
BOBT12
Forum Replies Created
Dear stone83:
Here are a few answers you may find helpful.
stone83: “Seems that the Topeka Municipal Court is of 'limited jurisdiction and record' according to its own website.” This is telling you that you cannot begin an appealable record at this level. If you do not like the decision of the Court Not of Record, then one should appeal (file) in a Court of (appealable) Record. In your state, based on the state’s constitution, that would be at the District Court level.
stone83: “So yeah, statutes aren't what I need to defend myself.” This depends on what the statutes say, many of them may be favorable to your position, whatever that might be.
stone83: “I just pretty much need my state's constitution” This is supreme law for state issues (where the people properly delegated such authority).
stone83: “federal constitution” This is supreme law for government, both federal and state (where the states properly delegated such authority).
stone83: “Now then, where did you guys learn about the special pleadings in common law” “Ultimatly, we the people oversee the government that we set up.
Quote:“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government,Sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.” Woo Lee vs. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356Emphasis added.
stone83: “to get remedy in traffic court” State your case at this level. If you have statutes that are ul, feel free to use them. Otherwise, state whatever you feel is important. If you lose, file in a Court of Record.
You may want to get a Jury Trial:
Quote:“If the question before [the magistrates] be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right which is casual only is less dangerous to the state and less afflicting to the loser than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system.” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782. ME 2:179stone83: “(or county district court)?” This is a Court of Record in your state, based on your state’s constitution.
stone83: “Motions to Dismiss seem to be the norm here.” Yes, this is the case in most courts. You will find the Rules in the Rules of Procedure (Criminal or Civil).
stone83: “I even looking at statutes for Civil Procedure in my state if statutes cannot be used to sustain grounds of sovereignty?” Statutes and Rules are NOT one and the same. Legislatures pass statutes. However, courts set up various rules they they agree to follow. However, these rules must not affect your substantive(constitutional) rights.
stone83: “where I don't understand statutes of my state and how they relate to me. It's kind of confusing when I see 'don't use statutes' and 'look up your states rules of civil/criminal procedure'. Both are statutes.” Please see above, hopefully, this may aid with clearly up your confusion.
Quote:Here’s an inconvenient truth: the automobile is the safest form of transportation ever invented. Dr. Roger Roots, an attorney and sociologist from Montana, has authored a detailed study showing that the switch from horse travel to car travel a hundred years ago probably saved many thousands of American lives….American Journal of Economics and Sociology and is entitled “The Dangers of Automobile Travel: A Reconsideration.”[…]
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
Emphasis added.
http://www.restoretherepublic.net 1-866-437-6570
Quote:“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”- Thomas Jefferson- 'DannyRuel' wrote on '13:
Very soon in the future I will be donating documents to the SEDM on my research of the Family Court Scam. I would like all to know that I want to donate my time to this cause. There was a posting on another forum that stated that “no one” wants to volunteer or help for free and I want to let all those know that I have been working on intense research on the family court subject matter. I am not doing it for finantial gain and I intend on posting my research here free of charge if the SEDM will have me. I just want to make sure that what I write is accurate and I have evidence to back up my position.
I do not personally advocate the position of this man, who is currently working on “statutory” reform at http://www.leonkoziol.com/ but if there are some who want to exercise “statutory” remedies they may research this man. One thing I commend him on is the fact of his willingness to publicly protest a clear wrong with the family court system. I will say this and this is not advice, but the Family Court is a franchise court that is not for human beings. If one were duped into their scam, this must be corrected on the record at the family court before seeking any other remedies at a court that hears cases from human beings. Even if the family court refuses to correct the record, it evidences the fact that they are engaged in fraud, and provides appealable paper to a court of equity under the common law. I hope this was helpful, and I agree with SEDM when they said that we all must roll up our sleeves and put in the work.
In most cases Family Courts, like Traffic Courts, are not Courts of Record. Therefore, an appealable Record cannot be established until people file (de novo (new) trial) in a Court of Record. People should check their state’s constitutions to find which courts have Original Jurisdiction, where an appealable Record will begin.
- 'stone83' wrote on '11:
What does it mean to cite federal statutes as authority for protecting your rights? (Is this like saying, “Well, 8 K.S.A 123 says I am exempt from being licensed to drive, which gives me the right to drive my vehicle without a license.”?) — warning, fake statute and conclusion of law there.
Here’s a hint.
Quote:NINTH AMENDMENT: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.Quote:Do federal statutes also include state statutes (e.g. Kansas Statutes Annotated)? If not, is the difference because fed. stat. are only enforceable on fed. territory, whereas state stat, are enforceable on state 'territory'?Again, one must understand the Separation of Powers Doctrine.
