NO LICENSE - PERFECTED LEGAL ARGUEMENT

[enemy_of_the_state]

Originally Posted by Codee

As far as I know a bill of particulars is a bill and not a motion. You do not use the court to issue a bill of particulars. It is very simmilar to discovery mixed with demmurer. In California one cannot use a bill of particulars in a criminal case.

Codee: In Illinois, the Bill of Particulars is specific to criminal cases, and moves the court to make the State's Attorney provide what he is charging you with. I have yet to appear and submit to jurisdiction. This is strictly a pre-appearance motion.

I'm also looking into a demurrer. I'm not sure which, or if not both, will be most effective. Since I have not yet appeared, I doubt that they will honor this motion, but it is worth a shot.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by enemy_of_the_state

Codee: In Illinois, the Bill of Particulars is specific to criminal cases, and moves the court to make the State's Attorney provide what he is charging you with. I have yet to appear and submit to jurisdiction. This is strictly a pre-appearance motion.

I'm also looking into a demurrer. I'm not sure which, or if not both, will be most effective. Since I have not yet appeared, I doubt that they will honor this motion, but it is worth a shot.

Always visit or appear specially

[cowboytroll]

i just got out of court for no insurance, liscence, or regestration. First of all I made a motion to dismiss on lack of jurisdiction, and asked for the DA to produce an injured party. The case was continued twice and today set for trial. I was denied my mmotion even though no jurisdiction was proven, infact the judge proved otherwise with his statements in court. I read off the seven elements of jurisdiction and asked if they could prove those elements and they could not. the next statement I made was that as elected officials they were supposed to swear an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. The judge and the DA both admited they had never done that. My response was then that the judge was not a real judge and I did not recognise this court. The judge then enterd a plea for me as not guilty and set a court date. What just happend?

[cowboytroll]

i just got out of court for no insurance, liscence, or regestration. First of all I made a motion to dismiss on lack of jurisdiction, and asked for the DA to produce an injured party. The case was continued twice and today set for trial. I was denied my mmotion even though no jurisdiction was proven, infact the judge proved otherwise with his statements in court. I read off the seven elements of jurisdiction and asked if they could prove those elements and they could not. the next statement I made was that as elected officials they were supposed to swear an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. The judge and the DA both admited they had never done that. My response was then that the judge was not a real judge and I did not recognise this court. The judge then enterd a plea for me as not guilty and set a court date. What just happend?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Codee]

Was there a court reporter?

If so you have lots of options. If not...

[mrg]

Originally Posted by cowboytroll

i just got out of court for no insurance, liscence, or regestration. First of all I made a motion to dismiss on lack of jurisdiction, and asked for the DA to produce an injured party. The case was continued twice and today set for trial. I was denied my mmotion even though no jurisdiction was proven, infact the judge proved otherwise with his statements in court. I read off the seven elements of jurisdiction and asked if they could prove those elements and they could not. the next statement I made was that as elected officials they were supposed to swear an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. The judge and the DA both admited they had never done that. My response was then that the judge was not a real judge and I did not recognise this court. The judge then enterd a plea for me as not guilty and set a court date. What just happend?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get a copy of Marc Stevens Adventures in Legal Land, I think you can buy it here $19 or so.

He explains pretty well what just happened.

[weishaupt1776]

A bill of particulars waives a special appearance for an inpersonam jurisdiction challenge

[enemy_of_the_state]

Amended Motion to extend time for license ticket.doc

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

A bill of particulars waives a special appearance for an inpersonam jurisdiction challenge

I have to disagree. In Illinois, the motion for a bill of patriculars is a pre-appearance motion that does not aver to jurisdiction. Illinois has moved the bill of particulars into post-appearance motions. However, it may be used ad a pre-appearance motion in an attempt to have the court allow it, so defendants know what they were being charged with, and therefore provided opportunity to challenge jurisdiction and the charge. The bill of particulars is strictly a criminal procedure motion.

The court has approved my motion for an extension of time to answer or appear, which is a motion under the code of civil procedure. Now, if they have already approved a civil procedure motion, and will now be confronted with a criminal procedure motion, I'm curious as to which path they will commit. Likewise, the bill of particulars will pin them down to the nature and cause of the action and the particulars of the alleged offense to which the prosecution must adhere in moving the process forward with proper jurisdiction. The motion has to be pre-appearance, because without the particulars, one cannot submit to jurisdiction which has not been established.

