Ticket Slayer

[Satori]

Court on Friday was a joke. Judge Bur**** described it as "What we will call your demurrer", I notified him that the person whom it was against was not me, he asked if I had any statement regarding the response [fraught with inaccuracies] from THE PEOPLE, I told him I had several but managed to get one out before they railroaded me on other matters (not my problem, as court was notified) such as the judge "finding" my jurisdiction both in personam and subject matter in his venue, entering a "not guilty" plea for me ("Objection! You are not my attorney, nor do you represent me") and then, paying no heed whatsoever to my objection, proceeding to purportedly waive [Miranda] rights (Me: "If anyone in this room believes that they represent Me, they are fired." JPB: [almost chuckling] "I am not representing you...") Nonspecific allegations from JPB that I was being disrespectful, and that if it occurred next time that he would jail me for direct contempt ("and you can sit in a cell in an orange jumpsuit and think about what you've done"). As the allegations were not specific, he provided nothing I could do to avoid being jailed for direct contempt unlawfully on any whim of his. It continued like this, refusing through noncompliance multiple times to give any basis for in personam and subject matter jurisdiction, and then he concluded the proceedings rather unfaithfully, citing that he needed to be in Monterey in a few hours. He grinned upon concluding, as a former personal injury attorney might be expected to do.

Sorry to present such anti-morale to Sui Juris. But I think I know what's wrong here.

The PEOPLE's response was absurd. If my laptop wasn't down, preventing online access, I'd share more, but a few highlights include treating the Affidavits as motions, saying they were vague and no remedy I was seeking was clear, and then later despite that apparent bewilderment as to remedy that the "motion" must be denied. Odd. Lots of factual inaccuracies as well, and saying that I used a response address within their municipal Santa Cruz, CA despite the fact that it had clearly been labeled c/o and in brackets (for informational purposes). Either the judge was being incompetent not to know that the PEOPLE's response was riddled with inaccuracies, or there was something else going on (and I think I know what). I suspect it was a sideshow.

The first time I was in court, I at one point mentioned to JPB that "If the court wanted to reschedule, I would not object." (possibly "...I would have no objection", but that would be very unlike me). JPB gleefully rescheduled several times, further and further along. And this time, completely disregarded my objections. Go figure. In addition to seeming to interpret a plain statement of fact on my part as a contractual offer complete with consideration, he would have not only over-generally construed a statement, as well as accepting a contract in violation of rights he was not authorized to violate (embezzlement, unconscionable contract) but in refusing to express a basis for his actions on Friday he would have further voided it due to fraud.

There's more, but that's the gist of it. I believe I have him on several counts, including knowing slander and extortion previously stated on the record prior to Friday, complicity in the extortion under which the "tickets" are on record as being (constituting racketeering, I suppose), denial of due process due to threatening to have me thrown in jail on what amounts to a whim should I be present in his court again, and various other counts of slander, fraud, and extortion. Also perjury of office, needless to say.

Again, in refusing to cite basis, even when asked repeatedly, for "determining" jurisdiction, he dishonored my request. This is due to the tenet of equity that a matter must be expressed to be resolved. I asked him to express it, and he did not. Oh, and in the interim I emitted a revised version of the Affidavit of Material Fact that was signed and sealed and signed by two witnesses, as well as an Additional Affidavit of Material Fact stating, in addition to the apparently lawless nature of much of what went on in the initial court date, reaffirmations of my intent to reserve all rights at all times, cede jurisdiction at no time, and so forth. So his apparent statement at the end of the first court presentation which sounded like, "I accept your jurisdiction" was not only baseless, but calling a hearing a demurrer (to establish, specifically, in personam jurisdiction) after believing, to the contrary, that jurisdiction had already been accepted by the court would be grounds for fraud. ("...what we will call your demurrer...") As I counted many agents of the court there that day, I smell racketeering as well. Two simple purported "infractions", one heap of trouble for agents of the court.

I'm definately going to attempt to get the case transferred due to conflict of interest, if not dispatched due to mistrial, or bumped up to the District court. It appears that Santa Cruz' newest judge is about to become Santa Cruz' most recent judge.

Well, that's my experience. Sui Juris, prosper from it. Any thoughts?


