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

Quasi Compliants

Expand Messages
  • WW011@aol.com
    A court commissioner or traffic referee has the authority to exercise the same powers and duties as a judge with respect to traffic infractions. (See
    Message 1 of 6 , May 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      A court commissioner or traffic referee has the authority to exercise the
      same powers and duties as a judge with respect to traffic infractions. (See
      Government Code sections 72190, 72401(c): In re Kathy P. (1979) 25 Cal.3rd91,98,157
      Cal.Rprt. 874: Branson v. Martin (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 300,305,65
      Cal.Rprt.2nd 401: People v. Lucas (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 47-48, 147 Cal.Rprt. 235.)

      This was over and above an objection on a trial by written Declaration not to
      stipulate to a commitioner hearing this case in shasta co. ca.:
      Sarracino v. Superior Court (1974 13 Cal. 3d 1, 10 10, 118 Cal. Rptr. 21. 519
      P. 2d 53.) "A court commissioner may act as a temporary judge only when the
      parties to proceedings stipulate that he may do so."



      The Notice to appear may be filed in place of a formal, verified complaint
      even if the defendant pleads not guilty and the case proceeds to trial. (People
      v. Barron (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1,3-5,44 Cal.Rprt.2nd 348 . See also
      Heldt v. Municipal Court (1985) 164 CAl.App.3d 532, 537-539, 209 Cal.Rptr. 579
      (notice to appear also constitutes valid complaint under penal Code section
      853.9).))

      Yet and still jurisdiction is lacking for lack of an injured party and lack
      of a sworn complaint by that injured party
      AND no criminal jurisdiction for this is granted to the court in this matter
      pursuant to
      Article 1 Sec. 8 claus 17 of the constitution. Court is granted 2 criminal
      jurisidictions.
      Common law and Admiralty or military tribural venue. NO statutory
      jurisdictions.

      People v Wohlleben, 261 Cal.App.2d 461 (this is a California case) (Not Penal)
      “The procedure on arrests without a warrant for misdemeanor Vehicle Code
      violations is that prescribed by the Vehicle Code and not the procedure
      prescribed by the Penal Code.”
    • paradoxmagnus
      TRANSLATION: The FAILURE to OBJECT and/or ASSERT one s RIGHTS is deemed a WAIVER of them. CIVIL CODE 3515. He who consents to an act is not wronged by it.
      Message 2 of 6 , May 30, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        TRANSLATION: The FAILURE to OBJECT and/or ASSERT one's RIGHTS is
        deemed a WAIVER of them.

        CIVIL CODE 3515. He who consents to an act is not wronged by it.

        CIVIL CODE 3516. Acquiescence in error takes away the right of
        objecting to it.

        CIVIL CODE 3527. The law helps the vigilant, before those who sleep
        on their rights.

        http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?
        section=civ&group=03001-04000&file=3509-3548

        The BOTTOM LINE is they will do as much to you as you LET them get
        away with.

        Patrick in California

        "If we are strong, our strength will speak for itself. If we are
        weak, words will be of no help." – John F. Kennedy
      • Frog Farmer
        On May 30, 2006, at 8:41 AM, WW011@aol.com wrote, without answering my questions about his preference for waiving rights in the infraction ... Once a rights
        Message 3 of 6 , May 30, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          On May 30, 2006, at 8:41 AM, WW011@... wrote, without answering my
          questions about his preference for waiving rights in the infraction
          process, yet citing the same citations:

          > A court commissioner or traffic referee has the authority to exercise
          > the
          > same powers and duties as a judge with respect to traffic infractions.
          > (See
          > Government Code sections 72190, 72401(c): In re Kathy P. (1979) 25
          > Cal.3rd91,98,157
          > Cal.Rprt. 874: Branson v. Martin (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 300,305,65
          > Cal.Rprt.2nd 401: People v. Lucas (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 47-48, 147
          > Cal.Rprt. 235.)
          >
          > This was over and above an objection on a trial by written Declaration
          > not to
          > stipulate to a commitioner hearing this case in shasta co. ca.:
          > Sarracino v. Superior Court (1974 13 Cal. 3d 1, 10 10, 118 Cal. Rptr.
          > 21. 519
          > P. 2d 53.) "A court commissioner may act as a temporary judge only
          > when the
          > parties to proceedings stipulate that he may do so."

          Once a rights waiver, always a rights waiver. Was your point that
          Kathy P. was NOT a rights waiver?

          > The Notice to appear may be filed in place of a formal, verified
          > complaint
          > even if the defendant pleads not guilty and the case proceeds to
          > trial. (People
          > v. Barron (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1,3-5,44 Cal.Rprt.2nd 348 . See
          > also
          > Heldt v. Municipal Court (1985) 164 CAl.App.3d 532, 537-539, 209
          > Cal.Rptr. 579
          > (notice to appear also constitutes valid complaint under penal Code
          > section
          > 853.9).))
          >
          > Yet and still jurisdiction is lacking for lack of an injured party and
          > lack
          > of a sworn complaint by that injured party

          Jurisdiction is obtained from the rights-waiver consenting by making a
          list of enumerated rights that are waived. They even have a name for
          it. Can you guess what it is? Hint: It's a tall form (8.5"x14").

