What the Judge said in Court

[KITCHIE]

Hey!!!

Ok I went to court last week on the no registration ticket. It was my arriagnment. So I started by saying:

For the record I am making a special and restricted appearance to challenge the jurisdiction of the court and of your ability to preside over a matter where jurisdiction has not been proven in the initial complaint. I am not waiving any of my rights at any time for any reason.

So Judge Derisio says OK you are charged with...

I say are you going to tell me how the court has jurisdiction?

Judge: No I will not tell you.

I say: Isn't this a criminal matter?

Judge says: Gee, I don't know.

So there you have it Judge entered a plea for me I objected and then got a court date that according to the judge I can either show up or not.

Kitchie

[Livefire]

If you have this on the record....I'd say you have a slam dunk on appeal. You have mounted a juridicitonal challenge and the judge totally ignored it and shammed his own court.

"Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven." Hagens v Lavine. 415 U.S. 533 Note3.

"No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction."
Standard v. Lavine. 415 U.S. 533 Note 3.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by Livefire

If you have this on the record....I'd say you have a slam dunk on appeal. You have mounted a juridicitonal challenge and the judge totally ignored it and shammed his own court.

"Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven." Hagens v Lavine. 415 U.S. 533 Note3.

"No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction."
Standard v. Lavine. 415 U.S. 533 Note 3.

Appeal what? The filing of a not guilty plea on behalf of a defendant who refuses to understand what is going on?

Sorry. It's an arraingment; an opportunity for the defendant to plead guilty or not. She wouldn't enter a plea so the court has no choice but to enter a not-guilty plea for her. Jurisdiction isn't a question at this stage (and won't fly as a challenge anyway), as several have tried to point out to Kitchie. She wouldn't be in that court if there weren't already proven jurisdictional rulings. Please - don't try to tell me courts haven't heard this kind of thing before. These things keep coming up all from time to time as if it was some new-found black-magic secret. It isn't. I'd venture to say about 5% of pro se cases (depending on where you are in the country) try some kind of bogus tactic they pulled off the 'net.

And the judge was correct - she does not have to show up at her trial. But if she doesn't, a warrant with be issued for her arrest for failure to appear. That only adds more excitement when and if she's pulled over again. Instead of issuing a ticket, the officer will have to take her into custody for the open warrant. Then there's all the fun of being booked into jail, having the car impounded, getting someone to come down and bail you out, having an arrest record and even more future visits to courts, not to mention the fines.

So, isn't being lured into doing stupid things in court worth all that fun?

Personally, the people in jail aren't all that nice to be around.

[Glenn]

This is what I would do and I am not an attorney,

Get the judges bond number, his oath (from the county or states recorders office) and take them to court with you.

File a complaint with the judicial review board within your state.

In court, I would make this statement “I do not agree and or consent to any of this.”

I would ask the judge if I could ask a few questions so I knew where I stood.

I would ask if the court adheres to the court rules (of your state) and federal court rules?

I would then ask if I could expect a fair trial within his court?

I would then ask Does your honor have an oath on file? And then put a certified copy into the record.

Then thank the judge for his or her help. (He will not know for sure what he helped you with) and then remind the court of the challenge of jurisdiction still before the court and still unanswered and I am here as the accused, under threat of financial penalty, incarceration or both.

If the court insists un continuing tell the court you take “exception to the action and you do not understand.”

There will be more talk to get you to contract, if it comes from the bench ask the judge if he or she is excipting the liabilty of the plantiff in this issue?

As soon as the persecuting attorney opens his or her lips and states any fact that he or she has no first hand knowledge (which is anything) I would state “I object, the learned attorney lacks first hand knowledge”

This could go two ways at this point 1. after a few objections ask the court to swear in the persecuting attorney so you have the right to cross examine, if he or she continues to provide evidence. (This will not happen)

Or

They will put the officer on the stand, then just take notes, when your turn comes to ask questions ask all the demeaning things such as (who, where, when pertaining to his or her job) have a print out of the law cited upon the ticket and at the end of this ask the officer what the law cited upon the ticket says, and if the officer can not state the law, move for the officer to be removed from the courtroom and the testimony, evidence or any other alleged facts provided by the officer stricken from the record for incompetence and then move for dismissal with prejudice and sanctions and any relief the courts deems appropriate.

This is just a quickie of how I would handle this and again I am not an attorney.

Glenn

[RevokeTheTrust]

Salutations, holder of Judge Roy Bean!

I've noticed you offer some of the most well-meaning criticism on this board. I comprehend that you are convinced there are evil people moving about the world that try to convince one-another that a contract can't be constructed to depend on evidence of a prior contract offered, supposing an offer within an offer. I was thinking, and I'll admit that I don't need to do that often when someone else's material is available, and where all I need is to post a few pointers within the proper syntax to counter-claim an already-resolved matter in the local/moot; why are your choice of words evidence that someone is trying to offer "protection" (think custodian) if someone is thought or determined to be acting illegal or unlawful? I agree with the moot that a pre-payed improved (think paved) street or road is not depreciating in value quicker than when used by non-registered and registered vehicles. Prior to improved (think paved) streets and roads, all vans (covered trucks/wagons) weren't enduring registration, and the better people earnestly compensated one-another without fault when depleting their resource to help through a difficult Way. What were the reservations to improved streets and roads, where the already-existing people had caused paths to form at little cost? Would not the people condition any improvements, that a prior right to move upon already-existing substrate could not be diminished for the existance of a prior solution to flood the path with processed pebbles and codified symbols of flow control that only have meaning when their patent is conferred upon a Trusted person that already has prior participation with the customs of the day?

