Went to court today in sayreville!! :(

[Paul88]

Ok, where do I start? I am totally shocked at this, the judge denied every single motion my Affidavit of truth stating there are no facts to it or any case law. He scheduled me for trial AGAIN! I asked about speedy trial and the fact that this has been going on for over 2 years now!!! Last time I went to court different judge scheduled me for trial date which was today, I said that to the judge and asked to dismiss on lock of prosecution, to which he said. Mr. Pluta did you change your hair color? I was stunned, I said no he said that last time in court it wasn’t me he is being told!!!! He said the person last time had blond hair and was shorter!!!!!!!!!!!! I objected to that statement!!! I don’t know what to do anymore. I am in the biggest pickle ever. I didn’t record anything because I had no money for a recorder, and the last one I used I gave it back.

[Jerseee]

Sounds like they are conspiring against you. I did not know that one's appearances could get you a trial date? then again, I've seen minorities get railroaded for being something other.

Maybe you might want to enforce the Writ of Mandamus? Just a thought.

[Livefire]

I think you might want to check out the Objections to Evidence and Testimony in the DL section......file paperwork for an Interlocutory appeal. Seems that this court doesnt want to deal with the issue of the WoM!

[weishaupt1776]

The 5 steps to object looks very cool, too

look up case law on speedy trail. you are automatically acquitted for failure to be brought to trail ( in georgia it must be within 2 terms of court, after ARREST, NOT indictment, etc.) LASTLY, if they ignore your case law on speedy trail, do a oral allocution.( dont consent to the charges and walk out the courtroom)

[test]

Paul88,

I am sure this ordeal has been draining for you and costing you much in time and "money", I don't know how much you have to pay for the "infraction" you "commited" but probably at this point they have spent a lot more money in all this crap they are doing so even if you end up paying for the "infraction" you "comited" they already lost.

I hope is not so serious as to carry some time in the gray bar hotel and in the end it's only "money" what you have to pay, if it comes to that.

I wish you well in this ordeal, whatever is the outcome of it.

[Akira]

Paul88,

Not again? Are you dizzy yet? hahaha

Did you challenge jurisdiction, on the record, the moment "YOUR NAME" was called?

the judge denied every single motion my Affidavit of truth stating there are no facts to it or any case law

Why would you need case law, unless you were already under their jurisdiction?

Therefore, I presume not....

The magistrate would never have had the opportunity to deny your motions... if you had done so.

Mr. Pluta did you change your hair color?

Objection... relevancy ?

It sounds to me as though you have compromised their position to a point where no magistrate dare rule on your case for fear of retribution... so they are waiting for you to shut them down.

They can't go forward... and you haven't done what it takes to end it... so it goes on and on...

They ask a dumb question, you respond, and they pass it off to the next magistrate, hoping you will have your ducks in a row next time...

I gave you a template... what part are you leaving out?

Challenging jurisdiction from the get-go?

Considering our discussions privately... I must assume so...

For HIS Glory,
Akira

Originally Posted by test

Paul88,

I am sure this ordeal has been draining for you and costing you much in time and "money", I don't know how much you have to pay for the "infraction" you "commited" but probably at this point they have spent a lot more money in all this crap they are doing so even if you end up paying for the "infraction" you "comited" they already lost.

********************** *********************

Try this perspective -- "They" (gov't) never (or almost never?) LOSE !!
Where do you think the "money" comes from to operate the court & pay the judges? It is the "taxpayer" & "finepayer", & if that is not enough they
will print more "money". So, DO "they" REALLY LOSE.

**************************************************

I hope is not so serious as to carry some time in the gray bar hotel and in the end it's only "money" what you have to pay, if it comes to that.

I wish you well in this ordeal, whatever is the outcome of it.

Try this perspective --

[Paul88]

Originally Posted by trek

Try this perspective --

I have challange their jurisdiction plenty of times. When I said that "I am here on speciall apparance" he replied, mr pluta everyone here is on special apparrances, with a stupid smile on his face. They know what I am doing and they know that i am right. Agfain, this is what I said to them.

This affidavit is my testimony...and the prosecution has failed to respond to answer that testimony. That is why I filed final notice of default. The prosecution has had a reasonable amount of time to respond and insist on bringing these charges. Inferior courts get their jurisdiction form the sufficiency of pleadings, as I see it the prosecution has made no pleading because of his failure to rebut his testimony. In lack of sufficient pleading I don’t see how this court can obtain subject matter jurisdiction. The prosecution has no claim and has insufficient pleading; He should be making their own motion to dismiss these charges. Or this court should dismiss on its own motion because it lack subject matter jurisdiction. I have filed my motion to dismiss today based on the truths found in my affidavit and notice of default and final default; I move this court to dismiss, for lack o subject matter jurisdiction, and for the prosecution bringing frivolous case. I stand on the US Supreme Court Yick Wo v. Hopkins and I quote



"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.; "Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370”



An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in Commerce. Legally, “He who does not deny, admits” or “silence implies consent.”


He said that Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370 has nothing to do with this case.

[hAKEEM]

They hope you give in and just pay the fine. Just stick to the DOCS othing else.