Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

8890Re: [tips_and_tricks] challenging bona fides

Expand Messages
  • baer@gap.net
    Jul 5, 2005
      At 05:20 PM 7/4/2005, you wrote:
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: baer@...
      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 9:30 AM
      Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] challenging bona fides
      Baer said:  "I'm guessing that there is a fair chance that your judge will take you to trial and conviction (or its civil counterpart) irrespective of just about anything you say. You may find yourself in a position of not participating at all simply to sustain your challenge. Really, a pretender to a judgeship has no proper access to judicial immunity and his decisions are not enforceable, but be prepared for a fight. You might find that often the optimum formula for success is to put the system at such risk that the system itself will abandon this character.
      Baer
      Thanks baer. "not participating at all".....does that mean not to put up any defense or cross-examine?  I'm a slow learning country boy that don't mind swimming in the 30' end of the pool.  Is there any way to proceed under protest because of necessity, reserving proof of jurisdiction.  Can one proceed in what he claims is an improperly set court reserving proof that the court is properly set for the conviction to stick?  Lets face it.  It does not matter if you go to trial or not they will find you guilty. Frog Farmer has his method down pat but I'd like to try Marc Steven's method as I don't believe I can pull Froggy's method off.   To do such requires going to trial.  Trying to avoid jurisdiction to me is a futile effort.  The mear fact that you are there is sufficient or at least claimed by many.  I've had a judge say the same.  If you have a license, or have ever had a license they will claim they have jurisdiction so why not go to trial and raise the errors on appeal?

      Your issue is not far removed from those who refuse to default to jurisdiction, and I am inclined to treat them in similar ways. Were you to raise the jurisdictional issue, jurisdiction would have to be addressed and resolved before anything further could take place. But if you could be induced into any kind of defense against the allegations, you would be deemed to have waived your objections to the jurisdictional defects. In a word, you would have authorized the trial to take place in the absence of valid jurisdiction and without regard for your objection. I am inclined to believe that even if you were to get the judge to acknowledge your reservation of rights on the record that it would be worth little or nothing, but I have to acknowledge that I am more than a little prejudiced in my analysis. My own choice would be to step back from any participation in a trial and put the court on notice that I am precluded from doing otherwise, based on prior court decisions that have dictated my choice in this respect. Personally, I would not willingly proceed to trial without jurisdiction having been successfully defended. I would consider going to trial if a judge were willing to take jurisdiction on his own authority, but I would make darn sure that I made specific reference on the record to his having deliberately done so at every opportunity I could manage. I would be contemplating the probability of litigating against him personally.

      I do have some experience in this respect and, based on what little experience I have of my own, am certain that to have followed my instincts to mount some kind of defense would have been the wrong decision. My last experience in this respect was not mine personally, but the judge did take the matter to trial and conviction without the defendant's participation in any respect. I don't think there is any question that this was an attempt to provoke some kind of desperate defense, but the defendant stood her ground. I removed the matter to the US District Court, and that resulted in all sorts of pressure to remove the case back to the state court for appeal (sic). The USDC eventually refused to hear it based on the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine (which wasn't even applicable). The whole matter just died a quiet death, and the state has made no attempt to enforce its decision. I'm not sure what is next in that this is not my case, so without permission I can't really take any of this to the next logical steps. The judge has no access to immunity and would be vulnerable to being sued personally. Unless some effort is made to expunge the record, the record may remain even though it is unenforced and unenforceable. The reality is that this trial was a non-event.

      I'm not familiar with Marc Steven's method, so I can't really offer a comment. I can tell you, however, that the jurisdictional issue is an important one and should not be discounted. First, jurisdiction is not an issue that can be addressed by a judge without his forfeiting his judicial independence. I have never gotten this far, but were a judge to invoke and defend his jurisdiction, I would be demanding his recusal. Jurisdiction is for the prosecutor to defend, after all he is the one that put the action into his choice of court. I should mention that by raising the question of jurisdiction, you are not necessarily trying to avoid jurisdiction. Either the court has or doesn't have valid jurisdiction, and you can't do anything to change that. What you can do, however, is require the prosecutor to defend jurisdiction instead of you forfeiting to it. Jurisdictional issues are not nearly so simple as the terms 'personal' and 'geographical' imply.

      Having a license does forfeit to administrative authority to the extent that the license is in use. Those who claim to be 'traveling' to Granny's house may choose not to show a license at a traffic stop in which case they are not imposed upon by regulations affecting licensure. Those with expired or rescinded licenses have no such responsibility to the conditions of licensure. Understand that judges do lie. In fact, the availability of judicial immunity is basis enough upon which to gracefully and diplomatically decline on the record to accept virtually anything a judge might have to say in every respect. If you can suitably convey your disappointment at being able to accept a comment from the bench on the basis of the comprehensive availability of judicial access to immunity, you may find that the issue is dropped.

      Baer
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic