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

Tickets Trial Questions

Expand Messages
  • Julie Nowman
    Tickets Trial Questions - The following short Notice of Trial was sent to me recently [some terms I left out]:----------------- IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ... ST.
    Message 1 of 7 , Aug 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment

      Tickets Trial Questions - The following short Notice of Trial was sent to me recently [some terms I left out]:-----------------

      IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ... ST. CLAIR COUNTY, ILLINOIS

      THE PEOPLE ... - vs. - KINDER, ... - Defendant. -

      Municipality: BROOKLIN - Ticket #[s] .......

      To: [Defendant] ....

      NOTICE OF MISDEMEANOR TRIAL

                  Date: Tuesday July 15, 2003

                  The above styled case[s] is set for a Bench Trial [Traffic/Misdemeanor] on Tuesday September 30, 2003 at 9:00 am in Courtroom 109, First Floor, St. Clair County Building, 10 Public Square, Belleville, IL. If the defendant fails to appear, the defendant will be tried in the defendants absence; the defendants bond will be forfeited and a bench warrant for his/her arrest will be issued.

                                    Unknown Judge at Conversion [End of Notice] -------------------

         My case was to begin with a Hearing on August 13. That's what I've been asking questions about here. But I didn't know if I'd be ready by then so I told the circuit clerk by post card recently that, if my Motions to Dismiss on grounds of Improper place of trial and Want of subject matter jurisdiction were somehow to be answered and my averments disproven, I would want a trial by jury. I believe due process includes the right to a hearing before trial, as well as a pre-trial conference, etc. So I called the clerk's office yesterday [Jul 31] to see what's scheduled exactly. The person there said the August 13 hearing was canceled and there is no hearing scheduled before the bench trial. He also said a plea of Not Guilty was entered on July 15.

         1. I believe a plea can legally be entered for someone only if one answers evasively or stands silent before a court when asked to plea. Isn't that correct? And isn't it Fraud to enter a plea as was done for me as above? And wouldn't this be easy to prove? I wasn't before the court at all and I made no plea in my postcard. And I stated that the only condition under which I'd want a trial was if my Motions were answered and the averments somehow disproven. I don't think I explained that exactly right in the postcard, so I wonder if I should explain to the clerk that the averments must be disproven before I can go to trial? I'm thinking I should ask the clerk to ask the judge and prosecutor to read the Motions and answer them [i.e. provide me the answers] a week or so before trial. Is that a good idea? When I sent my Motions originally, I asked the clerk to give copies to the judge and prosecutor. I also kept copies of the Motions. What I sent them was by certified mail and I have the signed receipt that the clerk's office received them.

         2. My intention has been to follow Jim Woods' advice to bring up my Motions with the judge and prosecutor before saying anything else at a hearing or trial, before entering a plea or answering any questions, with the expectation that lack of jurisdiction would force dismissal before the hearing or trial even begins. Woods says all of the averments must be specifically and properly rebutted before the court has jurisdiction to proceed any further, and that the averments cannot be rebutted, since the court lacks jurisdiction etc. Woods gives cites of law that show that challenges to jurisdiction can be brought up at any time before or after the plea, but says it's better to do so before. He says the court will attempt to ignore my questions, but that I must object to any evasions or attempts to move forward, until averments are properly rebutted or the case dismissed. He says if they do dismiss, it's likely to be worded in a way that isn't clear, so I must be alert to that. Does all of this in part 2 sound correct? Can anyone offer helpful clarifications?

         3. Frog Farmer [FF] or someone said to the effect that showing up in court proves jurisdiction, but Woods argued otherwise, saying something like presumptions of jurisdiction don't prove jurisdiction and showing up can give no more than a presumption. FF or someone has said that car titles give the state part ownership of or an interest in one's vehicle and this is why the state can legally require their "co-owners" to be licensed, etc, but Woods and or others say titles are Fraudulent and this makes the state's claims void. Since the entire matter of Administrative Law is unconstitutional in the first place, because constitutions don't grant anyone power to create most administrative agencies, the entire "traffic" regulatory agency scheme seems to me to be without the force and effect of law in the second place. That means law re matters of vehicle titles etc are void. Any clarifications here?

         4. Should I demand a hearing or pre-trial conference immediately before the trial? My strategy has been to bring up the Motions to Dismiss as soon as it's my time to be heard, whether at a hearing, trial, conference, or whatever, and before saying anything else. The courthouse is 60 or 70 miles away and I don't want to have to go that far more than once more, especially without a car. Woods seems to prefer delaying the trial as long as possible, but if I can bring up my Motions immediately before my trial, can't I get the Motions heard there and have a good chance of getting dismissal before trial officially begins? Or is it easier to get dismissal at a hearing?

