Had an unbelievably honest experience in court last week.

[StevieMac]

A close friend of mine wanted to fight two tickets he received and asked me what I would do if I was in a similar situation. He's like-minded, has the guts, and did his homework so I felt confident in his ability to stick it to the man. We filed a demurrer and demand for a verified complaint and Marcs motion to strike/dismiss.

I let the clerk know that I was there doing a survey on judicial misconduct for my blog and instructed her to let the judge know as a courtesy. So my buddy gets called up and the judge denied the motion to dismiss but granted the demurrer pursuant to IL. statute. Prosecution then jumped up and said a few words that sounded like it was in Latin. The judge goes "well, we're going to dismiss both these tickets" and the cop says "WHAT? WHY?" (this guy was completely dumbfounded). The prosecutor then IN OPEN COURT says "citations don't meet all the statutory requirements of a complaint" this cops jaw hit the floor... He goes "So what are you trying to say? I shouldn't write citations anymore?!" to which the prosecutor replies "nah, keep doing what you're doing, we don't see this very often".

We didn't get a chance to question the judge on why he didn't grant the motion to strike/dismiss though. We skipped outta there pretty fast, giggling like little girls.

I felt like i was high. I couldn't believe it. Keep in mind, this happened in CHICAGO, police brutality/judicial misconduct capital of the Universe.

Just wanted to pass this experience along since the overwhelming majority of people experience quite the opposite.

Peace,

Stevie

P.S. If there are any no-staters in Illinois who would like a copy of the demurrer we used, send me a PM.

[Dionysus]

I’m in Chicago too. Way to go!! Yay, team!!! That’s what I call a clean sweep— and in their own “dojo”— the belly of the beast, as it were. You’ve got guts, that’s for sure. I loved the “we don't see this very often" part. I wonder what would happen if they did “see this very often," to the point where their little extortion racket was no longer profitable. Would they pack up and go home, or ratchet things up? And can you please scan the demurrer (with all personal information redacted/blacked out, of course) so we can all enjoy it?

[Dionysus]

(01-06-2012 03:09 PM)outofstate Wrote:  wonder what little item was left out to not make it a proper complaint according to the statutory requirements? A signature maybe?

There was not a valid cause of action.

Cause of Action

Learn it. Know it. Live it.

[zonsb]

(01-06-2012 02:56 PM)StevieMac Wrote:  The prosecutor then IN OPEN COURT says "citations don't meet all the statutory requirements of a complaint" this cops jaw hit the floor... He goes "So what are you trying to say? I shouldn't write citations anymore?!" to which the prosecutor replies "nah, keep doing what you're doing, we don't see this very often".

The cop probably inquired further with the prosecutor as to what the missing requirement(s) are on the hundreds or thousands of tickets he has written. On the other hand, the cop might jump into a bonfire because the prosecutor told him to keep doing what he has been doing. I recall mom asking, rhetorically; If someone told you to jump in a bonfire, would you?

--

[StevieMac]

(01-06-2012 03:09 PM)outofstate Wrote:  

(01-06-2012 02:56 PM)StevieMac Wrote:  A close friend of mine wanted to fight two tickets he received and asked me what I would do if I was in a similar situation. He's like-minded, has the guts, and did his homework so I felt confident in his ability to stick it to the man. We filed a demurrer and demand for a verified complaint and Marcs motion to strike/dismiss.

I let the clerk know that I was there doing a survey on judicial misconduct for my blog and instructed her to let the judge know as a courtesy. So my buddy gets called up and the judge denied the motion to dismiss but granted the demurrer pursuant to IL. statute. Prosecution then jumped up and said a few words that sounded like it was in Latin. The judge goes "well, we're going to dismiss both these tickets" and the cop says "WHAT? WHY?" (this guy was completely dumbfounded). The prosecutor then IN OPEN COURT says "citations don't meet all the statutory requirements of a complaint" this cops jaw hit the floor... He goes "So what are you trying to say? I shouldn't write citations anymore?!" to which the prosecutor replies "nah, keep doing what you're doing, we don't see this very often".

We didn't get a chance to question the judge on why he didn't grant the motion to strike/dismiss though. We skipped outta there pretty fast, giggling like little girls.

