expired plates and no possession of DL

[Codee]

Originally Posted by mikah2k

RICKO, My thoughts are
Restricted appearance (Rule E(8)) is some admiralty code-phrase, not yielding/granting in personam jurisdiction.

Misnomer is legal-jargon code-word, wrong party or defect in the process by defect of name of party.

David Merrill has written more on either of these than I.

These have been my personal views on mis-nomer.

Wrong paty is mis-identity. There really is no mis-nomer unless they first say you are the name. If they don't and you claim mis-nomer first it is effectivly waived because you are saying that the printed name is yours and then that you don't LIKE the spelling of it. Well you just admitted that it is yours.

When the judge first says "This name here on the docket,,, that is you..." now you have not made the assumption that the name is yours and spelled not to your liking-------but rather the judge has said it is your name and you can say "What is my name?... That!? Hell no."

[mikah2k]

Originally Posted by Codee

These have been my personal views on mis-nomer.

Wrong paty is mis-identity. There really is no mis-nomer unless they first say you are the name. If they don't and you claim mis-nomer first it is effectivly waived because you are saying that the printed name is yours and then that you don't LIKE the spelling of it. Well you just admitted that it is yours.

When the judge first says "This name here on the docket,,, that is you..." now you have not made the assumption that the name is yours and spelled not to your liking-------but rather the judge has said it is your name and you can say "What is my name?... That!? Hell no."

Codee,
Thanks for your clarification.
What do you suppose the quasi-judge meant by saying "It's quasi" and "yours is civil"? (see 2nd post for context).

[mrg]

robe: state your name for the record

me: you have the charges?

robe: yes

me: what do you see?

[ndusa]

Originally Posted by mrg

robe: state your name for the record

me: you have the charges?

robe: yes

me: what do you see?

Robe: "SLAM", bailiff, take "me" to the nearest cell, he is in contempt, and will remain in contempt until "me" can answer this court.
Unless your judge is an absolute *****!

[mrg]

Originally Posted by ndusa

Robe: "SLAM", bailiff, take "me" to the nearest cell, he is in contempt, and will remain in contempt until "me" can answer this court.
Unless your judge is an absolute *****!

Thank you sir, may I have another?

[mikah2k]

For completeness, regarding having possession of my Family Bible during the quasi-business, updated post #2 appropriately.

Before my row was invited up, I did some praying and reading in Matthew where it is written agree with thine adversary quickly, and other selected readings. Everyone else had citations, insurance papers or registration papers or other similar paraphernalia.

As the last 100 or so cases were starting, the quasi-judge called out loud "Lock the doors" referring to the entrance doors, other doors were used for exiting. And a sovereign sitting nearby me yelled out "Why?" So others sitting nearby chuckled and that upset the quasi-judge, so he declared "We're not proceeding until whoever yelled out comes up here!" and he sat back in his chair. Gun-persons were circling the part of the crowd in which I sat, waiting for a confession or an accusation. I kept reading my Family Bible.
Then the room was quiet at first, then others started whining "It is not fair for us to sit here: we've been waiting since _:__ o'clock."
Afterwards, quasi-judge proceeded with following cases.

When about 40 cases remained (4 rows of people sitting nearby me), the quasi-judge stopped again "We're not proceeding until whoever yelled out something earlier comes up here!" I kpet reading my Family Bible.

On my left, a sovereign says "I think that he left already." Chuckles started. Another, a white man, said to a gun-person, "If I tell who yelled out, can I get my case called?" Gun-person takes that question to the quasi-judge, and chief gun-person-bailiff says "If someone wants to point out who it was, just come up here." So the same white man gets up quickly and runs up in to the bar and states a description. All the sunburnt folks murmurred.

Then the gun-persons, hearing the description, go near my row and a self-incriminator decides to voluntarily surrender standing up and is escorted to the quasi-judge, who has a word with the self-incriminator, and has him seated where folks who are going to jail tonight are seated. I kept reading my Family Bible.

Then more invitees are called up for their cases, and finally my row of invitees are invited. I hear an invitee in front of me state "I should have told on that man. The man who told on him, the judge shook his hand and dismissed his case, and he left smiling. That's what happens when you do the right thing."

There you have it: accusing/snitching on one who does a non-damage, non-injury, non-crime is equated with doing the right thing.

I wanted to gage the demeanor of the quasi-judge before I spoke. So I had three ways of beginning, but was praying which way was best under the demeanor of the quasi-judge:

1 Marc Stevens-style: "I intend to plead but I'm not an attorney and I don't understand what's going on here..."
2 Akira-style: special visitation, My Creator is _ My Christian name _, spelled _ ... My law is my Family Bible ... My status ...
3 David Merrill-style: (restricted appearance, I am Truename, I am a native).

As you have read in post #2, I did not get many words out before the quasi-judge went silent.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by ndusa

Robe: "SLAM", bailiff, take "me" to the nearest cell, he is in contempt, and will remain in contempt until "me" can answer this court.

How do you know?