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

RE: Rites versus Rights

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    ... You never got handed a real complaint charging you with anything, did you? You never demanded one, did you? How can you say you were charged with
    Message 1 of 4 , May 1, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      > So WASSUP DUDES..what you got on me?? VC 2800??? This
      > looks like unlawfull conversion by trover and a bunch of other stuff
      > to me..... going tomorrow for the police report......we'll see about
      > all this yes we will.....

      You never got handed a real complaint charging you with anything, did
      you? You never demanded one, did you? How can you say you were
      "charged with VC2800"? You are choosing to do all their work for them,
      by being in such a damned hurry. How can you say you are willing to
      take it all back to arraignment, and in the same breath say you were
      "charged"? Have you read PC988 yet? Have you read what is necessary to
      disqualify your judge? You are spending time on stuff that doesn't even
      come up yet. And you are wasting time left for doing the first things
      that come first. You need to learn the order of things, and that is
      done by reading them and taking note of the order in which they occur.
      You cannot challenge corporate existence and in the same breath say that
      "it" or "they" are doing ANYTHING to you! Do you see the logic there?

      Regards,

      FF
    • Frog Farmer
      ... So you either believe it and you say you do, or you don t and you correct it. You said you were charged with VC2800. I guess that means you believe it.
      Message 2 of 4 , May 1, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        > > How can you say you were
        > > "charged with VC2800"? <<<<IT says it on the docket sheet I got
        > from
        > > the court clerk>>>>>

        So you either believe it and you say you do, or you don't and you
        correct it. You said you were charged with VC2800. I guess that means
        you believe it.


        > You are choosing to do all their work for them,
        > > by being in such a damned hurry. How can you say you are willing to
        > > take it all back to arraignment, and in the same breath say you were
        > > "charged"? <<<<NOT clear on all that >>>>>

        No kidding! You are not "charged" until there are "charges" meaning
        either a complaint (this word has a meaning) or whatever you PERMIT to
        be "used as a complaint" (in your case, a docket sheet?)

        Have you read PC988 yet?
        > > <<<NO but I will google it next>>>.

        You will see what you should have demanded.

        > Have you read what is necessary
        > > to
        > > disqualify your judge? <<<<NO where do I find it???>>>>

        Now I know you aren't reading the list messages. We went through this
        whole process. CALIFORNIA CODES, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
        SECTION 170-170.9

        > > <<<< That is why I am denying the corporate existance so I can deal
        > > with them as Indivduals....

        "Them as individuals" come later. Right now your problem is the record
        shows things that are not true (you were arraigned and plead "not
        guilty") and you are not correcting them. You also had best deal with
        the judge and prosecutor, and anyone else you don't like, before they
        can act against you even further. I told you before your arrest (via
        list messages) to disqualify people BEFORE they could act officially.
        But you didn't want to do that with your judge, so he says he arraigned
        you and set you for trial. You should know that he didn't arraign you,
        because you should have read PC988 when I told all about it on the list.

        I know, you're learning. It may have to be the hard way no matter what
        I say. It think you're losing time. You really have enough work by
        bailing out to keep you busy all day through the whole thing. If you
        had pressed for your pre-trial hearings they just might have kicked you
        out of jail and you'd have no homework to do. You had best be ready to
        disqualify any judge they bring against you, and prosecutors too.

        Regards,

        FF
      • seafish
        I noticed on copy of the Infraction Notice that my son gave me that the City of Seattle (Washington) gave him had WASHINGTON UNIFORM COURT DOCKET - DEFENDANT
        Message 3 of 4 , May 2, 2007
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          I noticed on copy of the Infraction Notice that my son gave me that the
          City of Seattle (Washington) gave him had "WASHINGTON UNIFORM
          COURT DOCKET - DEFENDANT COPY" at the bottom.  I know this
          document is not a complaint nor is it a summons, because it is missing
          the required elements of either a complaint or of a summons as required
          under the court rules. 

