Summons Absent Complaint

[weishaupt1776]

The Cali Code seems to leave it open to the "where's the verified complaint?" approach in regards to traffic citations. I need to cross ref this and see if Florida code leaves this door open

Cali Penal Code says: (look at (b) especially
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/853.9.html
853.9. (a) Whenever written notice to appear has been prepared,
delivered, and filed by an officer or the prosecuting attorney with
the court pursuant to the provisions of Section 853.6 of this code,
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 which shall conform to the provisions of this code and
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 the provisions of subdivision (a) of this
section, 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.



Connect w/
Cali Penal Code 740:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/737-740.html
740. Except as otherwise provided by law, all misdemeanors and infractions must be prosecuted by written complaint under oath subscribed by the complainant. Such complaint may be verified on information and belief.

Penal Code Sec 949:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/948-973.html
949. The first pleading on the part of the people in the superior
court in a felony case is the indictment, information, or the
complaint in any case certified to the superior court under Section
859a. The first pleading on the part of the people in a misdemeanor or infraction case is the complaint except as otherwise provided by law. The first pleading on the part of the people in a proceeding pursuant to Section 3060 of the Government Code is an accusation.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacode...500-40522.html
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.


So it looks like the Lord was right when he said , "Ye have not because ye ask not".

This looks like a good approach for Californians.

[SansRecours]

If the notice to appear is not verified, the defendant may, at the time of arraignment, request that a verified complaint be filed.

This is a typical twisted sentence. What does verification of a notice to appear (which by the way cannot be verified unless a complaint exists) have to do with a verified complaint?

This is a trick to con the receiver of the alleged notice, to grant subject matter and in personam jurisdiction by making the request.

all misdemeanors and infractions must be prosecuted by written complaint under oath subscribed by the complainant. Such complaint may be verified on information and belief.

Who has the authority to bring a complaint in the name and the authority of the people of California? Upon whose signature can such a complaint commence?
Once again it does not say by whom it is verified.

Interesting the grouping of misdemeanor and infraction. If the prosecutor or attorney is the sole authority to commence actions in the name of the state and its people, and the Legislature (the people) is grouping the two into the same statement, does it not follow that a complaint bearing only the signature of a police officer is insufficient in fact to be a complaint?

The first pleading on the part of the people in a misdemeanor or infraction case is the complaint

Amen to that! Now show as a matter of law and fact who has the authority to bring it.

The administrative evil hiding in the statute is at 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.

Has the legislature made the determination that all receiving these notices are subject to administrative quasi-judicial procedure without specifically defining the identity of that class subject to it? Where is the waiver of judicial due process of law and republican form of government guarantee?

Is the legislature is saying that upon appearance that which is not a fact and cannot be a fact, or evidence suddenly becomes one leaving the receiver of the notice at his peril?

How can a notice become a complaint in the name of the State/People without a prosecutor signature?

Run Forrest! Run!

SansRecours

[KITCHIE]

SansRecours, you is exactly right. Juz change those Q's into statements.

These are a few case cites which declare "judges" are mere clerks for the agency.

"It is well settled in administrative law that: "It is the accepted rule, not only in state courts, but, of the federal courts as well, that when a judge is enforcing administrative law they are described as mere ‘extensions of the administrative agency for superior reviewing purposes’ as a ministerial clerk for an agency..." 30 Cal.596; 167 Cal 762. And;

"A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principals of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from their
substituting their judgements for that of the agency." AISI v. U.S., 568 F.2d 284. And;

". . . judges who become involved in enforcement of mere statutes (civil or criminal in nature and otherwise), act as mere "clerks" of the involved agency..." K.C. Davis., ADMIN. LAW, Ch. 1 (CTP. West’s 1965 Ed.)

"...their supposed "courts" becoming thus a court of "limited jurisdiction" as a mere extension of the involved agency for mere superior reviewing purposes." K.C. Davis, ADMIN. LAW., P. 95, (CTP, 6 Ed. West’s 1977)>FRC v. G.E., 281 U.S. 464; Keller v P>E., 261 U.S. 428. And;

A so-called Municipal or District court that is not a constitutional court is a legislative tribunal. In speaking on this subject in relation to the Constitution for the united States of America, the supreme Cour t said: "The term ‘District Courts of the United States,’ . . . without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under Article III of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States." Mookini v. United States, 303 US 201, 205, 58 Sct. 543, 82 Led. 748 ((1938).

This is why it is so important to remember whatEVER you go to court for is not the issue. The issue becomes did they follow the process correctly. They = agency.

So my mentor Pat and I are trying to figure out a way to turn this back on them dang agencies and the "judges".

THANX TO ALL!!!
Dang!! I sure do love the people who make this cite so informative and lively in all the discussions we have about all this #%)*^$#!!!!!!

Kitchie

[SansRecours]

I have and maintain, at whatever the cost, (conviction and not preference see Wisc. V. Yoder) that until someone shows me where and how my character changes from that of a living soul having inalienable right, duty to God, and republican form of government, to that of administrative creature subject of legislative administration without a judicial branch of government, that I have NO DUTY to make an appearance, and the lower inferior court is an improper venue.

I THINK that the change happens whenever I sign my name to any form/document under penalty of perjury. Therefore, signing is unconscionable. Read the license forms.

I THINK because ‘everybody else does it’ the presumption that I must be ‘everybody else’ stands against me. (Can you hear the judge say "Do you think that you’re above the law Mr. Recours?")

I THINK because there exists statutes in place intimating a commercial nexus and the need for everyone to become an insurable interest to get on the highway, that my rights are somewhere in a land far, far away. I surely did not consent to be governed that way.

I THINK that the idea of corporations having the ability to be persons and residents is incongruous with liberty and an unequal protection of the law. The fiction gains while I lose.
"I’m sorry Mr. Recours, you’ll have to talk to Mickey Mouse to resolve your problems with Walt Disney."

I THINK that this is happening to me because I have a brain.

I THINK THEREFORE I’M SCAMMED

I can hear the words of the prophetess Janis Joplin playing in my head:
"Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose."

Doctor King, when can I be Free at last! Free at last?

(With that he left off of his soapbox, sat down, and shut up)

SansRecours

[idknow]

Originally Posted by SansRecours

I have and maintain, at whatever the cost, (conviction and not preference see Wisc. V. Yoder) that until someone shows me where and how my character changes from that of a living soul having inalienable right, duty to God, and republican form of government, to that of administrative creature subject of legislative administration without a judicial branch of government, that I have NO DUTY to make an appearance, and the lower inferior court is an improper venue.

I THINK that the change happens whenever I sign my name to any form/document under penalty of perjury. Therefore, signing is unconscionable. Read the license forms.

I THINK because *everybody else does it* the presumption that I must be *everybody else* stands against me. (Can you hear the judge say "Do you think that you*re above the law Mr. Recours?")

I THINK because there exists statutes in place intimating a commercial nexus and the need for everyone to become an insurable interest to get on the highway, that my rights are somewhere in a land far, far away. I surely did not consent to be governed that way.

I THINK that the idea of corporations having the ability to be persons and residents is incongruous with liberty and an unequal protection of the law. The fiction gains while I lose.
"I*m sorry Mr. Recours, you*ll have to talk to Mickey Mouse to resolve your problems with Walt Disney."

I THINK that this is happening to me because I have a brain.

I THINK THEREFORE I*M SCAMMED

I can hear the words of the prophetess Janis Joplin playing in my head:
"Freedom*s just another word for nothin* left to lose."

Doctor King, when can I be Free at last! Free at last?

(With that he left off of his soapbox, sat down, and shut up)

SansRecours

Sans! i love your snide sarcasm! lol, it really "hit's the spot!"

as for the rest... signature makes the agreement; show that the required elements of every contract are missing!

As for the "judge"s comment "us being above the law," the ONLY trueAnswer is "Yes, judge, I am the source of law because the government exists because of me; I am one of the creators of government; I am a Sovereign to whom You and every other civil and military servant owes obedience!"

As for "everybody else", a man does not walk to any beat of any drum unless he likes what he hears!" lol

My mommy used to ask that famous mommy-phrase "if your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?" I might, it depends; that's a highly dynamic situation that cant be answered immediately!

rofl.

btw, it just occurs to me that there is alot going on in the law that isnt formally written as law. By usurpation and obfuscation, executives and judicial branches also write law; and, as is currently discussed elsewhere regarding whether the Gold resolution was law or not, also muddies the water terribly!

What say the Forum?

P.S. remember, the govts say they must supply and give permission to be sued, therefore, that applies to us Soverigns as well!

[Livefire]

Gentlemen,

I think a lot of what happens is due to our ignorance of our unalienable rights and law. The section of traffic code weishaupt cut and pasted said that the DEFENDANT could insist on a formal complaint being issued by the prosecutor. Likewise our silence equates to our agreement to their streamlined process in traffic court. We HAVE to speak up in writing and verbally and belligerently assert out unalienable rights.

My recent success in traffic court was due to God's blessing my study effort with information that disqualified the judge from ruling. That info along with the SC decision that stated TIMELY OBJECTION being made.....Tumey had a right to an impartial judge. That is a key....Making them have every jot and tittle in place!!! Haines v Kerner doesnt apply to the bar and their black robed bosses! Great stuff Sans and Kitchie!