Ticket Slayer

[weishaupt1776]

Got Boost, it is a common courtesy NOT to start a new thread each time FOR THE SAME TOPIC

You started a topic and then neglected to search for it, and then did the easy way and created a new thread instead in the nature of the same thing.

If you start another thread dealing with this it WILL be deleted. If you decide to be a responsible poster and search for the thread you started in order to follow up, it WILL NOT be deleted.

There is a Ticketslayer thread also where you should post these questions.

[Fed-Up]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

You persist in confusing the Right to Travel with a non-existent Right to pilot a motor vehicle on the public roads. There is no end of the court cases rejecting this.

As for Ticketslayer's claim that it is 95% successful .... Experience is a very expensive way to learn, but evidently nothing else will work for you.

Uh,Pilot? We're not readying ourselves for takeoff on I-95..... are ya smokin that whacky weed?

[weishaupt1776]

There are reports that some have posted about their experiences with judges trying to move them on in spite of their claim that the prosecution defaulted and the court lacks personal jurisdiction. It seems to me that a threat to incarcerate or plead for a Man or Woman while the court is in want of inpersonam jurisdiction renders that act criminal and any decision void. The USSC in Burnham v. Superior Court of California, County of Marin No. 89-44 Decided May 29, 1990 495 U.S. 604, discussed some history regarding inpersonam jurisdiction. Do not quote this case because it is an issue of state venue jurisdiction morphing into personal jurisdiction, and the appellant lost. This opinion claims that you have access to city/state services (read protections) even it you are a transient alien and that creates inequality for those paying for such services. But the cases cited might point to other useful legal support. "The proposition that the judgment of a court lacking jurisdiction is void traces back to the English Year Books, see Bowser v. Collins, Y.B.Mich. 22 Edw. 4, f. 30, pl. 11, 145 Eng.Rep. 97 (1482), and was made settled law by Lord Coke in Case of the Marshalsea, 10 Co.Rep. 68b, 77 Eng.Rep. 1027, 1041 (K.B. 1612). Traditionally that proposition was embodied in the phrase coram non judice, [495 U.S. 609] "before a person not a judge" -- meaning, in effect, that the proceeding in question was not a judicial proceeding because lawful judicial authority was not present, and could therefore not yield a judgment. American courts invalidated, or denied recognition to, judgments that violated this common law principle long before the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. See, e.g., Grumon v. Raymond, 1 Conn. 40 (1814); Picquet v. Swan, 19 F.Cas. 609 (No. 11, 134) (CC Mass.1828); Dunn v. Dunn, 4 Paige 425 (N.Y.Ch. 1834); Evans v. Instine, 7 Ohio 273 (1835); Steel v. Smith, 7 Watts & Serg. 447 (Pa.1844); Boswell's Lessee v. Otis, 50 U.S. 336, 350 (1850). In Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 732 (1878), we announced that the judgment of a court lacking personal jurisdiction violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well." "To determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction is consistent with due process, we have long relied on the principles traditionally followed by American courts in marking out the territorial limits of each State's authority. That criterion was first announced in Pennoyer v. Neff, supra, in which we stated that due process mean[s] a course of legal proceedings according to those rules and principles which have been established in our systems of jurisprudence for the protection and enforcement of private rights, id. at 733, including the "well-established principles of public law respecting the jurisdiction of an independent State over persons and property," id. at 722. In what has become the classic expression of the criterion, we said in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), that a State court's assertion of personal jurisdiction satisfies the Due Process Clause if it does not violate "`traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" Id. at 316, quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940). See also Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 703 (1982)."
"Since International Shoe, we have only been called upon to decide whether these "traditional notions" permit [495 U.S. 610] States to exercise jurisdiction over absent defendants in a manner that deviates from the rules of jurisdiction applied in the 19th century. We have held such deviations permissible, but only with respect to suits arising out of the absent defendant's contacts with the State. See, e.g., Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984)."

[David Merrill]

Dear Readers;


Now and again I get a PM that is worth sharing. I have sanitized the member's handle and hope that I do not offend him or her by posting this otherwise identical version. The main reason I am doing so is that TicketSlayer, albeit seems to be a commercial default process, has never been studied by me and other members like this one may be under the impression otherwise:

I have never studied the TicketSlayer process. It looks like it is in alignment with commercial processes to me. I think Weishaupt is the expert on forum but he gets so many questions he will probably just send you a link. That is because the whole thing is available on line.

It is likely that a bailiff will take roll as people enter the courtroom, even seating in the gallery. That way they can peg you the defendant. The bailiff is definitely an officer of the court and you will be representing yourself.

Maybe if you give your true name to the bailiff? Then when your legal name is called say you are doing business as that name. Prior to that publish a dba with the county clerk and recorder and have the bailiff tender that to the magistrate. Tell him that you want him to call you exactly by your true name during the trial.

This does not agree with TicketSlayer process but I would find it interesting to hear about if you should try it.

