most. Today almost all the courts act without official paper, paper that looks official but doesn’t bear official seals. In the rest of the World, paper without wet signature and seal are absolutely worthless as the paper they are written on. In most parts of the World all officials have a personal seal, all business do as well and it is used on every transaction where a guarantee is initiated. All doctors have seals, so if you pay the doctor, they give you an official receipt with a seal on it. If you don’t do anything official, you have no trail to your misdeeds, you can always claim it was done unofficially. VERIFICATIONS If you claim to be a Superior Sovereign, then you claim penalty under the laws of the state or US, you are in effect, crossing your claim. Yick Wo claims we are not subject to those laws but the law of our Creator obviously. So, this is the way you need to verify and using this it has never been objected to, to my knowledge: “In Witness, Whereof, knowing the law of bearing false witness before God and men I solemnly affirm, that, I have read the foregoing, and know the contents thereof to be true to the best of my knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated on my information or belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. These instruments are submitted upon good faith belief that they are grounded in fact, warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the modification or reversal of existing law and are submitted for proper purposes, and not to cause harassment and unnecessary delay or costs.” This verification is subject to modification depending on your circumstance and is not a “cast in stone” addition to your paper but it covers the valid points. “I have read the Foregoing” could be changed to “I have authored the Foregoing” for instance. “except as to the matters which are therein stated on my information or belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.”, could be left out in most papers but in a Verified Petition or Affidavit where you state beliefs, it is best to include it.

Page 86

of

129

If you have read your court rules, the last sentence should be familiar because it parallels the language of the sanction rule 11 and is evidence sufficient that you can’t be sanctioned because you are not submitting the paper for any malicious or illegal purpose. Technically, if you use that language you can’t be sanctioned but in a Star Chamber court. The famous Star Chamber court in England was so named because it had stars painted on the ceiling of the court. It was the most obnoxious court in the land because they ruled strictly on policy and not law. It was a totally lawless court and thus any lawless court can be called a Star Chamber and all judges know what the Star Chamber was. “It is consistent with the history of and the policies underlying the SelfIncrimination Clause to hold that the privilege may be asserted only to resist compelled explicit or implicit disclosures of incriminating information. Historically, the privilege was intended to prevent the use of legal compulsion to extract from the accused a sworn communication of facts which would incriminate him. Such was the process of the ecclesiastical courts and the Star Chamber -- the inquisitorial method of putting the accused upon his oath and compelling him to answer questions designed to uncover uncharged offenses, without evidence from another source. See Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 470-471 (1976); 8 Wigmore § 2250; E. Griswold, The Fifth Amendment Today 2-3 (1955).” U.S. v Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000) Moreover, for the Eighth Amendment to limit cash fines while permitting limitless in-kind assessments would make little sense, altering only the form of the Star Chamber abuses that led to the provision of the English Bill of Rights, from which our Excessive Fines Clause directly derives, see Browning-Ferris, 492 U.S. at 266-267. Cf. Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 978-979 (1991).” Austin v U.S., 509 U.S. 602 (1993). Once the other party has defaulted, we only send them courtesy copies of the paper. This is important as you don’t want to give the idea that you defaulted them and are still serving them what is due them. There is nothing due them and you are only being nice sending them a copy of your paper, so do make sure it says “courtesy copy”. DISCOVERY There is a rare need for discovery in normal default cases, however there are always a few rouge judges who want to test you, taking you up to trial, so you need to know how to conduct discovery to prepare for trial if such is the case. Discovery is a powerful tool and gives you a wide range of information to defend
Page 87 of 129

yourself. For instance, in a speeding case, you might want to find out if the radar was calibrated, who calibrated it last and where it was calibrated which should appear on paper, so you want a copy of the paper. You also might want to know the specifications of the gun in particular what the beam width is because there was heavy traffic at the time. By knowing where the cop was and what the beam angle is, you can calculate how wide the beam would be at the time he took the reading. Sounds a little wild, but in a case we were in, there was a notorious malfunctioning (arcing) street light at the place the speed of the vehicle was measured. The light was throwing off a broad spectrum of Radio Frequency Interference such that FM and other radio equipment was effectively jammed by the malfunctioning light. You might also want to get repair records of the light in question. Discovery should be wide open for any defense you plan to use. You might have to explain to the court why you want some things as the prosecutor thinks his job is to hamper your defenses which is tyranny but that is another matter. See your court rules for the general discovery materials. Also see files in L.zip for examples Disc-g, Disc-tc and Discdem.txt. Note: Do Not Use these files as “Boilerplates”, they are only examples and have to fit your particular case in all respects or discovery will be rightfully denied. For instance don’t call yourself “pro se”, remember these were written long before we discovered what these terms really mean. Discovery is a matter of fair play and not a right. Of course, the more information the defendant has, the more aware he is of the likely consequences of a plea, waiver, or decision, and the wiser that decision will likely be. But the Constitution does not require the prosecutor to share all useful information with the defendant. Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 (1977) ("There is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case"). And the law ordinarily considers a waiver knowing, intelligent, and sufficiently aware if the defendant fully understands the nature of the right and how it would likely apply in general in the circumstances -- even though the defendant may not know the specific detailed consequences of invoking it. A defendant, for example, may waive his right to remain silent, his right to a jury trial, or his right to counsel even if the defendant does not know the specific questions the authorities intend to ask, who will likely serve on the jury, or the particular lawyer the State might otherwise provide.” U.S. v Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 630 (2002). Thus the court controls, by rule, discovery demands which are established for fair and impartial trials because discovery is necessary for due process as established by the long established rule of law. However, when the prosecutor

Page 88

of

129

has evidence that you are innocent and proceeds without divulging it, that is a different matter as the court has said. The prosecutor, having taken an “Oath of Attorney” knows that his oath requires him to be fair and not condemn a Man just because he knows he can. Attorneys also have cannons of conduct they must abide as well, and abuse of the facts in a case is abuse of the oath and the law for the attorney. Most judges are amiable to discovery because it makes their job more interesting. It is also a ministerial duty to give you access to the records. In one case the judge told the reluctant cop and prosecutor they would make the records available to us. We were really grasping for straws but everything we asked for had a purpose which was explained to the court. Be ready to explain why you think you need it. If the judge allows the prosecutor to stall you or prevent discovery, then you can “motion to compel discovery”. Here you would claim an irreparable intentional injury if it was withheld because it would prejudice you and your defenses. It would also be further grounds for a default judgment by administrative or civil rules quoting FMC: “And a party failing to obey discovery orders in either type of proceeding is subject to a variety of sanctions, including the entry of default judgment.” FMC v SPA, 535 U.S. 743 (2002) The general idea being to box them with discovery, so they can’t give it without exposing their fraud. For an example of that, see the admissions in file admissions.rtf in L2.zip files. While this isn’t traffic, it should be self evident to do the same for evidence in your motions to dismiss especially if it appears the case will go to trial. Admissions are a proper tool for discovery purposes. Subpoenas Subpoenas for expert witnesses are a useful tool in some cases. I witnessed a lawyer doing his own pro se speeding ticket and he brought in as his expert witness, head technician of the radar gun calibration shop and during the recess we talked about the trial. Since we both had similar radar experience we talked on a real technical basis. This technician was full of useful information. He told me, this lawyer wasn’t asking him the right question which was “have you ever calibrated and tested a unit on the bench that passed the tests on the bench and then didn’t work correctly in the field.” He said that had he been asked that particular question the lawyer would have won his case. As it was, he lost and paid the fine so don’t feel bad if you lose a case. This lawyer was a big business lawyer and not a run of the mill type lawyer so he probably worked in corporate
Page 89 of 129

business and didn’t spend anymore time in traffic matters than we do so he was equally ignorant of what he was doing. We always Subpoena the officers who are witnesses and it is important to call them as “Your Witness” and examine them. The prosecutor calls them first and they give the same old song and dance, I am JOE BLOW ENFORCER for the City of FRAUD and I work the streets like a hooker. Anyway when the prosecutor gets done with his examination of the witness, it is your turn to cross examine them. This is not the time to ask them about anything other than in relation to what the prosecutor has asked them, like what their qualifications are for instance and where in the code does it authorize them to constitute a standing army. If it is objected to, then wait till you call them as your witness to ask them these questions. The founders knew full well what standing armies were and they wanted no part of it. This part of the Washington Bill of Rights shows us this to the point. Sec. 24. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. Washington State Constitution Bill of Rights and: Sec. 32. A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual right and the perpetuity of free government. For your witness you need to cover this sec with questions pertaining to the elements of their crime. Elements are basic facts which constitute the crime. Thus you establish he is a member of the body politic and corporate, they are organized by a municipal corporation, they are supplied the gun and ammo and trained to be a party of armed body of men. In like manner there are “elements” to jury instructions. Jury Instructions Jury instructions are a part of every criminal proceeding and you better know what they look like and submit your own so you don’t get put in a pickle. There are usually “Patent Jury Instructions” for your state law in the law library and sometimes you will find them on the net. You will see some federal instructions to the jury on the group files page: “Patent Jury Instruction for failure to file 27 KB lawworks Jan 2, 2004”

Page 90

of

129

Be aware however, state jury instructions contain venue and jurisdictional instructions. How the feds can get away with not including them is pure criminal and meant to include everyone in their jurisdiction and venue which is not true. For instance there is no way they can include me, living abroad, unless they kidnap me and bring me physically to their jurisdiction. The same is true when they force you into their courts for trial, but that is a species of fraud. “In both cases -- misdescriptions and omissions -- the erroneous instruction precludes the jury from making a finding on the actual element of the offense. The same, we think, can be said of conclusive presumptions, which direct the jury to presume an ultimate element of the offense based on proof of certain predicate facts (e.g., "You must presume malice if you find an intentional killing"). Like an omission, a conclusive presumption deters the jury from considering any evidence other than that related to the predicate facts (e.g., an intentional killing) and "directly foreclose[s] independent jury consideration of whether the facts proved established certain elements of the offens[e]" (e.g., malice).” Carella v California, 491 U.S. 263 at 266, (1989); see id. at 270 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment). "A party may not assign as error the giving or the failure to give any instructions unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating specifically the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection." Ohio Rule Crim.Proc. 30(A) (1989) You may win on jury instructions alone like we did in Charlie, the assaulter’s case where we presented the common law defenses to assault in the jury instructions and they knew to proceed against him would expose their fraud and possible lay them wide open to suit. They know the sword of justice cuts both ways so they will stop when you show them you know the law and they are proceeding in fraud. “There was therefore no need, under the instructions they received, to consider manslaughter and provocation. Taylor's jury never knew that provocation made out a complete defense to murder.” This is a case you should read because the way the court tried this Man (like they tried to try my friend Charlie) as the court said: “The question is whether reasonable jurists could disagree over whether the particular erroneous instruction at issue here -- which we assume created a reasonable likelihood that the jury did not consider Taylor's affirmative defense once it determined the two elements of murder were established -- violated the Constitution.” Gilmore v Taylor, 508 U.S. 333, (1993).
Page 91 of 129

