Pro Per Legal Assistant Service

[life_student]

The members and representatives of PPLAS are not paralegals or licensed attorneys or lawyers; nor are they members of any Bar Association. For this reason, they do not give legal advice, but lawful information; nor do they represent anyone in a court of law. Our members and representatives are “legal researchers,” “educators,” and “jurisperituses” which means, “one skilled in the law.” They are more knowledgeable than any paralegal and your average attorney who is only trained in statutory law making them very linear and handicapped and at a disadvantage. Most professional lawyers/attorneys are just as ignorant as the masses of the people (citizen) pertaining to the Supreme Law of the Land (U.S. Constitution).

Our members and representatives are knowledgeable in the areas of common law, constitutional law, statutory law (and construction); case-decisional law, administrative law, the so-called “Redemption” process; state sovereignty and sovereign citizenship (a/k/a patriot mythology; civil matters, criminal matters, child support issues, traffic and parking ticket matters; taxes (I.R.S. and state tax agency, e.g., Franchise Tax Board); unlawful detainer (eviction) actions; federal civil rights deprivation actions (42 U.S.C. sec. 1983) against law enforcement officers; government tort claims actions; real estate matters; R.I.C.O. (Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations); vehicle impound situations and a host of other legal matters and situations.

http://www.pplas.com

[goffertrap]

Originally Posted by life_student

The members and representatives of PPLAS are not paralegals or licensed attorneys or lawyers; nor are they members of any Bar Association. For this reason, they do not give legal advice, but lawful information; nor do they represent anyone in a court of law. Our members and representatives are “legal researchers,” “educators,” and “jurisperituses” which means, “one skilled in the law.” They are more knowledgeable than any paralegal and your average attorney who is only trained in statutory law making them very linear and handicapped and at a disadvantage. Most professional lawyers/attorneys are just as ignorant as the masses of the people (citizen) pertaining to the Supreme Law of the Land (U.S. Constitution).

Our members and representatives are knowledgeable in the areas of common law, constitutional law, statutory law (and construction); case-decisional law, administrative law, the so-called “Redemption” process; state sovereignty and sovereign citizenship (a/k/a patriot mythology; civil matters, criminal matters, child support issues, traffic and parking ticket matters; taxes (I.R.S. and state tax agency, e.g., Franchise Tax Board); unlawful detainer (eviction) actions; federal civil rights deprivation actions (42 U.S.C. sec. 1983) against law enforcement officers; government tort claims actions; real estate matters; R.I.C.O. (Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations); vehicle impound situations and a host of other legal matters and situations.

http://www.pplas.com

And how do you explain you are in Propria Persona using someone else???? Better hit the books. Funny they mention "case decision law", then use the term"common law", hell they don't even know the difference between the two terms, duuu.(In America, common law is judge made law, aka court decisions) Smells like bs to me. Buy a few good books, take a few class's, and learn. Paying someone like that would be a waste of time and money.

Not only that, but the price they charge is sickening! 15 min phone call, MAX??? Hell, for 500 bucks, I can hire a law firm to do the same.

[life_student]

*** Regarding the question of an APPEARANCE In Propria Persona while "using someone else" is vague as written. Using someone else to do what specifically? To coach, as Assistance of Counsel (as opposed to re-presenting), to provide legal documents and strategy?

When you appear PRO SE (as opposed to PRO PER), you are re-presenting yourself, thus acting as your own attorney. You are still a ward of the court, a dunce and an imbecile, but when you appear In Propia Persona you are appearing in your own proper person and are un-represented. Courts LOVE to force PRO SE status on you, so you can be compelled by the same rules and limitations of an attorney.

PPLAS is what it is - Pro Per Legal ASSISTANCE Service and does not appear nor represent for customers.

*** To address the issue of the Common Law being the same as Case-Decisional law is true in one sense but untrue in a broader sense. Stare Decisis makes for common law however there is more to common law than judicial opinions for it existed prior to appellate court judicial opinions.

"The Common Law is absolutely distinguished from the Roman or Civil Law systems. "
People v Ballard
155 NYS 2d 59

The Constitution's, 7th Amendment reads:

"In suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved..."

Are suits at Common Law here in the Constitution, predicated on Case-Descisional Law AKA Opinions?

