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

Pre-trial considerations

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    ... You assumed there were charges, there most likely were not. You didn t receive, or demand, any evidence of them when you were told you were being
    Message 1 of 1 , May 14, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      > >>> The first thing out of my mouth was my name and
      > I
      > demand all of my rights at all times and waive none of my rights at
      > any
      > time I dont understand what the charges are and I demand dismissal for
      > lack of due process...

      You assumed there were charges, there most likely were not. You didn't
      receive, or demand, any evidence of them when you were told you were
      being arraigned. You never required the elements of an arraignment per
      PC988. I'll bet you still don't know what they are today. I sent you
      the best link to the code.

      > >> and so I am preparing to work it their
      > >> way because if I dont do your way right I have to have something
      > as plan B...

      No, my way fits right in with their way, like breaking open the eggs for
      breakfast comes before frying them. Except they have you pretending
      that you have an egg to crack, and you play along, meaning you made no
      demand for a formal verified complaint. You made no demand for counsel.
      You failed to attempt any disqualification. You failed to issue
      subpoenas. You bailed out. Jurisdiction is no longer an issue, as GG
      agrees, but that still doesn't mean you bend over and waive one right
      after another. Arraignment is STILL an ISSUE. As is COUNSEL. As is
      ARRAIGNMENT according to PC 988, and if they tell you you had it, aren't
      you smart enough to prove you haven't? Can you recognize that you
      haven't? Do you know which part is missing? Can't you ask about that
      part, where the record shows something about it, like, the list of
      witnesses you failed to require of them?

      > > My way is to not let them brainwash you.
      > > <<<< they didnt brainwash me they handcuffed me and put me in
      > > jail, and if I dont learn how to handle them

      You have a problem because of your need to refer to "them" when you mean
      totally different and separate parties. The "cops" are not your
      adversary now. You better concentrate on who is.

      > > in a way that the guys
      > > with guns will pay attention to they may do it again and no I havent
      > > lost in my own mind

      Your mind is lost thinking about cops and arrest scenes, when it should
      be more on getting what is due you with parties further up the food
      chain, namely the impersonating DA and "judge". I'll bet you have no
      idea about writs yet, because you think it's not "their way" when if
      you'd read the code itself, you'd see it right there in proper order
      (when you recognize that the accusatory pleading is insufficient to
      proceed upon).

      > >> I TOLD them that I had NOT been arraigned as
      > >> per
      > >> PC988 and the judge said YES you did ...

      And you didn't come back with "well, I was never handed a true copy of a
      complaint to show my counsel", did you? Did you ask for the list of
      witnesses they had to have ready to hand to you? Did you think they had
      no witnesses? So far, the record shows no witnesses, doesn't it? If it
      shows witnesses, why were you not given a list for your defense?

      988. The arraignment must be made by the court, or by the clerk or
      prosecuting attorney under its direction

      So who did it with you, and were they qualified?

      and consists in reading the
      accusatory pleading to the defendant

      Did you make them read it to you? Or did you accept a Roger Ebert
      summary and critique without a literal reading? Hmmmmmm?????

      and delivering to the defendant
      a true copy thereof, and of the endorsements thereon,

      Not only did you miss out on a "true copy" (do you know what that means?
      It means certified, the same kind of proof you got on the oaths), you
      did not demand ANY copy!! And WHO endorsed such a complaint? Why,
      nobody! But you let that slip by without comment!

      if any,
      including the list of witnesses,

      Again, waived in silence.

      and asking the defendant whether
      the defendant pleads guilty or not guilty to the accusatory pleading

      Did they even ask you, or did they just tell you it was going to be not
      guilty? If they asked, and you answered, you waived. How could you
      plead to an accusatory pleading you never saw? Would you recognize one?

      provided, that where the accusatory pleading is a complaint charging
      a misdemeanor, a copy of the same need not be delivered to any
      defendant unless requested by the defendant.

      That's right, to get it, you need to ask for it. Not rocket science,
      but it does separate the serious from the hoi polloi.

      > >
      > > Of course, to see if you back down and can be fooled. Remember,
      > NINE
      > > TIMES???! Three other people took it back NINE TIMES. What do you
      > > imagine was happening each time????
      > > <<< I am not very good at guessing these things and would
      > appreciate
      > > it if you told me HOW these folks took it back to arrainment nine
      > > times??????

      First, where they had you beat, was between their own ears, where they
      KNEW they had not been arraigned, and they KNEW they didn't want to move
      forward, and they KNEW what an arraignment consisted of because they
      READ the Penal Code sections dealing with arrest and all that, which is
      very few pages if you'd look, and they VERBALLY SPOKE out of their own
      mouths in appropriate language, asking relevant questions, off the cuff,
      not according to a script, not according to some written procedure
      somewhere, but using their minds in the moment to formulate answers and
      questions to harass their enemies and adversaries, using public
      information, actually, the very same constitutions and laws that their
      oppressors claim to follow! But you cannot seem to do that without a
      script. Do you have a script for a disgruntled customer? Or would not
      every case be different? You take it back to arraignment by telling the
      people there what they need to know, and making them prove their lies.
      With enough info, you should be able to do it, like asking who took your
      copy? There was never any copy for you, but how do you prove that now?
      Can you ask who certified it, and put her on the stand? You must think
      and be creative in the moment! There is no script! The code spells out
      all of your rights, but you have not read it, I can tell! You could
      make a checklist of things to cover and demand and prove, and go right
      down it, but you don't do that.