Also review the following files, found in the files section of the lawwork group webpage: Criminal Law Course Outline.txt Criminal law outline 27 KB, Oct 6, 2003 and, Key Cases in Procedural Law.txt Case Law on Criminal Procedure 18 KB, Oct 6, 2003 Again if you haven’t done so, I would advise you to go to court some day and set in on some trials to see how they go. I would also take a look at the files for these trials to see what paper is filed in the case. By taking a day off and doing this, it would be advantageous to you should the need arise to use this information learned on this little excursion. Be aware that not every traffic case will have jury instructions, especially if it is considered civil in nature. Your court rules should contain key information here, although not all general state court rules tell you about jury instructions. The local rules should, so be sure to ask the clerk for a copy of the local court rules which they must give you, so you know how the court works. Generally jury instructions are either done just prior to trial at a pretrial hearing or at the start of a trial before the jury is selected. If the court rules don’t tell you, then consult the clerk or court administrator. Pretrial Hearings Pretrial hearings encompass all those short hearings before the actual trial of the facts and law. They include but are not limited to: Probable Cause Hearing Bail Hearings Arraignments Motion Hearings (Dismiss, Suppress Evidence, Compel Discovery, Pretrial Hearings for Jury Instruction Introductions, limine (limit scope), Continuance, Show Cause, etc.) Normally in traffic and criminal cases times for these hearings will be set for you first by the cop himself at the traffic stop, or by the court thereafter. If there is something special you want heard on your own innitiative you can set the hearing up yourself by notice. First it is necessary to find out who schedules hearings, because in some cases there are court administrators who have that duty and in others, the clerks themselves do it. The clerk of the court will be able to tell you who sets up hearings.

Page 92

of

129

If you don’t “set the matter for hearing at a place and time certain” the matter will never be heard. This is done with a “Notice of Hearing” which can be in your paper or a separate paper. If it is put in your paper, you need to call it to the attention of the clerk, both in writing and by informing the clerk at the time of filing. In the caption under the definition of the paper, you would put “Clerks Action Required” and at the very first line in the paper, TO THE Clerk of the court: “Please take note that the matter will be heard in the Bumtown Courthose in court number 0, at 9 am or as soon after as the matter may be heard”. I made this mistake once and when I brought the matter to the attention of the court, they other side objected because there was no notice of hearing and the judge wouldn’t hear it for that reason. It was a bitter lesson to learn. Even though the other parties had noted their motions for hearing at that time, it never dawned on me that I need to note my paper for hearing my remedies in the matter. Even though there is a hearing scheduled, you still note your paper for hearing on that date, time and place just as if you scheduled the hearing Yourself. Notice in our paper we always do that somewhere in the paper. In some cases where we don’t schedule the hearing we bury it in the last part so if they foolishly bring that argument we know they didn’t read the paper. There is a real reason for everything we do. Arraignments If your court has arraignments, and you are forced into the situation to plead, you might not make an issue of it and plead “Not Guilty” for the record. If you have a lot of court experience and want to have some fun, then you can refuse to plead because you don’t understand the charges against you and the court has no jurisdiction in the first place. If the court went along with the frauds you have pointed out, the court voids any due process or jurisdiction it might otherwise have had. What you do at this time is what you are comfortable with doing. Here again, if you have the default done and a Petition for Writ of Mandamus before the court, this is the first issue that should be addressed. If you haven’t filed the Petition, then just plead, noticing the court your being there, is a special appearance. If you have a Petition in the court file, then you need to ask the Judge first to enforce the Petition which could make the pleading moot. Obviously if the clerk enters a default, there is no need to plea. As far as the motions to dismiss, it shows the court acts in a fraudulent manner and as shown in FMC is further grounds to enter a default.

Page 93

of

129

The clerks, in this kind of situation of default usually go to the judge, the judge tells them not to enter a default. The judge is the supervisor for the clerks and the clerks normally go to the judge on matters of law outside their normal job function. This kind of process is rarely done today, so they likely have never seen it before. Knowing this, the judge most likely knows what you are doing to them, but doesn’t want to issue a writ to the clerk because he is the one that made the decision in the first place. That is why his easy way out is to dismiss the case. Most likely he will dismiss without reason so that he doesn’t entangle himself in the fraud. Knot headed judges will sometimes take you to the wire by dismissing the petition but in doing so they put themselves on the limb. Some want to test you to the max, so in that case, you pour on the steam. You do this by using the tools and rules of the court to make sure your trial is one they will always remember. We will discuss this further in the next lessons, but this is where you need to start making discovery demands for everything related to the case. Remember the pen and paper? Always carry it so you can write down anything that comes to mind. Hopefully you have kept perfect notes till this time and you want to be thinking about anything that is relevant and allowed by court rule. Generally the court rule will tell you what you can ask for plus you can expand upon that. If you are denied, then motion to compel discovery. If you are denied discovery, be sure to claim in objection both oral and in writing that the court is denying you due process justice and the ability to defend yourself and your property causing you intentional irreparable injury. Remember do everything you can to make this the “Mother of all Trials, which we will further discuss in Lesson 10 in detail. “The squeaky wheel always gets the grease”. The one that no longer squeaks doesn’t annoy anyone and is forgotten. Dockets Courts nearly always keep a docket of the cases and these are brief outlines of what happens in the courtroom each day. These are important if you think you might need to sue on the case at a later time, so even if you don’t think you will sue, get a copy of it anyway. There are several ways to get the copy, for instance you could ask the court clerk to give you a copy, which is a good way to do it. If you are serious about taking the matter someplace else like to complain about the conduct of the judge or appeal, get a certified copy from the clerk. An alternative is to photograph it with a digital camera and file the images in a special file on your computer. It is important to pick up this information as soon as possible if you think there is any element of fraud in the case. In one case that I was involved in, I intended to sue in federal court as I had promised to do if
Page 94 of 129

I lost a minute of liberty (I lost 6 hours). There were about 16 prosecutors involved and several judges in this case. The case file completely disappeared but I had a copy of the docket which I took the next day after the court dismissed the case they arrested me on. I even hired an attorney to go look for the case and he said it didn’t exist. You can’t trust these slime snakes because when they know they are in trouble, they will do anything to sweep it under the carpet and if you have no record of the case it is difficult to be able to name slime names and fix dates to all that was done. The best thing I ever did was pull that docket for my records. Checking Court Files Where you live close to the court, it is advantageous to check the court file in the case on a regular basis. The prosecuting attorneys are not there to help you, so they will use every dirty trick in the book if they think you are moving against them and preventing them from winning. They will send out regular mail notices and other filings then claim they sent it by affidavit. They are not beyond lying or misrepresenting facts because they are not likely to get caught and most everyone will believe them over your testimony any day. So, do check the court record regularly to make sure they don’t slip anything in on you that you don’t know about. “Must have gotten lost in the mail” is a favorite expression they can use for those occasions when they didn’t send something to you that they should have. Don’t take any chances, check the record every time you file papers at least, the more the better. Next Lesson 9 is The Writ of Mandamus Your homework assignment are to check out your nearest court rules and local court rules to see what the process is for traffic cases in courts of limited jurisdiction, see if the court has a court administrator (you can do this with the clerks by phone), obtain the local court rules and read them. If you don’t know, find out if traffic is misdemeanor criminal or infraction civil and if you can obtain the general court rules on the internet and you have room on your computer, download them so you have a ready copy. Note, you can use HTTrack (will copy whole websites with all its links) for this job or if they offer them in a compressed file, simply download them. Also, go to the law library and find the patent jury instructions for your state law and look at some that interest you to see what they read like. Be sure and take your digital camera or cell phone camera with you to copy a few pages of interest.

Page 95

of

129

Don’t think these homework assignments are frivolous, if someday your very liberty and life depended on this information and you faithfully did your homework assignments you would likely send me a 128 MB USB pen drive or put flowers on my grave, hopefully the former.