"The U.S. Constitution was written in the language of the Common Law."
Denver R.G.R. Co. v U.S., 241 F. 214

"Even statutes must be read in light of the Common Law."
U.S. v Carll, 105 U.S. 611 (1881)

"In the absence of statute (not judicial decision) the Common Law controls."
Ex Parte Peters, 12 Fed 461, 463 (Cir. Ct. W.D. Mo. 1880)


Consider the following from Illinois Compiled Statutes (The Common Law Act 5 ILCS 50):

Sec. 1. That the common law of England, so far as the same is applicable and of a general nature, and all statutes or acts of the British parliament made in aid of, and to supply the defects of the common law, prior to the fourth year of James the First, excepting the second section of the sixth chapter of 43d Elizabeth, the eighth chapter of 13th Elizabeth, and ninth chapter of 37th Henry Eighth, and which are of a general nature and not local to that kingdom, shall be the rule of decision, and shall be considered as of full force until repealed by legislative authority.

*** As far as the prices well you may have a point. The Case Law compilations are pretty good and fairly priced. I do know the owners of PPLAS run common-law, private businesses, pay no taxes, travel in automobiles (not motor vehicles) unlicensed, uninsured, no plates and no registration and have numerous wins in all these areas.

Is it worth the price? I guess that depends on the results. I heard a story of a man that ran a factory that broke down. He called a repair man to look at the machinery. He came and stood quitely for a few minutes took a hammer off of his tool belt and hit the machine in one spot. Everything worked perfectly after that. The repairman handed the factory owner a bill for $1000 and the owner was livid! He demanded an itemized bill since all the man did was hit the machine with a hammer. The bill read:

Use of a hammer: $0.50
Knowing where to use the hammer: $999.50

Look at the prices charged here for things and the dismal results people are getting, I would re-evaluate some of the PPLAS prices. Folks are spending hundreds of dollars on UCC/Redemption BS (the same that has landed it's founder in prison for life), hundreds of dollars on other ineffective legal arguements when they could have done as you suggested, purchased real law books and classes (like PPLAS offers) that deal with real law, rules, procedures, case-law, statutes and Constitutional law.

[joseph sugarman]

PPLAS has a 2007 copyright on its site. In the body of its site is list one Djehuty Ma'at Ra as the founder of PPLAS as 2003. This person, when Googled, appears to be some kind of hergalist gura praciticing in LaLa Land.

There is no physical address noted on the site, there are no other people noted on the site, there is no phone number noted on the site. There are however several pages requesting money for memberships, briefs of some kind and, of course, love offering donations.

Several of the other informational pages are still under construction.

So Life Student, here is my request for information from you and this operation. What is a verified complaint and why is it important?

[life_student]

A verified complaint is one of three forms of charges (at least in Illinois, the other two being an information and an indictment) and then there is the quasi-complaints that the State Supreme Courts authorize in liue of a formal complaint such as Uniform Traffic Ticket and Uniform Conservatory Ticket.

“An indictment shall be signed by the foreman of the Grand Jury and an information shall be signed by the State’s attorney and sworn to him or another. A complaint shall be sworn to and signed by the complainant; Provided, however, that when a citation is issued on a Uniform Traffic Ticket or Uniform Conservation Ticket (in a form prescribed by the Conference of Chief Circuit Judges and filed with the Supreme Court), the copy of such Uniform Ticket which is filed with the circuit court constitutes a complaint for which the defendant may plead, unless he specifically requests that a verified complaint be filed.” Illinois Vehicle Code, Section 111-3(b)

It's essentially the same state to state. You MAY plead to a BS traffic citation (Notice to Appear) or demand a formal complaint.

