Misc. Discussion Post anything here that does not fit elsewhere..


Go Back   Suijuris Forums > Educational & Learning > General Discussion > Misc. Discussion
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 02-13-2008, 06:15 PM
quasimodo's Avatar
quasimodo quasimodo is offline
Unplugged
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Are there States?
Posts: 136
Does anybody remember?

Not too long ago I saw something in here which stated something to the effect that who so ever should issue a summons can not also appear in the exact case.

Does anyone have any more information on this issue?
I can't find anything pertaining to this in the USC.
Am I looking in the wrong place, or simply over looking it, or does this not exist?
Any help would be great.
Q
__________________
"SALUS POPULI SUPREMA LEX ESTO" "Let the good of the People be the Supreme Law" JOHN LOCKE
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-13-2008, 07:22 PM
ezrhythm ezrhythm is offline
Come and Get Some!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,135
Send a message via AIM to ezrhythm Send a message via Yahoo to ezrhythm
I may have posted something regarding that but I can't remember specifically.
Yes that is true, only someone not a party to the action may serve process.

BUT what is interesting is that a traffic ticket isn't a service of process. A service of process isn't required to be signed by the one receiving it. Though for a traffic ticket or a Notice To Appear, (the initial one, not one that is mailed later) the officer needs to get your signature.
__________________

Any fool can hire an attorney. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction.


Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, following the tradition of men according to the rudiments of the world, and not in accordance with Christ.

To view other forums or create a new thread; While viewing any thread scroll down to the bottom right hand side. Select from Forum Jump.


Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-14-2008, 06:33 PM
quasimodo's Avatar
quasimodo quasimodo is offline
Unplugged
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Are there States?
Posts: 136
That is interesting. So what you are saying is, is that the summons (traffic(sic) ticket) is not and has nothing to do with a service of process. How can that be? Is the ticket not what initiates the legal(sic) process to which one is served?
__________________
"SALUS POPULI SUPREMA LEX ESTO" "Let the good of the People be the Supreme Law" JOHN LOCKE
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-14-2008, 06:59 PM
ezrhythm ezrhythm is offline
Come and Get Some!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,135
Send a message via AIM to ezrhythm Send a message via Yahoo to ezrhythm
This is so fascinating!

It actually does initiate a legal process but it is a process under the rules of the UCC. The ticket is actually a contract and we initiate a commercial process by signing it. This is why an officer can get all bent out of shape if you tell him that you are not going to sign or if you sign the ticket in a way he doesn't like.
Then most default on the contract and the legal process that we are accustomed to goes forward.

After studying the Uniform Commercial Code it all becomes plain as day. The words and terms used are the same. The de facto court is just a bank and the
black robe is just a banker.
__________________

Any fool can hire an attorney. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction.


Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, following the tradition of men according to the rudiments of the world, and not in accordance with Christ.

To view other forums or create a new thread; While viewing any thread scroll down to the bottom right hand side. Select from Forum Jump.



Last edited by ezrhythm : 02-14-2008 at 07:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-14-2008, 07:25 PM
quasimodo's Avatar
quasimodo quasimodo is offline
Unplugged
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Are there States?
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezrhythm
This is so fascinating!...
...The de facto court is just a bank and the
black robe is just a banker.

Agreed absolutely.
But the ticket is still a summons.
how does the court/bank separate the two?
Confusing this is.
__________________
"SALUS POPULI SUPREMA LEX ESTO" "Let the good of the People be the Supreme Law" JOHN LOCKE
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-14-2008, 07:55 PM
ezrhythm ezrhythm is offline
Come and Get Some!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,135
Send a message via AIM to ezrhythm Send a message via Yahoo to ezrhythm
It is a type of summons, a Notice (to appear). It can also be an Order (to show cause, etc.)

A Notice needs your indorsment for evidence of knowledge;
(a) Subject to subsection (f), a person has "notice" of a fact if the person: (1) has actual knowledge of it; (2) has received a notice or notification of it; or (3) from all the facts and circumstances known to the person at the time in question, has reason to know that it exists. 1-202

Of course if the officer doesn't get an indorsment that doesn't mean that they won't try an push an action upon a presumption of knowledge of the Notice.
That is why the officer insists that you receive the copy. He wants the original for the agency to be the "holder in due course".
Try not indorsing or accepting it. When he tosses it in the window, take it back to his car and put it on the windshield.


