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

Re: FF's IMOC & Handyman's Moving Violation Dismissed

Expand Messages
  • Virgil Cooper
    To the Tips & Tricks list, I have been jousting with the “system” in Arizona since 1981. Arizona was the Hot Spot for antiestablishment activities in the
    Message 1 of 7 , Sep 30, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      To the Tips & Tricks list,

      I have been jousting with the “system” in Arizona since 1981. Arizona was
      the Hot Spot for antiestablishment activities in the 1980s. Anyone who
      challenged the “system” be it traffic tickets or court process was labeled an
      “Arizona Patriot.” The Arizona Supreme Court started holding training
      sessions for judges in the various courts and coordinated the training with
      the Attorney General’s office. A manual was developed called “Dealing
      With the Maverick.” It is treated as a secret document with controlled
      distribution to presiding judges in the various courts – municipal, superior,
      and appellate. A few years ago, a Senator Wayne Stump served two terms
      in the Arizona Senate. He was known as the “ultraconservative senator”
      because of his being a constant stickler for demanding that legislative bills
      be constitutional while he served on the Senate Judiciary Committee
      during his second term. This made the “who cares about constitutionality”
      crowd (the majority) mad as hell. He always was on the losing side as the
      “lone voice in the wilderness”. The mad majority always managed to
      overrule his demands that bills in the hopper be scrutinized for
      constitutionality. The mindset of the majority was to let anyone who
      wanted to challenge the constitutionality of an enacted law do so in the
      courts – later, after the fact, downstream. Senator Stump, during his second
      term, became aware of the limited access binder that was prepared for
      sitting judges: “Dealing With the Maverick.” He made several requests to
      obtain a copy through the Arizona Supreme Court and through the
      Attorney General’s office to no avail. All that he was able to find out about
      “Dealing With the Maverick” was that it provided instructions to judges
      and prosecuting attorneys on how to keep moving forward complete with
      detailed instructions and case cites.

      The training conferences for judges are held every six months at various
      locations around Arizona. These conferences have been held since
      approximately 1985. The training includes “Keywords” that a “Maverick”
      may verbalize or include in papers filed with the various courts. This
      “Keywords List” includes such things as “Oath of Office”, the “Money
      Issue” (what is a constitutional dollar?), challenging the jurisdiction of the
      court or agency, standing, State Citizen vs. federal citizen, traveling vs. the
      privilege to “drive” on the public roads and highways, demanding to know
      the jurisdiction of a proceeding, demanding to know the “Nature and
      Cause” of an action, demanding to know all of the elements the State must
      prove. In the case of traffic tickets, especially moving violations and
      speeding tickets, the JP courts and municipal courts have become
      accustomed to a practice called “Preponderance of the Elements.” That’s a
      joking take-off on “Preponderance of the Evidence” where various
      elements of a moving violation are as a standard practice “presumed by the
      State” to be taken for granted as established fact. The “Dealing With the
      Maverick” binder is updated by the Arizona Supreme Court based on
      feedback in the 6-month conferences and from other sources. The binder is
      a “cookbook” or “how-to book” on how to block, sidestep, or overrule a
      “Maverick” by lecturing a defendant, by threatening contempt of court, or
      by specifying things that the court or agency will not allow to be raised as
      “frivolous” or “nonsensical” arguments which are wasteful of the court’s
      time. The idea stressed throughout is to “keep moving forward” – meaning
      to presume waiver at every critical step of the process. The lowly traffic
      cop or highway patrolman is aware of the protocol mindset but probably
      may never see the “Dealing With the Maverick” book. When he makes a
      traffic stop and asks the driver for his “state papers” – driver’s license,
      registration, proof of insurance. Upon failure to produce any of these, the
      policeman can have the person’s car towed on the spot and impounded for
      30 days. Asking too many questions at the scene of a stop can result in
      being cited for “obstructing the function of an officer.” Frog Farmer
      describes tactics that may work for him in California, but in Arizona these
      “anti-system” arguments have been studied and cataloged by courts and
      prosecuting attorneys and the AG’s office and “defenses” have been
      designed and structured to make it extremely difficult and unlikely that
      they will prevail. These “defenses” are designed to bring “contempt of
      court” charges, or some other excuse to jail or otherwise muzzle the raising
      of “novel” arguments. In the twenty or so years that the State of Arizona
      has been “dealing with mavericks”, so-called “constitutionalists” and “pro
      se or pro per litigants”, the State has systematized and structured its
      responses to all kinds of such challenges. My own father was in court one
      time in Phoenix where his VW van was had been broken into and
      vandalized. He stated that he was the owner and therefore the injured party.
      The judge corrected him with thunderous words that shook the courtroom
      and made the PA system ring with reverberation: “The State IS the injured
      party.” This was in Maricopa County Superior Court, not a municipal
      traffic court or justice of the peace court.

