Suspended License, Need Help.

Greetings to the forum, I just happened to stumble on to this website a couple of weeks ago and I am very pleased with the information that everyone is sharing.



I am relatively new to the sovereign movement and need some help. I am in California and have a arraignment coming up for driving with a suspended license. California from what I have noticed is a state that really tries to battle against the right to travel, especially with so many vehicles in the state, which translates to revenue for them.



I just submitted a Demand for Verified Complaint using California Vehicle Code 40513(A) ( which states:



(a) 40513. (a) Whenever written notice to appear has been prepared, delivered, and filed with the court, an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate, in lieu of a verified complaint, shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant may plead "guilty" or "nolo contendere."



If, however, the defendant violates his or her promise to appear in court or does not deposit lawful bail, or pleads other than "guilty" or "nolo contendere" to the offense charged, a complaint shall be filed that shall conform to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 948) of Title 5 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, which shall be deemed to be an original complaint, and thereafter proceedings shall be had as provided by law, except that a defendant may, by an agreement in writing, subscribed by him or her and filed with the court, waive the filing of a verified complaint and elect that the prosecution may proceed upon a written notice to appear.



(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), whenever the written notice to appear has been prepared on a form approved by the Judicial Council, an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant may enter a plea and, if the notice to appear is verified, upon which a warrant may be issued. If the notice to appear is not verified, the defendant may, at the time of arraignment, request that a verified complaint be filed. In the case of an infraction violation in which the defendant is a minor, the defendant may enter a plea at the arraignment upon a written notice to appear. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the case of an infraction violation, no consent of the minor is required prior to conducting the hearing upon a written notice to appear.



In this demand I stated that I plan on pleading not guilty at the arraignment and that I WILL NOT voluntarily waive the filing of a verified complaint. (Exerpt from my Demand) A written notice to appear (traffic ticket) is not a verified complaint. The two documents are not the same thing or identical in nature. A written notice to appear cannot possibly be a verifed complaint because the Vehicle Code clearly states in Section 40513 (a) that a verified complaint may be waived and the prosecution may proceed upon the written notice to appear. Clearly, the Vehicle Code is referring to two separate documents. And; further, A written notice to appear is not or cannot be a verified complaint because California law (calif. Penal Code, section 740) states that all misdemeanors and infractions MUST be prosecuted by written complaint under oath subscribed by complaintant.



Clearly, the citing officer cannot be the complaintant and also simultaneously the witness for the State, which would be a serious conflict of interest. It will already be a clear-cut case of bias stemming from the witness (citing officer) having a relationship with the plantiff (State of California), a party in this matter, as the witness (citing officer) is authorized to make arrests on behalf of the Plantiff anywhere in the geographic confines of the Plantiff, which is a State.



Therefore, in the interest of justiceand in conformation with the laws of the State of California, the court must order the filing of a verified complaint in order to have subject matter jurisdiction and to be able to further proceed in this legal matter.



My question is who is going to sign/verify the complaint? The judge and the district attorney can't because they are supposed to be disinterested. I need to find case law to support this, but I'll locate it prior to my next appearance date.



I also filed a "Notice of Nonwaiver of Rights; Demand for Trial by Jury in a Misdemeanor Case" just in case I can't get the charge dismissed, by arguing the "Right to Travel". I figure that in a jury trial I have a good chance of persuading my other citizens to find me not guilty as opposed to the judge.



Lastly, I plan on modifying a educational brief on the Right to Travel I found which appears to be from the State of Washington, so that I can use it in California, but I am unsure when I should submit it to the court. At the arrignment??? Any assistance on dealing with the charge of driving while suspended would be greatly appreciated. As you may have noticed currently, I am not a sovereign citizen, but rather a 14th amendment statuatory slave. I have found numerous case laws to support the Right to Travel and my feeling is that even if I do have the drivers license, the State would have to prove that I was engaged in commerce at the time of the stop. " The term "drive" must reflect the nature of the activity the license permits as: COMMERCIAL." Reno v. Condon, No.98-1464, U.S. Supreme Court, Jan. 12, 2002. Are the license plates and registration a statement by the traveler that he/she is engaged in commerce? The driver's licence application never disclosed that I was forfeiting any Rights for priviledges so therefore, don't I still have the right to travel. If my Rights have been converted to a priviledge, isn't that constructive fraud by the State of Calif Dept. of Motor Vehicles not to disclose material facts when they coerced me to apply for the license, use the police to exert menace and duress on all to comply, and use the courts to punish supposed violators?