The commercial process I suggest would be to immediately Refuse for Cause the presentment and then forget about it. One member in the last couple days (scan all recent posts by David Merrill) would immediately attempt to pay in front of witnesses (kind of an unconditional acceptance). The court is running on the 3-7-10 day rule. Read about that in the thread.

Since you have allowed the contract to cure by now, maybe you should try sticking to the TicketSlayer script and process. If not, just grab the typical pleabargain offered just before trial and get ready to handle the next process properly.

I got turned off on scripts immediately upon attempting them. I wanted to throw my Constitution book at the black-robed attorney and shout, "That's not what you are supposed to say!!" Remember you are a novice against trained professionals. There is probably a fairly widespread memo among attorneys about how to rescript TicketSlayer. I wonder if Weis can show you one?




Regards,

David Merrill.

[doormonkey]

From Weishaupt1776:
hree of us w/in this thread used the Ticketslayer Common Law Default, but each w/ different scenarios.

J. munson's

http://forum.suijuris.net/showpost.p...&postcount=162

Here's Akira's win
http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread.php?t=2701

Here's Mine
http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread.php?t=2215

P.S. For all of you bottom feeding, government subsidized, cheese eating rats, these are considered wins, because we are not surrending our hard earned capital towards paying your salary coupled with the fact that we come out stronger & smarter.

And the thing is, you guys always are losers because you rely on the guardianship of a corrupted machine while contributing nothing to the Arts, sciences and trades. You base your whole drive and destiny in life on worthless paper created out of thin air.

Also, about Greg Slaughter. I told him about this thread hyping his site & how many views it has had, with absolutely no response back.

I can only hope he is too busy to reply.

Weis

Weis, I don't know if SJ is experiencing bugs because of the change of servers and software updates, but the links posted above (post #50 on this thread)don't work.

Regarding Ticketslayer: I've been in contact with Greg. He's a little concerned about his docs being lifted on SJ without his permission. While they become public domain once they've been introduced into the court system, his concern isn't for the documents as much as for the help he'd like to give to folks wanting to use the default method he's devised. He gives credit where credit is due BTW, largely to Clyde Hyde.

Even though I might have a "right" to use a document devised by somoeone like Greg, I respect his right to earn money, and always ask before I use it for something other that what I originally purchased it for, like to share with someone else who might not have the money to spend.

Just MHO

I'm using Ticketslayer, and will keep the SJ community posted, once I'm done.

[Akira-]

With all due respect to Greg...

Weis' post (above) & email noticing Greg of our respective alterations / refinements and subsequent successes, was made 19 months ago.

Since that time, literally dozens and dozens of folks have been refered to TS by this site.

his concern isn't for the documents as much as for the help he'd like to give to folks wanting to use the default method he's devised. He gives credit where credit is due BTW, largely to Clyde Hyde.

Well, which is it?

I've been a member of Clyde's group for 3 years...

Everything Greg claims is his intelletual property, is available from the original source... the late Clyde Hyde's family and his Lawwork, Lawworks, and Lawworks1 Yahoo groups.

In fact, I got this lawworks1 group email just a day or two ago...

To get Clyde's Files...Send a donation in full by money order or Paypal, or if you can’t afford it all at once send me a PM and "let’s make a deal". L-Files $50 Default Course $75 personal use and $1000 + 10% Royalties for the duration of business use.

Before his passing, Clyde's default course sold for $300. Several of the members here purchased it. No one got the final chapter (12), as Clyde passed before completing it. All Clyde's course does is outline the details of the common law default process using Yick Wo v. Hopkins. Hmm... Perhaps Greg should contact Clyde's family.

Now... about my referral fee....


For HIS Glory,
Akira

[weishaupt1776]

To Clarify:

I personally asked Clyde regarding Greg, and Greg has a licensing agreement authorized by Clyde
Technically, we are not supposed to be posting the docs, but the truth need not be hindered when most people don't have 300 FRNS for the default course

Clyde's MAIN reason (again based on personal exchanges between he & I); was that it should all be through lawworks so that HE could have control over any snags or problems people ran into

So he was reluctant to distribute it freely based on support issues, but if you wanted to make FRN's off of it, you had to have a licensing agreement with him

Since he has died, and no posthumous provisions were provided in our contract - the stuff is legitimately posted now - FREE OF CHARGE

I used ticketslayer last summer and it all sounded great. I did everything the way I was supposed to, and the Judge just ignored it all. Here in Indiana it does not work. But from talking to Greg, I guess Indiana is a tough state to win in traffic court anyway.

[ezrhythm]

One may have success with the TS method in any state. It depends on who you get behind the bench as to how much wit one needs to deal with such characters.
Learning how to respond when they ignore your approach is part of the battle.

[charlesa6]

Originally Posted by superiorm

I used ticketslayer last summer and it all sounded great. I did everything the way I was supposed to, and the Judge just ignored it all. Here in Indiana it does not work. But from talking to Greg, I guess Indiana is a tough state to win in traffic court anyway.

Thanks for the feedback, to let us know what is going on in Indiana with ticket slayer. Question: Do you follow the guideline as stated?