I don't expect them to respond to the bill of particulars, as I was shocked to see them allow the motion for an extension of time, but if they do then I have them moving under two types of procedure, civil and criminal, and that gives rise to questions of which procedure is being used.

As of yet, I have not appeared, and as long as my pre-appearance motions are pursuant to the code of civil procedure, I should be fine as far as jurisdiciton goes. My other motion options, pre-appearance, are to challenge jurisdiction, both in personam and subject matter, as well as venue.

[enemy_of_the_state]

Had my appearance for my "DL expired for more than 6 months" charge, whatever that means. The judge waited to hear all of the no DL cases until the last, and I found it odd how when he called a name, the first thing he did was ASK the person if they had a driver's license, or if they got their driver's license.

He called my name, and as I walked up to the bench, he said "Your driver's license is expired. Is that true?" I answered that I was not there to answer any questions, only to plea, and that I was appearing specially, not generally, and under threat of arrest if I failed to do so.

He then said, "Fine, what kind of trial do you want?"
I told him that I had not been aprised of the nature and cause of the accusation and could not enter a plea.
He said he would enter a plea of not guilty for me. He gave me the docket to sign and I asked what he wanted me to sign for. He said I was signing to request a jury trial. I told him that I haden't even entered a plea because I didn't understand the nature and cause of the accusation. I asked him if he was speaking on my behalf, and that I had not given him permission to do so and that I considered him to have vacated the bench.

He kept asking me what kind of trial I wanted and I said a jury trial, but I had not entered a plea, and did not understand the charge. Nevertheless, I did not sign anything, I did not enter a plea, and I was not formally charged or informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. My motion to dismiss was denied as well.
I filed a motion for a bill of particulars and a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

I expect this to get nasty before it gets better. I have the whole thing on my digital recorder ;)

[Codee]

SUPERIOR COURT
IN ______ COUNTY
AT ________ CITY CALIFORNIA
95959

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

V
CASE DOCKET# __________
XXXXXX X. XXXXXXX

Appearing specially
Motion to Dismiss due to lack of Jurisdiction


NOTICE
1) The court upon receipt of this document, will be deemed noticed of Xxxxxx Xxxxxx’s motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction.

ARGUMENT
It is hereby argued by the accused that the immediate court and the prosecuting party lack both subject matter jurisdiction and in personam jurisdiction.
The immediate court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The code of civil procedure explicitly states that there are but two types of remedies, special proceedings and actions [Fn-1.] These two types of actions are civil and criminal [Fn-3.] This ought to mean that if an action is “non-criminal” then it is civil. The right to prosecute one type of action is not merged with the other a when person’s conduct violates both civil and criminal elements of the law [Fn-6.] The code of civil procedure states that the penal code proscribes the procedure for prosecuting criminal actions [Fn-5.] [Fn-2] [Fn-4]
The accused has been subject to criminal procedure for a civil action [Fn-7.] Accused has been kept in court-to-court arrest and enjoys liberty only upon signing a bail or recognizance. This is a display of criminal jurisdiction in a civil matter.
The accused had a plea entered by the court of not guilty. The court then held accused on a recognizance. The accused was never shown a formal complaint, which is required to be filed, so as to retaining jurisdiction. Holding of the accused by way of recognizance is within jurisdictional limitations for crimes with a formal complaint on record. Without such a complaint jurisdiction does not exist to hold. A court without jurisdiction has no power to hold, continue or otherwise proceed [Fn-13] [Fn-14] [Fn-15.]
Further, this court exceeded and continues to exceed its proscribed statutory jurisdiction by conducting affairs outside of the limitations allowed by statute by refusing to supply a court reporter upon demand by the accused [Fn-9] [Fn-10.]
Accused also contends that in personam jurisdiction was lost when the accused was placed under civil arrest by officer Wagner. Civil arrest, which is highly criticized and historically used only in post judgement, to secure the payment of such judgment, was improperly used. As a result accused was pulled into this court action involuntarily. By exceeding his jurisdiction in arresting the accused, Officer Wagner forfeited in personam jurisdiction in this case. It is further alleged by the accused that Officer Wagner did not have probable cause to make an arrest for a public offense [Fn-8.]

Footnotes
*Fn-1
Code of Civil Procedure sec. 21. “These remedies are divided into two classes:
1. Actions; and,
2. Special proceedings.”

*Fn-2
Code of Civil Procedure sec. 22. “An action is an ordinary proceeding in a court of justice by which one party prosecutes another for the declaration, enforcement, or protection of a right, the redress or prevention of a wrong, or the punishment of a public offense.”

