Traffic Win situation

[Ticket Slayer]

OK, the pork crops came out great and we did enjoy them very much. Thank you Hiedi. California, where I live is often called the land of OZ. Sorry for the curve ball Hiedi - I suspect my use of the word 'barbie' cause you to surmise that I must live down under. I have never been to Australia but I would like to go for a visit - maybe some day.

Down to business. Since Hiedi asked me a question first I will reply to her first. Hiedi asked; "Has a DA ever addressed the all-caps-name issue in a case where the defendant used your paper?" I do not usually go into traffic court with the people who purchase my common law legal documents because most of them are from all over the United States. When I first started helping people with their traffic cases, I was only helping people who lived in Bakersfield, California where I live.

Of the traffic court trials I attended locally every one of these cases were dismissed when the judge called their name. In each of these case the customer had already filed all of the common law legal docs. and default the DA. That was over ten traffic court cases. In most of these cases the judge said he was dismissing because the citing officer could not be in court today. In two or three of the cases the judge said he was dismissing the case in the interest of justice; giving no further explanation for his dismissal.

By the way, I don't have a perfect record here locally. The court refused to dismiss two of my customer's traffic cases. I have countered this by telling people to ask for a judge to hear their case instead of a traffic commissioner. This has worked so far. Judges, here do not usually hear traffic cases and the judges seem anxious to dismiss their case just get them out of their courtroom. In the two cases that the court refused to dismiss and the customer did not challenge the ALL CAPS. The ALL CAPS argument is address in the Affidavit of Truth which is part of the default.

Only recently have I been telling people to challenge verbally in court the ALL CAPS issue. I can't say how many of my customers have done this but, a few have that I know about. Most of the time the judge attempts to move on and ignore their challenge to the name in ALL CAPS issue unless the person stands really firm, as did Sampson.

So far I don't know of a judge ruling directly on the ALL CAPS issue. Last week however, one of my customers in Los Angles verbally made the challenge to the ALL CAPS issue in court and the judge said that, because he had signed the ticket and he didn't protest the fact that, the officer had written his name in ALL CAPS when the officer handed the ticket to him to sign, he had acknowledged that the person's name in ALL CAPS was him.

This case ended up getting dismissed anyway because the customer challenged the fact that there was no prosecutor in court. The judge told him that the citing officer was the prosecutor. The customer then asked the judge, what is required for a person to practice law before this court. The judge said, that a person in order to practice law before the court must have passed the California State Bar and possess a valid BAR card. The customer said thank you Your Honor, would you please have this officer produce his valid California BAR card. The judge then argued that, the state legislature had passed a law making an exemption for the need for a prosecutor in traffic court cases, allowing the citing officer to act as the prosecutor.

The customer countered saying, Your Honor, the officer acting as the prosecutor is a clear violation of the Constitution of the United Sates' Separation of Powers Clause. The officer is clearly a member of the executive branch of government and he is attempting to act at the same time in the capacity of the judicial branch. I move for a dismissal upon the grounds of lack of proper prosecution.

The customer said that the judge got very flustered after this and said he was calling a recess to study the issue. About fifteen minute later the judge re-entered the courtroom. He said that he had studied the California laws and the history allowing the prosecutor to act as the prosecutor in traffic court cases involving infractions and he felt that there was no violation of the Constitution's Separation of Powers Clause but, after also reviewing the defendant's motions to dismiss because the DA failed to answer his legal notices he was dismissing the case for this reason.

Whew, that was a very long winded answer but, not everything is cut and dry in this world. In fact I’d very few things are. Since this was a long winded answer I will address Rizzotherat and Marc Stevens’ comments in a separate reply.

Greg

[sagas4]

Also I seem to remember a show on court TV talking about the freemen dudes.

They did the all caps name thing,
Complained about the Gold Fringe Admiralty Flag,
and said something bout the judge wearing a black robe.

Judge recessed for a while, Had the Flag removed, Changed the names in the paperwork the way they would accept, and took off his robe. Called everyone back after recess sneered down at them and said, "Well, what's the problem now? Them being speechless, the Judge said Let's proceed".

BTW the conclusion was they are all vacationing in a federal country club facility for a few years.

[Ticket Slayer]

Marc dismisses the name in ALL CAPS thing as nonsense. He gives an example of how when, this guy went into traffic court claiming that the name in ALL CAPS on the citation was not him and the judge turns to the officer and asks the officer to point out the man he cited and the officer points to the defendant. The judge proceeds to inform the defendant to participate or be held in contempt.

We all know that judges have the power to hold a person in contempt of court for just about any reason but, that doesn't mean the judge was correct here. It can be reasonably argued that the officer failed to site the person whom he had fingered in court as, the person he claimed to have cited when he made the traffic stop. How so you may ask?