They use it to avoid granting the protections and safeguards of a Criminal Prosecution and to make robbing you of your FRN's a little quicker and easier:

The machinery of government cannot adequately function without a little play in its joints. Without such procedures, the rigid technicalities of the Criminal Code would overtax our judicial system. With the flexibility of our criminal procedures in this limited area of law enforcement, we can adapt the wisdom and experience of the past to these complex problems of the present. Any person may enjoy all of the protective benefits of our Criminal Code by demanding that he be prosecuted by a verified complaint, or he may waive such rights. If an accused elects to proceed to trial under these informal procedures, he is still entitled to be adequately informed of the nature and elements of the offense, but the charge need not be stated with the specificity required in an indictment, verified complaint or information.
People v. Brausam, 227 N.E.2d 533, 83 Ill. App.2d 354 (Ill.App. Dist.3 06/14/1967)

Most police will not file a verified complaint dumbly believing that their Traffic Ticket is a Verified Complaint. Many of them even say verified complaint on the top, but there are key things absent that absolutely disqualifies it as a verified complaint, namely the Nature and Elements of the Charge so you can mount a defense.

The adoption by this court of the rule which authorized the use of the unverified form of Illinois Uniform Traffic Ticket and Complaint was not intended to dispense with the statutory requirement of a verified complaint, and we hold that a defendant who does not waive, by plea of guilty or by proceeding to trial without objection, the defective verification of a complaint, is entitled to be prosecuted upon a complaint which states upon the oath of the complainant the facts constituting the offense charged.
People v. Brausam, 227 N.E.2d 533, 83 Ill. App.2d 354 (Ill.App. Dist.3 06/14/1967)

I hope this suffices your inquiry. There's enough in this post for someone in Illinois to get their traffic case dismissed. There's enough for those in other states can find the corresponding statutes and case-law.

The language of 725 ILCS 111-3(b) clearly shows that a verified complaint and traffic ticket are two distinct entities. If they convict you despite your objections to a verified complaint, appeal:

The want of verification having been appropriately raised in the case before us, the unverified complaint cannot sustain the judgment, and it is, accordingly, reversed.Village of Willowbrook v. Miller, 217 N.E.2d 809, 72 Ill. App.2d 30

The site appears to be still under construction but anyone familiar with his work knows it speaks for itself. No PAYtriot BS, Mythology or other silver bullets just law predicated on the canons of staturoy construction, Constitutional law, case-decisional law, rules of court and procedure.

[goffertrap]

Originally Posted by life_student

*** Regarding the question of an APPEARANCE In Propria Persona while "using someone else" is vague as written. Using someone else to do what specifically? To coach, as Assistance of Counsel (as opposed to re-presenting), to provide legal documents and strategy?

When you appear PRO PER, you are re-presenting yourself, thus acting as your own attorney. You are still a ward of the court, a dunce and an imbecile, but when you appear In Propia Persona you are appearing in your own proper person and are un-represented. Courts LOVE to force PRO SE status on you, so you can be compelled by the same rules and limitations of an attorney.

I disagree. If you are in Propria Persona, you are the living flesh and blood person speaking. YOU DO NOT REPRESENT YOURSELF.

Pro Se: Is self representation. It "implies 3rd party representation".

If you don't know the difference, you would be best to leave out Pro Per or Pro Se, and let them lable you.

One must plead in Propria Persona to avoid them claiming jurisdiction. If you plead Pro Se, and walk into that court room, they got ya.

[life_student]

goffertrap,

Thanks! That was a typo and I've corrected it supra. PRO SE is representing yourself and PRO PER is in your own proper person.

When I read their laws, rules, proceedures and decisions, it reminds me of when the Spanish took the land from the Natives here in America. They would line them up, read to them a decree saying in effect that if they don't denounce their God and accept Christianity and be subjects of their monarch they would be punished thoroughly, their women raped and their land taken.

They did this for their own conscious for they knew the Natives spoke a different language and thus didn't know what they were saying.

That's how these laws are. It's there but coded and ensnared in trips and traps so they can ease their conscious while raping you with your eyes wide shut.

Aside from the typo, what about the rest of the post(s)?

[goffertrap]

Originally Posted by life_student

goffertrap,

Thanks! That was a typo and I've corrected it supra. PRO SE is representing yourself and PRO PER is in your own proper person.

When I read their laws, rules, proceedures and decisions, it reminds me of when the Spanish took the land from the Natives here in America. They would line them up, read to them a decree saying in effect that if they don't denounce their God and accept Christianity and be subjects of their monarch they would be punished thoroughly, their women raped and their land taken.

They did this for their own conscious for they knew the Natives spoke a different language and thus didn't know what they were saying.

