General Court Procedure - Notes
1. “I am here by Restricted Appearance, ONLY to challenge Jurisdiction. I am NOT here to testify, nor to plead, and I do NOT swear to oaths.”
CITES --
“Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven.” (Jagens v. Lavine, 415 S.Ct.768). “Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination.” (Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910).
“Where there is an absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack.” (Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 382; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471).
NOTES –
The above is the FIRST THING that must come out of your mouth, NO MATTER WHAT else happens, and no matter what the “judge” says, does, or asks you.
“Restricted Appearance” does NOT give Jurisdiction to the “court.” “General Appearance” does. Unless you SPECIFICALLY state that you are there by “Restricted Appearance,” then THEY will PRESUME that you give them Jurisdiction by “appearing” Generally.
The ONLY thing that you are there for, is to make them PROVE that they have Jurisdiction. IF you fail to do that, and they trap you into arguing the “merits” of the “case,” then you have already lost. The only question then is, how MUCH you must pay.
When talking to the “judge,” do NOT address them as “your honor” or “judge.” Address them as “sir” or “madam,” or by their personal name. They are NOT real “judges.” They are bureaucratic ADMINISTRATORS--and you are in an administrative body, NOT in a judicial court as defined in the Constitution.
If you notice the FLAG that is placed in the “courtroom,” it has gold fringe around the edges, and is placed on a mast with an eagle on top. The correct way to display a flag indoors, is to pin it to the wall, either with the stripes running horizontally or vertically. The flag on the mast with the gold fringe, is the STANDARD OF THE PRESIDENT of the U. S. Therefore, you are in a MILITARY TRIBUNAL, a Court of Equity, and the ADMINISTRATIVE BODY in which you find yourself, convenes at the behest, under the authority, of the Commander-In-Chief.
2. Ask for a “Duly elected Judicial Officer,” per California Constitution, Article 6, Section 21” – also ask that “this matter” be heard in a “Court of Record.”
CITES –
“On stipulation [agreement] of the parties litigant the court may order a cause to be tried by a temporary judge who is a member of the State Bar, sworn and empowered to act until final determination of the cause.“ --California Constitution, Article 6, Section 21” –
I do NOT stipulate this matter be heard by a “temporary judge.”
NOTES –
Most “traffic courts” are run by appointed pro tem (temporary) “judges” [commissioner]. This saves them money on less important “cases.” Many states allow you the right to be heard by elected “judges” in a “Court of Record” (where they record every word of the proceedings.) You want to be heard in such a “court” because THEY LIE. Since there is no record of the proceedings, any Appeal of their misconduct, is your word against theirs. Also, a Court of Record will have a Prosecuting Attorney, while Traffic Court does not. Often you will want to serve the Prosecutor with certain paperwork, which you cannot easily do if he is not present.
ALWAYS refer to your “case” as “this matter.” NEVER call it a “case,” else you give them Jurisdiction BY PRESUMPTION. They will PRESUME that they have Jurisdiction if you ADMIT that they have a “case” against you.
3. If the "judge" absolutely denies your request. Then say -- "I accept Your Flag, your Oath and your Bond as affirmations, declaring that YOU are Under Penalty of Perjury."
Attempt to RECUSE the “judge” if all else fails. California allows this for ANY reason, but only once in the course of a particular “case.” Remember that you want a Court of Record.
You MUST invoke the NOTICE that you accept their Oath of Office, else they will PRESUME that the Constitution does not apply. Remember that they can PRESUME anything that they damn well please, so you MUST rebut their presumptions from the git-go. NOW they are bound to follow the Federal and State Constitutions, and you can claim your RIGHTS under those terms.
4. "Please produce the CHARGING INSTRUMENT.”
The Charging Instrument is a document outlining the CHARGES against you. By law, THEY CANNOT proceed without this. In most states, for minor cases, THEY do not have this, because it costs them a lot of resources to produce these. Unfortunately, most people do not know this fact, and so do not challenge THEM. And if you do not CHALLENGE THEM at EVERY STEP, then they PRESUME that you give up your right to do so. And they then proceed to steamroll over you, since it is evident to them that they have caught another “pigeon.”
