Re: FF's IMOC & Handyman's Moving Violation Dismissed
- 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 Generals 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 Generals 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. Thats 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 courts
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 drivers license,
registration, proof of insurance. Upon failure to produce any of these, the
policeman can have the persons 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 AGs 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 officers 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 -- thats doing it the
right way. Thats complying with the governments revenue enhancement
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 wont 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 AGs 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 fathers 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 AGs Watch List. Names on the AGs
Watch List can filter all the way down to the traffic cops 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
States ACIC and the federal NCIC database. One of the surprise outcomes
of the AGs 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 hes a good guy, youll get your
gun back. If hes a high and mighty LEO (law enforcement officer) with
a superiority attitude, hell 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 youll be carted off to jail. Arizona has entered the
Twilight Zone of Kafkaesque-Dom.
I would like to believe that Frog Farmers methods and tactics would yield
a favorable outcome here in Arizona. Im afraid that here in the wild west
they have seen us coming for the past 20 or 25 years.
Best regards from Virgil
- 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.SincerelyScott WilliamsDenver, Colorado
- 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 ato
>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
>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
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.
- 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
[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.
> the Hot Spot for antiestablishment activities in the 1980s. Anyonewho
> challenged the "system" be it traffic tickets or court process waslabeled an
> "Arizona Patriot." The Arizona Supreme Court started holdingtraining
> sessions for judges in the various courts and coordinated thetraining with
> the Attorney General's office. A manual was developedcalled "Dealing
> With the Maverick." It is treated as a secret document withcontrolled
> distribution to presiding judges in the various courts
- Virgil Cooper wisely counseled:
> I have been jousting with the "system" in Arizona since 1981. ArizonaI got one of those, but I forget if it was by that name. I got it as a
> 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
> 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.
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 termsI used to use a letter from Wayne Stump in my huge case of materials I
> 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
> crowd (the majority) mad as hell. He always was on the losing side as
> "lone voice in the wilderness". The mad majority always managed to
> overrule his demands that bills in the hopper be scrutinized for
used to carry around to be ready to fight my case on the hood of a
> The mindset of the majority was to let anyone whoThat's to make all those democracy lovers happy. Everyone knows half or
> wanted to challenge the constitutionality of an enacted law do so in
> the courts - later, after the fact, downstream.
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 aboutYes, it is a nice manual. There were still hurdles they could not get
> "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 atAnd Nevada, I have heard as well. A local class was held on how to deal
> various locations around Arizona.
with me and some friends of mine. I can't say it was a bad idea.
> These conferences have been held sinceBefore we that. We exposed an agent involved with that in 1983, and it
> approximately 1985.
was old hat to him then.
> The training includes "Keywords" that a "Maverick"In other words, old outdated concepts with known cut-off dates in the
> 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
> 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.
public educational system that no longer hold force or effect since
"everything changed" on 9-11?
> In the case of traffic tickets, especially moving violations99% of the time they are established out of the mouth or over the
> 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
> State" to be taken for granted as established fact.
signature of the accused.
> The "Dealing With the Maverick" binder is updated byThreatening is different than actually proving when contested. I've
> 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,
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 thingsSanta made my dog eat it! I would demand anyone claiming my arguments
> that the court or agency will not allow to be raised as
> "frivolous" or "nonsensical" arguments which are wasteful
> of the court's time.
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 toOf course, is this new to anyone?? Failure to object timely is fatal!
> "keep moving forward" - meaning to presume waiver at
> every critical step of the process.
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 trafficUnless he already knows the "driver" doesn't have them or need
> 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.
them...then why would he ask for them?
> Upon failure to produce any of these, theI'm glad it was "CAN" and not "WILL", because some people CAN actually
> policeman can have the person's car towed on the spot and impounded
> for 30 days.
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 resultPlease note that my tactics come right from the state's own documents.
> 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.
Reading my state's laws was where I got the ideas in the first place.
> These "defenses" are designed to bring "contempt ofThat's quite a conspiracy you're alleging. I'll believe it.
> 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 ofLike robots?
> 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.
> IMOC (in the moment of contact) will standI invented the acronym and do not equate contact with confrontation.
> an increasing likelihood of being cuffed or tasered
> given the current escalating attitude toward anyone
> who is considered to be "noncompliant."
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?
> Now thatDon't worry about the fact you can't make war against a concept, any
> the country is in a long-term "state of war against terrorism" (an
> undeclared war) and the Patriot Act is still around,
"ism". Look how they did against communism! How about a war against
hypocrisy or arrogance?!
> along with theBelief in "the system" is dangerous as well as delusional. There is no
> increasing militarization of police agencies, bucking the system is
> becoming increasingly dangerous and confrontational.
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 firstWhy do people even consider Dr. Kavorkian when police-assisted suicide
> and ask questions later."
is almost a sure thing? A water pistol is cheaper than a plane ticket!
> Nowadays, the first words uttered by a policeman at the scenecompliance"
> 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
> -They should if the car has state plates! It's different for some other
> they want, they demand, proper ID, and state papers.
> If you ask theReally, how many is the correct number? Is there a list of approved
> 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.
topics? Arizona sounds like Naziville. Are people fleeing the borders
as we speak? Come out to California, the weather's great!
> The correct attitudeLaw be damned eh? Rights were legislated out of Arizona, the state of
> produce the requested papers, answer the officer's questions, say
> Sir", sign the ticket, and pay the fine. Policemen are schooled in
> maintaining control. They ask the questions. They have the gun, the
> or taser gun, and the handcuffs. Meekly complying -- that's doing it
> right way. That's complying with the government's "revenue enhancement
Barry Goldwater? Wow! How about a moment of silence....
> There is no doubt in my mind that we are moving incrementally, day byRemember, I'm just offering them the chance to obey the laws they told
> 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.
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.
- 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.