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

Moving Violations Dismissed!

Expand Messages
  • mn_chicago
    22 September 2007 On 20 August, I was in front of a judge for three moving violations. Before court, I sent a Request for Proof of Documentation, one to the
    Message 1 of 21 , Sep 22, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      22 September 2007

      On 20 August, I was in front of a judge for three
      moving violations. Before court, I sent a Request
      for Proof of Documentation, one to the acting police
      officer demanding a copy of his Illinois Constitutional
      Oath of office, and one to the acting prosecutor,
      demanding a copy of his license to practice law in
      Illinois, with oath of office on it.

      In court, as the judge tried reading the violation
      on the first ticket, I informed her the tickets were
      invalid because they were issued by one who lacked the
      proper oath of office for the office held.

      "How would you know?!"

      I issued a Request per the Supreme Court Rule, and one
      to the person acting as prosecutor for a copy of his
      license to practice law with his oath of office inscribed
      on it.

      "Did you issue a subpoena?!" she demanded.

      No.

      "Well, I didn't either, and I am not going to! You can
      take this up at your jury trial next month"

      I can only describe her tone of voice as a combination of
      condescension and 'I'll show you!'

      Prior to my "jury trial," I immediately issued a subpoena
      ducas tecum to the person acting as prosecutor, demanding
      he bring a copy of license to practice law, with his oath
      of office inscribed upon it, per the Attorney Act of Illinois.

      I also sent a 3-step affidavit process of default to the
      plaintiff for failure to enjoin the proper party, denying
      I was the ALL CAPS party named.

      Finally, I presented a Notice and Demand, (NOT a motion),
      for Immediate Dismissal of Case For Failure to Set The Court;
      Summary Judgment for Failure to Name The Proper Party, and
      Default; and Disqualification of Judge for Acting As
      Prosecutor.

      Yesterday, I was the first to check in with the clerk, and
      the last to be called. When I stepped forward, I announced
      who I am, with the proper spelling of who I am, and started
      to tell the judge she was disqualified.

      Before I could finish my sentence, she said, "This case has
      been dismissed."

      Gone was her attitude, and she never once looked me in the
      eye. I got my license back and walked out without saying
      another word.

      I cannot say which of my three demands worked, but certainly
      the subpoena and disqualification of judge had an impact. I
      wanted the judge disqualified so I could have an opportunity
      to disqualify the next judge on oath of office issue.

      FF is right. Even though this worked, it seems it would be
      much better to disqualify the one who gets to "rule" on the
      efforts to dismiss.

      It works, even in Cook County.

      Cheers, all,

      mn
    • Email41@aol.com
      Before I could finish my sentence, she said, This case has been dismissed. Isn t it interesting how a judge can dismiss from an exparte motion from the
      Message 2 of 21 , Sep 22, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Before I could finish my sentence, she said, "This case has
        been dismissed."

        Isn't it interesting how a judge can dismiss from an exparte motion from the State. In Texas, entertaining an exparte motion is a violation of the Judicial Canon.

        However, what is most interesting is that [Ed: Scripturally], these are the days that preceed the annual sacrifice for the whole nation. Sep. 22 is Yom Kippur, the day when the High Priest enters the Holy of Holies to seek forgiveness for the entire nation, even the secret sins.

        It appears that you have been forgiven, now go and sin no more. :)

        "Cowardice asks the question: is it safe?
        Expediency asks the question: is it political?
        Vanity asks the question: is it popular?
        But conscience asks the question: is it right?
        And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor political, nor popular - but one must take it simply because it is right." 
        Martin Luther King, Jr.



        **************************************
        See what's new at http://www.aol.com
      • Ed Siceloff
        I wonder if it was the neighbor lady who dismissed the case, or one of the two others pretending to be officers (cop and prosecuting attorney)? If so, would
        Message 3 of 21 , Sep 22, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          I wonder if it was the neighbor lady who dismissed the case, or one of the two others pretending to be officers (cop and prosecuting attorney)? If so, would there not be a conundrum as to how a mere neighbor could dismiss a case? Who could dismiss a case amongst the set of actors you had? Course, the main thing would have been that there had never really been a case to have been dismissed. Don't reckon that is anything to get in a huff about though, eh? Congrads!
          My 3 questions are serious. If your documents tendered begged the authority of their office, pointed to the lack thereof, and they thus could be seen as having had no authority to even start a case, then neither could they have the authority to dismiss it. That would be another "judgment" task left to the decision of a real judge. One is left, still, with being in a position of having accepted the "decision" of a pretender, just a favorable one to you at that point.

          Ed



          Prior to my "jury trial," I immediately issued a subpoena
          ducas tecum to the person acting as prosecutor, demanding
          he bring a copy of license to practice law, with his oath
          of office inscribed upon it, per the Attorney Act of Illinois.
        • Michael Noonan
          ... Was I forgiven? Not! I beat them. Trust me. It was not an act of forgiveness. Cheers!
          Message 4 of 21 , Sep 22, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- Email41@... wrote:

            > It appears that you have been forgiven, now go and
            > sin no more. :)
            >


            Was I forgiven?

            Not!

            I beat them.

            Trust me. It was not an act of forgiveness.

            Cheers!



            ____________________________________________________________________________________
            Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
            http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
          • Michael Noonan
            ... This is their game, and minor league stuff. I thought about some of the questions you ask. In this case, it is results that count. Cheers! mn ...
            Message 5 of 21 , Sep 22, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              --- Ed Siceloff <siceloff@...> wrote:

              > I wonder if it was the neighbor lady who dismissed
              > the case, or one of the two others pretending to be
              > officers (cop and prosecuting attorney)? If so,
              > would there not be a conundrum as to how a mere
              > neighbor could dismiss a case? Who could dismiss a
              > case amongst the set of actors you had? Course, the
              > main thing would have been that there had never
              > really been a case to have been dismissed. Don't
              > reckon that is anything to get in a huff about
              > though, eh? Congrads!
              > My 3 questions are serious. If your documents
              > tendered begged the authority of their office,
              > pointed to the lack thereof, and they thus could be
              > seen as having had no authority to even start a
              > case, then neither could they have the authority to
              > dismiss it. That would be another "judgment" task
              > left to the decision of a real judge. One is left,
              > still, with being in a position of having accepted
              > the "decision" of a pretender, just a favorable one
              > to you at that point.
              >
              > Ed


              This is their game, and minor league stuff. I thought
              about some of the questions you ask.

              In this case, it is results that count.