I felt like i was high. I couldn't believe it. Keep in mind, this happened in CHICAGO, police brutality/judicial misconduct capital of the Universe.

Just wanted to pass this experience along since the overwhelming majority of people experience quite the opposite.

Peace,

Stevie

P.S. If there are any no-staters in Illinois who would like a copy of the demurrer we used, send me a PM.

wonder what little item was left out to not make it a proper complaint according to the statutory requirements? A signature maybe?

The demurrer covers a number of blatant fatal technicalities, but really hangs on the fact that the officers signature on the citation isn't legally binding and fails to meet the requirements of a justiciable case. No cause of action, no jurisdiction.

“[W]hen a citation is issued on a Uniform Traffic Ticket or Uniform Conservation Ticket (in a form prescribed by the Conference of Chief Circuit Judges and filed with the Supreme Court), the copy of such Uniform Ticket which is filed with the circuit court constitutes a complaint for which the defendant may plead, unless he specifically requests that a verified complaint be filed.” Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure, 725 § 111-3(b)

So, Illinois law clearly states that the written complaint under oath must be subscribed by the complainant sworn to in front of someone empowered to administer oaths by way of the Oaths and Affirmations Act:

“A complaint shall be sworn to and signed by the complainant”
Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure 725 § 111-3(b)

"Verification", has been held by Courts of this State to mean a written statement made under oath or affirmation before any officer empowered to administer oaths and which, for any willfully false or misleading statement made thereof, subjects the affiant to pains and penalty of perjury. Village of Willowbrook v. Miller, App.1966, 72 Ill App.2d 30, 217 N.E. 2d 809, People v. Siex App.1942. 39 N.E. 2d 84, 312 Ill App. 657.”

“A person waives a defective verification or complaint when they appear in court and plea to charges without demanding a verified complaint. This includes traffic and misdemeanor tickets signed by the police. The policeman’s signature is not a verification since it is not signed and sworn to in front of someone empowered to administer oaths by way of the Oaths and Affirmations Act. Does this mean some possible inconvenience? Yes, but I would posit that a majority of cases would not proceed if the State had to actually follow the law as-written. Remember, if you plea to a ticket you waive any defect in the complaint, which is certain if it had not been sworn to.” People v. Smith, App.1967, 90 Ill.App.2d 388, 234 N.E.2d 161.

The officer would have to be alleging injury had he officially verified the complaint, so they would be looking at perjury/fraud had they not dismissed the defective citation.

We fought the law, and kicked its ass.

[Jace: Johanson]

Was this the exact demurrer you sent me, Stevie? Or did you change anything before you filed it? I could probably upload the blank template here for everybody, if I can remember what I did with it......

[StevieMac]

(01-06-2012 08:55 PM)Jace: Johanson Wrote:  Was this the exact demurrer you sent me, Stevie? Or did you change anything before you filed it? I could probably upload the blank template here for everybody, if I can remember what I did with it......

Jace! It was very similar. I updated it slightly with some more case law to support the oaths and affirmations act stuff, because that was an argument a different judge had with me about the first version of the demurrer I had. It's pretty iron clad now, though.

I suggest anyone from Illinois check out http://www.MarkMcCoy.com. He's won his driving without a licence and insurance cases arguing some of the same stuff. He's been a great help to me as well.

[Jace: Johanson]

Here's Stevie's Motion. Everobody enjoy.

[NonEntity]

(01-07-2012 04:43 PM)Jace: Johanson Wrote:  Here's Stevie's Motion. Everobody enjoy.

"...consenting and conferring only to the judicial power of the United States of America and the Illinois Republic state..."

WTF? There goes the entire "prove that I was within the state argument right out the door as a gift to them with a big red bow tied on top. ???!!!???

YO! DUDE! Jurisdiction. Why not just proclaim that you kidnapped the Lindberg baby and sank the Lusitania while you're at it? (Don't forget Bldg. 7!)

- NonEverobody <shakes head and walks away into the sunset, admiring the almost full moon over the jagged mountain range to the east...>

[StevieMac]

(01-07-2012 05:51 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  

(01-07-2012 04:43 PM)Jace: Johanson Wrote:  Here's Stevie's Motion. Everobody enjoy.

"...consenting and conferring only to the judicial power of the United States of America and the Illinois Republic state..."

