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

remove a judge

Expand Messages
  • Melanie Kluge
    I will soon be involved in a case where as the sitting judge will be a judge I have been infront of before. How can I get rid of this judge before my first
    Message 1 of 17 , Jan 29, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I will soon be involved in a case where as the sitting judge will be a
      judge I have been infront of before. How can I get rid of this judge
      before my first court date. Or do I need to file that motion while I am
      in front of him.

      Thanks
    • Pro Se
      a motion for substitution of judge for cause w/ an affidavit of bias & prejudice.... you must spell out the bias & facts point by point this must be timely
      Message 2 of 17 , Jan 29, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        a motion for substitution of  judge for cause
        w/ an affidavit of bias & prejudice....
         
        you must spell out the bias & facts point by point
        this must be timely
         
        here's some case law to support - your state may vary...
         
        I sued 4 judges & turned then over to the JUDICAL CONDUCT BOARD
         
         
        In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
         
         
        Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").
         
         
        That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”
         
        Our Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
         
        One of our members not only did not receive justice from a prejudiced judge, but he does not believe that he received justice from the judge, as required by law.
         
        "Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself [or himself] sua sponte under the stated circumstances."  Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
         
        Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his [or her]  disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.
         
        Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves.  By law, they are bound to follow the law.  Does your judge follow the law?
         
        Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which further disqualifies the judge.  Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has disqualified himself/herself.  None of the orders issued any judge who has been disqualified by law are valid, they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
         
        However, as we know, many judges ignore the law, but by doing so, they not only attempt to harm you, the public, but they have made a mockery of the law, and have evidenced a disdain for Justices of higher courts, such as the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeal.  If judges do not have respect for other judges, why should judges expect the respect of the public?
         
         
        Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").
         
        Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his/her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce".  The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity.  The judge has no more lawful authority than your next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge).  However since some judges believe that they are the Lord, they may not follow the law.  (Judge Rosen entered his courtroom each day, stood before the court audience, raised his hand, and stated that he was the Lord.  The night before he was to be indicted, he took a gun and blew his brains out.  So much for a judge being the Lord.)
        If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, has disqualified him/herself.
        However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that your judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required" and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances.
        One of our members has filed several motions for disqualification, only to have the judge ignore the motions. The member will post on this web-site several of the motions filed, to give the public a taste of the law and how judges ignore the Supreme Law of the Land. The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and we suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
         
        Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.
        This member will post some of his motions here for educational purposes, and links to these motions will be found on this page.
        We will also inform you on what you can do to assist others in disqualifying judges. Please assist when requested.


        Never miss an email again!
        Yahoo! Toolbar
        alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.
      • Steve
        Hello, My son got an undeserved DUI this past Thursday just outside his military base. He had had 3 8oz cups of draft about 2 hours before, but didn t want to
        Message 3 of 17 , Jan 29, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello,

          My son got an undeserved DUI this past Thursday just outside his
          military base. He had had 3 8oz cups of draft about 2 hours before, but
          didn't want to take any chances and refused the BAC test. They arrested
          him, didn't allow him to make a phone call, no Miranda rights (not
          necessary I've learned in an implied consent situation).

          An expert DUI attorney wants $4000 to represent him up to a trial. He
          believe he can get the charges plea bargained down to a wreckless
          driving or something, but my son will still probably have his license
          suspended for 6 months to a year. This is his FIRST ticket of ANY kind
          and he is 22.

          My decision is if it is worth $4000 to keep a DUI off his record when
          the practical aspect of the punishment for lesser offense will still hit
          him with DL suspension? Any thoughts from anyone?

          Thanks, Steve
        • hobot
          Affidavit of Prejudice. Any party may establish prejudice by motion, supported by affidavit, that the judge before whom an action is pending is prejudiced. In
          Message 4 of 17 , Jan 29, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            "Affidavit of Prejudice.

            Any party may establish prejudice by motion, supported by
            affidavit, that the judge before whom an action is pending is
            prejudiced. In counties where there is but one resident judge, the
            motion and affidavit must be filed not later than the day on which
            the case is called to be set for trial. RCW 4.12.050.


