Month: November 2008

COURT PROCEDURES

COURT PROCEDURES

COURT PROCEDURES

The following procedures can be followed so that you can enter all the
required briefs and motions into court. Remember all motions and briefs
must have an affidavit or declaration attached to it. All papers must be
filed 10-15 days prior to hearing of the issues.

(1) Demurrer/motion to abate (only 1 demurrer can be filed and it must
be filed prior to entering of a plea.) As you leave the courtroom, stop
by the clerks window and file the following motions: (set date for the
same date as the hearing on the demurrer)
(a) Motions in Limine (as many as you want)
(b) Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdictional fact.

(2) Affidavit of citizenship (P.C. 1401)

(3) Judicial Notice (as many as you want each covering a different
subject.) i.e. Blacks Law Dictionary, Citizenship, court cases, statutes
(federal or state), prior affidavits or letters under P.C. 1401,

(4) Motion to dismiss (as many as you want each covering a different
subject.)

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

After filing your papers, and when into trial, you must first argue the
motions in limine prior to addressing the other motions that you have
filed.

Remember the judge cannot use his personal knowledge of the law or
feelings while ruling from the bench, he can only rule on the evidence
before him. Explain this to him by saying, “Your Honor, the court cannot
use its personal knowledge or feelings in rendering its decision, but,
must rule on the evidence submitted to the court.”

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
The following has been used in at least three states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia) as a legal brief to support a demand for dismissal of charges of “driving without a license.” It is the argument that was the reason for charges being dropped, or for a “win” in court against the argument that free people can have their right to travel regulated by their servants.

The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The driver’s license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. In other words, if you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver’s license. This brief or the right it demonstrates is no substitute for either being safe on the road or for learning the subject of rights versus regulations thoroughly before attempting to use or act upon this information.
The following brief is a matter of public record and may be copied. It is being posted for information only — Author Unknown

Obama

Obama

It looks like America has become a nation represented by a man who appears to be just what the Doctor ordered. I am cautiously skeptical at the hopes of America. Do I simply forget the North American Union, The Amero, or the fact that our economy is not based on our president, but those who control our currency, the Fed? It seems we are simply pacified by the hope of a bi-racial president and all the time our country is being manipulated by the world bankers, who’s names we do not even know. I don’t know about you, but I am still very concerned for America.

watch?v=WvT4y2vBXzk

Fundamental Rights

Fundamental Rights

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTs
by Jeremy Coleman

As hard as it is for those of us in Law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of
another.

Government, in requiring the people to file for “drivers Licenses, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc. without question, are “restricting”, and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject of the right to travel? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association in conjunction with The U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is the area of “Citizens right to travel.” In an interview a spokesmen stated: “Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the “right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways” is and has always been a fundamental right of every Citizen.”