Thank You to Sui Juris Members from Ticket Slayer

[Pasco]

Hi, I am Greg Slaughter, owner of TicketSlayer.com. This is one of my rare posts here on Sui Jurist. I wish to express my sincere thanks to all of you on the Sui Jurist Forum who have supported TicketSlayer.com over the past several years and to report a bit of good news!

The good news is: In the past two weeks, a Riverside, California traffic commissioner, dismissed a Ticket Slayer customer's case for lack of prosecution and cited the lack of prosecution as the reason for dismissal on the written court record. The link to this record can be found by going to TicketSlayer.com and clicking on the link to Traffic News. It is very rare that we get such an admission on the written court record, and this is one of those times.

The defendant in this case filed the Ticket Slayer common law default documents and the prosecutor failed to rebut. In court the defendant moved to have his case dismissed because, the prosecutor had lost right to any legal claim against the defendant due the prosecutor’s default. The judge, denied his motion to dismissed based upon the default of the prosecutor.

Next, the defendant again motioned to dismiss for lack of prosecution, saying; the people have abandoned their claim against the defendant by not having a prosecutor present in court to uphold the claim of the people against the defendant. The defendant reminded the judge that the officer could not represent the state according to the People v. Marcroft. In Marcroft, a California appeals court ruled that, “the officer is the witness, no more, no less.” The judge then dismissed for lack of prosecution.

Thanks again to those of you who have supported TicketSlayer.com on this forum.

Kindest regards,

Greg Slaughter

[Codee]

Hey greg... nice to see your post.

Good job on the paperwork you prepared.

[BOBT12]

It is really nice to hear about, the all too rare, court admitted victories. Keep up the good work, Greg.

[Akira-]

The late Clyde Hyde deserves the credit... it's his process.

Greg, Weis, as well as myself and dozens of others, all studied under Clyde.

[charlesa6]

Yup!! It's deserving credit too. Good job, Greg.

[Pasco]

Originally Posted by Akira-

The late Clyde Hyde deserves the credit... it's his process.

Greg, Weis, as well as myself and dozens of others, all studied under Clyde.

Be it that I fail not to give credit where credit is due. Yes, you are correct my friend, Clyde is due great credit for his work in the development of the common law default. I am indeed honored to be a touch bearer of Clyde's work and teachings.

Clyde's common law default is still flawless and all traffic cases should be dismissed as a result of using Clyde's default, but unfortunately we have courts of men and not of law in accordance with the constitution.

I asked Clyde once, did you know before you first used it that, the common law default would work in traffic court? Clyde told me that he was absolutely stunned when his first case was dismissed using the default.

May Clyde never be forgotten for his great work regarding the common law teachings about sovereignty and sovereign rights, and for his warmth and compassion for his fellow man.

Greg

[weishaupt1776]

Big Ups , Greg !!!

May Clyde Rest in Peace

I use the Common Law Default on just about everything now

Thanks for thanking us

Couple questions for ya ;

A friend in Florida said that he received the TS docs from you without the mandamus & praecipe writ

Are you now conducting the process w/o those 2 docs?

If so, are you having success w/ just the AoT, the cure, final Default, & MTD ?

[Pasco]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Big Ups , Greg !!!

Couple questions for ya ;

A friend in Florida said that he received the TS docs from you without the mandamus & praecipe writ

Are you now conducting the process w/o those 2 docs?

If so, are you having success w/ just the AoT, the cure, final Default, & MTD ?

I removed the writs several months ago after a few states passed legislation that said in essence; only the court itself could initiate certain writs such as, the Writ of Mandamus.

Arizona, according to a letter written by an Arizona judge sent to one of my customers and passed along to me, said that; the state of Arizona has replaced the Writ of Mandamus with a new legal document that could only be initiated by a court. This of course, is contrary to hundreds of years of law. Certainly, the state and the courts are attempting to deny us our rights, and our ability to command our servants holding constitutional office to obey the law and the constitution.

About this time I discovered Jack and Margie Flynn's methods to compel judges to adhere to their constitutional oaths of office. When a judge is compelled to adhere to his or her constitutional oath of office then, the judge is also forced to abide by the constitution and the common law. When this happens, it becomes far more difficult for the courts to violate our rights.

I now use Jack and Margie Flynn's Declaration of Standing in conjunction with an Affidavit to accomplish what Clyde did with the writs. Thus far, I find the results to be equal or even a little better than before. Mainly I attribute this to holding the judge to his oath office by serving the judge and the prosecutor with Flynn's Acceptance Constitutions and Oath of Office.

The Motions to Dismiss are still apart of the default process I now use.

—Greg

[aksis]

Greg,

At http://www.citizensoftheamericancons...rg/motions.htm I didn't find a document titled "Declaration of Standing", are you refering to one of these document they have published on this page, or is it an unpublished document?

If it's not published on their site somewhere, can/would you upload it to this thread?

Much love,

Christopher Theodore of the family of Rhodes

P.S.

Regarding the letter sent by the Judge, I can almost 'hear' David Merril saying, "refuse for cause and file it into the evidence repository down at the District Court..."

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by Pasco

I
I now use Jack and Margie Flynn's Declaration of Standing in conjunction with an Affidavit to accomplish what Clyde did with the writs

I like J/M's stuff alot

However, I believe that LB Bork at pacinlaw.org has them & Clyde beat TOGETHER as far as overcoming status presumptions with his State Nationality Premise.

I have seen Clydes DoS, and J/M's docs, and LB has just about any rabbit hole plugged up where they do not

I had a NO-DL last year, sent in my docs & incorporated the TS stuff along with an

"Objection to excess of jurisdiction"

The judge threw it out sua-sponte at arraignement no prob

Originally Posted by Pasco

The Motions to Dismiss are still apart of the default process I now use.

—Greg

I try not to use the word "Motion" anymore as that term, in my OPINION, seems to be asking them for something

I now entitle my stuff as "Necessity for dismissal Sua Sponte" or I title them as "Objections" with reasons why they have no other choice IN LAW to dismiss

P.S.

SJ Members, Greg has his paperwork formatted VERY WELL in Word format to where it is very easy to tweak and is well worth the price of purchase

Get one now, so when you get ticketed - it will be good to go !!

In fact, what i am going to do is print out the docs, with blanks left for me to write in the customized stuff, so when I get ticketed I will take it to a notary and file it right after the ticket with the ticket number on it