Challenging personal jurisdiction on tickets

Hi

I received a Notice from the superior court in West Los Angeles saying that they wanted me to pay $650.00, on what seemed like a traffic citation which apparently is in the collections stage.

Before we go into details, I found it very strange how the court mailed me a notice once this issue has gone to the collection stages, but never sent a notice prior to a court date.

I wasn't sure what this was all about so I went to see the clerk. She pulled the document on the comp screen and informed me it was a traffic ticket which I failed to pay, the funny part is that I dont remember getting one at all in years. I demanded the clerk to issue me a copy of the citation while looking at it I found out the weirdest thing.

The ticket has all of my information on it, including my right address, but there are two fishy errors

1 The police officer states in the citation, that the car which the violation was commited on is registered on my name (assuming they get the information from the registration slip when pulled over) Is impossible for this to make any sense because is absolutely not true since I don't own such car neither I have a car such as this registered on my name.

AND

2 The signature on the ticket is not my signature.

I informed the clerk about this and she schedule a court date to go see a judge.

Now I'm aware of lack of personal jurisdiction, which is what I'll move the court to dismiss this citation but the second fact on my defense is within the citation itself, which is the "registered owner" situation.

My question are..... should I just challenge personal jurisdiction just on the signature issue?

And is there any statute which indicates that such as those two errors are "fatal" and therefore an instant dismissal?

And finally

Would you guys think that bringing on the table the fact that the strange car "is not and it was never" registered on my name would be concider arguing, therefore giving life to an issue and giving them personal jurisdiction or this issue would be a + to my defense since there is two fatal erros on this citation?

Im puzzled beyond reasoning how this "Frankestain" citation was ever writen specially since all my info is on the face of it.

Any imput would be very much appreciated

[Shoonra]

You won't get far quibbling about personal jurisdiction. I suggest you be straightforward with the judge that this appears to be a case of identity theft; not a car you ever used, not your handwriting, etc. Would help if you could remember - and, better, prove - what you were doing and where at the time the ticket was issued.

How would I remember what was I doing on a regular ole day about three months ago?

[Shoonra]

I said it would help if you knew. Check the calendar; what day of the week, what hour? Can it be compared to your work schedule for that day, or credit card bills for that day or something that might jog your memory?

If that doesn't work, you still have the business of the non-existent car registration and the handwriting. See if there's any other evidence of your identity being stolen that would support this argument.

[charlesa6]

Gmail, welcome to the forum.

[KITCHIE]

Hi Gmail

I would write a Notice and Demand they provide Proof of Claim. Since we are under maritime law, Notices are VERY effective. Also write a Notice to the court you revoke the signature on the citation for fraud and fogery. This works very well.

Kitchie

[Shoonra]

I would write a Notice and Demand they provide Proof of Claim.

The original traffic ticket with your alleged signature is their proof.

Since we are under maritime law,.....

Nonsense.

Also write a Notice to the court you revoke the signature on the citation for fraud and fogery. This works very well.

I assume that "fogery" means "forgery" and not senility. Anyway, you deny outright that it's your signature; not merely a "Notice", and I doubt you can "revoke" something that you hadn't actually done.

Keep in mind that any active traffic court has had its fill of people who lie about how they were or weren't driving, so it will be a BIG help if you can come up with some tangible evidence supporting your position.

[KITCHIE]

You are right about the origional citation. So make them bring it into evidence and identify you as the person who signed it.

I submitted a revocation of signature which had to do with me signing an ipod, and my autograph was placed on a document I had never seen. However in this case the same format can be used as it applies to Gmail situtation.

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
REVOCATION OF SIGNITURE, FOR GOOD CAUSE

Reno Municipal Court
Department 2
Case Number 918196
Department Number II


On this 13th day of December 2004, I, Katherine-Elizabeth; Snedigar, a natural-person with legal capacity of a party to this action, having first hand knowledge of the material and relevant facts, do hereby state the following is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. My factual position assertions are supported by evidence and may be further supported upon legal research in addition to my receipt of discovery materials. I hereby certify that my claims are warranted, by existing law, and this paperwork is not being filed for a frivolous purpose but has a factual and legal basis for the claim.

Statement
On September 29, 2004, I received, from Officer Madalinski - Badge Number 866 of the Reno Police Department, a computer printout with a graphic that looks like someone’s signature that I was unable to read.

Said computer printout was returned to Officer Madalinski on October 4, 2004, via certified mail receipt number 7003 2260 6862 1015. Said printout was returned, rejected and refused for fraud as the "legal" document / printout that was given to me purporting to be a citation number R918916866. Said document / printout was received under threat, duress and coercion and it was returned for fraud since I am not the trustee / fiduciary or transfer agent for "snedigar katherine elizabeth" at an address that I do not recognize as being valid, so the document was, quite obviously, not meant for me.