An Order only needs to be signed by;
(8) "Order" means a written instruction to pay money signed by the person giving the instruction. The instruction may be addressed to any person, including the person giving the instruction, or to one or more persons jointly or in the alternative but not in succession. An authorization to pay is not an order unless the person authorized to pay is also instructed to pay. 3-103


§ 3-104. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT. (Traffic Ticket) (a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), "negotiable instrument" means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money (fine), with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order, if it:
(1) is payable to bearer or to order at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder;
(2) is payable on demand or at a definite time; and
(3) does not state any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising or ordering payment to do any act in addition to the payment of money, but the promise or order may contain (i) an undertaking or power to give, maintain, or protect collateral to secure payment, (appear) (ii) an authorization or power to the holder to confess judgment or realize on or dispose of collateral, or (iii) a waiver of the benefit of any law intended for the advantage or protection of an obligor.


(e) An instrument is a "note" if it is a promise (to appear?) and is a "draft" if it is an order (to show cause?). If an instrument falls within the definition of both "note" and "draft," a person entitled to enforce the instrument may treat it as either.

(d) A promise or order other than a check is not an instrument if, at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder, it contains a conspicuous statement, however expressed, to the effect that the promise or order is not negotiable or is not an instrument governed by this Article.
A Notice To Appear does not state this.

(12) "Promise" (to appear? to show up and pay?) means a written undertaking to pay money signed by the person undertaking to pay. An acknowledgment of an obligation by the obligor is not a promise unless the obligor also undertakes to pay the obligation.

From Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summons

Citation

A citation, traffic violation ticket or notice to appear is a type of summons prepared and served at the scene of the occurrence by a law enforcement official, compelling the appearance of a defendant before the local magistrate within a certain period of time to answer for a minor traffic infraction or misdemeanor or other summary offence. Failure to appear within the allotted period of time is a separate crime of failure to appear.

compelling: demanding attention

§ 3-302. HOLDER IN DUE COURSE. (a) Subject to subsection (c) and Section 3-106(d), "holder in due course" means the holder of an instrument if:
(1) the instrument when issued or negotiated to the holder does not bear such apparent evidence of forgery or alteration or is not otherwise so irregular or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity; and
(2) the holder took the instrument (i) for value, (ii) in good faith, (iii) without notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is an uncured default with respect to payment of another instrument issued as part of the same series, (iv) without notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered, (v) without notice of any claim to the instrument described in Section 3-306, and (vi) without notice that any party has a defense or claim in recoupment described in Section 3-305(a).
__________________

Any fool can hire an attorney. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction.


Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, following the tradition of men according to the rudiments of the world, and not in accordance with Christ.

To view other forums or create a new thread; While viewing any thread scroll down to the bottom right hand side. Select from Forum Jump.



Last edited by ezrhythm : 02-14-2008 at 10:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-14-2008, 09:39 PM
mrg's Avatar
mrg mrg is online now
Come and Get Some!
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Illinois Republic
Posts: 3,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezrhythm
The de facto court is just a bank and the
black robe is just a banker.


The attorneys' place of business (slave market brothel), where they ply their trade, is at the edges and sides of a republican institution where affairs are administered (court), and is a gambling casino the attorneys have set up there, and which is backed by the casino's "bank."

It is a wagering enterprise.

There is always a wager involved.

As far as I can figure:

The wager is a motion.

To wager is to motion.



If you physically must, or choose, to bodily go, (either as a last resort, or under force of arms), into a republican institution where affairs are administered (court), you must hold, and be able to hold YOUR court--administer your affairs--and not let the hucksters plying their trade at the sides contract (joinder, enjoin) you into their business.

That is to be suijuris, as far as I can tell.



You do not motion.

You do not WAGER.

Wagering in a flesh market is a devil's game for fools and charlatans.

You are not to play the devil's game.

The demons and their agency will not like you.

You are not there to win their friendship.

They are not there to make friends with you.

(The devil's "tools" are neither devils nor demons, for the most part: they are, generally, men and women; remember this. The terms "devil" and "demon" may be taken figuratively, quasi-figuratively, or literally, depending upon one's persuasion in thes regards.)



As far as I can figure:

He/she (the so-called "judge") is an "Honorable" Esquire ATTORNEY representing, and acting as administrator to, for, and in the interest of, the casino's "bank," along the back edge of a republican institution where affairs are administered (court).

"De jure" and "de facto" are totally irrelevant terms when one holds one's court suijuris.

His "Honor's" Esquire associates on either "side" also represent the "bank."

The black robe is a bankster.

So are the other Esquire accomplices.

People tend to "forget" that "bankers" (the one's in the cottage industry counting houses), as well as "attorneys" apply the title of Esquire to their representation of themselves.