That's how these laws are. It's there but coded and ensnared in trips and traps so they can ease their conscious while raping you with your eyes wide shut.

Aside from the typo, what about the rest of the post(s)?

l gues the only thing I would comment on is the service. I went over there, and I don't know man. 500 for a family of four? seems pretty steep, and you are only allowed a 15 min. max on call. You ain't going to get jack diddly done in law in 15 min, I don't care who you think you are.

If one needed a service like that, then pay for pre-paid legal, it's cheaper, you talk to a lawfirm, and you can call as many times as you like for about half of what these people are charging. AND--Do you know if they really know what the hell they are doing?

I agree with the site that all that freedom crap is just that, crap. But, because I agree with that doesn't mean they know form from an inner office memo. BBW.

[joseph sugarman]

I asked you a simple question, thinking I might receive a simple answer; but that was not to be the case. I did not ask about informations or indictments, I asked about only complaints. Finally, in the middle of one of your cites from the Illinois Compiled Statutes is the sentence, and I quote from it, "A complaint shall be sworn to, and signed by the complainant." That is all you had to say, and I would have known you knew what you were talking about.

But in gilding the lily, so to speak, you make more statements which tend to suggest you do not know. You state further most police think the filled out traffic complaint is verified. In thirty five years of asking city police, county sheriffs, highway patrolmen and prosecutors at all levels; I have never had one of them know the answer to the question, let alone think the complaint is somehow, automatically verified. So my experience has been they do not dumbly believe the thing you think they do. Perhaps those you know in Illinois have answered differently.

Then you go on to say there are key things absent that absolutely disqulifies it as a verified complaint. You go on to mention the Nature and Elements of the Charge. While a complaint that fails to included every element of the charge is fatally defective, and therefore subject to a motion for dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted: this failure has nothing, whatsoever, to do with a verified complaint. The reason being is that it is possible to properly verify a defective complaint, and still have it subject to dismissal attack by motion.

Just to make it perfectly clear to you; only a properly pled, verfied complaint gives subject matter jurisdiction to the court. Notwithstanding any incorrect policies written in Illinois on the matter: subject matter jurisdiction CAN NEVER BE WAIVED, and can be brought at any time before, during or after any proceeding, ad infinitum. That is why a verified complaint is important, which is the answer to the second part of my question.

So now I am beginning to suspect you do not really understand that which you seem to be able to research, if the research is your work. Overall your response does not suffice.

As to my statements about the website. I am not familiar with the man's work. I have never heard of the man or his work. I am naturally suspect of any site that does not identify the people, the physical place and other contact information. So, as far as I am concerned, race non ipse loquitur; the work or thing does not speak for itself. Perhaps there are others on this forum who are aware of the man and his works. I await edification.

[life_student]

Joseph,

Your "very simple question" was "What is a verified complaint and why is it important?"

I believe that I answered it completely. You even found the answer you were looking for albeit not in the first paragraph. It is true that Subject Matter Jurisdiction can not be waived in principle, but in practice it happens ALL the time and the state Supreme Courts allow it. They allow it because the state Constitutions don't require a verified complaint, but the state statutes do.

Case in point:

[A] complaint as a document by which a prosecution may be commenced constitutionally need not be verified at all. As we have discussed above, the verification of a complaint as a prosecution commencing document, however, has always been a statutory requirement, the requirement being now set forth in article 111-3(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, supra. The Statute simply provides that the "Complaint shall be sworn to and signed by the Complainant"; it contains no limitation or qualification upon the person or officer before whom the complaint is to be sworn to and signed. Literally construed, the Statute is concerned only with the fact of verification, and not with the officer before whom verification shall be effected.

