Insights needed.

[squirrel]

I was pulled over last saturday night for rolling thru a stop sign. long story short, refused to give name, off to jail i went. forced fingerprint me and found out they had the corporate fiction they presume is me,myself and I.
I had been pulled over two years and three months prior and was charged with dac, went to court and pleaded out to do thirty days. needless to say I didnt show because I learned that it's all fraud during this ordeal. I have a morrissey hearing next thursday to admit or deny. I made the mistake of bailing out. I cant see how to fight them when your in their custody they offer no way too; I did refuse to hire a satans little helper. wondering what to do next ?

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by squirrel

I have a morrissey hearing

Don't know what that is

Originally Posted by squirrel

.. to admit or deny

Admit or deny what? The original "infraction" or the "no show"?

[squirrel]

Your guess is as good as mine. I think it's maybe because of the no show.
this is what is on the minnesota rules of criminal procedure.

Rule 27.04 (Probation Revocation) sets forth the procedure to be followed to assure that a defendant is accorded all constitutional rights to due process as set forth in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) and Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) before probation is revoked. The rule is based primarily on ABA Standards, Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures, 18-7.5 (Approved Draft, 1979) except that no preliminary hearing to determine probable cause is required. Such a hearing, however, is not constitutionally required if the defendant is not in custody or if the final revocation hearing is held within the time that the preliminary hearing would otherwise be required. Pearson v. State, 308 Minn. 287, 241 N.W.2d 490 (1976). The requirement of Rule 27.04, subd. 2(4) that the final revocation hearing be held within seven days if the defendant is in custody makes a preliminary hearing constitutionally unnecessary. It is, however, necessary under Rule 27.04, subd. 1(2) that the defendant be brought before the court after arrest within the same time limits as set forth under Rule 3.02, subd. 2 for arrests upon warrant.

[weishaupt1776]

So if I am understanding this correctly, the morrissey hearing is based on case law. Is that right?

Also, does your state consider this to be civil or criminal?

[squirrel]

I am a novice about case law, so i'm not sure.
At the hearing friday I didnt ask if it was criminal or civil.
my only concern at the time was getting out.

[hAKEEM]

try getting a court reporter with you to court or going to the clerk and ask to move this in a court of record. then here are some good questions to ask. next time with bail ask what is money define it for me and i will pay it.

http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread.php?t=1738

[scottinalaska]

I don't even know what a DAC is, Squirell, so you'll have to define it for me.

Listen, when you get pulled over and you want to refuse to give ID, ask questions. Get on the offense early.
EXample: Am I under arrest?
If I am not, am I free to go?
No? Then I must be under arrest. Do you have a warrant with my name on it?
Then what is your cause for this warrantless arrest?
Are you a public servant?
Then you are depriving me of my property under the color of the law?
If I hand you anything, could you possibly use it in a criminal action against me? If so, I would like to exercise my fifth amendment right to not incriminate myself.
I know, Squirell, that hindsite is going to be 20/20 and you'll be smarter for it in the end. Keep us posted so we can all learn and chime in when we see where we might help.
The question of Civil or Criminal is very key here. Civil DEMANDS an injured party under common law. The State canNOT be the injured party.
Criminal jurisdiction only includes Common law and Admiralty Law (Constitution Article One, section 8, clause 17). If the judge admits "admiralty or military tribunal (same), I doubt you are party to an international contract and you doubt that one exists. But if it does, ask the judge to instruct the prosecutor to produce this international contract and place it into evidence so you may properly defend yourself.
Scott

[squirrel]

driving after cancelation

[scottinalaska]

So now the onus is on you to have the court identify whose rights they might be protecting by keeping you off of the streets.

Remember. The govt is here to protect your life, liberty, and property. It is in every state constitution. What individual rights of what individuals are the judge protecting by revoking THEIR license THEY gave to you. Well, jurisdiction is really the key here, but I have been reading through Marc Stevens' book, "Adventures in Legal Land" and this is point he is making. His thrust is also NOT to argue. Just ask hard questions.
Thanks for the clarifictation, Squirell.
scott

[squirrel]

I dont plan on arguing as I know that is a losing battle. my plan is to want closure on the matter as I do not intend to dispute the facts, I will be asking for an appearance bond without cost and that he waive the fees on my own personal recognizance in order to plead, if he asks what the plea will be I will say guilty. when I get the judgment I'll accept it for value and file it on a UCC-3 with the secretary of state.
do you think it will work??