- Satori

[mrg]

Tie me kangaroo down sport,
Tie me Kangaro down.

Tie me kangaroo court down
Tie me kangaroo sport.

[Livefire]

Ok Satori....
Hope this helps you out with the conflict of interest.....

Originally Posted by California Government Code Section 68085.1 (7)

68085.1. (a) This section applies to all fees and fines that are
collected on or after January 1, 2006, under all of the following:
(1) Sections 177.5, 209, 403.060, 491.150, 631.3, 683.150,
704.750, 708.160, 724.100, 1134, 1161.2, and 1218 of, subdivision (g)
of Section 411.20 and subdivisions (c) and (g) of Section 411.21 of,
and Chapter 5.5 (commencing with Section 116.110) of Title 1 of Part
1 of, the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2) Section 31622 of the Food and Agricultural Code.
(3) Sections 68086 and 68086.1, subdivision (d) of Section
68511.3, Sections 68926.1 and 69953.5, and Chapter 5.8 (commencing
with Section 70600).
(4) Section 103470 of the Health and Safety Code.
(5) Subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 166 and Section 1214.1 of
the Penal Code.
(6) Sections 1835, 1851.5, 2343, 7660, and 13201 of the Probate
Code.
(7) Sections 14607.6, 16373, and 40230 of the Vehicle Code.
(8) Section 71386 of this code and Section 1513.1 of the Probate
Code, if the reimbursement is for expenses incurred by the court.
(b) On and after January 1, 2006, each superior court shall
deposit all fees and fines listed in subdivision (a), as soon as
practicable after collection and on a regular basis, into a bank
account established for this purpose by the Administrative Office of
the Courts. Upon direction of the Administrative Office of the
Courts, the county shall deposit civil assessments under Section
1214.1 of the Penal Code and any other money it collects under the
sections listed in subdivision (a) as soon as practicable after
collection and on a regular basis into the bank account established
for this purpose and specified by the Administrative Office of the
Courts. The deposits shall be made as required by rules adopted by,
and financial policies and procedures authorized by, the Judicial
Council under subdivision (a) of Section 77206. Within 15 days after
the end of the month in which the fees and fines are collected, each
court, and each county that collects any fines or fees under
subdivision (a), shall provide the Administrative Office of the
Courts with a report of the fees by categories as specified by the
Administrative Office of the Courts. The fees and fines listed in
subdivision (a) shall be distributed as provided in this section.
(c) (1) Within 45 calendar days after the end of the month in
which the fees and fines listed in subdivision (a) are collected, the
Administrative Office of the Courts shall make the following
distributions:
(A) To the small claims advisory services, as described in
subdivision (f) of Section 116.230 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(B) To dispute resolution programs, as described in subdivision
(b) of Section 68085.3 and subdivision (b) of Section 68085.4.
(C) To the county law library funds, as described in Sections
116.230 and 116.760 of the Code of Civil Procedure, subdivision (b)
of Section 68085.3, subdivision (b) of Section 68085.4, and Section
70621 of this code, and Section 14607.6 of the Vehicle Code.
(D) To the courthouse construction funds in the Counties of
Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Francisco, as described in
Sections 70622, 70624, and 70625.
(2) If any distribution under this subdivision is delinquent, the
Administrative Office of the Courts shall add a penalty to the
distribution as specified in subdivision (i).
(d) Within 45 calendar days after the end of the month in which
the fees and fines listed in subdivision (a) are collected, the
amounts remaining after the distributions in subdivision (c) shall be
transmitted to the State Treasury for deposit in the Trial Court
Trust Fund and other funds as required by law. This remittance shall
be accompanied by a remittance advice identifying the collection
month and the appropriate account in the Trial Court Trust Fund or
other fund to which it is to be deposited. Upon the receipt of any
delinquent payment required under this subdivision, the Controller
shall calculate a penalty as provided under subdivision (i).
(e) From the money transmitted to the State Treasury under
subdivision (d), the Controller shall make deposits as follows:
(1) Into the State Court Facilities Construction Fund, the Judges'
Retirement Fund, and the Equal Access Fund, as described in
subdivision (c) of Section 68085.3 and subdivision (c) of Section
68085.4.
(2) Into the Health Statistics Special Fund, as described in
subdivision (b) of Section 70670 of this code and Section 103730 of
the Health and Safety Code.
(3) Into the Family Law Trust Fund, as described in Section 70674.