Black’s Law Dictionary references two types of persons: Person. 1. A human being. 2. An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being. Now, I can create a corporation named JOHN SMITH. There is no legal requirement to place corporation, Inc. or anything else that would denote JOHN SMITH as a corporation or an entity. So, how is one to recognize whether JOHN SMITH is a flesh and blood person or an entity (artificial person)? The proper way is to type or print the name of a corporation or an entity in ALL CAPS and the name of a person is typed, printed or written in cursive in upper and lower letters. This is how you know that John Smith is a flesh and blood person and JOHN SMITH is an entity or corporation.

I do not claim that, if you go to court and deny that you are not the person whose name appears in ALL CAPS on the traffic ticket is the magic bullet to get your traffic case dismissed. I have people make this argument as extra ammunition in case the judge does not dismiss on the default. About 95% percent of the time my customer’s cases are dismissed on the default motions. Only once have I had a judge say he was dismissing the case because the DA defaulted and that was just recently in the LA case I just posted about. Except for this one judge, all judges have used excuses such as the officer could not appear in court today, or he is dismissing the case in the interest of justice. Judges are not going to come out and say; hey, your right we have no legal right to prosecute you. It almost never happens. Frankly, I don’t care that much that they don’t as long as, they dismiss my customer’s traffic tickets.

I’ll be the first to say that there is a whole bunch of so called patriot myths being perpetuated on the internet. Sadly a lot of people are misled by them and even greatly harmed by them. I do not promote any patriot myths in my common law traffic defense methods. Whether you chose to believe it or not, the state creates an artificial entity in your name and then attempts to tie you to that entity. There is more to my traffic common law defense than what some you may call patriot myths. For example, I use the Supreme Court case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 to prove that you are not subject to the law (administrative law).

Some of you here are probably aware of or familiar with Yick Wo v. Hopkins but, for those of you who are not I will give you a brief history of the case. Yick Wo was a Chinese immigrant that owned a laundry in San Francisco in the late 1800’s. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance requiring that all laundries to be housed in brick or stone structures, claiming the laundries housed in wooden structures were a fire hazard. Most of the laundries at this time in San Francisco were owned by Chinese immigrants and almost of them were housed in wooden structures. The few non-Chinese or white owned laundries were housed in brick of stone structures. The real intent of the ordinance was to force the much poorer Chinese laundry owners out of business.

Yick Wo was among the couple hundred Chinese laundry owner cited for not complying with the new ordinance. He was fined for not complying and then jailed when he refuse to pay the fines. A lawyer took on Wo’s case and fought it thought the California courts and to the California Supreme Court which upheld the County of San Francisco and the Sheriff Hopkins. The case then went to the United States Supreme Court on a writ. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the California Supreme Court, saying that; even though Yick Wo was a Chinese Immigrant he was a sovereign not subject to the law (meaning laws passed by the legislature).

Justice Mathews writes the majority opinion for the Court:

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. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion, or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts bill of rights, the government of the commonwealth 'may be a government of laws and not of men.' For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.

You can find the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins on the TicketSlayer.com website. The case of Yick Wo has never been overturned and is a highly cited Supreme Court case today.

Yick Wo walked out of prison a free man and his fines were rescinded because his rights are God given and because the sovereign never serves his creation (government). Man created government to serve him and not for him to serve government. It would be the same as if we expect God to serve us instead of serving God. If people think that this is just a bunch of patriot garbage then, may God save us from ourselves.

As you can see, I don’t like to give short replies. Next time I’ll be brief I promise. This was just too important to short cut.

Greg

[lazerwood]

As an aside, just a comment about the "fringed flag". From what I have read, the "patriot" argument about the fringe seems to be correct. It does indeed indicate what type of court the man/woman is in.

Here's the problem about the flag argument in court. The flag there is only a SYMBOL of the court. When the judge removed the SYMBOL, so as to shut the patriot up, the type of court NEVER CHANGED. It still was a maritime/admiralty court whether the flag was there or not...the judge knew that and simply proceeded on with "business".

[KaosTheory]

Was an international contract entered in as evidence? If not, then how was admiralty jurisdiction invoked? Was there evidence of a plaintiff?

A scam is a scam.

KT

[Heidi]

Greg, did you learn of Yick Wo through Clyde? It is his default process that I'm most familiar with.

As you illustrated with your long reply to me (thank you VERY kindly for taking the time to give such a thorough answer! ) a defendant is wise to to be prepared to challenge the revenuers on a wide variety of points, since no one single issue works consistently to get a dismissal.

California, Australia... what's the difference? ;D

best wishes, and thanks again.

[TicketSlayer]

Heidi, you are correct. I learned from Clyde about Yick Wo, common law issues and the default method. I do have Clyde's permission to use his traffic default material just in case anyone wonders. I have done a few modifications to Clyde's traffic documents, plus I have added other material to the traffic defense which I have learned though my customer's experiences with traffic courts around the country.

By the way Heidi, I think you will find this interesting and perhaps a bit amusing. Last night, a couple of hours after you posted on this board that I must live in Australia; I get an email from a gentleman from Perth, Australia. He wants to know how to order the Ticket Slayer common law traffic default material but, he doesn't see where on my website how to order the material for Australia.

