Traffic Ticket Question

[Akira-]

The Motion to Quash is a frontal attack on jurisdiction. The document is used for that purpose alone. The party submitting that document CAN NOT argue anything else if they do they forfeit their "special appearance" and the court acquires jurisdiction.

If you do an MTQ you MUST NOT argue the merits or kiss the "special appearance" good bye.

They don't like being told they don't have jurisdiction so be prepared to dig your heals in.

Under the circumstances presented in steve762's MTQ the only thing the court can do legally is "dismiss sua sponte", which terms I'd put in the MTQ.

I concur..

But I make no attempt to tell them points and authorities, ect. I don't try to tell them their business..

I simply insist they prove their claim.


For HIS Glory,
Akira

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Good Courage in everything.

Probably the only way to force these issues in the court system is for volunteers like yourself to go to jail and test the law. Thank you for the effort and sacrifice.

In this proposed challenge will you be facing a citation that has been filed with a court of record? Asking because in PA the whole "summary" concept means NOT A COURT OF RECORD, really a 'police court', a local office used as a district justice, no stenographer or record kept of proceedings.

However all decisions from this venue are automatically tried de novo upon request in the court of common pleas (of record).

Paperwork can be mailed to this local court but they will often refuse to accept anything hand delivered they have to be forced to acknowledge it with a certified mail.

However it is possible to initiate process in a court of record by filing on your own a habeas corpus/motion to quash.

Which is why I am asking if you plan to file into an existing case or start your own controversy. Of course if you get into court and there is no proper accusation in law then there can't be subject matter or personal jurisdiction.

I am trying to compare this to a situation such as in PA where a citation or complaint has indeed been filed with a court.

[David Merrill]

Here is a snippet albeit old news:

4 Secrets of the Legal Industry

Most judgments are not merely voidable, but are in fact VOID JUDGMENTS. They can be vacated; made to go away (Although, it is an up hill battle). Rarely has any authenticated evidence, competent fact witness, or even a claim been put before a court and on the record.

Defective affidavits, hearsay as evidence and no stated damages are but a few elements that rob the court of subject matter jurisdiction (at last count there are 22 elements that deprive the court of SMJ). Some of the elements are: denial of due process, denial of access to court, fraud upon the court, and fraud upon the court by the court.

(Although these pages are aimed primarily towards debt, credit card debt, the principals set forth herein apply to virtually all civil and criminal cases.)

Common pleas such as "open account" or "account stated" are often used in place of, and sometimes in conjunction with, breach of contract. To file under breach a contract would require that they bring in the signed contract, agreement, or note. They don't bring in a contract, they bring in the "terms of agreement" which has no signature or persons name on it, a template that could apply to anyone.

These are just some of the tools used by debt collectors (credit card debt collectors in particular) and their counsel to perpetrate a fraud upon the court, with or without the courts cooperation or complicity.

At the same time, courts, almost as a rule, openly display a bitter and venomous hatred of pro se / pro per litigants. So don't expect the courts to just roll over and give you what you demand without a battle. It doesn't matter to them that you are right, it matters only that you are pro se; an inferior, low life being, and the courts have a position and the income of their brotherhood to protect.

These are the four secrets:

1. Courts of general, limited, or inferior jurisdiction have no inherent judicial power.*

Courts of general, limited, or inferior jurisdiction get their jurisdiction from one source and one source only: SUFFICIENT PLEADINGS.

Someone before the court must tell the court what its jurisdiction is.

Without pleadings sufficient to empower the court to act, that court cannot have judicial capacity.

No judge has the power to determine whether he has jurisdiction. He does have the duty to tell when he does not.

....What this means to you is that no court can declare that it has the legal power to hear or decide cases, i.e. jurisdiction. Jurisdiction must be proved and on the record. Without sufficient pleadings, without jurisdiction, no court can issue a judgment that isn’t void ab initio, void from the beginning, void on its face, a nullity, without force and effect.

2. We have a common law system.

No statute, no rule, or no law means what it says as it is written.

Only the holding tells you what it means.

The statute means what the highest court of competent jurisdiction has ruled and determined that the statute means in their most recent ruling.

....What this means to you is that courts are governed/ruled by case law, what has been determined before, what the highest court of competent jurisdiction has said the law is, means. It is called the Doctrine of Precedent. This doctrine is so powerful that it can kill and has. A family in Florida has become quite familiar with this doctrine when they tried for 15 years to prevent feeding tubes from being removed from their daughter who was in a vegetative state.

3. Attorneys CANNOT testify.

Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are never facts before the court.

....What this means to you is that no attorney can state a fact before the court. This was more than adequately pointed out in 2000 when thousands of Florida ballots were taken before the U.S. Supreme Court, without even so much as one competent fact witness. Without a witness the court could not see the ballots, the ballots were not before the court, and the ballots could not be introduced as evidence.

4. Before any determination, there must be a court of complete or competent jurisdiction.

There must be two parties with capacity to be there.

There must be subject matter jurisdiction.

Appearance or testimony of a competent fact witness.

....What this means to you is that without jurisdiction, complete jurisdiction, no court can issue a judgment that isn’t void, a nullity, without force or effect, on its face and in fact.

*"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." U.S. Const. art. III, § 1, cl. 1.

With these things in mind, true or not, one has a better understanding of assize - outside the scope of the lesser court's jurisdiction:

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...and_Decree.rtf
court of record

There we see it in an abbreviated form through county clerk and recorder. [The incident took place across a county line resulting in proceedings in the northern county stirring five old abatements in the southern county.] In a more formal setting:

http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/opinions/06/06-6238.pdf
assize

On appeal, Mr. Smith cites no other statutory basis for removal. Creatively, but frivolously, he does argue that the case should now be removed from this court to a court of his own making, the “one supreme Court,” apparently established by Mr. Smith and his associates on September 4, 2006 (after the district court remanded his case to the state court). There is no legal basis for that request.