Page 96

of

129

Lesson 9

The Writ of Mandamus

Probably next to the “Great Writ” of Habeas Corpus was the Writ of Mandamus which was used to compel a ministerial duty owed the Petitioner. Thus this Writ becomes an essential part of the Traffic Default. Without such remedy, the court could lawfully stonewall any default making the excuse they have discretion to entertain such a one sided default as all defaults are by nature. There could be generated a whole raft of excuses for ignoring the Writ of Praecipe and just steam rolling the case as a Star Chamber court. While there are a few such steam rolling judges, most are reluctant to allow themselves to be the object of a Writ of Mandamus and knowing you know what it is and what it is used for, it is expedient on them to sweep any issues of this nature under the rug and not take any chances. A Petition for a Writ of Mandamus is effectively taking the judge to his superior, as if by the ear, for remedial punishment. I can not stress enough that it has to be established by foundation that it is a ministerial duty owed you the Petitioner. It is not a Petition to be used lightly or frivolously but where necessary to accomplish a lawful act or duty. If you abuse it, it causes a loss of creditability in the eyes of the justice system, therefore there is an obligation upon both parties including judges to honor the Writ as one of our most precious basic law tools to accomplish justice. All Petitions for Writs are composed of essentially the same component parts. Petitions for writs should either contain: an affidavit in support or verification. A verified Petition will stand alone and needs no affidavit in support. There should be an order for the judge to sign to order the clerk to issue the writ. There should be the writ itself. There should be all supporting docs including any lower court papers if any and exhibits. All Petitions should be laid out with a minimum content as follows: Caption Introduction Parties Jurisdiction (Personal, Subject Matter, Rem if in controversy) Facts Controversy and Complaints Memorandum of Law (supporting)
Page 97 of 129

Logical Reason (not argument as only lawyers argue) Statement - There is no other plain, adequate or speedy remedy at law. Remedy Conclusion Verification Affidavit of Service (if not ex parte) In the case of traffic defaults the process is abbreviated and the petition, because of the circumstances is very brief and to the point. Those circumstances are as I said earlier in the lessons that the clerk has probably consulted the judge as to what to do in this case as the clerk is unfamiliar generally with this kind of process and the judge has told the clerk to ignore it. Based upon that probable situation and the fact that the judge is the boss of the clerk and the clerk is not going to issue a writ against itself, the circumstances require some adjustment of the full blown necessity to formally file all the required paper parts for the writ. In this case it is unnecessary to have an order as the judge only need tell the clerk to do its duty to the law in the case and enter the default. It is unnecessary to have an actual paper writ as the judge need only verbally communicate with the clerk. In some states the writs have been replaced by code pronouncement of using complaints in the nature of the writ, however unless the common law has been specifically and notorious abrogated or abolished by proper legislative action it is still in force in the courts. I don’t know of a particular instance where the legislature has said it is rewriting the common law. Generally speaking on state laws the legislature leaves the issue open and the use of the writs are treated by the courts as being in the “nature of” the particular writ. The Constitution is relatively silent on the Writ of Mandamus but explicit on the Writ of Habeas Corpus as not being subject to suspension, except in times of actual warfare where the civil courts are not able to convene. However, that is not to say that there wasn’t a passive lawful intent of the founders to preserve the common law and Writs of common law, by the very nature of the law itself and the complaint in The Declaration of Independence. “For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies; For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;” Declaration of Independence : July 4, 1776 See, if this doesn’t fit today, where one state or the federal government decides to change the mode of the common law and reduces the use of the Petition
Page 98 of 129

process and substitutes the complaint - motion process entirely for relief. Other states follow like it is a valuable fad. Yet complaints still need to express “in the nature of” the particular Writ because the process is so ingrained in the law, as the statute law is primarily based upon situations in law and equity. As a matter of fact the legislatures are so busy trying to cover all the situations that arise, the codes are becoming so complex the legislature itself often doesn’t understand what they have done and have to be corrected by the executive or judicial branches. Writs of Mandamus can also be used for abuse of discretion but have limited value in this regard. The Ninth Circuit has placed the following burden upon such Petitions for Writs of Mandamus: “(1) The party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as a direct appeal, to attain the relief he or she desires. (2) The petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal. (This guideline is closely related to the first.) (3) The district court's order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law. (4) The district court's order is an oft-repeated error, or manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules. (5) The district court's order raises new and important problems, or issues of law of first impression. Bauman, 557 F.2d at 654-55 see also Cordoza, 320 F.3d at 998. Those guidelines "often raise questions of degree[,]" and "[t]he considerations are cumulative and proper disposition will often require a balancing of conflicting indicators." Even in ministerial duty cases, it is good to keep these guidelines in mind. While there is a lot of discretion in such abuse of office or discretion in cases, there are some important points to these guidelines which if used makes your Petition more effective. For instance you have to understand some basic concepts about being forced into using the courts in the first instance. Appeal is not an adequate remedy because of the time involved (sacrifice in life, liberty and property), thus you can excuse the first (1) guideline with such a statement generally. When you are forced to bring a cause before the court, you are being continually injured in your rights to life, liberty and property by doing so as well as the injury already suffered of which you might complain. Thus, the second (2) guideline being very closely related to the first, gives logical reason that if you have to appeal you will be further damaged and thus you need a quick and though
Page 99 of 129

remedy to minimize the damage. In other words, there is no way damage can be repaired upon appeal and the time it takes to appeal. If you don’t state these it could be assumed you won’t be damaged. Number (4) relates to lower court error or disregard for its own rules which is often hard to show, although not impossible in most cases. This guideline becomes especially apparent in relation to guideline (3) abuse of law itself or abusing the law specifically, whether that law is common law, natural law, statutory law or court rules. Such abuse of law gives rise to pointing out such errors to justify Mandamus upon this guideline. Any side stepping important issues leads to expanding issues and complications beyond reason justifying guideline (5) where it has failed to solve the problem and brings new issues before the court. Issues of “first impression” are those issues that haven’t been ruled on by the court and have no precedent. The court thrives on “balancing” issues so this guideline fits the regime. These guidelines only apply to Mandamus to cure abuse of discretion which is hard to prove but does give insight into some ramifications of the forced reliance on the courts in the first place, which if used will improve your cause. “During the discovery phase of the Nevada lawsuit, CFTB filed a petition in the Nevada Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus or in the alternative for a writ of prohibition, challenging certain of the District Court's discovery orders.” Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, No 02-42 (2003) The FTB case shows how versatile these Petitions for Writs can be, where in this case the state used them to try to force a dismissal based upon a ministerial duty to decide jurisdiction in the cause. This was done well into the case as it was during the discovery process. You can use them at any time even if you haven’t started your case by Petition but by complaint and then need to use the Writ. There is no limit to the number of actions you can instigate during the course of another action. For instance, I had a declaratory judgment case where the suspension of my driver’s license was based on obvious fraud. I had sent a letter asking for documents in the possession of the Department of Licensing which they trashed. I traced it to verify it was delivered and during the hearings on the Petition for Declaratory Judgment, I filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to compel the state to answer the demand for public documents. The state quickly made the Petition moot by quick response to the demand, albeit, six months late at the time of the petition. In another case, I filed an appeal, and during that appeal, filed a writ of prohibition and a writ of quo warranto because neither the judge or prosecutor had oaths on file as required by code.

Page 100

of

129

“Although we declined to issue a writ of mandamus -- applicant had failed to seek appropriate relief from the Court of Appeals before seeking extraordinary relief here, id. at ___ -- we expressed concern about the delay and noted that applicant was free to seek mandamus relief again if the panel did not handle the case expeditiously.” Blodgett v. Campell, No A-851 (1993). Because Mandamus is generally “extraordinary” relief, you are challenged to do everything in your power to apply the law in an exhaustion of other remedies readily available to you. As we have seen however, that doesn’t mean that initial appeal is adequate or speedy plain remedy. Also, the right to use the Writs as previously explained is a “Prerogative” right of Sovereignty and can’t be questioned anymore than the subject would question the King. However if you don’t put it to them upfront, then they will term it extraordinary, leaving you venerable to attack for not using other remedy. “Judicial control of federal executive officers was principally exercised through the prerogative writ of mandamus. See L. Jaffe, Judicial Control of Administrative Action 166, 176-177 (1965). That writ generally would not issue unless the executive officer was acting plainly beyond the scope of his authority.” United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S.218 (2001) Scalia dissenting Not only are executive officers controlled by Writs of Mandamus but Judicial as well. This is the prerogative right of the People to so control all branches of the government through Petitions for such Writs. “The King's Bench exercised significant collateral control over inferior and rival courts through the use of prerogative writs. The writs included habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and ne exeat regno. 1 Holdsworth at 226-231 (7th ed.1956). Most interesting for our current purposes are the writs of prohibition and mandamus.{FN 9} The writs issued against a judge, in theory to prevent him from exceeding his jurisdiction or to require him to exercise it. Id. at 228-229. In practice, controlling an inferior court in the proper exercise of its jurisdiction meant that the King's Bench used and continues to use the writs to prevent a judge from committing all manner of errors, including departing from the rules of natural justice, proceeding with a suit in which he has an interest, misconstruing substantive law, and rejecting legal evidence. See 1 Halsbury's Laws of England ¶¶ 76, 81, 130 (4th ed.1973); Gordon, The Observance of Law as a Condition of Jurisdiction, 47 L.Q.Rev. 386, 394 (1931)…..our courts…..have limited the use of mandamus and prohibition to jurisdictional issues or to cases where the court has a clear duty to act. See Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn., 319 U.S. 21, 26 (1943). See also Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 382-383 (1953);
Page 101 of 129

Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 103-104 (1967).” Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U. S. 522 (1984). This case goes on at length to describe the use of Writs and should be read if your interest is pricked to do so. Also notice, while the courts give judicial officers broad immunity, that immunity does have limits. Judicial Absolute and Sovereign Immunity “So there is much irony in the Court's profession that it grounds its opinion on a deeply rooted historical tradition of sovereign immunity, when the Court abandons a principle nearly as inveterate, and much closer to the hearts of the Framers: that where there is a right, there must be a remedy. Lord Chief Justice Holt could state this as an unquestioned proposition already in 1702, as he did in Ashby v. White , 6 Mod. 45, 53-54, 87 Eng. Rep. 808, 815 (K.B.): "If an Act of Parliament be made for the benefit of any person, and he is hindered by another of that benefit, by necessary consequence of law he shall have an action; and the current of all the books is so." Ibid . (citation omitted). 41 Blackstone considered it "a general and indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy, by suit or action at law, whenever that right is invaded." 3 Blackstone *23. The generation of the Framers thought the principle so crucial that several States put it into their constitutions. 42 And when Chief Justice Marshall asked about Marbury, "If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?," Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 162 (1803), the question was rhetorical, and the answer clear: "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain the king himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court." Id ., at 163. ALDEN et al. v. MAINE dissenting opinion, 527 U.S. 706, 757 (1999). Notice for every injury there is a remedy and this has been the law for ages, however today that remedy is hard to find and hidden most often in a maze of laws designed to thwart remedy and aid in governing the People who are admonished with governing themselves. Never the less this is a good quote for how it should be in reality. One way around this problem of absolute immunity is to show they were not acting in their office, thus their acts are not the acts of the inferior sovereign. Never sue a judge or prosecutor in their official capacity; it won’t work. Where

