NO LICENSE - PERFECTED LEGAL ARGUEMENT

[Big Al]

Codee: remove the words to the best of my Knowlage. from your oath have the doc sworn to in front of and signed and stamped by a notary (this is a must). " I SWEAR THAT THE FORGOING INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOLEDGE."

[Big Al]

Your next step is to wait for them to send their demurrer back and the judges denial. You then file a criminal complaint against both of them, for denial of du process. Always remember that the prosecutor has to answer each averment with a yes or no or I don't know answer. If a no answer he must show the law in the averment. They both lost their protection when they denied you du process, and moved ahead with the case. This is why SMJ is so powerful, and is the only true way around this crap. The burden of proof rests on the court to prove SMJ or dismiss with prejudice. This process must be understood from every angle. This is why I recommend James B. Woods III material. He has done a life time worth of work on this subject. I have no connection with this Man other than having bought all of his maternal and about one third of the books he says are must read for an in depth study of the law. You must be willing to study your tail off. You will have to defend with argument SMJ. NEVER EVER FORGET, The court knows less about the law than you do when you get up to speed on this subject.

[enemy_of_the_state]

After receiving some responses from this group, I have withdrawn my motion to dismiss, in favor of reformatting it to identify other issues. What I'm wondering, since I was not charged, or aprised of the charge in court, but instead asked a question by the judge which would have essentially incriminated myself, can I summarily ignore any commands to appear in the future?

I was charged with DL expired more than 6 months. The ticket says nowhere that I was driving while license expired more than 6 months. There is no law against allowing your license to expire, regardless of the time. I was not told what I was charged with, but rather the judge saying, "..it says here your license is expired. Is that true?" Answering "yes" would have indicated that I have, or am required to have, a license and that I presumably used it while expired. That's why I refused to answer any questions by the judge.

Since I was commanded to appear, and did so specially and under threat of arrest, and was not aprised of any charge and not having entered a plea, am I ignorantly submitting to jurisdiction and allowing their violation of due process to go unnoticed if I appear in the future? I wonder if I can ignore any future proceeding due to never having been formally charged.

I'm working in a new motion to dismiss, but this is really fubar'd, since there was no charge, except for what the ticket says, and that is not a charge under the code. WTF?

[Codee]

State cannot prosecute on a ticket in my state.

And what Big Al says is true. No SMJ = No qualified immunity nor judicial immunity.

If 10,000s of JUDGES can "practice law without a license", locking folks in jail while IGNORING the law, why can't people travel by car without a license?

That's called EQUAL PROTECTION doctrine under the US and state constitutions: when a govt employee gets a "special" right to do something, then EVERYONE gets that right.

This argument is most specific for "unlicensed lawyers" "practicing law without a license", which IS ALLOWED IN ALL STATES: this is called "POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FACT" ("pro se for a pro se"). Or Durable Power of Attorney, etc. It's a civil contract, as allowed by the Contract Clause of the US Constitution.

So, since anyone CAN practice law without a license, by representing anyone in any court, and since anyone can be a judge without a license to practice law, it stands to reason anyone can travel by the traditional mode of travel (car) without a license.

Every state code provides "exceptions" to the driver license requirement. In Tennessee, the statute used by prosecutors to charge for "driving on a revoked or suspended license" ONLY applies to those who APPLIED for a license. If you aren't tricked into applying, then this code can't be enforced. "Revoked" or "suspended" means the licenser revoked or suspended the contract, not the licensee rescinding the contract.

Uniform Commercial Code 1-207, and Tennessee Code 47-1-207 are virtually identical, and voids all contracts forced under duress. If you do have a license, or sign a traffic ticket, signing "under protest" or "under duress" or "UCC 1-207" or "TCA 47-1-207" will destroy the court's "personal jurisdiction", when asserted BEFORE making a "general appearance" in court. When the judge calls your case, and asks "are you ready?", the correct answer is "No, your honor, I have some preliminary matters for the court." Then assert your claim to lack of personal jurisdiction, since the DL contract and citation contract are void for duress.

It also helps to write this in an Answer to Complaint filed before making an appearance in person, but that does tipoff the prosecutor that they have a fighter, which spoils the element of surprise.
http://piratenews.org/state-v-lee-bc...complaint.html

You also need to hire your own court reporter. When you win, you can file a Bill of Costs for reimbursement, since all traffic tickets are civil trials, not criminal trials, regardless of what the lying cops, prosecutors and judges claim.

Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 1-207. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.
(1) A party who with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice", "under protest" or the like are sufficient.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-207.html

Tennessee Code §47-1-207 (UCC)
(1) "A party who, with explicit reservation of rights, performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as 'without prejudice,' 'under protest' or the like are sufficient."
http://www.megalaw.com/tn/tncode.php

The following article proves how common it is for judges to not have licenses, tho it also proves how incompentent they are.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/nyregion/25 courts.html?_r=2&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin&oref=slo gin

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/pir...ss/message/293

Broken Bench: In Tiny Courts of N.Y., Abuses of Law and Power

http://piratenews.org/new-york-times...ity-judges.jpg
In the Town of Colchester, in the Catskills, court is in the garage.

Some of the courtrooms are not even courtrooms: tiny offices or basement rooms without a judge’s bench or jury box. Sometimes the public is not admitted, witnesses are not sworn to tell the truth, and there is no word-for-word record of the proceedings.

"This is not America"

A yearlong investigation by The New York Times of the life and history of New York State’s town and village courts found a long trail of judicial abuses and errors — and of governmental failure to curb them.

Multimedia
Audio Slide Show

Out of Order: Town and Village Justice Nearly three-quarters of the judges are not lawyers, and many — truck drivers, sewer workers or laborers — have scant grasp of the most basic legal principles. Some never got through high school, and at least one went no further than grade school.

But serious things happen in these little rooms all over New York State. People have been sent to jail without a guilty plea or a trial, or tossed from their homes without a proper proceeding. In violation of the law, defendants have been refused lawyers, or sentenced to weeks in jail because they cannot pay a fine. Frightened women have been denied protection from abuse.

These are New York’s town and village courts, or justice courts, as the 1,250 of them are widely known. In the public imagination, they are quaint holdovers from a bygone era, handling nothing weightier than traffic tickets and small claims. They get a roll of the eyes from lawyers who amuse one another with tales of incompetent small-town justices.

A woman in Malone, N.Y., was not amused. A mother of four, she went to court in that North Country village seeking an order of protection against her husband, who the police said had choked her, kicked her in the stomach and threatened to kill her. The justice, Donald R. Roberts, a former state trooper with a high school diploma, not only refused, according to state officials, but later told the court clerk, “Every woman needs a good pounding every now and then.”

And several people in the small town of Dannemora were intimidated by their longtime justice, Thomas R. Buckley, a phone-company repairman who cursed at defendants and jailed them without bail or a trial, state disciplinary officials found. Feuding with a neighbor over her dog’s running loose, he threatened to jail her and ordered the dog killed.

“I just follow my own common sense,” Mr. Buckley, in an interview, said of his 13 years on the bench. “And the hell with the law.”

The New York Times spent a year examining the life and history of this largely hidden world, a constellation of 1,971 part-time justices, from the suburbs of New York City to the farm towns near Niagara Falls.

It is impossible to say just how many of those justices are ill-informed or abusive. Officially a part of the state court system, yet financed by the towns and villages, the justice courts are essentially unsupervised by either. State court officials know little about the justices, and cannot reliably say how many cases they handle or how many are appealed. Even the agency charged with disciplining them, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, is not equipped to fully police their vast numbers.

But The Times reviewed public documents dating back decades and, unannounced, visited courts in every part of the state. It examined records of closed disciplinary hearings. It tracked down defendants, and interviewed prosecutors and defense lawyers, plaintiffs and bystanders.

The examination found overwhelming evidence that decade after decade and up to this day, people have often been denied fundamental legal rights. Defendants have been jailed illegally. Others have been subjected to racial and sexual bigotry so explicit it seems to come from some other place and time. People have been denied the right to a trial, an impartial judge and the presumption of innocence.

In 2003 alone, justices disciplined by the state included one in Montgomery County who had closed his court to the public and let prosecutors run the proceedings during 20 years in office. Another, in Westchester County, had warned the police not to arrest his political cronies for drunken driving, and asked a Lebanese-American with a parking ticket if she was a terrorist. A third, in Delaware County, had been convicted of having sex with a mentally retarded woman in his care.

New York is one of about 30 states that still rely on these kinds of local judges, descendants of the justices who kept the peace in Colonial days, when lawyers were scarce. Many states, alarmed by mistakes and abuse, have moved in recent decades to rein in their authority or require more training. Some, from Delaware to California, have overhauled the courts, scrapped them entirely or required that local judges be lawyers.

But New York has no such requirement. It demands more schooling for licensed manicurists and hair stylists.

And it has left its justices with the same powers — more than in many states — even though governors, blue-ribbon commissions and others have been denouncing the courts as outdated and unjust since as far back as 1908, when a justice in Westchester County set up a roadside speed trap, fining drivers for whatever cash they were carrying.

Nearly a century later, a 76-year-old Elmira man who contested a speeding ticket in Newfield, outside Ithaca, was jailed without even a warning for three days in 2003 because he called the sheriff’s deputy a liar.

“I thought, this is not America,” said the man, Michael J. Pronti, who spent two years and $8,000 before a state appeals court ruled that he had been improperly jailed.

‘Justice in the Dark’ - continued...

Pro se legal self defense and videos:
http://americanautobahn.com
http://piratenews.org/fasterthanaspeedingticket.html
http://dealsgapdragon.com

fair use per 17 USC 107

[charlesa6]

piratenews, welcome to the suijuris forum.

[ezrhythm]

Yes welcome and Thank You for the post and links!

Peace and wisdom to you in Christ Jesus.

EZ

[Shoonra]

Your comments are very uninformed. In nearly every state of the Union, every judge MUST be a trained lawyer who passed the bar exam -- and the states that don't require it in their statutes still appoint only lawyers to be judges (there are a few exceptions, such as very rural areas where they appoint some non-lawyer to hold traffic court or some other first level tribunal).

In any case, a "license" to practice law (technically not a license but admission to the bar by competitive examination) is not on par with a license to drive. There's no appeal from a motoring fatality.

Driving on a revoked, suspended, or expired DL is, yes, a different transgression than driving without a DL. In every state both kinds of driving without a current valid DL are forbidden, possibly in separate sections of the law.

And "Attorney-in-Fact" is not the same as an Attorney-at-Law. An "attorney" is someone who acts as someone else's representative, spokesman or substitute (the word is distantly related to the word "tournament", where competitors represent their schools or their countries). An attorney at law speaks for his clients in court, and he must be admitted to the bar. An attorney-in-fact is someone appointed by or for someone to make various decisions or commitments for them in their absence or when they are unfit to shoulder those matters themselves; for example, to make medical decisions for someone who is very sick, to handle business decisions for someone who is senile, etc. An attorney-in-fact does not get to practice law, altho he can retain an attorney-at-law to do that for his principal.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Your comments are very uninformed. In nearly every state of the Union, every judge MUST be a trained lawyer who passed the bar exam -- and the states that don't require it in their statutes still appoint only lawyers to be judges (there are a few exceptions, such as very rural areas where they appoint some non-lawyer to hold traffic court or some other first level tribunal).

In any case, a "license" to practice law (technically not a license but admission to the bar by competitive examination) is not on par with a license to drive. There's no appeal from a motoring fatality.

Driving on a revoked, suspended, or expired DL is, yes, a different transgression than driving without a DL. In every state both kinds of driving without a current valid DL are forbidden, possibly in separate sections of the law.

And "Attorney-in-Fact" is not the same as an Attorney-at-Law. An "attorney" is someone who acts as someone else's representative, spokesman or substitute (the word is distantly related to the word "tournament", where competitors represent their schools or their countries). An attorney at law speaks for his clients in court, and he must be admitted to the bar. An attorney-in-fact is someone appointed by or for someone to make various decisions or commitments for them in their absence or when they are unfit to shoulder those matters themselves; for example, to make medical decisions for someone who is very sick, to handle business decisions for someone who is senile, etc. An attorney-in-fact does not get to practice law, altho he can retain an attorney-at-law to do that for his principal.

...and of course if you can get the judge to state his or her Bar registration # etc. on the court record, that is recusal for conflict of interest.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

...and of course if you can get the judge to state his or her Bar registration # etc. on the court record, that is recusal for conflict of interest.

I don't see any conflict of interest. And a judge's legal education and bar membership is already a matter of public record.