              Cheers!

              mn
              >
              >
              > Prior to my "jury trial," I immediately issued a
              > subpoena
              > ducas tecum to the person acting as prosecutor,
              > demanding
              > he bring a copy of license to practice law, with
              > his oath
              > of office inscribed upon it, per the Attorney Act
              > of Illinois.
              >
              >
              >



              ____________________________________________________________________________________
              Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more!
              http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658
            • Frog Farmer
              ... Here in California, they usually do not really have a case but they go through the motions of one to see how the victim responds. Most people plead
              Message 6 of 21 , Sep 22, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Ed Siceloff wrote:

                > My 3 questions are serious. If your documents tendered begged the
                > authority of their office, pointed to the lack thereof, and they thus
                > could be seen as having had no authority to even start a case, then
                > neither could they have the authority to dismiss it. That would be
                > another "judgment" task left to the decision of a real judge. One is
                > left, still, with being in a position of having accepted the
                > "decision" of a pretender, just a favorable one to you at that point.

                Here in California, they usually do not really have a "case" but they go
                through the motions of one to see how the victim responds. Most people
                plead "guilty with explanation your honor" (not a plea out of the books,
                but one picked up by monkey-see-monkey-do in the courtroom). Once it is
                clear that the victim is a usual sheeple who knows nothing, documents
                are forged and backdated to show that a case always existed to which a
                plea was entered. Then it proceeds as a real case, because the victim
                didn't care enough to prove it wasn't one, at the arraignment.

                In the case at hand, the filing of the demand for dismissal or summary
                judgment was an admission a case existed to be dismissed. I'd wait to
                discuss the existence of a case for when real officers are present in a
                properly set court. And that might never occur.

                Regards,

                FF
              • Michael Noonan
                ... I must confess ignorance of arraingments, never having been involved in one, of which I was aware. I did ask the judge, (the one I did not disqualify) if I
                Message 7 of 21 , Sep 26, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...> wrote:

                  > Here in California, they usually do not really have
                  > a "case" but they go
                  > through the motions of one to see how the victim
                  > responds. Most people
                  > plead "guilty with explanation your honor" (not a
                  > plea out of the books,
                  > but one picked up by monkey-see-monkey-do in the
                  > courtroom). Once it is
                  > clear that the victim is a usual sheeple who knows
                  > nothing, documents
                  > are forged and backdated to show that a case always
                  > existed to which a
                  > plea was entered. Then it proceeds as a real case,
                  > because the victim
                  > didn't care enough to prove it wasn't one, at the
                  > arraignment.

                  I must confess ignorance of arraingments, never
                  having been involved in one, of which I was aware.
                  I did ask the judge, (the one I did not disqualify)
                  if I were being arraigned, to which she responded,
                  "No. There is no arraignment in this kind of case."

                  Hmmmmm.

                  > In the case at hand, the filing of the demand for
                  > dismissal or summary
                  > judgment was an admission a case existed to be
                  > dismissed. I'd wait to
                  > discuss the existence of a case for when real
                  > officers are present in a
                  > properly set court. And that might never occur.

                  What I am beginning to understand is to object that
                  the court is not properly set until proof of an oath
                  of office exists for the person acting as a cop, and
                  proof of license to practice law, and not to let go
                  of the objection until a ruling is made.

                  Or maybe I do not understand. The judge, in the
                  second case where I had the person's (acting as cop)
                  certified oath, simply said it was good enough, and
                  because he "knew that the prosecutor was licensed to
                  practice," he proceded anyway.

                  My error for not objecting, setting up an appeal,
                  but I just filed for an appeal without objections on
                  the record, based upon what is known as plain error.

                  Plain error occurs when the judge acts in a manner
                  that theatens to deteriorate the judicial system. It
                  is not common, but I have enough bystander notes to
                  show judicial impropriety and ignoring what the
                  Illinois constitution requires for a valid oath, as
                  opposed to what the judge found sufficient, as far as
                  he was concerned, among other issues.

                  Interestingly, the judge has to pass as to the merit,
                  or not, for the appeal.

                  The fight goes on.

                  Cheers!

                  mn



                  ____________________________________________________________________________________
                  Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
                  http://sims.yahoo.com/
                • Frog Farmer
                  ... California Penal Code section 988: The arraignment must be made by the court, or by the clerk or prosecuting attorney under its direction, and consists in
                  Message 8 of 21 , Sep 27, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Michael Noonan wrote:

                    > I must confess ignorance of arraingments, never
                    > having been involved in one, of which I was aware.

                    California Penal Code section 988:

                    "The arraignment must be made by the court, or by the clerk or
                    prosecuting attorney under its direction, and consists in reading the
                    accusatory pleading to the defendant and delivering to the defendant
                    a true copy thereof, and of the endorsements thereon, if any,
                    including the list of witnesses, and asking the defendant whether
                    the defendant pleads guilty or not guilty to the accusatory pleading;
                    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."

                    Here, I'll add my own comments so you can see how I think about it:

                    The arraignment must be made by the court

                    FF: do we really have a properly set court yet? It's clear that an
                    arraignment must take place.

                    or by the clerk

                    FF: A reading of the California Constitution shows that this clerk comes
                    within the set of "all" officers and employees, unless you want to make
                    it easier for you to go to jail, then you can forgive this person from
                    any requirements you personally wish to waive.

                    or
                    prosecuting attorney under its direction,

                    This person needs both the oath AND a license due to Business and
                    Professions Code section 6067:

                    6067. Every person on his admission shall take an oath to support
                    the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the
                    State of California, and faithfully to discharge the duties of any
                    attorney at law to the best of his knowledge and ability. A
                    certificate of the oath shall be indorsed upon his license.

                    and consists in reading the
                    accusatory pleading to the defendant

                    FF: See that? The arraignment consists...? That means an arraignment
                    is made up of several things. First, reading to the defendant. What is
                    read? The accusatory pleading. What's that? Good question. It all
                    depends, upon what local custom calls it, what the law requires, and
                    what you'll accept in the way of substitutions or eliminations
                    altogether. Here it's a "complaint" for misdemeanors and an
                    "indictment" for a felony. Either way, the law prescribes how they come
                    into existence in other sections. It's good to read about.

                    I've never seen anyone but myself demand a reading of the accusatory
                    pleading. I see most people accepting a summary evaluation of the
                    import of it from the robe on the bench. "You've been accused of a very
                    serious offense for which you could go to jail for six months, how do
                    you plead?" FF: "First Judge, I want to thank you for coming out of
                    retirement and all this way by airliner to humor my local neighbors'
                    need to exercise their powers of oppression. Frankly I'm surprised they
                    found someone qualified to sit on the bench. But I'm glad they did,
                    because maybe someone qualified such as yourself can take word of the
                    level of fraud rampant here locally back to someone who can do something
                    about it. I certainly don't have time to waste on it. So, I hope you
                    won't take it personally when I don't cooperate in my own prosecution
                    and do everything I possibly can to ruin this alleged "prosecutor's"
                    day. Let me begin by asking you to deliver to me a certified true copy
                    of the accusatory pleading, so that I might follow along as you read it
                    to me from the bench. (Note: I have yet to see any judge willing to
                    humiliate himself by demonstrating his reading ability by reading the
                    complaint verbatim, which is what *I* require - no synopses, no
                    critiques, no translations, just read it word for word...on a traffic
                    ticket, this drives them crazy.)