      What I am trying to describe is that the State of Arizona has attempted to
      address “challenges” in advance and systematize and structure and preplan
      its reactions and defenses. IMOC (in the moment of contact) will stand an
      increasing likelihood of being cuffed or tasered given the current escalating
      attitude toward anyone who is considered to be “noncompliant.” Now that
      the country is in a long-term “state of war against terrorism” (an
      undeclared war) and the Patriot Act is still around, along with the
      increasing militarization of police agencies, bucking the system is
      becoming increasingly dangerous and confrontational. Police are beginning
      to adopt the attitude of “shoot first and ask questions later.” Nowadays,
      the first words uttered by a policeman at the scene of a traffic stop are:
      “Step out of the car.” No more polite discussion with the driver seated
      behind the wheel of his car. Now the police want “instant compliance” –
      they want, they demand, proper ID, and state papers. If you ask the
      policeman who pulled you over, what was the probable cause, or
      reasonable cause, or reasonable suspicion, or even “an idea conceived” –
      you are in trouble for asking too many questions. The correct attitude is:
      produce the requested papers, answer the officer’s questions, say “Yes,
      Sir”, sign the ticket, and pay the fine. Policemen are schooled in
      maintaining control. They ask the questions. They have the gun, the taser
      or taser gun, and the handcuffs. Meekly complying -- that’s doing it the
      right way. That’s complying with the government’s “revenue enhancement
      scheme.”

      The state gets 95 percent compliance. It figures it can deal with the
      “problem” 5 percent who want to contest a ticket or the relative few real
      “mavericks” who try to challenge every step of the way from the “Moment
      of First Contact”. The official reaction to anyone attempting to make
      government officials and employees “do it right” is to block, sidestep,
      threaten, or shunt aside direct challenges. Many judges are instructed to
      say they will take the matter “under advisement” and rule on it later
      (meaning never) or they will state that they have taken “judicial notice” of
      something raised by a defendant (meaning it won’t ever be included in an
      appeal, if there is an appeal). In short, the State of Arizona has gone to
      great lengths to make sure that challenges get short shrifted and shunted to
      the side for special treatment. For those who become a constant “thorn in
      the side”, the AG’s office maintains a “Black List” of problem people who
      raise constitutional or “patriot” or “maverick” or “novel” challenges. This
      “Black List” amounts to a sort of “Watch List” of problem people who
      raise issues the State disdains or otherwise disapproves of. Senator Stump
      was successful in obtaining a copy of the AG’ s “Watch List.” My name
      was on it as was my father’s and my two sisters. We had attended a series
      of lectures on the U.S. Constitution put on by W. Cleon Skousen in the
      mid- to latter 1980s. The names of many friends who were even somewhat
      politically active were also on the AG’s “Watch List.” Names on the AG’s
      “Watch List” can filter all the way down to the traffic cop’s digital
      information database that he can scroll through at the scene of “routine
      traffic stop” because he can instantly access the 911 database as well as the
      State’s ACIC and the federal NCIC database. One of the surprise outcomes
      of the AG’s “Watch List” is that a judge can declare you persona non grata
      and order the Clerk of the Court to refuse any filing of papers by you.

