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

on trial for no charges

Expand Messages
  • one
    Suppose in a case of arrest without a warrant that the charging document has no signature where the judge is supposed to sign to certify probable cause.
    Message 1 of 14 , May 4, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Suppose in a case of arrest without a warrant that the charging document
      has no signature where the judge is supposed to sign to certify probable
      cause.

      Suppose a person has plead, hired a lawyer, begun discovery, and has a
      trial day set, after an enlargement of time from a previous date.

      Is it possible to take matters back to arraignment ?

      And how would you do it ?
    • Frog Farmer
      ... That would mean the crime would have had to have taken place in the presence of the arresting officer. ... Here in California, the charging document is
      Message 2 of 14 , May 4, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        one [mailto:jm367@...] wrote:

        > Suppose in a case of arrest without a warrant

        That would mean the crime would have had to have taken place in the
        presence of the arresting officer.

        > that the charging document
        > has no signature where the judge is supposed to sign to certify
        > probable cause.

        Here in California, the "charging document" is called "the accusatory
        pleading" and is either a "formal complaint" or whatever the defendant
        permits. Here are the weasel words for them getting around a complaint
        with the Sucker's consent:
        (a) Whenever written notice to appear has been prepared, delivered, and
        filed by an officer or the prosecuting attorney with the court pursuant
        to the provisions of Section 853.6 of this code, an exact and legible
        duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate, in lieu of
        a verified complaint, shall constitute a complaint to which the
        defendant may plead "guilty" or "nolo contendere."

        If, however, the defendant violates his or her promise to appear in
        court, or does not deposit lawful bail, or pleads other than "guilty" or
        "nolo contendere" to the offense charged, a complaint shall be filed
        which shall conform to the provisions of this code and which shall be
        deemed to be an original complaint; and thereafter proceedings shall be
        had as provided by law, except that a defendant may, by an agreement in
        writing, subscribed by him or her and filed with the court, waive the
        filing of a verified complaint and elect that the prosecution may
        proceed upon a written notice to appear.

        (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (a) of this section,
        whenever the written notice to appear has been prepared on a form
        approved by the Judicial Council, an exact and legible duplicate copy of
        the notice when filed with the magistrate shall constitute a complaint
        to which the defendant may enter a plea and, if the notice to appear is
        verified, upon which a warrant may be issued. If the notice to appear is
        not verified, the defendant may, at the time of arraignment, request
        that a verified complaint be filed.

        > Suppose a person has plead

        Then it is too late.

        > hired a lawyer

        Hired doesn't matter. Did the lawyer appear for the defendant, or not?

        > begun discovery, and has a
        > trial day set, after an enlargement of time from a previous date.

        Called a "continuance" here, it waives the jurisdiction issue.

        > Is it possible to take matters back to arraignment ?

        I don't see how. The time to take things back to arraignment are when
        they have failed to conduct an arraignment, and before a plea has been
        entered by the defendant. If they try to railroad you by "entering a
        plea or you" you have to withdraw the plea by paperwork and verbally
        refrain from proceeding forward. They can enter a plea for you if they
        can trick you into "refusing to plead". Your trick is not to refuse to
        plead, but to say you are waiting to be arraigned according to law and
        then you will plead when they have performed as required by law. You
        can help them out by pointing out their failures, and asking them to
        perform as required, as you require. To be able to do this of course
        requires that you have read the law first.

        > And how would you do it ?

        If I am presented with a fake arraignment (anything less than the law
        requires) I verbally require the missing elements, and I do not pretend
        that an arraignment has taken place if one has not. Most people will
        waive it and pretend and go out thinking they have a trial date set. If
        my words are ignored, I do not give evidence of consent by saying I
        understand, or "yes" or anything. And when I come back on the next
        date, and they ask, "is everyone ready?" I say, "No! I have not been
        properly arraigned yet, despite my objections at the time, and I refuse
        to move forward on a fraud." If they had entered a "not guilty" plea
        for me earlier, I would have already filed the paper withdrawing it. I
        would have done that the day they "entered" it. The iodea is to know
        what requirements you will hold them to, watch to se eif they do the
        right thing, and call them on it when they do not. I never go to court
        hoping to get approval or agreement from those attempting to live at my
        expense. I try to make their lives miserable, if only by embarrassing
        them in front of the sheeple. I despise them and act accordingly. I
        know they are liars and can be depended upon to lie. I don;'t go aliong
        with their lies.

