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

RE: [tips_and_tricks] "Accepting" the ticket is an option under CA. law

Expand Messages
  • Cyril Grosse
    Here s a sample motion on this argument: TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA: John Henry Doe appearing specially only to challenge the jurisdiction of the
    Message 1 of 19 , Dec 14, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment

      Here's a sample motion on this argument:

       

      TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA:

      John Henry Doe appearing specially only to challenge the jurisdiction of the court is hereby moving the court to QUASH NOTICE TO APPEAR #12345666 for lack of jurisdiction. John Henry Doe has met his obligation to appear in court, but the plaintiff has chosen not to prosecute by not filing a verified complaint to establish the jurisdiction of this court, with which John Henry Doe may consider pleadings other than "guilty" or "nolo contendere" as required by C.V.C., Section 40513(a), Penal Code Sections 740, 949, 950, 959, 691(d), 691(e), Civil Code, Section 3531, Ralph v. Police Court, 84 C.A.2d 257, and Grafft

      v. Merrill Lvnch, Pierce, Fenner & Beane, 273 C.A.2d 379, Bradlev v. Lacev, 53 Cal.App.4th 883, 61 Cal.Rprtr.2d 919 [March 1997.]

       

      STATEMENT OF FACTS

      To this date April 12, 2004, John Henry Doe, has not been served with a verified complaint so that a plea other than "guilty or "nolo contendere" may be considered by her; Therefore through lack of proper procedure the plaintiff has deliberately chosen not to prosecute this potential case and establish the jurisdiction of this court. By not filing a verified complaint there is no valid charging document before John Henry Doe to consider entering a plea to.

       

      POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

      1) C.V.C. Section 40513 (a.) provides in pertinent part   that:

      "Whenever written notice to appear has been prepared, delivered, and filed with the court, or whenever notice has been given pursuant to the provisions of section 41102, an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate, in lieu of a verified complaint, shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant may plead "guilty" or "nolo contendere." (Emphasis added.)

      2) In the case of Grafft v. Merrill Lvnch, Pierce, Fenner & Beane. 273 C.A.2d 379 (1969), at 384, the court held that:

      "The established doctrine in this state is that it is the plaintiff upon whom rests the duty to use diligence at every stage of the proceeding to expedite his case to a final determination. It is true that the

       

      Defendant may bring about a trial of the case, but he is under no legal duty to do so. His presence is involuntary and his attitude toward it is quite different from that of the plaintiff; he is put to a defense only, and can be charged with no neglect for failing to do more than meet the plaintiff step by step." (Emphasis added.)

      3) Penal Code. Section 740 states that:

      "Except as otherwise provided by law, all public offenses triable in the inferior courts must be prosecuted by written complaint under oath subscribed by the complainant. Such complaint may be verified on information and belief."(Emphasis added.)

      4)Penal Code. Section 949 states in part:

      "The first Pleading on the part of the People in all inferior courts is the complaint except as otherwise provided by law."(Emphasis added.)

      5)Penal Code. Section 950 states:

      "The accusatory pleading must contain:

      1. The title of the action, specifying the name of the court to which the same is presented, and the names of the parties:

      2. A statement of the public offense or offenses charged therein."(Emphasis added.)

      6)Penal Code Section 959 states in part:

      "The accusatory pleading is sufficient if it can be

      understood therefrom:

        …3.If a complaint, that it is made and subscribed by some natural person and sworn to before some officer entitled, to administer oaths…" (Emphasis added.)"

      7)Penal Code Section 691 (d) states in part:

      "The words "accusatory pleading" include indictment, an information, an accusation, a complaint

      filed with a magistrate charging a public offense of which the superior court has original trial jurisdiction, and a complaint filed with an inferior court charging a public offense of which the inferior court has original trial jurisdiction." [Please note that a "notice to appear" is not listed here!]

      8)Penal Code Section 691 (e) states:

      (e) The words "prosecuting attorney" include any attorney, whether designated as district attorney, city attorney, city prosecutor, prosecuting attorney, or by any other title, having by law the right or duty to prosecute, in behalf of the people, any charge of a public offense. [Please note that a peace officer is not listed here!]

      9) In the case of Ralph v. Police Court. 84 C.A. 2d 257 at 259 (a vehicle code case), the court states:

      "Penal code section 1426 [which codified the 5th Amendment of the Constitution, and has been partially re-codified in Penal Code Sections 740, 950 and 952 and 959], provides as follows: 'All proceedings and actions before a magistrate or police court or municipal court, for a public offense of which such courts have jurisdiction, must be commenced by complaint under oath, setting forth the offense charged, with such particulars of time, place, person and property as to enable the defendant to understand distinctly the character of the offense complained of, and to answer the complaint…'(Emphasis added)."

      The rest of this case is so exactly on point regarding the instant case that I shall quote most of the rest of that short case for the court:

      "Unless waived, as provided by statute, the filing of such complaint is essential to the jurisdiction of the police court. That has been the law of this state for many years. It was stated as follows in the case of In re Williams, 183 Cal. 11, 12 [190 P.163]: 'It goes

       

      without saying that it is essential to the jurisdiction of a police court to put a person upon trial for a public offense that there should be on file therein a complaint charging such person with the commission of such offense.' (see also. People v. Brussel, 122 Cal. App. supp. 785 [7 P.2d 403].) It is also the law in other jurisdictions. The rule, supported by many authorities, is stated as follows in 22 Corpus Juris Secundum, pages 456, 457, section 303: 'The term "complaint" is a technical one descriptive of proceedings before magistrates. It is and has been defined to be the preliminary charge or accusation against an offender, made by a private person or and informer to a justice of peace or other proper officer, charging that the accused has violated the law. It has also been defined as a preliminary charge before a committing magistrate;…The complaint is the foundation of the jurisdiction of the magistrate, and it performs the same office that an indictment or information does in superior courts." (Emphasis added.)

      Section 739.1 of the Vehicle Code, [now substantially incorporated into section 40513], dispenses with a formal complaint when the accused pleads guilty, or where he pleads not guilty and waives in writing the filing of such a complaint. Otherwise, the provisions of section 1426 (now partially incorporated into sections 740, 950 and 952) of the penal code apply.

      The "otherwise" quoted in the above case obviously covers all other cases besides when the accused pleads "guilty" (now "nolo contendere" also) or pleads not guilty and waives the filing of the complaint, including the instant case.

      10) One of the most fundamental Maxims of Jurisprudence as codified in Civil Code, Section 3531 states that:

      "the law never requires impossibilities." C.V.C. Sec. 40513 does not require the accused to plead other than "guilty" or "nolo contendere" when there is no verified complaint in existence for the accused to plead.

      11) A cursory review of C.V.C., Sec. 40513(a) in the second paragraph might give the reader the impression that the requirement of a verified complaint being filed before the accused's first appearance in court is done away with. A careful reading of this part reveals that this not what the legislator's have done. This part in its pertinent section reads:

      "if, however, the defendant violates his promise to appear in court or does not deposit lawful bail, or pleads other than "guilty" or "nolo contendere" to the offense charged, a complaint shall be filed which shall conform to the provisions…of the penal code, and which shall be deemed to be an original complaint, and thereafter proceedings shall be had as provided by law,…"

      This section confirms that in cases that the accused 1) does not appear in court as promised, or 2) does not deposit lawful bail (if required), or 3) pleads other than "guilty" or nolo contendere" (even though he had no complaint before him to plead to), the plaintiff is required to file a complaint (in case he forgot to do so beforehand). It does not (as it might be suggested) waive the requirement of filing a verified complaint being filed to establish the court's jurisdiction.

      Furthermore this section seeks the accused's consent to allow his prosecution to proceed even though a verified complaint was not filed before his first appearance. If the accused consents to this wrong he is not wronged by it. Civil Code, Section 3515 recognizes this basic maxim of jurisprudence which states: "He who consents to an act is not wronged by it." The section cited above 19 is a standing offer to the many

       

      accused(s) out there who it seems always accept this offer.

      Accused, however, has no intention of consenting to this wrongdoing of the plaintiff (failing to file a verified complaint before accused's initial appearance in the court.)

      12) C.V.C., 40513(b) reads:

      "Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (a),…" [Meaning that despite of, or nevertheless or in spite of the provisions of subdivision (a),…;]

      So subdivision (b) of this subdivision does not negate the requirement of subdivision (a) and Penal Code. Sec. 740 which require a written complaint if the accused wishes to consider a plea other than guilty or nolo contendere.

      Subdivision (b) continues:

      "…whenever the written notice to appear has been prepared on a form approved by the judicial council, an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant may enter a plea…"(Emphasis mine.)

      It is clear in this part that the accused is not mandated to enter a plea; The pertinent part reads that the defendant "may" enter a plea to it. No mandatory word such as "must" or "shall" is used to force the defendant to enter a plea when there is no complaint before the defendant to plead to.

      In fact, The Vehicle Code. Section 15, expressly defines the terms "May" and "Shall" as: "

      "Shall" is mandatory and "may" is permissive. (emphasis added)

      It is quite clear from the language of the Code itself that the "May" in C.V.C.. Section 40513tb), offers a choice to the "accused" (if it could be called one, which is disputed here), to accept the notice to appear as a complaint or not. Again note the language of C.V.C., Sec. 40513(b):"…shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant MAY plead to" (emphasis added.)

      In Bradlev v. Lacev. 53 Cal.App.4th 883; 61 Cal.Bptr.2d 919 [Mar.1997], the court concluded this about the terms "May" and "shall":

      "In the Government Code [like the Vehicle Code], "[u]nless the provision or context otherwise requires" (Sec.5), "'[s]hall' is mandatory and 'may' Is permissive" (Sec. 14). Ordinary deference to the legislature requires that when a statute uses a term defined as a word of art the term shall be given its legislatively defined meaning." (Emphasis added.)

      To hold that the defendant must enter a plea to the notice to appear would violate the clear language of C.V.C., Section 15 and clearly established case law regarding the definition of the term "may."

      Obviously the legislature in the wording of the C.V.C., Section 40513 was very careful in not forcing the defendant to plea to a "nothing" an impossibility which is prohibited in Civil Code. Section 3531 as a most fundamental Maxim of Law (A principle of law universally admitted as being a correct statement of law, or as agreeable to reason.)

      13) In addition, the notice to appear utterly fails to meet the requirements of an accusatory pleading if one wished to consider it one, since it fails to state the title of the action and the name of the plaintiff, or contain a statement of the public offense which it allegedly charges as required by Penal Code Section 950. and it fails to be sufficient as an

      accusatory pleading since it is not "sworn to before some officer entitled to administer oaths" as required to by Penal Code Section 959.3.

      14) Moreover the Notice to appear is not subscribed by any prosecutor. It is clear that the peace officer who has signed the notice to appear is a witness to this case and not a prosecutor. The peace officer is not one of those individuals as defined in Penal Code. Section 691 (e) who may be a "prosecuting attorney."

      15) It is well known that a prosecuting attorney can not be a witness. Which role is the peace officer assuming here? Is he a prosecuting attorney who has subscribed a so-called accusatory pleading or is he a witness? Clearly he can not be both!!!

      16) Since the notice to appear (the falsely assumed to be complaint) is not subscribed by a prosecuting attorney, the People of This Great State of California have not charged John Henry Doe with any crime whatsoever!

      17) Furthermore, the "notice to appear" is not an "accusatory pleading" as defined in Penal Code, Section 691 (d). Without an accusatory pleading, charging John Henry Doe with a crime, there is no charge for John Henry Doe to plea to and defend against.

      18)Since Penal Code. Section 949 clearly states that the first pleading on part of the people in all inferior courts is a complaint, and the notice to appear is not listed as a first pleading in Penal Code, Section 949, the People of California have not charged John Henry Doe with any crime whatsoever!

      REQUEST FROM THE COURT

      Whereas, the Law recognizes that:

      19) It is impossible for this accused to plead when there is no complaint as required by Penal Code Sections 740, 949, 950, 959, 691(d) and 691 (e) before him to plead to (see Civil Code, Section 3531), and many important particulars such as 1) the nature and cause of the accusation, the essential elements of the charge, and 2) the identity and location of the plaintiff and his attorney(s) have not been revealed to the accused; Without such information, this accused can not respond in an intelligent, informed and legally correct manner, whatever that response may be;

      20) No prosecuting attorney has signed an accusatory pleading before an officer who can administer oaths to Initiate court's Jurisdiction over «True_Name» (see Ralph v. Police Court, Supra, Gavin V. Municipal Court. 184 C.A.2d 712, Anger v. Municipal Court. 237 C.A. 2d 69, Penal Code. Sections 949, 691 (d), (e)).

      21) "The established doctrine in this state is that it is the plaintiff upon whom rests the duty to use diligence at every stage of the proceeding to expedite his case to a final determination. It is true that the defendant may bring about a trial of a case, but he is under no legal duty to do so. His presence in the case is involuntary and his attitude toward it is quite different from that of the plaintiff; he is put to defense only, and can be charged with no neglect for failing to do more than meet the plaintiff step by step." Grafft v. Merrill Lynch, supra, and John Henry Doe has met the

      plaintiff (whoever that may be) step by step, by appearing in court as he agreed to in the notice to appear, by appearing in court as promised on the "NOTICE TO APPEAR NO. 12345666". It is the would be Plaintiff who has chosen to not prosecute John Henry Doe by not filing a complaint, therefore depriving this court of any Jurisdiction

      Wherefore, John Henry Doe moves this court to QUASH NOTICE TO APPEAR #12345666 for lack of jurisdiction.

       

       

       

      -----Original Message-----
      From: victoryusa@... [mailto:victoryusa@...]
      Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 3:43 PM
      To: frogfrmr@...
      Cc: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [tips_and_tricks] "Accepting" the ticket is an option under CA. law

       

       

       

      Dear FF

       

      Regarding your last sentence, if the courts followed the law, there'd be no problem. Under the California Vehicle Code, I believe §40513(a) --I'm going by memory--  a verified complaint is required. So statutorily, a litigant has a statutory right to a verified complaint in traffic cases.

       

      HOWEVER, the courts (usually a commissioner-- not even a judge) ignore (a) and operate under §40513(b) which states that a person MAY waive his right to a verified complaint and plead to the citation. The word "may" under the Vehicle Code is permissive, not mandatory. The courts push 40513(b) down your throat whether you want it or not, and your case is processed under (b) by force.

       

      The law says you aren't required to waive a verified complaint, but the courts ignore the law as usual.  Why?  Because they CAN! Another reason why we need J.A.I.L.

       

      -Barbie

      victoryusa@...

       

      J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org

      Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603

      See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm

      JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore unrealized.

      JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!

      JAIL is taking America like a wildfire! AddRemove@...

      E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join

      Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

       

      "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless

      minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams

       

      "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is

      striking at the root."                         -- Henry David Thoreau    <><

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       

       

       

       

       

      ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->

      $4.98 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.

      http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/aQSolB/TM

      --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

       

       

      Yahoo! Groups Links

       

      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tips_and_tricks/

       

      <*> 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/

       

       

       

       

    • Frog Farmer
      ... However, most people choose to waive the right, and they often plead before any charges exist! It is very common to see people waive proper arraignments.
      Message 2 of 19 , Dec 15, 2004
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        On Dec 13, 2004, at 3:42 PM, <victoryusa@...> wrote:
        > Regarding your last sentence, if the courts followed the law, there'd
        > be no problem. Under the California Vehicle Code, I believe §40513(a)
        > --I'm going by memory-- a verified complaint is required. So
        > statutorily, a litigant has a statutory right to a verified complaint
        > in traffic cases.

        However, most people choose to waive the right, and they often plead
        before any charges exist!

        It is very common to see people waive proper arraignments.

        > HOWEVER, the courts (usually a commissioner-- not even a judge)

        And there's another waiver, the failure to disqualify the unqualified.

        > ignore (a) and operate under §40513(b) which states that a person MAY
        > waive his right to a verified complaint and plead to the citation.

        Of course, because that's what today's American chooses to do! How
        many people have you ever seen make an issue of it in the courtroom?
        Of course, I personally cannot get arraigned because I refuse to waive
        any rights.

        > The word "may" under the Vehicle Code is permissive, not mandatory.

        I know that. But that doesn't stop people from making the waiver
        anyway.

        > The courts push 40513(b) down your throat whether you want it or not,
        > and your case is processed under (b) by force.

        No, MY cases stop when I demand a complaint and the rest of the
        elements of a proper arraignment, AFTER they find QUALIFIED personnel
        to set the court. Faced with the impossibilities, they "dismiss" a
        case that never existed anyway.

        > The law says you aren't required to waive a verified complaint, but
        > the courts ignore the law as usual. Why?

        Because the people ignore the law as well, and make any waivers
        requested of them. One who does not waive rights cannot sign Notices
        to Appear, but must be immediately taken to a magistrate. And where
        are they going to find one today? You DO know about the California
        requirement for the taking of the oath of office, right?

        > Because they CAN! Another reason why we need J.A.I.L.

        We don't need it in California because there ARE no "judges". "Judges"
        are people who have taken the required oath of office. Send me the
        name of one of these you know of personally, and then send me a scan of
        their oath (on file before today!)

        > "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
        > striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau
        > <><

        If there are no "officers", then there is no "problem", is there? Do
        you think ANY citizen can prosecute for the state?

        WHY do people vest IMPERSONATORS with powers they do not deserve?????

        Answer: To be polite.

        That's right, to be polite, huge numbers submit to false jurisdictions
        and suffer the consequences.

        What other answer could there be?? Massive ignorance of the native
        language??

        Fear?? Whatever it is, I don't have the problem myself. I try to
        qualify every contestant who presents themselves to me, and for over
        two decades, all contestants have failed to qualify for the status they
        claim.

        California is truly a land of imagination, with most of the population
        living in an illusion sometimes referred to as being "conventional
        wisdom". I find that reality works well for myself. I get along
        fine with people who don't expect me to pretend to my own detriment.
      • Frog Farmer
        ... That s a good motion for if you ever get past the fact that they cannot properly set the court with qualified personnel and then if they find qualified
        Message 3 of 19 , Dec 16, 2004
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          On Dec 14, 2004, at 10:24 PM, Cyril Grosse wrote:

          > Here's a sample motion on this argument:

          That's a good motion for if you ever get past the fact that they cannot
          properly set the court with qualified personnel and then if they find
          qualified personnel, they actually attempt to conduct a proper
          arraignment using the NTA as the accusatory pleading.

          But since they cannot properly set the court with qualified personnel,
          an accused would have to waive an awful lot of rights to submit such a
          motion (a general appearance) prematurely.

          I prefer not to waive the jurisdiction issue by promising to appear in
          a court that has no jurisdiction.

          The last time I checked, the local cops were also using NTA forms that
          lacked the required approval by the judicial council.

          When I asked why they had kept on using them, after myself and a few
          friends had used that fact to avoid prosecution, and when anyone who
          knew could have done the same, they said that they had boxes and boxes
          of the invalid forms, and that a handful of people who knew versus the
          masses who didn't wouldn't be worth throwing out the invalid forms,
          since nobody seemed to care anyway, except us.

          The whole operation is a scam, a sham, and a performance for the true
          believers in the Peanut Gallery.
        • Gary Cummings
          Below are several pertinent traffic rules in Ohio. How would one argue for a proper verified complaint to a court when such administrative rules have been
          Message 4 of 19 , Dec 17, 2004
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment


            Below are several pertinent traffic rules in Ohio. How would one argue for a proper verified complaint to a court when such administrative rules have been promulgated? That is to say, I know that the judge is going to bring up and adhere to the "traffic rules", but what line of reasoning would one use to disprove their merit? 

            I realize that one should be arguing SMJ when confronting a judicial court, but if one wanted to demand a proper verified complaint, how would he go about it?


            Do you Yahoo!?
            Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more.
          • Alfred Adask
            If I wanted to test the validity of the ticket, I might expressly DENYthat validity in a verified affidavit and/or testimony properly enteredinto the court
            Message 5 of 19 , Dec 18, 2004
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              If I wanted to test the validity of the ticket, I might expressly DENY that validity in a verified affidavit and/or testimony properly entered into the court record.  The DENIAL creates an issue wherein the burden of proof is on the other side.  Therefore, if the denial is under oath, it should take an oath on the part of the complainant to prove the ticket is valid.  The complainant may have to appear at court and testify and be subjected to cross-examination to "prove" the ticket's validity.  If you're ready for him, then you can pounce.

              Alfred Adask


              --- Gary Cummings wrote:



              Below are several pertinent traffic rules in Ohio.
              How would one argue for a proper verified complaint
              to a court when such administrative rules have been
              promulgated? That is to say, I know that the judge
              is going to bring up and adhere to the "traffic
              rules", but what line of reasoning would one use to
              disprove their merit?

              I realize that one should be arguing SMJ when
              confronting a judicial court, but if one wanted to
              demand a proper verified complaint, how would he go
              about it?



              ---------------------------------
              Do you Yahoo!?
              Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs.
              Learn more.


              http://www.antishyster.net
              without prejudice to my God-given, unalienable Rights
              at arm's length
              Alfred Adask


              Do you Yahoo!?
              Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
            • Don Schwarz
              The facts are in dispute and require a jury, but only if the matter is over $20. Below, the Court states a constitutional principle. Constitutional principles,
              Message 6 of 19 , Dec 18, 2004
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment




                The facts are in dispute and require a jury,
                but only if the matter is over $20.


                Below, the Court states a constitutional principle.
                Constitutional principles, cannot be overturned,
                for if one principle can be, ALL can be.

                +++++++++++++++++++++
                Abritrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the persons and property of its subjects, is not law, whether manifested as the decree of a personal monarch or of an impersonal multitude. And the limitations imposed by our constitutional law upon the action of the governments, both state and national, are essential to the preservation of public and private rights, notwithstanding the representative character of our political institutions. The enforcement of these limitations by judicial process is the device of self-governing communities to protect the rights of individuals and minorities, as well against the power of numbers, as against the violence of public agents transcending the limits of lawful authority, even when acting in the name and wielding the force of the government."
                Hurtado v. California 110 U.S. 516 (1884)
                ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                Do you have the private right to use the public right-of-ways for
                all purposes constitutional?

                Have the cop show you the original law that PROVES that
                all users of the public right-of-ways, NEED to surrender
                their constitutional rights to do so, and become a licensee.

                This will be a lot of fun.

                I have never found a single instance of where a state
                ever proved that "unlicensed" constitutional users of
                the public right-of-ways, had to be licensed to improve
                public safety/



                At 12:21 AM 12/18/04 -0800, you wrote:
                If I wanted to test the validity of the ticket, I might expressly DENY that validity in a verified affidavit and/or testimony properly entered into the court record.  The DENIAL creates an issue wherein the burden of proof is on the other side.  Therefore, if the denial is under oath, it should take an oath on the part of the complainant to prove the ticket is valid.  The complainant may have to appear at court and testify and be subjected to cross-examination to "prove" the ticket's validity.  If you're ready for him, then you can pounce.

                Alfred Adask


                --- Gary Cummings wrote:



                Below are several pertinent traffic rules in Ohio.
                How would one argue for a proper verified complaint
                to a court when such administrative rules have been
                promulgated? That is to say, I know that the judge
                is going to bring up and adhere to the "traffic
                rules", but what line of reasoning would one use to
                disprove their merit?

                I realize that one should be arguing SMJ when
                confronting a judicial court, but if one wanted to
                demand a proper verified complaint, how would he go
                about it?
                =========================================================
              • WW011@aol.com
                Your correct on 40513(b) : If the notice to appear is not verified, the defendant may, at the time of arraignment, request that a verified complaint be
                Message 7 of 19 , Dec 18, 2004
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Your correct on 40513(b) : "If the notice to appear is not verified, the defendant may, at the time of arraignment, request that a verified complaint be filed".
                  40513.  (a) Whenever written notice to appear has been prepared,delivered, and filed with the court, an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate, in lieu of a verified complaint, shall constitute a complaint

                  Would not "the court" say that it has verified the complaint?
                • Frog Farmer
                  ... It s not the court who does the verification (oath) but the complainant.
                  Message 8 of 19 , Dec 18, 2004
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Dec 18, 2004, at 3:48 PM, WW011@... wrote:

                    > Your correct on 40513(b) : "If the notice to appear is not verified,
                    > the defendant may, at the time of arraignment, request that a verified
                    > complaint be filed".
                    > 40513.  (a) Whenever written notice to appear has been
                    > prepared,delivered, and filed with the court, an exact and legible
                    > duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate, in lieu
                    > of a verified complaint, shall constitute a complaint
                    >
                    > Would not "the court" say that it has verified the complaint?
                    >

                    It's not 'the court" who does the verification (oath) but the
                    complainant.
                  • Alfred Adask
                    I have no proof, but I strongly suspect that the court doesn tverify the notice --YOU verify the notice when you appear in courtwithout challenging the
                    Message 9 of 19 , Dec 19, 2004
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I have no proof, but I strongly suspect that the court doesn't verify the "notice"--YOU "verify" the notice when you appear in court without challenging the complainant's cause and/or the court's jurisdiction. 

                      If YOU accept the "notice" without protest, I strongly suspect that your assent is deemed to be a "second witness" ("out of the mouths of two or three a thing shall be established") to the validity of the complaint.  Your unwitting assent to the validity of the "notice" may be deemed evidence that you agree with the implied complaint, and the "notice" is thereby elevated to the status of a verified complaint.

                      I suspect it works something like this: Suppose you and I agree to meet in a public forum, and I declare at that public meeting that I think you owe me $1,000 and you never bother to challenge or deny the validity of my declaration.  What'll most people think?  That you must owe the $1,000.  Your silence and failure to deny my claim will be interpreted by most observers as evidence that even YOU acknowledge that the alleged debt must be real. 

                      Thus, by your silence and/or failiure to protest my claim, my right to make the claim, etc, YOU will have implicitly verified my claim.  If I say you owe me $1,000 and you don't deny the debt, it will be supposed that we both agree the debt is real, and therefore must be paid.

                      I suspect something like that goes on in most modern court cases.  An unsubstantiated claim is made.  The defendant fails to deny the complainant's "cause" (right to make the claim) and the court's presumed jurisdiction, and the defendant is soon convicted.

                      Alfred Adask

                      Alfred Adask






                      --- WW011@... wrote:
                      Your correct on 40513(b) : "If the notice to appear
                      is not verified, the
                      defendant may, at the time of arraignment, request
                      that a verified complaint be
                      filed".
                      40513. (a) Whenever written notice to appear has
                      been prepared,delivered,
                      and filed with the court, an exact and legible
                      duplicate copy of the notice when
                      filed with the magistrate, in lieu of a verified
                      complaint, shall constitute
                      a complaint

                      Would not "the court" say that it has verified the
                      complaint?


                      http://www.antishyster.net
                      without prejudice to my God-given, unalienable Rights
                      at arm's length
                      Alfred Adask


                      Do you Yahoo!?
                      Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more.
                    • Cyril Grosse
                      Don t forget the 2nd half of your remedy! PC 1382 reads: 1382. (a) The court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, shall order the action to be
                      Message 10 of 19 , Dec 20, 2004
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment

                        Don’t forget the 2nd half of your remedy! 

                         

                        PC 1382 reads:

                        1382.  (a) The court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown,

                        shall order the action to be dismissed in the following cases:

                           (1) When a person has been held to answer for a public offense and

                        an information [Notice to Appear] is not filed against that person within 15 days. (Emphasis added)

                         

                        The officer cannot issue a notice to appear, complaint, and or summons, prosecute the manner in the name of the People of California, and be a witness too. This is contrary to law and a blatant denial of proper service and due process.

                         

                        The District Attorney is the person mandated by the Government Code to initiate complaints (accusatory pleading) and to prosecute in the name of the People. Government Code Sees. 22, 22608, 26660(b), and Brunner v. Superior Ct. , (1891) 28 P. 341, 92 C. 239.

                         

                        Essentially, If the officer is going to do the job of the D.A. and initiate prosecution of a case by filing an Information (Notice to Appear), then he cannot be a witness.  The state cannot have it both ways.

                         

                        If it is recognized that the officer had no authority to file the information, then no information has yet been filed and pursuant to PC1382, the case must be dismissed.

                         

                        Cyril Grosse

                        Cyril@...

                        ________________________________________________________________

                        "A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed.  When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker, a raving lunatic." -- Dresden James


                        From: WW011@... [mailto:WW011@...]
                        Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 3:49 PM
                        To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] "Accepting" the ticket is an option under CA. law

                         

                        Your correct on 40513(b) : "If the notice to appear is not verified, the defendant may, at the time of arraignment, request that a verified complaint be filed".
                        40513.  (a) Whenever written notice to appear has been prepared,delivered, and filed with the court, an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate, in lieu of a verified complaint, shall constitute a complaint

                        Would not "the court" say that it has verified the complaint?


                      • Frog Farmer
                        ... One goes to the Judicial Council to see the records of the approvals of forms. The approvals are all matters of official record. But it does take interest
                        Message 11 of 19 , Dec 21, 2004
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Dec 19, 2004, at 1:14 AM, KC wrote:

                          > How does one know if the NTA is an approved NTA and not a false NTA

                          One goes to the Judicial Council to see the records of the approvals of
                          forms.

                          The approvals are all matters of official record. But it does take
                          interest and initiative.

                          But now it's a non-issue, isn't it?

                          Do you care which form some unqualified neighbor chooses to try to fool
                          you with?

                          If an impersonator uses an approved form, does that meet with your
                          approval?

                          >
                          > KC
                        • Frog Farmer
                          ... Don t skip over the first step - KNOW who you are dealing with! How do YOU avoid being fooled by impersonators? ... Who is qualified to make the order in
                          Message 12 of 19 , Dec 21, 2004
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Dec 20, 2004, at 1:39 PM, Cyril Grosse wrote:

                            > Don’t forget the 2nd half of your remedy! 

                            Don't skip over the first step - KNOW who you are dealing with!

                            How do YOU avoid being fooled by impersonators?

                            > PC 1382 reads:
                            >
                            > 1382.  (a) The court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown,
                            >
                            > shall order the action to be dismissed in the following cases:

                            Who is qualified to make the order in YOUR cases?

                            Do you permit mere neighbors who have decided against taking the
                            required oath of office for the particular official powers they presume
                            to wield to make orders affecting YOU? I sure don't!

                            > The officer cannot issue a notice to appear, complaint, and or
                            > summons, prosecute the manner in the name of the People of California,
                            > and be a witness too. This is contrary to law and a blatant denial of
                            > proper service and due process.

                            But you never see anyone objecting to it, do you? I know that whenever
                            I have wanted the "officer" removed from the witness stand, I ask him
                            if he is qualified to discuss the law he is supposedly enforcing. The
                            "judge" usually will chime in that he is not. In that case, who is it
                            that is relying upon the conclusions of law made by this man?? hmmm?

                            > The District Attorney is the person mandated by the Government Code to
                            > initiate complaints (accusatory pleading) and to prosecute in the name
                            > of the People. Government Code Sees. 22, 22608, 26660(b), and Brunner
                            > v. Superior Ct., (1891) 28 P. 341, 92 C. 239.

                            Do the people accept just anyone as a D.A. in your county? In my
                            county, the law (Cal. Const. Art. XX sect. 3) says that he has to take
                            the required oath of office BEFORE entering upon the duties of the
                            office. I prefer to enforce that strict interpretation, and thus for
                            me there is no D.A., while many people I see are glad to vest the
                            powers of a D.A. in a man who has chosen not to take the required oath.
                            Are you one of them too?

                            > Essentially, If the officer is going to do the job of the D.A. and
                            > initiate prosecution of a case by filing an Information (Notice to
                            > Appear), then he cannot be a witness.  The state cannot have it both
                            > ways.

                            The state cannot act or speak but through authorized persons. Because
                            I choose not to waive that right (to be spoken to by the state by
                            authorized persons) for me there is nobody who can speak for the state.
                            But for most people, it seems that anyone who chooses may speak for
                            the state, authorized or not. I believe that people do this out of a
                            feeling of the need to be polite, which in most cases outweighs their
                            need to think and act intelligently.

                            > If it is recognized that the officer had no authority to file the
                            > information, then no information has yet been filed and pursuant to
                            > PC1382, the case must be dismissed.

                            I wish it were more often recognized that the mere neighbor is not even
                            authorized to be impersonating an officer, which in most jurisdictions
                            is a crime more serious than your average traffic ticket.

                            Maybe, in the genuine official power vaccuum that exists, most humans
                            have a need to subject themselves to the next best available substitute
                            for legitimate power, so they submit to impersonators who commit their
                            crimes for their own personal reasons and excuses (most often the
                            anticipation of a paycheck).
                          • Bob
                            Can I use this argument to fight a case where my car was towed from the street and sold at auction ( I wasn t given any notice of the sale) because of rxpired
                            Message 13 of 19 , Dec 21, 2004
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Can I use this argument to fight a case where my car was towed from the street and sold at auction ( I wasn't given any notice of the sale) because of rxpired tags?
                              -moviebob

                               
                            • Cyril Grosse
                              That sounds like a separate civil action, moviebob. If you weren t properly noticed of the sale, you surely have a case. You can also go after the LEO for
                              Message 14 of 19 , Dec 21, 2004
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment

                                That sounds like a separate civil action, moviebob.  If you weren’t properly noticed of the sale, you surely have a case.  You can also go after the LEO for illegal seizure.

                                 

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Bob [mailto:moviebob91601@...]
                                Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 1:20 AM
                                To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] "Accepting" the ticket is an option under CA. law

                                 

                                Can I use this argument to fight a case where my car was towed from the street and sold at auction ( I wasn't given any notice of the sale) because of rxpired tags?

                                -moviebob

                                 



                              • Frog Farmer
                                ... Why do you use the term LEO when he never accepted the office by taking the required oath? In your world, when does a human become a LEO ? Am I one when
                                Message 15 of 19 , Dec 21, 2004
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Dec 21, 2004, at 8:33 AM, Cyril Grosse wrote:

                                  > That sounds like a separate civil action, moviebob.  If you weren’t
                                  > properly noticed of the sale, you surely have a case.  You can also go
                                  > after the LEO for illegal seizure.

                                  Why do you use the term "LEO" when he never accepted the office by
                                  taking the required oath?

                                  In your world, when does a human become a "LEO"?

                                  Am I one when I refuse to waive all the rights everyone else seems
                                  ready to waive?
                                • WW011@aol.com
                                  It would seem that a proper notice would have to be a certification (certified letter) signed by you acknowledging receipt of some kind? Further, They must
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Dec 24, 2004
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    It would seem that a "proper" notice would have to be a certification
                                    (certified letter) signed by you acknowledging receipt of some kind?
                                    Further, They must give you 72 hour abandonment notice?
                                  • Cyril Grosse
                                    Are you implying that no Police Officer has taken their Peace Officer Oath? If so, I think you ll find you are mistaken. ... From: Frog Farmer
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Dec 24, 2004
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Are you implying that no Police Officer has taken their Peace Officer Oath?
                                      If so, I think you'll find you are mistaken.

                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: Frog Farmer [mailto:frogfrmr@...]
                                      Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 10:10 PM
                                      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] "Accepting" the ticket is an option under CA.
                                      law




                                      On Dec 21, 2004, at 8:33 AM, Cyril Grosse wrote:

                                      > That sounds like a separate civil action, moviebob.  If you weren’t
                                      > properly noticed of the sale, you surely have a case.  You can also go
                                      > after the LEO for illegal seizure.

                                      Why do you use the term "LEO" when he never accepted the office by
                                      taking the required oath?

                                      In your world, when does a human become a "LEO"?

                                      Am I one when I refuse to waive all the rights everyone else seems
                                      ready to waive?









                                      Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.