*Fn-3
Code of Civil Procedure sec. 24. “Actions are of two kinds:
1. Civil; and,
2. Criminal.”

*Fn-4
Code of Civil Procedure sec. 25. “A civil action arises out of:
1. An obligation;
2. An injury.”

*Fn-5
Code of Civil Procedure sec. 31. THE PENAL CODE defines and provides for the prosecution of a criminal action.

*Fn-6
Code of Civil Procedure sec. 32. When the violation of a right admits of both a civil and criminal remedy, the right to prosecute the one is not merged in the
other.

*Fn-7
People vs. Battle 50 Cal app. 3rd supp.1 AND People v. Sava 190 Cal App. 3rd 935 state that infractions are non-criminal

*Fn-8
Freedom Riders (F.I.G.H.T.) v. Hannigan (commissioner of CHP) (exact cite unknown at this time) This 9th circuit federal appellate court ruling states that in California traffic stops are arrests for which probable cause is needed.


*Fn-9
Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court , 57 Cal.2d 450 [S. F. No. 20843. In Bank. Mar. 22, 1962.] Reads in part (Emphasis added in bold):
“[1] Under these facts, whether or not the Kroiss case was decided correctly, the appellate department of the superior court exceeded its "jurisdiction," as that term is used in connection with the writ of certiorari, in refusing to follow a rule established by a court of superior jurisdiction.
[2] Certiorari, like prohibition, is, of course, a "juristdictional" writ. While it cannot be used to attack an error of a lower tribunal committed in the exercise of its jurisdiction, it is available when that tribunal has acted in excess of its "jurisdiction." (Simmons v. Superior Court, 52 Cal.2d 373 [341 P.2d 13]; Portnoy v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.2d 375 [125 P.2d 487].) [3] The meaning of "jurisdiction" for [57 Cal.2d 455] the purposes of certiorari and prohibition is different and broader than the meaning of the same term when used in connection with "jurisdiction" over the person and subject matter. (Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280 , 288 [109 P.2d 942, 132 A.L.R. 715]; Goldberg, The Extraordinary Writs and The Review of Inferior Court Judgments (1948) 36 Cal.L.Rev. 558, 576.) [4] In commenting on the meaning of "jurisdiction" in a prohibition case, it was said in Abelleira that, "Speaking generally, any acts which exceed the defined power of a court in any instance, whether that power be defined by constitutional provision, express statutory declaration, or rules developed by the courts and followed under the doctrine of stare decisis, are in excess of jurisdiction, in so far as that term is used to indicate that those acts may be restrained by prohibition or annulled on certiorari." (17 Cal.2d at p. 291.)”

*Fn-10
Mitchell v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.App.3d 759, 104 Cal Rptr 921.
"”... it seems well settled (and there appears to be no case holding to the contrary) that when a statute authorizes prescribed procedure, and the court acts contrary to the authority thus conferred, it has exceeded its jurisdiction, and certiorari will lie to correct such excess.'" (Also see: Rodman v. Superior Court (1939) 13 Cal.2d 262 , 269-271 [89 P.2d 109]; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1068, 1222.)”“

*Fn-12
Ralph v Police Court of El Cerrito (1948) 84 Cal App.2d 257, 190 P2d 632.
“Where defendant charged in a police court with violation of § 505(b) pleaded not guilty and did not waive the filing of a complaint, such filing was mandatory.”

*Fn-13
People v Agnew (1952, App Dep't Super Ct) 110 Cal App 2d Supp 837, 242 P2d 4 10.

“Jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of Los Angeles to try a defendant for a traffic:violation and enter judgment depends upon the existence of a formal complaint.”

*Fn-14
Rupley v Johnson (1953) 120 Cal App 2d 548, 261 P2d 318.

“On a plea other than guilty to traffic violations and in the absence of a waiver, a complaint must be filed before the court has jurisdiction.”

*Fn-15
Gavin v Municipal Court of San Diego Judicial Dist. (1960, 4th Dist) 184 Cal App 2d 712, 7 Cal Rptr 732.

“Defendant cited for and charged with violating section of Vehicle Code who pleads not guilty and does not waive filing of misdemeanor complaint, is not brought within jurisdiction of municipal, or other inferior, court, until verified complaint charging him with offense in question has been filed.”

I SWEAR THAT THE FORGOING INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOLEDGE.



By: __________________
Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx DATE___________