        Everybody in jail in California has cooperated in their own prosecution
        out of sheer ignorance induced by public education. There's no other
        way to explain it. If anyone reads the rules (that one who reads even
        further can then invalidate whenever necessary) one can see numerous
        ways to throw a wrench into a prosecution in California (and probably
        elsewhere, but I'm not interested in elsewhere right now). The real
        state of affairs is that it is a media circus where appearances for the
        5 o'clock news count more than reality. The FAKE rulezzzzz!

        But the fake doesn't cut it on the record where law prevails. At least
        so far. The criminals may start killing us who point out that they
        aren't following any laws. I make myself hard to shoot.

        Regards,

        FF
      • tthor.geo
        The technique I have heard of [a couple times] which seems to majorly upset the apple cart is a Notice of Withdrawal of Plea. Being of sound mind [and being
        Message 3 of 14 , May 4, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          The technique I have heard of [a couple times] which seems to
          majorly 'upset the apple cart' is a Notice of Withdrawal of Plea.

          "Being of sound mind [and being fairly sure I have been bamboozled],
          I withdraw my plea of "Not Guilty" as entered by the 'judge' [name]
          over my Objection [you DID Object, didn't you?] on [such-and-such
          date]. I know that I had not retained [name] as my counsel on or
          prior-to [such-and-such date] and I refuse to ratify
          [/accept/approve] his action in entering a plea on my behalf 'in the
          interest of justice'.

          "{*Jurat* and Signature}"

          [No, I don't know if it will work and I have never used this
          particular form, but the principle seems sound to me.]

          one <jm367@...> wrote:
          >
          > Suppose in a case of arrest without a warrant that the charging
          document
          > has no signature where the judge is supposed to sign to certify
          probable
          > cause.
          >
          > Suppose a person has plead, hired a lawyer, begun discovery, and
          has a
          > trial day set, after an enlargement of time from a previous date.
          >
          > Is it possible to take matters back to arraignment ?
          >
          > And how would you do it ?
        • goldilucks
          Certification of the charges are to come from the complaining party or a first hand fact witness to the event. A judge can t do that and the prosecutor can t
          Message 4 of 14 , May 4, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Certification of the charges are to come from the complaining party or
            a first hand fact witness to the event. A judge can't do that and the
            prosecutor can't do that.

            So, if this is what has happened...then do a subpoena duces tecum to
            the clerk of court and ask her to bring the record of this case to
            court and then ask her to provide proof that the charges were read and
            certified onto the record.

            Then when she says it isn't on the record, you should be able to move
            for dismissal based on no certified charges being read onto the record,
            which has the effect of there being no charges. If it ain't in writing
            on the record and there is not at least one credible witness willing to
            testify that is not an attorney or a black robe, they do not have a
            case. Jurisdiction to hear the case has not been established..
          • Frog Farmer
            How about adding why you didn t refuse to plead because there was no proper arraignment at which to enter a plea, and if there had been you would have asked
            Message 5 of 14 , May 4, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              How about adding why you didn't "refuse to plead" because there was no
              proper arraignment at which to enter a plea, and if there had been you
              would have asked for the statutory time to plead after consulting with
              your counsel which you were denied?

              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: tthor.geo [mailto:tthor.geo@...]
              > Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 1:06 PM
              > To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: on trial for no charges
              >
              > The technique I have heard of [a couple times] which seems to
              > majorly 'upset the apple cart' is a Notice of Withdrawal of Plea.
              >
              > "Being of sound mind [and being fairly sure I have been bamboozled],
              > I withdraw my plea of "Not Guilty" as entered by the 'judge' [name]
              > over my Objection [you DID Object, didn't you?] on [such-and-such
              > date]. I know that I had not retained [name] as my counsel on or
              > prior-to [such-and-such date] and I refuse to ratify
              > [/accept/approve] his action in entering a plea on my behalf 'in the
              > interest of justice'.
              >
              > "{*Jurat* and Signature}"
              >
              > [No, I don't know if it will work and I have never used this
              > particular form, but the principle seems sound to me.]

