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

Motion to dismiss

Expand Messages
  • John P Roshio, Auctioneer
    The following section of this message contains a file attachment prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format. If you are using Pegasus
    Message 1 of 9 , May 10, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      The following section of this message contains a file attachment
      prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
      If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system,
      you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.
      If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.

      ---- File information -----------
      File: NoEnactingClause-pre.doc
      Date: 7 May 2004, 18:00
      Size: 64000 bytes.
      Type: Unknown
    • John P Roshio, Auctioneer
      Hi Folks, I appeared in Court on Friday for motion to dismiss based on lack of enacting clause. (See Attached) I went to court and started the pleading...
      Message 2 of 9 , May 10, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Folks,

        I appeared in Court on Friday for motion to dismiss based on lack of
        enacting clause. (See Attached)
        I went to court and started the pleading...
        Stated case the judge did not want me to read everything form the motion,
        \
        I asked how I get court cases entered into the fcase as evidence and he
        said
        state the cases I wanted entered.
        When i was done pleading he asked the state if they had anything to say.
        They were Floudering.
        The Judge said he can't prove it's not there and you (The state) can't
        prove
        it is there. He then gets up and goes into his chambers and comes back
        with
        five books. Biil passage of the Senate/house for passing laws.
        He does not have the correct year and procededs to state several OTHER
        bills passed as having the enacting Clause. i point out that he is
        ASSUMING that the law in question has one when he is reading from
        other laws. He agrees and moves on.
        It was Obvious the State had JUST started reading the motion when they
        sat down, and had no idea of it.
        The Judge did thier homework for them and looked up the info.
        He then Dismissed the case with predudice stating that IF I can find where
        the law (In the original bill) Does not have an Enacting clause, he will
        review the Motion again. Otherwise the trial is still set for the 24th.
        I then pointed out his oath of office and the Const. Statement... and
        proceded in asking him which court we're in Common-law under Art I or
        Admirlty under Art III he asked If I knew what admirlty was I told him
        Staight out of Blacks 5th and he said "We're not on the high Seas are
        we?"
        i Said no sir then he said there has not been Commonlaw courts in a long
        time and the Const affords States the Right toi make their own laws.
        He Changed the subject by asking if I still wanted to represent myself. I
        asked "For the Record I am being tried Criminally under Statutory Law?"
        He did not answer and Said "the Defendant still wishes to proceed Pro
        Se"
        and closed the session. I said "LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT
        THE COURT HAS NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTION"

        This is what happened and I am at a loss for which way to turn now.
        Any advise would be great. ( Not taking it as leagla advise)


        John
      • Cloverleaf762
        Shouldn t be in there court. Always demand jurisdiction, and drop your US citizenship to become an American CITIZEN. One has privileges, the other has rights
        Message 3 of 9 , May 14, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Message
          Shouldn't be in there court. Always demand jurisdiction, and drop your US citizenship to become an American CITIZEN. One has privileges, the other has rights take your pick. Here is a copy of something I files 2 weeks ago that just got me an offer to settle on the part of THE STATE. Remember THE STATE is a corporation, it is not the organic republic many believe it is. That is why they take you be for a magistrate in a court of contract law in the admiralty jurisdiction. They are claiming that as a member of the corporation you violated one your contract clauses. After becoming a sovereign you have proof that you are not part of the corporation, but of the original republic. Then you have teeth to do many other things to keep the corporation and it's pawns at bay. It is not something to be done lightly though. You have to decide, fancy chains with some benefits, or freedom. You can't do only part of it, it's all or nothing. Otherwise you will get nailed for fraud.
          -----Original Message-----
          From: John P Roshio, Auctioneer [mailto:auctioneer@...]
          Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 2:25 PM
          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Motion to dismiss

          Hi Folks,

          I appeared in Court on Friday for motion to dismiss based on lack of
          enacting clause. (See Attached)
          I went to court and started the pleading...
          Stated case the judge did not want me to read everything form the motion,
          \
          I asked how I get court cases entered into the fcase as evidence and he
          said
          state the cases I wanted entered.
          When i was done pleading he asked the state if they had anything to say.
          They were Floudering.
          The Judge said he can't prove it's not there and you (The state) can't
          prove
          it is there. He then gets up and goes into his chambers and comes back
          with
          five books. Biil passage of the Senate/house for passing laws.
          He does not have the correct year and procededs to state several OTHER
          bills passed as having the enacting Clause. i point out that he is
          ASSUMING that the law in question has one when he is reading from
          other laws. He agrees and moves on.
          It was Obvious the State had JUST started reading the motion when they
          sat down, and had no idea of it.
          The Judge did thier homework for them and looked up the info.
          He then Dismissed the case with predudice stating that IF I can find where
          the law (In the original bill) Does not have an Enacting clause, he will
          review the Motion again. Otherwise the trial is still set for the 24th.
          I then pointed out his oath of office and the Const. Statement... and
          proceded in asking him which court we're in Common-law under Art I or
          Admirlty under Art III he asked If I knew what admirlty was I told him
          Staight out of Blacks 5th and he said "We're not on the high Seas are
          we?"
          i Said no sir then he said there has not been Commonlaw courts in a long
          time and the Const affords States the Right toi make their own laws.
          He Changed the subject by asking if I still wanted to represent myself. I
          asked "For the Record I am being tried Criminally under Statutory Law?"
          He did not answer and Said "the Defendant still wishes to proceed Pro
          Se"
          and closed the session. I said "LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT
          THE COURT HAS NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTION"

          This is what happened and I am at a loss for which way to turn now.
          Any advise would be great. ( Not taking it as leagla advise)


          John

        • Dave Miner
          John -- Excellent document. Did it work? Yours in freedom, Dave Miner www.FreedomSite.net ... From: John P Roshio, Auctioneer To:
          Message 4 of 9 , May 15, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            John --

            Excellent document. Did it work?

