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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Current § 1983 RE: Suing State Judges

Expand Messages
  • originalfrogfrmr
    ... That s why I disqualify EVERYBODY as soon as they cause a release of adrenaline. I don t understand why people who complain of oppression PERMIT it to
    Message 1 of 13 , Jun 2, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      > If a judge acts in an manner that is unlawful in his official capacity,
      > then he has absolute immunity (it's ridiculous).

      That's why I disqualify EVERYBODY as soon as they cause a release of
      adrenaline. I don't understand why people who complain of oppression
      PERMIT it to occur without objection or defense!

      Regards,

      FF
    • jai mann
      I disqualified the Judge on a lack of a constitutional oath but she went forward any way. Every thing is on the record and she lacked any jurisdiction to act
      Message 2 of 13 , Jun 2, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        I disqualified the Judge on a lack of a constitutional oath but she went forward any way. Every thing is on the record and she lacked any jurisdiction to act at any point even if she had a valid oath. If getting them to step aside was so easy then perhaps this judge didn't get the memo.

        --- On Sun, 6/2/13, frogfrmr@... <frogfrmr@...> wrote:

        From: frogfrmr@... <frogfrmr@...>
        Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Current § 1983 RE: Suing State Judges
        To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 2:18 PM

        That's why I disqualify EVERYBODY as soon as they cause a release of
        adrenaline. I don't understand why people who complain of oppression
        PERMIT it to occur without objection or defense!

        Regards,

        FF
      • Jane
        The judge I have been dealing with ignores me when I state she has not perfected her Oath......IN fact she had me held on contempt she got so pissed off. They
        Message 3 of 13 , Jun 2, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          The judge I have been dealing with ignores me when I state she has not perfected her Oath......IN fact she had me held on contempt she got so pissed off.  They never had me sign anything at the jail nor did they ever actually charge me but she Ordered $10,000 bond.   My case had the same result as the one mentioned below. They completely missed all of the seven elements of jurisdiction.  This judge did not get the memo either. 
           
          From: jai mann
          Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 2:04 PM
          Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Current § 1983 RE: Suing State Judges
           
           

          I disqualified the Judge on a lack of a constitutional oath but she went forward any way. Every thing is on the record and she lacked any jurisdiction to act at any point even if she had a valid oath. If getting them to step aside was so easy then perhaps this judge didn't get the memo.

           

        • gary2666
          I have often wondered about that myself, if they just ignore your objection and go forward, what is your relief? If no one has taken the proper oath, who
          Message 4 of 13 , Jun 2, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            I have often wondered about that myself, if they just ignore your objection and go forward, what is your relief?  If no one has taken the proper oath, who could even hear your complaint?
             
            Gary
             
            From: jai mann
            Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 4:04 PM
            Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Current § 1983 RE: Suing State Judges
             
             

            I disqualified the Judge on a lack of a constitutional oath but she went forward any way. Every thing is on the record and she lacked any jurisdiction to act at any point even if she had a valid oath. If getting them to step aside was so easy then perhaps this judge didn't get the memo.

            --- 
             

          • hobot
            ... Alas this has been my experience on last 4 traffic court encounters -even to point of objecting to judge presenting States case when prosecutor shown to
            Message 5 of 13 , Jun 2, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              On 6/2/2013 4:04 PM, jai mann wrote:
              > I disqualified the Judge on a lack of a constitutional oath but she
              > went forward any way. Every thing is on the record and she lacked any
              > jurisdiction to act at any point even if she had a valid oath. If
              > getting them to step aside was so easy then perhaps this judge didn't
              > get the memo.