              I have used "withdrawal of plea" with great success, and like even
              better the idea of "Notice of..." along the lines of Bear's notice that
              doesn't grant jurisdiction. Whether or not jurisdiction has been
              granted by some other prior means would govern which form, although
              Bear's seems "all purpose" as a form, not the same WORDS he used, but
              the FORM of the notice in that it denies jurisdiction yet informs
              everybody of REALITY.

              Regards,

              FF
            • one
              The arresting officer stated his complaint and the clerk of court approved it as to form. The arresting officers were engaged in undercover duty and were in
              Message 6 of 14 , May 4, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                The arresting officer stated his complaint and the clerk of court
                approved it as to form.

                The arresting officers were engaged in undercover duty and were in
                street clothes. They were prowling the neighborhood when the arrestee
                called 911, they responded. In about 30 seconds thereafter the
                complainant was the arrestee, with the cops inflicting all the damage.

                I cannot find where the word "undercover" is in statute. So, where is
                the authority for an undercover officer to make an arrest without a
                warrant ?
              • Frog Farmer
                ... In other words, the guy spoke out loud, and a clerk said, that s good enough ? Didn t it get reduced to writing so a record could be made? Did anyone get
                Message 7 of 14 , May 4, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  one [mailto:jm367@...] wrote:

                  > The arresting officer stated his complaint and the clerk of court
                  > approved it as to form.

                  In other words, the guy spoke out loud, and a clerk said, "that's good
                  enough"? Didn't it get reduced to writing so a record could be made?
                  Did anyone get arrested for the commotion this might have caused if
                  anyone cared in the moment to challenge it?

                  > The arresting officers were engaged in undercover duty and were in
                  > street clothes. They were prowling the neighborhood when the arrestee
                  > called 911, they responded.

                  911 is a trap. Calling it subjects you to an arrest because it's a
                  crime to make a false emergency call, and whether or not it's an
                  emergency has to be proven on the record. Remember, a warrantless arrest
                  is for a crime witnessed by the officer. Obviously, the "arrestee"
                  didn't prove that a real emergency existed well enough. He failed to
                  make good record for his upcoming false 911 call prosecution. If I call
                  police I always call the administrative office, and not 911. I've seen
                  too many 911 callers arrested and charged, and many are guilty. They've
                  run TV specials on stupid 911 calls people have made. Calling 911 is a
                  bad bet, in any case. Best to have the 7-digit number taped on the
                  phones and call it instead. Then you can be wrong and not arrested.

                  > In about 30 seconds thereafter the
                  > complainant was the arrestee, with the cops inflicting all the damage.

                  First impressions suck, huh?! I tell you, those 911 calls get you cops
                  ready to make an arrest, and anyone is fair game in their minds then.

                  > I cannot find where the word "undercover" is in statute. So, where is
                  > the authority for an undercover officer to make an arrest without a
                  > warrant ?

                  Anybody can make an arrest without a warrant, even me, even you. It's
                  the follow through that counts.

                  Regards,

                  FF
                • one
                  Unless I m mistaken, only a Peace Officer can make an arrest for a misdemeanor without a warrant. If the statute does not say undercover Peace Officer ,
                  Message 8 of 14 , May 4, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Unless I'm mistaken, only a "Peace Officer" can make an arrest for a
                    misdemeanor without a warrant. If the statute does not say "undercover
                    Peace Officer", where is the authority ?

                    The complaint was stated in writing on the form and approved by the
                    clerk.
                    There's just no judge's signature where there's a place for it.

                    There is no false 911 call charge. The charge is assault, aggravated by
                    being against a peace officer, and, naturally, the old stand by,
                    resisting arrest.

