Greetings to the forum, I just happened to stumble on to this website a couple of weeks ago and I am very pleased with the information that everyone is sharing.
I am relatively new to the sovereign movement and need some help. I am in California and have a arraignment coming up for driving with a suspended license. California from what I have noticed is a state that really tries to battle against the right to travel, especially with so many vehicles in the state, which translates to revenue for them.
I just submitted a Demand for Verified Complaint using California Vehicle Code 40513(A) (
which states:
(a) 40513. (a) Whenever written notice to appear has been prepared, delivered, and filed with the court, an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate, in lieu of a verified complaint, shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant may plead "guilty" or "nolo contendere."
If, however, the defendant violates his or her promise to appear in court or does not deposit lawful bail, or pleads other than "guilty" or "nolo contendere" to the offense charged, a complaint shall be filed that shall conform to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 948) of Title 5 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, which shall be deemed to be an original complaint, and thereafter proceedings shall be had as provided by law, except that a defendant may, by an agreement in writing, subscribed by him or her and filed with the court, waive the filing of a verified complaint and elect that the prosecution may proceed upon a written notice to appear.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), whenever the written notice to appear has been prepared on a form approved by the Judicial Council, an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant may enter a plea and, if the notice to appear is verified, upon which a warrant may be issued. If the notice to appear is not verified, the defendant may, at the time of arraignment, request that a verified complaint be filed. In the case of an infraction violation in which the defendant is a minor, the defendant may enter a plea at the arraignment upon a written notice to appear. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the case of an infraction violation, no consent of the minor is required prior to conducting the hearing upon a written notice to appear.
In this demand I stated that I plan on pleading not guilty at the arraignment and that I WILL NOT voluntarily waive the filing of a verified complaint. (Exerpt from my Demand) A written notice to appear (traffic ticket) is not a verified complaint. The two documents are not the same thing or identical in nature. A written notice to appear cannot possibly be a verifed complaint because the Vehicle Code clearly states in Section 40513 (a) that a verified complaint may be waived and the prosecution may proceed upon the written notice to appear. Clearly, the Vehicle Code is referring to two separate documents. And; further, A written notice to appear is not or cannot be a verified complaint because California law (calif. Penal Code, section 740) states that all misdemeanors and infractions MUST be prosecuted by written complaint under oath subscribed by complaintant.
Clearly, the citing officer cannot be the complaintant and also simultaneously the witness for the State, which would be a serious conflict of interest. It will already be a clear-cut case of bias stemming from the witness (citing officer) having a relationship with the plantiff (State of California), a party in this matter, as the witness (citing officer) is authorized to make arrests on behalf of the Plantiff anywhere in the geographic confines of the Plantiff, which is a State.
Therefore, in the interest of justiceand in conformation with the laws of the State of California, the court must order the filing of a verified complaint in order to have subject matter jurisdiction and to be able to further proceed in this legal matter.
My question is who is going to sign/verify the complaint? The judge and the district attorney can't because they are supposed to be disinterested. I need to find case law to support this, but I'll locate it prior to my next appearance date.
I also filed a "Notice of Nonwaiver of Rights; Demand for Trial by Jury in a Misdemeanor Case" just in case I can't get the charge dismissed, by arguing the "Right to Travel". I figure that in a jury trial I have a good chance of persuading my other citizens to find me not guilty as opposed to the judge.
Lastly, I plan on modifying a educational brief on the Right to Travel I found which appears to be from the State of Washington, so that I can use it in California, but I am unsure when I should submit it to the court. At the arrignment??? Any assistance on dealing with the charge of driving while suspended would be greatly appreciated. As you may have noticed currently, I am not a sovereign citizen, but rather a 14th amendment statuatory slave. I have found numerous case laws to support the Right to Travel and my feeling is that even if I do have the drivers license, the State would have to prove that I was engaged in commerce at the time of the stop. " The term "drive" must reflect the nature of the activity the license permits as: COMMERCIAL." Reno v. Condon, No.98-1464, U.S. Supreme Court, Jan. 12, 2002. Are the license plates and registration a statement by the traveler that he/she is engaged in commerce? The driver's licence application never disclosed that I was forfeiting any Rights for priviledges so therefore, don't I still have the right to travel. If my Rights have been converted to a priviledge, isn't that constructive fraud by the State of Calif Dept. of Motor Vehicles not to disclose material facts when they coerced me to apply for the license, use the police to exert menace and duress on all to comply, and use the courts to punish supposed violators?