I recently made a special apperance at a court proceeding,long story short i told the judge i want a jury of my peers he said im not entitled to a jury so its pretty much me him and the pro-se-cutor,im going to trial for an unlicensed operator ticket(driving without a license).Are my rights being violated by not having a trial by jury??
Am i entitled to a trial by jury
Tue, 11/29/2016 - 14:30
#1
Am i entitled to a trial by jury
I suggest you get to studying bill Thorntons lessons ASAP. I went thru literally the same scenario. Except I went in there with half the knowledge in front of a corrupt judge. The judge barely let the prosecutor talk, it was me against him with the aid of the prosecutor. Challenge the judges jurisdiction, he "dismissed" my statement and incarcerated me for 3 weeks. Im still learning the steps on how to file a federal lawsuit. My best advice is just read everything on this website, get to listen to Bill Thorntons lessons and learn their language "legalese" learn what their jobs are, learn what their jobs do. If you have any questions I can try and help. I'm not expert like Michael but I have done my hw and still learning all about our right to travel
Dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery
Never, never go into court as a defendant. Do you currently possess a driver's license whether valid or not and if so, which State?
Robert Deason
I stated to the judge i am there by special apperance,no ive never had a drivers license im from New York State.
John Wayne Rossman
Special appearance was applicable only in civil, not criminal, cases, and then it ceased to be a distinct procedure under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under Rule 12 and the official note to Rule 61; now all appearances are general.
Traffic offense jurisdiction is pretty cut and dried: the geographic address of the offense (where the motorist was stopped). Once the geography of the offense is established, the court has jurisdiction - whether or not the motorist is a citizen (sole exceptions: if the motorist himself has diplomatic immunity verified by the US Dept of State, and possibly - altho very seldom cited - a Member of Congress on his way to a session of Congress).
The statutes creating the traffic court do not provide for jury trials. As traffic offenses did not exist in "common law" they are not assured of a jury trial under the 6th Amendment.
Traffic statues do not apply to people. That is why you will not find the term "people" in any statutes. The courts have repeatedly upheld that the term "person" does not refer to people. As such, if you file a claim in a court of record, you could demand a jury trial, but by doing so you are giving up your authority to a group of others.
The judge is not permitted to make any decisions in a court of record. I also suggest that you file your action in federal court, because the state judges tend to be more ignorant, and as such, more criminal, it is best to go into federal court where the judges tend to be more honorable. Not all federal judges are honorable, but a higher percentage of them are. we do have some criminal judges on the federal bench, but we will be handling that soon.
One of the users here is an attorney who appears to work for the government. I allow her to continue posting because it is good for entertainment value and it does allow some of us to sharpen our skills. It also allows users of this site to see what kinds of arguments attorneys come up with and how we easily overcome them.
You will note that the posts made by this user always go back to statutes, which we can prove in court is not law. His arguments also will include cases that use statutes. Any court that uses statutes is an inferior court. An order that was submitted to a court of record today include even more case cites that expose that statutes are not law. One regarding a foreclosure actually said the statutes were "repugnant to the Constitution". Attorneys usually only look for things that support the fraud they have perpetrated for decades. I will leave it to you to figure out which user on this site I am referring to.
M. R. Hamilton
You say that a judge of a court of record cannot make decisions but you cannot support that assertion.
Elsewhere you parrot back to me my own definition of a ward of court as if it substantiates your claim that everyone who retains a lawyer is a ward of court, which it doesn't.
I don't know of any traffic court that will entertain counter-claims; traffic courts have no means of bringing in defendants except those who are given traffic tickets.
You should be aware that federal courts have limited jurisdiction; unless a federal statute specifically created jurisdiction for a specific cause of action, the federal court requires (1) complete diversity of citizenship and (2) a monetary claim above a threshold amount.
You make assertions of having won "many" cases that I cannot find reported in any newspaper or court reporter, which, according to your very remarkable assertion, were decided completely opposite to reported cases on the same issues. I would have expected someone with such a successful track record to have accumulated some ink.
(PS- I corrected a serious typo in this)
Those who argue statutes and codes have obviously failed to first, read the definitions pertaining to the statutes and codes. That being said, your arguments might be appropriate if the Subject is of a legal nature, i.e. Corporation or other legal enyity. If you need assistance, I will gladly assist in guiding you in the right direction, however, it will be on another thread. Though there has been some entertainment value to your post, they have become somewhat annoying, respectfully. Those of us who have awoken, no longer consider Monopoly a practicum for our God given life.
Robert Deason
Fortinbras, you has proven my claims that attorneys are not very intelligent. You stated, " You say that a judge of a court of record cannot make decisions but you cannot support that assertion. " You made this comment after I provided you with the definition of a court of record right out of Black's law dictionary. Traffic court has been ruled an administrative court and not a judicial court. It is merely carrying out corporate policy. Again, the citation must be consented to by the people.
The claim that the media has not reported on one of these cases is extremely naive. Unlike we are taught about "free speech", the news media is very controlled. It takes little time now to find web sites where reporters who write about their experiences of having their reports quashed by management. Some of these stories were about how large masses of the public were being injured by a corporation.
However, your comments regarding no nk makes you look even more foolish than you have yet. I showed you how the efinition of a court of record was changed from the 4th edition to the 5th edition of Black's law. I also pointed out to you how the index references to the common law was removed in the senate published book, "The Constitution of the United States of America; Analysis and Interpretation" and still have not grasp the notion that some wants to control the information that you and I receive. Some of us have been researching and exposing the lies disseminated by the government for years. I have been doing it for 26 years and there are others who have been doing it much longer than that.
So it is no surprise to most of us grownups that government actors, like you, do and say things to cover up the truth. If you are not a government actor doing this, then that makes you more naive and ignorant than I thought. At least if you were a government propagandist, you would know the truth and just be doing your job lying to the public.
