Affidavit Challenging Jurisdiction

[KITCHIE]

Sans,

Thank you for your response and good questions to consider. I will provide a better reply after I have had time to review your points and my affidavit.

Kitchie

[KITCHIE]

[quote=SansRecours] When Y'all are tired of fooling around and want to raise real issues, and are convinced the officer has no authority to commence an action and that you have no duty to make a general appearance then maybe you will read and understand my thread Driver License and Registration Please?

This is a good question. When one reads the statutes about the citing officer it specifically declares the legislative intent that the citing officer has the authority in a criminal action. Your response would be fine in the event you could get the judge to admit that this was an action in commerce. Sans that admission by a judge that would eviscerate the "citation money pump" it appears that one must look elsewhere for remedy.


Sans-- Please believe me, I am not tooting my own horn. Y'all are constantly making presumptions and theories rule your thoughts and actions to our collective hurt.

I wonder just what presumptions and theories you think are ruling my thoughts since they are not enumerated.

Sans--That affidavit states a lot of useless conclusions (like 1 through 24) and unless Kitchie states that she went and personally viewed the record statements 25 through the end are conclusions. It will be a miracle if the magistrate does not enter a plea of not guilty on your behalf, call your document a motion and deny it, and set a pre trial date.

Me thinks there might be a problem with a court document being labeled other than what it declares itself to be. This is especially true since it fits all defined parameters of what an affidavit is and it does not fit any definition of what a motion is. Of course, this may just be one of those unspecified presumptions I am accused of making.

Sans--I am telling you that this assumption and presumption on everyone's part as to what the nexus in a traffic case is, is DEATH in the courtroom.

Very good. Here you are in the destruction of the assumptions and presumptions of the citing officer, the administrative agency (DMV) and the judge and then you tell me that I am making assumptions and presumptions - without specifying what any of my assumptions and presumptions are.

Sans--Does the officer, by his signature and none other, have the power and the authority in that signature to commence an action in the name of any state, municipality, or legal fiction when that officer is NOT AN ATTORNEY?

Again, according to the NRS the State Legislature thinks the citing officer does.

Sans--There is a BIG difference between having the power and the authority to write a ticket and (allegedly) complain, and to actually commence an action.

I invite you to go to our legislature and explain the error of their ways.

Sans--Every rule and statute (federal civil rules are statutory) concerning pleading states that an action must be brought by the real party of interest or its attorney.

Sans you are obviously, totally unaware of the fact that these citations in Nevada are considered criminal acts and the civil rules of procedure have absolutely no relevance in a criminal proceeding.

Sans--Is the officer the real party of interest or an attorney?

The Nevada State Legislature has designated the officer as the representative of the State / County / Municipality as being the real party in interest.

Sans--Every state places the authority for commencing actions in its name upon an attorney, specifically of the prosecuting or district kind. Same question.

Same answer.

Sans--How can you even presume that the state is a party when the signature commencing the action has not that authority.

Go tell it to the Nevada State Legislature.

Sans--The commercial nexus presumption, although theoretically valid, fails in its application. It reaches the merits of driving.

I have absolutely no idea what is meant by these two preceding sentences.

Sans--Is there any case and/or controversy within the meaning of the constitution as it applies to you, Kitchie????

Why are you bringing in the Constitution when it cannot even be recognized in the administrative hearing or the courtroom during these proceedings. The only aspect of the Constitution that can be brought before the judge is the judge's oath and bond.

Sans--Do you have a duty to assist ANY ONE OR THING in a prosecution against yourself???

No.

Sans--These are the REAL issues.

What are the real issues since you have missed on just about everything that is being presented as an issue that can be recognized in the courts of Nevada concerning criminal traffic tickets, etc.

I think you are trying to help but you are heading in what I consider the wrong direction considering the laws and the courts we have to deal with here in Nevada.

Kitchie

[SansRecours]

I also need some time to respond. I will post a response shortly.

SansRecours

[SansRecours]

Kitchie,

I am going to analyze that affidavit and offer my thoughts. I apologize for being a bit harsh last time.

First I must address a part of your previous response to my post:

You said:
"When one reads the statutes about the citing officer it specifically declares the legislative intent that the citing officer has the authority [to commence] in a criminal action."

Please show this authority, and how it does not conflict with that of the prosecuting attorney.

Secondly, if the legislature makes this declaration, there has to be at least one case in Nevada raising the conflict based upon the fact that the citing officer is not an attorney, and that this power of commencing does not lie in a non-attorney. It is more tha merely having the statutory authority to write, sign, and complain, but that signature can in no way have the effect of binding the state or people of Nevada. He is not the authority the people elected to prosecute in their name.