The Prosecuting Attorney is responsible for bringing forth the Charges against you, via the Charging Instrument. If the “judge” asks you to “plead” (“guilty” or “not guilty”), then ask “Where is the Prosecuting Attorney? Are you, sir (madam) prosecuting this matter?” They will deny that they are prosecuting, since that would be a violation of the “Separation of Powers Doctrine.” You can bring up this phrase in your statements.
But usually the “judge” will say something like, “This is the Arraignment Hearing. The Prosecutor does not need to be here.” In which case you can then RECUSE the “judge” and ask for a Court of Record. Because they just fed you a load of conniving BS.
BUT – if for some reason you cannot recuse the “judge,” then ask them to produce the Charging Instrument. Because if they say something like, “There is no Charging Instrument,” you ask, “To what, then, am I to plead?” Because you cannot plead to nothing.
IF they cannot produce the Charging Instrument, then ask, “Please dismiss this matter with prejudice.” “With prejudice” is a legal term meaning without recourse to THEM. It is final. If you do not specify this, then THEY will dismiss “without prejudice,” meaning that they can re-open this “case” anytime in the future, though they are not likely to do so.
KEEP ON POINT. When you ask for the Charging Instrument, the “judge” will try to throw you off track. REMEMBER – you look like a sheep to a wolf (THEM) so they do not give up their lunch easily. If the “judge” starts to bring up that you “violated” such-and-such code, and what do you want to do about it? (Note how helpful they try to be, asking you what you want to do!) THEN remind the “judge” that you are here by Restricted Appearance, to challenge Jurisdiction ONLY, and to please stay on point!!! Then ask again for the Charging Instrument. Keep doing this, for as long as it takes the “judge” to realize that you know what they are up to.
5. "Please read the Charges into the Record and then CERTIFY THEM."
CITES –
The language of the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, that “. . . no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing . . . the person or things to be seized,” of course applies to arrest as well as search warrants.” Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480, 485-86 (June 30, 1958). See also; Albrecht v. United States, 273 U.S. 1, at pages 2-3 (OCTOBER TERM 1926).
Nonetheless, this complaint must have for its basis a valid foundation and must rest upon a charge supported by affidavit as required by law. Miles v. State, 94 Ala. 100, 11 So. 403.” HORN v. STATE, 117 So. 283, 284 (Jan. 17, 1928).
NOTES --
This is your final strategy. IF they pull a rabbit out of a hat and have a Charging Instrument [Or a false one] THEN ask the Prosecuting Attorney to CERTIFY the Charges, as above. This means that he must SWEAR under oath to the truth of the Charges. The “judge” or other “officer” empowered to take Oaths, must SIGN the Charges as well. So TWO signatures are required.
If EVIDENCE is not CERTIFIED, then it is considered “hearsay” and is not admissible. Therefore if you do not CHALLENGE the evidence, then they PRESUME that you gave up that right. Here we go again, with the PRESUMPTION crap!!! BUT – you MUST understand -- that is how THEY operate. You can ask the “judge” -- “Sir, is hearsay evidence admissible in this court, to convict?” He had better say “NO,” else it goes against all rules, and you must object.
If the “judge” says that the “ticket” is the Charging Instrument (which it technically is) then object that there is no formal Complaint. If they persist, then just ask them the above Point #5. If they refuse, then ask to “dismiss this matter, with prejudice.” Otherwise they are operating outside the law, in their private capacity, and can be sued for fraud and subsequent damages. This is because they are under obligation to uphold the Constitution. Remember the part about the Oath?
THEY WILL NEVER CERTIFY THE CHARGES. Why not? Because IT IS ALL FRAUD from the git-go, and THEY know it!!! So THEY will never take the chance that you will come after them for fraud and damages. Because they then stand to lose everything that they own.