Nebraska

[Smith]

I hate Nebraska, The Dumb SOBs , I reservered my rights when I signed it and I challenged juristiction the whole nine yards and I still got a ticket and had to pay the fine or goto jail .

This is all for the ticket I got back in Feb 06. I kind of left it alone after a while I did not get anything in the mail etc . so I figured the TS docs might of worked in a way , but it appears that I must carry on .

Yes, I know traffic is for practice and I am still new at this.

So any Ideas on what is the best way to proceed?

[Smith]

WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS

1. COMES NOW, Smith sui juris , the living breathing man,
private Citizen not of the body corporate or politic, appearing under jurisdiction of the American Flag of Peace, and by way of declaration, presents the following in support of his assertion that this courts judgment in the instant case is void and a nullity:
Defendant has a right to complete determination of the issues by law and equity, right to redress, and right to appeal by Writs. Defendant will not be liable for or to the defense of this case for any fees or expenses incurred by an adverse party.

2. The record made in Traffic Cause No. (TR**-***) verifies that the court lacked proof of jurisdiction . Defendant challenged jurisdiction March 22, 2006 and the Plaintiff FAILED to respond / rebut the whole affidavit in anyway and no rebuttal was admitted into evidence.
3: I will again, demand that the court rebut and show proof other then what was presented on March 22nd 2006


(1). Affiant is a living, flesh and blood son of God by the Christian name of
Smith.

(2.) Affiant is not the person, ". SMITH", named on any papers submitted in this case and has never claimed to be " SMITH".<sic> <misnomer>
(3). Your Affiant has never been known as " .SMITH", a nom de guerre and misnomer.

(4) Affiant is a creation only of Our Heavenly Father and none other.


(5) Affiant is the sovereign spoken of in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370 Note: "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.; "Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370”

Aggrieved defendant demands that the prosecutor, should he attempt to dispute my claim of right as a sovereign flesh and blood person, who is not subject to the law (legislative law) as stated by Supreme Court Justice Mathews in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370, show proof to the court that, the United States Supreme has overturned this landmark case.

(6.) Affiant has no contract or agreement with STATE OF NEBRASKA or any STATE OF NEBRASKA agency or any STATE OF NEBRASKA municipality.

(7.) Affiant has no contract or agreement with ****** County or any other county.


(8.) Affiant is not a party of the body politic or corporate.


(9.) Affiant has not joined in the above captioned suit.


(10) Affiant was deprived of his liberty “ right to travel” by unlawful arrest

*It must be acknowledged at the outset that a traffic stop significantly curtails the "freedom of action" of the driver and the passengers, if any, of the detained vehicle.* Under the law of most States, it is a crime either to ignore a policeman's signal to stop one's car or, once having stopped, to drive away without permission.* E.g., Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 4511.02 (1982).* Certainly few motorists would feel free either to disobey a directive to pull over or to leave the scene of a traffic stop without being told they might do so. *Partly for these reasons, we have long acknowledged that
stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a "seizure" within the meaning of [the Fourth] Amendmen[t], even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief.
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979) (citations omitted).* Berkemer v McCarty, 468 U.S. 420,*436 (1984)

"A seizure of the person within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments occurs when, "taking into account all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, the police conduct would ‘have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business.'"* Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437 (1991) (quoting Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 569 (1988)).*


(11.) Affiant was not informed of his Fifth Amendment rights or Miranda rights by the officer.
"…there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves." MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 86 S. CT. 1602, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
"in KASTIGAR v. UNITED STATES, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S. CT. 1653, 32 L. Ed. 212(1972), we recently reaffirmed the principle that the privilege against self incrimination can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory. Id., at 444, 92 S. Ct. AT 1656; LEFKOWITZ v. TURLEY, 414 U.S. 70, 94 S. CT.316, 322, 38 L. Ed. 274 (1973).





(12.) Affiant was traveling and not engaged in any commercial capacity

The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.

The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a "COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; Boone v. Clark, 214 S.W. 607; American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways 163

Undoubtedly the "RIGHT" of locomotion, the "RIGHT" to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the "RIGHT," ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a "RIGHT" secured by the Fourteenth Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution. See: Williams v. Fears, 343 U.S. 270, 274

The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with, not disturbing another's "RIGHTS," he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct. See: 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, 329, page 1123

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights."
Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)

The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted into a crime"... "a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law".
Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas., 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996)

4: The Plaintiff was given a notice of default on April 17th 2006 with three days to cure.

5: The Plaintiff was given a notice of final default on April 25th 2006

6: The Plaintiff’s only answer was to ignore my affidavit and supporting paper work
The answer of the PLAINTIFF WAS SILENCE!!!!

“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932.


Fraud: “Deceit, deception, artifice, or trickery operating prejudicially on the rights of another, and so intended, by inducing him to part with property or surrender some legal right. 23 Am J2d Fraud § 2. Anything calculated to deceive another to his prejudice and accomplishing the purpose, whether it be an act, a word, silence, the suppression of the truth, or other device contrary to the plain rules of common honesty. 23 Am J2d Fraud § 2. An affirmation of a fact rather than a promise or statement of intent to do something in the future. McInnes v Sutliff, 241 111 521, 89 NE 651.”



7: Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered. Se McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178. The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in Maxfield's Lessee v Levy, 4 US 308.

[Smith]

Maxim : Actori incumbit onus probandi Latin meaning The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff
"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action."
Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.

"The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." Hagans v Lavine 415 U. S. 533.


A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).

"A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court", OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).

"There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.

"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist." Stuck v. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.

"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." Maine v Thiboutot 100 S. Ct. 250.


"There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction."
Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.

"A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property."
Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.


"Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio."
In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.

8: The Judge failed to do his ministerial duty.


Ministerial Duty: One in respect to which nothing is left to discretion, a simple definite duty, arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist, and imposed by law, the performance of which may, in proper cases, be required of the head of a department by judicial process.
4 Wall. 498; 61 Conn. 553


"When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in

administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially".
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 583.

"A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle 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 substituting their judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational."
ASIS v. US, 568 F2d 284.

"Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities." Burns v. Sup. Ct., SF, 140 Cal. 1.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

______________________________
Sui Juris

[Smith]

So what do you think of this??

[ISAIAH]

I like it, but Im new to the process.

[charlesa6]

Good job, smith. You have to put them on notice.

[Smith]

How does one put them on notice ? Do I serve the orginal prosecutor? or the traffic court ?

Chances are that not a single person will read this anyway once filed. and they will continue with the status quo.

[charlesa6]

File all your docs into your case, before the hearing, and if you have any special affidavit for judge, give it to the clerk to pass it on to the judge before your case call the moment he/she sit on the bench.

[David Merrill]

I got as far as the CORAM NOBIS. That gonged you right there. You go on to say...

1. COMES NOW, Smith sui juris , the living breathing man, private Citizen not of the body corporate or politic, appearing under

That court is for trusts. Not for living breathing men and women. You have no standing in judicio there. Only the trust does and you are breathing life into that trust.

The term is Coram Vobis. From our court to your court. Of course they wonder why you appeared in the first place if that is not the court system for you?? But like you say, if you were challenging jurisdiction the entire route and only paying up under a hearty protest, you have retained your condition of a man without the scope of the idolatry of breathing life (willingly) into that fiction.

There we see the reason a Libel of Review in the district courts of the US is functional. It gets a default judgment published in common law that settles the matter from the onset of presentment. You simply hand a published Certificate of Search on your true name to the police officer explaining that you are not the entity on the driver license card (should you choose to keep carrying one sign it correctly*). This retains your right to Refuse for Cause timely.



Regards,

David Merrill.




* The best way is "True Name dba FIRST MIDDLE LAST" like on the card already. But many states when they saw this converted to tiny digital signature pads (a strong indication there was nothing the attorneys could say about signing a contract correctly). So maybe clearly sign with True Name and explain that to the officer or print "dba FIRST MIDDLE LAST" and register your dba TRUST name at the county clerk and recorder and present a Certificate of Search from the US courthouse with the certified copy of the dba registration. Things like that.

Publish the dba and Certificate of Search in common law:

http://friends-n-family-research.inf..._falsified.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf..._corrected.jpg
certificates of search from the district court

[Big Al]

Wait for the demure from the prosecutor, and for the judge's denial on the paper work (vary important). That will be your proof of denial of due process. Remember always that each averment of a motion of subject matter jurisdiction must be answered in either a yes, no or I don't know manner. The burden of proof falls on the court and the prosecutor to proof they have jurisdiction. They will never answer you correctly as that would be proof they have no jurisdiction over you.