Quote:Do de jure states even have statutes? (Maybe I am not yet clear on how statutes apply to people yet.)Yes. State legislators pass these statutes. You can locate them in a local law library.
Quote:Can one cite state and/or federal statutes, as well as city ordinances that are being misapplied to him/her in an action before traffic court in such documents as an abatement or motion?Not really.
Quote:TENTH AMENDMENT: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.As explained several time, Traffic Courts (Family Courts, etc.) are not Courts of Record. Thus, they operate on an informal basis. This is why people should review their state's constitution to understand how their state's delegated authority is limited.
Quote:“What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established.” –VanHorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 U.S. 304, 2 Dall. 304 (1795)Emphasis added.
Quote:What information would be helpful for a sui juris litigant to decide whether to draft an abatement or to draft a motion (to remove the action permanently from the court)?You are unlikely to really achieve this at the Traffic Court level. At the Court of Record ((state) District Court for you) you should review the MOTIONS PRACTICE for this court system.
For more info:
- 'franklin' wrote on '07:Quote:America needs a Queen Ferdinand now!!
Who is or was Queen Ferdinand? And what use would she be?
If you mean Queen Isabella (as in Ferdinand and Isabella) of the Spanish Inquisition, she was as violent in her religious zealotry as you seem to think Islam may be.
When the Vatican wanted to canonize Isabella a decade or so ago, five hundred years later, Jews everywhere protested loudly for her policy of force-baptizing the Jews in her realm. Her religious zealotry, demonstrated in book burnings and burnings at the stake, was also directed against Christians with whom she disagreed. And Isabella's legacy did not die with her.
Henry VIII (Tudor) married Isabella's daughter Catherine of Aragon, the mother of Mary Tudor, who became queen of England on Henry's death. Mary is known to history as “Bloody Mary” for her incessant burning of non-Christians throughout her five year reign of terror.
Islam as a religion is entitled to the protections of the US Constitution. However,
The danger of “Islamification” is that to function as a religion it will have to replace Constitutional law with Sharia Law.
The ONLY thing that makes the US Constitution and its first ten amendments unique in a world of beautifully written constitutions, UN Charters, Lisbon Treaties, is the requirement for DUE PROCESS of Law.
Due process requirements are the Constitution's ONLY fundamental distinguishing characteristic from other forms of government and that is the only basis for resisting an Islamic takeover, a UN takeover, a Chinese takeover, an EU takeover, of the system of American Jurisprudence. (You will note that people like Bader Ginsburg and others, want to use other forms of foreign law as a basis for precedent-making supreme court decisions. Yet there is no outcry about the “ginsburgification” of America).
Without due process, which trickles right down to a cop stopping you on the street and a local county court following its own local rules, there is no way to enforce any other rights. in a Constitution.
The danger to this republic from Islam is not religious or cultural in nature (without Islam we would not have Aristotle), the danger lies in the jurisprudence of Sharia law usurping the very Constitution which protects Islam as a religion and provides due process to any of its adherents.
Thanks for that analysis. I agree with most of it (still digesting other parts), and you are right about the Ruth Bader Ginsburg issue. I have wrote a couple of letters to local papers on various topics like this. There seems to be a push by many, proposing that this nation should follow foreign laws and precedent. This is an outrage.
I don't see why not. The Rules of Civil Procedure apply to the court, that is to say a Court of Record. You should quote them however best suits your case.
Quote:2. The Municipal Court of Topeka has the case docketed as a criminal case/misdemeanor (citation includes no insurance charge, i.e. misdemeanor). Does Civil procedure even matter right now?In my humble, non-legal advice opinion,NO. You will be in a Court Not of Record.
- 'stone83' wrote on '28:
I found this set of videos on Youtube. This guy's name is James Hardin. I am studying some of the things he talks about and he seems to be very educated in Constitutional Law and American Jurisprudence. There are 16 videos in all (the last video is incorrectly numbered '15' so there are two '15' videos). I will post the first video which should bring up a list of the rest of the videos at the bottom of your browser window.
I have to go to Municipal Court tomorrow for a 'traffic citation' (yes, another one). I think I will do what this guy does. No sense in taking part in 'administrative' proceedings when I am entitled to a 'judicial' proceeding in an Article 3 court with an Article 3 judge and a jury of 12 of my peers.
Please share your thoughts on this guy's presentation!