         5. Frog Farmer [FF] said: �I've been trying to determine when things changed, from having real public servants to having public pretenders, and as of now (here's an opinion for you) it was around the time of the War of Northern Aggression." I say, since corruption and conspiracy are and have long been widespread and deep-seated in all human societies, and since British Intelligence and aristocratic institutions, including much of big business, have long had the means to spread disinformation and to sow seeds of suspicion, distrust and hate to divide peoples in all countries, FF should surely be able to see that the claims that the South was justified in its efforts to secede from the Union could easily be imperialist propaganda. I think it's obvious that the constitutions that the southern states had devised after secession denied the people's unalienable rights. I think it's also likely true that the Rothschilds had schemed to divide the U.S., intending control of the North and South to be divided among themselves via banking and other big business. It seems that Lincoln was aware of British/imperialist scheming when he had been a Congressman for Illinois at the time that President Polk planned his war with Mexico. Mexico was a fellow republic at that time and Britain wanted to prevent the U.S. from taking western Canada, so the imperialists persuaded Polk [an Anglophile] thru advisors to take Mexico. He also pretended to plan to take British Columbia with the slogan 54-40 or Fight, but settled for the Washington border at 49 degrees. Lincoln and other patriots vigorously opposed the attack on our sister republic, Mexico, and Lincoln was unable to get elected to Congress again, due to imperialist propaganda against him. By 1860 the imperialists had greatly divided the people of the U.S. by promoting both the northern pro-secession abolition of slavery movement as well as the southern secession movement. Lincoln argued that the southern states that "officially" seceded had no right to secede, because they were creations of the Union and only the Union of states could approve secession. Only 4 states had a true majority vote in favor of secession, while 3 others had fraudulent majority votes. The other southern states were bullied into the Confederacy. This is all according to my understanding of Anton Chaitkin's reports. The masonic Knights of the Golden Circle was a major weapon of the imperialists controlling about a million southerners as terrorists before the war, who evolved into the KKK after the war. Altho Lincoln probably did not favor freeing the slaves over saving the Union and probably favored segregation and returning the slaves eventually [emancipated] to Africa to form republican forms of government there, I don't see the Civil War as northern aggression, but defense against imperialist scheming. And altho the imperialists lost the war, they won the peace for the most part, because they have always been in positions of power within our country, even in government and have encroached slowly on our liberties. It is these native imperialists who had taken over our judiciary initially to give corporations privileges and to place the fraudulent 4th branch of government, Administrative Agencies, in power as a pseudo-government, with defacto powers based on pure deception thru disinformation ["education," media, etc]. I feel that most of the pro-secessionists material disseminated today is Patriot Mythology, believed in by gullible rebels. Rebellion I don't condemn, but gullibility is dangerous to all. I'm open to other views, as I know I'm as prone to gullibility as anyone. J&L


      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
    • Frog Farmer
      ... I be;ieve that telling them that (A) you had doubts about the outcome of your MOTION and (B) that you wanted a jury trial were ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
      Message 2 of 7 , Aug 4, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Julie Nowman wrote:


        > My case was to begin with a Hearing on August 13. That's what I've
        > been asking questions about here. But I didn't know if I'd be ready by
        > then so I told the circuit clerk by post card recently that, if my
        > Motions to Dismiss on grounds of Improper place of trial and Want of
        > subject matter jurisdiction were somehow to be answered and my averments
        > disproven, I would want a trial by jury. I believe due process includes
        > the right to a hearing before trial, as well as a pre-trial conference,
        > etc. So I called the clerk's office yesterday [Jul 31] to see what's
        > scheduled exactly. The person there said the August 13 hearing was
        > canceled and there is no hearing scheduled before the bench trial. He
        > also said a plea of Not Guilty was entered on July 15.


        I be;ieve that telling them that (A) you had doubts about
        the outcome of your MOTION and (B) that you wanted a jury
        trial were ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS of jurisdiction and
        PROOF that you understood the "charges", thus the cancelling
        of the hearing (which should have been an arraignment) and
        the setting for bench trial. Have you considered
        withdrawing the plea?


        >
        > 1. I believe a plea can legally be entered for someone only if one
        > answers evasively or stands silent before a court when asked to plea.
        > Isn't that correct?


        Ordinarily, yes, but if you say you want a trial...

        > And isn't it Fraud to enter a plea as was done for
        > me as above? And wouldn't this be easy to prove? I wasn't before the
        > court at all and I made no plea in my postcard. And I stated that the
        > only condition under which I'd want a trial was if my
        > Motions were answered and the averments somehow disproven.


        The premature filing of them did that, if you ask me.