            In Washington a "Preemptory challenge" to a judge is known as
            an "Affidavit of Prejudice". Although the first case presented was
            overturned by the state supremes, I've included them both because
            they are informative. The third case also contains good info.

            ========

            "The only subject worthy of discussion in this case is the frontal
            assault by appellant Wilbur Lemon's attorney on former Pierce
            County Superior Court Local Rule 12, regulating the timing of
            affidavits of prejudice. «1» We uphold the rule.
            ----------------------
            «1» Lemon appeals a decree of dissolution, challenging the
            valuation and distribution of property and the award of attorneys
            fees and maintenance. Notwithstanding its division on the subject
            to be discussed, the panel unanimously agrees that all aspects of
            the decree were within the trial court's prerogatives, and that
            Lemon's challenges are without merit and require no discussion. We
            do, however, deny respondent's request for attorneys fees for want
            of a showing that appellant is able to pay. In re Marriage of
            Young, 44 Wn. App. 533, 538, 723 P.2d 12 (1986).
            ----------------------


            An administrative problem, not to mention substantial
            inconvenience to the lawyers and parties, is created if an
            affidavit of prejudice is submitted after a civil case is assigned
            a departmental trial date, because the assignment process must
            then start again, leaving a ole in the docket from which the case
            is removed and causing difficulty in obtaining a comparable date
            in a different department.
            To correct this problem, in 1982 the Pierce County Superior Court
            judges adopted LR 12, titled "Affidavits of Prejudice." The rule
            provides, in pertinent part:

            (a) GENERALLY

            Affidavits of prejudice will not be recognized unless: (1) Fully
            in conformity with RCW 4.12.040 and .050; (2) Presented before the
            judge in question has made any ruling involving discretion;

            (3) "Timely presented" as herein defined.

            (b)WHEN PRESENTED

            "Timely presented" means brought to the personal attention of
            the judge in question as soon as the presenting party has
            knowledge that the case has been assigned to that judge; . . .

            (c) WHEN ASSIGNED

            The parties and attorneys will be presumed to know of
            assignment to a judge:

            (1) In civil cases, when the case has been noted for the trial
            assignment docket and such docket has been posted by the clerk, in
            which event the affidavit shall be presented as soon as reasonably
            possible; if it is not reasonably possible to present the
            affidavit before the call of the assignment docket as so posted,
            it will be timely only if the presenting party (a) renotes the
            matter for the assignment docket to be called not later than the
            second consecutive assignment date following the aforementioned
            posting, and (b) presents the affiavit before the first call of
            the docket on such second date.

            {59 Wn. App. 568, 571}

            Lemon's attorney filed a note for the trial assignment
            docket of November 6, 1987, and the case was assigned in
            accordance with the usual Pierce County procedure. The attorney's
            partner attended the assignment proceedings; he did not object to
            the judge, and the judge reserved a trial date for the case on his
            docket.
            Lemon's attorney, who claims he was unable to attend the
            assignment docket because he was out of town, then chose to file
            an affidavit of prejudice against the assigned judge. Under former
            LR 12, the attorney could have renoted the case for an assignment
            docket as late as November 24. He did not, however, renote it for
            that or any other date. Rather, he presented the affidavit to the
            judge after November 24. The attorney did not attempt to show
            mitigating circumstances or otherwise try to excuse his
            delinquency. He asserted only that he had the right to file the
            affidavit before the judge made a discretionary ruling. «2» The
            attorney claimed in superior court, and he repeats the claim here,
            that the rule is void because he and his client have the
            unfettered right to file an affidavit at any time before the judge
            makes a discretionary ruling. He is incorrect.

            [1] There is no constitutional right to the removal of a judge;
            the right is created by statute. «3» In re McGee, 36 Wn.

            ========-----------
            other case to look up
            PUD 1 v. Walbrook Ins. Co., 115 Wn.2d 339, 349, 797 P.2d 504(1990)
          • tomjeff88
            Just a note of caution: 28 U.S.C. Judicial Code only applies to Fed judges. State statutes and rules apppy to state judges. In Pennsylvania, alledge bias and
            Message 5 of 17 , Jan 30, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Just a note of caution: 28 U.S.C. Judicial Code only applies to Fed
              judges. State statutes and rules apppy to state judges. In
              Pennsylvania, alledge bias and or predjudice is covered under 42PaCS
              and the Pa rules of court. Look up the specific sections.