      There is no doubt in my mind that we are moving incrementally, day by
      day, closer to a state of undeclared martial law police state. Woe be unto
      you, if as you step out of your car, you have a gun on your hip. You better
      have already told the policeman that you are armed. He will pat you down
      and disarm you. He will take your gun and remove ammunition out of it
      rendering it harmless. The question then will arise as to whether he will
      return it to you at the end of the “roadside court”, a.k.a. “IMOC” (in the
      moment of contact or confrontation). If he’s a good guy, you’ll get your
      gun back. If he’s a high and mighty “LEO” (law enforcement officer) with
      a superiority attitude, he’ll keep your gun and make you go through
      administrative hurdles to try to get it back. Were you carrying open or were
      you carrying concealed with or without a permit? State papers in order?
      (Heil Hitler! -- with the stiff-armed Nazi salute and heels clicked together.)
      If otherwise, you will be placed under arrest, you car will be impounded
      for 30 days, and you’ll be carted off to jail. Arizona has entered the
      “Twilight Zone” of Kafkaesque-Dom.

      I would like to believe that Frog Farmer’s methods and tactics would yield
      a favorable outcome here in Arizona. I’m afraid that here in the “wild west”
      they have seen us coming – for the past 20 or 25 years.

      Best regards from Virgil
    • Scott
      Hello Group. This post makes us all acutely aware of the on going government, state, and city régimes. When in this case the Supreme Court is involved to
      Message 2 of 7 , Oct 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello Group.
         
        This post makes us all acutely aware of the on going government, state, and city régimes.  When in this case the Supreme Court is involved to side step the Constitution, it is time to act.  I would suggest contact with Richard Cornforth, since last I knew, him and a couple of Oklahoma State Senators where attempting to once again replace the members of the Oklahoma supreme court for corruption.  It would be nice to know their tactics and then bring pressure to bear on the supreme court of AZ by public outrage, etc.  Having just the proof that the "Dealing with the Maverick" Guide Book exist, would bring public outrage to the peak.  Short of a majority of people living in Arizona being outraged enough to bring pressure to bear, there is nothing short of a complete ousting of all officials and replacement with known Constitutionalists, by force.  This means Federal involvement and media blackouts as they rampage through Arizona to bring it's "Citizens" under control.  Can anyone say Viva La Resistance!
         
        If you can get the proof make sure you get it to others outside Arizona to publicize to The People of their states and begin a grass movement to bring back sanity.
        Small Comment with no other Idea's to help.
        Sincerely
        Scott Williams
        Denver, Colorado
         
         
      • rebel382003
        Virgil has informed us the Arizona court manual DEALING WITH THE ... to ... It would appear the maverick list would be a black-ball list of non- lawyers;
        Message 3 of 7 , Oct 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Virgil has informed us the Arizona court manual "DEALING WITH THE
          MAVERICK" has a provision:

          >One of the surprise outcomes of the AG's "Watch List" is that a
          >judge can declare you [a maverick, i.e., a non-lawyer making court
          >pleadings, reb] persona non grata and order the Clerk of the Court
          to
          >refuse any filing of papers by you.

          It would appear the maverick list would be a black-ball list of non-
          lawyers; i.e., the establishment of a protected monolopy with access
          to the courts and a punishment for the quest of justice--a
          constitutional right.

          This practice, if enforced against all non-lawyers, would obviously
          be a denial of due process (free access to the court for
          adjudication) absent any prior show of abuse of court procedure by
          the specific litigant. A blanket denial to file court
          pleadings/motions to ALL defendants would surely not be acceptable
          if challenged in a federal court.

          Do you have specific defendants that have been denied the
          opportunity to file papers in their own cases who could file a
          complaint in District court ???

          May the legend of Marvin Cooley live forever.

          Reb
        • tthor.geo
          Seems, to me, obvious, that if anyone can obtain a copy of Dealing with the Maverick [via your state s Information Practices Act , Public Records Act or
          Message 4 of 7 , Oct 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Seems, to me, obvious, that if anyone can obtain a copy of "Dealing
            with the Maverick" [via your state's Information Practices Act ,
            Public Records Act or equivalent, or by subpoena duces tecum ], it
            will constitute *prima facie* evidence of the Arizona Supreme
            Court 'subverting and perverting the administration of justice'
            [check your state's Rules of Court and Standards for Judicial
            Conduct].
            [Maybe you could get the entire 'court system' thrown out of court
            as structurally defective to the extent that nobody can reasonably
            expect to receive a 'fair trial'.]