[scottinalaska]

Some very insightful and good verbage, Thynum.

Rights converted to Privilege seems to be the mantra we hear too much of these days. Actually, most don't hear it. Most think all is well - like being in the eye of a hurricane. Indeed, all appears very well.

Looking for the verified or sworn complaint from an injured party is very much a Common Law maxim. The judge may very well say that this is a Statutory court under the statutes of the state of California and your argument doesn't apply.

If that is the case, perhaps the following response may help bring it back on track or get her ticked off enough to dismiss.

Thynum: Thank you, your honor. Let the record of this court then show that it intends to conduct a criminal action against me under a Statutory jurisdiction .

But that raises another question. I have never heard of such a thing as a criminal action under Statuatory jurisdicton. And there is no such jurisdiction established in the Constittution. I would be happy to accept this, your honor, if you could please tell me where I can find the published rules of criminal procedure under a Statutory jurisdiction, and where the nature, cause, and jursdiction exists. It is imperative that I have the published rules and procedures so that I may conduct a fair defense in a fair trial.

Now the judge must lie, dismiss, or enter a plea for you because we all know that there are NO published rules, etc....well in a perfect world. We look forward to your published outcome. If you ask for advice, we love to hear and learn what you learned!

Hope this puts one more bullet in your belt.

Scottinalaska

welcome to the forum, Th

[TheBlackTruth]

tlynum,

Welcome to the group!

I must first ask:
Why are you entering a plea?
Do you think that the the prosecution has sufficient standing to sustain an action against you?
Were you engaged in regulated activity?
Does the agency charged with regulating the alleged activity have the authority to take you straight to a judicial proceeding before exhausting it's administrative remedy?

Try and follow the sequence below:

1. The accused is a Citizen of California endowed with certain unalienable rights protected by the state constitution and the federal constitution, including, but not limited to, the right to travel freely and to not be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law. See California Constitution Art. 1, Sec. 7.
2. The accused is being charged with allegedly violating the following California Vehicle Code(s) (CVC):
1. CVC §21655.5, commonly known as driving solo in the diamond lane.
2. CVC §14601(a), commonly known as driving on a revoked or suspended license.
3. CVC §26708(a)(1), commonly known as window tint on side windows.
3. The rights of the accused to travel freely and not be deprived of liberty or property are being threatened and limited by the agency’s charge of the aforementioned alleged Vehicle Code violations.
4. The Vehicle Code is to be enforced by The California Highway Patrol and the Department of Motor Vehicles. See CVC §§2400 and 1650.
5. The "commissioner" is the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol. See CVC §265.
6. The “director” is the head of the Department of Motor Vehicles. See CVC §1504.
7. The commissioner shall have full responsibility and primary jurisdiction for the administration and enforcement of the vehicle code. See CVC 2400(d).
8. The California Highway Patrol, through the commissioner, is required to act in accordance to the Administrative Procedures Act, commencing with Section 11370 of the California Government Code (CGC). See CVC §2402.
9. The California Highway Patrol is an “Agency” within the meaning of CGC §11405.30.
10. An administrative hearing is to be initiated by accusation in the form of a written statement of charges. See CGC §11503.
11. Every contested case is required to be heard in an administrative proceeding. See CGC §11512.
12. An agency evidentiary hearing for determination of facts is required for formulation and issuance of the decision in a contested case. See CGC §§11410.10, 11410.60(b)(2), 11512.
13. The protected right of the accused to due process of law through an agency determination of rights, duties and privileges is being denied by the failure of the State to comply with the mandate of CGC §§11410.10 and 11503.
14. The only provision for judicial review is conditioned upon a decision or determination pursuant to an agency adjudicative proceeding. See CGC §11425.50(b).
15. The State has not exhausted its administrative remedy because there has been no agency hearing or determination pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, commencing with Section 11370 of the California Government Code.
16. There is no final agency determination.
17. Where there is no agency determination, the court has no subject-matter jurisdiction.
18. Without subject matter jurisdiction, this court has no choice but to dismiss.
19. The Accused moves this court to dismiss with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on the grounds that plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Thanks BT and Scott,

I didn't plan on entering a plea since there is not a verified complaint, but if forced I was planning on entering not guilty and demanding a trial by jury. However, you offered some great advise and I plan on revising my strategy. I was thinking that since I still have the license (agreement with the state), I don't have all of the options that a sovereign citizen does.