              > I sued 4 judges & turned then over to the JUDICAL CONDUCT BOARD
              I asume what you really did was to file a complaint with the judicary
              board. I only had time to read two of the numerous federal cases you
              cited. Both were concerening fed judges, not state judges. Did you
              file the complaint against a federal judge with the Pa judicary board?
              Also, these four judges that you claim to have sued were they state or
              fed judges, and, did you use a state or fed venue to file these actions?
              And of course inquiring minds want to know the outcome of the suits
              you said you filed.

              TJ
            • Pro Se
              t Just a note of caution: 28 U.S.C. Judicial Code only applies to Fed judges. State statutes and rules appply to state judges. THEY SEEMS TO THINK NO
              Message 6 of 17 , Jan 30, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                t
                Just a note of caution: 28 U.S.C. Judicial Code only applies to Fed
                judges. State statutes and rules appply to state judges.
                THEY SEEMS TO THINK NO RULES APPLY HERE IN PA
                 
                 
                Pennsylvania, alledge bias and or prejudice is covered under 42PaCS
                and the Pa rules of court. Look up the specific sections.
                CORRECT - HOWEVER THEY WERE SUED IN FED. COURT
                FOR FEDERAL VIOLATIONS.

                > I sued 4 judges & turned then over to the JUDICAL CONDUCT BOARD
                I assume what you really did was to file a complaint with the judiciary
                board.
                NO - THAT WAS SEPARATE - THEY DO NOTHING, WHEN THE FOX GUARDS THE HEN HOUSE, EXPECT THE FOX TO PROTECT ITS REVENUE SCHEME.
                 
                I only had time to read two of the numerous federal cases you
                cited. Both were concerning fed judges, not state judges. Did you
                file the complaint against a federal judge with the Pa judiciary board?
                its the pa judical conduct board.
                 

                Also, these four judges that you claim to have sued were they state or
                fed judges, and, did you use a state or fed venue to file these actions?
                I'VE DONE BOTH - ALSO SUE THEIR INS. CO'S

                And of course inquiring minds want to know the outcome of the suits
                you said you filed.
                IF U KNOW SOMEONE WHO WON A LAWSUIT AGINST A JUDGE
                PLEASE SEND ME THE CASE!
                HOWEVER, IF U WANT TO KNOW THE NAMES OF SOME JUDGES WHO LOST THEIR BOND & RECUSED THEMSELVES & CAME RUNNING OUT OF THE COURTHOUSE TO TELL ME THEY WERE REMOVING THEMSELVES FOR MY CASE...WELL, I'D BE HAPPY TO GIVE U THE CASE # & THEIR NAME.
                 
                ANY TIME ONE FILES A LAWSUIT AGAINST A JUDGE OF STATE OFFICIAL
                THEY WILL CLAIM IMMUNITY
                & BRING UP THE ROCKER - FELDRINE DOCTRINE. WHICH OF COURSE IS NOT LAW...I ALWAYS SUE THEM IN THEIR INDV. & PERSONAL CAPACITIES

                GOOGLE ALLIANCE EOF JUSTICE & MARK FETZTKO - U WILL BE HOW SAM ALLITO RULED ON ONE OF MY CASES & ACTUALLY SHOWED WHERE THE LOCAL COURT WAS WRONG.



                Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

              • Pro Se
                this is a serious case, does not matter if its his 1st...or not! I d find a local lawyer who specializes in DUI cases [perhaps a former prosecutor] they ll
                Message 7 of 17 , Jan 30, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  this is a serious case, does not matter if its his 1st...or not!
                   
                  I'd find a local lawyer who specializes in DUI cases
                  [perhaps a former prosecutor] they'll know how to deal & plead
                  which is what most DUI CASES come down to here in PA,
                  your state may vary?

                  Steve <svanos2@...> wrote:
                  Hello,

                  My son got an undeserved DUI this past Thursday just outside his
                  military base. He had had 3 8oz cups of draft about 2 hours before, but
                  didn't want to take any chances and refused the BAC test. They arrested
                  him, didn't allow him to make a phone call, no Miranda rights (not
                  necessary I've learned in an implied consent situation).