Page 102

of

129

they act outside the scope of their office they have no immunity, anymore than anyone else does. Such was the case in this Washington case. “However, petitioner was acting as a complaining witness, rather than a lawyer, when she executed the certification "[u]nder penalty of perjury," and, insofar as she did so, § 1983 may provide a remedy for respondent. Since the Fourth Amendment requirement that arrest warrants be based "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation" may not be satisfied by the mere filing of an unsworn information signed by the prosecutor, see, e.g., Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 117, and since most Washington prosecutions are commenced by information, state law requires that an arrest warrant be supported by either an affidavit "or sworn testimony establishing the grounds for issuing the warrant."...... Petitioner's final argument, that denying her absolute immunity will have a "chilling effect" on prosecutors in the administration of justice, is not supported by evidence and is unpersuasive.” Kalina v Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997). In this particular case there was absolutely no evidence against the accused, only circumstantial evidence so week as to be non existent. Evidently the prosecutor felt pressured to charge someone and picked a likely handy candidate but one who just didn’t take the accusation lightly and likely had nothing to do with the crime. FN 11. As early as the decision in Bradley v. Fisher, this Court drew a clear distinction between erroneous judicial acts committed within a judge's jurisdiction, for which there was absolute immunity, and acts committed in excess of jurisdiction, for which there was none. 13 Wall. at 351-353. Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U. S. 522 (1984). Be aware that judges have absolute immunity, in any discretionary judgment, from suit which is necessary to protect the office from extinction, however there are cases where judges and prosecutors have not the absolutely immunity they may falsely rely on as one Washington deputy prosecutor Kalina found out. Where they act outside their office, they are venerable to suit. This is the primary purpose for showing on paper that you are intentionally irreparably injured which is a crime and for which no immunity attaches because no official is licensed or permitted to injure others in life, liberty or property. They not only have a ministerial duty to uphold the law but a duty to obey it themselves. Civil Factual v Lawful Civil Petitions for writs can be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if they don’t address the proper issues. There are issues of fact and issues of law, and a petition upon an issue of fact must generally be decided affirmatively and
Page 103 of 129

positively in the trial court. Issues of law, are issues which can be taken to a higher court. “These writs were available to bring before the court that pronounced the judgment errors in matters of fact which had not been put in issue or passed upon, and were material to the validity and regularity of the legal proceeding itself, as where the defendant, being under age, appeared by attorney, or the plaintiff or defendant was a married woman at the time of commencing the suit, or died before verdict or interlocutory judgment -for, it was said, "error in fact is not the error of the judges, and reversing it is not reversing their own judgment." So, if there were error in the process, or through the default of the clerks, the same proceeding might be had to procure a reversal. But if the error were "in the judgment itself, and not in the process," a writ of error did not lie in the same court upon the judgment, but only in another and superior court. Tidd, 9th ed. 1136, 1137; Stephen on Pleading 119; 1 Roll.Abr. 746, 747, 749. In criminal cases, however, error would lie in the King's bench whether the error was in fact or law. Tidd, 1137; 3 Bac.Abr. (Bouv. ed.) "Error," 366; Chitty, Crim.Law, 156, 749. See United States v. Plumer, 3 Cliff. 28, 59, 60. The errors of law which were thus subject to examination were only those disclosed by the record, and, as the record was so drawn up that it did not show errors in the reception or rejection of evidence or misdirections by the judge, the remedy applied "only to that very small number of legal questions" which concerned "the regularity of the proceedings themselves." See Report, Royal Commission on Criminal Code (1879) p. 37; 1 Stephen, History of Crim.Law, 309, 310.” US v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55 (1914). Thus you must establish and correct the record of the facts in the trial court, before proceeding to a higher court unless the cause is criminal in nature. Here is the problem in traffic cases, is it criminal or civil? I suspect you need to treat it as civil unless you ask and get declaratory judgment to the contrary no matter what anyone says. For instance, I stood two criminal driving with license expired but a criminal record was never generated from those two trials. Of course they were fraud and it was well known to all that they were indeed fraud, however a criminal history from the state revealed no criminal history so even though they maybe called criminal and have even juries making judgments, they may not be truly criminal. If in doubt and it makes a difference to you, check it out before hand, so you know. The whole point here is don’t allow any misconception or misstatement of the facts pass for the record without strong objection of foul play. Your affidavits should stand far above any common pleadings by a master deceiver prosecutor
Page 104 of 129

and that is why the default works. The facts are laid out and undisputable and the prosecutor is not going to touch it because he knows if he presents alleged facts which he has no knowledge of, it is hearsay and meant to mislead the court, which has to be intentional because he knows or should know better than to deceive the court. Various Errant Judge Tactics In one case, the judge refused to abide by the Petition for the Writ and told the Petitioner to take the issue to a higher court. This is an error as the judge is the proper party to correct the clerk, not a higher court judge. It would be improper to petition the higher court to order the clerk to do its duty, thus any suit would have to be taken against the judge. This is something you need to discuss with the judge on the spot, so he knows full well that you will sue him by petition for mandamus to issue the mandate to the clerk. He might take a little different view of what he is doing in that case. Defenses to denials include equating the situation as having your hands tied behind back or in other words unfair advantage given the state, equating to lack of due process, abuse office and discretion because there is no discretion only ministerial duty, denial of access to law and remedy, your case is not a case of equity and if it were the prosecutor in default would have unclean hands and would not be entitled to remedy. Also the prosecutor seeks no remedy in the case because there is no damaged party. They might claim the state is damaged but that is a fiction because the state doesn’t exist except in the minds as an artificial entity, thus the whole game is a game of fraud in the name of revenue. Don’t be too concerned if the judge dismisses the Petition on a preliminary hearing prior to trial, just remind him that upon appeal, it will be necessary to name him in such a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and in such case he is intentionally irreparably injuring you. Upon noticing the judge, move on and wait to see what is going to happen at trial. Normally there is no trial, so don’t let this matter bother you, just move on, of course objecting to denial of ministerial duty and thus due process. The judge will never grant the petition and its only purpose is to box him into dismissing the case, just like the motions to dismiss give him a graceful way out. The judge however is never likely to take what you provide him, he will generally think of his own way to dump the case. Many times the officer, the main start witness never shows up, sometimes the prosecutor moves to dismiss but most likely the judge will dismiss without comment. The Petition
Page 105 of 129

“1. Plaintiff, having received Aggrieved Defendant's Affidavit of Truth on or about 4 November 1996, and Notice of Default and 3 day notice to cure on or about 15 November 1996, Final Default and Writ of Praecipe on or about 25 November 1996, as filed in the record, and having failed to plead, with time now expired to do so,” We very simply lay out the history of the case in the first paragraph. Don’t copy this word for word, put your own case history in it, which shouldn’t be difficult to do. “2. The CLERK of the court has been respectfully ordered to enter a default judgment against the Plaintiff and prepare a Certificate, with seal of the court, declaring that the Plaintiff has failed to join the correct party in this suit and therefore the case is dismissed for failure to state a claim, and lack of jurisdiction, and send to parties of interest within 3 days.” Here you lay out the duty of the clerk and the clerks failure to comply with the rules of the court in a default. The only remedy in this case is dismissal of the case because there is effectively no case, it is a sham with fictitious parties, in other words, and the judge knows this. You can bet the clerk is totally ignorant of what is going on, however she is trained by the establishment to think the role of clerk is a vital one and that justice is seeing that code breakers are punished. Of course the clerk has a very slanted concept of justice but so do the hundreds of people who just pay the court the fines and admit their guilt right upfront without even so much as a hint of challenge to authority, just like good little slaves. I was one of those at one time before I studied law. I actually thanked the policeman for giving me a ticket once, because I was an habitual speeder, I had it coming. “3. Said CLERK having neglected or refused to enter the default and prepare and send the Certificate, now therefore the aggrieved Defendant demands that the writ of mandamus issue forth to mandate the ministerial duty of the clerk to enter the default immediately.” Our demand is put before the judge for remedy in the matter, that the writ issue forth to compel the ministerial duty brought by the natural consequences due to default of the complaining party. While the officer is the complaining party, the prosecutor represents the policeman because the policeman is an officer of a
Page 106 of 129

corporation and can’t represent himself. If he could, there would be no need for a prosecutor but the officer has no such powers given him by code, neither does he act in individual capacity at any time unless he steps outside the specific duties of the office as prescribed and limited by the code. Most of them assume they have far more power than they have, but that is another whole lesson. “CONCLUSION Because of your superior knowledge of the law, and your witnessing a constitutional wrong through fraudulent violation of rights, privileges and immunities, equating to felony perjury of oath, your injury to the rights of said Citizen constitutes an actionable offense with no immunity, by failure to act upon a ministerial duty.” The conclusion like the rest is very simple expressing liability for injury and wrong which is intentional and irreparable in nature and again puts the ministerial duty of the clerk now on the judge. He now becomes responsible, even if he wasn’t involved in telling the clerk not to enter the default. You have set him up and he knows it. His only out is to dump the case and sweep it under the rug. Judges however are not idiots and they aren’t going to generally tell you why they are doing what they are doing. In the case of traffic tickets, it is revenue but there is a lot of revenue that is easy to take and yours could be really difficult, so they are going to think twice before they try it. In some cases they will bluff you into thinking that you have to pay the fine however then they count on your mind doing the “what if” job which drives most to cave in. One Man in our group says he hasn’t paid a number of fines, nothing has happened and they don’t even address the past issues of non payment. In my situation, one county turned it over to a collection agency and I told them it was fraud and they wrote it off as uncollectible. In another, I got a bill and refused it for fraud and never heard another thing about it. In some states if they send a dun to the licensing department they will suspend your license but a number of states are now starting to declare these cases unconstitutional because there is no hearing, which equates to a lack of due process. If you have a driver’s license it is considered valuable property. Without it you may not be able to work and earn a living and you become a non productive member of society. With so many suspended licenses, the states are now starting to look at some way to prevent this trend and bring the offenders back into the fold. It really has nothing to do with due process although it really does entirely, in reality it is to patch up a broken system. Almost all the social