          Oh, OK, I’ll give you the answer; it is a CA rights waiver
          form/Notification of Rights "Tahl" Form.

          > AND no criminal jurisdiction for this is granted to the court in this
          > matter
          > pursuant to
          > Article 1 Sec. 8 claus 17 of the constitution. Court is granted 2
          > criminal
          > jurisidictions.
          > Common law and Admiralty or military tribural venue. NO statutory
          > jurisdictions.

          Statutory jurisdictions are for volunteers, and nobody has the right to
          tell anyone that they cannot volunteer into one. People volunteer all
          the time and haven't a clue that they are doing so, until the video is
          later shown in front of a bunch of witnesses and a phd explains the
          ramifications of basic facts to the otherwise clueless audience.
          Still, common sense prevails and voluntary submissions can be shown to
          exist to the average studio audience. Polls will show that a majority
          can recognize a rights waiver after a half hour dissertation explaining
          the right and how it works and how it is waived.

          > People v Wohlleben, 261 Cal.App.2d 461 (this is a California case)
          > (Not Penal)
          > “The procedure on arrests without a warrant for misdemeanor Vehicle
          > Code
          > violations is that prescribed by the Vehicle Code and not the procedure
          > prescribed by the Penal Code.”

          That's right...the procedure on ARRESTS. I use that all the time,
          pointing out the several procedures therein, not just one. When they
          speak to me, they had better be using the correct procedure for ME,
          which may not necessarily be the one for YOU.

          But then, after the arrest, what code do you think prevails? Hmmm.
          That's right, the Penal Code.

          So, your POINT above, aside from avoiding my other questions that go to
          the heart of jurisdiction, was????

          Yes, it would be nice if people could waive their rights and have them
          too, wouldn't it?

          So, do you think these people who waive rights automatically are
          incompetents (most do hire attorneys, don't they?) or competent
          submissives?

          Why doesn't anyone ever seem to answer MY questions??
        • Email41@aol.com
          Statutory jurisdictions are for volunteers, and nobody has the right to tell anyone that they cannot volunteer into one. Yes, it would be nice if people could
          Message 4 of 6 , May 31, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Statutory jurisdictions are for volunteers, and nobody has the right to
            tell anyone that they cannot volunteer into one.
            Yes, it would be nice if people could waive their rights and have them
            too, wouldn't it?

            Why doesn't anyone ever seem to answer MY questions??

            FF, I'll try to give you this answer.  It seems that most are not cognizant of all the elements of due process. Because of this ignorance and the over emphasis of statutory and case law, most rush into these defenses thereby tacitly granting jurisdiction, instead of complaining about missing, basic, elemental issues of law. It appears that the Hegelian dialectic is at work.





          • Frog Farmer
            ... I appreciate the answer. Quasi Compliants are definitely NOT Masters of Their Own Domain in their own minds, but they want to be after the fact of their
            Message 5 of 6 , Jun 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              On May 31, 2006, at 3:28 PM, Email41@... wrote:

              > FF, I'll try to give you this answer.  It seems that most are not
              > cognizant of all the elements of due process. Because of this
              > ignorance and the over emphasis of statutory and case law, most rush
              > into these defenses thereby tacitly granting jurisdiction, instead of
              > complaining about missing, basic, elemental issues of law. It appears
              > that the Hegelian dialectic is at work.
              >

              I appreciate the answer. Quasi Compliants are definitely NOT "Masters
              of Their Own Domain" in their own minds, but they want to be after the
              fact of their submission, and the consequences of it, become
              uncomfortable. The question is, how do you get to people so that they
              do not submit automatically, possibly even sequentially, and then have
              to overcome such errors later when it is ten-fold times harder than to
              not have committed the error in the first place?

              I remember a morning civics class in freshman year of high school that
              made me decide to hold my servants to their contract. Prior to that,
              from age six on, I had only decided that they would not abridge my
              freedom. Today, I'm waiting for my big chance at the Big Bux at the
              Settlement Conference. But the odds are slim since a long time ago I
              taught them to leave me as alone as people leave my rattlesnake.

              I believe that we can all just get along ala Rodney. Compliants need
              masters and masters need subjects and as long as the two can play their
              game without me, all can be just fine. It's when they try to draw me
              in, wasting my precious time of day, that I bristle and seek to cause a
              burning sensation. That was a poison frog analogy.
            • Advancepum@aol.com
              Quasi is make beleave if it is the government making a Quasi criminal complaint against you for a TRAFIC stop or what ever it is. In illinois there is no
              Message 6 of 6 , Jun 1, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Quasi  is make beleave if it is the government making a Quasi criminal complaint against you for a TRAFIC stop or what ever it is.
                In illinois there is no provision for Quasi criminal charging but there is room for Quasi criminal bail chew on that for a while.
                paul
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.