(anti)arraignment for ticket #3
Current time: 03-29-2017, 11:51 PM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: scar
Last Post: Ripsaw
Replies: 30
Views: 3715

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
(anti)arraignment for ticket #3
04-09-2016, 07:16 PM
Post: #16
RE: (anti)arraignment for ticket #3
I don't like getting into the merits but check out eddie craig. https://taooflaw.wordpress.com/2016/03/1...-has-them/

This goes to the fruit of the poisonous tree rul, or the exclusionary rule, which is even easier.

Fruit of the poisonous tree is that if the cops stop you illegally AND you do NOT give VOLUNTARY affirmative consent, it is not admissible.


Exclusionary rule is that anything found, by the cops illegal acts, then it is inadmissible.

And if they stop you for a traffic stop that is a "non-arrestible offense" that stop/restraint of your liberty is an arrest. And thus illegal. And thus exclusionary rule applies.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2016, 08:10 PM (This post was last modified: 04-09-2016 08:11 PM by notavoter.)
Post: #17
RE: (anti)arraignment for ticket #3
(04-09-2016 02:56 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  [Image: crossing.gif]
(04-09-2016 12:34 PM)notavoter Wrote:  scar, this whole thing is a satanic ritual

Huh? Care to qualify your term here: "satanic"?
(here, or in another thread, if preferred)

For the sake of communicating (contrasted with assuming)...?

--Voltaire2i

Ok, instead of the word "satanic" I should have used the word "govtard". But I do think these people e.g., cops, judges, lawyers, court people are pure evil. That's my opinion.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2016, 08:36 PM (This post was last modified: 04-09-2016 08:38 PM by NonEntity.)
Post: #18
RE: (anti)arraignment for ticket #3
notavoter Wrote:But I do think these people e.g., cops, judges, lawyers, court people...

You left out voters, those scum who think they can authorize other people to violently interfere in the lives.of others for their own advantage while pretending to be all special and holy and shit.

Scum. Stagnant putrid pond scum. Puke

- NonE Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2016, 09:01 PM (This post was last modified: 04-09-2016 09:01 PM by notavoter.)
Post: #19
RE: (anti)arraignment for ticket #3
(04-09-2016 08:36 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  
notavoter Wrote:But I do think these people e.g., cops, judges, lawyers, court people...

You left out voters, those scum who think they can authorize other people to violently interfere in the lives.of others for their own advantage while pretending to be all special and holy and shit.

Scum. Stagnant putrid pond scum. Puke

Yes I left out voters, huge oversight. Sorry.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2016, 09:13 PM (This post was last modified: 04-09-2016 09:15 PM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #20
RE: (anti)arraignment for ticket #3
i suppose, or is it propose, that it depends next upon how one sees evil at the pure level?

Religious blindness, done via familial and social indoctrination and psychological manipulation, as highly contagious mind viruses (memes that mimic psychopathy?), since childhood, can sure lend me see what is done by such folk as pure evil; the vast majority of those who do it, not so much.?
[see the origin of (the notion of) "satanic" as one societal example? ditto "evil"?]

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2016, 09:20 PM
Post: #21
RE: (anti)arraignment for ticket #3
^^You forgot images of Aleister Crowley! How could you forget images of Aleister Crowley!Wink

Purveyor of the 60 MPH post.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2016, 09:22 PM (This post was last modified: 04-09-2016 09:27 PM by Habenae Est Dominatus.)
Post: #22
RE: (anti)arraignment for ticket #3
(04-09-2016 08:10 PM)notavoter Wrote:  But I do think these people e.g., cops, judges, lawyers, court people are pure evil.





(04-09-2016 09:20 PM)Freerangecanuck Wrote:  ^^You forgot images of Aleister Crowley! How could you forget images of Aleister Crowley!Wink

Will Fergus Crowley do?

[Image: 0.jpg]

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

Show me my personally signed contract wherein I consented to be governed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-13-2017, 08:47 PM
Post: #23
RE: (anti)arraignment for ticket #3
Looks like i forgot to update this alleged case/attack by the state.... it is rather stressful to recount these experiences, but the end (for now) result is this:

Today just had the ninth forced appearance in court--a trial was scheduled and the state moved to dismiss without prejudice because they failed to follow some discovery/disclosure rule. I tried to go back to my original questions and shoot for a dismissal with prejudice but i'm just not fast enough with with these liars and criminals.... like James Bond, i do have more important things to do... so will take it as a minor win... we all know there is no case to be re-filed, although it would have been more of a win to get the MTD granted and potentially seek damages for my nine forced appearances under threat of death.