Personally, the people in jail aren't all that nice to be around.

I've never been in a jail. I'm sure the people that invented them originally were respectable as to provide a humble Innward shelter consisting of an isolated room with an outhouse, writing-desk, bed and a couple honest meals; Accessible as refuge for negotiations to be made to anyone that appeared or returned to any heretical ways thought abandoned, by their announced entry into a more civilized area where breathing the same atmosphere as their more Orderly fellow occupants around them. Then again, I think the jail could have been given to a capture of city-limits, and cause for a vacuum to concentrate the minds of the populous to determine the Head/capitol to be centered as lawful within one small Housed premise of study. It's only natural to presume all encounteres of an unknown kind are unlawful, until rewarded by the conscription of a legislature that had an unwritten history of honesty and striving for the satisfaction in good will to the people they knew.

I'm not allowed to unhatch any Sealed enclosures to someone that isn't trusted by the contractee, so the general post is accessible to anyone's concern to query the Intent, a journal, and character of the helmsman's attention as prescribed by a competent pilot for peacable movement.

Hope everyone a good day to Day.

with love,
Gregory-Thomas

[Shoonra]

Glenn -

It's an old (maybe ancient) military adage that No battleplan survives an encounter with the enemy. I suspect that the scenario you have imagined will not play out that way in reality.

Anyone who's going to try putting down the judge this way is well advised to bring his toothbrush with him.

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

Sorry. It's an arraingment; an opportunity for the defendant to plead guilty or not. She wouldn't enter a plea so the court has no choice but to enter a not-guilty plea for her. Jurisdiction isn't a question at this stage (and won't fly as a challenge anyway), as several have tried to point out to Kitchie.

Jurisdiction is a question at any stage, unless you have proof to the contrary.


I'll wait... (but I'm not holding my breath.)


Henry Franklin

Originally Posted by KITCHIE

I say are you going to tell me how the court has jurisdiction?

Judge: No I will not tell you.

This question should have been asked to the judge, but directed to the prostitutor. id est:

"Who has the burden of proof of jurisdiction?"

"Have they produced it?"

(If No) "I demand to see it now, before I can make any legal determination about this matter."

(If Yes) "Bring it forward, so that I may see it, because I have not seen it, and believe no proof exists."


Kitchie, there should have been some point where the "judge" asks you if you understand the charges against you. The answer to this question is always "No!"

I say: Isn't this a criminal matter?

Judge says: Gee, I don't know.

Kitchie, Not telling you what you should do here, but if it were me standing in your shoes, I would have taken her answer as my cue to guffaw loudly, followed by: "Do you not know where you are? I must be in the wrong room, Excuse me while I leave."

So there you have it Judge entered a plea for me I objected and then got a court date that according to the judge I can either show up or not.

If you get a transcript of this written in the hearing, you can probably use it to negate the insinuated threat of arrest by JRB.

You did have your own court reporter there, correct?

[Livefire]

Bean,

It seems that you dont "stand-under" 6th amendment
enumerated right for an accused to "under-stand" the charge brought against him or her.....The judge in Kitchie's case effectively trampled all over that when he said "No, Im not going to answer that." Got news for him....YES he does have to answer because the court CANNOT proceed without establishing jurisdiction, otherwise any verdict they render is a nullity in law. And your brethern have stated stare decisis that THE COURT, not the defendant has the burden of proof. The answer, No Im not going reply rendered his court without authority in the instant matter because he didnt reply to an inpersonam jurisdictional challenge. On appeal, Kitchie could probably file a writ of quo warrento with the higher court demanding the lower scumbag to prove up he actually had jurisdiction.

Actually you legal types could rather easily defeat the types of challenges that processes like TS present, IF you didnt care about people knowing about the traffic citation scam perpetrated in American courts. But we know that isnt usually the case. It would be easy for judge to rebut by saying to a defendant that the drivers license constitutes a contract between you and the state. Upon consideration and payment of fees you agreed to follow all rules, regulations, and codes of the state DMV and be subject to all forfeitures and fines for failure to perform (i.e. fines, points, suspensions, imprisonments) This court is the statutorially appointed agency to make adminstrative determinations concerning all parties disputes involved in the drivers license contract, therefore I have jurisdiction...now sir how do you plead!?

You stand rebutted!

[Glenn]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Glenn -

It's an old (maybe ancient) military adage that No battleplan survives an encounter with the enemy. I suspect that the scenario you have imagined will not play out that way in reality.

Anyone who's going to try putting down the judge this way is well advised to bring his toothbrush with him.

This is not the time nor the place but I would still like to know why you might think it will not work as stated.

Glenn