            "Virgil Cooper" <ultrac21@...> wrote:
            >
            > To the Tips & Tricks list,
            >
            > I have been jousting with the "system" in Arizona since 1981.
            Arizona was
            > the Hot Spot for antiestablishment activities in the 1980s. Anyone
            who
            > challenged the "system" be it traffic tickets or court process was
            labeled an
            > "Arizona Patriot." The Arizona Supreme Court started holding
            training
            > sessions for judges in the various courts and coordinated the
            training with
            > the Attorney General's office. A manual was developed
            called "Dealing
            > With the Maverick." It is treated as a secret document with
            controlled
            > distribution to presiding judges in the various courts –
          • Virgil Cooper
            To rebel382003 and others on this list, So far as I am aware, no one has been successful in getting access to the manual (actually a loose-leaf binder) called
            Message 5 of 7 , Oct 2, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
            • Frog Farmer
              ... I got one of those, but I forget if it was by that name. I got it as a computer file from the internet somewhere. I ll see if I can find a copy but most
              Message 6 of 7 , Oct 2, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Virgil Cooper wisely counseled:


                > I have been jousting with the "system" in Arizona since 1981. Arizona
                > was
                > the Hot Spot for antiestablishment activities in the 1980s. Anyone who
                > challenged the "system" be it traffic tickets or court process was
                > labeled an
                > "Arizona Patriot." The Arizona Supreme Court started holding training
                > sessions for judges in the various courts and coordinated the training
                > with
                > the Attorney General's office. A manual was developed called "Dealing
                > With the Maverick." It is treated as a secret document with controlled
                > distribution to presiding judges in the various courts - municipal,
                > superior, and appellate.

                I got one of those, but I forget if it was by that name. I got it as a
                computer file from the internet somewhere. I'll see if I can find a
                copy but most likely it was destroyed when my computer was hacked. As I
                recall reading it, it did make some things more difficult but could not
                damage actual rights demanded and not waived.

                > A few years ago, a Senator Wayne Stump served two terms
                > in the Arizona Senate. He was known as the "ultraconservative senator"
                > because of his being a constant stickler for demanding that
                > legislative bills
                > be constitutional while he served on the Senate Judiciary Committee
                > during his second term. This made the "who cares about
                > constitutionality"
                > crowd (the majority) mad as hell. He always was on the losing side as
                > the
                > "lone voice in the wilderness". The mad majority always managed to
                > overrule his demands that bills in the hopper be scrutinized for
                > constitutionality.

                I used to use a letter from Wayne Stump in my huge case of materials I
                used to carry around to be ready to fight my case on the hood of a
                patrol car.

                > The mindset of the majority was to let anyone who
                > wanted to challenge the constitutionality of an enacted law do so in
                > the courts - later, after the fact, downstream.

                That's to make all those democracy lovers happy. Everyone knows half or
                more of what the majority wants is unconstitutional, and that they don't
                care if it is.

                > All that he was able to find out about
                > "Dealing With the Maverick" was that it provided instructions to
                > judges and prosecuting attorneys on how to keep moving forward
                > complete with detailed instructions and case cites.

                Yes, it is a nice manual. There were still hurdles they could not get
                over.

                > The training conferences for judges are held every six months at
                > various locations around Arizona.

                And Nevada, I have heard as well. A local class was held on how to deal
                with me and some friends of mine. I can't say it was a bad idea.

                > These conferences have been held since
                > approximately 1985.

                Before we that. We exposed an agent involved with that in 1983, and it
                was old hat to him then.

                > The training includes "Keywords" that a "Maverick"
                > may verbalize or include in papers filed with the various courts. This
                > "Keywords List" includes such things as "Oath of Office", the "Money
                > Issue" (what is a constitutional dollar?), challenging the
                > jurisdiction of the
                > court or agency, standing, State Citizen vs. federal citizen,
                > traveling vs. the
                > privilege to "drive" on the public roads and highways, demanding to
                > know
                > the jurisdiction of a proceeding, demanding to know the "Nature and
                > Cause" of an action, demanding to know all of the elements the State
                > must prove.

