Where's the regulation that applies to you?




i came home to find a police officer and seven neighbors in my yard.
claiming that some trash was poison, meant for the neighborhood

File complaints with the police and copies to the local court,
and put on them "FOR THE RECORD".

Then get copies of the complaint from the cops, and go through
them with a fine tooth comb, and see if the laws you have been charged
under, have certain conditions that apply to those laws.

The cops may not have followed the law as published.

Any errors are in your favor.


Get a timeline of how things happened, and all the parties involved.

YOU MUST do this job unless you have all the money in the world
to hire an attorney.





At 10:51 PM 12/16/04 +0000, you wrote:



>i came home to find a police officer and seven neighbors in my yard.
>claiming that some trash was poison, meant for the neighborhood
>animals. The officer and Mr. Holloway(neighbor)(name also on report)

On Dec 13, 2004, at 3:42 PM, <victoryusa@...> wrote:
> Regarding your last sentence, if the courts followed the law, there'd
> be no problem. Under the California Vehicle Code, I believe §40513(a)
> --I'm going by memory--  a verified complaint is required. So
> statutorily, a litigant has a statutory right to a verified complaint
> in traffic cases.

However, most people choose to waive the right, and they often plead
before any charges exist!

It is very common to see people waive proper arraignments.

> HOWEVER, the courts (usually a commissioner-- not even a judge)

And there's another waiver, the failure to disqualify the unqualified.

>  ignore (a) and operate under §40513(b) which states that a person MAY
> waive his right to a verified complaint and plead to the citation.

Of course, because that's what today's American chooses to do!  How
many people have you ever seen make an issue of it in the courtroom?
Of course, I personally cannot get arraigned because I refuse to waive
any rights.

> The word "may" under the Vehicle Code is permissive, not mandatory.

I know that.  But that doesn't stop people from making the waiver
anyway.

> The courts push 40513(b) down your throat whether you want it or not,
> and your case is processed under (b) by force.

No, MY cases stop when I demand a complaint and the rest of the
elements of a proper arraignment, AFTER they find QUALIFIED  personnel
to set the court.  Faced with the impossibilities, they "dismiss" a
case that never existed anyway.

> The law says you aren't required to waive a verified complaint, but
> the courts ignore the law as usual.  Why?

Because the people ignore the law as well, and make any waivers
requested of them.  One who does not waive rights cannot sign Notices
to Appear, but must be immediately taken to a magistrate.  And where
are they going to find one today?   You DO know about the California
requirement for the taking of the oath of office, right?

>  Because they CAN! Another reason why we need J.A.I.L.

We don't need it in California because there ARE no "judges".  "Judges"
are people who have taken the required oath of office.  Send me the
name of one of these you know of personally, and then send me a scan of
their oath (on file before today!)

> "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
> striking at the root."                         -- Henry David Thoreau
>   <><

If there are no "officers", then there is no "problem", is there?   Do
you think ANY citizen can prosecute for the state?

WHY do people vest IMPERSONATORS with powers they do not deserve?????

Answer:  To be polite.

That's right, to be polite, huge numbers submit to false jurisdictions
and suffer the consequences.

What other answer could there be??  Massive ignorance of the native
language??

Fear??   Whatever it is, I don't have the problem myself.   I try to
qualify every contestant who presents themselves to me, and for over
two decades, all contestants have failed to qualify for the status they
claim.

California is truly a land of imagination, with most of the population
living in an illusion sometimes referred to as being "conventional
wisdom".    I find that reality works well for myself.   I get along
fine with people who don't expect me to pretend to my own detriment.

On Dec 13, 2004, at 1:23 PM, Jeff wrote:

> Accepting a traffic ticket is a waiver of a formal verified complaint,
>  something I've yet to see produced in California in over 25 years.
>
> CAN YOU ENTER SOME RELEVANT AUTHORITY TO YOUR ABOVE STATEMENT?

Besides logic?  Read the Penal Code and tell me you come to some other
conclusion.

  From Penal Code section 853.9:
"... a defendant may... waive the filing of a verified complaint and
elect
that the prosecution may proceed upon a written notice to appear."

"Notice to appear" is the official name for what people call "traffic
tickets".  They are used for obtaining a waiver of jurisdiction over a
person's signature.

I do not need a "relevent authority" to proclaim that water imparts
wetness, or that voluntarily accepting other than the law requires
constitutes a waiver of right(s).

But it doesn't really matter since there are no lawful officers
qualified to give you anything.

See Calif. Const. Art. XX, section 3.   See the word, "all", and see
the provision for exemptions from the requirements, then ask your
contestant-for-credibility if he has an exemption.