Recap of the previous forced appearances:

At the sixth forced appearance on May 13, 2016 before judge Keith Bee, to determine if previous judge Peyton should be disqualified. I didn't file anything or write any other letters. The judge and prosecutor both engage in misconduct (big surprise). The prosecution conflates issues of law with issues of fact, and ostensibly cites case law to determine the facts of whether the judge Peyton acted in ways that would disqualify him, and the judge Keith Bee accepts this argument and quickly sets a date for my next forced hearing before running off the bench. I filed a motion to reconsider this decision, asking the judge to look at the facts, but it is denied without grounds.

At the seventh forced appearance on 6/26/16, the judge isn't there and i'm forced to come back... still i tried to get evidence from the judge that was there (another new one).

At the eighth forced appearance on 7/7/16, again before judge Peyton... the court room is packed this day. this judge primarily hears domestic violence cases and there were several before he got to me... i can't imagine what effects of domestic violence cases can have on a judges mind, but i know it ain't pretty or anything to be desired... still i had to put up with this man. There was an article in the paper about him retiring, so i asked him to 'why not retire on a good node and dismiss this case?' Interrupting me, he replies that he can't dismiss cases, only the prosecution can. I wonder which rule precludes him from dismissing a case for lack of jurisdiction? He continually interrupts me first but then blames me for interrupting him. he never shuts the F up. he pretends to be done talking and i try to respond but he interrupts me then accuses me of interrupting him Facepalm Brickwall He tries to set the case for trial again without any evidence nor witnesses disclosed to me. I ask the judge how there can be a trial with no evidence or witnesses, and he argues on behalf of the State that the complaint itself is evidence, even though the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. The judge threatens me with contempt for relying on the Supreme Court in trying to understand the nature and cause of the charges of proceedings, and sets the case for trial on 2/13/17, long after he is scheduled to retire.

At the ninth forced appearance, today, the cop and prosecutor are talking when i walk up to the courtroom doors. The cop asks me how i am... i wanted to say "i don't answer questions" Big Grin But i told him, i'm being forced to be here so not that great, and how are you? 'fine', he replies, having his gun there with him. The prosecutor (another new one i've never met) now tells me they want to dismiss the case without prejudice because they didn't follow the discovery rules or something, and hands me some pictures that they have of my car, a picture of an invalid driver license, and pictures of bumper stickers, which apparently proves the constitution and laws apply because im physically in arizona. I told him this isn't sufficient evidence and have you even reviewed my case? He hasn't. I told him to review it and then sat down and waited to be called. There are at least 3 other guns in this courtroom. When i get called, the judge says the state wants to dismiss without prejudice and explains to me what that is. i know what the difference is between with and without prejudice. I point the judge to my discovery request, and the MTD... but i failed. I was trying to point out there is no evidence or qualified witnesses, but he is trying to spin it that "oh, the state just forgot to disclose the name of the cop to you and so they failed on a procedural error". I should have asked the judge: so you believe there is a case here worth refiling? the cop was there... i should have been like "the cop is here your honor, if the state feels like they have a qualified and competent witness, and a case, then put him on the stand! let's see how qualified he is!" But I am just not quick enough with these liars and con artists. The judge says i'm winning and i tell him: no, i've been forced to be here nine times now. He spews some nonsense about how he only dismisses with prejudice for such-and-such and quickly signs the order for dismissal without prejudice.... whatever!

Considering i went through six different judges in this court including the head honcho,
Considering i did make a choice to have no license plate on my car, to not show proof of insurance (ever), to ignore a cop telling me "not to drive", (what they call "willful disobedience"), to not cower, and engage with my life with impunity (thanks Carl)... that's two fines over $1,000 and a misdemeanor dismissed....

Effective damage control: yes.
A success for right to travel: kind of (i paid for a plate for now, but i have bigger and better things to get to).
A win: not really... as we all know, once you been targeted you've already lost. But i have gotten 3 out of 3 dismissed now.

I have learned a lot and i'm much smarter because of it. I would like to see more people taking this approach in court though, and i have yet to convince any of my local friends or lawyers that this is an effective defense. I am especially displeased with the local National Lawyers Guild chapter for brushing me off and not showing any interest in this defense, but i won't give up... it is essential that lawyers get on board with this defense if we are to have any effective change in these lands.

