In case anyone is interested, I got a speeding ticket with the added "charges" of driving without a license and no registration. To make a long story short, we have the MSO on our new car and have not registered it with the "state", nor do we plan to. I showed my passport as my ID instead of a "license". When the "cop" turned on his lights, I pulled into the nearest gas station (private property) and let him issue the ticket (our "city's" "cops" don't give warnings).

I wrote a letter to the court within 72 hours after being pulled over by the "cop", asking them to dismiss the case. I checked the court website, and I see they have other traffic tickets scheduled at the same time as mine, but mine is not on the list of cases. So, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it is dismissed and I just haven't received the notice yet.

Good Job. that should do it. They will send you more "offers to contract', just 'refuse for cause' and return them to sender, I would also send in a Revocation of Power of Attorney and copyright of your strawman name. Now that you have an 'open' court case you can enter into the record (get a stamped recieved copy at the courthouse) the following. Then send copies to your local sheriff, police, hiway patrol, mayor, atty general, etc. Then they are noticed and the next ticket you get with the cops signature on it is an 'acceptance' if it has your all caps name on it.


Seal John Doe SAN. Notice of revocation of power of attorney

In the Common Law and for the record, know all men by these presents:
That I, John Henry Doe, declare that all power of attorney executed by:
The corporations doing business as; the UNITED STATES, the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, the DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL REVENUE, the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, the FEDERAL RESERVE, the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, the DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (STATE OF CALIFORNIA), the COUNTIES OF SONOMA, MARIN, and SAN FRANCISCO (STATE OF CALIFORNIA), the REDWOOD CREDIT UNION, any Banks, Credit Card or Fiduciary institutions, utility companies, internet companies, any corporate derivations of the above names, and all corporate subsidiaries and employees thereof that has been given, or presumed to be authorized through signed declarations or contracts with the above mentioned corporations, including but not limited to: birth certificate(s), marriage license(s), drivers’ license(s), tax return(s), social security card(s), bank signature cards, and title(s) to car(s), and or real property(s), or applications are hereby revoked, extinguished, and cancelled as declared and signed this day.
Without Prejudice

By: __________________________________,
John Henry Doe
Signer and Authorized Representative. Signer is a flesh and blood man, one of the people of the Republic of California. Date: ____________________________
Witnessed by: _________________________ Witnessed by: _____________________________
Date: Date:

All rights reserved re common-law copyright of trade-name/trademark for the name John Henry Doe and any derivation thereof. John Doe is DBA the trade-name/trade-mark of JOHN HENRY DOE (a corporate fiction). Use of the copyrighted name [JOHN HENRY DOE], or any derivation of that name for enrichment by any other party will carry a charge of $100,000 per use, unless there is an expressed written approval by John Doe.

Then when they send you a notice (in the all caps name) to pay bail with a signature on it they are contracting with you and you can bill them 100K for accepting your offer.

MaxF,

I appreciate the help, but I am not convinced filing anything/notifying anyone really does anything to protect you. My experience so far has been that they typically just ignore your correspondence altogether because they can. In my previous "case", I filed a notice of default on the "prosecutor" before the arraingment, and it was ignored, and the "judge" still proceeded against me. It turned out to be a complete waste of time.

The bottom line is they have the guns, and don't care what we may say and do or how high we may flail our arms in protest. All we can do is question them to death to expose the fraud and show the truth to others when confronted.

If anyone else has any thoughts, please let me know. Thanks!

f. What evidence are you relying upon to prove I am subject to any traffic laws?

This is really the crux of the issue. Their only answer can ultimately be "the Constitution". At which point in time you would of course inform them that you never signed the Constitution.

You did well and were prompt to be proactive with 72 hours. Nice going. Please let us know any current developments.

Is 72 hours a standard or submitting the letter within 30 days is not worthwhile?

Thanks.

I believe you have the right idea there.

Damage control is the name of the game.
Don't take a position or give your opinion. Once you do, BAM!! instant conflict that needs to be resolved.


