Tried using the enacting clause.

[weaponx71]

But I screwed up from the get go....

First I put the wrong heading on the document, my court was for the county and I put city on there, so the judge right away says that, that court doesnt exist.

He then asked me what the document was, I read him the title of the document.

Judge: I can read the document, I need to know WHAT it is.

Me: Special action for removal of judgment..... (cut off)

Judge: I need you to tell me what this document means and is trying to prove.

Me: Removal of judgment and order for arrest.

Judge: How does this document prove that this should be dismissed or removed?

(here he almost seemed to give me a chance to actually state the reason for the letter, all tis time I was reading he would interrupt me by saying he couldnt hear or that he could read it but wanted to know what it meant)

Me: (reading again) Paragraph 3, The charging instrument....(so on, so forth)

Judge: so what your telling me is that this citation is invalid because it doesnt have the enacting clause on it.

Me: Yes

Judge: Well if you look up statute (names the statute from the ticket) in the Wisconsin constitution you will see a section that does have the enacting clause, and now your telling me that, that enacting clause has to be on this citation????

Me: Ye..... (cut off)

Judge: Well I am telling you that your wrong, so you want to plead Not Guilty I assume.....



At this point I knew I screwed up the document and was quite intimidated. I backed down and said yes, he then ended it there.



I was thinking that when he asked me to explain it to him, I should have told him that I wasnt trained to counsel him in the law of said document.

I know I let you all down, but for the first time ever even thinking of going against a judge I was scared out of my wits.. I had no one in there with me either.

[Paul88]

Next time just tell him you stand on the document, and you are not here to testify. Did you see my post?



Click here for the topic

[rushpat]

They are always probing to see if you know what you are doing. They will play dumb if they need to.

[weaponx71]

I did see your topic, but I forgot all about that part.



But I think if I said.. I stand on the document he would have asked what did I mean by standing on the document...



I really love this site, but there is so much that is said and so much that needs to be remember that its easy to get caught up in it all.



I knew he was playing dumb to see what I knew.. I had that with one judge when my old landlord took me to court because he said he saw my name in the paper for another case so he figure he would say I wasnt paying rent and took me to court.. during the reading the landlord admited seeing my name in the paper.. the judge cut him off, looked right at me and asked if there was anything I wanted to say... I wasnt sure but common sense and a few tv shows made me say that how could he assume my guilt on the basis of a different court case when he has no prof of the one taking place now... Judge smiled and said that the case was dismissed.... I got lucky on that one.. this one... eh..

live and learn...

[Jerseee]

weapon,



i am proud of you still. the mere fact that you tried is all anyone can ask of you. thanks for sharing your experience. I am sure it help others.

[Ice]

We take the good with the bad and we learn from both.



In hindsight, what do you see that you could have done differently? Others may want to offer their insights as well... the opportunity to learn and teach should be taken advantage of.

[weaponx71]

Well, besides the incorrect heading on the document. I shouldnt have gotten into the discussion and the explaination to the judge on what the document was. As Paul said, I should have just stood on the document and said I am not here to testify.

I am thinking that when I began to explain the document I was pulled into the jurisdiction of the court. I'm not sure on that point though.

weapon, im upset with you, NOT for trying, but for not doing proper research on the enacting clause before you applied it. The judge used the ONLY trick they have. Yes, there is a enacting clause, but it MUST BE ON THE FACE of the statute, code, rule, etc. that they say you are violating, THEY CANNOT CROSS REFERENCE TO A CLAUSE SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!!! Damn, i wish that could have been me in there, i would of torn that judge apart. Well now you know how he tricked you, go back and file the motion again under first amendment right to redress so that he cant sanction you and use this new information. look up Joiner vs State of Georgia.

[Paul88]

Originally Posted by kgod999

Damn, i wish that could have been me in there, i would of torn that judge apart. .

And just how would you go about doing this? When the judge says I’m dismissing this document. This is what he said to me. He said it wasn’t based on any facts! He lied right into my face!

What weapon should have done is to set the judge up from the start by first getting a copy of the judges oath and presenting it to court. (bring him into the common law). Then he should have stated case law on the constitution being common law, then when he approached the enacting clause, weapon could have explained that the reason they have no enacting clause is because the legislature cannot enact laws against the constitution, thus, by pretending to enact laws, they are not violating the constitution because the laws they enact are not enacted as POSITIVE law against the constitution. Finally, weapon should have used case law that explains void judgments, etc. that are void regardless what the judge says.