        > I don't think
        > I explained that exactly right in the postcard, so I wonder if I should
        > explain to the clerk that the averments must be disproven before I can
        > go to trial? I'm thinking I should ask the clerk to ask the judge and
        > prosecutor to read the Motions and answer them [i.e. provide me the
        > answers] a week or so before trial. Is that a good idea? When I sent my
        > Motions originally, I asked the clerk to give copies to the judge and
        > prosecutor. I also kept copies of the Motions. What I sent them was by
        > certified mail and I have the signed receipt that the clerk's office
        > received them.
        >
        > 2. My intention has been to follow Jim Woods' advice to bring up my
        > Motions with the judge and prosecutor before saying anything else at a
        > hearing or trial, before entering a plea or answering any questions,


        I can't do that because I don't know if there are really any
        charges against me before a proper arraignment is afforded
        me. I also don't make motions to courts I believe do not
        have juriusdiction to decide them.


        > with the expectation that lack of jurisdiction would force dismissal
        > before the hearing or trial even begins.


        When a case doesn't really exist, there is nothing to
        dismiss. Thinking that there is something to dismiss means
        that you think there really is a case (meaning all necessary
        criteria have been met.)

        > Woods says all of the averments
        > must be specifically and properly rebutted before the court has
        > jurisdiction to proceed any further, and that the averments cannot be
        > rebutted, since the court lacks jurisdiction etc. Woods gives cites of
        > law that show that challenges to jurisdiction can be brought up at any
        > time before or after the plea, but says it's better to do so before.


        Mother Superior jumped the gun. The plea comes after a
        proper arraignment.

        > He
        > says the court will attempt to ignore my questions, but that I must
        > object to any evasions or attempts to move forward, until averments are
        > properly rebutted or the case dismissed.


        There you go again, "the case". I always ask, "WHAT CASE?!"
        - because when I look, I don't see proper complaints, proper
        arraignments, proper oaths for people portraying official
        roles, licenses in order for attorneys representing
        corporate entities, etc. etc. etc.


        > 3. Frog Farmer [FF] or someone said to the effect that showing up in
        > court proves jurisdiction, but Woods argued otherwise, saying something
        > like presumptions of jurisdiction don't prove jurisdiction and showing
        > up can give no more than a presumption.


        How are you going to rebut the presumption?

        > FF or someone has said that car
        > titles give the state part ownership of or an interest in one's vehicle
        > and this is why the state can legally require their "co-owners" to be
        > licensed, etc, but Woods and or others say titles are Fraudulent and
        > this makes the state's claims void.


        They may or may not be fraudulent. A baby may decide to
        give his lollypop away, but that does not necessarily mean
        that the person receiving it got it through fraud. There
        may be some people who knew what they were doing when they
        applied to be regulated by the Department of Motor Vehicles.
        Just because most people were ignorant that they were
        swept up in herd behavior does not mean that the DMV
        committed fraud. Adults over legal age are presumed to know
        what they are doing.

        > Since the entire matter of
        > Administrative Law is unconstitutional in the first place, because
        > constitutions don't grant anyone power to create most administrative
        > agencies, the entire "traffic" regulatory agency scheme seems to me to
        > be without the force and effect of law in the second place. That means
        > law re matters of vehicle titles etc are void. Any clarifications here?


        Administrative law is meant for the corporate fictional
        entities. In this day and age when any other form of entity
        is a rarity, the first administrative hearing is where the
        human being makes known his or her lawful status. A
        competent administrative law judge should be able to discern
        that the procedures do not apply to the purely human
        entioty, as long as that human is not representing some
        artificial juristic entity. The problem is, most humans
        today, with their state education, can be tricked into
        making record that they are, indeed, functioning in a
        corporate capacity and therefore a fit subject for regulation.

        > 4. Should I demand a hearing or pre-trial conference immediately
        > before the trial?


        when asked if I have been ready for trial, I have often
        said, "how can I be ready for trial when I have not yet been
        arraigned properly?"

        > My strategy has been to bring up the Motions to
        > Dismiss as soon as it's my time to be heard,


        A motion to dismiss admits jurisdiction to decide it, and
        admits that a case exists, and therefore that a complaint
        was found to be in order and that an arraignment has taken
        place.

        > whether at a hearing,
        > trial, conference, or whatever, and before saying anything else. The
        > courthouse is 60 or 70 miles away and I don't want to have to go that
        > far more than once more, especially without a car. Woods seems to prefer
        > delaying the trial as long as possible,


        I failed to be properly arraigned 9 times in 9 months.

        > but if I can bring up my Motions
        > immediately before my trial, can't I get the Motions heard there and
        > have a good chance of getting dismissal before trial officially begins?
        > Or is it easier to get dismissal at a hearing?