Okay, my intention is and never has been to be engaged in commerce, but the fact that I have plates on my car may place me in commerce. By registering my car didn't I change the status of my automobile to a "motor vehicle" which puts me in commerce, a regulated activity. I'm not arguing against you, just merely trying to prepare myself for what the judge may try to hit me with. Also, when I accepted the license, didn't I give up my American citizenship in exchange for corporate State residency and U.S. citizenship? As a juristic slave, I need to get permission from the State to do things, especially when the State has labeled me in commerce.

The questions and sequence of actions you authored are excellent, I'll let you know how it goes. So my understanding is to deny them subject matter jurisdiction by not entering a plea. Thanks again, for all of the research, any other info would be greatly appreciated.

Also, has any one filed a Notice of Nunc Pro Tunc (Now for then) Revocation of Driver's License and Vehicle Registration?

Okay, here's a question, that I have yet to get a clear answer for. Is traffic court administrative or judicial? Technically, I have a right to a final determination as Black Truth stated, but how do I force the court to give me one. The prosecution asserts that I am a person to be regulated and my activity infracted a regulation. Now when I try to challenge this using the specific language of the statute, I assume the the State will claim that I am a individual and as such fall within the definition of the statute. The court will certainly accept this assertation as a presumption then deny any direct direct attack in opposition of the presumption that I am engaginging in a regulated activity. How can the court deny an attack on the presumption and still be considered to provide due process or as being an unbiased arbitrator of the law?

Second Question.

Is signing the ticket (actually a " bill of pains and penalty" ) an admission that I am in fact subject to the regulation, and that I agree to mitigate the alledged harm "breach of public trust" I did by breaking the terms of my agreement with the State?

Now when I get to court, if I don't ask for the final determination, I waive the right to it, but the court will never give you notice of this, and that I will be sitting before a quasi judicial body sitting to review the administrative (actually) now final determination. So I am thinking that since most people waive a hearing for final determination we have agreed that we are subject to the regulation. At this point, the court will only hear evidencethat relates to whether or not you indeed did breach your agreement to obey the vehicle code. So is this how the Court avoids hearing constitutional challenges?

I am in court tommorrow morning so my plan is to ask for a dismissal based on lack of final agency determination, if they won't dismiss then demand a final agency determination on whether or not I was indeed engaging in a regulated activity, since there is no evidence or claim in the complaint that I was engage in commerce.

I'll let you all know how it goes, and thanks again for the input, I hope that I understood the strategy that you offered.

Tlyn,

First, Welcome!

I reccomend The audio on this site for your appearance:

You MUST listen and use this to make the whole process look like a fool.

The website is:

www.adventuresinlegalland.com

I ordered the book too.

Have at it.

HB

(ATFOTRAF)

[Akira]

I concur with HB...

Goto Marc Stevens site and download the 15 hours of audio available there..
you WILL find everything you need to get your case dismissed...

(Marc said the audio should be available directly form his site today !! rather than having to click on a dozen different links...)

Once you have digested the info in the audio (take notes !!), you can ask Marc questions on his forum !

Marc is a pro at getting the Judge and/or prosecuting attorney to impeach their own witness!

One techinique, is to simple read the statute you alledgedly violated, back to the cop, in the form of a question !

"Is it your contention, that on such and such a date, I........???"

Inevitably, the judge or DA will stand and say "witness is not competent to make a legal determination". This means he wasn't competent to write you the ticket either ! case dismissed !

Although this is a clean and simple method, that does work... it is no excuse for not thoroughly preparing for you case in the usual ways...

at the very least, get a copy of the statute you violated... and check in the 'definitions section' of that particular title of statute, and check the definitions to ALL THE WORDS used in the statute...

Example from my own (unfinished) OAS brief:

If you carefully read the statutes enacted by the Maine legislature you will notice that they are all written with phrases similar to these five examples:

1. A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the person . . .
2. A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person . . .
3. A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person . . .
4. A person commits the offense of fishing if the person . . .
5. A person commits the offense of breathing if the person . . .

In our instant case, the alledged offense is:

Title 29-a Chapter 23 §2412-A Operating while license suspended or revoked

1-A. (TEXT EFFECTIVE 7/1/04) Offense; penalty. A person commits operating while license suspended or revoked if that person:

A. Operates a motor vehicle on a public way or in a parking area when that person's license has been suspended or revoked, and that person: ........