Page 107

of

129

systems today are breaking apart because it is overbearing and the People are most apt to use passive resistance to the oppressive exercise of power. Passive people power can break the strongest nation from within. This is a fact borne out by history but it isn’t a good way to effect change as it damages the country and takes years to restore. Some states suspend driver’s license and if there is none, they issue one on paper then suspend it. The reason for this is that the penalty for driving with no license is light and the penalty for driving with a suspended license is drastic. This puts the pressure on those who have just flatly refused to get a license. This is a blatant and outright fraud and you can’t force a license on anyone. It is a sign of desperation and abnormal abuse of law to force an issue that there is no way to really force. If you have no license there is no club over your head, you can throw away the ticket and never show in their snipe hunt court with impunity. This is a ploy to bring you back by causing you bigger problems. Driving without license is not termed criminal generally, but driving with a suspended license is generally termed criminal. However, as I explained it really isn’t criminal or it would appear on a criminal rap sheet, which it doesn’t, at least on mine. If you have a criminal record, you can’t apply for residency in most countries of the World. Next Lesson 10 TRIAL If you are forced to endure a trial, this is your opportunity to get a little hands on experience at running your defense. While this might seem like a waste of time, it could mean the difference in freedom or going to jail in a serious complaint situation. While it doesn’t happen often, no more than 20% of the cases, many innocent People go to jail because of rotten representation by incompetent attorneys, courts allowing emotion swaying of the jury and circumstantial evidence. Some of these cases have been making news because of DNA evidence that clears them after many years of wasted life and productivity. Your homework assignment is to find out if in your state, criminal traffic is really put on a criminal record. This means you will have to find who keeps the record and call to see if you can get a definitive answer as to what kind of crimes are recorded. You might also find this in the code however that might be hard to find. Also, you need to know if your state is playing the “Up the Ante Game” with the suspending licenses for non appearance at traffic court appearances. You might have to do a little digging in the codes to find out just what they have given themselves color of authority to do.

Page 108

of

129

Lesson 10 THE TRIAL In event you are forced to trial by a dictatorial judge, having been denied due process by default upon the prosecutor there are a few tricks that you can use against them. Here again it is vitally important that you be well versed in the court rules. Court Rules Normally all courts have both general (state) and local (court) rules and you should have a copy of each. The local rules are generally available from the clerk of the court who will give you a copy upon request. These rules set the time frame and stages of the prosecution of the case and are usually special for traffic courts as traffic matters are generally less than criminal and generally heard in courts of limited jurisdiction. Courts of limited jurisdiction are limited by code to perform certain limited functions. They may be limited in amounts of damages, in what type of cases they can hear and venue (locality) restrictions. To learn this look at your state code on the courts and what the courts are given authority to hear. If the matter is serious in criminal nature, the courts are required to establish the level of the crime and “bind over” any cases outside their jurisdiction to the court of general jurisdiction. In the West, courts that follow the federal pattern, which are limited in jurisdiction, are District Courts and courts of general jurisdiction (everything else) are Superior Courts. Some states have variations of these courts calling district courts by other names. District Courts have generally far wider venue than municipal courts, where the former jurisdiction is generally the whole county and sometimes even provisions for the adjacent county in special situations. City courts are confined to the city proper unless there is a hot pursuit situation. Hot Pursuit is defined as a pursuit started within the venue and continuing outside the venue. Hot pursuit must be in the Emergency Mode which is defined as a minimum of emergency lights flashing. While in the emergency mode the officer can violate the law, for instance speed to apprehend the suspect vehicle, but at other times, he is subject to the same law as you are. Thus if you are driving the speed limit or even a little fast and the cop comes up behind you quickly from a quarter mile distance then turns on the emergency lights, the stop is a Fruit of the Poisonous Tree, which doctrine gives rise to suppression of the evidence and usually makes the case ripe for dismissal. Hot pursuits can and do cross city, counties and state lines and give special jurisdiction to the officer or officers outside their normal venue. At trial the

Page 109

of

129

officer must establish that he was in the emergency mode when he crossed the venue line, including that venue line of the home. “The court further held that Santana's "reentry from the doorway into the house" did not support allowing the police to make a warrantless entry into the house on the grounds of "hot pursuit," because it took "hot pursuit" to mean "a chase in and about public streets." The court did find, however, that the police acted under "extreme emergency" conditions.” U.S. v Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 41 (1976). This doctrine is often misused, for example: “Petitioner's warrantless arrest in the privacy of his own bedroom for a noncriminal traffic offense cannot be justified on the basis of the "hot pursuit" doctrine, because there was no immediate or continuous pursuit of the petitioner from the scene of a crime, or on the basis of a threat to public safety, because petitioner had already arrived home and had abandoned his car at the scene of the accident. Nor can the arrest be justified as necessary to preserve evidence of petitioner's blood alcohol level. Even assuming that the underlying facts would support a finding of this exigent circumstance, given the fact that the State had chosen to classify the first offense for driving while intoxicated as a noncriminal, civil forfeiture offense for which no imprisonment was possible, a warrantless home arrest cannot be upheld simply because evidence of the petitioner's blood alcohol level might have dissipated while the police obtained a warrant” Welsh v Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984). “Thus, our study of the relevant common law does not provide the same guidance that was present in Watson. Whereas the rule concerning the validity of an arrest in a public place was supported by cases directly in point and by the unanimous views of the commentators, we have found no direct authority supporting forcible entries into a home to make a routine arrest, and the weight of the scholarly opinion is somewhat to the contrary. Indeed, the absence of any 17th- or 18th-century English cases directly in point, together with the unequivocal endorsement of the tenet that "a man's house is his castle," strongly suggests that the prevailing practice was not to make such arrests except in hot pursuit or when authorized by a warrant. Cf. Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 33.” Payton v New York, 445 U.S. 573, 597 (1980) This is the reason the Police will always try to get you to come out of the house or try to prevent you from going in. Your house is a safe heaven or is supposed to be and they know it. If there is no serious crime, no hot pursuit of a crime committed in the sight of the officer, or a danger to the public, there is no “extengent circumstances” which would justify an arrest.
Page 110 of 129

Exigent Circumstances “United States v. Mapp, 476 F.2d 67, 76 (CA2 1973) (listing thenrecognized exceptions to warrant requirement: (i) hot pursuit; (ii) plain view doctrine; (iii) emergency situation; (iv) automobile search; (v) consent; and (vi) incident to arrest).” Now destruction of evidence has been added as exigent circumstances because drugs can easily be destroyed by flushing in a toilet given a little amount of time. Thus without exigent circumstances a warrant is required for a search. This might also apply to other situations where the evidence is easy to destroy. Signing Papers NEVER SIGN ANYTHING THAT THE COURT OR PROSECUTOR WANTS YOU TO SIGN. There is one exception however and that is if they threaten you, you then notice them that the act is an act of fraud and by their superior knowledge they know or should know that they have no criminal authority. Sign it “UR Fraud, TDC” if forced into the situation upon threat of incarceration or sanctions of property. Make a written and filed objection to the fact and cite the criminal code on forcing a signature on a written instrument and declare it a fraud and void. If you forget to object to something in court, then it should be objected to on paper and filed with the court even if an after thought. Remember, like making promises to appear, you can’t devine the future and there is no way you can honestly make such a promise. The law is designed to cause you to compromise your standards and most don’t think twice about doing so. No Competent Attorney Should your case be more serious in nature than a simple traffic stop and the court wants to assign you an attorney, tell the court you will look on your own for one. If you get into a situation where you are being threatened in court or things are not going the way they are supposed to, you simply tell the judge that you have determined that you need to have competent counsel as it is obvious to you that the court is not playing by the rules of law and you need to find representation to help you move the court in the direction it needs to move.

Page 111

of

129

They can not and will not deny you representation and it is to their benefit to see you represented. You can still move forward on your Petition and Motions but process against you has to cease. If they move in your direction of course representation is unnecessary. If you move in this direction, you will have to show that you contacted attorneys to represent you. This will require that you keep a log as a record of your efforts. Of course you will likely never find competent counsel as none of them will Petition a higher court for a Writ of Mandamus against the judge. None will press your default either. So, you will be able to show that you contacted so many firms, attorneys, and you talked in depth about your case to so many attorneys and none wanted to take your cause and you are still looking for competent counsel (will be till Hell freezes over but don't tell that to the judge). You will want to brainstorm up sharp questions for any attorney you interview for the job. This is something that has to be done for your case specific. A minimum would be will you do a writ of mandamus to mandate any ministerial duty owed to you, especially the default against the prosecutor? Will you do a habeas corpus if I get thrown in jail? Will you appeal to the US supreme court if “I” think it necessary? Are you willing to sue the state/county/city for color of law abuse of law in federal court? You may have other issues of rights as well, which you will want to formulate questions on. If you need a list of rights to refresh your memory, see Right&d.txt in L.zip. Ironically one of the fellows who came to me for help showed a lawyer the paper in a default case which he won and the lawyer was impressed with the simple, plain procedure and was quite impressed with the paper. He wanted to know where he got it from. I seriously doubt if an attorney could get away with using it, however, as the courts would blackball him. Logs and diaries are admissible evidence in court, so do keep records of what you do when you know later you will need the record to show you tried to obtain representation. There might be other instances where this would be valuable especially with ongoing problems, like zoning and neighbor disputes. Interlocutory Petitions Interlocutory Petitions are a real hassle, but it is a remedy you can employ to stop harassment and threats by the court while you get your ducks in a row and you force the judge to either address your paper as a ministerial duty or you Petition over his head, naming him as lawless and criminally intentionally inflicting irreparable injury, abusing office. Petitions for Mandamus and Prohibition fit the process to compel or prohibit respectively depending on the situation needed for your remedy.