          In Washington, RCW 4.28.020 shows how a court acquires jurisdiction:

          "From the time of commencement of the action by service of summons, or
          by the filing of a complaint
          , or as otherwise provided, the court is deemed to
          have acquired jurisdiction and to have control of all subsequent proceedings"
          [1984 c 76 § 2; 1895 c 86 § 4l 1893 c 127 § 15; RRS § 238.]

          Didn't know that kidnapping was a valid method for the court to acquire jurisdiction.
          Maybe that fits under "as otherwise provided" category.

          I am reading the codes and regulations as to how a "uniform court docket" creates
          an action that fits into the "as otherwise provided" category. 

          Can you give me a hint on what to look for?
          SeaFish

          Frog Farmer wrote:



          > You are choosing to do all their work for them,
          > > by being in such a damned hurry. How can you say you are willing to
          > > take it all back to arraignment, and in the same breath say you were
          > > "charged"? <<<<NOT clear on all that >>>>>

          No kidding! You are not "charged" until there are "charges" meaning
          either a complaint (this word has a meaning) or whatever you PERMIT to
          be "used as a complaint" (in your case, a docket sheet?)



        • Frog Farmer
          ... Infractions are usually a waiver of due process rights necessary to convict on less than a felony. In return for expedience and convenience, rights are
          Message 4 of 4 , May 3, 2007
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            seafish [mailto:1seafish@...] wrote:

            > I noticed on copy of the Infraction Notice that my son gave me that

            "Infractions" are usually a waiver of due process rights necessary to
            convict on less than a felony. In return for expedience and
            convenience, rights are waived by the defendant, usually starting with
            the defendant helping and cooperating in the preparation of an
            "accusatory pleading" "less than a complaint" paperwork that will be
            used "in lieu of a complaint". Consent is evident to witnesses, usually
            by a signature of the person waiving the rights to a real criminal
            prosecution with all due process elements. The alternative is for the
            person who wants their rights to demand them by demanding to immediately
            see a magistrate, no matter what the time or place. He then has to know
            where to go from there.

            > the
            > City of Seattle (Washington) gave him had "WASHINGTON UNIFORM
            > COURT DOCKET - DEFENDANT COPY" at the bottom. I know this
            > document is not a complaint nor is it a summons, because it is missing
            > the required elements of either a complaint or of a summons as
            > required
            > under the court rules.

            This failure to meet the rules should have been met with a refusal to
            accept it, not an outstretched hand and silence or a nod of agreement.
            Doesn't it provide for a promise?

            > In Washington, RCW 4.28.020 shows how a court acquires jurisdiction:
            >
            > "From the time of commencement of the action by service of summons, or
            > by the filing of a complaint, or as otherwise provided, the court is
            > deemed to
            > have acquired jurisdiction and to have control of all subsequent
            > proceedings"
            > [1984 c 76 � 2; 1895 c 86 � 4l 1893 c 127 � 15; RRS � 238.]
            >
            > Didn't know that kidnapping was a valid method for the court to
            > acquire jurisdiction.
            > Maybe that fits under "as otherwise provided" category.

            It does. Did you report a kidnapping to the FBI? Did you get a ransom
            note?

            > I am reading the codes and regulations as to how a "uniform court
            > docket" creates
            > an action that fits into the "as otherwise provided" category.
            >
            > Can you give me a hint on what to look for?

            Yes, look for voluntary acts of submission and avoid making them. I'm
            not in Washington and am not going to spend any time looking up
            Washington law for free (I've had an extremely bad day and now have a
            significantly wounded right hand), but here in California they achieve
            the same result with what the people have been trained to call "tickets"
            (there's no "tickets" in any laws). The real name of these "traffic
            tickets" is "Notice to Appear" and it secures a promise to appear on a
            date set certain for arraignment. By waiving rights to due process,
            jail time is put out of the picture. Most people make the trade-off and
            discover later that waiving rights is never a good idea.

            Regards,

            FF
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.