        It's easier to not permit a "case" to be created. No case -
        nothing to dismiss.


        >
        > 5. Frog Farmer [FF] said: "I've been trying to determine when things
        > changed, from having real public servants to having public pretenders,
        > and as of now (here's an opinion for you) it was around the time of the
        > War of Northern Aggression." I say, since corruption and
        > conspiracy are and have long been widespread and deep-seated in all
        > human societies, and since British Intelligence and aristocratic
        > institutions, including much of big business, have long had the means
        > to spread disinformation and to sow seeds of suspicion, distrust and
        > hate to divide peoples in all countries, FF should surely be able to see
        > that the claims that the South was justified in its efforts to secede
        > from the Union could easily be imperialist propaganda.


        "Could easily be"? Massachusetts reserved the right to
        secede, so the right was known about and recognized. What
        is not propaganda is what actually happened. The records
        are there. It's not a matter of conjecture.
      • Dessie Andrews
        I can not stress this enough!!!!! When charges are read and the judge asks for a plea, the Constitution is clear that at that point you must have assistance
        Message 3 of 7 , Aug 5, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          I can not stress this enough!!!!! When charges are read and the "judge"
          asks for a plea, the Constitution is clear that at that point you must
          have assistance of counsel. Not an attorney, not a lawyer, but
          assistance of counsel. The arraignment is vital as, if you were learned
          in the law, as an assistance of counsel must be, many times you would be
          able to have the charges dismissed on the spot. YOU CAN NOT PLEA
          WITHOUT ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, so, any plea entered for you without your
          express written waiver of assistance of counsel, is meaningless.

          Second, it is the venue, not the jurisdiction that is the important
          issue. There are two venues in every courtroom. Theirs and the
          People's. If you want constitutional law, you must state that you can
          not proceed without assistance of counsel. I respectfully decline to
          answer, as I don't have assistance of counsel. No plea has been
          entered, as you are not learned in the law, and you had no assistance of
          counsel. I have attempted to employ assistance of counsel, but can't
          find one. If the "judge" attempts to appoint an attorney to your case,
          have a contract ready for the attorney to sign, guaranteeing that he/she
          will function as assistance of counsel. You do not, nor can you have,
          as one of the People, representation in a court of law. You are you.
          Assistance of counsel merely advises you of the law in the court and
          assists in maintaining your rights. You can get letters to the BAR, the
          Supreme Court and the assistance of counsel contract from Ralph
          Winterrowd's website, www.jusbelli.com. He has dedicated his life to
          exposing the "courts" and bringing this Praetorian system of laws to the
          ground. Let's help him.

          As one voice, throughout the country, let's learn to say, I can not
          proceed without assistance of counsel. IT WORKS!!!! IT'S SIMPLE!!!
          IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!

          Study his information and understand what you are saying.

          And on any traffic stop, say exactly this and no more:

          Am I under arrest?

          Am I free to go?

          Is this a custodial investigation?

          In that case, I can not proceed without assistance of counsel.

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Frog Farmer [mailto:frogfrmr@...]
          Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 1:51 AM
          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Tickets Trial Questions


          Julie Nowman wrote:


          > My case was to begin with a Hearing on August 13. That's what I've
          > been asking questions about here. But I didn't know if I'd be ready by

          > then so I told the circuit clerk by post card recently that, if my
          > Motions to Dismiss on grounds of Improper place of trial and Want of
          > subject matter jurisdiction were somehow to be answered and my
          averments
          > disproven, I would want a trial by jury. I believe due process
          includes
          > the right to a hearing before trial, as well as a pre-trial
          conference,
          > etc. So I called the clerk's office yesterday [Jul 31] to see what's
          > scheduled exactly. The person there said the August 13 hearing was
          > canceled and there is no hearing scheduled before the bench trial. He
          > also said a plea of Not Guilty was entered on July 15.


          I be;ieve that telling them that (A) you had doubts about
          the outcome of your MOTION and (B) that you wanted a jury
          trial were ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS of jurisdiction and
          PROOF that you understood the "charges", thus the cancelling
          of the hearing (which should have been an arraignment) and
          the setting for bench trial. Have you considered
          withdrawing the plea?


          >
          > 1. I believe a plea can legally be entered for someone only if one
          > answers evasively or stands silent before a court when asked to plea.
          > Isn't that correct?


          Ordinarily, yes, but if you say you want a trial...

          > And isn't it Fraud to enter a plea as was done for
          > me as above? And wouldn't this be easy to prove? I wasn't before the
          > court at all and I made no plea in my postcard. And I stated that the
          > only condition under which I'd want a trial was if my
          > Motions were answered and the averments somehow disproven.


          The premature filing of them did that, if you ask me.