                  An expert DUI attorney wants $4000 to represent him up to a trial. He
                  believe he can get the charges plea bargained down to a wreckless
                  driving or something, but my son will still probably have his license
                  suspended for 6 months to a year. This is his FIRST ticket of ANY kind
                  and he is 22.

                  My decision is if it is worth $4000 to keep a DUI off his record when
                  the practical aspect of the punishment for lesser offense will still hit
                  him with DL suspension? Any thoughts from anyone?

                  Thanks, Steve


                  Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

                • Tim Higby
                  Steve: I am going through the same thing with my 19 year old son. After much thought on the attorney thing, we decided to NOT spend $5-10K on some guy whose
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jan 30, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Steve:
                     I am going through the same thing with my 19 year old son. After
                    much thought on the attorney thing, we decided to NOT spend $5-10K on some guy whose
                    allegiance is to the court.In my estimation, 95% of these cases with attorneys, lose! Mel Gibson, Paris Hilton-THEY ALL GOT SLAMMED! Why use one?

                    In my sons case, we went to court and did NOT try to challenge
                    the evidence. He submitted to a breathalyzer on the scene and that's it.

                     What happened in court? My son got:
                      1 year suspension $1500
                      12 days of community service$90
                      8 days of DUI classes$370
                      8 AA meetings
                     Car insurance increase by 50% or $1200 per year

                       We parked his car, dropped the insurance and I bought him a nice
                    bicycle.

                      Bottom line for us was he needed to learn the hard way and feel
                    the hurt. Unfortunately, my whole family is sort of suffering from
                    it. I thanked the officer who arrested
                    him, as my son might have hurt someone else in the future or
                    himself.

                      
                    Tim


                    Steve <svanos2@...> wrote:
                    Hello,

                    My son got an undeserved DUI this past Thursday just outside his
                    military base. He had had 3 8oz cups of draft about 2 hours before, but
                    didn't want to take any chances and refused the BAC test. They arrested
                    him, didn't allow him to make a phone call, no Miranda rights (not
                    necessary I've learned in an implied consent situation).

                    An expert DUI attorney wants $4000 to represent him up to a trial. He
                    believe he can get the charges plea bargained down to a wreckless
                    driving or something, but my son will still probably have his license
                    suspended for 6 months to a year. This is his FIRST ticket of ANY kind
                    and he is 22.

                    My decision is if it is worth $4000 to keep a DUI off his record when
                    the practical aspect of the punishment for lesser offense will still hit
                    him with DL suspension? Any thoughts from anyone?

                    Thanks, Steve


                    Don't pick lemons.
                    See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.


                    Need Mail bonding?
                    Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.

                  • The Handyman
                    Tim & Steve, Your boy hasn t a chance in hell to win as he made every mistake in the book and is not committed to a legal principal/cause as we on this site
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jan 30, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Tim & Steve, Your boy hasn't a chance in hell to win as he made every
                      mistake in the book and is not committed to a legal principal/cause as we on
                      this site are. I personally will not help a drunk that simply want to use us
                      to get off and then disappear back into the slave world of deception. But if
                      you will check some back post on this site and apply some of the principals,
                      he will only be convicted but won't actually serve any time or pay any fine.
                      .... if he does what is necessary and the right way. But rest assurred he
                      will be convicted even though it is possible that he won't be punished.
                      Sometimes we must bite the bullet and study for next time and unless you
                      have tons of money, I'd bite the bullet.

                      Steve <svanos2@...> wrote:
                      Hello,

                      My son got an undeserved DUI this past Thursday just outside his
                      military base. He had had 3 8oz cups of draft about 2 hours before, but
                      didn't want to take any chances and refused the BAC test. They arrested
                      him, didn't allow him to make a phone call, no Miranda rights (not
                      necessary I've learned in an implied consent situation).

                      An expert DUI attorney wants $4000 to represent him up to a trial. He
                      believe he can get the charges plea bargained down to a wreckless
                      driving or something, but my son will still probably have his license
                      suspended for 6 months to a year. This is his FIRST ticket of ANY kind
                      and he is 22.