              Alas this has been my experience on last 4 traffic court encounters -even to
              point of objecting to 'judge' presenting States case when prosecutor shown
              to have not oath then thrown in jail for objecting while specially
              appearing.
              Its depressing to present proper pleadings on jurisdiction elements and due
              process breakdowns being rail roaded over in courts and then get flak by
              posters we were too ignorant or backed down too easy. One interesting
              thing I discovered on last two traffic ct face off was 'judge-magistrate'
              will not and does not look at anything you may have recorded in record
              before arraignment - Only the docket sheet. I asked two judges about
              that and both said until arraignment gotten they did not have reason or
              duty [jurisdiction] too. Twice last month I was told my charges did not
              rate a jail sentence if convicted. I brought up lack of verified complaint,
              then told not to speak and if I didn't let him enter not guilty I'd be
              put in
              jail. Already tested two judges in two counties at this point objecting
              to them acting in my behalf w/o my permission to have
              spent time in their two jails. So I guess I'm not worthy of those who
              get success every time ahead of time. hobot
            • CarlS
              It has been my experience that trying to stop someone from doing something in a legal arena based on lack of jurisdiction or qualifications is very unlikely.
              Message 6 of 13 , Jun 3, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                It has been my experience that trying to stop someone from doing something in a legal arena based on lack of jurisdiction or qualifications is very unlikely. In a court proceeding, it's important to raise objections for the record, of course, but it's probably for the appeal rather than halting the current hearing. Here in central Florida, with only one exception, I've found the hearing officers in traffic court to be absolutely fair and impartial. If anything, they tend to favor the driver, and they will do everything within their power to do so, providing that the driving record doesn't indicate that they're a danger to other drivers. However, if a driver is on a first-name basis with the court (meaning frequent appearances), he or she can expect the court to do what it can to get the driver to stop endangering everyone else on the highway.

                I take a different tac in court, and I always come out on top. I always treat the court with respect; I always research the statute that I'm accused of violating, plus related statutes and regulations; I always research the speed measuring device if it's a speeding citation; and I always brush up on the requirements that the device operator must meet, which are many and laborious. I always file a motion for discovery in advance, and review the material thoroughly. That includes the officer's employment record, which can be used to introduce reasonable doubt about the validity of his testimony if there are any disciplinary or substandard performance issues.

                I never go in with any of the patriot-type arguments, and I always go in with all of my ducks in a row. The hearing officer can immediately see that I'm organized, well prepared, and not trying to argue or waste the court's time. I question the officer in such a manner as to get him to make my case for me with his answers. I have my questions written down in front of me along with any paperwork and documentation that I might need to introduce into evidence. I taught my son to do the same, and once when he was in traffic court, the hearing officer actually complimented him on how well prepared he was and how well he presented his case. The verdice was guilty, but with the minimum fine (as opposed to the maximum as listed on the citation), and no points on his license. We could have appealed in an effort to get a dismissal or not-guilty verdict, but we pick and choose our battles, and we had bigger fish to fry.

                This particular hearing officer even told those present that he would call the lawyers first so that those who were representing themselves could observe and learn from them something that might apply to their own case.

                The last time caught us completely by surprise. My son, who is now 26 and married, had an actual judge (as opposed to a hearing officer) in a county known for its corruption. The judge was an older woman with a rotten attitude and a chip on her shoulder. My son could have made several objections, but didn't know to do so, and I think that's why we lost on appeal. Live and learn. It was hard to watch my son being railroaded by a crooked judiciary, but we consider it a few hundred dollars' worth of education.

                onth I was told my charges did not
                > rate a jail sentence if convicted. I brought up lack of verified complaint,
                > then told not to speak and if I didn't let him enter not guilty I'd be
                > put in
                > jail. Already tested two judges in two counties at this point objecting
                > to them acting in my behalf w/o my permission to have
                > spent time in their two jails. So I guess I'm not worthy of those who
                > get success every time ahead of time. hobot
                >
              • originalfrogfrmr
                ... You have to do more than state it! But it doesn t surprise me to hear of total lawlessness out there today as the system is totally broken. You must
                Message 7 of 13 , Jun 3, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  > The judge I have been dealing with ignores me when I state she has not
                  > perfected her Oath......IN fact she had me held on contempt she got so
                  > pissed off. They never had me sign anything at the jail nor did they ever
                  > actually charge me but she Ordered $10,000 bond. My case had the same
                  > result as the one mentioned below. They completely missed all of the seven
                  > elements of jurisdiction. This judge did not get the memo either.

                  You have to do more than "state" it!

                  But it doesn't surprise me to hear of total lawlessness out there today as
                  the "system" is totally broken. You must use EVERY tool at your disposal.
                  Make record asking questions they cannot answer. Use the money issue.
                  Thanks for fighting back because if all did that it helps. They only have
                  lies left.

