COMMENTS FROM THE PROFESSOR ON TRAFFIC CITATIONS AND INTRODUCTION TO ABATEMENT
Hmmmm...he says you win every time.
It's all on that one page!
Personally, I like the looks of this info.
Quote:
There are many who believe that special appearances (by paper work, motions, etc.) nullify a court’s jurisdiction. Under emergency powers this is false doctrine. There is no remedy in challenging a courts jurisdiction, except by abating its process, first. Abatements are not a challenge to a courts jurisdiction, merely a good faith attempt to correct errors in process, "correct the errors judge and I'll appear."
Quote:
Special appearances fail when a judge knows what he's doing; under martial rule, judges do whatever they want, whenever they want so long as he/she does not alarm the public or disturb the peace. Jurisdiction is always granted to try jurisdictional questions, even if one goes to higher courts. Defendants grant jurisdiction without knowing it, because they never challenge the process that creates the jurisdiction in the first place. (See FRCP §2.4 (2)(4))
Process is perfected by appearance, special or otherwise. Also remember the court is not the building the judge or anyone else, it’s the paperwork. If the court paperwork is defective there is no court and it ceases to exist. The only way to overcome the War Powers court process is by Abatement.
Traffic tickets are a pain for all of us. When using this abatement strategy, first send in the Notice of Abatement, Memorandum of Law and Denial of Corporate Existence to the Clerk of Court. That generally takes care of the pesky ticket. If you do not hear from him within 15 days, send in the Default Notice of the Notary to the Clerk. If you receive a summons, which has the proper signature of the judge and the court seal, send in the Subpoena and Discovery Interrogatories to the Prosecuting Attorney and the court. Your challenging jurisdiction and the opposing party must traverse your challenge or the court cannot proceed. In most cases they will never give you the documents you have requested or answer your questions, if they do, you won. The people granted authority to the state legislature to adjudicate only a few matters: Actions at law, actions in equity, and actions under the rule of necessity (military). Admiralty was remanded to the federal government and the states (are supposed to) have no authority to legislate in this jurisdiction. There was a time when someone aggrieved of harm would file a tort at law. And the nature of the action governed the rules of the procedure. If there was a breach of contract, then this was an equity matter. If the aggrieved party could allege a tortious breach of contract, this matter was moved from the equity side of the court into the law side.
This is because the people must have access to a remedy at law if this type of action could give relief. If one were in the military, or if one were under territory under martial law, the court was a military court. If there was a breach of an international contract, the matter was federal and heard under admiralty.
The state legislature cannot vest a "court" with authority that has not been delegated to it by the people via the constitution of the state. They cannot create a new "nature of action" out of thin air. Later on, when the Constitutions of the several states were amended to recognize and administrate corporations, a separate court was established, and the action was in the nature of administrative.
Sounds like good reading is available somewhere. You did not post a cite or url as to the location wherein you found this information. Is such available?
I have received but have not accepted the Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint and am hereby rejecting said document for cause without dishonor.
Refusal for Cause. Like I keep saying.
In an honest world, there is no need to acquire the "exclusive original cognizance" of the US.
Regards,
David Merrill.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoonra
It is worth noting that the fealty to the Pope, which you cited for its explicit mention of the Templar abbey in Dover, is the legal basis for the invalidation of the Magna Carta after it was sealed at Runnymede.
During discussion about the Treaty of 1213 and the Magna Charta (1215).
Sounds like good reading is available somewhere. You did not post a cite or url as to the location wherein you found this information. Is such available?
Jerry
The url was posted under "continue here" at the bottom of the post. However, when you get to that page you will not find any links to the homepage of that site, which I have hence found more good information. That site is as follows:
DUE PROCESS
“The essential elements of due process of law are.. Notice and The Opportunity to defend.” Simon vs. Craft, 182 U. S. 427 (1901).
Yet, not one individual has ever been given notice of the loss of his/her Right, before signing the license (contract). Nor was the Citizen given any opportunity to defend against the loss of his/her right to travel by automobile on the highways, in the ordinary course of life and business. This amounts to an arbitrary government deprivation on Liberty.
“There should be no arbitrary deprivation of Life or Liberty...” Barbier vs. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 31 (1885); Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 1l8 U.S. 356 (1886).
and...
“The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta.” Kent vs. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958).
The focal point of this question of police power and due process must balance upon the point of making the public highways a safe place for the public to travel. If a man travels in a manner that creates actual damage, an action in law would be the appropriate remedy (civilly) for recovery of damages. The state could then also proceed against the individual to deprive him of his Right to use the public highways, for cause. This process would fulfill the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment while at the same time insuring that Rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the state constitutions would be protected for all.