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

                    FF: Ummm...not to be difficult or anything, but my copy has no
                    endorsements...does this mean nobody really verified this complaint? I
                    demand a formal verified complaint.

                    if any,

                    FF: Maybe nobody wanted to stick their neck out until they see how Frog
                    Farmer reacts...after all, if the judge scares him like he does with
                    others, he might just plead guilty to anything, or better yet, not
                    guilty, then we can have a trial and all get bigger paychecks and
                    advance our careers!

                    including the list of witnesses,

                    FF: Did someone mess up and forget that, or do you generally prosecute
                    people with no witnesses?

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

                    FF: How can I plead to this? Do you realize that you had to drag me in
                    here in chains and that I have no counsel? First of all, you said you
                    gave me a true copy...so how come mine isn't signed by anyone? I need
                    counsel to advise me on this. I cannot consent to being arraigned
                    without counsel present. Are you going to require that my counsel be
                    licensed?

                    Judge: Of course!

                    FF: I'm new to this local apparatchik - can anyone refer me to three
                    choices who comply with the law and have the requisite documents in
                    order? After we determine who counsel will be, we can try the
                    arraignment again and see if by then somebody will be willing to endorse
                    the accusations and maybe even a witness or two will show up.

                    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.

                    FF: Yes, and guess how many Joe Sixpacks see any need to do such a
                    thing. If they did, they'd often hear lame excuses for why they don't
                    have one. Or they give the sucker a blank photocopy of an unsigned
                    complaint and see if he pleads to it. Most do!

                    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.

                    FF: 7 days AFTER being arraigned WITH counsel present! Since no
                    licensed counsel exists (that we know of), and if you are clever, you
                    can get your judge to tell you on the record that any counsel appearing
                    with you has to be licensed (which itself is an appealable issue!), how
                    long or how many hearings do you think you could stretch your case?
                    I've done it over nine attempted arraignments, twice. My recently
                    deceased friend didn't know a thing about law or court, but he
                    understood "Catch-22" and he made them go through 6 attempts before they
                    went and paid a private attorney to represent him. That attorney
                    refused to follow written instructions, which legally rendered him
                    "incompetent" and he withdrew, leaving a vacuum. The "case" (which we
                    never had proof WAS a "case", evidenced by a formal verified complaint)
                    was "dismissed". No records are kept of dismissed cases.

                    > I did ask the judge, (the one I did not disqualify)
                    > if I were being arraigned, to which she responded,
                    > "No. There is no arraignment in this kind of case."
                    >
                    > Hmmmmm.

                    Here, those might be what we call "infractions". They are cases which
                    bring no jail time, but only a fine if convicted. You have to waive
                    rights to be prosecuted on an infraction. If you refuse to waive those
                    rights, here, you can have your rights if you demand them, but at the
                    same time you raise the stakes to possible jail time. I'm willing to
                    make the bet that they can't perform on time to bring me to trial within
                    the time limits. So I'd refuse to plead to an infraction and make them
                    prosecute me as if it were a misdemeanor. No way they are ready for
                    that. Imagine how the jury would react if they managed to do it.

                    > > In the case at hand, the filing of the demand for
                    > > dismissal or summary
                    > > judgment was an admission a case existed to be
                    > > dismissed. I'd wait to
                    > > discuss the existence of a case for when real
                    > > officers are present in a
                    > > properly set court. And that might never occur.
                    >
                    > What I am beginning to understand is to object that
                    > the court is not properly set until proof of an oath
                    > of office exists for the person acting as a cop, and
                    > proof of license to practice law, and not to let go
                    > of the objection until a ruling is made.

                    Don't forget about the most important disqualification, that of the
                    judge! You can try to disqualify anyone. And if you choose not to do
                    it, it's an endorsement of them by you, and a waiver.

                    > Or maybe I do not understand. The judge, in the
                    > second case where I had the person's (acting as cop)
                    > certified oath, simply said it was good enough, and
                    > because he "knew that the prosecutor was licensed to
                    > practice," he proceded anyway.

                    You left it to him to decide. If it was not good enough, you had to say
                    so and make it part of the record, not ask for agreement from the judge!
                    A certified copy of the oath on file, and a certified copy of the
                    required oath, entered into evidence and not matching, don't need a
                    judge to say they don't match! And you accepted his hearsay evidence
                    without putting him under oath. Don't you know anyone can lie anytime
                    except when under oath? And even then they lie and it's called perjury.

                    > My error for not objecting, setting up an appeal,
                    > but I just filed for an appeal without objections on
                    > the record, based upon what is known as plain error.
                    >
                    > Plain error occurs when the judge acts in a manner
                    > that theatens to deteriorate the judicial system. It
                    > is not common, but I have enough bystander notes to
                    > show judicial impropriety and ignoring what the
                    > Illinois constitution requires for a valid oath, as
                    > opposed to what the judge found sufficient, as far as
                    > he was concerned, among other issues.
                    >
                    > Interestingly, the judge has to pass as to the merit,
                    > or not, for the appeal.
                    >
                    > The fight goes on.

                    Good!

                    Regards,

                    FF
                  • The Handyman
                    I offer this tactic to all who want a simple way to beat a traffic charge or perhaps any charge. Go to arraignment. Say: I want to enter a plea of guilty.
                    Message 9 of 21 , Sep 27, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                       
                      I offer this tactic to all who want a simple way to beat a traffic charge or perhaps any charge.  Go to arraignment.  Say: "I want to enter a plea of guilty." 

                      In Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, the federal high court held that the same intelligent and knowing standard that applied to a defendant's waiver of the right to counsel "must be applied to determin[e] whether a guilty plea is voluntarily made." (Id. at p. 242.) The BoykinCourt found that

                      "[s]everal federal constitutional rights are involved in a waiver that takes place when a plea of guilty is entered in a state criminal trial. First, is the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination . . . . Second, is the right to trial by jury. Third, is the right to confront one's accusers." (Id. at p. 243, citations omitted.)

                      Under the facts presented, the Boykin Court could not "presume a waiver of these three important federal rights from a silent record." (Ibid.)

                      Pursuant to Boykin the Judge must Boykinize you.  Simply say I do not understand to everything he says.  He has to accept your guilty plea when you say you understand the nature and cause of the accusation against you. He cannot accept your guilty plea unless you understand the charges and are represented by counsel.  So, he will appoint an indigent defender.  Simple ask the indigent defender to produce a license to practice law and to sign your contract(sample attached).   When he does not do either shut up.  You will then be brought back into court where the judge will ask if you now understand the charges.  Say no and explain that you are cautious about what the indigent defender says because he is not licensed to practice law and will not sign your contract.  Make him produce a license.  Make him sign your contract.  Don't move forward on anything else. Keep saying I want to enter a guilty plea.  I want licensed counsel.  They will never get you to trial.


