Thomas James Vinson 16748 Sausalito Drive Whittier, California Restricted jurisdiction By special visitation (special appearance) to challenge

jurisdiction of the Court.

Superior Court of the State of California City of Los Angeles, Traffic Division

Los Angeles Police Department Plaintiff, vs. Thomas J. Vinson, Defendant in Error,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No.:0929530 Citation No.: 09 29530 Motion to Dismiss for lack of corpus delicti. Date: October 13, 2010 Time: 8:30 am Court Room: Dept. 67

Greetings to the Court: I, Thomas J. Vinson, the Defendant in Error, am not a trained attorney or lawyer and have not been to law school. This motion may have defects, but because the accused is a functional illiterate in the law and does not speak “Legalese”, the accused has had to rely on law dictionaries, court cases, legislative enactments and his assistant of council, otherwise it would be impossible for the accused to file any pleading with the court that would not be defective in some way, as the

” Even the federal court recognizes that untrained litigants' pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers or attorneys. i. Vinson. original Book of the Law. The Right to Redress the federal or state Government is a fundamental Right that goes all the way back to the Common-Law.. the Magna Carta. Alvarez.e.3d 433. Lopez. by special appearance only to challenge jurisdiction of the court. See Spencer v. (2002) 27 Cal." People v. "In every prosecution for crime it is necessary to establish the "corpus delecti". 73 P. Green v. the body or elements of the crime. 70 Led 2d. Sapp. loss or harm. 467 (Cal. MacDougall. 1998). the fact of injury.Rptr. 454 US 364. 108 F3d 1296 (10th Cir 1997. why else would all words in the laws and codes be written in “Legalese. Boag v. or the body of the crime itself.4th 1161. 254 C. 30 L Ed 2d 652 92 Sct 594 (1972). the prosecution must prove the corpus delecti. Haines v." People v. Kerner.2d 185. 47. i. 62 Cal. 119 . 404 US 519. Doe. 1168-1169. 2003) [quoting People v.Law and rules are written for trained bar attorneys. Thomas J. is hereby moving this court to dismiss the case for lack of corpus delicti. Defendant in Error. 139 F3d 107 (2nd Cir.e. Branson. "In every criminal trial..A. and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. 102 Sct 700 (1982).

People v Pensinger. or harm by a criminal agency. by slight or prima facie proof. loss or harm.Cal." i. 805 P2d 899.Rptr.Rptr.3d 372.Rptr. 362. 381 (2005). 91 Daily Journal DAR 2504. 43 CA3d 953. Ramirez. 23 Cal. 91 CDOS 1514. and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. [citing] People v Jennings.. "Corpus delecti" of crime consists of fact of injury. 46 P. "corpus delecti" of crime is (1) the fact of the loss or harm.e. 789.].A. Dorsey. 791. or harm. The corpus delecti of a crime consists of two elements: (1) the fact of the injury or loss or harm." injury or loss or harm and a criminal agency which causes such injury. "There is no requirement of independent evidence 'of every physical act constituting an element of an offense.2d 903. 91 C. 91 Daily Journal DAR 4222. "Elements of "corpus delecti. 52 Cal 3d 1210.. 28. 112 S Ct 443. mod 53 Cal 3d . cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 464. 8 CA4th 47. "The corpus delecti rule requires that the corpus delecti or the body or substance of the crime charged be proved independent from the accused's extrajudicial confession or admissions. 278 Cal Rptr 640." People v. and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. 132.M.2d 21. and existence of criminal agency as cause. 10 Cal. 118 Cal. 92 CDOS 2576.Rptr. 807 P2d 1009. 279 Cal Rptr 780. need only be proven by a "reasonable probability.' so long as there is some slight or prima facie showing of injury. loss. "Generally. loss. reh den.3d 375." In re I." People v. Daly.Rptr. 53 Cal 3d 334. 153 Cal." People v.

State v Simler. 103 SC 437. reh den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 821. Scioto Co) 83 Ohio L Abs 259. 47 NJ 490. 148 Ill Dec 415. 167 SW2d 376." 29A American Jurisprudence Second Ed. 156 Mich App 413. State v Brown. 3 L Ed 2d 673. 236 Ind 529. People v Gould. 88 SE 21. 402 NW2d 27.. “there must be sufficient proof of both elements of the corpus delecti beyond a reasonable doubt. . 91 Daily Journal DAR 4745 and stay gr (Cal) 1991 Cal LEXIS 3318 and reh den. People v Friedland (1st Dist) 202 Ill App 3d 1094. 4 L Ed 2d 360. Evidence Section 1476. 283 P2d 590. 66 Mich 460. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 290. People v Aiken. 560 NE2d 1012. State v Robinson (App. 112 S Ct 351. 141 NE2d 109. 221 A2d 725. 239 Ind 184. 79 S Ct 720. State v Pullos. Brown v State. 350 Mo 646. 91 Daily Journal DAR 12909.729a. 33 NW 821. 154 NE2d 720. State v Hill. 69 ALR2d 824. 76 Idaho 369. 112 S Ct 923. Joseph v State. 168 NE2d 328. cert dism 359 US 117. 80 S Ct 375. cert den 361 US 936.

and as to those matters of information and belief. Dated October . Thomas J. Vinson. on the appealable record. and if called as a witness I am competent to testify to the facts as so stated. 2010 Thomas J. make this verification. so I may be able to timely and properly correct any mistakes or errors. Defendant in Error . dismissal for lack of corpus delicti is justifiable and reasonable. I. Vinson.Wherefore. I hereby state these facts to be true of my own personal knowledge.: 09 29530 and the charge be abated at once. complete and not misleading. Vinson. and hold this motion to dismiss to be truthful. the Defendant in Error. information and belief. or in the alternative. I believe them to be true. Thus. Thomas J. move this court to dismiss Citation No. show cause. why the herein information might be considered as specious. VERIFICATION I. frivolous or without merit. because of this tribunal's clear and complete absence of all jurisdiction and venue.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful