Jason Muhammad wrote:
> If you refuse to plea though,
> the Judge will simply enter a "not guilty" plea on your behalf and
> proceed to trial.
The way to get around that is to ask for the extra time provided by
California Penal Code Section 990. Tell them that you need the
certified copy of the formal verified complaint to show to several
attorneys in town, as soon as you find any in compliance with Business &
Professions Code section 6067.
> The Frog Farmer's tactic is to not even allow the �case� to get to
> arraignment or at least not go beyond it. Again, these are two
> different tactics.
Again, my "tactics" come from a sequential reading of constitutions and
statutes already made popular by years of prior existence.
> In the Frog Farmer's most recent post, he said he wouldn't enter a
> plea unless a verified complaint is filed. I agree with that. A
> complaint is what gives the court subject matter jurisdiction.
Once again, "they" thought of it first!
> The complaint is the foundation of the jurisdiction of the magistrate.
> 22 Corpus Juris Secundum � 303, pages 456, 457
See? It's not even an issue!
> I asked the "officer" for his commission when he issued the citation.
> He became VERY angry. He said, �You wanna see my commission? Here.� He
> didn't show me anything other than a 4 digit number that he wrote on
> the citation next to the label �Badge ID�. He said, �I�m going to
> document everything about this stop. It�s being recorded and video
> Either way, I won't be entering a plea
> absent a verified complaint. If I refuse, I know the judge will simply
> enter a plea on my behalf of "not guilty":
They can usually only enter a plea for you if you "refuse" to enter a
plea. What if you CANNOT enter plea? Did you have counsel present for
the arraignment? Were all required elements of an arraignment met? Was
the complaint in order?
> When the judge enters a
> plea on your behalf, you must object on the record.
I would file a "Withdrawal of Plea" document.
> With respect to the verified complaint, I have cases that say that a
> conviction is automatically reversed on appeal if a verified complaint
> is not filed upon request and when its absence is objected to on the
> record or by pre-trial motion.
It only makes sense! Any riff-raff can make unverified complaints all
> The issue of a verified complaint is putting �first things first.�
> Well, it's almost �first things first.� There is the issue that Frog
> Farmer enlightened all of us too and that is the question of whether
> we are dealing with impersonators or not. That is an important step.
> The next is a verified complaint. After that is arraignment. If you
> get past that then there are pre-trial motions, voir dire,
> interlocutory appeals, extraordinary writs, trial, judgment, post-
> trial motions and appeal.
Right. Don't forget those writs, because that's where you actually do
> For a traffic case, they would be spending thousands of dollars for a
> $75 fine and THEN, with the Handyman's brilliant research on
> exactments (HAGAR v. LAND RECLAMATION, 111 U.S. 701 (May 5, 1884)),
> his and Frog Farmer's research on FRN's not being legal tender (repeal
> of HJR-192) and U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1,
> they couldn�t collect anyway.
They couldn't collect twenty years ago either. I know my very first
case that I took on intentionally was over a $14 dog license. They sent
two people after me first, and I took a half hour of their time, plus
the time getting ready to see me, and the time recovering from seeing
me. Then they spent for a court case, over twelve hearings, all kinds
of fun and games, and an appeal where they surrendered just before it
occurred. Estimates by others say they spent well over $5,000 on me.
My costs were about $120. Since I never bought dog licenses again in
over 25 years, I'm well ahead on it. They've never raised the issue
again, despite meeting my dogs, which they forgot to do the last time.