I have to think that the nature of this traffic action is not criminal, but quasi-criminal i.e. having all the penalties but none of the due process that would hinder a conviction (he said cynically).

Is there no statute in Nevada declaring that all criminal actions in the name of the state and/ot the People must be brought by and prosecuted by an attorney, either attorney general, district attorney, prosecuting attorney or some such individual?

Is there any way that the citation you did recieve is NOT hearsay? Especially the part of the citation intending to identify you? (US v Smith)

Is there any statute compelling that identity to appear and defend, and assist the state in making that which is hearsay on its face become a fact through your compelled appearance? (Bailey v Alabama, Ike Kozminski case, involuntary servitude).

Now onto the affidavit: I assume that you are the

" natural woman with legal capacity of a party to this action."

1. An in personam legal jurisdictional challenge would deny this statement of fact and offer facts disputing the presumption of in personam jurisdiction by your response to the citation.

2. An owner/operator cab driver, as a cab driver, can be Joe Smith, "a natural man with the legal capacity of a party to this action," and that action would never touch the issue of which capacity the court was dealing with Joe Smith natural man, or Joe Smith cabbie.

Putting yourself in the judge/magistrate position, could you not make this same conclusion?

How does this help the "legal claim" you allege?

You state further:
"My factual position assertions are supported by evidence and may be further supported upon receipt of discovery materials. I hereby certify that my claim is warranted by existing law and this paperwork is not being filed for a frivolous purpose but has a factual and legal basis for the claim."

Did you put before the eyes of the court (judicial notice Fed Ev.R. 101, 102, 201 for reference) this evidence you allege to have in your possession. (Federal Crop v Merrill) Why wait to show it?

Before you say that this has nothing to do with federal, Nevada probably has similar evidence rules, which rules apply in criminal situations. I do not know what purports to be Nevada law, but if Nevada is a part of the Compact between the States, then the nexus is federal, and the state is not sovereign (Lawson v Shelby County).

Your affidavit:
1
States you were served with a citation. That coupled with the legal capacity statement foregoing is enough for any fact finder to determine, for the purpose of jurisdiction that a) you are who you say you are, and b) you are the proper party, and there for a proper reason.
(I’m just thinking as if I am the judge/magistrate.)

2,3,4,5,6
"contract...demanding specific performance"
This is where I presume the commercial nexus theory. This is also where I am confused because, generally, claims having to do with commerce have a civil nexus. When a corporation involves in criminal activity, then the accusation goes after the individual within that corporation (like the Enron case). Therefore it does not follow logically to raise any kind of civil commercial/contract nexus statements when the matter is, as you say responding to my previous post, criminal.

7,8,9..
While I see your point here, if the matter is criminal, as you say, then I fail to see any relevance because this is in the realm of civil.

10..
I might have said that I was approached by a trained killer, armed with deadly ordnance and dangerous, as inciting fear for safety.

11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24
These are statements strictly touching the merits, or the subject matter (negating the challenge) and tending toward the judge/magistrate seeing an insinuation by you of "not guilty". Some of the statements are also in the realm of civil and not criminal matters.

25
There is most likely no need for CARTER to prove subject matter because it is SELF PROVING when he has the citation book, enters it into a court, and YOU RESPOND TO IT. Especially in the manner of the previously enumerated merit touching statements.

26
If I only had ONE issue to bring this would be it. However, it is couched in the shotgun blast and will be overlooked forever because you acquiesce to jurisdiction by meritorious statements previously and hereafter.

27, 28, 29
"You’re here regarding this citation aren’t you," said the judge/magistrate at the arraignment.

30 through 44
"Your Kitchieness," said the judge/magistrate, "proof is for presenting at trial. Since you are raising these trial issues before trial, I am assuming that you intend to plead "not guilty" and hereby enter a plea of not guilty for you."

46,47,48,49,50
Could all be viewed in the same way. You did not say specifically how the citation is not in compliance, when it is a form used in the ordinary course of police business (US v Smith).

As for my previous post regarding your affidavit; if you need me to I will more specifically respond to your response to that post. I’d rather scrutinize the affidavit.

Secondly, if I didn’t care, I wouldn’t have posted here at all. It is just that I have seen many writings similar in looks and in substance. If we can distill the real issues without touching the merits, and make our paperwork have a more specific targets, instead of a shotgun responses, shooting our own feet, I believe that we will be better off in the long run (pun not intended).
"Hope springs eternal," as someone said.

SansRecours

[KITCHIE]

Sans-- This is an affidavit. As we all know the affidavit stands as truth unless rebutted point by point. Do you think they are going to answer this?

Just so you know I have put the NRS in here so you can see it is a criminal action they brought against me. Since I am NOT the PERSON who received the citation, I can bring up as a civil matter what the crime was that I alledgedly committed.

Please show this authority, and how it does not conflict with that of the prosecuting attorney.

NRS 179A.030 “Agency of criminal justice” defined. “Agency of criminal justice” means:
1. Any court; and
2. Any governmental agency which performs a function in the administration of criminal justice pursuant to a statute or executive order, and which allocates a substantial part of its budget to a function in the administration of criminal justice.
(Added to NRS by 1979, 1850)
NRS 480.360 Duties of personnel. The duties of the personnel of the Nevada Highway Patrol are:
1. To police the public highways of this State, to enforce and to aid in enforcing thereon all the traffic laws of the State of Nevada and to enforce all other laws of this State when:
(a) In the apprehension or pursuit of an offender or suspected offender;
(b) Making arrests for crimes committed in their presence or upon or adjacent to the highways of this State; or
(c) Making arrests pursuant to a warrant in the officer’s possession or communicated to him.
2. To investigate accidents on all primary and secondary highways within the State of Nevada resulting in personal injury, property damage or death, and to gather evidence to prosecute any person guilty of any violation of the law contributing to the happening of such an accident.
3. In conjunction with the Department of Motor Vehicles, to enforce the provisions of chapters 365, 366, 408, 482 to 486, inclusive, 487 and 706 of NRS.
4. To maintain the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History and to carry out the provisions of chapter 179A of NRS.
5. To enforce the provisions of laws and regulations relating to motor carriers, the safety of their vehicles and equipment, and their transportation of hazardous materials and other cargo.
6. To maintain the repository for information concerning hazardous materials in Nevada and to carry out its duties pursuant to chapter 459 of NRS concerning the transportation of hazardous materials.
7. To perform such other duties in connection with those specified in this section as may be imposed by the Director.
(Added to NRS by 2001, 2536; A 2001, 2639)
NRS 484.118 “Police officer” defined. “Police officer” means every officer authorized to direct or regulate traffic or to make arrests for violations of traffic laws, ordinances or regulations.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 1479)

It matters not to me that you THINK it is not a criminal matter, because the legislators and the statutes say it IS a criminal matter.

Nevada is the most corrupt "state" in the union.

Further this is an administrative court and NOT Article three court.

Administrative law encompasses laws and legal principles governing the administration and regulation of government agencies (both Federal and state). Such agencies are delegated power by Congress (or in the case of a state agency, the state legislature) to act as agents for the executive. Generally, administrative agencies are created to protect a public interest rather than to vindicate private rights.

WHEREAS, the public record is the highest form of evidence, Affiant is Katherine-Elizabeth: Snedigar a living self-conscious being, as distinct from a person or legal fiction, and is hereby timely creating public record by Declaration with this Verified Declaration under Original Common Law Jurisdiction for the State of Nevada and United States of America Contracts, the Constitutions.

I am very confident in my affidavit. It is not motion nor a request. It is a statement of the facts as I know them to be true. If I screwed up then the court in it's rebuttal affidavit can show me where I am in error.

This will set the record for a civil suit in fed court.

I have three wins in these corrupt courts, using much of what I presented here. The difference between the past cases I won and the docs that will be presented to the judge in this case is that these docs lay it out in a tighter box.

Thanks for the input. I believe this is enough discussion of your perceived misconceptions. Since you admit you do not know Nevada law, you know you should come and live here in Nevada a get a little taste of what they do to the people here.

And remember this is the state that developed the Anti-Government Guidebook that I posted. All of the judges and the attorney's use it to discount us all of the time!!!.

Kitchie

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by KITCHIE

Sans-- This is an affidavit. As we all know the affidavit stands as truth unless rebutted point by point. Do you think they are going to answer this?

Kitchie, when an affidavit is specious or considered frivolous, it does not have to be rebutted point by point. Depending on the patience level of the Judge and the attitude and demeanor of the defendant, they may take the time to explain a matter of law or they may just decide it would be a waste of the court's time and resources to answer frivolous points raised in some of these kinds of affidavits.

Originally Posted by KITCHIE

Just so you know I have put the NRS in here so you can see it is a criminal action they brought against me. Since I am NOT the PERSON who received the citation, I can bring up as a civil matter what the crime was that I alledgedly committed.

And what is your proof that you are not who you are?

Originally Posted by KITCHIE

....
WHEREAS, the public record is the highest form of evidence, Affiant is Katherine-Elizabeth: Snedigar a living self-conscious being, as distinct from a person or legal fiction, and is hereby timely creating public record by Declaration with this Verified Declaration under Original Common Law Jurisdiction for the State of Nevada and United States of America Contracts, the Constitutions.

Unfortunately, that has no legal weight. Don't be shocked or surprised when you discover the courts have seen this kind of maneuver before and they aren't stunned into silence or inaction.

Originally Posted by KITCHIE

I am very confident in my affidavit. It is not motion nor a request. It is a statement of the facts as I know them to be true. If I screwed up then the court in it's rebuttal affidavit can show me where I am in error.

The court does not have to file a rebuttal affidavit. It takes affidavits into consideration in making a ruling. If the Judge finds it irrelevant or meaningless or contrary to law, it won't have any bearing on the ruling.

Originally Posted by KITCHIE

This will set the record for a civil suit in fed court.

No it won't. Your next path of remedy is the appellate court. Nothing stops you from filing a civil suit, but that doesn't mean you'll prevail.

Just an FYI - if you want to save another $100, file your federal case before April 9. The filing fee goes from $250 to $350 then.

Originally Posted by KITCHIE

I have three wins in these corrupt courts, using much of what I presented here. The difference between the past cases I won and the docs that will be presented to the judge in this case is that these docs lay it out in a tighter box.

Thanks for the input. I believe this is enough discussion of your perceived misconceptions. Since you admit you do not know Nevada law, you know you should come and live here in Nevada a get a little taste of what they do to the people here.

And remember this is the state that developed the Anti-Government Guidebook that I posted. All of the judges and the attorney's use it to discount us all of the time!!!.

Kitchie

[idknow]

Originally Posted by KITCHIE

Sans-- This is an affidavit. As we all know the affidavit
stands as truth unless rebutted point by point. Do you think they are going to
answer this?
cut]

NRS 480.360 Duties of personnel. The duties of the personnel of the Nevada Highway Patrol are:
[cut]
1. To police the public highways of this State, to enforce and to aid in enforcing thereon all the traffic laws of the State of Nevada and to enforce all other laws of this State when:
(a) In the apprehension or pursuit of an offender or suspected offender;
[b]#1 (b) Making arrests for crimes committed in their presence or upon or adjacent to the highways of this State; or

#2 (c) Making arrests pursuant to a warrant in the officer's possession or communicated to him.

2. To investigate accidents on all primary and secondary highways within the State of Nevada resulting in personal injury, property damage or death, and to gather evidence to prosecute any person guilty of any violation of the law contributing to the happening of such an accident.
3. In conjunction with the Department of Motor Vehicles, to enforce the provisions of chapters 365, 366, 408, 482 to 486, inclusive, 487 and 706 of NRS.
4. To maintain the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History and to carry out the provisions of chapter 179A of NRS.
#3 5. To enforce the provisions of laws and regulations relating to motor carriers, the safety of their vehicles and equipment, and their transportation of hazardous materials and other cargo.

[cut]
Kitchie

So, I'm minding my own bidnith, reading along and I note the following problems with the text of law:

at #1, i note that "adjacent" to highways is usually private land since the side of the road
that is still part of the width of the highway, I think, is called "the curtilege".

at #2, I note that "or communicated to him" would be the information that the personnel
would recieve via radio to his ear or his computer; this qualifies as the "private business
records" that Kitchie taught us about several weeks ago! and is therefore, hear-say!!

at #3, I note that this is the strictly commercial aspect of the doodies of the NHP but they enforce
or perform this clause in error against people who are obviously NOT in commerce by merely use of the highway!!
the simple and most obvious example is the fruit stand or the farmer who is selling their "growth"
at the side of their road or at a town square; this *IS* commerce on the road tht is directly cognisable
by every police-agent of every municipal corporation.

my 3/100ths of a cent.

Great post, Kitchie!

[SansRecours]

So as not to reiterate, I concur with JRB’s post

As for the statute in your post:

NRS 179A.030 "Agency of criminal justice" defined. "Agency of criminal justice" means:
1. Any court; and
2. Any governmental agency which performs a function in the administration of criminal justice pursuant to a statute or executive order, and which allocates a substantial part of its budget to a function in the administration of criminal justice.
(Added to NRS by 1979, 1850)

The court is part of an administrative agency, and part of an administration. They are NOT criminal, even though the phrase "criminal justice" is used to describe the agency.

Administrative agencies operate through administrative procedures. At best we are talking "quasi-criminal" or civil in nature. Although you are right that it doesn’t matter what I think, but what the statutes say, I am correct in my stating that there is no delegation of the prosecutorial function to the agency or officer by the statute you present. I am correct that it is not criminal but administrative.

Nowhere in the statutes you post do I see any statutory authority given to any officer delegating the prosecutorial investigative function to the police. The ONLY authority they have is to create records in the ordinary course of police business, and arrest.

Nowhere does the statutes you post place any responsibility for commencing an action in the name of the State and/or the People of Nevada on a police officer.

There is a difference between policing, enforcing, making arrests (giving authority to possibly write tickets) and the commencement of an action in the name of the state and/or the people of a state.

Therefore I do not have "misconceived perceptions" My perceptions are accurate based upon the statutes you present.

Nevada is no different than any other "state" regarding this statutory construction. Likewise, the courts are no different. Secondly, if the state is really as "corrupt" as you think, do you have experience in other states? What was that outcome?

I would also like to know what you call a "win." Not for pride sake, nor for argument, but just so that I can relate to you.

In my last four court experiences proceeding upon the same facts that have been topics of my thread and posts in other places I have one nolle prosequi for No DL and Failure to stop at a red light (My wife’s case). I have three more where I stated that I had no duty to appear, making a specific in personam jurisdictional challenge by affidavit of special appearance, a subject matter and venue argument deriving from an affidavit challenging the signature and indorsement of the officer, the hearsay nature of the citation, and judicial notices laying my evidentiary foundation pre-plea and pre-appearance. In all three, all at different times and in two9 different states, (No DL and failure to keep right, No DL and failure to stop, and No DL and improper merge) I did not show up at the arraignments other than to observe. There is no record existing of the first two (I spent 40 minutes standing with my hands on my head in a parking lot while the highway patrol officer in the third event checked the other state database. No record of the occurrence) The third event, I did not show up, but I did talk to the magistrate by phone about lack of attorney signature, and lack of judicial immunity in an administrative procedure. I sent to letters to follow up my lack of attendance (sept last year), no record of that either.

Three states, four different cases, all the same manner of proceeding.

However, I cannot call these "wins" because the matter never got to any stage where I could articulate for judgment.

As for the Anti-Government Guidebook.
Please show me where ANYBODY from Nevada had input into the creation of that book.
I do not see any credit going to anyone in Nevada in the Table of Contents or the credits.

I'm enjoying what you are doing, and although being critical, I applaud your efforts. Please keep us posted on your procedures and outcomes.

SansRecours

[idknow]

ya know what folks, we know what the Acts of Legislatures say and mean and we can find supporting court opinions to agree with our declarations.

So why the heck are we still dancing around in their forum trying to get them to agree with us when we can declare The Truth(TM) and be done with it?

We do NOT need their agreement, nor do we need their permission to do what is our birth-right to do.

<sample declaration>

1. The truth is that the Legislature of Xasdf State has declared that for all matters brought before a district justice or magistrate concerning violations of the Motor Vehicle Code, an administrative code, the hearing officer shall perform as an administrative agent for the Department of Motor Vehicles.

2. The truth is that the Motor Vehicle Code applies only to corporations providing services of transportation for hire.

3. The truth is that all corporations involved in commercial activites where people and property are being carried to some destination for a fee are all registered and regulated *by* and *with* the Public Utilities Commission of Xasdf State.


that's just a sample of what i'm thinking;

I hope you all get the idea and point to finish it.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by idknow

ya know what folks, we know what the Acts of Legislatures say and mean and we can find supporting court opinions to agree with our declarations.

So why the heck are we still dancing around in their forum trying to get them to agree with us when we can declare The Truth(TM) and be done with it?

Because it's only your confused version of the truth.

Originally Posted by idknow

We do NOT need their agreement, nor do we need their permission to do what is our birth-right to do.

<sample declaration>

1. The truth is that the Legislature of Xasdf State has declared that for all matters brought before a district justice or magistrate concerning violations of the Motor Vehicle Code, an administrative code, the hearing officer shall perform as an administrative agent for the Department of Motor Vehicles.

2. The truth is that the Motor Vehicle Code applies only to corporations providing services of transportation for hire.

3. The truth is that all corporations involved in commercial activites where people and property are being carried to some destination for a fee are all registered and regulated *by* and *with* the Public Utilities Commission of Xasdf State.


that's just a sample of what i'm thinking;

There's nothing new or unique there, nor is there any way to convince a knowledgable court of such things.

Originally Posted by idknow

I hope you all get the idea and point to finish it.

It's simply a rehash of stuff that hasn't worked, and the rumor mill regeneration of anecdotes keeps those who wish it would work busy arguing that it will.