If
some one with a gun, pulling you over without probable cause or
reasonable suspicion that you have committed any crime involving a
victim or damaged party, to conduct a shakedown, anal probe, or a
warrentless search, to fish around for a civil infraction he can write
you for, but couldnt pull you over for in the first place, insists you
sign something, you can always claim duress and coercion, and fear that
you where dealing with a dangerous criminal when you signed, while you
were falsely arrested at the side of the road, with him lying to you
claiming you werent under arrest. I have, and it works. case dismissed
just a year ago in Galveston, speeding, no insurance, and expired
registration, less than a three page response, and no real citations or
arguments. I didn't get into Persons or legal status, and barely
mentioned that I was traveling and not driving. I merely stated I was
suspicious of this lawless fruitcake for the reason that he pulled me
without lawful justification in the first place and the signature is
withdrawn. No contract. Simple. And I had forgotten about this ticket
for nearly five years before I filed anything.
If the Judge
wants to play with you, You disqualify him, orally in open court or by
motion : Motion for disqualification - The respondent reserves the right
to face his accuser, the fictional party state that can suffer no
injury or damage, and demands a fair impartial Judge not employed by
opposing counsels fictional party state. For the reason that the Judge
is employed by the respondent or defendants opposition, and cannot
preside over the action fairly and impartially, because he is employed
by a party to the action, the state, the respondent moves for
disqualification of the same. Its right there, logically, in front of
your face
Its just sickening to me how every one has been so dumbed down. Every ticket is a scam, and people pay them. WTF?
9 times out of ten, you are pulled, so the cop can search for cause and
justification to pull you. Its that simple. Cart before the horse, no
due process.
and if he finds a civil infraction, its still not just
cause to have pulled you, unless its criminal, involving a victim. The
whole racquet is just that, from start to finish.
and people walk
in, and plead NOT GUILTY, a negative that cant be proven, and proceed to
argue issues they have just waived by pleading. You must refuse to
plead a negative that cant be proven, and conditionally offer to plead
guilty, upon fair and proper notice of the law your accused of
violating, clarification of definitions and terms in that law, including
nature and cause and how... this law has provided you proper notice
that it applies to you, a natural person, and not a cooperate or
franchise person, agent officer or representative of government. simple
'"...the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals' entitles
each person, regardless of economic or social status, to an unequivocal
warning from the legislature as to whether he is within the class of
persons subject to vicarious liability. Congress cannot be deemed to
have intended to punish anyone who is not 'plainly and unmistakably'
within the confines of the statute." (United States v. Lacher, 134 U.S.
624, 628, 10; S.Ct. 625, 626, 33 L.Ed. 1080; United States v. Gradwell,
243 U.S. 476,485, 37 S.Ct. 407, 61 L.Ed. 857. FN1 United States v.
Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95, 5 L.Ed. 37)).
“A state may impose
an excise upon the franchise of corporations engaging in a business
which every private Citizen has a right to engage in freely. The
privilege taxed is the right to engage in such business with the special
advantages which are incident to corporate existence." California Bank
v. San Francisco, 142 Cal. 276, 75 Pac. 832, 100 A.S.R. 130, 64 L.R.A.
918. "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a Right
granted by the federal Constitution... Thus, it may not extract a
license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce."
(Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 113 (1942); Miranda v. Arizona,
384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966)).
All statutes, codes, rules and
regulations are legislated, and written, giving fair notice to CORPERATE
PERSONS and creatures of statute created by government, and give no
fair notice that they apply to natural persons not created by
governement.
" A person may this, or that... a person may not, this or that... any person who, does this or that..."
THAT the Supreme Court, in numerous instances, has reluctantly
overturned the rulings of inferior State supreme courts, maintaining
that "the word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general
word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other
than human beings." ( Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice 612
F. 2d 417, 425 (1979)). The "word ‘person’ as used and employed in most
statutory language [and civil law] is ordinarily construed to exclude
the [citizen or] sovereign, and that for one as such to be bound by
statute, they must be 'specifically' named." ( Wilson v. Omaha Indian
Tribe 442 US 653 (1979); Will v. Michigan state Police 491 U.S. 58, 105
L.Ed.2nd 45 (1989); U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, D.C. Ill, 2
F.R.D. 528, 530); "The people, or sovereign are not bound by general
words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest,
unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the
people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the
former sovereign ... It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act
is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be
bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative
right would be divested or taken from the King [or the people] he shall
not be bound." (The People v. Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825);
"Government admits that often the word 'person' is used in such a sense
as not to include the [citizen or] sovereign but urges that... the term
should be held to embrace government [and creatures of statute,
representatives, employees, agents, officers, and offices, created by
government and not by God]." (United States v. Cooper Corp. 318 US 600
(1941); United States v. Fox 94 US 315; United States v. Mine Workers
330 US 258 (1947); "unless the context indicates otherwise" - 1 U.S.C.
Sec. 1, 2; Particularly is true where the statute imposes a burden or
limitation, as distinguished from conferring a benefit or advantage."