And we hear the attorneys of the Tenth Circuit ridiculing a court of his own making... making an Instruction sound like a Request. But you move to the end to get the whole picture:

Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.

The Tenth Circuit justices were merely slurring the assize Instruction while never even allowing the cause before the Tenth Circuit - construing the Instruction as a motion in forma pauperis - since of course, no filing fee would accompany an instruction from superior court.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[ss_stealth]

Originally Posted by Akira-

Welcome fellow Mainer

(A)Why look in a book about slave privilege / commerce regulation, for info on sovereign rights?

(B)Are you a corporate / legal entity?

For HIS Glory,
Akira

(A) I was trying to find the loopholes, contradictions, or 'secret language'/legalese in Maine's codes so that I can have more pertinent information than what a Canadian or Californian has discovered applies to them. It is apparent that I'm new to the legal language as I took the word 'individual' to include me. I see it now. Thank you.

(B) That's a good question. From what I've learned, my 'person' (KYLE M GREEN) is a legal entity. But as far as I can tell, me, myself, and I are a flesh and blood, human being; a living, breathing, biological, organic, entity; a self prescribed sovereign. So the short answer would be 'No, I am not a legal entity.'

After reading through Title29-A I became really discouraged from carrying a license because there are are just so many silly little 'laws'. License holders are not allowed to coast downhill in neutral!

Thanks for the lesson you guys!
KMG

[ss_stealth]

Originally Posted by 612Actual

You need to verify whether speeding, without more, is a crime. If not then where has the Legislature AUTHORIZED the cop to make a "warrantless arrest" for NONcriminal conduct?

612Actual, good suggestion. I recall the Title saying that a violation of the title is not a crime but it might have been talking about a specific chapter or section. I'll have to go back and reread it. I should print it out and take notes.

If it was discovered that there is no authorization for a 'warrantless arrest' for a noncrime should I keep it to myself and let the officer ticket me and THEN file a motion pointing that tidbit of information out to the court to have the charge dropped? It seems to me if I started to argue with the officer he'd get upset and make more tickets for which I wouldn't be prepared to get out of.

Thanks,
KMG

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Here is the hook I have been looking for explicitly stated in the CVC- but it has got to exist one way or another in every state and country around the world.

12503. A nonresident over the age of 18 years whose home state or country does not require the licensing of drivers may operate a foreign vehicle owned by him for a period not to exceed 30 days without obtaining a license under this code.

And even after 30 days, a nonresident without a permanent domicile in state is still unqualified for a CA DL.

But...

Here is where the "Right to Travel" comes in. Its one thing to regulate motor vehicle traffic but to effectively deny the use of an automobile, a normal and ordinary means of "transport", and leave no other remedy, is unlawful. residents and nonresidents alike have an equal right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Residence and domicile are always voluntary and expatriation from any such status is an inherent legally recognized right. So they can't force a residence on us.

Plus there is the one year provision in the Intl Treaty on Road Traffic.

So that leaves a 30 day renewal period for the above codified situation. Residence is a rebutable presumption so how about a rejection letter from the DMV to establish ineligibility for a domestic permit?

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

.... to effectively deny the use of an automobile, a normal and ordinary means of "transport", and leave no other remedy, is unlawful.

The laws don't deny him the use of an automobile, only the privilege of being in the driver's seat.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

OK- the privilege may not be arbitrarily or capriciously denied- the regulations are part of police powers and they have certain purposes and limits.

A state may not interfere with interstate and international commerce. Persons coming under the treaty convention on international traffic, and the antecedent custom, are clearly "international" and "interstate". And traffic is commerce.

Also residents and nonresidents alike keep and lose their license on an equal footing- no favoritism. If my license is invalid after 30 days and I have no legal opportunity to obtain a new one thats unwarranted interference, by law custom and statute.

Do I really have to cross the state line every 30 days? Somehow I doubt that and if I did it would be very arbitrary, besides all the above issues.

[redy2fiyt]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The laws don't deny him the use of an automobile, only the privilege of being in the driver's seat.

OK then. Please define "use" for an automobile.

:-)

[612Actual]

ss_stealth wrote - If it was discovered that there is no authorization for a 'warrantless arrest' for a noncrime should I keep it to myself and let the officer ticket me and THEN file a motion pointing that tidbit of information out to the court to have the charge dropped? It seems to me if I started to argue with the officer he'd get upset and make more tickets for which I wouldn't be prepared to get out of.

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

That's a judgement call. You'll decide what to do at that time.

If you become aware that the Legislature hasn't provided the authorization then you can totally blind-side the cop on the stand.

You can cross-examine him if you want, however, you might decide to simply keep you're cards close to your vest and not. When the cop gets done testifying you'll be asked if you have any questions for the cop. If you decide not to cross then say no. The commish will probably ask the cop if he has anything further. The cop will probably say no. AT THIS TIME YOU COULD ASK THE COURT IF THE OFFICER RESTS. Now why would you want to do that? BECAUSE ONCE THE OFFICER RESTS HE CAN NOT ENTER ANY MORE EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD. Once you hear the magic word YES, after the commish asks him if he rests, inform the commish that you're prepared to put on your case.

Hehehe. Now you can invoke the hostile witness provisions because the cop is the WITNESS for the state. Now you can ask LEADING questions. Bottom line, you can now begin your interrogation to verify whether the cop had authorization to make a warrantless arrest. After all, he should have PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE right?!