                      My decision is if it is worth $4000 to keep a DUI off his record when
                      the practical aspect of the punishment for lesser offense will still hit
                      him with DL suspension? Any thoughts from anyone?

                      Thanks, Steve
                    • Frog Farmer
                      ... Any party MAY shoot themselves in the foot, assisted by a twelve gauge shotgun loaded with snakeshot. But some (humans?) who may not DESIRE to
                      Message 10 of 17 , Jan 30, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        hobot [mailto:hobot@...] wrote:

                        > "Affidavit of Prejudice.
                        >
                        > Any party may establish prejudice by motion, supported by
                        > affidavit, that the judge before whom an action is pending is
                        > prejudiced.

                        "Any" party "MAY" shoot themselves in the foot, assisted by a twelve
                        gauge shotgun loaded with snakeshot. But "some" (humans?) who "may not"
                        DESIRE to BECOME a "party" will not want to act in ways that indicate no
                        objection to prior claims and exercises of jurisdiction. I think the
                        parties in cases like the one above are for people who have no problem
                        BEING in the court for the CASE they already admit exists, and in these
                        cases they just do not like the particular JUDGE. There are all types of
                        "parties". But not everyone is a party. One has to be MADE a party by
                        certain conditions being fulfilled. Enough said.

                        > In counties where there is but one resident judge, the
                        > motion and affidavit must be filed not later than the day on which
                        > the case is called to be set for trial. RCW 4.12.050.

                        And that is so far down the road in any real case, anyone conscious
                        should be aware of the judges who can possibly be assigned, and can not
                        only have time to personally qualify them all but then file the
                        statutory objection by the date required. Attorneys tend to accept all
                        the actors playing judge without doing any research into whether or not
                        the one assigned might be prejudiced against you in some way or in some
                        way have another conflict of interest, let alone be qualified to sit in
                        a robe above you on a dais.

                        > In Washington a "Preemptory challenge"

                        In California, it's "peremptory". For "preemptory" see George Bush's
                        plan for Iran.
                        http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/archives/2004_08.html#001608

                        > Affidavits of prejudice will not be recognized unless: (1) Fully
                        > in conformity with RCW 4.12.040 and .050; (2) Presented before the
                        > judge in question has made any ruling involving discretion;

                        In California, if you had a judge and didn't disqualify him before he
                        made a ruling, the ruling would stand, but then you could still prevent
                        him from going further. That's why I disqualify them all immediately,
                        before they can do ANYTHING.

                        Is it a ruling involving discretion to permit a prosecution on a fake
                        complaint with no real accuser in an attempt to extort revenues by RICO
                        accomplices?

                        > Lemon's attorney filed a note for the trial assignment
                        > docket of November 6, 1987, and the case was assigned in
                        > accordance with the usual Pierce County procedure. The attorney's
                        > partner attended the assignment proceedings; he did not object to
                        > the judge, and the judge reserved a trial date for the case on his
                        > docket.
                        > Lemon's attorney, who claims he was unable to attend the
                        > assignment docket because he was out of town, then chose to file
                        > an affidavit of prejudice against the assigned judge. Under former
                        > LR 12, the attorney could have renoted the case for an assignment
                        > docket as late as November 24. He did not, however, renote it for
                        > that or any other date. Rather, he presented the affidavit to the
                        > judge after November 24. The attorney did not attempt to show
                        > mitigating circumstances or otherwise try to excuse his
                        > delinquency. He asserted only that he had the right to file the
                        > affidavit before the judge made a discretionary ruling. <2> The
                        > attorney claimed in superior court, and he repeats the claim here,
                        > that the rule is void because he and his client have the
                        > unfettered right to file an affidavit at any time before the judge
                        > makes a discretionary ruling. He is incorrect.

                        Hiring an attorney, I was told, is a bad move if one wants to win their
                        case. Attorneys can not and will not try to defend all of your rights.
                        In California we'll never know because all we have here are shucksters
                        practicing law without a license or oath.