But unless or until harm or damage (a crime) is committed, there is no cause for interference in the private affairs or actions of a Citizen.
One of the most famous and perhaps the most quoted definitions of due process of law is that of Daniel Webster in his Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat 518 (1819), in which he declared that due process means “a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial.” (See also State vs. Strasburg, 110 P. 1020 (1910); Dennis vs. Moses, 52 P. 333.)
Somewhat similar is the statement that is a rule as old as the law that “no one shall be personally bound (restricted) until he has had his day in court,” until he has been duly summoned to appear and has been afforded an opportunity to be heard. Judgment without such summons and opportunity lacks all the attributes of a judicial determination; it is judicial usurpation and it is oppressive and can never be upheld where it is unfairly administered. (12 Am. Jur. [1st] Const. Law, Sect. 573, p.269.)
Note: This sounds tike the process used to deprive one of the “privilege” of operating a motor vehicle “for hire.” It should be kept in mind, however, that we are discussing the arbitrary deprivation of the Right to use the road that all citizens have “in common.”
The futility of the state’s position can be most easily observed in the 1959 Washington Attorney General's opinion on a similar issue:
“The distinction between the Right of the Citizen to use the public highways for private, rather than commercial purposes is recognized...”
and...
“Under its power to regulate private uses of our highways, our legislature has required that motor vehicle operators be licensed (I.C. 49-307). Undoubtedly, the primary purpose of this requirement is to insure, as far as possible, that all motor vehicle operators will be competent and qualified, thereby reducing the potential hazard or risk of harm, to which other users of the highways might otherwise be subject. But once having complied with this regulatory provision, by obtaining the required license, a motorist enjoys the privilege of traveling freely upon the highways...” Washington A.G.O. 59-60 No. 88, p. 11.
This alarming opinion appears to be saying that every person using an automobile as a matter of right, must give up the Right and convert the Right into a privilege. This is accomplished under the guise of regulation. This statement is indicative of the insensitivity, even the ignorance, of the government to the restrictions placed upon government by and through the several constitutions.
That legal proposition may have been able to stand in 1959; however, as of 1966, in the United States Supreme Court decision in Miranda, clearly demonstrated that even this weak defense of the state’s actions must fail.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436,491 (1966).
Thus the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the Citizen’s Right to travel upon the public roads, by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive his Right and convert that Right into a privilege. Furthermore, we have previously established that this “privilege” has been defined as applying only to those who are “conducting business in the streets” or “operating for-hire vehicles.”
If anyone noticed my post analysis of a right to travel case posted herein the case of FROST v. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA 271 U.S. 583 (1926) SCOTUS held that that it was not within the power of the state to grant a privilege which required the relinquishment of a constitutional right.
But, it may not be advisable to quote that case here ;)
REGULATION
“In addition to the requirement that regulations governing the use of the highways must not be violative of constitutional guarantees, the prime essentials of such regulation are reasonableness, impartiality, and definiteness or certainty.” 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect. 260.
and...
“Moreover, a distinction must he observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufferance of permission.” Davis vs. Massachusetts, 167 U.S. 43; Pachard vs. Banton, supra.
One can say for certain that these regulations are impartial since they are being applied to all, even though they are clearly beyond the limits of the legislative power. However, we must consider whether such regulations are reasonable and non-violative of constitutional guarantees.
However, it may be remembered from my excerpts from George Mercer's Invisible Contracts posted here the following quote:
Quote:
Yet despite this predominate skew towards contract priority in judicial Right to Travel doctrinal reasoning, annulment by the Supreme Court of criminal liability for the innocent use of public highways under circumstances where no collaborating damages were caused, would be appropriate; an honest assessment of the total factual picture by a sophisticated judge would result in the conclusion that merely driving a car down a street without a license does not ascend to the minimum threshold requirements that characterize legitimate criminal incarceration standards -- compelled contract or no compelled contract; those penal highway statutes exist by virtue of Special Interest Group sponsorship and pressure, and judges are diminishing their own stature and violate the restraining mandates inherent in the Republican Form of Government Clause, by letting clever and politically ambitious Special Interest Groups get away with whatever they can buy in Legislatures to damage innocent behavior under circumstances where unnecessary covenants within adhesive contracts are being asserted in tension with Substantive Natural Rights in the Locomotion area; other highway drivers have no assurance that another approaching car is not being driven by an unlicensed Citizen of France, who by virtue of his political status would not have an unlicensed motor vehicle operation penal statute thrown at him. Therefore, there is an inherent Assumption of Risk among all highway users that some drivers will necessarily have to be unlicensed, since it is literally legally impossible, and also unattractive for Foreign Relations reasons not related to preventing vehicular accidents, to maintain a perfect expectation of motorist licensing compliance.
Linear Mode