Because the City of Reno and Reno Municipal Court, through false information, concealment of information, disinformation, misinformation, and misdirection is intentionally misleading me into believing that I have a legal duty to place my autograph on an electronic digital imaging screen that can place my autograph on any document at will, (See attached) I am hereby revoking my signature, for good cause, off all filings entered in the Reno Municipal Court and all connected databases between September 29, 2004 and December 8, 2004 and those filings are herby made void, ab initio.
1. I was misinformed and misled into believing that there was a legal requirement for me to sign something other than the citation that was issued.
2. I was presented a computer of some sort that I was directed to sign my name on, and I was not informed of where my signature was going.
3. I signed the computer under duress as is noted with c.f. in front of my autograph.

4. I was never presented with nor did I sign a document entitled “State of Nevada Reno Police Department” which was entered on October 14, 2004.
5. I did not know the above referenced document existed until December 8, 2004.
6. I do not know who placed my signature on the above referenced document.
Therefore I am revoking, rescinding, rejecting any and all signatures and any variations thereof, for RMC Case #918196.

This document is the preparation of the undersigned.

Before the Almighty God and under His statutes, I declare that the foregoing is the truth in accord with the best of my knowledge on this _____ day of _____________in the year of our Lord two thousand four.

_______________________________
Katherine-Elizabeth; Snedigar Creditor, Secured Party
Sui Juris

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Katherine-Elizabeth; Snedigar, the undersigned, who is personally known by me is appearing before me this day and signing the within instrument in my presence and for the purpose therein stated.

Signed this day,______of________________ at, ____________, Nevada,

____________________________
Notary Public
SEAL

My commission expires on:
_____________________

I had no problem in court with this.
Kitchie

[KITCHIE]

Notices definently do work. And they are part of maritime law. Check out the Late Notice you might receive... In commerce they do everything by notice.

For example: Where I live we have a problem with cattlemen transporting there cattle off public grazing lands and on to private property for free grazing without the property owners permission. For the past five years a group of people have been trying to get answers from the DA as to whether they can do this. For five years these people have been lied to and ignored.

I worte a notice and demand to produce documents (others had requested documents) and served it on the County Commissioners and the DA. In three days I received an answer. The cattlemen had no authorization to trnsport cattle onto private property for free grazing.

The group now does EVERYTHING by NOTICE!!!!! The group is getting results and the DA and the County Commissioners are beginning to cave.

A request they will ignore, a Notice and Demand or Actual and Constructive notice they answer.

ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE DEFINED
"Actual Notice has been defined as notice expressly and actually given, and brought home to the party directly.” Jordan v. Pollock, 14 Ga. 145; McCray v. Clar, 82 Pa. 457; Morey v.Milliken, 86 Me. 464, 30 A. 102. The term 'actual notice,' however, is generally given a wider meaning as embracing two classes, express and implied; the former includes all knowledge of a degree above that which depends upon collateral inference, or which imposes upon the party the further duty of inquiry; the latter imputes knowledge to the party because he is shown to be conscious of having the means of knowledge. In this sense actual notice is such notice as is positively proved to have been given to a party directly and personally, or such as he is presumed to have received personally because the evidence within his knowledge was sufficient to put him upon inquiry. Picklesimer v. Smith, 164 Ga. 600, 139 S.E. 72, 74; White v. Fisher, 77 Ind. 65, 40 Am.Rep. 287." Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p. 210
“Constructive notice” is a presumption of law, making it impossible for one to deny the matter concerning which notice is given. 'Implied notice' is a presumption of fact relating to what one can learn by reasonable inquiry and arises from actual notice of circumstances, and not from constructive notice. Charles v. Roxana Petroleum Corporation,C.C.A.Okl., 282 F. 983, 988. Or, as otherwise defined, implied notice may be said to exist where the fact in question lies open to the knowledge of the party, so that the exercise of reasonable observation and watchfulness would not fail to apprise him of it, although no one has told him of it in so many words. See City of Philadelphia v. Smith, Pa., 16 A. 493." Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p. 1211


OK?

Kitchie

[weishaupt1776]

Shoonra, how in the world can a signature which is obtained under the threat of being maced, tazed, cuffed, stuffed, kidnapped, impounded, imprisoned; be a valid signature at all?

How is that consistent with what is just, right, and true?

How Can going 5-10 miles over the speed limit be quantified into any real data which would demonstrate that a neighborhood experienced a diminished quality of life in connection with this alleged violation?

Can I get the data sheets on the quality of life measuring device?

Do I have the right to cross-examine this evidence of "diminished quality of life"?

How can I?