I was detained for claming i was one of the people and claiming common law...

[sheisaceo]

Carlos, this is what I wrote for Comal County:

Date: 2/19/2008

From: Sheisaceo

Re: Case No. NNNNNNNN

Dear Representative,

The presentment above is dishonored. Sheisaceo as reserved all of her rights under the Uniform Commercial Code at Uniform Commercial Code 1-207 and 1-308. Please find the enclosed instrument returned refusal for cause.

All Rights Reserved.


_____________________________________
Sheisaceo



Jurat/Acknowledgment

Texas Republic )


Comal County )

On this day of ___ of _____AD____Signor has personally appear before me, is known to be the person operating in the requisite capacity for signature described herein, who executed the foregoing, acknowledged the contents thereof; and executed the same as her free act and deed. Subscribed and agreed to before the undersigned.

________________________ Seal/Stamp
Notary Signature

________________________
Printed Name of Notary

My commission expires:

[James]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

Good- but be careful! The question is not "were you described" in reality, but does the 1st hand witness claim you were so described.

The adversary needs to establish that there is a case, and then prove it. It only takes one (!) witness, but someone somewhere somehow needs to represent this "cause of action"- if they can't even be bothered to do this then there is no case to begin with, nothing to settle or judge, just grounds to dismiss the complaint.

The whole point of a legal process is to establish a controversy and settle the argument. So someone has to first ARGUE- that you were indeed, "PI", based on what that person knows 1st hand. Not what they think, or feel or conclude, or would like to believe, but what they claim to have witnessed.

I agree with farmer_giles_of_ham, but would add the prima facia case cannot be proven simply by the accusation of the plaintiff. There must be some evidence or corroborating cir***stances to prove not only that the crime was committed, but that the accused committed said crime. If the prima facia case can be maintained on the single testimony of an officer, then any charges brought by an officer could not be refuted. If this is the state of the law, then there can be no justice.

The question is, does the plaintiff have standing to bring a cause of action?

Standing requires the violation of a legal right that causes damage.

“A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984)

“The Supreme Court held that because the named plaintiff was unable to allege and show that he personally had been injured by the defendant’s actions, his lack of individual standing precluded the trial court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction…The court explained that [o]ur state constitution contemplates, that plaintiffs seeking redress in the courts must first demonstrate standing. Because the Texas constitution requires the presence of a proper party to raise issues before the court, standing is a threshold inquiry regardless of whether the plaintiff brings an individual or class action.” Polaris Industries, Inc. v. McDonald, 119 S.W.3d 331, 338, 339.

“To gain standing to bring an action, a plaintiff must allege a distinct and palpable injury. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501.” Sears v. Hull, 961 P.2d 1013, 1017 (1998).

“To gain standing to bring an action, a plaintiff must allege a distinct and palpable injury.” Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc., 108 P.3d 917.

I would recommend to TXcarlosTX getting a copy of “Adventures in Legal Land” at http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/

[ezrhythm]

Great post! I was going to recommend the same site.

[TXcarlosTX]

Originally Posted by sheisaceo

Carlos, this is what I wrote for Comal County:

Date: 2/19/2008

From: Sheisaceo

Re: Case No. NNNNNNNN

Dear Representative,

The presentment above is dishonored. Sheisaceo as reserved all of her rights under the Uniform Commercial Code at Uniform Commercial Code 1-207 and 1-308. Please find the enclosed instrument returned refusal for cause.

All Rights Reserved.


_____________________________________
Sheisaceo



Jurat/Acknowledgment

Texas Republic )


Comal County )

On this day of ___ of _____AD____Signor has personally appear before me, is known to be the person operating in the requisite capacity for signature described herein, who executed the foregoing, acknowledged the contents thereof; and executed the same as her free act and deed. Subscribed and agreed to before the undersigned.

________________________ Seal/Stamp
Notary Signature

________________________
Printed Name of Notary

My commission expires:

ha, you should of hit me up with this last night!! oh well, im getting ready for next battle. please help with anyinfo. thanks guys

[Akira-]

sheisaceo,

I find four elements of your doc above that will likely contribute to your undoing... can you find them?

[sheisaceo]

Originally Posted by Akira-

sheisaceo,

I find four elements of your doc above that will likely contribute to your undoing... can you find them?

It has worked before but if you can find them, then someone else will that is looking for them so please tell. Thanks.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by James

the prima facia case cannot be proven simply by the accusation of the plaintiff.

I know it seems unfair but in fact yes the prima facia case is "proven" by the PROPER accusation of a plaintiff.

Actually, rather than "proven", a case is in this way established. Nothing is proven, until finally decided by a competent authority.

This leaves many 'ifs'; rarely are each and all correctly fulfilled:

(not necessarily in this order, and quite possible more besides)

1. proper accusation- claims acts in violation of ALL the elements of a given law.

2. established case- must follow ALL the rules of procedure.

3. competent authority- personal jurisdiction, venue and oath of office.

There must be some evidence or corroborating cir***stances to prove not only that the crime was committed, but that the accused committed said crime.

