OAS Win !!! (part 1)

[Akira]

Hi All,

I recently had a win in Superior? court, on an Operating After Suspension (OAS) charge.

Initially, I filed several docs with the court clerk and DA:

1) Notice of Change of Address: a modified version of the 'PostMaster Notice' (in downloads) saying I could legally only accept mail adderessed in my proper name, with a c/o street address, and NO zip code. (In my previous court cases, I had returned ALL letters to the court clerk via the local post office stamped "Return to Sender - Undeliverable as Addressed', and unopened)

2) a Power of Attorney (POA) on the strawman

I also filed these affidavits and began a default process on them:

3) a Denial of Corp Existence Affidavit

4) a slighty modified version of the Ticket Slayer docs

which include:

Affidavit of Truth
Notice of Default
Final Default
Motion to Dismiss
Writ of Mandamus

(I believe all of these are available in the downloads section here at Sui Juris... although, if you use the docs as presented... which is fine... you should send them the $65, as they are well worth it)

When the affidavits were defaulted on... I filed a motion to dismiss... which was denied !!!

I went to court on the scheduled day, and when my name was called, I humbly said:



Special Appearence

For the record !!

Greetings in the name of my Sovereign Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

My Christian appelation is Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, and my family name is Xxxxxxx.

That is spelled in upper AND lower case letters.

I sojourn in Christ upon the soil within the geographical boundaries of my Lord's Christian Republic ... the Maine state!!!

I have responded to this petition, ONLY because it attempts to create a colorable persona, under colorable law, by the name of XXXXXXXX X. XXXXXXX, spelled in ALL capital letters, the artifice being used here, to deceive this Honorable Court, must be abated, as a Public Nuisance.

For the record, Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, and Jesus the Christ, Advocate and Wonderful Counselor, are using the Right of Special Visitation, to exercise Ministerial Powers, to be heard on this matter.

I, Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, am a native Mainer, and a Man on the Land, in the County of Xxxxxxxxxxxx.

I am not a resident, in the District of Maine, nor any other Federal Judicial District, nor am I a corporate or legal entity, or any other fictional entity, created by Congress

I am only a flesh and blood man created by God All Mighty !!

My Colors and Authority is the Maine Flag of Peace with a single pine tree, in the center of a yellow field, and a blue polar star in the upper left corner.

My Law is his holy writ, My Family Bible, and....

My Status is shown by the Seal of the People.

I am, who I say I am, not who the District Attorney says I am.

I reserve ALL my rights.

With all due respect.....

I do not consent to these proceedings, nor am I here to conduct business.

Under no circumstances should my utterances be interpreted as testimony, nor do I, in any way, shape, manner or form, aquiese to your authority, as....

I do not recognise you, sir... or your authority. I have but one Master, the All Mighty God.

I remain, only out of fear for my personal safety, as I have already been unjustly imprisoned

I respectfully decline, without exception, any and all offers to contract, with anyone, here today.

I have in my hand, an unrebutted affidavit, which was defaulted on by the District Attorney, denying the court any standing in this matter, whatsoever.

Further still, the court lacks an affidavit, signed by an injured party and an affidavit signed by a competent 3rd party witness and fails to meet the essential elements necessary to hear this instant case.

Sir, with all due respect, the court has no choice but to dismiss.

I stand on my documents as presented.

Further affiant sayeth naught.and I stand mute.


The magistrate then asked the DA what he had to say, to which he replied:

"I understand Mr. Xxxxxxxx does not want to contract with us.
Had I been aware, we could have saved everyone some time and inconveniece. If Mr. Xxxxxxxx would be willing to talk with me, I'm sure we can clear this all up."

The the Magistrate asked me " Mr. Xxxxxxxx, would you mind if I asked you a few questions?"

To which I replied " On the condition that they are not used as a tool to usurp my rights and/or otherwise impose your authority on me"

The Magistrate then attempted to say that my 'request for trial by jury', "appeared to imply" that I was cooperating with the court (and aquiesing)... to which I held up the file stamped copy of my earlier attempts to correct the misnomer and get them to use my proper name, and said, "I have repeatedly tried to get you folks to correct the misnomer....this isn't me !"

Then he suggested I meet with the DA, and if I didn't, it would be scheduled for trial.

Then he called the next case.

For grins, I decided to stick around and speak with the DA.



During my meeting with the DA, in a "Mafia like" approach, I was cautioned that "the courts and judges are powerful people, and they don't like what you're doing" and was advised "you may want to keep the information to yourself !"