            Yours in freedom,

            Dave Miner
            www.FreedomSite.net

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "John P Roshio, Auctioneer" <auctioneer@...>
            To: <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 3:25 PM
            Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Motion to dismiss


            > The following section of this message contains a file attachment
            > prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
            > If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system,
            > you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.
            > If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.
          • lookin
            C;heloverL. Look at this. This is a bar exam over view. Look at the citizenship section. ... From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com Date: 05/15/04 22:26:35 To:
            Message 5 of 9 , May 15, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              C;heloverL. Look at this. This is a bar exam over view. Look at the citizenship section.
               
              -------Original Message-------
               
              Date: 05/15/04 22:26:35
              Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Motion to dismiss
               
              Shouldn't be in there court. Always demand jurisdiction, and drop your US citizenship to become an American CITIZEN. One has privileges, the other has rights take your pick. Here is a copy of something I files 2 weeks ago that just got me an offer to settle on the part of THE STATE. Remember THE STATE is a corporation, it is not
              Yahoo! Groups Links

               
              ____________________________________________________
                IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
            • lookin
              Sorry here is the link. http://www.netbarexams.com/preview.htm
              Message 6 of 9 , May 15, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                ____________________________________________________
                  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
              • Cloverleaf762
                I received notice from the DA on the 13th that he wants to discuss settlement of both the criminal suit (They have none in reality) and the 7 figure civil suit
                Message 7 of 9 , May 15, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  I received notice from the DA on the 13th that he wants to discuss
                  settlement of both the criminal suit (They have none in reality) and the 7
                  figure civil suit I filed. I'm willing to throw them a zero if they mind
                  there jurisdiction and put it in writing that they will do so in the future,
                  but they still own me for the harassment. Time will tell how well it goes
                  for me, but I won't lose.

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Dave Miner [mailto:dminer@...]
                  Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 8:41 PM
                  To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Motion to dismiss


                  John --

                  Excellent document. Did it work?

                  Yours in freedom,

                  Dave Miner
                  www.FreedomSite.net

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "John P Roshio, Auctioneer" <auctioneer@...>
                  To: <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 3:25 PM
                  Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Motion to dismiss


                  > The following section of this message contains a file attachment
                  > prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format. If
                  > you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system, you
                  > should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer. If you
                  > cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.







                  Yahoo! Groups Links
                • jm367@bellsouth.net
                  You need to look into the rules of evidence for the court to find out how the law is proved. Then, enter a motion for discharge on the grounds there is no law
                  Message 8 of 9 , May 15, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    You need to look into the rules of evidence for the court to find out how the law is proved.
                    Then, enter a motion for discharge on the grounds there is no law in evidence if the State has not entered law into evidence.
                    In many rules, the code is said to be prima facie evidence of the law and the burden of proof is shifted by that rule to the defendant, which is what the judge has done to you by dismissing your motion.
                    Find one or more laws in the books without an enacting clause.  Enter into evidence.  Then, enter a motion for discharge, in the interest of judicial economy, for reasonable doubt as to the authority of the law in evidence.  That ought to put the burden of proof back where it belongs.
                    To get common law into evidence, North Carolina requires you to give it as oral evidence.  I wouldn't be surprised if you find something like that where you are, too. 
                    Are they talking about you in the third person ?  That is, you are representing yourself or there Pro Se ?
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 2:25 PM
                    Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Motion to dismiss

                    Hi Folks,

                    I appeared in Court on Friday for motion to dismiss based on lack of
                    enacting clause.
                    The Judge did thier homework for them and looked up the info.
                    He then Dismissed the case with predudice stating that IF I can find where
                    the law (In the original bill) Does not have an Enacting clause, he will
                    review the Motion again. Otherwise the trial is still set for the 24th.
                  • Cloverleaf762
                    Yes. It is the same thing we know and use up here. Although we work on the lawful side, and not the legal side, the USSC, federal, and STATE statues are in
                    Message 9 of 9 , May 16, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Yes. It is the same thing we know and use up here. Although we work on the
                      lawful side, and not the legal side, the USSC, federal, and STATE statues
                      are in step with everything we do. Just have to see the big pitcher.




                      C;heloverL. Look at this. This is a bar exam over view. Look at the
                      citizenship section.


                      Shouldn't be in there court. Always demand jurisdiction, and drop your US
                      citizenship to become an American CITIZEN. One has privileges, the other has
                      rights take your pick. Here is a copy of something I files 2 weeks ago that
                      just got me an offer to settle on the part of THE STATE. Remember THE STATE
                      is a corporation, it is not
                      _____
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.