OK- this is part of the proper complaint/demand, the "evidence" or "cir***stances" being the actionable claim made by the plaintiff.

Nothing is decided yet, just-"is there a case being made here at all, taken at face value?"

This of course excludes conjectures, opinions, speculations, mere information, hearsay, commonly-known impossibilities, etc. And must INCLUDE every element of the offense charged!

(God's law requires that matters be established in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses, but in there, are no petty, civil, or inchoate offenses, and that is not a corporate venue)

The main thing is that so so so often there are "business-as-usual" charges that as a matter of routine policy are brought at the discretion of the various dept's and agencies.

And "disorderly conduct", and "public intox" are some of them. And most charges, really, according to the situation- they got a trick for every mark.

I know this 1st hand.

[TXcarlosTX]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

I know it seems unfair but in fact yes the prima facia case is "proven" by the PROPER accusation of a plaintiff.

Actually, rather than "proven", a case is in this way established. Nothing is proven, until finally decided by a competent authority.

This leaves many 'ifs'; rarely are each and all correctly fulfilled:

(not necessarily in this order, and quite possible more besides)

1. proper accusation- claims acts in violation of ALL the elements of a given law.

2. established case- must follow ALL the rules of procedure.

3. competent authority- personal jurisdiction, venue and oath of office.



OK- this is part of the proper complaint/demand, the "evidence" or "cir***stances" being the actionable claim made by the plaintiff.

Nothing is decided yet, just-"is there a case being made here at all, taken at face value?"

This of course excludes conjectures, opinions, speculations, mere information, hearsay, commonly-known impossibilities, etc. And must INCLUDE every element of the offense charged!

(God's law requires that matters be established in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses, but in there, are no petty, civil, or inchoate offenses, and that is not a corporate venue)

The main thing is that so so so often there are "business-as-usual" charges that as a matter of routine policy are brought at the discretion of the various dept's and agencies.

And "disorderly conduct", and "public intox" are some of them. And most charges, really, according to the situation- they got a trick for every mark.

I know this 1st hand.

so what im getting from this is that if i end up going in front of judge to plea i should say there is no injured party?

[TXcarlosTX]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

I know it seems unfair but in fact yes the prima facia case is "proven" by the PROPER accusation of a plaintiff.

Actually, rather than "proven", a case is in this way established. Nothing is proven, until finally decided by a competent authority.

This leaves many 'ifs'; rarely are each and all correctly fulfilled:

(not necessarily in this order, and quite possible more besides)

1. proper accusation- claims acts in violation of ALL the elements of a given law.

2. established case- must follow ALL the rules of procedure.

3. competent authority- personal jurisdiction, venue and oath of office.



OK- this is part of the proper complaint/demand, the "evidence" or "cir***stances" being the actionable claim made by the plaintiff.

Nothing is decided yet, just-"is there a case being made here at all, taken at face value?"

This of course excludes conjectures, opinions, speculations, mere information, hearsay, commonly-known impossibilities, etc. And must INCLUDE every element of the offense charged!

(God's law requires that matters be established in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses, but in there, are no petty, civil, or inchoate offenses, and that is not a corporate venue)

The main thing is that so so so often there are "business-as-usual" charges that as a matter of routine policy are brought at the discretion of the various dept's and agencies.

And "disorderly conduct", and "public intox" are some of them. And most charges, really, according to the situation- they got a trick for every mark.

I know this 1st hand.

so what im getting from this is that if i end up going in front of judge to plea i should say there is no injured party? and there is no witness?

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

I wish I could say "get a good attorney to advise you"- I really do. I banged my head against that wall too many times myself. If you find one, let me know.

Originally Posted by TXcarlosTX

so what im getting from this is that if i end up going in front of judge to plea i should say there is no injured party? and there is no witness?

If you are getting that from my posts that is imho a mistake. If the State has jurisdiction to enforce it's laws on you then that State is the "injured party", the plaintiff.

You will notice in any indictment that there is a writing (a "legend") that reads "and these acts injure the Peace and Dignity (sic) of this State..." or something similar. So there is your injured party, like it or no.

I am not saying they have jurisdiction over you. I am saying that IF they do, then...


As to a witness, I can't see the citation or summons you got. I don't know if there is an alleged witness or not. If there is, you need to examine that person's claims to see if they actually allege all the elements of the offense (which is the point of my previous post)

I doubt the 'copertunist' bothered to actually claim, like, "I saw him laying in the street", or "he reeked of alcohol and was incoherent and flailing about"

So if you find any errors like this the plea is:

"no subject matter jurisdiction-failure to state an offense"

What is the actual allegation? Not the charge, the "witness".


-------------------------------------------

You need to look at the "rules of procedure" applicable the offense (law search again)

heres a point- whatever is claimed, has also got to be testified in court.

whatever is alleged but not testified, is struck

whatever is testified, but not alleged, is struck

both must agree

then there is automatic trial de novo in a court of record (the first one probably wouldnt be)

But you can beat this for lack of personal jurisdiction- here is my favorite R4C site:

http://www.peoples-rights.com/doc7Letters.htm

very simple method.