      If you ever read the code, you'd have seen this:

      990. If on the arraignment, the defendant requires it, the
      defendant must be allowed a reasonable time to answer, which shall be
      not less than one day in a felony case and not more than seven days
      in a misdemeanor or infraction case.

      This was so you could show your copy of the complaint to counsel of your
      choice and come back to plead with counsel. You waived it. You could
      try to recover, as some have NINE ^&^*&^&%*&^* TIMES!! It took the
      professionals here NINE TIMES to get it right, and then getting it right
      was not scheduling another date! No two speech patterns out of the
      mouths of the defendants would match on any oscilloscope.

      > > I said no she said there will
      > >> be transcripts- I said yes please lets get that transcript-she just
      > >> rolled her eyes ...

      You don't say, "yes please let's get that transcript" you SHOUT, "I
      demand a copy as soon as possible to prove the fraud being attempted
      upon me! How much will it cost and who needs to be paid?!"

      > > She rolled her eyes because it is up to YOU to get transcripts.
      > > Its up to me to prove that I am innocent ? I thought it was
      > innocent
      > > till proven guilty!

      Proving is what a trial is all about. Before trial, one can possibly
      prevent a trial by refusing to voluntarily waive rights, and by
      demanding rights as they come to bear in the proper moment. They are so
      numerous, nobody could easily list them. I use the codes to "shop" for
      the rights I want to defend and enforce. For example PC988 lists 4
      rights. Other sections talk about others. PC990 is another right. All
      the sections dealing with the accusatory pleading are a fertile hunting
      ground for rights to claim and defend. You can have a real complaint or
      a fake, and most people accept fakes.

      >> anyway I gotta go back thursday to say if I want a
      > >> lawyer or not ...

      No, it isn't "to say if I want a lawyer or not" ...

      It's to decide if you want counsel at all. People like me take along a
      strong willed courageous friend or two to aggravate the enemy. We know
      we have the right to use each other for counsel of our own choice. They
      will try to stick a "public defender" on you to grease your skids for a
      loss. You have the power to cost them big here. You could interview
      him first as you would anyone else you'd hire. You could require that
      he be qualified and you could check his qualifications (B&P6067). Or
      you could waive it. Having an attorney, you should know, proves that
      you are incompetent.

      But you could tell them that you need counsel because you didn't
      understand the charges, you didn't want to enter a plea, because you
      wanted to show your "true copy" to a lawyer friend for advice before
      hiring anyone. You could tell them the elements of an arraignment one
      by one and ask who did each one they say happened, and where is the true
      copy, and who certified it as true? And since you didn't get a true
      copy then, you want a true copy now, and the endorsements thereon, and
      the list of witnesses, and THEN you will shop for counsel with the
      additional time 990 provides. YOU have to "be the boss" - you should be
      ready to disqualify any judge you saw previously so he cannot act
      further, you must do it before he speaks. The day earlier is great!

      > >
      > > Not to be redundant or anything, but this PROVES that you were not
      > > legally arraigned because you have a right to counsel during
      > > arraignment
      > > and here they say you were arraigned, now do you want counsel? That
      > is
      > > backwards, because when they arraign you, you were supposed to ask
      > for
      > > time to plead under PC 990. Don't be fooled - take it back for a
      > real
      > > arraignment. The record will show you had no counsel before.
      > Please
      > > wake up.
      > <<< I told them on the record (if the recorder wrote it down and the
      > judge didnt strike it afterwards in secret) that I had NOT been
      > arraigned according to PC988 was I asleep then or should I have said
      > something else (like what??)

      You should have demanded the elements that you KNEW WERE MISSING!!!!
      Knowing about them and referring to them in general ("oh, yeah, you
      know, my constitutional rights!") will not get a certified true copy of
      a real complaint or any of the rest. Nobody's going to read the whole
      code to you and ask about each right they come across! THAT is YOUR

      > >> I guess I should ask them for one that can meet the
      > >> B&P code standards?