          > I don't think
          > I explained that exactly right in the postcard, so I wonder if I
          should
          > explain to the clerk that the averments must be disproven before I can

          > go to trial? I'm thinking I should ask the clerk to ask the judge and
          > prosecutor to read the Motions and answer them [i.e. provide me the
          > answers] a week or so before trial. Is that a good idea? When I sent
          my
          > Motions originally, I asked the clerk to give copies to the judge and
          > prosecutor. I also kept copies of the Motions. What I sent them was by

          > certified mail and I have the signed receipt that the clerk's office
          > received them.
          >
          > 2. My intention has been to follow Jim Woods' advice to bring up my

          > Motions with the judge and prosecutor before saying anything else at a

          > hearing or trial, before entering a plea or answering any questions,


          I can't do that because I don't know if there are really any
          charges against me before a proper arraignment is afforded
          me. I also don't make motions to courts I believe do not
          have juriusdiction to decide them.


          > with the expectation that lack of jurisdiction would force dismissal
          > before the hearing or trial even begins.


          When a case doesn't really exist, there is nothing to
          dismiss. Thinking that there is something to dismiss means
          that you think there really is a case (meaning all necessary
          criteria have been met.)

          > Woods says all of the averments
          > must be specifically and properly rebutted before the court has
          > jurisdiction to proceed any further, and that the averments cannot be
          > rebutted, since the court lacks jurisdiction etc. Woods gives cites of

          > law that show that challenges to jurisdiction can be brought up at any

          > time before or after the plea, but says it's better to do so before.


          Mother Superior jumped the gun. The plea comes after a
          proper arraignment.

          > He
          > says the court will attempt to ignore my questions, but that I must
          > object to any evasions or attempts to move forward, until averments
          are
          > properly rebutted or the case dismissed.


          There you go again, "the case". I always ask, "WHAT CASE?!"
          - because when I look, I don't see proper complaints, proper
          arraignments, proper oaths for people portraying official
          roles, licenses in order for attorneys representing
          corporate entities, etc. etc. etc.


          > 3. Frog Farmer [FF] or someone said to the effect that showing up
          in
          > court proves jurisdiction, but Woods argued otherwise, saying
          something
          > like presumptions of jurisdiction don't prove jurisdiction and showing

          > up can give no more than a presumption.


          How are you going to rebut the presumption?

          > FF or someone has said that car
          > titles give the state part ownership of or an interest in one's
          vehicle
          > and this is why the state can legally require their "co-owners" to be
          > licensed, etc, but Woods and or others say titles are Fraudulent and
          > this makes the state's claims void.


          They may or may not be fraudulent. A baby may decide to
          give his lollypop away, but that does not necessarily mean
          that the person receiving it got it through fraud. There
          may be some people who knew what they were doing when they
          applied to be regulated by the Department of Motor Vehicles.
          Just because most people were ignorant that they were
          swept up in herd behavior does not mean that the DMV
          committed fraud. Adults over legal age are presumed to know
          what they are doing.

          > Since the entire matter of
          > Administrative Law is unconstitutional in the first place, because
          > constitutions don't grant anyone power to create most administrative
          > agencies, the entire "traffic" regulatory agency scheme seems to me to

          > be without the force and effect of law in the second place. That means

          > law re matters of vehicle titles etc are void. Any clarifications
          here?


          Administrative law is meant for the corporate fictional
          entities. In this day and age when any other form of entity
          is a rarity, the first administrative hearing is where the
          human being makes known his or her lawful status. A
          competent administrative law judge should be able to discern
          that the procedures do not apply to the purely human
          entioty, as long as that human is not representing some
          artificial juristic entity. The problem is, most humans
          today, with their state education, can be tricked into
          making record that they are, indeed, functioning in a
          corporate capacity and therefore a fit subject for regulation.

          > 4. Should I demand a hearing or pre-trial conference immediately
          > before the trial?


          when asked if I have been ready for trial, I have often
          said, "how can I be ready for trial when I have not yet been
          arraigned properly?"

          > My strategy has been to bring up the Motions to
          > Dismiss as soon as it's my time to be heard,


          A motion to dismiss admits jurisdiction to decide it, and
          admits that a case exists, and therefore that a complaint
          was found to be in order and that an arraignment has taken
          place.

          > whether at a hearing,
          > trial, conference, or whatever, and before saying anything else. The
          > courthouse is 60 or 70 miles away and I don't want to have to go that
          > far more than once more, especially without a car. Woods seems to
          prefer
          > delaying the trial as long as possible,


          I failed to be properly arraigned 9 times in 9 months.

          > but if I can bring up my Motions
          > immediately before my trial, can't I get the Motions heard there and
          > have a good chance of getting dismissal before trial officially
          begins?
          > Or is it easier to get dismissal at a hearing?


