Can anyone answer this question?

[Dillon Hunt]

I'm confused as to what the heck is going on in these cases and how criminal and civil process is being ignored. Uless they are going under Adm. process, which I would think you still would have to follow civil or criminal process on this. Please clearify.

Something smells fishy here.(That's putting it mildly)
__________________________________________________ ___________________________


It is probably a good idea to tell a magistrate, that I don't consent to any magistrate hearing any case I may be involved in, Only a judge will do. Lets keep it judicial !!!

Everything is under duress at all times from the stop to court, you know

If no objections, they assume I agree !!!

[dochendrix]

Originally Posted by Dillon Hunt

I'm confused as to what the heck is going on in these cases and how criminal and civil process is being ignored. Uless they are going under Adm. process, which I would think you still would have to follow civil or criminal process on this. Please clearify.

Something smells fishy here.(That's putting it mildly)
__________________________________________________ ___________________________


It is probably a good idea to tell a magistrate, that I don't consent to any magistrate hearing any case I may be involved in, Only a judge will do. Lets keep it judicial !!!

Everything is under duress at all times, you know

If no objections, they assume I agree !!!

Where I live it is all criminal. So, this is where my confusion has set in. I still say you cannot be a witness, and serve process. Until I see otherwise, it looks and smells like ditchweed to me.

By the way, you are UNDER DURESS! You only appear under constant threat. Speaking of that, I wonder what would happen when these cops refuse to show up so you can be found not guilty, if you told the judge:" Your honor, this witness is in contempt of court. If you would be kind enough to issue an order for contempt, I will use my arrest powers as an individual, and drag this dead-beat before the court, dead or alive".(that would probably be the wrong thing to do, but if you are going to waste my time, I want to be found guily or not guilty!)

This Is why I am redoing these--http://www.suijuris.net/forum/court/11770-scooterdog-ndusa-travel-papers.html

for my state. Seems to be working very well in Montana for the generals!

[Shoonra]

As I have already said, repeatedly, the traffic court (and, incidentally, the laws that lead to cases in traffic court) are unlike more conventional legal situations. The traffic court, and the issuance of the traffic tickets that bring cases into the traffic court, do not operate like conventional civil or criminal cases. The traffic law explicitly empowers the traffic cop to issue a ticket based on his own witnessing of an alleged infraction. By way of analogy, I described him as the complaining witness, but this was only for the sake of analogy. The traffic laws explicitly make him the prime witness against the motorist whom he has served with a ticket. Yes, I've heard all the stories about quotas of tickets and the like, but the law does not recognize in him an "interested party".

So this is unusual compared with other courts, and if it seems unfair - the matter at issue is the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on the public roads, and, being a privilege and not an inherent right, it might be subject to restrictions and such that would be considered excessive or unfair in other fields of law.

[dochendrix]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

As I have already said, repeatedly, the traffic court (and, incidentally, the laws that lead to cases in traffic court) are unlike more conventional legal situations. The traffic court, and the issuance of the traffic tickets that bring cases into the traffic court, do not operate like conventional civil or criminal cases. The traffic law explicitly empowers the traffic cop to issue a ticket based on his own witnessing of an alleged infraction. By way of analogy, I described him as the complaining witness, but this was only for the sake of analogy. The traffic laws explicitly make him the prime witness against the motorist whom he has served with a ticket. Yes, I've heard all the stories about quotas of tickets and the like, but the law does not recognize in him an "interested party".

So this is unusual compared with other courts, and if it seems unfair - the matter at issue is the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on the public roads, and, being a privilege and not an inherent right, it might be subject to restrictions and such that would be considered excessive or unfair in other fields of law.

That sounds good, with the excetpting I have done some research. What I have found are there are two type's of action: 1-criminal, 2-civil.

I find nothing in "law" that provides for half ass'd stystems.

I do appreciate your response. BUT, still, you provide no laws to look under.

Further more, I find NOTHING that states any mere public servent can do what you are saying(aka:be witness/sign comlaint/provide service) THEN TESTIFY!

Again, no such law have you stated to provide this. You may be right, but damn, I want to see this! I don't believe it can be done, with the exception of being ignorant of the laws, process, and procedure.

More ditchweed as far as I'm concerned. Please post case law/code/statute of this "super sevant law" which you seem to know.

If you show me the law, I'm more than willing to read/comprehend, and perhaps even accept.

No more opinions please. Provide law.

[dochendrix]

And, until you rebut, or anyone else, this--

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/court/...el-papers.html

I really see no need for these types of post's. It seems from what I read it's the same old **** hashed out time and time again.

Until I see rebutal from persons that know(can provide law like the Generals), that know procedure, the post is moot.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Dillon Hunt

I'm confused as to what the heck is going on in these cases and how criminal and civil process is being ignored. Uless they are going under Adm. process, which I would think you still would have to follow civil or criminal process on this. Please clearify.

Absolutely not. Criminal and Civil are two types of ACTIONS.

Administrative law is sued out by way of SPECIAL PROCEDDINGS and those are not actions at all.

Completely different rules for all three.

[dochendrix]

Originally Posted by Codee

Absolutely not. Criminal and Civil are two types of ACTIONS.

Administrative law is sued out by way of SPECIAL PROCEDDINGS and those are not actions at all.

Completely different rules for all three.