                    The conduct causing reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery was,
                    violent speech, "bladed stance", pointing finger in cop's face, and
                    clenching fist. The police version of details varies wholly from the
                    arrestee's and his wife and daughter.
                    The arrestee was arrested from behind as he was retreating to his house
                    to summon his brother. His wife and daughter encountered the city's
                    finest undercovers first. They declined to say who they were or why
                    they were there. Yes, they arrived ready to bring in a captive.
                  • ScrewieLo@AOL.com
                    check under citizens arrest in NY it is under see attached , any one can make an arrest ************************************** See what s free at
                    Message 9 of 14 , May 4, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      check under citizens arrest in NY it is under see attached , any one can make an arrest




                      See what's free at AOL.com.
                    • tthor.geo
                      In California, anyone can make a Citizen s Arrest [837 Pen. Cd.] for any crime committed or attempted in one s presence [presence [from case-law] is: as far as
                      Message 10 of 14 , May 5, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In California, anyone can make a Citizen's Arrest [837 Pen. Cd.] for
                        any crime committed or attempted in one's presence [presence [from
                        case-law] is: as far as one can see, hear, feel, taste, or smell, with
                        or without mechanical assistance, so long as one is in a place that
                        one has a right to be.] Your state's laws/Codes may vary.

                        The issue of 'Peace Officers' out-of-uniform would require much
                        investigation. [One way to deal with the situation would be to arrest
                        them, one and all, for the 'crime' of 'attempted impersonation of a
                        peace officer' in your presence and let the 'judge' deal with it [ ;-
                        ))) .]

                        one <jm367@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Unless I'm mistaken, only a "Peace Officer" can make an arrest for a
                        > misdemeanor without a warrant. If the statute does not
                        say "undercover Peace Officer", where is the authority ?
                      • Keith Moore
                        Place all those doc s (certifed) back onto the case docket/jacket and ask the court/judge/opposing attonery IF, the documents that, were certifed and filed
                        Message 11 of 14 , May 6, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Place all those doc's (certifed) back onto the case docket/jacket and ask the court/judge/opposing attonery IF, the documents that, were certifed and filed into the case jacket are "true and correct". I helped a guy from florida that, had a problem with a traffic case. The tickets are "pre-stamped" by the judge and the guy was straight up with him:
                           
                           "Do you sign your signature this way?" And the judge gave him a straight anwser: "No. That is a 'registered label stamp' that, is stamped by this court,filed with the clerk, and issue to accredited officer's, peace officer's, priavte attonerys, and however administrate's the law for this court of jurisdiction".
                           
                          You may not get a straight anwser but, if you have to appeal the sentence/case the lower courts will reverse the sentence when the appeal is heard and a "opinion" is issued and handed back to the lower court to "administrate" and "amend" their decision.
                           
                          Regards,
                          Phil
                          Without Recourse

                          Suppose in a case of arrest without a warrant that the charging document
                          has no signature where the judge is supposed to sign to certify probable
                          cause.

                          Suppose a person has plead, hired a lawyer, begun discovery, and has a
                          trial day set, after an enlargement of time from a previous date.

                          Is it possible to take matters back to arraignment ?

                          And how would you do it ?



                          Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
                          Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.

                        • goldilucks
                          Keith Moore wrote: Do you sign your signature this way? And the judge gave him a straight anwser: No. That is a registered label stamp that, is stamped by
                          Message 12 of 14 , May 7, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Keith Moore wrote: "Do you sign your signature this way?" And the judge
                            gave him a straight anwser: "No. That is a 'registered label stamp'
                            that, is stamped by this court,filed with the clerk, and issue to
                            accredited officer's, peace officer's, priavte attonerys, and however
                            administrate's the law for this court of jurisdiction".
                            _______

                            Registered label stamp??? That kinda sounds like their backwards and
                            upside down version of a seal enabling them to commercialize and create
                            a negotiable instrument.
                          • one
                            ... With respect, in these circumstances, if the accused, now on paper appearing as defendant, withdrew his plea and entered a plea of guilty , the court
                            Message 13 of 14 , May 14, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 12:43 -0700, Frog Farmer wrote:
                              > one [mailto:jm367@...] wrote:
                              > > Suppose in a case of arrest without a warrant
                              > > that the charging document has no signature where the judge is >
                              > supposed to sign to certify probable cause.
                              > > Suppose a person has plead
                              >
                              > Then it is too late.
                              >
                              > > hired a lawyer
                              >
                              > Hired doesn't matter. Did the lawyer appear for the defendant, or not?
                              >
                              > > begun discovery, and has a trial day set, after a continuance.
                              >
                              > > Is it possible to take matters back to arraignment ?
                              >
                              > I don't see how. The time to take things back to arraignment are when
                              > they have failed to conduct an arraignment, and before a plea has been
                              > entered by the defendant.
                              --------------------------------
                              With respect, in these circumstances, if the accused, now on paper
                              appearing as defendant, withdrew his plea and entered a plea of
                              "guilty", the court would allow it, wouldn't it ?

