Re: Slammed In Traffic Court
- NOT TRUE in California or any state that has INFRACTIONS which are
NOT CRIMINAL, but CIVIL.
In most CRIMINAL cases, I believe that the state is ALLEGING that the
PEOPLE are the INJURED PARTY.
California & probably most other states SPECIFICALLY allow for the
Judge to enter a PLEA for a DEFENDANT who REFUSES to PLEA.
Which REQUIRES them to have FIRST ESTABLISHED PERSONAL jurisdiction
(i.e. you did NOT make a SPECIAL APPEARANCE by filing a MOTION to
QUASH for LACK of PERSONAL JURISDICTION).
Lastly, IF the judge did NOT ORDER him to PAY in FRNs, HOW can you
charge his with ACTING under COLOR OF LAW or COLOR OF OFFICE?
That is IF they even have a VALID OATH OF OFFICE on file as REQUIRED
Patrick in California
"ASSUMPTION can be very COSTLY to MANY and very PROFITABLE to a FEW."-
--- In email@example.com, "bobert111@..."
>considered as criminal. In a criminal complaint there must be and
> Congratulations: You are so right. Any moving violation is
injured party. The cop is and executive officer performing a judicial
> You may bring charges against the judge for practicing law from thebench. When he entered a Plea for you he was acting as your attorney.
> Lastly, Charge the Judge with violations of his Oath of officesince he cannot order you to pay with anything other than gold or
silver. Article 1 section 10, "No state shall make anything but gold
or silver as a tender for payment of a debt." A Judge cannot order
you to pay with anything else.
> Lower rates for Veterans. Click for VA loan information.
- On Oct 19, 2010, at 8:30 AM, Snowman wrote: My brief was rejected 4 times: Didn't serve DA, couldn't submit exhibit not accepted at trial, Type not large enough, one day late.Well they did notify you of the defects, but putting this in the beginning of your filings can help sometimes…
MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE
THIS IS NOTICE THAT THE CONTROLLING CASE, IN ALL MY COMMUNICATIONS
WITH THE COURT, WILL BE
HAINES V.KERNER 404 U.S. 519,520,(1972).
In All My Communication with the court Haines V. Kerner 404 U.S.519,520(1972), In re Haines: pro se litigants are held to less stringent
pleading standards than bar licensed attorneys.
Platsky vs CIA. 953 F. 2nd 26 (C.A.2(N.Y.),1991)In re Platsky: courterrs if court dismisses the pro se litigant without instruction of how
pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings.
, Anastasoff v. United States,223 F.3rd 898(8th circuit) (2000)In reAnastasoff: litigants' constitutional rights are violated when courts depart
from precedent where parties are similarly situated.
- will be the controlling cases in regards to any deficiency in mypleadings.
(actually Spooner would rip them a darn sight stronger, but let's remember
his name , anyway.)