WTF? There goes the entire "prove that I was within the state argument right out the door as a gift to them with a big red bow tied on top. ???!!!???

YO! DUDE! Jurisdiction. Why not just proclaim that you kidnapped the Lindberg baby and sank the Lusitania while you're at it? (Don't forget Bldg. 7!)

- NonEverobody <shakes head and walks away into the sunset, admiring the almost full moon over the jagged mountain range to the east...>

YO! DUDE! We won. Relax. Don't hate, Congratulate . My friend Mark, who helped me write and understand the Demurrer has a slightly different approach that meets these guys on their map of the world. Funny you mention jurisdiction because Mark has won all of his cases by challenging jurisdiction. He's won all of his driving without licence/insurance cases and also brings criminal charges against police himself. Actually, I think Mark can teach us a thing or two as well since he's won so consistently...

http://www.markmccoy.com if you're interested.

By the way, nonentertaining, have you (or anyone you know) won with the prove my existence within the "state" argument alone? Also, please send a link so I can check out the paperwork you've personally drafted and won using since you seem to be an authority on jurisdiction. Sending along any articles you might of written on the subject of jurisdiction would be appreciated too.

Thanks in advance.

[Dionysus]

Stevie:

Maybe you can take it a little easy on NonE. He does make a good point. And yes, you "won," but that doesn't mean that you couldn't have "played" better. Marc's approach (as opposed to Mark's) hinges on not taking a position one way or the other and not being boxed in by opinions (your own or theirs). It involves asking pointed questions to get them to commit, then later running back to cover their... necks when they get bitch slapped by the unattractive (to them) truth.

[StevieMac]

(01-08-2012 09:32 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  Stevie:

Maybe you can take it a little easy on NonE. He does make a good point. And yes, you "won," but that doesn't mean that you couldn't have "played" better. Marc's approach (as opposed to Mark's) hinges on not taking a position one way or the other and not being boxed in by opinions (your own or theirs). It involves asking pointed questions to get them to commit, then later running back to cover their... necks when they get bitch slapped by the unattractive (to them) truth.

Me take it easy on him? How does building 7 coincide with jurisdiction anyway? Out of line and inappropriate. Sensing a little hostility out of him when we should be supporting and discussing different strategies I could have used, not throwing sarcastic nonsensical pretentious shots at a newbie who is excited about his first major win... Anyway, proving my existence within the "state" is in my line of questioning arsenal, it's just not where I chose to go for this case. I figured I would meet them half way as a plan A (as I'm still learning about which techniques are most effective), with their own statutes and holdings, and it worked for the same reasons it should have. No threats, no spin, no nothin. It was admitted to and confirmed to me by the village prosecutor in open court then dismissed... What more could one ask for? Well, besides not being bothered with this madness in the first place, it just doesn't get much better than that! I am not so naive to think all judges and prosecutors will honor their own rules and precedent, and I'm prepared to raise all of Marcs valid questions if I have to in the future, but this technique has been working with minimal oral argument. It's probably the main reason I was interested in this particular remedy since my friend Tony only had about three weeks to sharpen his arguments and presence in court.

Has anyone had an experience when Marc's motion to dismiss was granted? That might be a stupid question, but I listen fairly often, and I only hear about how to respond when it is denied. Not doubting the validity, again, I believe in Marc's position, just wondering how often citations are dismissed right off the bat like that using Marc's paperwork.

[Jace: Johanson]

I've been in contact with Stevie for over half a year. He does his homework. Good on him for getting a result. And to get it so early on and to even get a candid confession..... That's impressive. Forget the rest.

[Bruce Sloane]

(01-08-2012 08:53 PM)StevieMac Wrote:  By the way, nonentertaining, have you (or anyone you know) won with the prove my existence within the "state" argument alone? Also, please send a link so I can check out the paperwork you've personally drafted and won using since you seem to be an authority on jurisdiction.

do not be expecting ... anything

nonE, by his own admission, has never had a Court case, nevermind contesting one

[NonEntity]

(02-16-2012 05:02 PM)Bruce Sloane Wrote:  nonE, by his own admission, has never had a Court case, nevermind contesting one

Guilty as charged! (Sheesh. Is this a strange world, or whut?)

I'd wager that Bruce has never been raped. There. We're even.

- NonE