                  Regards,

                  FF
                • originalfrogfrmr
                  ... It is not a mere objection made too late. You MUST disqualify EVERY act by EVERY imposter! You must make all objections right from the IMOC Initial
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jun 3, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > I have often wondered about that myself, if they just ignore your
                    > objection and go forward, what is your relief? If no one has taken the
                    > proper oath, who could even hear your complaint?

                    It is not a mere objection made too late. You MUST disqualify EVERY act
                    by EVERY imposter! You must make all objections right from the IMOC
                    Initial Moment Of Confrontation! You must involve co-conspirators and
                    have witnesses. "THEY" only become "THEY" after you link them, as there is
                    no "they" otherwise. It is assumed everyone is doing the right thing.
                    When you make it obvious that a crime is committed, few will want to sign
                    on as accomplices. Nobody will help you, and you must fight everyone
                    arrayed against you. Being nice does not help at all.

                    Regards,

                    FF
                  • originalfrogfrmr
                    ... Based upon these two paragraphs, traffic tickets were accepted (they waive many rights). At the arrests, immediate appearances before magistrates do not
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jun 3, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > On 6/2/2013 4:04 PM, jai mann wrote:
                      >> I disqualified the Judge on a lack of a constitutional oath but she
                      >> went forward any way. Every thing is on the record and she lacked any
                      >> jurisdiction to act at any point even if she had a valid oath. If
                      >> getting them to step aside was so easy then perhaps this judge didn't
                      >> get the memo.
                      >
                      > Alas this has been my experience on last 4 traffic court encounters -even
                      > to
                      > point of objecting to 'judge' presenting States case when prosecutor shown
                      > to have not oath then thrown in jail for objecting while specially
                      > appearing.

                      Based upon these two paragraphs, traffic tickets were accepted (they waive
                      many rights). At the arrests, immediate appearances before magistrates do
                      not appear to have been demanded. The right to a real court via rejection
                      of the infraction process (and election to have the case tried as a
                      misdemeanor) and acceptance of the "traffic court" may have something to
                      do with the outcome. The lack of a separate disqualification proceeding
                      with another judge and subsequent appeals may give a clue to the results.

                      > Its depressing to present proper pleadings on jurisdiction elements and
                      > due
                      > process breakdowns being rail roaded over in courts and then get flak by
                      > posters we were too ignorant or backed down too easy. One interesting
                      > thing I discovered on last two traffic ct face off was 'judge-magistrate'
                      > will not and does not look at anything you may have recorded in record
                      > before arraignment - Only the docket sheet.

                      This proves that the first time the magistrate was seen was at
                      arraignment, so rights were already waived. Were all required elements of
                      the arraignment present? It's hard to get that here in California.

                      > I asked two judges about
                      > that and both said until arraignment gotten they did not have reason or
                      > duty [jurisdiction] too. Twice last month I was told my charges did not
                      > rate a jail sentence if convicted.

                      That is proof of the infraction process. to get full rights, you agree
                      to a possible jail sentence and treatment as a misdemeanor. It's in our
                      state codes. What state has a different process?

                      > I brought up lack of verified
                      > complaint,

                      ...which is waived by acceptance of a notice to appear or "traffic ticket".
                      The real verified complaint if it ever could exist could have been made to
                      appear if an immediate appearance before the magistrate had been required
                      and the complaint demanded then and there IF the arresting impersonator
                      could have fooled the magistrate (impersonator).

                      > then told not to speak and if I didn't let him enter not guilty I'd be
                      > put in jail.

                      In California, the accused can demand time to answer, up to seven days. I
                      explain my need to have this time to show the fake arraignment documents
                      to an attorney and ask his opinion as to how I should plead to them in
                      light of the other missing arraignment components. Sometimes I'm jealous
                      of all you folks in states where everything is done according to the law,
                      where judges and cops have oaths, and arraignments have the required
                      elements, where complaints are verified and signed (which never gets
                      revealed if a ticket is accepted first).