                              Isn't this what happens with every plea bargain ?

                              I have attached a habeas corpus which explains how every arrestee is
                              being deprived of due process of law (and why and the motives) and is
                              appearing for arraignment in exactly the circumstances described above.
                              It's from Texas, but I know it's the same in Illinois and I'm fairly
                              certain it's the same in every State. I think after entering a
                              withdrawal of plea, the accused must demand, not a new arraignment, but
                              the probable cause hearing and examination which due process from
                              Blackstone (which is expressed in the statutes or code of the State now)
                              requires.
                            • Frog Farmer
                              ... The answer to this question will decide what the judge does. If the defendant was represented by an attorney, they will not let him file paper alone.
                              Message 14 of 14 , May 16, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                one [mailto:jm367@...] wrote:

                                > On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 12:43 -0700, Frog Farmer wrote:
                                > > one [mailto:jm367@...] wrote:
                                > > > Suppose in a case of arrest without a warrant
                                > > > that the charging document has no signature where the judge is >
                                > > supposed to sign to certify probable cause.
                                > > > Suppose a person has plead
                                > >
                                > > Then it is too late.
                                > >
                                > > > hired a lawyer
                                > >
                                > > Hired doesn't matter. Did the lawyer appear for the defendant, or
                                > not?

                                The answer to this question will decide what the "judge" does. If the
                                defendant was represented by an attorney, they will not let him file
                                paper alone.

                                > > > begun discovery, and has a trial day set, after a continuance.
                                > >
                                > > > Is it possible to take matters back to arraignment ?
                                > >
                                > > I don't see how. The time to take things back to arraignment are
                                > when
                                > > they have failed to conduct an arraignment, and before a plea has
                                > been
                                > > entered by the defendant.
                                > --------------------------------
                                > With respect, in these circumstances, if the accused, now on paper
                                > appearing as defendant, withdrew his plea and entered a plea of
                                > "guilty", the court would allow it, wouldn't it ?

                                I don't think so if an attorney is on the record.

                                > Isn't this what happens with every plea bargain ?

                                It depends upon who wants the plea change, doesn't it? I agree with you
                                about what "should" occur, but what will occur, in the situation you
                                speak of, is hard to say. What person waives proper arraignment, asks
                                for a continuance, hires a lawyer, and then tries to withdraw the plea?

                                > I have attached a habeas corpus which explains how every arrestee is
                                > being deprived of due process of law (and why and the motives) and is
                                > appearing for arraignment in exactly the circumstances described
                                > above.
                                > It's from Texas, but I know it's the same in Illinois and I'm fairly
                                > certain it's the same in every State. I think after entering a
                                > withdrawal of plea, the accused must demand, not a new arraignment,
                                > but
                                > the probable cause hearing and examination which due process from
                                > Blackstone (which is expressed in the statutes or code of the State
                                > now) requires.

                                Yes, but they should have thought of these things earlier. It may be
                                hard to explain one's constant shifting of positions regarding one's
                                actions: a waiver, then a demand for what was waived, then another
                                waiver, and then another demand for the same waived right. But I'm all
                                for it, trying anything to take it back. There is no script to follow
                                in uncharted waters.

                                I read the Writ of Habeas Corpus and it is good. I don't know how I'd
                                get anyone to be able to rewrite it for me in California if I were in
                                custody. It is full of spelling, punctuation, grammar, and cut and
                                paste errors. The person who typed it originally might have dyslexia.
                                It needs complete page by page error correction.

                                Other than that, I like it. It does provide an excellent example of why
                                rights have to be demanded timely to avoid the necessity of recovering
                                from simple errors later.

                                Regards,

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