                        Regards,

                        FF
                      • Frog Farmer
                        ... Which is??? ... That s principles . Bear is one of the principals on this site. ... If I don t need a license, then I can drink. Driving is a
                        Message 11 of 17 , Jan 30, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          The Handyman [mailto:ebobie@...] wrote:
                          > Tim & Steve, Your boy hasn't a chance in hell to win as he made every
                          > mistake in the book and is not committed to a legal principal/cause as
                          > we on this site are.

                          Which is???

                          > But if
                          > you will check some back post on this site and apply some of the
                          > principals,

                          That's "principles". Bear is one of the principals on this site.

                          > he will only be convicted but won't actually serve any time or pay any
                          > fine.

                          If I don't need a license, then I can drink. "Driving" is a commercial
                          activity. Why does this kid need a license?

                          > Sometimes we must bite the bullet and study for next time and unless
                          > you have tons of money, I'd bite the bullet.

                          I agree - trying to learn enough between arrest and first appearance
                          only works with people like me, who took George Gordon's arraignment
                          class two days before going into court and was successful at sabotaging
                          arraignment long enough to take the rest of his lessons and win. It
                          took at least 8 hours total study time every day. And it took a fighting
                          attitude. For over three years I was in court almost every week with
                          one case or another, and every time I walked out, I went and studied
                          something that would make the next time even easier. It took a long
                          time to learn that the easiest win is made at the curbside.

                          There was this guy I knew who got his father off a DUI. He did it by
                          removing the case to federal court and then got them to dismiss it for
                          lack of jurisdiction. They didn't remand it back to the state. The
                          last time I saw this guy, he was thinking of charging people $5,000 each
                          to get their DUIs dismissed. It seems to me, whatever he came up with
                          is there for anyone else to whom it matters enough. I don't know all the
                          nitty-gritty of this case, but I do remember that he got as far in
                          California court as going for the Writ of Prohibition that comes after
                          the demurrer in the process of objecting to the complaint. And I think
                          it was before that process played out that he removed it to federal
                          court. It took things right out of the local's hands and they seemed to
                          forget about his father. If I knew how to contact them right now I'd
                          pass on the info, but my last attempts at contact were fruitless.

                          The point is, there's a way to win out there. One just has to find it.

                          Regards,

                          FF
                        • HaveUmistakenMe@aol.com
                          Steve, Although for all intents and purposes I agree with Tim as far as your son taking his lumps and learning from his experience. However, I disagree as for
                          Message 12 of 17 , Jan 30, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Steve, Although for all intents and purposes I agree with Tim as far as your son taking his
                            lumps and learning from his experience.

                            However, I disagree as for not getting an attorney, a DUI will stay with him, on his record if
                            you can afford an attorney I would say retain him/her but 4k sounds VERY STEEP shop
                            around.

                            Then make sure (at home) your son understands the reason you are doing this is not to get
                            him off the hook, but more so that one mistake won't ruin his name, then deal with the
                            incident privately however you see fit.

                            Louise

                            In a message dated 1/30/2007 3:00:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                            metalman92592@... writes: Steve: I am going through the same thing with my 19
                            year old son. After much thought on the attorney thing, we decided to NOT spend $5-10K on
                            some guy whose allegiance is to the court.In my estimation, 95% of these cases with
                            attorneys, lose! Mel Gibson, Paris Hilton-THEY ALL GOT SLAMMED! Why use one?

                            In my sons case, we went to court and did NOT try to challenge the evidence. He submitted
                            to a breathalyzer on the scene and that's it.

                            What happened in court? My son got: 1 year suspension $1500 12 days of community
                            service$90 8 days of DUI classes$370 8 AA meetings Car insurance increase by 50% or
                            $1200 per year

                            We parked his car, dropped the insurance and I bought him a nice bicycle.

                            Bottom line for us was he needed to learn the hard way and feel the hurt. Unfortunately, my
                            whole family is sort of suffering from it. I thanked the officer who arrested him, as my son
                            might have hurt someone else in the future or himself.