          It's easier to not permit a "case" to be created. No case -
          nothing to dismiss.


          >
          > 5. Frog Farmer [FF] said: "I've been trying to determine when
          things
          > changed, from having real public servants to having public pretenders,

          > and as of now (here's an opinion for you) it was around the time of
          the
          > War of Northern Aggression." I say, since corruption and
          > conspiracy are and have long been widespread and deep-seated in all
          > human societies, and since British Intelligence and aristocratic
          > institutions, including much of big business, have long had the means
          > to spread disinformation and to sow seeds of suspicion, distrust and
          > hate to divide peoples in all countries, FF should surely be able to
          see
          > that the claims that the South was justified in its efforts to secede
          > from the Union could easily be imperialist propaganda.


          "Could easily be"? Massachusetts reserved the right to
          secede, so the right was known about and recognized. What
          is not propaganda is what actually happened. The records
          are there. It's not a matter of conjecture.




          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        • keystone law
          Ok in my case my counsel never showed up. They knew it but proceeded any ways. They also threw all my witness out of the room. I can not stress this
          Message 4 of 7 , Aug 5, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Ok in my case my counsel never showed up. They knew it but proceeded any ways. They also threw all my witness out of the room.

            I can not stress this enough!!!!!  When charges are read and the "judge"
            asks for a plea, the Constitution is clear that at that point you must
            have assistance of counsel.  Not an attorney, not a lawyer, but
            assistance of counsel.  The arraignment is vital as, if you were learned
            in the law, as an assistance of counsel must be, many times you would be
            able to have the charges dismissed on the spot.  YOU CAN NOT PLEA
            WITHOUT ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, so, any plea entered for you without your
            express written waiver of assistance of counsel, is meaningless.

            Second, it is the venue, not the jurisdiction that is the important
            issue.  There are two venues in every courtroom.  Theirs and the
            People's.  If you want constitutional law, you must state that you can
            not proceed without assistance of counsel.  I respectfully decline to
            answer, as I don't have assistance of counsel.  No plea has been
            entered, as you are not learned in the law, and you had no assistance of
            counsel.  I have attempted to employ assistance of counsel, but can't
            find one.  If the "judge" attempts to appoint an attorney to your case,
            have a contract ready for the attorney to sign, guaranteeing that he/she
            will function as assistance of counsel.  You do not, nor can you have,
            as one of the People, representation in a court of law.  You are you.
            Assistance of counsel merely advises you of the law in the court and
            assists in maintaining your rights.  You can get letters to the BAR, the
            Supreme Court and the assistance of counsel contract from Ralph
            Winterrowd's website, www.jusbelli.com.  He has dedicated his life to
            exposing the "courts" and bringing this Praetorian system of laws to the
            ground.  Let's help him. 

            As one voice, throughout the country, let's learn to say, I can not
            proceed without assistance of counsel.  IT WORKS!!!! IT'S SIMPLE!!!
            IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!

            Study his information and understand what you are saying. 

            And on any traffic stop, say exactly this and no more:

            Am I under arrest?

            Am I free to go?

            Is this a custodial investigation?

            In that case, I can not proceed without assistance of counsel.

          • Robert Riggins
            I have noticed implications of arraignment . To be arraigned it must come from a Grand Jury. Or, there must be an information submitted by the
            Message 5 of 7 , Aug 6, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              I have noticed implications of "arraignment".  To be "arraigned" it must come from a  Grand Jury. Or, there must be an "information" submitted by the Prosecuting attorney.
               
              -------Original Message-------
               
              Date: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 07:46:00 PM
              Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Tickets Trial Questions
               
              Ok in my case my counsel never showed up. They knew it but proceeded any ways. They also threw all my witness out of the room.

              I can not stress this enough!!!!!  When charges are read and the "judge"
              asks for a plea, the Constitution is clear that at that point you must
              have assistance of counsel.  Not an attorney, not a lawyer, but
              assistance of counsel.  The arraignment is vital as, if you were learned
              in the law, as an assistance of counsel must be, many times you would be
              able to have the charges dismissed on the spot.  YOU CAN NOT PLEA
              WITHOUT ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, so, any plea entered for you without your
              express written waiver of assistance of counsel, is meaningless.