                      --- Frog Farmer  wrote:

                      > Here in California, they usually do not really have
                      > a "case" but they go
                      > through the motions of one to see how the victim
                      > responds. Most people
                      > plead "guilty with explanation your honor" (not a
                      > plea out of the books,
                      > but one picked up by monkey-see-monkey- do in the

                      .

                    • Jason Muhammad
                      Entering a plea of guilty might work for appeal, but in Illinois the statutes say: (725 ILCS 5/115‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 115‑2) Sec. 115‑2. Pleas of
                      Message 10 of 21 , Sep 28, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Entering a plea of guilty might work for appeal, but in Illinois the statutes say:

                        (725 ILCS 5/115‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 115‑2)
                            Sec. 115‑2. Pleas of Guilty and guilty but mentally ill. (a) Before or during trial a plea of guilty may be accepted when:
                            (1) The defendant enters a plea of guilty in open court;
                            (2) The court has informed the defendant of the consequences of his plea and of the maximum penalty provided by law which may be imposed upon acceptance of such plea.
                             Upon acceptance of a plea of guilty the court shall determine the factual basis for the plea.


                        I've heard of many people pleading guilty and the plea accepted without any boykinizing whatsoever.

                        Here's something that I noticed, after being inspirited to read the Arraignment and Trial statutes of Illinois after Frog Farmers recent post:

                        (725 ILCS 5/115‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 115‑1)
                            Sec. 115‑1. Method of Trial. All prosecutions except on a plea of guilty or guilty but mentally ill shall be tried by the court and a jury unless the defendant waives a jury trial in writing.
                        (Source: P.A. 87‑410.)


                        How many people don't waive a jury trial in writing, yet don't object to this?

                        Since the statutes say that questions of law are tried by the court and questions of fact by the jury, it seems it makes no sense to waive a trial by jury. Also the jury must vote anonymously

                        (725 ILCS 5/115‑4) (from Ch. 38, par. 115‑4)
                            Sec. 115‑4. Trial by Court and Jury.) (a) Questions of law shall be decided by the court and questions of fact by the jury.



                        The arraignment statutes also  specify that the defendant can request the complaint be read to him :

                        (725 ILCS 5/113‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 113‑1)
                            Sec. 113‑1. Procedure on arraignment.
                            Before any person is tried for the commission of an offense he shall be called into open court, informed of the charge against him, and called upon to plead thereto. If the defendant so requests the formal charge shall be read to him before he is required to plead. An entry of the arraignment shall be made of record.


                        Jason


                        Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy! Try it!
                      • The Handyman
                        It really does not matter what the statutes of Illinois say. The United States Supreme Court has set the standard for incarceration and all arraignments.
                        Message 11 of 21 , Sep 28, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          
                          It really does not matter what the statutes of Illinois say.  The United States Supreme Court has set the standard for incarceration and all arraignments.  i.e.

                           

                           The Sixth Amendment secures to a defendant facing incarceration the right to counsel at all "critical stages" of the criminal process, see, e.g., Maine v. Moulton, 474 U. S. 159, 170, including a plea hearing, White v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 59, 60 (per curiam).

                           

                          Is the arraignment a critical stage of the criminal process?  Yes!  If the sentence calls for incarceration.  

                           

                          “We hold, therefore, that absent a  knowing and intelligent

                          waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense,

                          whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, unless

                          he was represented by counsel at his trial. Under the rule we

                          announce today, judge will know, when the trial of a

                          misdemeanor starts, that no imprisonment may be imposed,

                          even though local law permits it, unless the accused is

                          represented by counsel. (emphasis added)

                           

                                                                  Argersinger v. Hamlim, 407 U.S. 25 (1972)
                           

                           

                          “Even the intelligent and educated layman has

                          small and sometimes no skill in the science of

                          law.  If charged with a crime, he is incapable,

                          generally, of determining for himself whether

                          the indictment is good or bad.  He is unfamiliar

                          with the rules of evidence.  Left without the aid

                          of counsel he may be put on trial without a prop-

                                                                          er charge, and convicted upon incompetent evi-

                          dence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or oth-

                          erwise inadmissible.  He lacks both the skill

                          and knowledge to adequately prepare his

                          defense, even though he have a perfect one.”

                           

                                                                  Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) 
                           

                          Additionally, the Supreme Court also held:

                           

                                                              “The right to counsel at a criminal trial is

                                                              deemed so fundamental to the interest of

                                                              justice that denial thereof automatically

                                                              vitiates any conviction (the automatic

                           reversal rule.)

                           

                                                                  Gideon V. Wainright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
                           
                           
                          You have a right to counsel of your choice.  If the indigent defender is not licensed and won't sign your contract he is not your choice and you have a right to reject his services even if you are indigent.
                           

                           

                                                                          “Lack of counsel of choice can be

                                                                          conceivably even worst than no

                                                                          counsel at all. Or having to accept

                                                                          counsel beholden to one’s adversary.”

                           

                                                                        Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109 (1967)
                           
                          You can be found guilty but not incarcerated.  The appeal will take care of the conviction.  Failure to Boykinize is reversable error. Sit in a traffic court and you will see hundreds get Bokinized...sometime in masses.
                           

                          Entering a plea of guilty might work for appeal, but in Illinois the statutes say:

                          (725 ILCS 5/115‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 115‑2)
                              Sec. 115‑2. Pleas of Guilty and guilty but mentally ill. (a) Before or during trial a plea of guilty may be accepted when:
                              (1) The defendant enters a plea of guilty in open court;
                              (

                          .

                        • Frog Farmer
                          ... I personally would not waive any rights hoping that the court would function to protect them because in my own experience, whenever I ve pointed out such a
                          Message 12 of 21 , Sep 28, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            The Handyman wrote:

                            > Pursuant to Boykin the Judge must Boykinize you. Simply say I
                            > do not understand to everything he says. He has to accept your guilty
                            > plea when you say you understand the nature and cause of the
                            > accusation against you. He cannot accept your guilty plea unless you
                            > understand the charges and are represented by counsel. So, he will
                            > appoint an indigent defender. Simple ask the indigent defender to
                            > produce a license to practice law and to sign your contract(sample
                            > attached). When he does not do either shut up. You will then be
                            > brought back into court where the judge will ask if you now understand
                            > the charges. Say no and explain that you are cautious about what the
                            > indigent defender says because he is not licensed to practice law and
                            > will not sign your contract. Make him produce a license. Make him
                            > sign your contract. Don't move forward on anything else. Keep saying
                            > I want to enter a guilty plea. I want licensed counsel. They will
                            > never get you to trial.