We have gone over much of this subject in another thread. Nevertheless, here is a quick review, you might consider stating your case at Municipal Court, a Court Not of Record, and appeal any negative decision to a District Court, a Court of Record (de novo (new) trial).
By the way, good luck in court.
BOBT12
MemberDecember 12, 2010 at 4:27 pm in reply to: Please give me a reason to keep fighting the IRS'franklin' wrote on '12:Lots of work.
Somehow they still have you in their cross hairs. But, if you ignore them that will be their cue to take action against you. If you feel that you've done everything necessary…you can respond to them any way you wish, as long as you respond. As has been said “Freedom is not a spectator sport”.
As they say, “resistance is victory”!
- 'Admin' wrote on '30:
LOL if it weren't so painfully true. Hold on to your hat!
Let me get this straight . . . .
We're going to be “gifted” with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't,
Which purportedly covers at least
ten million more people,
without adding a single new doctor,
but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,
written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it,
passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it,
and signed by a President who smokes,
with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,
for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect,
by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,
all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese ,
and financed by a country that's broke!!!!!
'What the HELL could possibly go wrong?'
Well…they can order people to no longer be fed or receive drink…
http://www.prisonpla…kers-or-us.html
- 'franklin' wrote on '01:
A thought provoking article on the effects of the 179-year-old US,Inc.
http://www.rense.com…eral92/fail.htm
Quote:United States Incorporated. 'US-INC. does NOT tolerate any so-called laws, except corporate ones that they have written OF themselves, BY themselves and FOR themselves. That's why mentioning the Constitution will get you arrested. Mentioning the Bill of Rights will get you arrested. And disagreeing with any “officer” (uniformed thug from any “agency”) will get you beaten and arrested – if not shocked, tortured or killed. The Constitutional United States of America DIED in 1871 – and what replaced it has no interest at all in anything that was developed for use while the constitution was still viable!Emphasis added.
I go to court and raise issues related to the constitutions all the time. I have not been arrested. The Constitutions are supreme law. Thus, in order that we don't get sucked into fallacies we need to understand what a constitution really is:
Quote:“What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it. The life-giving principle and the death-doing stroke must proceed from the same hand. What are Legislatures? Creatures of the Constitution; they owe their existence to the Constitution: they derive their powers from the Constitution: It is their commission; and, therefore, all their acts must be conformable to it, or else they will be void. The Constitution is the work or will of the People themselves, in their original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the Legislature in their derivative and subordinate capacity. The one is the work of the Creator, and the other of the Creature. The Constitution fixes limits to the exercise of legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit within which it must move. In short, gentlemen, the Constitution is the sun of the political system, around which all Legislative, Executive and Judicial bodies must revolve. Whatever may be the case in other countries, yet in this there can be no doubt, that every act of the Legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, as absolutely void.” VanHorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 U.S. 304, 2 Dall. 304 (1795)Emphasis added.
- 'franklin' wrote on '01:
Now you cannot grow your own food without federal government permission. The reason being that you might get sick if you're not supervised by a whole new bunch of employed unemployable federal agents.
Maybe the ones that are too stupid to get a job at McDonald's or the TSA can be the new cabbage patch agents [CPA :roll:] .
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/senateS510finalvote30nov10.shtml
Here is a little good news.
Quote:The Senate’s controversial FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510) now appears to be dead in the water!As we reported to you yesterday, the Senate passed its version of the Food Safety bill by a margin of 73 to 25, and sent it on to the House of Representatives for approval. Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) had previously agreed to accept the Senate’s bill in place of the House’s version, already approved, so this approval was expected to be pro-forma.
But it turns out that Section 107 of the Senate bill contains a revenue-raising (i.e., taxing) provision. And such a provision is unconstitutional: “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives,” according to Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution. Because the Senate violated the funding origination clause, the House has implemented a procedure known as “blue slipping” to block the bill, keeping it out of consideration and sending it back to the Senate.
The only possible “quick fix” would be a unanimous consent agreement in the Senate to strike that revenue-raising provision from the bill—but Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has already stated that he will oppose, so unanimity will be impossible. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now faced with some tough choices: spend a huge amount of time all over again to deal with this (which is unlikely in a Lame Duck Congress, especially considering how controversial the bill is); or do nothing, and allow the bill to die at the end of this Congress. This will mean a new Food Safety Bill will be introduced next year—but next year’s Congress will be very different from the current one, so we expect that the bill will look very different, and could be much more favorable to the natural health community.
As always, we will keep you posted on any new developments.