Will forward the proof to Marc and, as always, anyone is welcome to contact me.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-13-2017, 09:17 PM
Post: #24
RE: (anti)arraignment for ticket #3
(02-13-2017 08:47 PM)scar Wrote:  I am especially displeased with the local National Lawyers Guild chapter for brushing me off and not showing any interest in this defense,

You want to take away their bread and butter $5,000 Rolex's and $150,000 Mercedes...

Two Thumbs Up Grinning
Congrats on the damage control.

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

Show me my personally signed contract wherein I consented to be governed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-13-2017, 09:22 PM
Post: #25
RE: (anti)arraignment for ticket #3
Quote:it is essential that lawyers get on board with this defense if we are to have any effective change in these lands.

Hahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahaha. Oh, man, thanks for the belly ache. Lawyers graduating from law school are already having a difficult time finding jobs. I doubt they would ever reduce their likelihood to make a living (voluntarily).

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them."
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-13-2017, 09:28 PM
Post: #26
RE: (anti)arraignment for ticket #3
(02-13-2017 09:22 PM)Boxer Wrote:  
Quote:it is essential that lawyers get on board with this defense if we are to have any effective change in these lands.

Hahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahaha. Oh, man, thanks for the belly ache. Lawyers graduating from law school are already having a difficult time finding jobs. I doubt they would ever reduce their likelihood to make a living (voluntarily).

lol you're welcome Boxer. they gotta be out there tho... i mean when you read what the NLG purports to do:
Quote:Our mission is to use law for the people, uniting lawyers, law students, legal workers, and jailhouse lawyers to function as an effective force in the service of the people by valuing human rights over property interests.

i don't see why they wouldn't like this defense... after all they could easily seek tons of damages from the state like lawyers do all the time...
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-14-2017, 01:41 AM
Post: #27
RE: (anti)arraignment for ticket #3
(02-13-2017 08:47 PM)scar Wrote:  I have learned a lot and i'm much smarter because of it.

Congratulations for having removed the indoctrination yolk of being the hapless victim.

Authority figure speaks: Get back in your place.
Victim: And what place is that?
Authority figure: The place of being the hapless victim.

--&e

What’s the difference between the government and the mafia?
The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime. ~ Brett Veinotte
Government public "education"/indoctrination is child abuse.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-16-2017, 08:54 AM
Post: #28
RE: (anti)arraignment for ticket #3
(02-13-2017 08:47 PM)scar Wrote:  I ask the judge how there can be a trial with no evidence or witnesses, and he argues on behalf of the State that the complaint itself is evidence, even though the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. The judge threatens me with contempt for relying on the Supreme Court in trying to understand the nature and cause of the charges of proceedings, and sets the case for trial on 2/13/17, long after he is scheduled to retire.

Congrats and I will be posting the documentary proof this week. I just wanted to point something out for anyone who may find themselves in this same place.

When the judge insists the complaint is evidence, the better response is: OBJECTION, what on this ticket proves the constitution, a written instrument from 1910, applies to me just because I'm physically in Arizona?

Still a good job standing up to them Scar. I appreciate you sending me the order.



If government services were valuable and the market wanted them, they wouldn't be provided on a compulsory basis.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-24-2017, 05:18 PM
Post: #29
RE: (anti)arraignment for ticket #3
Big congrats scar and I sincerely hope they leave you alone now.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-24-2017, 06:33 PM
Post: #30
RE: (anti)arraignment for ticket #3
(02-16-2017 08:54 AM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  
(02-13-2017 08:47 PM)scar Wrote:  I ask the judge how there can be a trial with no evidence or witnesses, and he argues on behalf of the State that the complaint itself is evidence, even though the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. The judge threatens me with contempt for relying on the Supreme Court in trying to understand the nature and cause of the charges of proceedings, and sets the case for trial on 2/13/17, long after he is scheduled to retire.

Congrats and I will be posting the documentary proof this week. I just wanted to point something out for anyone who may find themselves in this same place.

When the judge insists the complaint is evidence, the better response is: OBJECTION, what on this ticket proves the constitution, aN UNSIGNED written instrument from 1910, applies to me just because I'm physically in Arizona?

Still a good job standing up to them Scar. I appreciate you sending me the order.



Edit mine - NonE

- NonE Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)