      No, you don't ASK THEM for a lawyer!!! You bring your own counsel! You
      fight over it! (Here they no longer fight us, they know we can be
      counsel for our friends now). If you DO decide to accept their anvil in
      your pants, at least waste some time interviewing him and pissing him
      off so he's prejudiced against you and they need to get another, and
      another. Here, if we want one, they get us the best private lawyers. I
      made a deal with one who wanted to get assigned to my case. I said,
      "tell the judge you aren't representing me, you are acting as
      interpreter." Then, after that relieved the judge, I asked if she got
      paid by the hour for consulting with me, and she did, so I asked "how
      would you like to rack up a few hours hearing me out on my case and how
      I'm going to win? Then you can take the word back and they can call it
      off." And she loved the idea of making some easy bux at state expense,
      and I loved the idea of having a professional sit through hearing my
      whole case, from IMOC to supremes, and she declared me the winner as she
      laughed her head off. Later on, the judge "dismissing" the "case" (they
      pretend for the lower level staff AND THE AUDIENCE) had to hide his
      Cheshire Cat Grin behind two hands when he did it.

      > <<<< George taught me that there are four kinds of jurisdiction and
      > that I am in their jurisdiction under three of them and that
      > challenging jurisdiction in this case is "horseshit and stop grsping
      > at
      > straws and take the bull by the horns " meaning to go into court as a
      > pro se and beat them at their game by using their rules in the
      > standard
      > way that lawyers do and not trying stuff that is not understood by me

      Do you think what I've been saying fights jurisdiction? No, I said you
      lost jurisdiction long ago. Challenging it would be horsepucky. But
      you are waiving "their rules" when you waive a formal arraignment
      without counsel. That is still acceptable fighting territory for GG, or
      at least it was last we met.

      "Not trying stuff that is not understood by me" cannot really include
      the basic stage called arraignment, CAN IT? The codes list a lot of
      stuff you seem to gloss right over. When does GG say to start fighting
      back now? After trial?

      > ...and I CERTAINLY DONT understand how you can take a cop who is in
      > cop
      > mode and send him off with his tail between his legs -every cop that
      > I've ever dealt with is more than ready to say "tell it to the judge
      > asshole!!"...and lock me up ...

      Their tails are not between their legs when I send them off. And I call
      for back-up immediately, including the watch commander or sergeant. I
      don't operate from a script. I adapt to the conditions of the moment.

      > > <<<<< I thought you said that you delayed them by asking for a
      > > defender that met standards?

      No, I make sure everybody meets standards, but I would NEVER ASK for an
      attorney! I may be saddled with one by a judge, but the record would
      then show the disqualification I would make appear in it.

      > >> and hope to have some motions etc filed before
      > >> then

      Filing motions means there were charges presented at an arraignment and
      a case set for trial, and other real stuff. You haven't seen evidence
      of it yet, so why are you anxious to get motions filed? Do you even
      have a qualified judge in mind to present them to? And what about
      counsel? Are you ready to talk about motions without counsel on the
      record? You seem to be in a big hurry to me. Of course, their job is
      to rush you.

      > > Oh no! You are straining credibility! You have given up before the
      > > fight began! Motions are for AFTER arraignment,
      > > <<<<so please tell me step by step how these people "took it back to
      > > arraignment" without filing any motions????>>>>>> after time to
      > plead,
      > > after writs. You have already lost in your own mind, so I doubt you
      > > will win outside it.

      They did it extemporaneously, in the moment, asking the right questions,
      demanding their rights specifically, raising the issue of counsel,
      raising every issue that presented itself in their cases, and I did the
      same in mine but none of us ended up saying the same words in the same
      order. You have to know what you want, and not stop until you get it.
      You speak. You file paper if need be. You subpoena the witnesses they
      refused to give you a list of. One friend of mine took his back nine
      times just on the counsel issue alone. Every time he showed up, "your
      honor, no lawyer so far will represent me. Do you have a list of names
      in compliance with Business and Professions code 6067?"

      > > NO I HAVE NOT "lost in my own mind"!!!!! I HAVE obviously lost in
      > > YOUR mind and thats dissapointing but will not stop me from
      > > fighting!!!

      In your mind, you act as if you have been arraigned, thinking of filing
      motions, not trying a writ of prohibition, probably because you have not
      yet read the appropriate sections of the Penal Code. You are rushing

      > > So now you are saying that I "serve" (or how do I make
      > > them take official notice of me saying they arent official) writs
      > > and
      > > subpoenas to people that are just my neighbors and tell them well I
      > > have served you

      Nobody tells anyone, "well, I have served you..." You get someone else
      to do the actual service, either in person or by mail.

      > >- then so they say so what you claim that we have no
      > > authority so we will just ignore you -

      You are dreaming, and not very well, because nobody talks like that,
      "we" this and "we" that...you should have real names of real people in
      mind when you are interacting in the courthouse.

      > > I mean really who do you
      > think
      > > will answer a subpeona when there is no one to give it to...I dont
      > get
      > > how you deny their existance in one breath and with the next say
      > that
      > > you "officially " subpeona them or anything else...call me stupid or
      > > slow but I dont get it -maybe you can please clarify.....

      I will. You subpoena live people. You deny corporate existence, two
      different, separate things. Live people are real; you can see them.
      Corporations are imaginary; you cannot see them.


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