Sincerely,
The Alliance for Natural Health USA
Emphasis added.
Let's keep up the pressure on congress to say NO to this awful bill.
- 'stone83' wrote on '01:
What's wrong with Canada (sasqachewan), eh?
There is nothing wrong with them, except they suffer to a lesser degree from the same sickness. They are part of the currency war situation, they have government schools, and too, they are being pulled into this North American Union/Global Government crapper. I do not really disagree with the Original Poster (OP). However, there are few safe havens that are not already compromised. In other words, there is not realistically any place to run or hide. America use to be such a safe-haven, therefore, it is suffering the greatest attack. One might be able to run to some small nation, or island, however, such a place will not be able to protect their inhabitant’s liberties from a frontal assault, just as Iraq could not do so.
- 'franklin' wrote on '30:
Becraft gets just enough things right to be credible. Then he uses that credibility to promulgate errors — like governments are not corporations.
Where did Becraft state that “governments are not corporations”?
In any event, this Constitutional government is not a corporation, it is a trust.
Quote:All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either. -PaineQuote:”Government has of itself no rights; the trusts delegated to it are altogether duties.” –Paine Rights of Man, 184Quote:“There is no such thing as the idea of a compact between the people on one side, and the government on the other. The compact (U.S. Constitution) was that of the people with each other, to produce and constitute a government. To suppose that any government can be a party in a compact with the whole people, is to suppose it to have existence before it can have a right to exist.” –Paine BOBT12
MemberNovember 9, 2010 at 1:04 am in reply to: The West is turning against big government – but what comes next?Quote:http://www.telegraph…comes-next.html
In this excellent article, the author gives a succinct summary of the people beginning to reject the large socialist/nanny state. But notice at the end what she proposes as the solution — to ask the corrupt governments what they expect of the people and to give the people direction.
]Finally, government must make us an honest offer. The rhetoric needs to be turned into a systematic programme that takes the moral instincts of ordinary people as its starting point, but goes on from there to outline a feasible idea of what it will be like to live under this new dispensation – which makes clear that there is as much to be gained as will be lost. Get past the threats and the vague hopes: give us a clear picture of where this is all going, and what is expected of us.
Can you imagine Pe10si, R3id, 0b@m@ and all the rest turning honest and telling the rest of us how the government should be reined in? They are simply incapable of thinking beyond their own immediate benefits from their corruption.
I agree with you, it is up to the people to tell the government what we want. This is often done with founding documents, such as the great Declaration, Consitiution, and Bill of Rights.
Quote:The safety of the people is the supreme law…. The safety of the people cannot be judged but by the safety of every individual…. Unjust is State power where the law is either uncertain or unknown. — Maxims of Common LawQuote:“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made be men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow.” –James Madison, Federalist no. 62, 1788Quote:“What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established.” –VanHorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 U.S. 304, 2 Dall. 304 (1795)BOBT12
MemberOctober 31, 2010 at 5:19 pm in reply to: Pilot to TSA: 'No Groping Me and No Naked Photos'The government scalawags are up to their old False Flag sick tricks. We need to say No to Barry the Bum and his Ink Cartridge False Flag charade.
Quote:Infowars.com
October 30, 2010
The absurd accumulation of junk found on a UPS plane from Yemen to Chicago ridiculously described as an al-Qaeda bomb has provided the government with an excuse to conduct “an unpredictable mix of security layers that include explosives trace detection, advanced imaging technology, canine teams” and intimate “pat-downs,” more accurately described as breast and crotch groping.
It has been almost a decade since we were told Muslim cave dwellers made NORAD stand down and performed miracles with the laws of physics. Since that time not one airport instance of officialdom molesting millions of air passengers has produced a hidden bomb or threat to aviation. In fact, as in the case of the fizzle pants non-bomber, the government has allowed potential threats to board aircraft.
The idea is to get you accustomed to physically submitting to government thugs at airports and soon enough at the post office and local mall. The idea is to have you choose a dangerous naked body scanner over some dim-wit with blue latex gloves groping your private parts.
Emphasis added
BOBT12
MemberOctober 31, 2010 at 4:51 pm in reply to: Electronic books sales now trounce printed booksQuote:It appears that digital book sales are starting to club traditional printing to death.[…]
Typically, one of the biggest costs for books are distribution costs at around 60 percent of the final total. Production costs are usually about 15 percent. An ebook costs a fraction of that cost to make and distribution can be done from a single server leaving the publisher and the author to profit.
This is alarming for another reason, ebooks can be manipulated to be deleted by remote control.