Village of Willowbrook v. Miller, 217 N.E.2d 809, 72 Ill. App.2d 30 (Ill.App. Dist.3 06/16/1966)

Furthermore:

It is readily apparent that the Supreme Court Rule governing procedures in traffic cases, quasi-criminal cases and certain misdemeanors, does not contemplate that the Illinois Uniform Traffic Ticket and Complaint be verified. The court, in People v. Harding, 34 Ill.2d 475, 216 N.E.2d 147, (1966), made an exhaustive analysis of its Rule and the statutes pertaining to the same subject matter. (Ill Rev Stats 1965, c 16, pars 81-85 incl.; c 38, pars 107-9, 107-11, 107-12 and par 111-3(a)(b).) The court there pointed out that there is no constitutional provision requiring verification of the complaint which follows an arrest without a warrant. So far as the relevant constitutional provisions are concerned, they may require a sworn complaint as a prerequisite to the issuance of an arrest warrant, but they do not purport to lay down any jurisdictional prerequisites governing the institution of a criminal prosecution. The court stated at pages 482 and 483:

"The Code of Criminal Procedure, enacted in 1963, retains the substance of the former statutory provisions with respect to the issuance of arrest warrants upon complaints and informations. (Ill Rev Stats 1965, chap 38, par 107-9.) But it also provides for the use of a summons, or a notice to appear, as `procedures for getting persons into court with out the necessity and inconvenience of an immediate arrest.' (SHA, chap 38, pars 107.11; 107.12, Committee Comments.) Although, as we have held, there is no constitutional requirement that a complaint must be verified in order to sustain a criminal prosecution, the Code continues the statutory requirement of a sworn complaint. Ill Rev Stats 1965, chap 38, par 111-3(b).

"In many decisions it has been held that a complaint, defective because it was not verified, or verified upon information and belief, did not affect the jurisdiction of the court and that the right to be charged by a properly verified information can be waived. (Citations.) So far as the objection of want of verification is concerned, therefore, the unverified traffic ticket complaint used in this case would have sufficed to give the court jurisdiction if the defendant had waived the objection by going to trial without raising it, or by a plea of guilty.
People v. Brausam, 227 N.E.2d 533, 83 Ill. App.2d 354 (Ill.App. Dist.3 06/14/1967)

Perhaps that's too much reading for your taste (just read the highlighted parts) and you'll see that the Supreme Court of Illinois disagrees with you and I on waiving a verified complaint. I know first hand, as I wrote a 25 page brief appealing this very issue and the court essentially used the arguements supra that the verified complaint is a statutory requirement, not a constitutional one and can be waived by not objecting initially. I know have much case law on the subject.

So, yes, you and I agree in principle, but if it doesn't work in practice, than it's just an exercise of intellect and "what ifs".

Regarding police officers, I have had many claim that the ticket is a verified complaint. Now, I'm not one to argue over what you've experienced with police over 35 years. That's your reality and your 35 years of questioning is longer than I've been alive, but I can assure you that what I've given you is 100% my research. In fact, I have much, much more on the issue here in Illinois (as that's where I'm domiciled) and I have a lot of research from others in California (as that's where they domicile).

Nevertheless, you could have been more specific in what you were asking if you wanted a certain response. As amazing and wonderful as I am, I'm not always the best mind/intent reader.

OK, the key things that keeps a traffic ticket from being a proper complaint, per the Illinois Supreme Court, is that it lacks 1 of 5 requirements for a complaint and that is "Setting forth the nature and elements of the offense charged" (725 ILCS 111-3(a).

[A] person accused of a traffic violation has every right to be informed of the nature and elements of the offense charged against him, we are not unmindful of the circumstances under which traffic tickets are normally issued, and we recognize that they are drafted by laymen and may not be drawn with the care and precision of an indictment, information or complaint charging a more serious offense.
People v. Brausam, 227 N.E.2d 533, 83 Ill. App.2d 354

And

The failure to allege an element of the offense sought to be charged is a fundamental defect which renders the complaint void, and it cannot be amended as in the case of simple formal defects. Johnson, 69 Ill. App. 3d at 250. While a defendant may request a bill of particulars to supplement a sufficient charge so as to assist him in preparing his defense, a bill of particulars cannot be used to cure a void charge. People v. Meyers, 158 Ill. 2d 46, 53, 196 Ill. Dec. 646, 630 N.E.2d 811 (1994).
PEOPLE STATE ILLINOIS v. DEAN L. SCOTT 1996.IL.2882

Joseph, consider the difference between my posts and yours. Mine are filled with relevant case-law and statutes and yours are wholely absent of such yet you are suspect of my research? In the words of Alanis Morsette, "Isn't it ironic? Don't ya think?"