              Second, it is the venue, not the jurisdiction that is the important
              issue.  There are two venues in every courtroom.  Theirs and the
              People's.  If you want constitutional law, you must state that you can
              not proceed without assistance of counsel.  I respectfully decline to
              answer, as I don't have assistance of counsel.  No plea has been
              entered, as you are not learned in the law, and you had no assistance of
              counsel.  I have attempted to employ assistance of counsel, but can't
              find one.  If the "judge" attempts to appoint an attorney to your case,
              have a contract ready for the attorney to sign, guaranteeing that he/she
              will function as assistance of counsel.  You do not, nor can you have,
              as one of the People, representation in a court of law.  You are you.
              Assistance of counsel merely advises you of the law in the court and
              assists in maintaining your rights.  You can get letters to the BAR, the
              Supreme Court and the assistance of counsel contract from Ralph
              Winterrowd's website, www.jusbelli.com.  He has dedicated his life to
              exposing the "courts" and bringing this Praetorian system of laws to the
              ground.  Let's help him. 

              As one voice, throughout the country, let's learn to say, I can not
              proceed without assistance of counsel.  IT WORKS!!!! IT'S SIMPLE!!!
              IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!

              Study his information and understand what you are saying. 

              And on any traffic stop, say exactly this and no more:

              Am I under arrest?

              Am I free to go?

              Is this a custodial investigation?

              In that case, I can not proceed without assistance of counsel.



              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
               
              ____________________________________________________
                IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
            • Frog Farmer
              ... California Penal Code Section 988: The arraignment must be made by the court, or by the clerk or prosecuting attorney under its direction, and consists in
              Message 6 of 7 , Aug 6, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Robert Riggins wrote:

                > I have noticed implications of "arraignment". To be "arraigned" it must
                > come from a Grand Jury. Or, there must be an "information" submitted by
                > the Prosecuting attorney.
                >

                California Penal Code Section 988: The arraignment must be
                made by the court, or by the clerk or prosecuting attorney
                under its direction, and consists in reading the accusatory
                pleading to the defendant and delivering to the defendant a
                true copy thereof, and of the endorsements thereon, if any,
                including the list of witnesses, and asking the defendant
                whether the defendant pleads guilty or not guilty to the
                accusatory pleading; provided, that where the accusatory
                pleading is a complaint charging a misdemeanor, a copy of
                the same need not be delivered to any defendant unless
                requested by the defendant.

                -----
                FF sez: in 20+ years, I've never been able to see them do
                this right. And on only a handful of times, did the accused
                demand the proper procedure. There is usually NO
                "accusatory pleading" conforming to law, and the "judge"
                (merely a neighbor with no oath of office) will NOT "read"
                it to the defendant, nor is there a "true copy" even
                available, no list of witnesses. I can disqualify all three
                of the possible readers, even if there was an accusatory
                pleading to read, which there never is. So far, I cannot be
                arraigned.

                They really choke up when you point all this out.


                -------------------------------------
                A Free Forum for Free People
                The Frog Farm Discussion List
                http://www.frogfarm.org
                -------------------------------------
              • Frog Farmer
                ... So true! However, so much more can be done to win before reaching this stage. Most people accept the sham proceedings offered to them, such as a
                Message 7 of 7 , Aug 7, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dessie Andrews wrote:

                  > I can not stress this enough!!!!! When charges are read and the "judge"
                  > asks for a plea, the Constitution is clear that at that point you must
                  > have assistance of counsel. Not an attorney, not a lawyer, but
                  > assistance of counsel. The arraignment is vital as, if you were learned
                  > in the law, as an assistance of counsel must be, many times you would be
                  > able to have the charges dismissed on the spot. YOU CAN NOT PLEA
                  > WITHOUT ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, so, any plea entered for you without your
                  > express written waiver of assistance of counsel, is meaningless.


                  So true! However, so much more can be done to win before
                  reaching this stage. Most people accept the sham
                  proceedings offered to them, such as a so-called "judge"
                  with no proper oath of office on file, a prosecuting
                  attorney with no required license to practice law, same for
                  the clerk, bogus procedure (such as no formal verified
                  complaint, without which "charges" cannot be "read"). I
                  don't believe there are cases requiring assistance of
                  counsel be provided to people BEFORE the actual arraignment
                  stage, although the above concerns are certainly valid for
                  such as preliminary hearings and bail settings. How does
                  one decide whether or not the bail amount is excessive (and
                  thus valid grounds for an objection) unless there has been
                  probable cause established first? Most people waive
                  probable cause in order to get out on bail and grant the
                  court personal jurisdiction, often in cases where the person
                  portraying the arresting officer is merely another neighbor
                  without an oath of office, using his anticipation of another
                  paycheck as his only authority.


                  > Second, it is the venue, not the jurisdiction that is the important
                  > issue. There are two venues in every courtroom. Theirs and the
                  > People's. If you want constitutional law, you must state that you can
                  > not proceed without assistance of counsel. I respectfully decline to
                  > answer, as I don't have assistance of counsel.