                In other words, old outdated concepts with known cut-off dates in the
                public educational system that no longer hold force or effect since
                "everything changed" on 9-11?

                > In the case of traffic tickets, especially moving violations
                > and
                > speeding tickets, the JP courts and municipal courts have become
                > accustomed to a practice called "Preponderance of the Elements."
                > That's a
                > joking take-off on "Preponderance of the Evidence" where various
                > elements of a moving violation are as a standard practice "presumed by
                > the
                > State" to be taken for granted as established fact.

                99% of the time they are established out of the mouth or over the
                signature of the accused.

                > The "Dealing With the Maverick" binder is updated by
                > the Arizona Supreme Court based on feedback in the
                > 6-month conferences and from other sources. The binder
                > is a "cookbook" or "how-to book" on how to block,
                > sidestep, or overrule a "Maverick" by lecturing a defendant,
                > by threatening contempt of court,

                Threatening is different than actually proving when contested. I've
                been threatened with it for merely speaking in turn. Overruling is to
                be assumed. Blocking and sidestepping are fair game for making note of
                in the record for appeal, or maybe even the meat for a writ.

                > or by specifying things
                > that the court or agency will not allow to be raised as
                > "frivolous" or "nonsensical" arguments which are wasteful
                > of the court's time.

                Santa made my dog eat it! I would demand anyone claiming my arguments
                are nonsensical to admit that they just may not be capable of holding
                such complex concepts due to their own failure to achieve the first goal
                of a public servant.

                > The idea stressed throughout is to
                > "keep moving forward" - meaning to presume waiver at
                > every critical step of the process.

                Of course, is this new to anyone?? Failure to object timely is fatal!
                Silence is deemed consent. If the person now claiming some right knew
                he had it in the Initial Moment Of Confrontation, why didn't he object
                timely then? The reason is most likely he didn't know he had it, but
                someone else told him he did because someone else did. Some people
                think that if one person has a right, they have it too. They may be
                oblivious to the fact that they signed the right away on a piece of
                paper last year.

                > The lowly traffic
                > cop or highway patrolman is aware of the protocol mindset but probably
                > may never see the "Dealing With the Maverick" book. When he makes a
                > traffic stop and asks the driver for his "state papers" - driver's
                > license, registration, proof of insurance.

                Unless he already knows the "driver" doesn't have them or need
                them...then why would he ask for them?

                > Upon failure to produce any of these, the
                > policeman can have the person's car towed on the spot and impounded
                > for 30 days.

                I'm glad it was "CAN" and not "WILL", because some people CAN actually
                THINK and respond to interrogations in a friendly manner without waiving
                any rights and at the same time communicating new ideas to others that
                they just may not have considered before. Not every topic has been the
                subject of a supreme court case. Yet.

                > Asking too many questions at the scene of a stop can result
                > in being cited for "obstructing the function of an officer."
                > Frog Farmer describes tactics that may work for him in California,
                > but in Arizona these "anti-system" arguments have been studied
                > and cataloged by courts and prosecuting attorneys and the AG's
                > office and "defenses" have been designed and structured to make
                >it extremely difficult and unlikely that they will prevail.

                Please note that my tactics come right from the state's own documents.
                Reading my state's laws was where I got the ideas in the first place.

                > These "defenses" are designed to bring "contempt of
                > court" charges, or some other excuse to jail or otherwise muzzle the
                > raising of "novel" arguments.

                That's quite a conspiracy you're alleging. I'll believe it.

                > In the twenty or so years that the State of
                > Arizona has been "dealing with mavericks", so-called
                > "constitutionalists" and "pro se or pro per litigants",
                > the State has systematized and structured its
                > responses to all kinds of such challenges.

                Like robots?

                > IMOC (in the moment of contact) will stand
                > an increasing likelihood of being cuffed or tasered
                > given the current escalating attitude toward anyone
                > who is considered to be "noncompliant."

                I invented the acronym and do not equate contact with confrontation.
                There can be contact and agreement. It's the confrontation I take note
                of. I agree, the likelihood of being cuffed or tasered has certainly
                risen post 911. Brainwashing is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

                Boo!