If someone happens to see the light through your tribulations that's just a lil icing on the cake.

I thought I'd just post a timeline of the case to date so anyone interested can see how the case has progressed:

8/2/2009 - Pulled over for speeding, no license, no registration.
8/4/2009 - Sent useless "canceling" of contract along with questions for evidence. No response.
9/1/2009 - Made special appearance on arraingment date and objected to plea. Trial set for 10/13.
9/23/2009 - Sent discovery request to prosecutor requesting proof laws apply to me as well as cop's notes, video, and other evidence.
9/28/2009 - Prosecutor only replies with cop's notes and certificate of accuracy for radar gun tuning fork.
10/3/2009 - Prosecutor files motion to continue because cop will be on vacation on trial date.
10/9/2009 - I call court clerk who tells me I don't need to show up and trial will be continued automatically.

This is where it stands right now. I'm still debating on whether or not I really should show up tomorrow or not. I have more plans for the trial, but I won't discuss them ahead of time. I'll keep you posted. Thanks for all of your support!

Most "jurisdictions" have a 150 day time limit to bring a ticket to trial. Beyond the 150 days the ticket is thrown out for a denial of speedy trial or failure to prosecute. delays are purposely used to avoid issues like corpus delecti.

Did you file a motion to dismiss?

Marc,

No, I didn't file a motion to dismiss. The reason is I want to try to bring my witnesses in and make the prosecution prove that I am subject to their "laws". I've really been debating on how to file a motion to dismiss or anything without making statements they'd ask me to prove.

I like your motion's content, but I'm just afraid that they'll turn it around on me and ask me to prove they don't have standing, etc. Instead, I'm proceeding along the path of keeping the burden of proof on them by not making a single statement throughout the process.

I forgot to mention in my timeline (which I'll edit) that I sent a discovery request to the prosecutor asking for evidence of in personam jurisdiction, that I am required to register my vehicle, that the "state" has the authority to require me to register, etc. The only thing he responded with was a copy of the ticket (including the cops notes on back) and a copy of the certificate of accuracy for the tuning fork used to calibrate the radar gun. I realize it's a canned response, but he failed to even offer any evidence for the whole foundation of how the law applies to me.

That suggests that either A.) it doesn't exist, and they have no case, or B.) they are withholding evidence. I am thinking about bringing this up in court this afternoon and move the court to compel the prosecutor to produce the evidence I requested. We'll see how it goes.

-Spike

Your witnesses? I hope you only mean the cop and possibly another politicians higher up the political pecking order.

I have always wanted to get the head of the DMV or the "governor" on the stand in a traffic trial and ask questions. For some reason the subpoenas are either not issued or they are quashed ex parte.

However, if I assume you mean people other than the cop, then I assume you are not really in damage control.

Ask the persecutor, to put in writing, exactly who he is going to rely on as a witness at trial to prove:

1) presence within the state
2) subject to laws of state

That is more effective, in my opinion. Personam jurisdiction is under #1, but #1 has to be established first. If you get a response, then it's going to look pretty bad in court when the persecutor has no witness to prove #'s 1&2. He/she will mock you in a lame attempt to get attention away from the issue.

Marc,

Yes, I am planning on witnesses that are higher up. They are the County Treasurer since that is who actually collects the tax, and the Director of the DMV. I agree that there will probably be opposition to that, but all I can do is try and then question why later.

Here's what happened in court today. I was called, and the first thing I said was, "For the record, I am appearing specially, and not generally."

Next, I turned to the prosecutor and said, "Mr. X, do you have evidence of in personam jurisdiction or that any of the laws I am charged with violating apply to me?" He started looking flustered and said, "Uh...well...you were in X county in the State of X..." I interjected, "I object. This is hearsay..." I turn to the "judge" and say, "...unless he is allowed to testify."

The "judge" says, "No. We're not going to get into these issues now. You will have the opportunity to do so at trial. Please go with the bailiff and get a new trial date."

That was it. Granted, it didn't really change anything, but it showed in front of the other 10 people who were next that there was something going on here.

The new trial date is November 10th.

When you do the subpoenas, make sure you follow the rules to the letter, they will file to quash; don't give them any ammo. You're calling the treasurer as an expert on the interpretation and application of the tax laws. You need to use that as grounds because otherwise they won't accept him/her as a witness, they weren't at the stop. In the motion to quash that is what they will argue.

It would be cool to also subpoena the elected or appointed county/city attorney, the prosecutor's boss as an expert, for the defense, as an expert in the interpretation and application of state law.

The director of the DMV is called to refute the veracity of the DMV records I'm sure the persecutor is going to want admitted and to counter the testimony of the cop.

Keep us informed, I'm interested to see how this plays out. Let us know when you have the subpoenas served.

Marc

I just filed my witness list and praecipes for subpoenas to the Director of the DMV and the County Treasurer. It will be interesting to see what happens. Trial is scheduled for November 10th at 2pm. Now, I just need to put together the questions I will be asking them and the cop. I'll keep you posted.

The subpoenas have been served, and so far, no opposition from the persecutor. The DMV Director was finally served yesterday (the Sheriff's office here serves her with several at a time about once every week or so).

Meanwhile, I'm writing up my list of questions for them, and we'll see what they say.

I agree with this, but you're limiting your scope. Think of what MaxF was saying as proactive questioning. It's not about running and hiding and damage control in the primary, but the secondary, however I do agree and give consideration to the reality that these have been switched around in affect.

There are a couple interesting points from other fields of research I thought I'd mention.



Maybe next time (God Forbid) try using notorial protest. Violation tickets act as bills of exchange. When you sign it and give it back, the cop has you in dishonor. When they impose the blue copy on you instead of the original, it's not a dduely presented bill. Get the notary to file notices of protest, dishonor, and then default judgment (10 days between each). Notaries can fill any position of personage anyone else can (like the judge). Rob Menard and others teach this, www.thinkfree.ca, www.worldfreemansociety.org.



This is good, but there are a couple other things that can be done before and/or after (on your option, of course). As soon as you know there is a case being created aagainst you by the "state," file a counter-claim (not a counter-suit) immediately, based on a challenge to jurisdiction. When jurisdiction is challenged, everything in their court must stop until jurisdiction is proven. Bill Thornton teaches this in detail, www.1215.org.

Now, when you're in the arraignment, that is there so they can get you to contract into a court other than a court of record. In most every state constitution there is a section declaring courts of record, but it can be agreed to by the parties to have all cases tried in a nise prius court or otherwise. This is also discussed in Thornton's work. When they have you in for an arraignment, object to the WHOLE thing, not just to plea. But, even there is something.

If you do not plea, and even more if you objected to plea, a plea cannot be entered for you and still keep you liable as surity for that plea. You are not the defendent, as only a defendent enters a plea. "Let the record show the judge has just taken responsibility for these charges and has accepted the position of defenant as only the defendent enters a plea. Now, I know there are supposedly statutory regulations about this, but they're workable too.

And, as even a further option, go into the court and specifically wave each and every benefit of the proceding. "I wave the benefit of settling the matter with money, I wave the benefit of settling the matter by use of your jails, I wave the benefit of adjudication...." and so on. Also, specifically wave none of your rights. Whinston Shrout teaches this sort of technique. It involves actually having to resolve the dispute, but it's all strictly administerial instead of judicial.



Now, here's a funny thing. They're asking you to go to another office in the building and ASK for a trial. Theres the evidence of the contractual neture of the thing, isn't there? One thing a man named Luke: Denis said was, "Thank you your honor. When I want a trial that's what I'll do." It's a bit snarky, but it puts it right out there that you can't be ordered to trial unless they want to drop all the charade for just this one traffic case.

Obviously, in this particular case most of the opportunities to really make these things work have come and gone, and I wouldn't suggest them right off anyway, but I like the idea of having multiple different gears for climbing this mountain. I think you'll do well, even if they screw ya. Good luck. I'll be waiting to hear the result.

Peace.