Page 112

of

129

What happens to you if someone goes over your head? You are branded as someone who can't handle their own job and have to have direction from a higher level. The same is true of a judge, and you can only sue a judge, not a jury, so be happy you don't have a jury in this instance. While the petitions may appear to be ineffective they do cause a problem for the judge as he must explain the situation to the superior court. You need to state there is no other plain, adequate or speedy remedy in your case and you are bring the Petition under the common law as the Superior Sovereign. Most of the federal and the states have made such writs a matter of equity so you need to subtlety apply the maximums of equity just in case, all the time stating that the Petition is brought in common law and not equity. I know this is a little contradictory but if you cover both bases then you give them less opportunity to turn you down. For instance the primary principle of equity is there can’t be a remedy in law, so you express that the common law has not been abrogated by the code, thus the case can be effectively tried in law. Your traffic case is not a case in equity, it is a case in law as I have shown. Your Honor (usually not) Don’t call the judge, “Your Honor” and save that for the prosecutor as he makes his living at the pleasure of the judge. Remember the judge is your public servant and not your king. Don’t act like a lawyer, talk directly to the judge like you would someone you have known long time. It isn’t necessary to give him a name, least of all, “Honorable” unless he has proven it. Fake Appearance at Trial You have a right to motion for a line up for ID purposes and you can complain to the court that the cop is going to look at the defense table and say it is the man sitting there, as you will be all alone. You must insist on a line up but the court won’t do it for a minor offense, so you should make a proposal to get around the problem. This is rather difficult to get around although there is a sneaky little way to do it and I was asked by a paralegal to do it for him once and agreed. He however had his case dismissed so we didn’t do it. The idea is to substitute the accused with a “stand in” just for the preliminary matters of trial, so when the officer identifies the one sitting at the table, you can disqualify the officer. The reason a line up won’t work, is the officer will just get a picture of you and ID you from the picture, but this “in court” ID is far better. The court will not grant a line up in a traffic case as it is expensive and the ID matter can occur at trial.

Page 113

of

129

In order to pull this off, you have to get a “Motion in Limine” applied to the prosecutor to keep him from thwarting your plan by revelation to the officer that the defendant is not the party at the defendant’s table and he must refresh his memory with the driver’s license picture. Normally they don’t carry the picture of the driver in their refresh records and notes because this is never done to them. 2. "In limine" has been defined as "[o]n or at the threshold; at the very beginning; preliminarily." Black's Law Dictionary 708 (5th ed.1979). We use the term in a broad sense to refer to any motion, whether made before or during trial, to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered. Luce v U.S., 469 U.S. 38 (1984) (Footnote 2) You must also make sure the judge will go along with it, as he has to know the defendant is not at the defendants place and the officer must be prevented from entering the courtroom till he is called to testify. This takes some time and effort to set up but is effective at discrediting the officer as incompetent and not having enough memory to remember who he wrote up, and none will remember unless there was something really unique about the stop. When the cop IDs the wrong one, then you get up and discredit him as picking the wrong Man and you walk up and take your place, releasing your stand in to take his place in the spectators gallery. When you have more than one officer called to testify as either your witness or witness for the prosecution you must have the court make them wait in a room where they are not privy to the proceedings so they can’t tell what has been the nature of the others testimony. If their testimony is different from the others, then you have grounds to show they acted in error or they are not telling the truth. Your Witness In your paper motion, you should have asked the court to subpoena those at the stop that have first hand knowledge. This doesn’t mean someone who is riding with you. If they will witness for you, make a mutual agreement for them to testify for you at trial. Never subpoena a friendly witness as it make turn them into a hostile witness. The prosecutor calls his first witness and usually his only witness, the officer and examines him. Then you can cross examine the states witness but in cross examination you can only ask questions relevant to what the prosecutor asks such that items of interest are clarified which could be to your advantage. If you ask any questions outside the scope of the examination questions the prosecutor will object to those questions as not relevant.
Page 114 of 129

After the prosecutor is finished with his witness, you can call the officer as your witness and question him about anything relevant to the stop. As your witness you are not restrained to only those questions the prosecutor asked. This is a vital point as it is easy and tempting to start asking the officer questions during cross examination about other matters and the prosecutor is going to object his head off. So make sure you understand to ask your questions, you need to call the officer as your witness and you can do that right after the prosecutor is finished with the officer as his witness. If you have any doubt as to how the trial works, take a day or two off and go to a busy courthouse and sit in on some trials, so you get the feel of them and understand how they work. You might ask the court clerk or administrator for some recommendations in this respect as you want short trials and not long drawn out murder trials. An alternative to this is to get a trial outline from a law library. Scrambled Questions As you assemble your notes and inspirations for questions, invite your friends to make question suggestions to help you form the list of best questions to ask. This is called “Brain Storming” and is highly effective if you have others tuned into the situation. If you don’t mind keeping the court overtime, then make as many questions as you can and them scramble them into complete disorder. The reason, is to disorient the officer and his thinking so that he will make mistakes as he obviously can’t remember and is going to lie from the stand. Maybe it won’t be intentional but never the less it will be to your benefit and you have to be looking for inconsistency in his answers. It is easy to get wrapped up in the questions to the point you don’t hear the answers, so make sure you understand everything the officer says and ask him to repeat anything that is contradictory then discredit him as a witness. For a good example of this trick read file Trans.txt in L1.zip. In this case, which you don’t have privy to the visual aids (Map), the officer testified he did a stop on a dime and turned around in a driveway he claimed he passed as he monitored the suspect vehicle speed. He also testified that he was effectively the one speeding and not the suspect vehicle. Obviously, he didn’t have the notes to cover this and was really being put in a bad situation where he had to make up the story as he went along. Because the questions were scrambled, he was making errors as he couldn’t remember what he said. This is human nature if one tells a story without logical order in it. Of course he doesn’t remember the minute details of every case, and in fact he probably lied about a lot of other events as well to show the court he did what he was required to do everyday.
Page 115 of 129

This is also the time to show the court how this officer works for a standing army. In Washington, this is easy. Sec. 24. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. Washington State Constitution Bill of Rights In your state it might be harder because you have no state restrictions to standing armies but do feel free to borrow this provision of the Washington Constitution to frame your complaint as being universal in all the states and the applicable at the Federal level as well. The elements of the prohibition are: Corporations or Individuals organizing armed bodies of Men. Corp. or Individuals maintaining armed bodies of Men. Corp. or Individuals employing armed bodies of Men. To address the elements you might ask questions such as: Are you employed by a corporation? Does the corporation hire other Men in similar capacity? Does the corporation supply arms to these hired Men? Does the corporation train this armed body of Men? Does the corporation supply ammunition for the armed body of Men? Are you aware that the founders of this nation intended provisions for standing armies only in times of actual war upon our soil? You might get an objection to this question, so the next one is to put it more pointed context which you can explain asking for indulgence. Have you put your right arm to the square and given on oath of office to uphold the constitutions, both Federal and State and the law of the land? In Washington, you would then ask; Have you read the Washington State Constitution? At this point they will probably lie. Did you put your right arm to the square and agree to support and defend the Washington State Constitution, and now you are telling this court that you go out everyday you work and transgress that oath and the Constitution as well? Now you have established that the officer is not a Man of his words, that his oath means nothing to him and that he defies openly and notoriously the same Constitution he swore to uphold and obey. This is ground for dismissal and impeachment of the witness on two grounds.

Page 116

of

129

First the officer is taking advantage of the “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” doctrine (he violates the higher law while enforcing the lowest law) and second he has discredited himself as a witness because he is offensive to the oath, Constitution and the People. In short the officer is a notorious hypocrite. Be sure and make all reference to the stop as “arrest” in your questions to the officer to enforce the concept and to make the officer look ignorant of what he is doing as they don’t like to use the terms arrest and seizure, generally speaking. You want to play up the significance of the terms at all times and notice we start this in the initial paperwork with the court and prosecutor. Visual Aids In some cases, visual aids are useful in exposing the officer’s lies. In the Trans.txt file you will read that we placed a map before the officer to mark as to establish reference for the court as to the location of the infraction. This was most interesting and revealing as the officer marked the map according to the scrambled questions and showed that he covered 2/3 of the total distance while the suspect vehicle in the same time frame only covered 1/3 of the distance. Obviously from his testimony he had to have been going 2/3 faster than the suspect vehicle which made him look like the one speeding. When we scrambled the questions, it also scrambled his brain so he made obvious errors by making up the story after the fact. Visual aids are an area of specialty where you have to be creative, but you want to make it as simple as possible, yet still be able to make the witness look bad and incompetent. The more incompetent you make the witness look, the less the prosecutor or the court is going to want to protect them. Impeachment for Crimes In several cases the officers were parked under a “No Parking At Any Time” sign as they monitored traffic. Of course this is unlawful and an officer enforcing traffic laws should never show disrespect for the law. Again this enlists the “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” doctrine and acts as impeachable cause. The only justification these kinds of acts bear is emergency situations. Thus one of our group after getting a ticket, went home got a camera, then drove past and snapped a picture. They came after him again and made an excuse to give him another ticket. Cell phones make it easy today to take pictures almost without others knowing that is what you are doing. So if you carry a cell phone, don’t forget to take pictures of any illegal activity of officers. In this case it was very incriminating for the officers, as it points to abuse of office. I also seeded the

Page 117

of

129

area well with roofing nails as it is unlikely anyone but the officers would park there. Threats of Sanctions If at any time you are threatened with sanctions for what you are doing to the poor officer, then you will want to turn your attention to that threat. First of all, some judges use it to make you move in the direction they want you to move and they use it as a means of tyrannical control. The first thing you want to establish is if the sanction is civil or criminal. The second thing is what the sanction is specifically. Then you want to object and show the court where it denies you due process. In one of my trials the judge pulled that trick and tried to get me to move off the points I was making in discrediting the sole witness. I asked specifically what the sanction was and the judge wouldn’t tell me. I told the judge that under those conditions, I couldn’t continue with the trial because it might mean my very life. Before it was over, she was begging me to participate because it was obvious that if she wouldn’t tell me that it might be my life on the line as the sanction might be execution. I told her that the threat was too great a risk to continue and I couldn’t take the chance. I sat down and refused to participate further. They dismissed the witness and proceeded but I sat mute. It was an obvious error of the court and set up an irreversible error. Cannons of Judicial Conduct, Attorney Conduct and Complaints to the Judicial Conduct Committee. Due process requires a prosecutor to be present unless there is a state law or precedent case which justifies it. Our process has always been adversarial but in some loose and fast administrative type processes, prosecutors have declined to participate in such menial processes. Some of these practices cause conflicts in law and violate the cannons of justice. Other violations include refusal or neglect to file an oath of office as required by law, refusal of ministerial duty, privileged communications, incapacity and inappropriate behavior. Normally the cannons of judicial conduct and lawyer conduct are published by the state and there is a committee set up to police the judges, lawyers and prosecutors in the state. This is not widely publicized probably because lawyers or politicians control it for the most part. You can’t complain about “judgments or discretion” generally unless it is notoriously intentional and malicious, however you can make complaints based
Page 118 of 129