(4) The remainder of the money shall be deposited into the Trial
Court Trust Fund.
(f) The amounts collected by each superior court under Section
116.232, subdivision (g) of Section 411.20, and subdivision (g) of
Section 411.21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, subdivision (d) of
Section 68511.3 and Sections 68926.1, 69953.5, 70627, 70631, 70640,
70661, 70678, and 71386 of this code, and Sections 1513.1, 1835,
1851.5, and 2343 of the Probate Code, shall be added to the monthly
apportionment for that court under subdivision (a) of Section 68085.

(g) If any of the fees provided in subdivision (a) are partially
waived by court order or otherwise reduced, and the fee is to be
divided between the Trial Court Trust Fund and any other fund or
account, the amount of the reduction shall be deducted from the
amount to be distributed to each fund in the same proportion as the
amount of each distribution bears to the total amount of the fee. If
the fee is paid by installment payments, the amount distributed to
each fund or account from each installment shall bear the same
proportion to the installment payment as the full distribution to
that fund or account does to the full fee.
(h) Except as provided in Sections 470.5 and 6322.1 of the
Business and Professions Code, and Sections 70622, 70624, and 70625
of this code, no agency may take action to change the amounts
allocated to any of the funds described in subdivision (c), (d), or
(e).
(i) The amount of the penalty on any delinquent payment under
subdivision (c) or (d) shall be calculated by multiplying the amount
of the delinquent payment at a daily rate equivalent to 11/2 percent
per month for the number of days the payment is delinquent. The
penalty shall be paid from the Trial Court Trust Fund.
(j) If a delinquent payment under subdivision (c) or (d) results
from a delinquency by a superior court under subdivision (b), the
court shall reimburse the Trial Court Trust Fund for the amount of
the penalty. Notwithstanding Section 77009, any penalty on a
delinquent payment that a court is required to reimburse pursuant to
this section shall be paid from the court operations fund for that
court. The penalty shall be paid by the court to the Trial Court
Trust Fund no later than 45 days after the end of the month in which
the penalty was calculated. If the penalty is not paid within the
specified time, the Administrative Office of the Courts may reduce
the amount of a subsequent monthly allocation to the court by the
amount of the penalty on the delinquent payment.

[Satori]

Originally Posted by mrg

Tie me kangaroo down sport,
Tie me Kangaro down.

Tie me kangaroo court down
Tie me kangaroo sport.

"...And the judges will bungee jump for your amusement."


- Satori

[Satori]

Originally Posted by Livefire

Ok Satori....
Hope this helps you out with the conflict of interest.....

Livefire,

Thanks for the code! With my secret de-coder ring, that should allow me to get him for things like: attempted theft, possible larceny, another count of fraud, more extortion under color of authority, and of course, everybody's favorite, racketeering (for treble damages). It's also great for establishing malicious intent.

While my laptop's still down, the general response I'm working on is to the effect that I attempted to resolve the matter of jurisdiction and JPB's evidently lawless behavior on Friday (being present, asking, "On what basis?" several times and having him refuse to tell me). I expressed a matter to be resolved, he dishonored that attempt, and there we go. Not only dishonored any sincere (read: non-fraudulent) attempt to determine any jurisdiction, but also what JPB appears to perceive as a contract with him not to object. Since the law does not require that which is impossible (winning "Guess The Judge's Dubious Reasoning") and due to his dishonor, I am not required to resolve matters he dishonors efforts to get him to explain. Combine that with what amounts to threats to jail me unavoidably should I return to "his" court on a later date, and the dishonor on his part is quite complete.

In addition to notifying his superiors of this, and of the fact that I will be applying "any and all lawful redress of grievances I deem appropriate" (leaving an ability to use the commercial lien unless he conditionally accepts that statement, which would necessarily involve some most entertaining literary gymnastics on his part), I'm going to want to notify the court of this stuff officially. Notice or Affidavit, Sui Juris? Then of course finalize the Ticket Slayer process which I've been suspending informally out of grace, now that they've been given enough rope.

Quite amazing the things you can do with Notices to Appear for two purported infractions (and no small amount of assistance from agents of the court). The man could lose his job, his financial status, and be provided for amply with what I'll call "correctional housing assistance".


- Satori

[Glenn]

You may wish to check out http://www.state-citizen.org

This guy Richard McDonald is the best.

Glenn

[masterduke]

Attacking the judge full frontal will be a tuff road. Attacking him where his assests reside is a more open target, but it takes more time and research. Judges Statement of Economic Interest is a place to start. Doing an Information Practices Act request at the county recorders office may also turn up some tidbits i.e. slush funds, etc. start following the trail. With the exception of JRB most judges would likely leave a trail of illegal activies. Its there somewhere, its just a matter of uncovering the dirt.

[Livefire]

Satori,

masterduke is right on this, but constitutes a collateral attack. Include an excerpt of the code in you initial Affidavit of Truth in the TS series like this....

Affiant has a copy in his possession and has read section 68085.1 of the California Goverment Code, which states in subsection e that a portion of monies derived by fines transmitted to the Controller are to be deposited DIRECTLY into the Judge's Retirement Fund (Section 68085.1 attached, highlights mine).

In your Motion To Dismiss, you reiterate that statement that monies from fines are directed to the retirement fund THEN you state that the motion should be dismissed due to a percuniary interest on the part of the judge and have the court take judicial notice of Tumey v Ohio like this.....

MOTION #
Aggrieved Defendant hereby motions the court to dismiss for a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case on the part of the judge. The attached section of the California Governmet Code clearly demonstrates the California Judges Retirement Fund receives direct funding from traffic citations. Court is given NOTICE of Tumey v Ohio, 273 US 510 (1927).

"No matter what the evidence was against him, he had the right to an impartial judge. He seasonably raised the objection, and was entitled to halt the trial on the disqualification of the judge, which existed both because of his direct pecuniary interest in the outcome, and because of his official motiveand to graduate the fine to help the financial needs of the village. There were thus at the outset both features of the disqualification."


That is what I included in my TS docs with the obvious reference to Michigan docs and statute. Good Luck.

[GotBoost?]

Hi, im getting ready to file my documents but i need one question answered before i do, hopefully you guys can help me. I have read many posts about ticket slayer but I still have one question. When i file in the documents to the prosecuter, do they need my ticket? and what do i tell them AFTER they stamp my copies? I know i tell the court clerk to file it in my case file, but i am not sure what i tell the prosecuter office to let them know what to do with the files i am presenting them with. Thanks for the help.

[Livefire]

Originally Posted by GotBoost?

Hi, im getting ready to file my documents but i need one question answered before i do, hopefully you guys can help me. I have read many posts about ticket slayer but I still have one question. When i file in the documents to the prosecuter, do they need my ticket? and what do i tell them AFTER they stamp my copies? I know i tell the court clerk to file it in my case file, but i am not sure what i tell the prosecuter office to let them know what to do with the files i am presenting them with. Thanks for the help.

First of all, with a pen indicate that you demand a FORMAL HEARING ON THE RECORD, BY SPECIAL APPEARANCE ONLY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. then go to a Kinko's or other place where can make yourself a couple of color copies of the ticket, front and back for your records. Serve the prosecutor's office with the initial ticket slayer paperwork and attach a courtesy COPY of the ticket. Take 3 copies of the served paperwork and the ORIGINAL copy of the ticket to the court. The court will take 2 file copies and ask the clerk to file stamp the 3rd copy for your records. (this is important as it provides you a evidentiary quality record for appeal or cases of fraud on the part of the judge/court). Do that for every time you serve the prosecutor docs from the TS series and file them with the court. The clerk will automatically file them into the record....that is their job. Should they question the paperwork, just ask them nicely to file it anyways.....they may roll their eyes at you but most know their ministerial role and file your docs. Its a breach of duty on their part should they fail to do so. Who gives a damn what the prosecutor does with it!!!!! If they use it as butt wipe, its their problem, that wont prevent them from being in default should they not rebut your position! They are the ones licensed to practice law. Not your place to do their job for them!!!