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

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Slammed In Traffic Court

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    ... There has to be an original injured party who signs the complainant s complaint. There should be witnesses and evidence as well. This is amply
    Message 1 of 46 , Jul 3, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      > In most CRIMINAL cases, I believe that the state is ALLEGING that the
      > PEOPLE are the INJURED PARTY.

      There has to be an original injured party who signs the complainant's
      complaint. There should be witnesses and evidence as well. This is
      amply illustrated in the text of the codes (which nonetheless may be
      disqualified as law in California, but that's another issue).

      > California & probably most other states SPECIFICALLY allow for the
      > Judge to enter a PLEA for a DEFENDANT who REFUSES to PLEA.

      So they trick people into refusing to plead. If you hear of anyone
      using any of the options that would preclude refusing to plead (and
      still not entering a plea), let me know. I've used them, but know of
      nobody else to use them. They are right there in the Penal Code
      (Section 990 time to answer; demurrer; writ of prohibition...)

      > 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).

      Really! Give that man a cigar! And then find out that really there was
      probably NOTHING to quash but the RUMOR of a complaint; which, after
      they find out if you are a normal sucker or not, after you plead to the
      rumor, THEN they produce the fake to make the record conform to the
      outcome. This can all be avoided by requiring that they dot all "I"s
      and cross all "T"s (by requiring all arraignment elements to be
      performed EXACTLY, which I've NEVER seen done right in over 25 years of
      waiting to see it!!! No, I do not go every day or even every week, so
      you tell me if you see one done right and I'll shut up about it.)

      > Lastly, IF the judge did NOT ORDER him to PAY in FRNs,

      Most are smart enough not to do that since they've been dealing with
      patriot issues like these for over a quarter of a century that I know
      about. We did however trick a clerk into demanding FRNs on tape in the
      office. But when the story of that got to the judge, he was very cool
      and asked me if I was going to try to pay with doubloons and I said I
      was not. I said that I was interested in what he might order me to pay,
      knowing that the term "dollar" was a term of measurement and what was it
      that was being measured? And he answered, "Case dismissed."

      > HOW can you
      > charge his with ACTING under COLOR OF LAW or COLOR OF OFFICE?

      That judge ordered payment in so many dollars of US currency. We now
      know from the Kahre case that there are two systems with dollars of
      unequal values, which is unlawful if not illegal under current law and
      original intent. But most people do not enforce the law and leave it to
      others to do. It might not get done. We all have the right to enforce
      the law where we are involved. Police only have the powers given to
      them by the people. When that judge said to pay so many dollars and
      take up the money issue with the clerk, it was the right advice. The
      judge has to assume that the law regarding money is being generally
      followed until somebody makes the record show otherwise, and that would
      be the job of the person for whom it is an issue. Some people who do
      not realize the consequences and ramifications of using FRNs have no
      issue with them at all. I personally find the "money issue" to be my
      favorite and the most entertaining and fun-producing one to use on
      usurping power-mad trough feeders.

      > That is IF they even have a VALID OATH OF OFFICE on file as REQUIRED
      > by law.

      Dream on!!

      So, you have to wonder what makes people play the game. Is it that we
      all have to play SOME game and theirs is the only one in town? No,
      because it is NOT the only one in town! It is only the most popular game
      in town. The other games are harder to find, but they are there. There
      IS a non-frn/non-bank-electronic-credit economy out there. I have been
      moving more and more into it. My last three big value trades never even
      had FRN prices mentioned, as if FRNs were already non-existent memories
      equal to confederate scrip. The day when that becomes a reality for
      everyone is coming closer and WILL occur. Layers of the fraud are being
      exposed everyday now. America's arrogant criminal financial elite is
      now a topic of international discussion. Don't be the last on your
      block to be stuck with FRNs!

      Regards,

      FF
    • stonekutteral
      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
      Message 46 of 46 , Oct 19, 2010
      • 0 Attachment

        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: court
        errs 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 re
        Anastasoff: 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 my
        pleadings.



          SIGNED 

              Lysander
        Spooner____________________________________________________-
        (actually Spooner would rip them a darn sight stronger, but let's remember
        his name , anyway.)

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