Notice And Demand Part.1

[rentiap]

Here is a Notice and Demand that I am sending to the court for a traffic ticket that I received back on March,18.
Where I was stopped for tail lights that were not working. there is quite a bit more to the stop as I do not have license plates on any of my automobiles so that means that there is also no registration as I do not commit any commerce within my privately owned automobiles.
I also do not posess a driver license.
The stop took over an hours time and also involved a total of 8 policy men.
This also ended up being in my driveway of my own property.
I will recount the whole stop later if there is interest.

I am posting this sanitized version hoping for critique by the members of this forum.

Thanks in advance
Now the Notice and Demand.

Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento
301 Bicentennial Circle, Room 100
Sacramento, California.95826




I am not JOHN HENRY DOE; JOHN HENRY DOE is NOT my name.
I am, John-Henry:clan of Doe, a freeborn man living on the land
c/o General Delivery
Known as:Citrus Heights, California. [95610]



NOTICE AND DEMAND.

NOTICE
In as much as that as of July 4, 1776, all political authority exercised over the former British subjects in the former British colonies prior thereto ceased to bind or in any way require or obligate the former subjects to submit themselves to any government created thereafter, unless the former British subject(s), the posterity thereof, (or any other person lawfully born in the United States), freely and knowingly volunteered into such servitude.

The Thirteenth Amendment clearly indicates the foregoing is applicable to the Posterity of the former British subjects (and every person lawfully born in the United States).

The Constitution of the United States Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude constitutes a codification of this principle (the Thirteenth Amendment constitutes a codification of the emancipation of July 4, 1776).

The Fourth Article of the Fourteenth Amendment mandates that citizens of the United States pay the public debt without complaint. This Fourth Article provision clearly establishes that U.S. citizenship constitutes and is undeniably, a condition of political servitude to the United States.

This fact, in recognition of the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude, clearly establishes that U.S. citizenship servitude status is clearly a voluntary status not automatically acquired by birth in the United States. A careful reading of the citizenship clauses of the First Article of the Fourteenth Amendment will reveal that those clauses do NOT in any way provide that all persons born in the United States are, due to such birth, automatically citizens thereof.

The Aggrieved Party was not engaged in any commercial activity, is not engaged in a commercial activity nor does the Aggrieved Party intend to participate in any commercial activities in the future. While traveling in his privately owned, Not for hire automobile.

Therefore there is No underlying bona fide instruments to support a claim. You have no valid claim pursuant to a security, agreement, covenant or contract by which the Aggrieved Party can be held to specific performance.

In short you have no instrument, by any legal description or definition, which can compel the Aggrieved Party to perform.

Aggrieved Party is neither a U.S. citizen /resident nor a citizen/resident of any STATE. The Aggrieved Party is not a resident or citizen of the STATE OF California, nor is The Aggrieved Party a resident or citizen of any STATE or MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. The Aggrieved Party is not a U.S. citizen or U.S. resident. The Aggrieved Party is not a citizen/resident of the United States as defined in IRC 3121(e)(2).
The Aggrieved Party is not the beneficiary, or recipient of a privilege. The Aggrieved Party is not the beneficiary or recipient of a privilege of any corporate STATE. This includes, but is not limited to any trust formed by or privilege offered by the Act of the FORTY-FIRST CONGRESS, Session III, Chapter LXII. February 21, 1871. VIII. The Aggrieved Party is not a fiduciary of any STATE trust. The aggrieved party is not a Corporation or state defined person. The aggrieved party is not a subject of the U.S. or u.s.

However the aggrieved party is of the posterity of the people recognized by the Preamble of the Constitution for the United States of America, The aggrieved party is a living breathing flesh and blood sovereign human man.

The Aggrieved Party has not entered into any contractual agreement with any STATE creating a fiduciary or trust relationship, compelling specific performance on the part of the Aggrieved Party.

Aggrieved Party cannot be forced to represent another. The Aggrieved Party does not wish to "represent" the entity named on the NOTICE OF DECISION AFTER TRIAL AND ENTRY OF CIVIL JUDGEMENT.The Aggrieved party can not be compelled to function as a fiduciary or trustee for the party named on the NOTICE OF DECISION AFTER TRIAL AND ENTRY OF CIVIL JUDGEMENT.(Copy included)


This writing constitutes and is lawful notification to, and is presented to the addressee hereof pursuant to the Constitution of the United States of America, specifically, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments thereof, also likewise under California Constitution Article 1. Section 6.



The failure of the addressees to respond, as demanded, and to rebut, specifically and with particularity, everything in this Notice with which said addressees disagree, such failure will
thereby constitute and is their lawful, legal and binding agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this Notice is true, correct, legal, lawful and fully binding upon said addressees in any and every court in the United States of America, without protest or objection of the addressees or of those who represent said addressees. Said Addressees silence constitutes and is their acquiescence. See: Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385,391. Notification of legal responsibility is "the first essential of due process of law". See also: U.S. V. Tweel, 550 F.2d.297. "Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.

Demand on part II

[rentiap]

DEMAND
1. It is an undisputed fact that I am not the colorable persona ficta created by the State Attorney named JOHN HENRY DOE or JOHN DOE, spelled in all capitals, or any other variation thereof, to confuse this court. I am who I say I am and not who the State Attorney states that I am. I demand all of my Rights at all times. I appear in propria persona only out of necessity, under duress and with threats of battery and incarceration. I waive none of my Rights at any time, Perry v. U.S. 294 U.S. 330,353 (1935); Title 18 USC 241

2. It is an undisputed fact that your affiant engages in no driving, motoring, or operating of motor vehicle activities upon the public highways and byways of the state of California which are found to be regulated by statutes pursuant to the quasi police powers, quasi administrative powers and quasi enforcement powers of the Department of Motor Vehicles or any of its subdivisions pursuant to grant of quasi governmental regulatory authority by the state legislature of California.

3. It is an undisputed fact that "Jurisdiction cannot be presumed” Smith v. McCullough 46 S.Ct. 338 and "Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven." Hagens v. Lavine 415 U.S. 533 and "No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction." Standard v. Olsen 74 S.Ct. 768

4. It is an undisputed fact that under the Common Law, one does not commit a crime unless one willfully damages another real person by depriving said person of Life, Liberty, or Property. The Accused will require at all prosecutions, as provided for under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, , the body of a natural person (corpus delicti) and all real parties in interest as a damaged party and not the alleged representative of said party. If there is no injured natural person, the Accused demands this action be dismissed for want of jurisdiction per the Constitution of the State of California.

5. It is an undisputed fact that all prosecutors, lawyers and judges must identify themselves and enter into the record verified valid identification, their state issued License to practice law (not their bar card) and a certified true copy of their Article 3 Sec. 3 Constitutional Oath of Office and Bond, along with a grant of authority to assume office, before the start of any proceeding. (See MCA.)

6. The Accused demands that the court take full notice of: The Constitution of the United States of America, The Constitution of the State of California, Black’s Law Dictionary, Bouviers’ Law Dictionary, American Jurisprudence, Corpus Juris Secundum, California Jur(all volumes) and the Common Law.

7. It is an undisputed fact that the fictitious unilateral contracts allegedly formed by administrative agencies under statutory jurisdiction by application for driver’s license, vehicle registration, and license plate(s) etc. are defective process. They are formed under colorable law and are not entered into Knowingly, Intentionally, or Voluntarily. They constitute prima facie evidence of fraud perpetuated on free men by legislative fiat in the conversion of Rights to privileges. They represent nothing more than a tax on Rights in violation of the Constitution. "If it could be said that the state had the power to tax a Right, this would enable the state to destroy Rights guaranteed by the constitution through the use of oppressive taxation." McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316; PG&E v. State Treasurer, 168 Cal 420. The Accused demands that the ORIGINAL CONTRACT(S) or LAW(S) or ORDER(S) or RULE(S) the accused is held to answer under, including but not limited to, the 1933 Bankruptcy and Admiralty/Maritime, signed by all parties be produced and entered into evidence.

8. It is an undisputed fact that among the Accused's unalienable Rights is his Right to use the public roadways of California for his personal pleasure as of common Right without that Right being converted into a crime by this state officers absent authority from the people to entertain any such kind of extortion business, ab inito.

9. It is an undisputed fact that in no case can the Accused, a holder of the inherent political power of the posterity of the people, be a person subject to appear and be tried before a quasi judicial, administrative court when no nexus is in evidence connecting Accused to any activity regulated by the administrative agency styled as the Department of Motor Vehicles.

10. It is an undisputed fact that it is prima facie evident from the record that the Accused is summoned to appear in an ad hoc summary proceeding in the nature of a Star Chamber proceeding contrary to all delegation of judicial powers authorized by the people to include their common law, their state constitutional law and their national constitution.

11. It is an undisputed fact that the state must return any and all bail monies, evidences, fingerprint records, photographs, transcripts, and personal property seized, or in evidence at the earliest possible time, but not later than the conclusion of the proceedings. Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 The Accused will require that all records, Federal, State, and Local of this incident be totally expunged, so as not to constitute an additional tort of trespass against his privacy.

12. It is an undisputed fact that the court must ABATE this action as a Common Law Nuisance as all elements of subject matter jurisdiction and the Right of due process are missing and the State is proceeding only in bad faith.

13. Therefore, based on the foregoing, the undersigned hereby demands that the government agency that unlawfully sent NOTICE OF DECISION AFTER TRIAL AND ENTRY OF CIVIL JUDGEMENT, Citation Number, XXXXXCH, Case Number XXXXXXXXXX against the undersigned, Imediatly cease and desist, forthwith and each of them, such written responses is to be delivered to the undersigned, specific to the subject matter herein set forth above, and;

14. Therefore, let the Addressees and each of them be further advised, the failure of the addressees or any of them to respond, as demanded, and to rebut, specifically and with particularity, everything set forth in this NOTICE with which said addressees or any of them disagrees, will constitute their lawful, legal and binding agreement with and admission to the fact that everything set forth in this NOTICE is true, correct, legal, lawful and fully binding upon said addressees and any and all of them in any and every court in the United States of America, without protest or objection of those Addressees and each and any of them or those who represent said addressees or any of them.

15. Therefore, let the Addressees and each of them be further advised, that their silence is their acquiescence. See: Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385,391. Notification of legal responsibility is "the first essential of due process of law". See also: U.S. V. Tweel, 550 F.2d.297. "Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.

16. Therefore, based on the foregoing NOTICE, the undersigned hereby demands that the SACRAMENTO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S staff, and the CITRUS HEIGHTS POLICE and all Deputy POLICE and/or Jail Staff, in their capacity as Agents for the CORPORATE CITRUS HEIGHTS POLICE DEPARTMENT, that instituted the harassment of the undersigned, cease and desist from any further such activity.


17. Failure of the above referenced government agencies or any of them to comply with this DEMAND or to reply, in writing thereto, within ten (10) days of the date hereof, and/or failure of the said agencies, or any of them, to respond, in writing, to the undersigned, and support the said agencies' disagreement by presenting proof and/or factual Constitutionally based evidence that the undersigned has voluntarily submitted and subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the United States of America or to the jurisdiction of California State or the State of California, or any subdivision of any of the foregoing, within ten (10) days of the date hereof, such failure shall constitute the said agency's acknowledgment that the facts set forth herein in the above NOTICE are true, and that a certified and notarized copy of this "NOTICE and DEMAND" shall be accepted by the County Recorder of Sacramento County, State of California as authority to immediately remove the said Notice (or whatever).



Witness_____________________________ Date_____________


Witness_____________________________ Date_____________


Witness_____________________________ Date_____________





Without Prejudice. By:____________________________________________






Date:___________ (Toe print)

[B Rookard]

I'm sure it'll work. <sarcasm>

Listen, the State has the right to regulate conduct on the roads when it comes to driving ... the Supreme Court has said so ... and you're not going to get out of it.

All you do is waste your time and energy ... you're going to piss off the judge.

These arguments don't work ... in fact, they're silly.

As long as you are even present in the State there are going to be laws you are subject to ... criminal laws, traffic laws, etc. Ya know, typical police power law type stuff.

The best you can ever do with that stuff is hope the prosecutor is busy and just doesn't want to waste his time on you. Maybe, if you're lucky, he'll just drop the charges on you because you're such a pain in the ass and maybe the ticket you got wasn't a serious offense to him. But don't ever think that you'll "win" because your legal arguments are valid ... you'll "win" because the prosecutor got tired of you.

[mrg]

I have no idea what the lackey for the man behind the curtain is blathering about.

Nor do I care.

Go to his website and you will see the flag under which he proceeds.

If I were doing what you are seeming to be doing, I would obtain certified copies of each and every cite you have cited, and reference them in your doc as exhibits.

I would record the whole thing under misc. filings with the county recorder of deeds, and get a certified copy before you leave; they will send you the original in a couple of weeks in the mail.

Then I would serve it, or have it served, or whatever it is you intend to do with it.

If there are judges, lawyers, officers specifically involved, I would obtain certified copies of their oaths, and bonding info, if you can get the bonding info, and include those as exhibits.

It might be a bit pricey to do this, but if it were me and I had the FRN's this is what I would do.

I like it.

[ezrhythm]

Your notice looks great but unfortunately I'm not of knowledge to critique it.

I am interested in reading more about the details of the incident, especially the dialog and actions that occured in the beginning.

[aksis]

You might find this thread started by SanRecours of value:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/travel...-please-6.html

From what I have gathered,

The approch discussed was to declare (Notice might be a better instrument) no duty to appear and a demand to prove such a duty, via certified mail.

Keep in mind the "special appearance" is only to challenge jurisdiction. I believe if you make a special appearance, and try to argue any other points, you will appear generaly at that point and be expected to plea, and upon entering a plea you attest to the "facts" in the citation, that you were in fact, driving.

Further, since there is absolutly no proof that your were "driving" other then a citation that IS NOT signed under the penalty of purjury. There is no sworn statement, no facts, and no duty to appear.

How can there be a Court if there is no sworn statement? It would violate Due Process. I don't recognize any Court.

The question of what a citation is, and the "court" that you are expected to appear at is addressed in the thread in more detail.

The premis is that this is not an Article III Court, it is an Administrative Hearing.

Seeing as how you have no drivers licence and the car is not state property that you are the operator/drive of, there is no reason to subject your self to such an Administrative Hearing in the first place.

Granted, if you had damaged someones property while traveling, or there is an Affidavit (a sworn statement of facts that the affiant has first hand knowledge of) accusing your of some crime, then this approch would not be valid because that would be Due Process. Such action would also be commenced in a proper Artical III Court, not in a municipal corporations Administrative Hearing.

Administrative Hearings are for the operators/drives of States Vehicles, amoung other things.

It shows on the citation that you had no state plate or registration, correct? This testifies to the fact that the presumption that you are a driver is void ~ is there any primifacia evidance that you were operating in commerce?

In the light of these facts, where was the authority for the stop in the first place?

Further, since there is no Affidavit, and the citation is not an affidavit nor can it become one; (you validate it as "facts" by pleading. Also, it was signed by a man acting in the capacity of a servant, it is not signed under the penalty of purjury by the man holding the municipal corporation office (not even law enforcement, or prehaps someone can show me in any state Constitution where a municipal corporation was delegated the authority to write Public Law), it is signed by the office. Thus there is no due process. This is because this is not a Court, but an Administrative Hearing.

You might also consider making an Affidavit... who could rebutt it? An affidavit, unrebutted, stands as fact.

Also, Consider returning the instrument "refused for cause", or, if more then 3 days had passed, "timly refused for cause".

You might consider initiating an action aginst the man acting as a policy officer (not the officer) for the municipal corporation. As soon as the violation of your right to travel occured, he was no longer fit to remain in office as he violated his oath of office and everything after that point was done out of office. He gathered other people and slandered you to them, could this be conspiracy as well?

Anyways, this is explained quite a bit clearer in the thread linked to above.

Just some thoughts on the topic from my point of view... obviously not legal advice as I am admitedly not an attorney.

Forgive me if its a little scattered.

[aksis]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

Your notice looks great but unfortunately I'm not of knowledge to critique it.

I am interested in reading more about the details of the incident, especially the dialog and actions that occured in the beginning.

Same here.

Do you have the ability to scan all the paperwork from the state and post it for us?

Is the date to appear specified on the citation already passed?

Did you "refuse for cause"?

What prep work did you have done before this incident?

For example, have you terminated the registration & licence with the DMV via certified mail and default them on this?
Give Notice of Default to them?
File the Default judgment?

What documents are you using to support the position that you are not a US citizen? I met few Californians in Nevada using the process that the Nevadians were calling common law jurys to judge. ie: Finding of Facts & Notice of Expatriation (after the cancullatrua of foreign instruments & the default judgement on it.)

[Codee]

The Thirteenth Amendment clearly indicates the foregoing is applicable to the Posterity of the former British subjects (and every person lawfully born in the United States).

I do not know what an "unlawful" birth is. I think "lawfully born" is unessecary.

[rentiap]

Originally Posted by Codee

The Thirteenth Amendment clearly indicates the foregoing is applicable to the Posterity of the former British subjects (and every person lawfully born in the United States).

I do not know what an "unlawful" birth is. I think "lawfully born" is unessecary.

Good point Codee.
Being that earlier in the notice It is pointed out that I am not a corporation or state defined person.
I would not want them to some how presume that with the statement of lawfully born person. That might somehow put me back in their jurisdiction.
I will work on this.

[weishaupt1776]

Aksis worte:
"Keep in mind the "special appearance" is only to challenge jurisdiction."

Only for inpersonam jurisdiction. If you go to subject matter jurisdiction, the special appearance is waived

Bringing up "i wasn't in commerse" is SMJ, so that will void any special appearance