The Maine Legislature in Title 29-a Chapter 1 §101 'definitions' :

As used in this Title, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings. [1993, c. 683, Pt. A, §2 (new); Pt. B, §5 (aff).]

54. Person. "Person" means an individual, corporation, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, fiduciary, trust, estate or any other legal or commercial entity. [1993, c. 683, Pt. A, §2 (new); Pt. B, §5 (aff).]

CANNONS OF CONSTRUCTION

EJUSDEM GENERIS All the same kind, class, or nature

In the construction of laws, wills, and other instruments, the "ejusdem generis rule" is, that where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned. Black, Interp. of Laws, 141; Goldsmith. v. U.S., C.C.A.N.Y.,N.Y., 42 F2nd.133,137

and this

NOSCITUR A SOCIIS. It is known from its associates.1 Vent.225

"The meaning of a word is or may be known from the accompanying words"

"the doctrine means that general and specific words are associated with and take color from each other, restricting general words to sense analogous to less general." Dunham v. State,140 Fla. 754, 192 So. 324,325,326.

By the definitions wording, we can conclude that a person is a generic term for a variety of 'legal or commercial entities'.

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

This is unfinished...
A proper brief, flows.... it reads like a book... and makes smooth transitions from point to point... this post just represents a 'pluggin' of facts, after the outline, but before the brief is 'smoothed out".

For HIS Glory,
Akira

Hello everyone, her's what happen to today.

I was a little nervous today, because it seemed that I was the only one willing to battle with the system. Everyone else was just accepting their fines and I felt sad to see the court siphon such a large % of the average person's annual salary.

When I was called the judge treated me a little differently, since I had submitted a demand for verified complaint. He looked at it, asked me if I was going to hire a lawyer, and then proceeded with the not so veiled threat that I would be going against seasoned attorneys. He then stated that he recommended that I speak with the public defender or a attorney before he accepted any other motions and flatly refused to accept the paperwork demanding a final agency determination in open court. I clearly stated that I was asking for a final agency determination hearing and I was not appearing generally. He then rescheduled the arraignment for Dec. 2, and said that I could submit any further paper work in at that time, and that he was not going to accept the APA motion to dismiss that Black Truth authored for me at this time. But I could submit it on Dec. 2, he then stated that he was appointing a public defender for me the next hearing. I may have made a mistake by not objecting to this, but I figure that I can decline their services at the next hearing. Any thoughts ???? was this a clever trap by the judge.

I wasn't sure whether he was trying to trick me or not, so I went to the court clerk and submitted the paperwork after court anyway. I felt that the judge was rushing my case as I was the only one fighting, and he didn't allow me to say much, but quickly rescheduled like he didn't want anyone in the court to hear anything I had to say.

So now I'm a little confused, he didn't address the demand for a verified complaint, he wouldn't look at the demand for a final agency determination but they are now both in the file. So for Dec. 2, I suppose that I will have to make him address both of these issues. The one thing I did learn is that you must always make sure that your paperwork is in the file before your court date.

My main concern is that I have been convicted for driving with a suspended license twice prior to learning about the right to travel, and the penalties seem to get a lot more severe.

Thanks for all of the help everyone, I will be checking out the audio files you suggested, I didn't see them a couple of days ago but maybe they are there now.

[TheBlackTruth]

I commend your bravery. It's never easy to walk into court and defend one's self.

Let me see if I can point out some issues that can be taken to heart for your next go-round':

1) The Judge cannot grant you an administrative ANYTHING as he is a Judicial officer. It is the AGENCY that owes you the determination.

2) Your motion to dismiss needed to be filed at least 10 days before any scheduled appearance. Preferrably, you would file it far before then so you can have a completely separate date exclusively for hearing your motion. With this in place, you cannot be forced to enter a plea, per F.R.Civ.P 12.

3) All is not lost. You can still file your motion to dismiss and get a hearing on that motion prior to your arraignment and still be under the protection of F.R.Civ.P 12. You will then be able to appeal a ruling on that motion through a Writ of Review and request a stay of proceedings pending the ruling on the appeal. I myself haven't gotten passed this part, so i'll let you know what I find out in a few weeks.

-BT

[KITCHIE]

Hey There!!

I say go ahead and meet with the PD and interview him/her. Ask them if they would be willing to go to jail in your place. When they decline fire them and get anothe one. Keep doing this then go into the court and declare they are all incompetent! Now you go defend yourself.

Also I thought the courts were administrative courts... No???

Kitchie