                            Tim

                            Steve <svanos2@...> wrote: Hello,
                          • Jim
                            Wow! That was harsh. Just enjoying a coupla cold ones while i field this one. ;) Anyway, here in New York it is an information which invokes the
                            Message 13 of 17 , Jan 30, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Wow! That was harsh. Just enjoying a coupla cold ones while i field
                              this one. ;) Anyway, here in New York it is an "information" which
                              invokes the jurisdiction of the local criminal court. Examples of
                              acccusatory instruments are given early in the Criminal Procedural
                              law and a quick overview makes you think that any one of them suffice
                              as a sufficient accusatory instrument, but they do not. In an
                              entirely different section of the CPL they tell you the rest of the
                              story...that an information includes a prosecutor's information and a
                              misdemeanor complaint, which they never have. So, regardless of the
                              alleged charge, the accusatory instrument, to be sufficient, must
                              have the three components: the simplified information AND misdemeanor
                              complaint AND a prosecutor's information. A traffic ticket (short
                              form) doesn't even meet the criteria for a simplified information.
                              The issue is jurisdiction and only jurisdiction. They don't have
                              it. If you go in there and plea to their insufficient accusatory
                              instrument and/or go in with an agent of the court/lawyer you cure
                              their defects and the sheep-shearing scissors clicks into high gear.
                              I'll bet the same magic act is going on in your state under different
                              code numbers/sections and maybe a bit different language.

                              --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "The Handyman" <ebobie@...>
                              wrote:
                              >
                              > Tim & Steve, Your boy hasn't a chance in hell to win as he made
                              every
                              > mistake in the book and is not committed to a legal principal/cause
                              as we on
                              > this site are. I personally will not help a drunk that simply want
                              to use us
                              > to get off and then disappear back into the slave world of
                              deception. But if
                              > you will check some back post on this site and apply some of the
                              principals,
                              > he will only be convicted but won't actually serve any time or pay
                              any fine.
                              > .... if he does what is necessary and the right way. But rest
                              assurred he
                            • Moisha Pippik
                              Is it worth fighting a DUI? Only if you feel you or your son was charged for a crime he didn t commit. Furthermore, if he did commit the crime, and you feel
                              Message 14 of 17 , Jan 30, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Is it worth fighting a DUI?  Only if you feel you or your son was charged for a crime he didn't commit.  Furthermore, if he did commit the crime, and you feel you or your son's rights were not protected. 
                                 
                                Was he driving?
                                Was he drunk?
                                Does the statute apply to him?
                                Do you know the nature and cause of the charge?
                                Who is bringing the charge?
                                Is the judge a judge?
                                Is the court a true court?
                                Is the charge against your son, or against his "built fiction"(all CAPS name)?
                                Was there an injured party?
                                Is there a competent fact witness?
                                Is there a verified complaint?
                                If there is a charge, does the charge fit the crime?
                                Is there any errors in the charging instrument?
                                Has there been any fraud involved with the charge?
                                Is the police officer licensed?
                                Was the police officer on duty?
                                Did the police officer have probable cause to stop him?
                                Was there an illegal arrest?
                                Was this crime created by the police?(Creation of crimes by the police is illegal)
                                Was he properly charged?
                                Did he get to see a magistrate, and did the magistrate allow him to explain what happened?
                                Did the magistrate send the information directly to the clerk, or was it mishandled and sent to the DA to hold?
                                Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction?
                                 
                                As you can see from above, there are so many different avenues one can use to proceed, as well as to ask oneself.  Is it worth it?  Depends on the individual man.  Is it worth it for the father to protect his good name?  Is it worth fighting for your rights?  Is it worth just letting the gov't do things illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, fraudulent?  Only you or your son are able to answer this.
                                 
                                You can find a tremendous amount of information on every question posed above.  It's all in the archives.  As one of my mentors has always asked, "which way do you want to go?"  Are you ready to challenge, or are you ready to be challenged?
                                 
                                Moisha


                                Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
                                in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel
                                to find your fit.

                              • The Handyman
                                All judges have the right to decide jurisdiction. To the best of my knowledge the constitution only allows a common law or admiralty criminal jurisdiction.
                                Message 15 of 17 , Jan 30, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  All judges have the right to decide jurisdiction. To the best of my
                                  knowledge the constitution only allows a common law or admiralty criminal
                                  jurisdiction. There must be an injured party or property damage for common
                                  law jurisdiction to attach. There must be an international contract in
                                  dispute for admiralty jurisdiction to attach. Since the drivers license is
                                  not a contract the Bill of Information filed by all prosecutors cannot be in
                                  admiralty....and it cannot be in common law because there is no injured
                                  party or property damage. So what is it? It must be a color of law
                                  jurisdiction outside the constitution. It could be an administrative
                                  jurisdiction but then the judge is guilty of the separation of powers
                                  doctrine because he adjudicates administrative (legislative or executive
                                  power) and also adjudicates common law or admiralty causes which is judicial
                                  power. The same applies to the prosecutor as most of them are in the
                                  JUDICIAL branch. Check your state constitution. You cannot be prosecuted by
                                  the judicial branch and adjudicated by the judicial branch. Then it could
                                  be a secret jurisdiction known only to BAR members. If you attempt to enter
                                  a guilty plea the judge must identify the jurisdiction. You must ask the
                                  judge what jurisdiction he is applying and you will be blessed to get any
                                  answer but he may simply say: criminal which is not being informed of the
                                  nature and cause of the accusation against you. What rules apply for your
                                  defense? Since all crimes are codified by statute it must be a statutory
                                  criminal offense but there are no criminal statutory rules that meet
                                  constitutional muster. Then your question is: where in the constitution is
                                  a statutory criminal jurisdiction permitted? Not everyone can argue
                                  jurisdiction and the judge will cut you off and assist the prosecutor but if
                                  you hang tight and demand that the jurisdiction be identified you have a
                                  chance. Remember jurisdiction is an element of all crime. You can attack
                                  the instrument but I'd rather force the court to identify a jurisdiction
                                  that is constitutionally valid. No matter what the judge says the
                                  jurisdiction is do not proceed. Demand proof and disqualify the judge for
                                  invalid oath, constitutionally invalid appointment and exercising executive
                                  and judicial power at the same time while in office.

                                  -------Original Message-------

                                  From: Jim
                                  Date: 1/30/2007 8:56:24 PM
                                  To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Is it worth fighting a DUI? You don't have a
                                  DUI!
                                • Frog Farmer
                                  ... Same as in California. Their codes will tell you that you are waiving rights if you read them, but hardly anyone ever does. Jail is a way to deal with
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Jan 31, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Jim [mailto:jimveda37@...] wrote:

                                    > The issue is jurisdiction and only jurisdiction. They don't have
                                    > it. If you go in there and plea to their insufficient accusatory
                                    > instrument and/or go in with an agent of the court/lawyer you cure
                                    > their defects and the sheep-shearing scissors clicks into high gear.
                                    > I'll bet the same magic act is going on in your state under different
                                    > code numbers/sections and maybe a bit different language.

                                    Same as in California. Their codes will tell you that you are waiving
                                    rights if you read them, but hardly anyone ever does. Jail is a way to
                                    deal with people who are irresponsible enough to assist in their own
                                    prosecutions, and fines are for people who know nothing about money.

                                    Regards,

                                    FF
                                  • Jim
                                    ... All judges have the right to decide jurisdiction. All judges have the right to decide jurisdiction, IF jurisdiction is in question and IF an action has
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Jan 31, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "The Handyman" <ebobie@...>
                                      > wrote:

                                      "All judges have the right to decide jurisdiction."

                                      All judges have the right to decide jurisdiction, IF
                                      jurisdiction is in question and IF an action has been commenced.
                                      But the jurisdiction of a court must be invoked by a sufficient
                                      accusatory instrument according to law or an action has NOT been
                                      commenced. What standing does a judge have in an action that has
                                      not been commenced? He's got all the status and standing of the
                                      barren woman's son. So much for his authority to "determine"
                                      jurisdiction. The judge wants to determine jurisdiction? Hey, I
                                      didn't ask.
                                      The law tells us what is a sufficient accusatory instrument.
                                      Either those elements are in the record of the court or they are
                                      not. It's black or white. If those elements are not in the
                                      record,the jurisdiction of the court has not been invoked, the court
                                      is powerless to issue ANY lawful process (summons or warrant) and any
                                      alleged order of a court acting absent jurisdiction is void ab
                                      initio.
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.