on the cannons. Discipline is normally without your knowledge but in some cases publicized if open and notorious. Extreme cases of alcoholism, sexual misconduct and criminal behavior are likely to be published in the papers, but it is rare. Don’t be afraid to complain, as usually the judges with the worst behavior have other problems as well. One of the most quoted judges in the Superior court I came to know all too well, was putting many away for drugs and had to take an attorney who overdosed at one of his drug parties to the hospital to avoid having him dying in his home. Hopefully, you will never have to use this information but it is getting harder and harder to live in today’s society without coming into serious conflict in some aspect of involving participation in courts. If that time ever comes, it is best to be prepared. Don’t think you will just go out and hire an attorney because even if you did, you better know his job better than yours or you are strictly at his mercy. I have heard attorneys talk about People who represent themselves as a headache for them because they never know what is going to happen next. At least where both sides have representation, the representatives talk and scheme, but where one side has none, there is no forewarning of what is to come. Remember in any case, the more pain you cause them, the less likely they will be to come after you. They like the easy pray, not those who fight back. This land today is not a safe haven from revenue officers of all kinds and the pressure they bring to bear is almost enough to break the strongest Man. Next Lesson is POST TRIAL RELIEF Your homework assignment is to find your state Cannons of Judicial Conduct and Lawyer Standards. Learn what committee oversees judicial and lawyer conduct and what is required to file a complaint.

Page 119

of

129

Lesson 11 POST TRIAL RELIEF After the Trial if you are adjudged guilty by the preponderance of the evidence presented (very discretionary), you have an opportunity to continue your learning experience. You need to look at this as an opportunity to progress in your paper writing skills. At this time there should be no facts in dispute, as all the facts should have been presented in affidavit or testimony form before the court and in the record. Generally, a tape is made of the proceedings and you should obtain the tape and transcribe it, or at least the relevant parts of it. Partial transcripts are acceptable to be used generally where the issue is a narrow one. If there are any issues of facts left, they need to be resolved in the trial court through post trial process. The court has a duty to resolve all the issues. See the reference to Writ of Error later in the lesson for proof of this issue. Issues of law, are issues which are appealable generally and can not be resolved in the trial court. Very technically speaking, only issues of law should be appealed, but where the court has refused or failed to correct or determine issues of fact, only then can it be Petitioned in error. Appeals are generally traps, unless the case or issues are certified for appeal, where wide latitude and discretion is available for judgment. If the court merely says they find the lower court made no errors and affirm the judgment, then they have refused to give you a fair hearing and have violated the due process provisions of the 4th and 1st Amendments. There should be some findings of facts and conclusions at law on all the issues. Appeals are De Novo, generally from courts of limited jurisdiction on traffic matters. That means a new trial on the record set by the lower court, so it is important to set the record straight before leaving that court. This generally forces you into a collateral attack which is where you want to be, instead of the appeal side. The reason that the appeal is De Novo is because the lower court really has no authority to in rem proceedings. In this case they want your private property money (rem). Collateral attacks are separate actions on the case. Most collateral attacks come by way of Rule 60, so that is where you want to start. Here are some papers to use in Post Judgment Relief. Most are self explanatory and the one’s which aren’t, are explained. Motion to Alter Judgment Motion to Amend/Correct - You might use this to correct any errors of fact, possibly in tandem with the Motion to Alter Judgment.

Page 120

of

129

Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis - A pauper has no money for an appeal thus they have to grant it without fee. Under the doctrine expressed in Crandall, all courts should be “free” for the People as the courts belong to them. "It is said to be the right of the citizen of this great country, protected by implied guarantees of its Constitution, "to come to the seat of government to assert any claim he may have upon that government, to transact any business he may have with it, to seek its protection, to share its offices, to engage in administering its functions. He has the right of free access to its seaports, through which all operations of foreign commerce are conducted, to the sub-treasuries, land offices, and courts of justices in the several states. .... The right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, are rights of the citizen guaranteed by the federal Constitution." Crandall v Nevada, 6 Wallace 35 or 73 US 35 (1868) Motion in Arrest of Judgment - This is used only in criminal cases. Motion for Certificate of Appealability - This is to put the judge on the spot on the issues, either he recognizes there is an unresolved issue or he doesn’t. If he recognizes the issue, it is an issue of first impression (never been decided) then he needs to certify it for review. In any event be sure to demand a findings of facts and conclusions at law. Motion to Certify Question - This is getting right down to the individual issues of question presented in your Petition or Complaint that are left unresolved by the court. Issues of first impression must be certified to be resolved in the appeals court as a ministerial duty. Motion for Declaration of Mistrial Motion for Declaratory Judgment - Declaratory judgments are generally issues where law conflicts or there is an impossibility in the law. They are also used to keep you from error because of your limited knowledge of the law in real controversies. Motion for Leave to Appeal - Generally the Superior Sovereign doesn’t ask for leave to appeal, but in the case where you need more time to address the issues or to obtain a statement of final judgment, you might consider this option. In the Supreme court it is required by rule.

Page 121

of

129

Motion for New Trial Motion for Reconsideration - If new issues, new information, or unsettled issues exist reconsideration is available, this motion gives you one last hope to square the issues and address them to something that can be called final judgment. It is a good idea to do this as it shows you don’t accept the judgment of the court. There are always a few new issues generated, but it should be repetitious. Motion to Set Aside Judgment - This is another rule 60 remedy in which to correct the judgment by effectively ignoring the judgment. Motion to Set Aside Verdict Motion to Vacate Motion to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence (2255) - This could be used with Habeas Corpus if new evidence, facts or issues of law are found in error. Motion for Findings of Facts and Conclusions at Law - This motion is important to frame the issues for Petition or appeal. If there are no “at law” facts or conclusions supported by supreme law or case law, then you could make the light of the error being that the court sat purely as a court of equity and denied you access to law. Notice Equity doesn’t replace the law side in our courts till there is no remedy at law. Petition for Writ of Prohibition - As the name implies this Writ is used to prohibit the adverse party from doing something that is likely eminent or threatened. Petition for Writ of Mandamus - This writ is a mandate to compel a ministerial duty and that duty must be clearly known. It is wise to think ahead on the issues and show the ministerial duty in the trial stage so there is no wiggle room to oppose the petition on grounds of ignorance of any injury to you. Petition for Writ of Error - Used to correct errors of fact in the trial court when filed in the trial court or unresolved issues of fact in the appellate court. It is also used to correct issues and errors of law of the trial court in the appellate court. Notice of Appeal - Used to give the trial court notice that you are appealing and the issues which you are appealing. Notice of intent to Petition for Writ - You can appeal by Petition for Writs, or in the “Nature of Petition for Writs” in like manner as appeal.

Page 122

of

129

Application for Stay of Execution - Used in Criminal proceedings to stay out of jail until all appeals are complete or exhausted. You would state your reason why you should prevail on appeal. Designation of Record (clerks papers) on (for) Appeal - When you appeal, you need to have the record sent to the appellate court by the clerk of the trial court. Even if the appellate court does this for you, you need to make sure it is done. Sometimes to save resources they only specify a part of the record be sent which could prejudice your case, therefore since only you know what really needs to be sent, you should do this anyway. Writs of mandamus to mandate judge to mandate the clerk Where a judge neglects or refuses to mandate the clerk to enter the default, it is appropriate to apply to a higher court for a mandate to force the judge to do what he should do as a ministerial duty owed to you. In a default, he has no other choice, he must comply with law of the case. Often your Petition will be summarily denied, however the damage is done to the judge by the very petition as it shows he can’t resolve problems. It is obvious to a judge that if you petition to mandate the clerk, you can just as well do it to him. Most won’t take the chance and will find a way out, by dismissal of the case. Writs of error for due process and other errors of the court Petitions for Writs of Error usually, if honored, end up sending or remanding your case back to the trial court for correction of the errors. A remanded case shows again the court erred and puts them in a bad light. Here again, just the fact that you do it, puts the judge in a bind. It is his job to get you to accept his judgment.

Filing a Petition for Writ of Error on the "facts" of the case is proper to do first in the same court asking for a three judge or en banc (all judges) panel. If the error is in law, however, the Petition must go to the appellate court. If the court dismisses your mandamus cause on the grounds that it is frivolous, then the error is a error in fact and the trial court should get the first crack at fixing the error. I would however leave off the "coram nobis" in all cases as it is only descriptive of a particular writ of error and in adds to confusion of the common law. Petition for Writ of Error to the trial court is adequate for all intents and purposes today. Even if you file the wrong paper the court is supposed to treat it as that which it should be but the last few years they have maintained that if you enter the court without counsel that you are held to the same standards of a lawyer. Such standard is absolute abuse of the court
Page 123 of 129

and the court has a duty to see that you are given due process at ever stage of the proceedings no matter who is the initiating party. In light of the fact that the courts often dismisses before any facts are established by the adverse party, there are no facts for the court to dismiss on, thus the issue is only fact and the writ should go to the trial court first, then to the appellate court. Thus you give the court the chance to fix its own error. However, it is not necessarily a legal flaw to send a Petition for Writ of Error to the Circuit court on the facts and the law.
2 Tidd's Practice (4th Amer. ed.) 1136-1137: If a judgment in the King's Bench be erroneous in matter of fact only, and not in point of law, it may be reversed in the same court, by writ of error coram nobis, or quae coram nobis resident, so called from its being founded on the record and process, which are stated in the writ to remain in the court of the lord the king, before the king himself; as where the defendant, being under age, appeared by attorney, or the plaintiff or defendant was a married woman at the time of commencing the suit, or died before verdict, or interlocutory judgment: for error in fact, is not the error of the judges and reversing it is not reversing their own judgment. So, upon a judgment in the King's Bench, if there be error in the process, or through the default of the clerks, it may be reversed in the same court, by writ of error coram nobis. . . . In view of the statutory and limited jurisdiction of the federal district courts, and of the specific provisions for the review of their judgments on writ of error, there would appear to be no basis for the conclusion that, after the term, these courts in common law actions, whether civil or criminal, can set aside or modify their final judgments for errors of law, and even if it be assumed that in the case of errors in certain matters of fact, the district courts may exercise in criminal cases -- as an incident to their powers expressly granted -- a correctional jurisdiction at subsequent terms analogous to that exercised at common law on writs of error coram nobis (see Bishop, New Crim.Pro., 2d ed. § 1369), as to which we express no opinion, that authority would not reach the present case. This jurisdiction was of limited scope; the power of the court thus to vacate its judgments for errors of fact existed, as already stated, in those cases where the errors were of the most fundamental character -- that is, such as rendered the proceeding itself irregular and invalid. In cases of prejudicial misconduct in the course of the trial, the misbehavior or partiality of jurors, and newly discovered evidence, as well as where it is sought to have the court in which the case was tried reconsider its rulings, the remedy is by a motion for a new trial (Judicial Code, § 269) -- an application which is
Page 124 of 129

addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and, in accordance with the established principles which have been repeatedly set forth in the decisions of this Court above cited, cannot be entertained, in the absence of a different statutory rule, after the expiration of the term at which the judgment was entered. U.S, v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55 at 69 (1914). See also Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U.S. 410, 416; Phillips v. Negley, 117 U.S. 665, 673. Review Lesson 9 for the component layout of all Petitions for Writs which includes, but is not limited to Prohibition, Mandamus, Error and Habeas Corpus (Lesson 12 will contain more on Habeas Corpus). DO NOT USE THE NAME “coram nobis” IN YOUR PETITION AS IT WILL BE DISMISSED AND IS ENTIRELY UNNECESSARY. Court rules generally have done away with this specific common law writ, which is just as well, as it streamlines the common law and makes it more friendly to the common Man and generally incompetent attorneys. Bluff factor is often used by attorneys and the court to force you into compliance with the judgment. Sometimes if you don’t comply they just sweep the issue under the carpet. If they can bluff you into paying, it is an automatic admission that you were wrong and deserved the fine. Be aware that any plea bargain is an admission of guilt as well as any payment of a fine imposed in traffic court. Fear factor is similar where they suspend license, threaten you with contempt of court, arrest warrant and etc. Here, you need to determine your limits by your situation. If you need a driver’s license to work, then don’t take a chance with the situation. The overall goal here is to stop them from using you as a revenue service source. The more trouble you cause them, the less trouble they will cause you. If you are married with children, don’t put yourself on the line where you could lose your job because you can’t get to work sitting in some jail. Do be conservative in what you can and hope to accomplish. If your wife is afraid what you are doing is going to harm the family, don’t do it, find a safe way to accomplish your goals. Collection agencies are generally used to try and collect traffic fines, but they are often restricted by law and it is expensive for them to go after small accounts. Generally if you tell them you don’t need a license and they can stand in line to collect because you don’t have any money, they will write it off. You can renew the issues by showing the agency that you were injured in your rights by lack of due process and outright fraud and ask them if they want to be a party to it. When you start talking criminal acts, they don’t want to get involved and will often write it up as non collectable.

Page 125

of

129

Liberty = Life = Pursuit of Happiness = Property The rational involved in a sentence of jail time is you are generally told to turn yourself in to the jail by a certain time and 99.99% of the People will do just that. If you value your liberty you would make them come and get you and if you value your property, you would do the same and not offer it to them. Generally however traffic matters don’t warrant jail time, unless they are very serious. Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 738 (1972) "At the least, due process requires that the nature and duration of commitment bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed". Quoted in Demore v Kim, No 01-1491 (2003) In the event you are ever arrested, you can’t rely on an attorney to file a Habeas Corpus for you and for this reason you should know how to compose one at a moments notice as well as how to move it quickly through the system if necessary. You should also know the difference between the form of a Personal Restraint Petition and a true Habeas Corpus. Driving without License More and more as time goes on, People are driving without a license. If you have taken a driver’s practical and written test, then you have been adjudged competent so they can’t use that excuse. Various programs have been employed to take away licensing that have nothing to do with the actual license itself. Thus you might loose your license for failure to pay child support which has nothing to do with transportation or traveling. Where the code is self protecting with severability clauses, it is difficult to make a worthy challenge to it. Sometimes any excuse to give it back is welcomed, such as it was in my case. In Washington and other states, because of the problem with the growing numbers of those who were boycotting the licenses, they made a code to allow the Department to issue administrative license in name only. Thus they created an entity for you much like the IRS does and then moves on the entity to force the issue by larger penalties and quasi criminal process instead of civil like most traffic tickets are. The administrative process didn’t correct the problems as they hoped so they needed a new ploy. The courts then ruled that the administrative code denial or suspension of license was not true due process, therefore unlawful and they changed the law to require a hearing making a new expanded department with a review board, while all the time giving the impression of being more lawful. Don’t

Page 126

of

129

be deceived by these changes to think they have improved the system, they just want you back into compliance, anyway they can accomplish it is fair game. People are getting smart with the ever increasing leverage to licenses and the use of them for “other” purposes which were unheard of at the time they were instituted. The whole license system is a scam by the very definition of the term and acts of the various departments and agencies. A license is authority to do something which without it would be an illegal act. There is nothing illegal about moving about the Earth by the common mode of transportation of the day. Notice how almost all traffic codes are malum prohibitum and there are only rarely real intentional injury acts committed by motorists. Before you dump your license, you should study the code a little to see what defenses you have. You could for instance file for a declaratory judgment as to just what the real intent of the license is based on some of the obvious abuses today of licensing in the name of safety. Here is a portion of the Washington criminal code. Notice how precise it is in making sure that there are no misunderstandings about who the code addresses. You will find great ambiguity in the non criminal code to confuse the People into thinking it applies to them. We demonstrated early on the definition of Person and how it differs in the codes. (27) Words in the present tense shall include the future tense; and in the masculine shall include the feminine and neuter genders; and in the singular shall include the plural; and in the plural shall include the singular. [1988 c 158 § 1; 1987 c 324 § 1; 1986 c 257 § 3; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.04.110.] NOTES: Effective date -- 1988 c 158: "This act shall take effect July 1, 1988." [1988 c 158 § 4.] Effective date -- 1987 c 324: "Section 3 of this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, the support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect immediately. The remainder of this act shall take effect July 1, 1988." [1987 c 324 § 4.] Effective date -- 1986 c 257 §§ 3-10: "Sections 3 through 10 of this act shall take effect on July 1, 1988." [1987 c 324 § 3; 1986 c 257 § 12.] Severability -- 1986 c 257: See note following RCW 9A.56.010.

Page 127

of

129

Notice at the end the reference to the severability clause. Generally there are a few of these clauses scattered throughout the code and in all other places reference to made to one or more of these general references. The severability code basically says the code is found not to apply to some, it can apply to the rest or if one part is found unconstitutional then the rest will stand on its own. Thus everyone and everything would have to exhaustively attack the code to throw out the whole. You would be lucky to nibble away one sentence or one paragraph but would never likely be able to dump a whole chapter or title. Ejusdem generis and Expressio unius est exclusio alterius are two axioms, cannons or rules of code construction which take away ambiguity. The former being that all things or People defined are related and essentially of the same character. The later claims an exclusion of any that aren’t named. Thus in application of these two standards of code construction, if the definition names a series of artificial entities then you can assume by association that all the references are to artificial entities and all that aren’t mentioned specifically are excluded from the definition or code. The statute, however, uses the term "other legal process" far more restrictively, for under the established interpretative canons of noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis, "`[w]here general words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words.'" Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 114-115 (2001); see Gutierrez v. Ada, 528 U.S. 250, 255 (2000) ("[W]ords . . . are known by their companions"); Jarecki v. G. D. Searle & Co., 367 U.S. 303, 307 (1961) ("The maxim noscitur a sociis . . . is often wisely applied where a word is capable of many [537 U.S. 385] meanings in order to avoid the giving of unintended breadth to the Acts of Congress"). Thus, "other legal process" should be understood to be process much like the processes of execution, levy, attachment, and garnishment, and at a minimum, would seem to require utilization of some judicial or quasi-judicial mechanism, though not necessarily an elaborate one, by which control over property passes from one person to another in order to discharge or secure discharge of an allegedly existing or anticipated liability. As we have held repeatedly, the canon expressio unius est exclusio alterius does not apply to every statutory listing or grouping; it has force only when the items expressed are members of an "associated group or series," justifying the inference that items not mentioned were excluded by deliberate choice, not inadvertence. United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 65 (2002). We explained this point as recently as last Term's unanimous opinion in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73, 81 (2002):

Page 128

of

129

However the code is generally broadly interpreted in favor of government and enforced to the rule of necessity to carry out the functions of government even if contrary to basic law and these maxims or cannons of code construction. In any application of the code to living breathing People, these cannons come into play because the fraud is in the ambiguity of the code definitions. Punishments generally There is no justification as some errant police think for incarcerating a Man or Woman because they refuse to make a future promise however it isn’t uncommon. Such that you are prepared for any such case, you should know that traffic offenses are generally not punishable by any kind of incarceration other than the exception of driving under the influence of drugs, including alcohol. In the case of drugs, it is necessary to see that the offender doesn’t drive away after the police have left. Since many times it is late at night in rural areas, it is not feasible to leave the arrested on the side of the road with access to his car or possibly a hidden key. I would strongly advise against helping others with driving under the influence cases. Anyone who does drive incapacitated doesn’t belong on the road. In some countries it is an automatic loss of license for a year on the first offense and 6 months in jail on the second which means you loose your job as well, which is a sure thing if you work for the government. In this instance the law is valid to ensure the health and safety of the People. While you can take issue with a California stop at a stop sign as a valid safety issue, you can’t take issue with the DUI safety issue. Next Lesson 12 is PETITIONS GENERALLY and ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS Your homework assignment is to read all the files in L2.zip with “HC” in the file name. That means you can search for “*HC*.*” without the quotation marks and they will all come up for you, or you can look for all which have those letters in the file name which ever is easiest for you. Dig out your list of questions and send them to me, so I can pick the best ones for the next lesson. Remember I told you to keep a list.

Page 129

of

129

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful