Sign "Refusal For Cause" on ticket

but in the future. You have let the cause R4C die in acquiescence. You will actually form bad case law (your testimony) by getting creamed. For low cost issues you could experiment. R4C timely on some and not on others, if you like being in trouble. You will find that timeliness is critical. I am an intelligence nexus between many people's experiences with this. I know from scientific deduction of others' experiences.

Thanks David. I am wondering if by simply paying the fine now, I am setting myself up to be unable to proceed correctly next time? Is there anything I can do to say "I'm paying this arm-twisting fee, but I protest"?

My main point is that you want to drive away with the presentment and retaining your right of avoidance so the attorney in the black robe will properly figure out you are exercising it. Better yet if you use an evidence repository at the district courts of the US the chief of police will call the city attorney to his office, "This yoyo thinks he can write Refusal for Cause on a speeding ticket and give it back to me and it will go away!" The city attorney will see the copy of the instruction to the US clerk and inform the police chief the cause is dead. He cannot proceed in court or you might show up with a certified copy of the R4C from the US clerk and expose the police chief and the city attorney tried to hoodwink the County of XXXX court judge.

In this case the court is a county court so would the above apply? Is anyone getting hoodwinked if there's no city involved? It's a county operating in collusion with the CHP.

This fellow who hired me to write up this order and decree was lucky not to be shot:

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...and_Decree.rtf

Why was he lucky not to be shot? Because the method might enrage the authorities? Thanks very much for any clarification. I have no choice in this case because I didn't respond quick enough, but if my response (paying the fine) sets me up for some loss of remedy or obligation going forward, then I want to know that.

[David Merrill]

The proper remedy to revenue causes is found in admiralty. The identity issues and the diversity arising therefrom are best to clarify now.

What you could do is file your Libel of Review in admiralty as a common law counterclaim wrapping it around your Refusal for Cause on the current paperwork. You can move the cause to default judgment and when the DA offers a plea bargain just take it. Do not expect it to go away if you failed to R4C timely. If it makes you feel better sign under Threat, Duress and Coercion.

The objective is to get you up and running in competent control of these voluntary presentments in the future. That is why people pay me and refer me. And also why people who are not courts of competent jurisdiction (yet) tend to think I must be magic, a charlatan elite or whatever. They do not understand the product if it will not stop the county court in its tracks.*



Regards,

David Merrill.

* Like I have explained many times with the Governor's letter from the Bar in Colorado. The county courts were abolished shortly after 1933 and replaced with County of XXXX corporate daughter corporations.

[Shoonra]

I found on WestLaw a number of court decisions, many of them not published in the regular reporter series, in which traffic court defendants tried to wriggle out by writing Refused For Cause on their traffic tickets. This ploy NEVER worked.

Examples are: Quigley v. Contra Costa County (ND Calif. 12/13/99), which involved the sort of tactics recommended by others on this thread. A very similar California case is Fenili v. California DMV (ND Calif. 6/17/98). In both instances, rather than show up in court the motorists sent back their ticket with the allegedly magic words written on them.

In City of Mount Vernon v. Davison (Ohio App. 4/24/96) the motorist failed to appear in traffic court and a default judgment was entered suspending his DL for a month and making clear that if he failed to pay his fine within that time his DL would be cancelled altogether. He sent back the court's notice with the magic words, and neither paid nor came to court, and the DMV revoked his DL at the end of the month.

There have been instances when litigants tried using the magic words on legal pleadings or court papers in cases other than traffic, including civil lawsuits and criminal cases. It hasn't worked there either.

If it had worked, I am sure that someone on this thread could point to a case - name, place and date - that said so.

[Big Al]

Taken in the light of the fact that case law is only and indication of law and is really only pertains to dummy lawyers. Shoonra finally got something right. Must feel good, huh Shoonra?

[David Merrill]

Dear Shoonra;


It is clear from the UCC that a presentment must be Refused for Cause within 72 hours of presentment. So attorneys knowing this would also know when to proceed and when the cause was quashed by the R4C.

The other example deals with the need for a driver license. If you pull out a driver license to identify yourself the artificial entity on the face, then you cannot R4C. That is pretty easy to understand. So sign the license "dba" style or identify yourself by true name on a Certificate of Search from the district courts of the US.

The thousands of R4C that have quashed the cause are not on record. They were quashed before any attorney in a black robe saw them. If even the chief of police tried to get such a R4C'd cause in front of any traned attorney, "Not in my court!"


Regards,

David Merrill.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I found on WestLaw a number of court decisions, many of them not published in the regular reporter series, in which traffic court defendants tried to wriggle out by writing Refused For Cause on their traffic tickets. This ploy NEVER worked.
[...]
If it had worked, I am sure that someone on this thread could point to a case - name, place and date - that said so.

Thanks for the cites Shoonra. This leads me to a related question: Where can I read traffic court transcripts? You mention Westlaw and also "the regular reporter series", how can I make use of these resources? I want to read through the thousands of traffic court "not guilty" trials. Do I have to pay a fee or be a member of the bar?

Also, in this county, there is no court recorder in traffic court. Its just you and the officer, looking at and giving testimony to the bench. So how can it be a court of record if there is no recorder? Also, If I ask the judge such a question nicely, will he simply rule and kick me out? Also, aren't there four definitions in black's dictionary which a court must meet in order to be called a court of record?

http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/...s/courtrec.htm

Black's Law Dictionary:

A "court of record" is a judicial tribunal having attributes
and exercising functions independently of the person of the
magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding
according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings
being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. Jones v. Jones, 188
Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass.,
171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y.
406, 155 N.E. 688, 689.

http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/.../nisiprius.htm

"It is a matter of right that one may demand to be tried in a court of
record. By sheer definition, that means that the court must proceed
according to the common law (not the statutory law). The only way that
a court can suspend that right is by the prior agreement of the
parties. For tactical reasons the state prefers to proceed according to
statutory law rather than common law. The only way it can do that is to
obtain the prior agreement from the parties. That is the primary (but
hidden) purpose of the arraignment procedure. During arraignment the
court offers three choices for pleading (guilty, not guilty, nolo
contendre). But all three choices lead to the same jurisdiction, namely
a statutory jurisdiction, not a common law jurisdiction. That is to
say, the question to be decided is whether or not the statute was
violated, not whether the common law was violated.
"

If I understand nisi prius court thinking, I have surrendered my rights by A: entering a plea, and B: responding to my name called on the docket. So at which point can I demand to be tried in a court of record? Or more correctly I guess, at what point in this traffic-dollar-collection scheme have I surrendered my right to trial in a court of record?

[Big Al]

("If I understand nisi prius court thinking, I have surrendered my rights by A: entering a plea, and B: responding to my name called on the docket. So at which point can I demand to be tried in a court of record? Or more correctly I guess, at what point in this traffic-dollar-collection scheme have I surrendered my right to trial in a court of record?" )
"The words, have I surrendered my rights" = UNAILENABLE RIGHTS?

[Shoonra]

None of the cases I mentioned was, itself, a traffic court decision, although some were decisions arising from an appeal of a traffic court decision to a higher court.

Now, if any cases supporting the use of Refused For Cause on a traffic ticket existed, they'd most likely be, similarly, from courts higher than the traffic court. Most likely an appeal from when the traffic court failed to give the desired effect to Refusal For Cause, and then the higher court would explain that, oh yes, writing Refused For Cause on a traffic ticket in such-and-such a way does have efficacy.

But no such cases.

No lawyer "knows" that traffic tickets can be Refused For Cause, and you would notice that the argument that traffic tickets, parking tickets, and other official papers could be Refused For Cause is NEVER offered to the court by a bona fide lawyer.

Appearing in court but refusing to enter a plea will result in the judge entering a Not Guilty plea for you. That plea preserves your rights. The judge MUST enter a Not Guilty plea for you if you refuse to enter a plea yourself, the statutes and court rules require it. Not appearing in court at all, however, can have seriously unpleasant consequences.

Originally Posted by Big Al

"The words, have I surrendered my rights" = UNAILENABLE RIGHTS?

Thanks Big Al. I know I have Inalienable rights:

http://www.unalienable.com/unalien.htm
"Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101."

...But if officer hawkins can simply place an unsigned citation in my hand, and I am ordered to appear before the magistrate, at what point did I consent?

The transferring of rights involves consent, but nisi prius seems to mean "unless first" or more clearly stated, "you agree to what we say, unless you FIRST describe your knowledge of your rights to us, so that we believe you actually grasp them. If not, you're screwed."

...So at what point should I refuse to consent? At what point can I insist on a court of record as is my right?

I think David is right and RFC can work if his instructions are followed and the 3 day limit is beaten. I am learning that the court sits with a stopwatch and you have to also have a stopwatch if you want to play ball with them. This is what I failed to do.

But I am also learning that the whole process is fraudulent on its face. The real secret seems to be: Stay out of all courts whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Appearing in court but refusing to enter a plea will result in the judge entering a Not Guilty plea for you. That plea preserves your rights. The judge MUST enter a Not Guilty plea for you if you refuse to enter a plea yourself, the statutes and court rules require it.

I know little, but I seriously doubt this is true. Appearing in a maritime court and entering a plea grants them jurisdiction. Do you not agree? What rights can I possibly be "reserving" by standing in front of a magistrate and granting him authority over me? Am I not then placing myself under his jurisdiction?

I guess we have to go to court when cited by an officer, but we have to know how to explain lack of SMJ to the judge at that time. Seems like that moment where you are arraigned, is the moment where the state (who authorizes the Highway Patrol to stop you and cite you) ends their juridiction and the court WANTS their jurisdiction to take over.