You are on page 1of 129

Lesson 1 INTRODUCTION

Advice

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 non-


appearance 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, copartnership,
corporation, association, or organization.

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 )


) ss.
The county of Thurston )

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 quasi-
criminal 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 state-
controlled 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 one-
House 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 Self-
Incrimination 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 then-
recognized 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