I, in turn, humbly advised the DA, that "God Almighty doesn't like what 'they' are doing, and he (the DA), by all means, should spread the word !" It wiped the 'cheshire grin' smile, right off his face. lol

I had friends in the court room (on other business) who told me, after I had left the building, that the DA again stood before the judge. regarding my case, and during the DA's dialog with the judge, he would speak loud enough for everyone to hear, and then mumble quietly a few 'key words' that he didn't want 'the gallery' to hear, and then continue speaking in an audible tone.... the judge finished by slamming his gavel, and saying " we are setting this for trial on such and such a date" this "play" and/or "facade", was all done for the pleasure of the people in the court room, so they wouldn't learn what I had done, or how valuable, what I had said was...

One of my closest friends did not believe I had won, based on what the judge had said before the court, after I had left.... I had to show him the dismissal papers before he would finally believe me...


============================


Now... let me tell you where I goofed.....

From the point near the end of my dialog where it says:

Sir, with all due respect, the court has no choice but to dismiss.

I stand on my documents as presented.

Further affiant sayeth naught.and I stand mute.


What I should have said was....

The only decision before the court today is whether the court will act on my Writ of Mandamus, or leave that to a higher court.

I stand on my documents as presented.

Further affiant sayeth naught.and I stand mute.

You must stand firm on the writ... and not let the judge sway you !

If it does go to a higher court... the lower court judge will look like a total loser, to the appeals court... something the judge definately doesn't want...

And... I can not say this strongly enough....

You must state you are flesh and blood, and that your ONLY Master is God Almighty !

Then use the common law docs !

Using the "Slayer" docs, and my dialog, as presented here... will get you out of 99% of your problems with "the Man."

Once they have seen that they cannot win or make money with you... they WILL leave you alone ! This may take 3 to as many as 8 encounters however ! I am on #4 now... and have had the fun of friends watching judges run from the courtroom when I stand....

Align yourself with the All Mighty... and have no fear !

For HIS Glory,
Akira

[scottinalaska]

Oh yeah, Akira!

Thanks for the detailed monologue and honest evaluation on what you wish you had said. We are all wiser for it. His truth can be our truth...if we only claim it!
Another child of The most sovereign Lord,
Scottinalaska

[Akira]

Hi All,

The reason the dialog from part 1 reads :

nor am I a corporate or legal entity, or any other fictional entity, created by Congress

is because, The Maine Legislature in Title 29-a Chapter 1 §101 'definitions', defines person as:

54. Person. "Person" means an individual, corporation, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, fiduciary, trust, estate or any other legal or commercial entity. [1993, c. 683, Pt. A, §2 (new); Pt. B, §5 (aff).]

So... who / what are you?


EJUSDEM GENERIS . All the same kind, class, or nature.
In the construction of laws, wills, and other instruments, the "ejusdem generis rule" is, that where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned. Black, Interp. of Laws, 141; Goldsmith. v. U.S., C.C.A.N.Y.,N.Y., 42 F2nd.133,137

NOSCITUR A SOCIIS. "It is known from its associates.1 Vent.225. The meaning of a word is or may be known from the accompanying words" " the doctrine means that general and specific words are associated with and take color from each other, restricting general words to sense analogous to less general. Dunham v. State,140 Fla. 754, 192 So. 324,325,326.

By the wording of the definition, we can conclude that a person is a generic term for a variety of 'legal or commercial entities'

"Here is the often expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court, that "in common usage, the term "person" does not include the Sovereign, statutes employing the person are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign" Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941)). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275 (1947).

The idea that the word "person" ordinarily excludes the Sovereign can also be traced to the "familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words." Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227, 239 (1874).

You must taylor the opening dialog to suit your circumstance !!

Study the definitions !! (usually the first chapter in that particular section of code)


Here is some other additional dialog I had prepared 'just in case' !


For the record,

Sir, I am an honest man... and are of no threat to you......

But, Sir.... with all due respect.... I do not recognise you.

Who are you, sir, and who do you represent?

Did you voluntarily take an oath to the Constitution FOR the united States?

Will you take judicial notice of your oath to the Constitution FOR the united States?

Ironicly, Sir, I, still, am not sure I recognise you.....

Is your oath to the original jurisdiction Constitution FOR the united States of America, Adopted July 2, 1788 and put into effect March 4, 1789

or is it to the Constitution OF the United States of America, adopted by the United States Incorporated on February 21, 1871 ??


(this last question should make the judge crap in his pants... lol)
-------------------------------

"A judgment is void if the court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. A void judgment is a nullity and may be vacated at any time." 261 Kan. at 862.