Okay, this I understand. Still, no law has been provided whith allows a mere public servant to override civil or crimail process(one form of actions states) Please explain why the following will NOT shoot down this "SPECIAL PROCEEDING".
As follows:

It is an undisputed fact that the courts usurp jurisdiction primarily through deception and illusion. The Accused denies jurisdiction to the court in all matters before the court. The Accused denies jurisdiction under the colorable law of "One Form of Action" or "Statutory Jurisdiction". The Accused demands the court produce a copy of the "Rules of Criminal Proceedure for Statutory Jurisdiction" or "One form of Action" in order that he may prepare a proper defense. The Accused comes before the court under duress only because of the abuse of the courts power to arrest and incarcerate.

AND:

It is an undisputed fact that the fictitious unilateral contracts allegedly formed by administrative agencies under statutory jurisdiction by application for drivers license, vehicle registration, and license plate(s) etc. are defective process. They are formed under colorable law and are not entered into Knowingly, Intentionally, or Voluntarily. They constitute prima facie evidence of fraud perpetuated on free men by legislative fiat in the conversion of Rights to privileges. They represent nothing more than a tax on Rights in violation of the Constitution. "If it could be said that the state had the power to tax a Right, this would enable the state to destroy Rights guaranteed by the constitution through the use of oppressive taxation." McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316 ; PG&E v. State Treasurer, 168 Cal 420. The Accused demands that the ORIGINAL CONTRACT(S) or LAW(S) or ORDER(S) or RULE(S) the accused is held to answer under, including but not limited to, the 1933 Bankruptcy and Admiralty/Maritime, signed by all parties be produced and entered into evidence.

AND:

It is an undisputed fact that officers of the state legislative body, presume authority to create administrative agencies and administrative laws when they have no such authority or power to impose regulatory schemes upon the state's people, and thereby convert their unalienable God given Rights into mere privileges.

I just want the law that over-rides, rebuts BY LAW, which I posted. I see know possible way, a mere administative agency can impose fake law, when it is clear it is NOT LAW.

[johngr]

Another possible avenue of attack of infraction tickets, especially in California is for denial of effective counsel.

From the decision obviating the need for prosecution in traffic trials:

"Inasmuch as these cases ordinarily entail the imposition of small fines, it is neither economically feasible nor warranted by the relatively limited monetary exposure of the defendant for counsel to be employed or multiple appearances to be made for arraignment and trial."

It is only economically infeasible to hire counsel because counsel must be a member of the bar cult. The commissioner need not be a lawyer, the cop, who by appearances is the de facto prosecutor (and even took on prosecutorial functions in People v. Dragomir Cal. App. Div. - Feb. 14, 2006, where the cop, over Dragomir's objection, cross-examined him. The appeals court upheld the conviction!!!) need not be a lawyer. But I can't hire Codee or someone like him, who would do a MUCH better job for less money.

I wouldn't want to hire anyone to "represent" me as I would do an adequate job knowing what I know (3 out of four of the many tickets I got (I serially civilly disobeyed the helmet law in the 90s) were dismissed or found not guilty). But I maybe could help someone who like most of the people I saw in traffic court is bewildered and ultimately fleeced by the system.

[dochendrix]

Originally Posted by johngr

Another possible avenue of attack of infraction tickets, especially in California is for denial of effective counsel.

From the decision obviating the need for prosecution in traffic trials:

"Inasmuch as these cases ordinarily entail the imposition of small fines, it is neither economically feasible nor warranted by the relatively limited monetary exposure of the defendant for counsel to be employed or multiple appearances to be made for arraignment and trial."

It is only economically infeasible to hire counsel because counsel must be a member of the bar cult. The commissioner need not be a lawyer, the cop, who by appearances is the de facto prosecutor (and even took on prosecutorial functions in People v. Dragomir Cal. App. Div. - Feb. 14, 2006, where the cop, over Dragomir's objection, cross-examined him. The appeals court upheld the conviction!!!) need not be a lawyer. But I can't hire Codee or someone like him, who would do a MUCH better job for less money.

I wouldn't want to hire anyone to "represent" me as I would do an adequate job knowing what I know (3 out of four of the many tickets I got (I serially civilly disobeyed the helmet law in the 90s) were dismissed or found not guilty). But I maybe could help someone who like most of the people I saw in traffic court is bewildered and ultimately fleeced by the system.

I agree you NEVER want someone to REPRESENT you in a court of law. But, to the above highlight, you woulnd't need Codee or someone like him to represent you. YOu have a right(and I can back up every word I'm typing) have a friend be co-counsel, aka: help you during your hearing.

It is my understanding from scooterdog, that a man can have his "next best friend" represent him in custody cases.

If these "super" ""law""" infractions are similar in real LAW, I would think you could do the same.

Again, you can have help at the hearing, and if you had someone like Codee, a true General, sitting beside you, your chances of a loss just got reduced by a very high percentage!

(next time you have to go to court, file the correct papers to get your "friend" as a helper, and see what happens!!!)

[Codee]

Originally Posted by johngr

Another possible avenue of attack of infraction tickets, especially in California is for denial of effective counsel.

Not really. But I did use that argument in my possesion of a concealed case and whalla. All the evidense was suppressed and all the charges dropped.

That was a good case. I will see if I can work up a good summary.

Anyway big difference between effective assistance of council and Representation by attorney.

The argument is that I am entitled to hire council of my choosing. The state says he must be licensed. The state of California no longer licenses "Councilors."