                            I personally would not waive any rights hoping that the court would
                            function to protect them because in my own experience, whenever I've
                            pointed out such a requirement imposed by a settled case, the court has
                            ignored it. Every law I've ever pointed out to the court was almost
                            immediately violated, with the advice that I could always take it up on
                            appeal. So this "tactic" of pleading guilty might just backfire and
                            necessitate an appeal. I would not expect anyone to automatically honor
                            Boykin.

                            And again, here in California, there's no reason to go further than
                            necessary in expecting an imposter who cannot obey his own constitution
                            to obey any other law or rulings. Like I said, you show them a law or
                            case rule, and they'll break it just to make you appeal. Or maybe they
                            will let you go as The Handyman hopes. I wouldn't count on it. Most of
                            California's incarcerated waived rights and cooperated in their own
                            prosecution. And doing that reduces their workload and makes it easier
                            on them. Your mileage may vary of course.

                            Regards,

                            FF
                          • Jason Muhammad
                            That s beautiful Handyman! The problem is that you said this is an easy way to win traffic tickets. Traffic tickets here carry fines! They aren t arrestable
                            Message 13 of 21 , Sep 28, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              That's beautiful Handyman! The problem is that you said this is an easy way to win traffic tickets. Traffic tickets here carry fines! They aren't arrestable offenses. They are either 1) "offenses" carrying fines of $100 or less or they are "business offenses" carrying fines of $1000 or more. The only two traffic offense that carry incarceration are hit and runs and vehicular manslaughter.

                              (730 ILCS 5/5‑1‑17) (from Ch. 38, par. 1005‑1‑17)
                                  Sec. 5‑1‑17. Petty Offense.
                                  "Petty offense" means any offense for which a sentence to a fine only is provided.
                              (Source: P. A. 77‑2097.)


                               (730 ILCS 5/5‑1‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 1005‑1‑2)
                                  Sec. 5‑1‑2. Business Offense.
                                  "Business Offense" means a petty offense for which the fine is in excess of $1,000.


                              That's why I wrote what I wrote. You plead guilty, you are getting the fine. Period. I don't think the Boykin case will assist with that one.

                              .................................................

                              It really does not matter what the statutes of Illinois say.  The United States Supreme Court has set the standard for incarceration and all arraignments.  i.e.
                            • The Handyman
                              Louisiana v. North American Land , 106 La. 621 It being impossible to obtain the remedy sought, the state and their agencies/municipalities being impotent to
                              Message 14 of 21 , Sep 28, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                

                                 

                                 

                                 

                                Louisiana v. North American Land , 106 La. 621

                                "It being impossible to obtain the remedy sought,

                                the state and their agencies/municipalities being

                                impotent to enforce their judgments/decrees and

                                thus should not even exercise their otherwise

                                ‘general’ jurisdictions."

                                I have stood in court a dozen times telling the judge he cannot provide a public money payment remedy because a fine is an exactment and HAGAR v. LAND RECLAMATION, 111 U.S. 701 (May 5, 1884) clearly said a state cannot exact PRIVATE money.  Federal Reserve Notes are Private money. Hagar held:  "Acts of congress making notes of the United States a legal tender do not apply to EXACTMENTS under state law."  A state court cannot order or force payment in paper money under the guise that it is legal tender.  There is no legal tender.  See attachment. If there is only a fine involved the court cannot provide a remedy.  All judges know that he cannot put a person with no money in jail.  The Supreme Court in

                                Tate v Short (1971) 28 L Ed 2d 130. 401 US 395, 91 S Ct 668. decided that inability to pay cannot be converted into time.  “Indigents may not be ordered to serve time if they cannot pay the fine.” See Lockhart, Constitutional Law, 5th Edition, 1980, page 1474. 

                                And the court cannot order you to work

                                 

                                Williams v Illinois (1970) 26 L Ed 2d 586, 399 US 235, 90 S Ct 2018. Indigent cannot be ordered to “work off” a fine if the imprisonment will extend the imprisonment beyond the maximum sentence.

                                 

                                I simply say I have no PUBLIC money and you cannot exact PRIVATE money so you have no remedy.  If he persist in collecting Federal Reserve Notes I say you are  violating your oath of office because you are  making PAPER a tender in payment of debt.  It violates Article 1, Section 10 of the U S Constitution. Froggy has disagreed with this but it worked for me every time.  I have no money.  Now what are you going to do?  This court has no payment remedy...therefore no jurisdiction.  The bottom line to those with eyes to see is that a court cannot EXACT a fine in paper money.  It cannot convert inability to pay into time.  It cannot convert inability to pay into work.  Pray tell me what can the court do?  I’ve been ordered to show up for community service and never have showed up.  They have no remedy what-so-ever.

                                 

                                 That's beautiful Handyman! The problem is that you said this is an easy way to win traffic tickets. Traffic tickets here carry fines! They aren't arrestable offenses. They are either 1) "offenses" carrying fines of $100 or less or they are "business offenses" carrying fines of $1000 or more. The only two traffic offense that carry incarceration are hit and runs and vehicular manslaughter.


                                .

                              • The Handyman
                                Froggy said: Every law I ve ever pointed out to the court was almost immediately violated, with the advice that I could always take it up on appeal. So this
                                Message 15 of 21 , Sep 28, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Froggy said: "Every law I've ever pointed out to the court was almost
                                  immediately violated, with the advice that I could always take it up on
                                  appeal. So this "tactic" of pleading guilty might just backfire and
                                  necessitate an appeal. I would not expect anyone to automatically honor
                                  Boykin."
                                   
                                  First, The tactic of saying you want to enter a guilty plea is to say you want to enter a guilty plea but never to enter one.  When you say you want to enter a guilty plea  you are exercising a right; the judge has a Boykin duty to make sure you understand the rights you are waiving before he accepts the pleaThis is written in stone.    He will attempt to explain such but no matter how well he explains I say I don't understand.  Please identify the jurisdiction so I may understand.  I say it can't be a crime; there  is no injured party.  There is no contract violation.  How am I to understand that making an improper left turn is a crime? You can talk until you are blue in the face and I still will not understand.  Second, A judge cannot accept a guilty plea without counsel present.    All guilty pleas without counsel are automatically reversible.  Check any case law provider under invalid pleas and read the number of reversals.  I never waive assistance and I  therefore question the attempted appointment of an indigent defender solely to get on the record that he is unlicensed and refuses to sign my contract.  Why?  Because these will be the errors for the appeal.  Denied right to plead guilty.  Denied assistance of counsel.  Denied counsel that is licensed. Denied counsel of choice.  Now if you are lazy and want to avoid an appeal (which I fully understand) try something else.  But appeals and writs are good training/experience even if you lose.  I've prepared hundreds of them.  After 30 years I still need experience....we all do. If you want to play safe swim in the 3' end of the pool.  But the 12' end is much more fun. The cost of an appeal is assessed against the loser. So what have you to lose?