Of course I just assumed that, this Australian had seen your post from a short time before mistakenly concluding that, I must live in Oz or Australia because, I mentioned that I had pork chops on the ‘barbie.’ I e-mailed the Australian gentleman back and said that, he must have read your message on the AiLL mistakenly purporting my place of domicile to be Australia .This morning I received e-mail from the Aussie saying that, he had not seen your post or had he ever been on the AiLL board but, had found my Ticket Slayer website when doing a word search on common law. I don’t know the odds this sort of thing occurring but, I think one would be more like hit by lighting before a scenario like this one would occur.

[KaosTheory]

"One time a cop pulled me over for running a stop sign. He said, "Didn't you see the stop sign?" I said, "Yeah, but I don't believe everything I read."

KT

[Rizzotherat]

KaosTheory said:

"One time a cop pulled me over for running a stop sign. He said, "Didn't you see the stop sign?" I said, "Yeah, but I don't believe everything I read."

KT

This is great!!! LOL

[RNT]

Hi all, I have a friend here in Omahahahahaha that is going into court and I typed up a script for him strictly using Marc's way of questioning them. The court date is on the 21st and I will keep you informed on how it went.

[KaosTheory]

RNT said:

Hi all, I have a friend here in Omahahahahaha that is going into court and I typed up a script for him strictly using Marc's way of questioning them. The court date is on the 21st and I will keep you informed on how it went.

Looking forward to that RNT.

[marc stevens]

Yes, let us know what happens.

[tru2form]

RNT - Me 4!

Good one KT!

Hey Rizz,
The other month I asked "Is is true that anything I say can and will be used against me?" and the "cop" replied "yes, that's true" So I said, "well I'm not gonna talk to you then, go away!"

Suffice to say I now consider the golden rule of interception to be - lock the door!! ;D

tru

[theghost]

People, while I'm a big fan of AiLL, I'm actually shocked at the remarks being made about the all caps thing being "bunk", and with such certainty I might add. If there's one thing you walk away with from Marc's book, it's the fact that the entire legal system, courts, judges, prosecutors, etc., are all fictions, and yet there seems to be a consensus here that the all caps idea is preposterous. First off, we all know that any given argument in the "courts" across this land are not going to get the same results, not even close. So why the rush to judgment on this issue? There are so many variables that bring about different results, it's mind boggling. I personally have addressed this issue in "court", and have obtained the results I was seeking; dismissal. I know several others who have done the same. Too many to just write it off as luck, or that the "court" didn't want to bother. If ever I've seen a line of "bunk", it's that tired line about the computer equipment not being updated, and/or the space/ink/paper saving garbage. If that's what it's all about, why just use all caps on the fictional parties in the legal briefs caption?? Writing out our full Christian names would result in more depletion of our forests (paper), and a nationwide ink shortage? Oh no! Sorry for the sarcasm, but that's crap. In fact, I read a case once where the government actually used that line of "reasoning" to address the all caps argument. Is this the first time our government told the truth? I was summoned last year with a citation to discover assets (my friends) because the prosecutor thought I had knowledge. I proudly walked up to the judge and told him the fiction on the summons was not me. I told him what my Christian name was. He barked at me to show him my drivers license, I refused. He barked again, and motioned the bailiff to approach me, I still refused. He then made the nature of our "relationship" very clear, and told me I'd be arrested if I didn't show it to him. I complied, then we went back and forth about the all caps name on the drivers license, he said it was me, I insisted it wasn't. This went back and forth 3 times, he finally threw it at me and told me to leave, no summons, no testimony, done. I've done this in other ways as well. Yes, there are a million ways you could screw up and fail, or you could get everything just right, and still be locked up and lose. That shouldn't mean anything to anyone, especially to students like us all here. Jails are full of innocent people, and we all know it. I beleive that why AiLL was written. A friend of mine actually wrote the county persecutor once, and told him if he'd just address the summons and all other paperwork in his correct name, he'd be happy to go to "court" and settle the matter. Now why wouldn't they take him up on an offer like that? They didn't. I'm sure if my friend offered to supply the paper and ink, the result would have been the same.

[Rizzotherat]

What about a traffic complaint? The cop does not write your name in all caps on the ticket. Also, how do you explain why the name is not in all CAPS on the rest of the paperwork, such as a decision in a court case? Look at any court order or minute entry order and you'll see that ONLY the CAPTION uses the NAME in all CAPS. I've seen minute entry orders where the NAMES in the CAPTION were in all CAPS and yet immediately to the right of the CAPTION was the NAME and address of the parties and they were NOT in all CAPS.

Read what Mr. Stevens wrote, he agrees that cases get thrown out. He wrote that the argument itself was irrational. Yes, even an irrational approach may get a case thrown out. AILL is about exposing the scam. The all CAPS argument is irrational and just as important, it does absolutely nothing to expose the government hoax.