                > Now that
                > the country is in a long-term "state of war against terrorism" (an
                > undeclared war) and the Patriot Act is still around,

                Don't worry about the fact you can't make war against a concept, any
                "ism". Look how they did against communism! How about a war against
                hypocrisy or arrogance?!

                > along with the
                > increasing militarization of police agencies, bucking the system is
                > becoming increasingly dangerous and confrontational.

                Belief in "the system" is dangerous as well as delusional. There is no
                system. There are many systems and they are not all integrated, except
                in the minds of the deluded.

                > Police are beginning to adopt the attitude of "shoot first
                > and ask questions later."

                Why do people even consider Dr. Kavorkian when police-assisted suicide
                is almost a sure thing? A water pistol is cheaper than a plane ticket!

                > Nowadays, the first words uttered by a policeman at the scene
                > of a traffic stop are:
                > "Step out of the car." No more polite discussion with the driver
                > seated behind the wheel of his car. Now the police want "instant
                compliance"
                > -
                > they want, they demand, proper ID, and state papers.

                They should if the car has state plates! It's different for some other
                people.

                > If you ask the
                > policeman who pulled you over, what was the probable cause, or
                > reasonable cause, or reasonable suspicion, or even "an idea conceived"
                > -
                > you are in trouble for asking too many questions.

                Really, how many is the correct number? Is there a list of approved
                topics? Arizona sounds like Naziville. Are people fleeing the borders
                as we speak? Come out to California, the weather's great!

                > The correct attitude
                > is:
                > produce the requested papers, answer the officer's questions, say
                > "Yes,
                > Sir", sign the ticket, and pay the fine. Policemen are schooled in
                > maintaining control. They ask the questions. They have the gun, the
                > taser
                > or taser gun, and the handcuffs. Meekly complying -- that's doing it
                > the
                > right way. That's complying with the government's "revenue enhancement
                > scheme."

                Law be damned eh? Rights were legislated out of Arizona, the state of
                Barry Goldwater? Wow! How about a moment of silence....









                > There is no doubt in my mind that we are moving incrementally, day by
                > day, closer to a state of undeclared martial law police state...
                > Arizona has entered the "Twilight Zone" of Kafkaesque-Dom.
                >
                > I would like to believe that Frog Farmer's methods and
                > tactics would yield a favorable outcome here in Arizona.
                > I'm afraid that here in the "wild west" they have seen
                > us coming - for the past 20 or 25 years.

                Remember, I'm just offering them the chance to obey the laws they told
                me they were enforcing. I didn't make up any "anti-system" tactic
                because I don't recognize any system. I use what they give me, and if I
                were in Arizona I'd be reading Arizona law in the light that best suits
                me. Too bad the national constitution no longer applies there. The
                Soviet republics disintegrated at different speeds during their
                dissolution, no reason it should be any different here.

                Regards,

                FF
              • rebel382003
                Virgil has informed us the Arizona judge s manual Dealing With the Maverick. is a loose-leaf manual of ancient vintage and it appears it might have been
                Message 7 of 7 , Oct 3, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Virgil has informed us the Arizona judge's manual "Dealing With the
                  Maverick." is a loose-leaf manual of ancient vintage and it appears
                  it might have been produced by the office of the AG.

                  There was a confidential loose-leaf handbook for trial judges 20
                  years ago in this state that was produced by the state bar
                  association. It is not recalled to have been oriented toward the
                  dealing with non-lawyers but served as a handy reference book of
                  legal points. To believe a copy was not made available to each
                  lawyer involved in trial litigation would be naive.

                  There was also a hardback manual for federal judges dealing with non-
                  professional litigants mentioned on the internet several years ago
                  and was found in the law library. It dealt with issues frequently
                  raised by non-professionals and typical responses.

                  The important question is whether any litigants or potential
                  litigants were denied the opportunity to file papers in a judicial
                  court in the state of Arizona as implied by Virgil. If that
                  practice can be documented by affidavit, it would appear to be
                  actionable in federal court. If federal litigation is initiated, the
                  Arizona manual would be an object for discovery. This assumes the
                  litigants have not been individually restricted from filing in a
                  court due to historical abuse of filing.

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