(United States v. Knight 14 pet. 301, 315 (1840); Chisolm v Georgia 2
Dall 419; Penhallen v Doane v Administration 3 Dall 54; McCullogh v
Maryland 4 Wheat 316; Hauenstein v Lynharm 100 US 483 (1879); Yick Wo v
Hopkins and Woo Loo v Hopkins 188 US 356 (1886)) '"...the tenderness of
the law for the rights of individuals' entitles each person, regardless
of economic or social status, to an unequivocal warning from the
legislature as to whether he is within the class of persons subject to
vicarious liability. Congress cannot be deemed to have intended to
punish anyone who is not 'plainly and unmistakably' within the confines
of the statute." (United States v. Lacher, 134 U.S. 624, 628, 10; S.Ct.
625, 626, 33 L.Ed. 1080; United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476,485, 37
S.Ct. 407, 61 L.Ed. 857. FN1 United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76,
95, 5 L.Ed. 37)).
Foot Note :
THAT The Supreme Court
has warned, "Because of what appear to be Lawful commands [Statutory
obligations, Rules, Regulations, and Restrictions] on the surface, many
citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are
cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance... [
exploited by the deceptive practices, barratry, legal plunder, and
malicious prosecution in inferior administrative State courts]." (United
States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187, 76 S.Ct. 281, 100 L.Ed. 185
(1956);
THAT (a) A 'Statute' is not a "Law," (Flournoy v. First
Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248), (b) nor is
'Code' "Law" (In Re Self v Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law,
(c) a concurrent or 'joint resolution' of legislature is not "Law,"
(Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N.E. 705, 707; Ward v. State, 176
Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443,
110 P.2d 162, 165), as "All codes, rules, and regulations are for
government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's
laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and
lacking due process…" (Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of
Labor, 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); ... lacking Due process, in that
they they are void for ambiguity in their failure to specify the
statutes' applicability to 'natural persons,' otherwise depriving the
same of fair notice, as their construction by definition of terms aptly
identifies the applicability of such statutes to "artificial or
fictional corperate entities or persons," creatures of statute, or those
by contract employed as agents or representatives, departmental
subdivisions, offices, officers, and property of government, but not the
'Natural Person,' or American citizen Immune from such jurisdiction of
legalism. “The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land,
the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law.”
(Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261), they are the law of government for
internal regulation, not the law of man, in his seperate but equal
station and natural state, a sovereign foreign with respect to
government generally.
Ive had my coffee and a cigarette. Im done bitching
If the Judge wants to play with you, You disqualify him, orally in open court or by motion : Motion for disqualification - The respondent reserves the right to face his accuser, the fictional party state that can suffer no injury or damage, and demands a fair impartial Judge not employed by opposing counsels fictional party state. For the reason that the Judge is employed by the respondent or defendants opposition, and cannot preside over the action fairly and impartially, because he is employed by a party to the action, the state, the respondent moves for disqualification of the same. Its right there, logically, in front of your face
Its just sickening to me how every one has been so dumbed down. Every ticket is a scam, and people pay them. WTF?
9 times out of ten, you are pulled, so the cop can search for cause and justification to pull you. Its that simple. Cart before the horse, no due process.
and if he finds a civil infraction, its still not just cause to have pulled you, unless its criminal, involving a victim. The whole racquet is just that, from start to finish.
and people walk in, and plead NOT GUILTY, a negative that cant be proven, and proceed to argue issues they have just waived by pleading. You must refuse to plead a negative that cant be proven, and conditionally offer to plead guilty, upon fair and proper notice of the law your accused of violating, clarification of definitions and terms in that law, including nature and cause and how... this law has provided you proper notice that it applies to you, a natural person, and not a cooperate or franchise person, agent officer or representative of government. simple
'"...the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals' entitles each person, regardless of economic or social status, to an unequivocal warning from the legislature as to whether he is within the class of persons subject to vicarious liability. Congress cannot be deemed to have intended to punish anyone who is not 'plainly and unmistakably' within the confines of the statute." (United States v. Lacher, 134 U.S. 624, 628, 10; S.Ct. 625, 626, 33 L.Ed. 1080; United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476,485, 37 S.Ct. 407, 61 L.Ed. 857. FN1 United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95, 5 L.Ed. 37)).
