Hi Bob,

The way I handle this is just non-consent. I am not a name so therefore, no need for the Real ID. I carry no “ID” at all. There is no plastic, paper, photo, etc., that can ID (identical to) me. What you see is what you get. 😀

EDITORIAL: Here is a subsequent update by the same user, whose handle is “blue”.

_________

Hello:

The following happened all because of not having ID, not giving information, and claiming my rights based on the Constitution. I have continued reading your materials, and am planning to make oral statements in Superior Court, in my own lawful capacity with no representation in a special appearance. I read somewhere that going to court grants jurisdiction, but since I was in custody and brought to Court, I think it would be wiser to go to court, and state orally into the record a challenge of jurisdiction as not a State resident.

Originally, it was for unlicensed driver, but it has now become a case of competency. I have been brought before 2 different criminal courts with 2 different judges on the Superior Court level. I have been brought to Court about 7 times while in jail between the different courts. In the first criminal court, it ended with the Judge refusing my speaking in my own capacity without representation (denied Faretta), and his appointing the public defender to speak for me to make an appeal, (since I appealed his decisions). The judge had sent a court ordered psychologist to interview me while in custody. Many of the questions the psychologist asked had to do with court procedure. The psychologist said that if someone was unwilling to cooperate with the public defender, or did not know court procedure, this could also be considered incompetent to stand trial. The judge read the psychologist's report and ruled that I was not competent to stand trial. Because I did not give a “name”, they had suspended criminal proceedings, and put the case in DOUBT for mental competency, and now the judge has ruled “incompetent to stand trial.” I am unclear whether this is a ruling that applies only to this case, or will stand in other future contacts/arrests with the law. This judge did not set any more dates for court appearances in his court, so it appears that that is his final ruling — that I am incompetent to stand trial. I am looking for dismissal/discharging for lack of jurisdiction, not mental incompentency.

The next upcoming criminal court date is with the second judge, who had previously released me from detention in jail, after I had appealed his decision to stay me in jail in his court. He released me to continue court appearances out of jail. The same public defender from the first criminal court will be there, and will provide a copy of the psychologist's report at that time. I had been jailed for almost 50 days. This same public defender had said previously, they would give me bail to get out of jail, if I gave them a “name.” When I did not do that, in the next court appearance, the public defender said, they would dismiss the charges if I gave them a “name.” When I did not do that, the district attorney finally said they had “identified me.” The district attorney said that I could come to the next court date “if you want to.” I had been jailed for almost 50 days. I gave them no information, and did not sign anything, including any promises to appear in court. I am unclear if jurisdiction is challenged, which court can do that, and if they can redress false arrest and imprisonment for lack of jurisdiction.

Because of my stance in not providing information based on the Fifth Amendment, particularly a “name”, I was subjected to psychiatric evaluation while in custody. I also went on a hunger strike to protest my rights being violated with extended detention without trial. They put me under psychiatric evaluation, and when I contested under habeus corpus in another Superior Court, the judge upheld the psychiatic hold, because of the jail psychologist's report. I had refused all psychiatric evaluations and refused interviews. One thing led to another, and shortly, I was placed on involuntary psychiatric medications, where if I refused, I would be given medications by force through injections. They noticed me with a petition for temporary conservatorship/guardianship to Superior Court, placing me under an employee of the Court, who would make decisions for me regarding my estate, person, and medications for being “gravely disabled.” This petition was under the identity of the person with a Social Security number and a date of birth. They went through the psychiatric evaluation to use coercion so that I would provide information. There is an upcoming court date regarding this for permanent conservatorship/guardianship under the “name” with Social Security number and date of birth, even though I did not sign anything promising to appear.

The Sheriff said he had to identify me, and after many weeks, brought me back down to be re-fingerprinted with the “name” they had traced. I told them I did not consent to what ever “name” they called me. He fingerprinted me, again, anyway. They said I would have an alias as the “name”, and called me this “name” in psychiatic evaluation, but I remained JANE DOE in court.

On release from jail, I was sent to involuntary psychiatric 72 hour observation in an emergency room, under the “name,” where I was forced to take medications because of losing the administrative hearing in jail for capacity to decide on taking medications. The public defender had said he would arrange an appeal for capacity to decide, and for the temporary conservatorship. The appeal date came and went while in jail, and never happened. While in the 72 hour observation, they said I was there for refusing to be the “name” they had traced. I was interviewed by several different psychiatrists who said I had to provide them with in-depth information about my private life, how I support myself, my history, and had to provide collateral contact information of people they could call, or I would not be released, even for months. They were going to admit me to a psychiatric hospital. I was told to explain the Constitutional rights. I told them that since they were functioning under State regulations, I had rights I could stand on. They said it was my choice, to talk or to be detained involuntarily for months. They said, if I did not give them any outside person's contact information, under their State Welfare Check, they could not release me back on to the streets. Finally, I gave them permission to speak with a relative who had traced where they had put me after release from jail, and wanted to speak with the psychiatrist. On release from psychiatric emergency room, I had to sign under the “name” that I was discharged to myself, and accepted the converted check for the cash money I had at the time or arrest, issued to the “name” on the check. They gave a prescription for medications. When I refused medication, they said, it was a part of the agreement to be discharged that I take the medications, and to sign the paperwork. I signed, but it was under duress.

The car was impounded for 30 days, and the cost to release it was over $2,000.

Posting the case in the forums did not give any helpful input. I would like helpful input. From the above, I have three different court tracks, two criminal, one probate, under one case number. At every court date, I challenged jurisdiction. I am also looking to see, aside from dismissing the case/guardianship/charges for lack of jurisdiction, to see whether a ruling can be used to defend my future right to travel, and for redress of violation of rights. I am looking to see how to have them give the burden of proof for residency or admit I am not required to have a Driver's License, how I can defend my right to travel after all this, or have an identity hearing to prove my case. I want to expunge this case. Originally, when I was arrested, I told the Sheriff I was not required to have a Driver's License. He asked, do you have proof?

ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 9. A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing

the obligation of contracts may not be passed.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

Bill of Attainder

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.”

“The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply – trial by legislature.” U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

“These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.” William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

“Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. … The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community.” James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:

· Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).

· Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).

· U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).

· Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).

· Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG, 468 U.S. 841 (1984).

See also, SBC v. FCC.

ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 12. A person shall be released on bail by sufficient sureties,

except for:

(a) Capital crimes when the facts are evident or the presumption

great;

(b ) Felony offenses involving acts of violence on another person, or felony sexual assault offenses on another person, when the facts are evident or the presumption great and the court finds based upon clear and convincing evidence that there is a substantial likelihood the person's release would result in great bodily harm to others; or

(c ) Felony offenses when the facts are evident or the presumption great and the court finds based on clear and convincing evidence that the person has threatened another with great bodily harm and that there is a substantial likelihood that the person would carry out the threat if released.

Excessive bail may not be required. In fixing the amount of bail, the court shall take into consideration the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, and the probability of his or her appearing at the trial or hearing of the case.

A person may be released on his or her own recognizance in the court's discretion.

[…]

Why is this important…because a hundred years ago, Americans had a constitutional right to travel without government permission or licenses. There were many state court decisions on the books so holding. For example the Supreme Court of Kansas issued a decision in 1890 holding that “[each] citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle,” subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the ‘law of the road’”. Swift v. City of Topeka, 23 P. 1075, 1076 (Kan, 1890). The right to travel by automobile without government permission was “so well established and so universally recognized in this country,” wrote the court, “that it has become a part of the alphabet of fundamental rights of the citizen.”

[…]

The right was “orphaned” because judges and policymakers described that automobile as more dangerous than previous methods of transportation. The first driver licenses were issues around 1905 in the northeastern states in the aftermath of widely reported car wrecks. Over the years, auto travelers have accepted more and more restrictions on their rights, and today most states regularly enact new regulations.

[…]

According to Dr. Roots, this loss of the right has led to a virtual state of marshal law on the highways of the twenty-first century…. Americans of previous generations would have objected strenuously to the notion that we need to ask for government permission to travel down the roads.

[…]

Over time, the driver license has morphed into a complicated identification program that has little or nothing to do with ensuring the safe “operation” of motor vehicles. Through the Driver's License, the state has become a database manager with access to the addresses, photographs, identification numbers, and vital statistics of most Americans.

Today, traffic cops are even allowed to forcibly stab needles into drivers' arms and draw blood from drivers without warrant and over the drivers' objections. They may lack anything approaching the medical training that a licensed nurse needs to do the same thing, and they face almost no civil liability for infections, scars, or injuries they cause. Drivers who submit to the driver license regime are held to have “impliedly consented” to all of these invasions.

by Roger Roots, “AMERICA’S LOST RIGHT TO TRAVEL BY AUTOMOBILE”, Republic Magazine, #6

She is a sharp lady allright.

However, she seems to think that the de facto president can veto this, turn back that, push for repeal, even of his anti-health care bill.

He didn't initiate them, and he cannot modify or void them.

He is told what to say and what to do (mostly “go take a vacation”). And he has no authority from his handlers to dismantle any of it.

It is not complaining and passively waiting and hoping for the WH messiah to undo his wrongdoing, but the active People simply saying NO, in whatever form that takes.

The People bear ultimately responsiblity for the demise of this country, and only they have the authority and duty to return it to proper government (according to the Declaration of Independence).

Franklin,

Yes, 'great' is an ambiguous term. Sorry 'bout that. I think I know what lawyer you are talking about (I think Sui Juris Dictionary is the product), but I am too poor to get it. I read his emails though, they are good and I understand what points he makes. I just wish I had that kind of dough to spend.

Your educational opinion about about motions/petitions is similar to my educational opinion about motions/petitions.

I will have to research 'setting up a motions hearing' because I am not too familiar with such a thing, or what procedures there are to conducting a 'motions hearing', or even what I need to do in my own case at a 'motions hearing'. I don't think I am familiar with even drafting a 'petition for motions hearing'.

I one of those guys who is defending my rights and learning as I go – although I seem to have had a head-start on MOST people and began researching sovereignty about 6 months BEFORE I was 'caught' by the legal system (via traffic citations), so I seem to understand that the odds are a little stacked against me right now; I need to do more research obviously. 🙄

BOB12,

Hi buddy, although the judge told me “This is a JUDICIAL proceeding” and This i”s a court of record” via only his verbal words, I may ask him to put those words of his into writing and into the written record. I did ask the judge if the record was only the written record, to which he did say yes. Now that I think about it, I may ask him to put that answer into writing and into the record as well.

The picture in my mind is forming the thought that I should petition the court (and these people: judges, prosecutors, police (city's witness but NOT the injured party (LOL!)) to ADMIT into the written record ALL of the things they are verbally saying and claiming. Otherwise, isn't the entire conversation just a waste of breath? (yes, it pretty much is BECAUSE it isn't part of the written record. I may, in my case, be cautioned because they will probably be looking for me to speak ANY incriminating statements so that they can use it against me. I just believe they are sneaky like that.)

BOB12 – do you know of any good places on the internet to look for info on how to write effective appeals for a trial do novo?:???:

For this statement to be totally true the supreme court would have gotten it wrong when they ruled

and

Because when you file a claim at a court of record, and the judge asks you what did you do to correct the error,