Either way... this is a waste of evryone's time...

further, still...... sir....

there is no sworn affidavit by an injured party...

there is no sworn affidavit by a competent witness

therefore, the court lacks the essential elements needed for a "case" and again lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and has no choice but to dismiss the charges.

Having said that, I believe my business here is complete...

If no one has any other business to discuss with me....

I humbly and respectfully take my leave..

May God Bless you all....


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


"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." Maine v Thiboutot 100 S. Ct. 250.

One of the hallmarks of subject matter jurisdiction is that it can be raised at any time, including on appeal. If the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we would have to vacate its order.
Hawley v. Murphy, 1999 ME 127, ¶ 8, 736 A.2d 268, 271; M.R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)

"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but rather should dismiss the action." Melo v. U.S. 505 F 2d 1026

A judgment obtained without jurisdiction over the defendant is void. Overby v. Overby , 457 S.W.2d 851 (Tenn. 1970).

"A void judgment is one that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud or entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties." Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95, 353 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1987)

"Therefore, it is necessary that the record present the fact establishing the jurisdiction of the tribunal." Lowe v. Alexander 15C 296; People v. Board of Delegates of S.F. Fire Dept., 14 C 479

"The law requires PROOF OF JURISDICTION to appear on the Record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533 (1974)

"If any tribunal (court) finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over person and subject matter, the case must be dismissed." Louisville RR v. Motley, 211 U.S. 149, 29 S.Ct. 42 (1908)

"Where there is no jurisdiction there is no judge; the proceeding is as nothing. Such has been the law from the days of the Marshalsea, 10 Coke 68; also Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall 335,351." Manning v. Ketcham, 58 F.2d 948.

"A distinction must be here observed between excess of jurisdiction and the clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject-matter any authority exercised is a usurped authority and for the exercise of such authority, when the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, no excuse is permissible." Bradley v.Fisher,13 Wall 335, 351, 352.

"Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law." In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.

PROVE IM BEING PAID !!! === MOTION TO DISMISS

...in criminal cases we have repeatedly stated that the failure of an indictment to allege an element of the offense deprives the court of jurisdiction to proceed with the prosecution of the defendant. See State v. Levasseur, 538 A.2d 764, 766 (Me. 1988)

Jurisdiction is the essential basis of the court's authority, and this issue may be raised at any time. See State v. Dhuy, 2003 ME 75, ¶ 8, 825 A.2d 336, 341; M.R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.")

"[a] challenged judgment is either valid or void." Boyer v. Boyer, 1999 ME 128, ¶ 6, 736 A.2d 273, 275. "A judgment is void and must be vacated if the court issuing the judgment lacks subject matter jurisdiction." Id.


For HIS Glory,
Akira

[weishaupt1776]

Akira, glad to hear that your still alive and well.

Congratulations are in order. You Rock!

[KaosTheory]

Yeah, I was wondering where you've been for so long. Cool win dude!! Thanks for all the extra explainations.

KT

[weishaupt1776]

Would it be presumptuous to ask you for the edits that do not appear in the ticketslayer docs?

The main doc I am curious about is what is in your MtD.

[seeker]

It is my understanding that by "motioning" the court, they will assume jurisdiction -- We had originally filed a Petition to dismiss -- then submitted a Motion to Dismiss -- the JUDGE presumed to answer the question of jurisdiction -- the planitiff said not a word. Good thing the counsel had counsel to act in his behalf! JUDGE assumed Jurisdiction and proceeded to SJ, claiming his court was the correct venue -- I still don't understand what happened there -- except that none of the filings actually went into the EVIDENCE file, just the docket file.

So do a little research on the whole "motion" the court thing, just to be safe!

Seeker

[Jerseee]

Way to go Akira! Walk with him and you're walking the walk of the righteous and fear no evil.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by seeker

JUDGE assumed Jurisdiction and proceeded to SJ, claiming his court was the correct venue

Ahh, but there's venue jurisdiction & then there's Subject matter Jurisdiction.

SMJ can be raised at ANY time. Even years later, let alone in court

[charlesa6]

Seeker[/quote]

still don't understand what happened there -- except that none of the filings
actually went into the EVIDENCE file, just the docket file.

You have to do cover letter or memo to list all the evidence in your doc that bounded with your case as Exibit "A" or "B" in other to be sort out as evidence file in your record. Furthermore, you have to make a copy for yourself and a copy for the court. Why?,because if the judge concealed your evidence you still have one in your possession as a proof.