                                  .

                                • WOODROW GILLESPIE
                                  I would like to have comments and critiques of this brief used for an unlawful detainer against a home owner. it is a 3 page brief. I did not attach the
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Sep 28, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I would like to have comments and critiques of this brief used for an unlawful detainer against a home owner.  it is a 3 page brief.  I did not attach the memorandum because it is 37 pages and is
                                     
                                    Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions  
                                    So I did not see any reason to have it attached for the purposes of this e-mail.
                                     
                                    Steve Scott
                                    c/o 4001 Hargill Dr.
                                    Orlando
                                    Florida
                                    Standing in his own stead
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                    IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
                                    IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY
                                     
                                    LLOYD MCDONOUGH
                                    ERNA MCDONOUGH                                            ,
                                                                    Petitioner,
                                                    VS.
                                    STEVEN D. SCOTT
                                                                    Respondent
                                    Case No. 07ca11486
                                     
                                     MOTION TO VACATE HEARING DATE and
                                    MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT
                                     
                                    The County of Orange                        )
                                    The State of  Florida                            ) SS
                                    The United States of America            )
                                     
                                    I, Steve Scott, Affiant and first hand witness, do hereby declare under the penalty of perjury that the following is true, complete, correct, and certain to the best of my knowledge and understanding.
                                     
                                     
                                    MOTION
                                    On 9/19/07 Affiant was served with a summons and complaint, stating Affiant had 20 days to respond to the complaint when the hearing was scheduled for 9/28/07.  This was done with the intent to deny due process and is extrinsic fraud ON THE COURT.  Another court has jurisdiction of this matter, and until the outcome is determined, this complaint should be stricken and the hearing on the complaint vacated.  ERIC W. LUDWIG, ESQUIRE, knew this and filed this compliant in an attempt to preempt  and circumvent Affiant’s lawsuit for quiet title action which was filed June 1, 2007, and is currently ongoing.  ERIC W LUDWIG, ESQUIRE and Affiant did talk about it, in which he demanded his clients be defendants in Affiant’s quiet title action.  Therefore, it can only be determined that ERIC W LUDWIG, ESQUIRE, did fully intent to mislead this honorable court.  In Florida’s Bar Association’s Guidelines for Professional Conduct,  it states:
                                     
                                                            The effective administration of justice requires the interaction of many professionals
                                    and disciplines, but none is more critical than the role of the lawyer. In fulfilling that role,
                                    a lawyer performs many tasks, few of which are easy, most of which are exacting. In the final analysis, a lawyer's duty is always to the client. But in striving to fulfill that duty, a lawyer must be ever conscious of his or her broader duty to the judicial system that serves both attorney and client. To the judiciary, a lawyer owes candor, diligence and utmost respect. To the administration of justice, a lawyer unquestionably owes the fundamental duties of personal dignity and professional integrity.
                                     
                                     
                                    ERIC W. LUDWIG, ESQUIRE has violated the very principal’s of the preamble.
                                     
                                                            A. SCHEDULING, CONTINUANCES, AND EXTENSIONS OF TIME.
                                                            3.  A lawyer should call potential scheduling conflicts or problems to the
                                    attention of those affected, including the court or tribunal, as soon as they become apparent to the lawyer.
                                     
                                    ERIC W. LUDWIG, ESQUIRE has not only violated this principle, but created the problem, knowing that issues in another court hearing must be determined before any issues can be heard in this court, and this hearing will not be necessary once the outcome has been determined in the Quiet Title Action initiated by the alleged defendant in this matter.  Therefore, he violate this precept:
                                                                   
                                                                    5.  Counsel should never request a calendar change or misrepresent a
                                    conflict in order to obtain an advantage or delay.
                                     
                                    ERIC W. LUDWIG, ESQUIRE has not only violated principal, but did perpetrate extrinsic fraud in this court to gain an unfair advantage to attempt to get a ruling in an attempt to mute a case that is already in progress.  By rushing to hearing on the complaint and denying Affiant adequate time to respond,  ERIC W. LUDWIG, ESQUIRE did violate these principles:
                                     
                                    7.      When scheduling hearings and other adjudicative proceedings, a lawyer should request an amount of time that is truly calculated to permit full and fair presentation of the matter to be adjudicated and to permit equal response by the lawyer's adversary.
                                     
                                                                   
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                    B. SERVICE OF PAPERS.
                                    1.      The timing and manner of service should not be used to the disadvantage of the party receiving the papers.
                                    2.        Papers and memoranda of law should not be served at court appearances without advance notice to opposing counsel and should not be served so close to a court appearance so as to inhibit the ability of opposing counsel to prepare for that appearance or to respond to the papers.
                                     
                                    ERIC W. LUDWIG, ESQUIRE has violated nearly every rule in the professional code of ethics.  He has exhibited professional misconduct with the intent to cause irreparable harm to Affiant.  When the Justice system is made a mockery of  by the misconduct of an attorney, the public, the judiciary, the client and the defendant and the legal system suffer injury:
                                    1. "Injury" is harm to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession which results from a lawyer's misconduct. The level of injury can range from "serious" injury to "little or no" injury; a reference to "injury"
                                                            Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions  
                                     
                                    Therefore, in the interest of justice the complaint should be stricken, the hearing vacated, and Affiant requests sanctions be imposed upon  ERIC W. LUDWIG, ESQUIRE for his misconduct.  And the court should do just that.
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                    /s/_______________________________________                                                Date:  _______________________
                                        Steve Scott, Affiant herein,
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                    Steve Smith
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                  • Moisha Pippik
                                    Jason and other members: Please consider what Handyman and FF are saying, which as best I can see are basically the same thing, just using different
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Sep 28, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Jason and other members:
                                       
                                      Please consider what Handyman and FF are saying, which as best I can see are basically the same thing, just using different approaches.  Handyman is saying he would like to enter a plea of guilty, not that he is.  Big difference.  Handyman  then demonstrates his path by stating specific requirements of entering a plea of guilty, which were listed in a previous post on this subject.  Two important considerations in the requirments for entering a plea, which the judge will ask in some form of "do you understand?"  Handyman simply states he does not understand.  This can go on forever........"no, I don't understand, but I want to enter a plea of guilty."  The other thing to note is when the rule says upon acceptance of the plea.  Whose acceptance?  Just because the judge accepts a non-plea, does not make you accept the alleged plea.  It requires both to accept, just like a contract, which is what it is, and what everyone in court that is found guilty is actually doing, contracting.  It's called a meeting of the minds.
                                       