                      > Already tested two judges in two counties at this point objecting
                      > to them acting in my behalf w/o my permission to have
                      > spent time in their two jails. So I guess I'm not worthy of those who
                      > get success every time ahead of time. hobot

                      "Testing two judges" implies going through two disqualification processes.
                      See California law at Code of Civil procedure 170.3

                      (c) (1) If a judge who should disqualify himself or herself refuses or
                      fails to do so, any party may file with the clerk a written verified
                      statement objecting to the hearing or trial before the judge and setting
                      forth the facts constituting the grounds for disqualification of the
                      judge. The statement shall be presented at the earliest practicable
                      opportunity after discovery of the facts constituting the ground for
                      disqualification. Copies of the statement shall be served on each party or
                      his or her attorney who has appeared and shall be personally served on the
                      judge alleged to be disqualified, or on his or her clerk, provided that
                      the judge is present in the courthouse or in chambers.


                      (2) Without conceding his or her disqualification, a judge whose
                      impartiality has been challenged by the filing of a written statement may
                      request any other judge agreed upon by the parties to sit and act in his
                      or her place.


                      (3) Within 10 days after the filing or service, whichever is later, the
                      judge may file a consent to disqualification in which case the judge shall
                      notify the presiding judge or the person authorized to appoint a
                      replacement of his or her recusal as provided in subdivision (a), or the
                      judge may file a written verified answer admitting or denying any or all
                      of the allegations contained in the party’s statement and setting forth
                      any additional facts material or relevant to the question of
                      disqualification. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a copy of the judge’s
                      answer to each party or his or her attorney who has appeared in the
                      action.


                      (4) A judge who fails to file a consent or answer within the time allowed
                      shall be deemed to have consented to his or her disqualification and the
                      clerk shall notify the presiding judge or person authorized to appoint a
                      replacement of the recusal as provided in subdivision (a).


                      (5) A judge who refuses to recuse himself or herself shall not pass upon
                      his or her own disqualification or upon the sufficiency in law, fact, or
                      otherwise, of the statement of disqualification filed by a party. In that
                      case, the question of disqualification shall be heard and determined by
                      another judge agreed upon by all the parties who have appeared or, in the
                      event they are unable to agree within five days of notification of the
                      judge’s answer [FF NEVER AGREES!!!], by a judge selected by the
                      chairperson of the Judicial Council, or if the chairperson is unable to
                      act, the vice chairperson. The clerk shall notify the executive officer of
                      the Judicial Council of the need for a selection. The selection shall be
                      made as expeditiously as possible. No challenge pursuant to this
                      subdivision or Section 170.6 may be made against the judge selected to
                      decide the question of disqualification.


                      (6) The judge deciding the question of disqualification may decide the
                      question on the basis of the statement of disqualification and answer and
                      any written arguments as the judge requests, or the judge may set the
                      matter for hearing as promptly as practicable. If a hearing is ordered,
                      the judge shall permit the parties and the judge alleged to be
                      disqualified to argue the question of disqualification and shall for good
                      cause shown hear evidence on any disputed issue of fact. If the judge
                      deciding the question of disqualification determines that the judge is
                      disqualified, the judge hearing the question shall notify the presiding
                      judge or the person having authority to appoint a replacement of the
                      disqualified judge as provided in subdivision (a).


                      (d) The determination of the question of the disqualification of a judge
                      is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate
                      from the appropriate court of appeal sought only by the parties to the
                      proceeding. The petition for the writ shall be filed and served within 10
                      days after service of written notice of entry of the court’s order
                      determining the question of disqualification. If the notice of entry is
                      served by mail, that time shall be extended as provided in subdivision (a)
                      of Section 1013.


                      --------

                      and then, if all goes against you, you still have the peremptory
                      challenge, which nobody has mentioned using, by filing the required
                      affidavit listed in section 170.6.

                      It's obvious to me that rights have been waived from the IMOC on. you
                      cannot count on people treating you nice. You must take any step offered
                      to you by the law that helps to derail your prosecution. Failure to take
                      a step may result in outcomes we don't like.

                      If you go through the codes carefully, you might find 100 things you
                      could require them to follow. They know my agenda sheet has over 100
                      lines. They do not want to discuss even a fraction of them. How many
                      steps do you guys plan to take in your next case if they don't release you
                      at the scene of the arrest? Can I guess?

                      1. Accept the ticket
                      2. show up on the date on the ticket
                      3. Make various verbal objections
                      4. Fail to require elements of an arraignment
                      5. Fail to ask for time under section 990 or its equivalent
                      6. Fail to initiate formal disqualification proceedings
                      7. Pay a fine despite claiming to know the money issues

                      Regards,

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