                  Sham impostors deserve no respect. And making statements is
                  dangerous as they might constitute admissions and
                  confessions. A QUESTION such as "how can I answer without
                  assistance of counsel?" might be a better way to go.

                  Also note: a disqualification of a judge is an admission
                  that he IS a judge. One might ask, "how does one disqualify
                  an impostor from playing the role of a judge? Isn't the
                  FACT that the impersonator has no required oath of office on
                  file enough to spare me the necessity?"

                  > No plea has been
                  > entered, as you are not learned in the law, and you had no assistance of
                  > counsel.


                  Even if you had assistance of counsel, entering a plea
                  without requiring more time to answer (generally provided by
                  statute) may be rushing to judgement. Many irregularities
                  may be discovered in the extra time provided, but first you
                  need to ask for it, but be careful not to ask for it until
                  the proper time. So MANY people are so anxious to "get it
                  over with" that they skip over important opportunities to win.

                  > I have attempted to employ assistance of counsel, but can't
                  > find one. If the "judge" attempts to appoint an attorney to your case,
                  > have a contract ready for the attorney to sign,


                  After you confirm his license is in order, of course. By
                  this time though you have already confirmed the judge, correct?

                  > guaranteeing that he/she
                  > will function as assistance of counsel. You do not, nor can you have,
                  > as one of the People, representation in a court of law.


                  Yet how many times have I heard, "I'll be representing
                  myself, your honor"?

                  > You are you.
                  > Assistance of counsel merely advises you of the law in the court and
                  > assists in maintaining your rights. You can get letters to the BAR, the
                  > Supreme Court and the assistance of counsel contract from Ralph
                  > Winterrowd's website, www.jusbelli.com. He has dedicated his life to
                  > exposing the "courts" and bringing this Praetorian system of laws to the
                  > ground. Let's help him.


                  Excellent advice, but still, reaching this stage means you
                  have accepted the actors on stage as being qualified. Is
                  that something you are in a hurry to do? Or might some prior
                  research into the official records pay off handsomely?


                  > As one voice, throughout the country, let's learn to say, I can not
                  > proceed without assistance of counsel. IT WORKS!!!! IT'S SIMPLE!!!
                  > IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!


                  It is simple, and assuming that liars and thieves will act
                  properly in response to it is indeed a show of confidence in
                  human nature. I would rather wipe the stage clean of all
                  impostors and impersonators, since being one is a crime in
                  itself and I never trust proven criminals to do the right
                  thing, no matter what else I may do correctly. Should I, on
                  the outside chance, be presented with GENUINE ACTORS, and I
                  find myself in a court properly set to function, then
                  requiring assistance of counsel is indeed a proper thing to
                  do. However, those in a hurry to be convicted in the record
                  may decide to jump the gun and skip over these little
                  points. Most people do.

                  > Study his information and understand what you are saying.


                  Yes, it's always good to understand what you are saying.
                  Most people don't.

                  > And on any traffic stop, say exactly this and no more:
                  >
                  > Am I under arrest?
                  >
                  > Am I free to go?
                  >
                  > Is this a custodial investigation?
                  >
                  > In that case, I can not proceed without assistance of counsel.
                  >

                  Excellent advice. When you pull over, will you mistakenly
                  greet an impostor as an officer? Or, might you have already
                  determined the status of the possible perps who might
                  attempt to waylay you on your local roads? A field trip
                  spent gathering oaths of office might someday pay off
                  handsomely, when after asking the highwayman his name, you
                  pull out your research and are able to say, "is this your
                  name? My records show that you failed to file a required
                  oath of office and bond, and thus have never entered upon
                  the duties of your pretended office! You have the right to
                  remain silent - anything you say may be used against you in
                  a court of law. If you proceed to give me further probable
                  cause to believe that you are committing the felony of
                  impersonating an officer in my presence, I am authorized by
                  law to make a citizen's arrest for an offense committed in
                  my presence. Would you like to make further admissions and
                  confessions, or would you like to take this as a warning and
                  be free to go, not sin again, and have a nice day?"

                  Most people will permit impostors to scare them and they
                  will waive any rights asked of them. They will go to court
                  believing that liars and thieves will do the right thing in
                  their case, if they are polite and do not make their captors
                  angry at them.

                  Other people figure they have nothing to lose by requiring
                  that ALL their neighbors obey ALL the laws. Many of these
                  people discover that they are treated like bad-tasting toads
                  mistakenly grabbed by a hungry fox, and spit out so
                  quickly they remain unharmed.

                  Old Indian saying: "The best way to avoid a predator is to
                  taste bad."


                  -------------------------------------
                  A Free Forum for Free People
                  The Frog Farm Discussion List
                  http://www.frogfarm.org
                  -------------------------------------
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.