                                      In regards to FF, he is someone that I have followed much more closely, and have learned about the ellusive "critical thinking" concept, of "first things first."  FF will never let his adversaries(alleged courts/judges/attorneys/da's/clerks/etc) get out of their starting blocks, unless he wants to go a few rounds with them.  He requires every actor to prove they have authority, prove they have the necessary documentation, follow their procedures to a "T".
                                       
                                      Are either the Handyman or FF, or anyone with some success/experience in court/traffic stops doing things differently?  It's only perception if you see a difference, as I do not.  One can only do what one's mind allows them to do.  Some are further advanced than others.  I personally can see using either approach, with success, in a particular situation.  Depends on how much time I have, how much money, what kind of mood I'm in at the time. 
                                       
                                      I have done things that both men subscribe to doing.  I have had success with both, and have also tried some other things.  My most recent enlightenment is that this whole system is about contracts, and that there is no law in our courts, until the contract is brought into court, which is the law.  This is my belief.  I don't believe I'm wrong, nor do I believe other people's beliefs are wrong, but my mind needs to overstand things in specific ways.  The contract issue helps me simplify everything.  As FF and a few others will tell anyone interested......."the initial moment of confrontation(IMOC) is the time to take control."
                                       
                                      Moisha




                                      Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more!
                                    • Frog Farmer
                                      ... I don t consider myself lazy, just more frugal with my available time than I was in 1980. ... For what? Giving your life time to shoveling against the
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Sep 29, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        The Handyman wrote:
                                        > Now if you are lazy and want to avoid an appeal
                                        > (which I fully understand) try something else.

                                        I don't consider myself lazy, just more frugal with my available time
                                        than I was in 1980.

                                        > But appeals and writs
                                        > are good training/experience even if you lose.

                                        For what? Giving your life time to shoveling against the tide?

                                        > I've prepared hundreds
                                        > of them. After 30 years I still need experience....we all do. If you
                                        > want to play safe swim in the 3' end of the pool. But the 12' end is
                                        > much more fun. The cost of an appeal is assessed against the loser. So
                                        > what have you to lose?

                                        Time. I'd rather avoid all need to produce paperwork if it is possible.
                                        I don't like answering to anything less than a formal verified
                                        complaint. And I'm not guilty and don't want to lie about it or about
                                        wanting to plead guilty. My game is to never get to the pleading stage
                                        if possible, and if I do get to it, I want a full jury trial.

                                        But I have no problem with anyone doing as you suggest. I once felt
                                        like I wanted experience, then I got it. Now I want to impart
                                        experience to impersonating neighbors.

                                        Regards,

                                        FF
                                      • Jason Muhammad
                                        Moisha, I think it s pretty clear that the Handyman and Frog Farmer are saying two entirely different things. They are also using different methods to achieve
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Sep 29, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment

                                          Moisha, I think it's pretty clear that the Handyman and Frog Farmer are saying two entirely different things. They are also using different methods to achieve the same result – a win. In fact, when the Handyman initially posted about entering a plea of guilty, the Frog Farmer asked why on Earth anyone would want to do that. I think we all see what the Handyman is saying now since he's given much greater detail on the tactic. You’ll loose in the trial court and have to appeal for the case to be reversed. If you refuse to plea though, the Judge will simply enter a "not guilty" plea on your behalf and proceed to trial.

                                           

                                          The Frog Farmer's tactic is to not even allow the “case” to get to arraignment or at least not go beyond it. Again, these are two different tactics.

                                           

                                          In the Frog Farmer's most recent post, he said he wouldn't enter a plea unless a verified complaint is filed. I agree with that. A complaint is what gives the court subject matter jurisdiction.

                                           

                                          The complaint is the foundation of the jurisdiction of the magistrate.

                                          22 Corpus Juris Secundum § 303, pages 456, 457

                                           

                                          A trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction is triggered by the filing of information alleging commission of a public offense within the appropriate venue.

                                          21 American Jurisprudence, 2nd Series, § 480 (Criminal Law)

                                           

                                          A formal accusation which charges some offense known to law is essential for every trial

                                          for crime, without which the court acquires no jurisdiction to proceed, even with the consent of the accused.

                                          22 Corpus Juris Secundum § 167 (Criminal Law)

                                           

                                          I'm dealing with a case now. The charge is expired plates (625 ILCS 3-413(f)). This is a non-penalty offense. Offenses that don’t have a penalty clause attached are petty offenses in Illinois .

                                           

                                          When the police saw that defendant was driving a vehicle with an expired registration sticker, they had probable cause to believe that defendant was committing a criminal offense, and they effected a valid traffic stop. See 625 ILCS 5/3--413(f) (West 2002) (prohibiting, without specific penalty, the operation of a vehicle with an expired registration sticker); 625 ILCS 5/16--104 (West 2002) (an Illinois Vehicle Code violation for which no specific penalty is provided is a petty offense); Black's Law Dictionary 1146 (6th ed. 1990) (a petty offense is a "minor crime"); People v. Orsby, 286 Ill. App. 3d 142, 146-47 (1996)

                                          People v. Moorman, 859 N.E.2d 1105, 369 Ill.App.3d 187, 307 Ill.Dec. 428 (Ill.App. Dist.2 11/29/2006)

                                           

                                          I asked the "officer" for his commission when he issued the citation. He became VERY angry. He said, “You wanna see my commission? Here.” He didn't show me anything other than a 4 digit number that he wrote on the citation next to the label “Badge ID”. He said, “I’m going to document everything about this stop. It’s being recorded and video taped.” So guess who’s got work to do when I issue my subpoena duces tecum? He then pranced around the car looking for more violations to cite me on. I just smiled realizing outside of physical violence he was powerless. He found nothing to cite me with but lied about a bunch of moving violations he would charge me with. I said, "You saw me do all of that?" He just got quiet and wrote a warning for my cracked windshield.

                                           

                                          He signed the citation but his name is entirely illegible. I’ll have to file a demand for witnesses to get his name and last known address. I did not sign the citation. The box saying “Required court appearance” was not checked. There was a court date on the citation. I did not go and received a notice of failure to appear which said they issued an automatic continuance. I wrote a Demurrer. We'll see if they respond before the court date. Either way, I won't be entering a plea absent a verified complaint. If I refuse, I know the judge will simply enter a plea on my behalf of "not guilty":

                                           

                                          (725 ILCS 5/113-4) (from Ch. 38, par. 113-4)

                                              Sec. 113-4. Plea.

                                          (a) When called upon to plead at arraignment the defendant shall be furnished with a copy of the charge and shall plead guilty, guilty but mentally ill, or not guilty.

                                          (b) If the defendant stands mute a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him and the trial shall proceed on such plea.

                                           

                                          This is the same thing that will happen if you say "I want to enter a plea of guilty" but refuse to actually do so. When the judge enters a plea on your behalf, you must object on the record.