Do you accept documents purporting to be criminal charges from your
mere neighbors?

Can an impersonator fool you?  Don't you resent being the victim of an
attempt at impersonation of an officer?

I require that anyone making a claim be qualified to make the claim.

I haven't found anyone in over two decades of looking.

In the same time, I've found about ten people to whom it makes any
difference.  Most people are glad to waive rights and let impersonators
get away with the crime they love.

On Dec 14, 2004, at 10:24 PM, Cyril Grosse wrote:

> Here's a sample motion on this argument:

That's a good motion for if you ever get past the fact that they cannot
properly set the court with qualified personnel and then if they find
qualified personnel, they actually attempt to conduct a proper
arraignment using the NTA as the accusatory pleading.

But since they cannot properly set the court with qualified personnel,
an accused would have to waive an awful lot of rights to submit such a
motion (a general appearance) prematurely.

I prefer not to waive the jurisdiction issue by promising to appear in
a court that has no jurisdiction.

The last time I checked, the local cops were also using NTA forms that
lacked the required approval by the judicial council.

When I asked why they had kept on using them, after myself and a few
friends had used that fact to avoid prosecution, and when anyone who
knew could have done the same, they said that they had boxes and boxes
of the invalid forms, and that a handful of people who knew versus the
masses who didn't wouldn't be worth throwing out the invalid forms,
since nobody seemed to care anyway, except us.

The whole operation is a scam, a sham, and a performance for the true
believers in the Peanut Gallery.

mat_starcorp wrote:
<< i came home to find a police officer and seven neighbors in my yard, claiming
that some trash was poison, meant for the neighborhood animals.
The officer and Mr. Holloway (neighbor) (name also on report) were uninvited and
the officer certainly didn't not have a seach warrant where there wasn't a
crime.
There were statements made that are false by unreliable people.
These were assumptions,of over reactive neighbors and the officer was
manufacturing a crime in the minds of these folks.  The officer was giving out
legal advice to intentional conspire and fabricate evidence.  He is acting on
supposition and not facts, with this law-giving advice.  He even had the
audacity to write his law advice on a incident report, which I have.
"He suggested they (neighbors) contact my landlady, a Judge (which is of
probate), DHR, I/O to perceed with crulity to animals."  You talk about WICK YO.
My life has been altered and my reputation irretrievable.  I have to move a 16 x
70 manufactured house in a 10 day notice.
He most diffently violated his office: CODE OF ALABAMA.COM SECTION 36-25-2
(1),(3), (6).
My queston is, I have sent him two letters asking for why he infringed on my
Constitutional Rights. Cert registered Letters where just that simple, he has
"return to sender" on the second.
Is this good?
Also appricate any advise.
I have a tort form getting ready to file it as well. >>

To what address to did you send it certified?
His police headquarters?
Did you CC copies to the department's Internal Affairs (and the local media)?
Sounds like a massive violation of Title 42 § § 1985(3), as once he acted so far
afield of his oath of office, he was in conspiracy with your "neighbour."

   Just a thought,
< Badger >
http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001985----000\
-.html

Below are several pertinent traffic rules in Ohio.
How would one argue for a proper verified complaint
to a court when such administrative rules have been
promulgated? That is to say, I know that the judge
is going to bring up and adhere to the "traffic
rules", but what line of reasoning would one use to
disprove their merit?

I realize that one should be arguing SMJ when
confronting a judicial court, but if one wanted to
demand a proper verified complaint, how would he go
about it?



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs.
Learn more.

I think the secretary of state is also an agent for
service of process.

I find  that one reason judges do not vacate void
judgements is that you have waited too long to move.
This is of course a sham excuse so as to protect the
judges law buddies. I would say that I had no
knowledge of the judgement until recently.

You may also view the file on record and see if there
are the necessary douments in the file, that is the
contract and whatever else is necessary according to
your states rules or statutes.



--- Benjamin Clemons <bjcproductions2003@...>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to vacate an one year old judgment that a
> sham car dealer has against me. I have not paid
> anything on it. I have my motion completed but have
> come to find out that the car dealership is no
> longer in business. He brought suit against me using
> his business name. I'm under the assumption that he
> has to be served before the judge actually reviews
> it. Isn't this correct? I was wondering if anyone
> had any info on how I could still serve him or at
> least appear to serve him if he can not be found. Is
> there a way to get a judgment vacated without his
> presence, without argument or testimony ?
>
>
>                                      Thanks ---  Ben

If I wanted to test the validity of the ticket, I might expressly DENY that validity in a verified affidavit and/or testimony properly entered into the court record.  The DENIAL creates an issue wherein the burden of proof is on the other side.  Therefore, if the denial is under oath, it should take an oath on the part of the complainant to prove the ticket is valid.  The complainant may have to appear at court and testify and be subjected to cross-examination to "prove" the ticket's validity.  If you're ready for him, then you can pounce.

Alfred Adask


--- Gary Cummings wrote:

Below are several pertinent traffic rules in Ohio.
How would one argue for a proper verified complaint
to a court when such administrative rules have been
promulgated? That is to say, I know that the judge
is going to bring up and adhere to the "traffic
rules", but what line of reasoning would one use to
disprove their merit?

I realize that one should be arguing SMJ when
confronting a judicial court, but if one wanted to
demand a proper verified complaint, how would he go
about it?
=========================================================

Tax records.

Where are the tax records of the property and property owner?

They should be at the town hall for all to see.

Check the court rules for proper service.

Put your motion to vacate in clear and concise terms and submit
same to the court and serve to his last known address,
or check the tax records for where he is now.

If your motion is not challenged in a period of time, then you win
by default?


At 08:52 AM 12/18/04 -0500, you wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I'm trying to vacate an one year old judgment that a sham car dealer has
>against me. I have not paid anything on it. I have my motion completed but

I think the secretary of state is also an agent for
service of process.

 

On Dec 18, 2004, at 3:48 PM, WW011@... wrote:

> Your correct on 40513(b) : "If the notice to appear is not verified,
> the defendant may, at the time of arraignment, request that a verified
> complaint be filed".
>  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
>
>  Would not "the court" say that it has verified the complaint?
>

It's not 'the court" who does the verification (oath) but the
complainant.

Your correct on 40513(b) : "If the notice to appear
is not verified, the
defendant may, at the time of arraignment, request
that a verified complaint be
filed".
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

Would not "the court" say that it has verified the
complaint?

I just received my IMF file.

Where is the "key" for this item?

I sure would like to translate it and correct the errors.



Thanks
jcp

JCP --

You need  the 665 page manual from the IRS called the "ADP and IDRS
Information Manual," otherwise referred to the "6209 Manual."  The 6209
Manual is put out by the IRS and has most of the codes you need to decode
your IMF.  The IRS stopped making this manual available several years ago,
but I am certain that if you do a search for 6209 Manual, you should be able
to find a copy to download.

If you know what you are doing, it will take 15-20 hours to decode your
file.  If you don't know what you are doing, I really don't know how long it
will take you.  Decoding is a very confusing and complex activity.  I have
decoded several hundred over the past 3 years, and I am still learning
things.

There are many entries in the IMF that are important and reveal illegal
actions by the IRS against you.  But there are several entries that are of
particular importance.

BODC -- will almost certainly be "SB", indicating that you are not an
individual at all, but a business making more than $10 million a year.

MFR -- will almost certainly be "05", indicating that you are required to
file a "Package 30" stack of business return forms attached to your Form
1040.

SCS -- will almost certainly be "1', indicating that you are using the SSN
belonging to another person.

In the several hundred IMFs I have decoded over the years, I have seen
almost every one of them show those entries above.  About 1 in 10 will show
a MFR of 10, and that is just about the only variation.

Also, nearly every IMF I have decoded from a non-filer had a Transaction
Code of 150.  This is usually linked to a Substitute For Return (SFR) being
filed for you by the IRS.  This TC 150 is a US Virgin Islands return, which
the IRS just filed for you.

After decoding your IMF, you need to obtain your AMDISA file, because in
that file is the activity code in which the IRS claims you are engaged.  I
have never seen an AMDISA that did not have the individual listed as being
involved in manufacturing bullets, making car batteries, importing illegal
drugs (yes, the IRS actually lists many Americans as importing illegal
drugs!), making truck and bus chassis, etc.  Your AMDISA will always have
you listed as being involved in an activity that is restricted or illegal
because that places you directly under its authority and control.  I have
never, ever, ever seen an AMDISA that has someone listed as having a regular
job.

Those are just some of the issues to look for.  There are many, many more.
And once you have things decoded, then you need to start requesting many of
the documents listed in the IMF.  The Document Locator Numbers (DLN) will
need to be decoded, and will show which documents are fraudulent just by the
DLNs.  There is an entire strategy for challenging and changing your IRS
records.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.

Yours in freedom,

Dave Miner
www.FreedomSite.net


I just received my IMF file.

Where is the "key" for this item?

I sure would like to translate it and correct the errors.



Thanks
jcp

The Internal Revenue Service, 6209 Manual, Chapter 8 is/used-to-be the
source of the decoding information and was available on the internet
at www.irs.gov . The last time I looked, the information in Chapter 8
had been rendered inaccessable; how terribly convenient for the IRS....

"J.Pesci" <jpes@a...> wrote:
>
> I just received my IMF file.
>
> Where is the "key" for this item?
>
> I sure would like to translate it and correct the errors.

I just received my IMF file.

Where is the "key" for this item?

I sure would like to translate it and correct the errors.



Thanks
jcp

 

On Dec 19, 2004, at 1:14 AM, KC wrote:

> How does one know if the NTA is an approved NTA and not a false NTA

One goes to the Judicial Council to see the records of the approvals of
forms.

The approvals are all matters of official record.  But it does take
interest and initiative.

But now it's a non-issue, isn't it?

Do you care which form some unqualified neighbor chooses to try to fool
you with?

If an impersonator uses an approved form, does that meet with your
approval?

>
> KC

On Dec 20, 2004, at 1:39 PM, Cyril Grosse wrote:

> Don’t forget the 2nd half of your remedy! 

Don't skip over the first step - KNOW who you are dealing with!

How do YOU avoid being fooled by impersonators?

> PC 1382 reads:
>
>  1382.  (a) The court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown,
>
> shall order the action to be dismissed in the following cases:

Who is qualified to make the order in YOUR cases?

Do you permit mere neighbors who have decided against taking the
required oath of office for the particular official powers they presume
to wield to make orders affecting YOU?  I sure don't!

> The officer cannot issue a notice to appear, complaint, and or
> summons, prosecute the manner in the name of the People of California,
> and be a witness too. This is contrary to law and a blatant denial of
> proper service and due process.

But you never see anyone objecting to it, do you?  I know that whenever
I have wanted the "officer" removed from the witness stand, I ask him
if he is qualified to discuss the law he is supposedly enforcing.  The
"judge" usually will chime in that he is not.   In that case, who is it
that is relying upon the conclusions of law made by this man??  hmmm?

> The District Attorney is the person mandated by the Government Code to
> initiate complaints (accusatory pleading) and to prosecute in the name
> of the People. Government Code Sees. 22, 22608, 26660(b), and Brunner
> v. Superior Ct., (1891) 28 P. 341, 92 C. 239.

Do the people accept just anyone as a D.A. in your county?  In my
county, the law (Cal. Const. Art. XX sect. 3) says that he has to take
the required oath of office BEFORE entering upon the duties of the
office.  I prefer to enforce that strict interpretation, and thus for
me there is no D.A., while many people I see are glad to vest the
powers of a D.A. in a man who has chosen not to take the required oath.
    Are you one of them too?

> Essentially, If the officer is going to do the job of the D.A. and
> initiate prosecution of a case by filing an Information (Notice to
> Appear), then he cannot be a witness.  The state cannot have it both
> ways.

The state cannot act or speak but through authorized persons.  Because
I choose not to waive that right (to be spoken to by the state by
authorized persons) for me there is nobody who can speak for the state.
   But for most people, it seems that anyone who chooses may speak for
the state, authorized or not.  I believe that people do this out of a
feeling of the need to be polite, which in most cases outweighs their
need to think and act intelligently.

> If it is recognized that the officer had no authority to file the
> information, then no information has yet been filed and pursuant to
> PC1382, the case must be dismissed.

I wish it were more often recognized that the mere neighbor is not even
authorized to be impersonating an officer, which in most jurisdictions
is a crime more serious than your average traffic ticket.

Maybe, in the genuine official power vaccuum that exists, most humans
have a need to subject themselves to the next best available substitute
for  legitimate power, so they submit to impersonators who commit their
crimes for their own personal reasons and excuses (most often the
anticipation of a paycheck).

swwyatt --

Hansen's MFDecoder is the best available.  But you will still need to spend
quite some hours studying before you will ever be able to understand the
print-out.  You can reduce that to maybe 4 hours if you download Hansen's
MFDecoder manual and studying it.  I believe it is about 200 pages, and is
absolutely excellent.

Last I knew, Hansen's MFDecoder is not available for free.  It cost $80 for
the decoder itself, and $200 for the MFDecoder software and a whole library
of materials and information to help you understand the decoded documents.

JCP --

The MFDecoder manual is free.  You might consider downloading it and
studying it before you do anything.  It walks you through the process of
obtaining documents (the IMF is only one of a dozen documents that are
important to obtain and decode!), understanding the documents, and then
forcing the IRS to change the documents.  Short of hiring someone from my
group, this is by far your best option.
Yours in freedom,

Dave Miner
HYPERLINK "http://www.FreedomSite.net"www.FreedomSite.net


    _____