“A state may impose an excise upon the franchise of corporations engaging in a business which every private Citizen has a right to engage in freely. The privilege taxed is the right to engage in such business with the special advantages which are incident to corporate existence." California Bank v. San Francisco, 142 Cal. 276, 75 Pac. 832, 100 A.S.R. 130, 64 L.R.A. 918. "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a Right granted by the federal Constitution... Thus, it may not extract a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce." (Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 113 (1942); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966)).
All statutes, codes, rules and regulations are legislated, and written, giving fair notice to CORPERATE PERSONS and creatures of statute created by government, and give no fair notice that they apply to natural persons not created by governement.
" A person may this, or that... a person may not, this or that... any person who, does this or that..."
THAT the Supreme Court, in numerous instances, has reluctantly overturned the rulings of inferior State supreme courts, maintaining that "the word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings." ( Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice 612 F. 2d 417, 425 (1979)). The "word ‘person’ as used and employed in most statutory language [and civil law] is ordinarily construed to exclude the [citizen or] sovereign, and that for one as such to be bound by statute, they must be 'specifically' named." ( Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe 442 US 653 (1979); Will v. Michigan state Police 491 U.S. 58, 105 L.Ed.2nd 45 (1989); U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, D.C. Ill, 2 F.R.D. 528, 530); "The people, or sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign ... It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King [or the people] he shall not be bound." (The People v. Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825); "Government admits that often the word 'person' is used in such a sense as not to include the [citizen or] sovereign but urges that... the term should be held to embrace government [and creatures of statute, representatives, employees, agents, officers, and offices, created by government and not by God]." (United States v. Cooper Corp. 318 US 600 (1941); United States v. Fox 94 US 315; United States v. Mine Workers 330 US 258 (1947); "unless the context indicates otherwise" - 1 U.S.C. Sec. 1, 2; Particularly is true where the statute imposes a burden or limitation, as distinguished from conferring a benefit or advantage." (United States v. Knight 14 pet. 301, 315 (1840); Chisolm v Georgia 2 Dall 419; Penhallen v Doane v Administration 3 Dall 54; McCullogh v Maryland 4 Wheat 316; Hauenstein v Lynharm 100 US 483 (1879); Yick Wo v Hopkins and Woo Loo v Hopkins 188 US 356 (1886)) '"...the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals' entitles each person, regardless of economic or social status, to an unequivocal warning from the legislature as to whether he is within the class of persons subject to vicarious liability. Congress cannot be deemed to have intended to punish anyone who is not 'plainly and unmistakably' within the confines of the statute." (United States v. Lacher, 134 U.S. 624, 628, 10; S.Ct. 625, 626, 33 L.Ed. 1080; United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476,485, 37 S.Ct. 407, 61 L.Ed. 857. FN1 United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95, 5 L.Ed. 37)).
Foot Note :
THAT The Supreme Court has warned, "Because of what appear to be Lawful commands [Statutory obligations, Rules, Regulations, and Restrictions] on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance... [ exploited by the deceptive practices, barratry, legal plunder, and malicious prosecution in inferior administrative State courts]." (United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187, 76 S.Ct. 281, 100 L.Ed. 185 (1956);
THAT (a) A 'Statute' is not a "Law," (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248), (b) nor is 'Code' "Law" (In Re Self v Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law, (c) a concurrent or 'joint resolution' of legislature is not "Law," (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N.E. 705, 707; Ward v. State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165), as "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…" (Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); ... lacking Due process, in that they they are void for ambiguity in their failure to specify the statutes' applicability to 'natural persons,' otherwise depriving the same of fair notice, as their construction by definition of terms aptly identifies the applicability of such statutes to "artificial or fictional corperate entities or persons," creatures of statute, or those by contract employed as agents or representatives, departmental subdivisions, offices, officers, and property of government, but not the 'Natural Person,' or American citizen Immune from such jurisdiction of legalism. “The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law.” (Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261), they are the law of government for internal regulation, not the law of man, in his seperate but equal station and natural state, a sovereign foreign with respect to government generally.
Ive had my coffee and a cigarette. Im done bitching
No comments:
Post a Comment