                                           

                                          With respect to the verified complaint, I have cases that say that a conviction is automatically reversed on appeal if a verified complaint is not filed upon request and when its absence is objected to on the record or by pre-trial motion.

                                           

                                          We, therefore, adopt the ruling of the Harding case and hold that while there is no constitutional requirement that a complaint be verified in order to sustain a criminal prosecution, nevertheless, if the statutory deficiency of want of verification is raised by appropriate pretrial motion or objection, the prosecution can only proceed on a verified complaint. The want of verification having been appropriately raised in the case before us, the unverified complaint cannot sustain the judgment, and it is, accordingly, reversed.

                                          Village of Willowbrook v. Miller, 217 N.E.2d 809, 72 Ill. App.2d 30 (Ill.App. Dist.3 06/16/1966)

                                           

                                          The issue of a verified complaint is putting “first things first.” Well, it's almost “first things first.” There is the issue that Frog Farmer enlightened all of us too and that is the question of whether we are dealing with impersonators or not. That is an important step. The next is a verified complaint. After that is arraignment. If you get past that then there are pre-trial motions, voir dire, interlocutory appeals, extraordinary writs, trial, judgment, post-trial motions and appeal.

                                           

                                          For a traffic case, they would be spending thousands of dollars for a $75 fine and THEN, with the Handyman's brilliant research on exactments (HAGAR v. LAND RECLAMATION, 111 U.S. 701 (May 5, 1884)), his and Frog Farmer's research on FRN's not being legal tender (repeal of HJR-192) and U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1, they couldn’t collect anyway.

                                           

                                          Moisha, I am curious about your contract theory. A contract contains essential elements; 1) offer, 2) consideration and 3) acceptance. If you plead guilty or refuse to plead, what consideration is there? The judge is going to enter a plea for you of “not guilty”. Again, what consideration is there for you?



                                          Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger  Get it now!
                                        • rebel382003
                                          The thread of challenging moving violations has had some very interesting thoughts on how to handle traffic offenses. Many traffic offenses involve
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Oct 1, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            The thread of challenging moving violations has had some very
                                            interesting thoughts on how to handle traffic offenses.

                                            Many traffic offenses involve municipalities. Municipal judges are
                                            usually employees of the city. Court rules for the disqualification
                                            of judges normally declare a judge who has a financial involvement
                                            with a party is automatically disqualified from hearing the case.

                                            Has anyone filed a motion for disqualification that the judge has a
                                            financial relationship with the city and is therefore required to
                                            disqualify himself from hearing a city traffic case ???

                                            Reb.
                                          • Frog Farmer
                                            ... The way to get around that is to ask for the extra time provided by California Penal Code Section 990. Tell them that you need the certified copy of the
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Oct 2, 2007
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Jason Muhammad wrote:

                                              > If you refuse to plea though,
                                              > the Judge will simply enter a "not guilty" plea on your behalf and
                                              > proceed to trial.

                                              The way to get around that is to ask for the extra time provided by
                                              California Penal Code Section 990. Tell them that you need the
                                              certified copy of the formal verified complaint to show to several
                                              attorneys in town, as soon as you find any in compliance with Business &
                                              Professions Code section 6067.

                                              > The Frog Farmer's tactic is to not even allow the �case� to get to
                                              > arraignment or at least not go beyond it. Again, these are two
                                              > different tactics.

                                              Again, my "tactics" come from a sequential reading of constitutions and
                                              statutes already made popular by years of prior existence.

                                              > In the Frog Farmer's most recent post, he said he wouldn't enter a
                                              > plea unless a verified complaint is filed. I agree with that. A
                                              > complaint is what gives the court subject matter jurisdiction.

                                              Once again, "they" thought of it first!

                                              > The complaint is the foundation of the jurisdiction of the magistrate.
                                              >
                                              > 22 Corpus Juris Secundum � 303, pages 456, 457

                                              See? It's not even an issue!

                                              > I asked the "officer" for his commission when he issued the citation.
                                              > He became VERY angry. He said, �You wanna see my commission? Here.� He
                                              > didn't show me anything other than a 4 digit number that he wrote on
                                              > the citation next to the label �Badge ID�. He said, �I�m going to
                                              > document everything about this stop. It�s being recorded and video
                                              > taped.�

                                              Hey, perfect!

                                              > Either way, I won't be entering a plea
                                              > absent a verified complaint. If I refuse, I know the judge will simply
                                              > enter a plea on my behalf of "not guilty":

                                              They can usually only enter a plea for you if you "refuse" to enter a
                                              plea. What if you CANNOT enter plea? Did you have counsel present for
                                              the arraignment? Were all required elements of an arraignment met? Was
                                              the complaint in order?

                                              > When the judge enters a
                                              > plea on your behalf, you must object on the record.

                                              I would file a "Withdrawal of Plea" document.

                                              > With respect to the verified complaint, I have cases that say that a
                                              > conviction is automatically reversed on appeal if a verified complaint
                                              > is not filed upon request and when its absence is objected to on the
                                              > record or by pre-trial motion.

                                              It only makes sense! Any riff-raff can make unverified complaints all
                                              day long!

                                              > The issue of a verified complaint is putting �first things first.�
                                              > Well, it's almost �first things first.� There is the issue that Frog
                                              > Farmer enlightened all of us too and that is the question of whether
                                              > we are dealing with impersonators or not. That is an important step.
                                              > The next is a verified complaint. After that is arraignment. If you
                                              > get past that then there are pre-trial motions, voir dire,
                                              > interlocutory appeals, extraordinary writs, trial, judgment, post-
                                              > trial motions and appeal.

                                              Right. Don't forget those writs, because that's where you actually do
                                              the prosecuting.

                                              > For a traffic case, they would be spending thousands of dollars for a
                                              > $75 fine and THEN, with the Handyman's brilliant research on
                                              > exactments (HAGAR v. LAND RECLAMATION, 111 U.S. 701 (May 5, 1884)),
                                              > his and Frog Farmer's research on FRN's not being legal tender (repeal
                                              > of HJR-192) and U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1,
                                              > they couldn�t collect anyway.

                                              They couldn't collect twenty years ago either. I know my very first
                                              case that I took on intentionally was over a $14 dog license. They sent
                                              two people after me first, and I took a half hour of their time, plus
                                              the time getting ready to see me, and the time recovering from seeing
                                              me. Then they spent for a court case, over twelve hearings, all kinds
                                              of fun and games, and an appeal where they surrendered just before it
                                              occurred. Estimates by others say they spent well over $5,000 on me.
                                              My costs were about $120. Since I never bought dog licenses again in
                                              over 25 years, I'm well ahead on it. They've never raised the issue
                                              again, despite meeting my dogs, which they forgot to do the last time.

                                              Regards,

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