A "court" (so-called "judge's") "order" is an equity statement.

A docket sheet is a ledger.

(Look closely at both from a typical "debt collection" "judgment.")

A monthly "credit card" "bill" is not a "bill," but is an equity statement.

When equity statements are in "default" (or at any time, for that matter) they can be, and are, traded as commercial paper.

Last edited by mrg : 02-14-2008 at 09:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-14-2008, 10:03 PM
gldskr's Avatar
gldskr gldskr is offline
Practice Makes Perfect
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Arizona state
Posts: 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezrhythm
It actually does initiate a legal process but it is a process under the rules of the UCC. The ticket is actually a contract and we initiate a commercial process by signing it. This is why an officer can get all bent out of shape if you tell him that you are not going to sign or if you sign the ticket in a way he doesn't like.
Then most default on the contract and the legal process that we are accustomed to goes forward.
Not quite. The ticket is an extension of a contract previously entered into, that being, the registration and subsequent license. The commercial process begins long before the cop stops you. You are correct that it is a notice and the cop will want a receipt, either by signature or in person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quasimodo
Agreed absolutely.
But the ticket is still a summons.
how does the court/bank separate the two?
Confusing this is.
The ticket is not a summons, only a court can issue one. It is a Notice to Appear for breach of contract, issued by the state's agent, the LEO, the witness to the breach. Personal jurisdiction has been established as evidenced by the registration contract. SMJ has been established by the terms (statutes) of that contract. The only thing left is to discredit the evidence and/or the witness.

There is no formal charge because it is not a judicial proceeding, it is administrative. All the actors against you are paid by the same entity.

If you were to drive your vehicle onto IBM property and you noticed a posted speed limit of 10 mph and you were driving 25 mph, if caught, your vehicle would likely be impounded until the restitution was paid. By entering their property you entered into a contract. Their jurisdiction, their rules. Works the same way driving a registered vehicle.

gldskr
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-14-2008, 10:54 PM
ezrhythm ezrhythm is offline
Come and Get Some!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,135
Send a message via AIM to ezrhythm Send a message via Yahoo to ezrhythm
GREAT ADDITION MRG!!!


gldskr,
I'll disagree to the extent that one may be issued a ticket without licensing or registering.
What I found in the vehicle code is that licensing and registering gives consent to be served process at the address given.

A ticket (notice) is a type of summons. An Order is another type,one signed by the court.
A NTA isn't a breach of contract because one can be issued one without having signed a license or reg.
What breach of contract is made for jaywalking?
The NTA is a contract itself.


(12) "Contract", as distinguished from "agreement", means the total legal obligation that results from the parties' agreement as determined by [the Uniform Commercial Code] as supplemented by any other applicable laws.


So then a DL application and vehicle registration are two "agreements" under a total legal obligation of the contract, Birth Registration.
__________________

Any fool can hire an attorney. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction.


Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, following the tradition of men according to the rudiments of the world, and not in accordance with Christ.

To view other forums or create a new thread; While viewing any thread scroll down to the bottom right hand side. Select from Forum Jump.


Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-15-2008, 12:05 AM
sheisaceo sheisaceo is offline
Practice Makes Perfect
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 442
I have what is labeled a citation, but in fact a suit. The thing is that I have not been in front of a judge and service of the citation and my submitting an answer with prejudice are the same steps involved in being served a ticket and signing for it.

Citation, petition, order...I don't think there is any magnitude (contract) until there is a session with witnesses where a man or woman publicly declares not to contract....up to that moment. If law is a derivative of written biblical law, then all trial was held in the public square so that witnesses were able to recount the events.

Even submitting an answer to a petition, order, suit, does not engage a contract based on the above subject to reservation of rights.

If without prejudice guarantees the non payment of the 'item' (motion, petition), then a contract from a suit could be prevented at any time if I am reading this correctly. I am thinking that this is true even at the appellate level.

Before, I thought that UCC was supposed to be defended arguing legal jurisdiction but the premise of the UCC is to allow to negate any contract, and without argument, and now I am thinking that it allows to negate the contract at any time during the process.

I would love to see some case law where someone actually removed volunteering to contract in appellate.

IMHO.

Last edited by sheisaceo : 02-15-2008 at 10:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Remember Ethan Allen? BoyntonStu Religion 0 11-10-2005 07:43 AM
Does anyone remember when?... The Great Owl End Days of America 7 11-06-2005 02:39 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:13 AM.
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
2003-2008 Copyright by Law Research Group, LLC Terms of Use | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Notice/Disclaimer