However, we do not care to convince you or any other attorney. We will instead convince you in court, where we always bet attorneys. By the way, stop calling attorneys neither study or know law, a requirement to earn the title "lawyer". I am a lawyer. You are an attorney. That is a vastly different animal. I know law, yo do not. Evidence of that is how you keep bringing up statutes on a site that teaches people the common law.
We have case law that upholds everything professed on this site. But if it is ink you want, we are planning to do a press release when we have a group of six attorneys arrested soon for contempt of court. I will be sure o notify you. They thought they knew law, just like you. Some of thm even said they were a team of "super lawyers". They still could not beat us.
M. R. Hamilton
So in a nutshell codes and statutes do not apply to living man only legal fictions"all caps name",i goto trial this friday and im not sure what questions to ask and in what order,ive never had a license and where the trooper said i ran a stop sign isnt even the same street on the ticket.Ive also heard that troopers dont have jurisdiction on state land,im learning so much at once,im not sure what to apply where,any pointers M.R.Hamilton?
John Wayne Rossman
Io not ascribe to using the all caps name argument. Reason being, as a sovereign, I can spell my name anyway I feel like that day. The key is to proceed in a court of record wherein the judge cannot rule against you. If you have been jail for more than a couple of days, that is reason enough to go to federal court, since that time is worth $50K per day. We will have some new info very soon that will help streamline what a couple of us have been doing in court fr the last 11 months.
M. R. Hamilton
I'd like to contact those "super lawyers" you say you've beaten in court. Please provide me with their names and cities so I can get their side of the story.
I do not recall you reciting a definition from Black's Law Dictionaries that says that judges of a court of record cannot make decisions. (PS: See subsequent message) I have my own collection of Black's LDs going back to the 3rd edition (1933) and I find no such statement, nor in Bouvier's LD, nor in any other authority. Perhaps you would be so kind as to repeat it in haec verba.
(PS - I subsequently tacked on a message that undoes part of my last paragraph)
I found your recital of the Black's Law Dictionary definition of "court of record", not in response to anything I said, but in a page in which only you alone could post a comment.
The definition from Black's LD said:
It is clear to me that you misunderstood the definition. Black's LD is not intended for rank amateurs but for people who have at least some legal training.
"...having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it" means that a court of record is considerably more than just the person of the judge; a court not of record (such as a justice of the peace court) might operate and decide matters according to the personal whims of the specific judge, such as Judge Judy, but a court of record will adhere to regular rules and have continuity - and consistency - beyond any single judge. "... proceeding according to the course of common law ..." does not mean that the court of record will only recognize the English law prior to 1776 or anything like that; it's a different meaning of 'common law' - it means all the prevailing law - statutes, regulations, precedent decisions, the works. A court not of record, such as traffic court (which in many communities has a non-lawyer presiding), deals only with the traffic code and does not concern itself with any other legal topic nor with precedent decisions; or a justice of the peace court (also presided over by a non-lawyer) usually has the JP deciding stuff based on his own feelings of right and wrong without any reference to statute or law books.
But in a court of record the judge indeed makes decisions - he makes them according the entire body of prevailing law, not only the statutes and codes but also the precedent decisions.
I do not usually stoop to this but you are an idiot.So you are saying that people who can read cannot possibly comprehend what Black's law dictionary say without having the conditioning of what to believe by going to the "school" that teaches "law". Yet this rank amateur has written the paperwork that not one "professional attorney" has ever been able to beat. So I wil take the title of rank amateur over stupid attorney any day toe ht week. Attorney get condition to believe idiotic beliefs even whe they have the proof right in front of their faces. They say," Oh, no, a flying pig does not mean a pig can fly. I means he can run up an escalator." Pure stupidity.
You got a Judge Judy analogy out of a definition that was written long before there was sch a thing as Judge Judy shows on the air. The common law is tha same as it has been since old Enland. As a mater of fact, I think it was Justice Scalia who said, that when considering cases, the Supreme Court justices commonly go back to cases from England before the United States of America was established. You problem is you have not matured as an attorney. find out where there are common law clubs in the "legal" profession and join one. You idea of common law is vastly different than most judges who know the difference. Under your analogy, the federal court judges who did not interfere with the orders from the sovereign of the court were just inept, right. As I have told you repeatedly, we do this all the time. This is not just theory. I would love to go up against you in court. I would own your house by the time I was done and you would keep using all those statutory arguments that are "foreign to this court."
And by the way, one does not have to go to law school to learn law. I have been researching law for 26 years now. I get the impression that you are not much older than that.
M. R. Hamilton
Yes I am still patiently waiting for the names & addresses of those "super lawyers" you said you had beaten in court.
https://www.swlaw.com/
M. R. Hamilton
The link you sent is for a law firm with offices in 9 cities in 6 states, and probably more than a hundred listed lawyers.
Maybe you can name the specific lawyers you humiliated and which cities they are in?
Fortinbras, I will let you know their names when they are arrested, which should happen within the next week. They will be doing a little time for contempt of court. You attorneys thought you could ignore legitimate orders of a court of record. Now we are about to prove everything we have been doing holds attorneys accountable for the fraud they perpetrate in the courts. Fraud like aiding a corporation to foreclose on real property when there was not consideration given for the original promissory note. As a matter of fact, the statutes regarding this have been ruled repugnant to the Constitution.
M. R. Hamilton
I am not going to hold my breath for these lawyer to be arrested, even though you predict it will happen within a week. But do let us know who they are as soon as it happens. That you are stalling on naming them indicates that you did not intend to name them when you went through the motions of posting that useless link in response to my question. Of course, if these lawyers are arrested (and presumably jailed) for contempt, then I won't be able to quiz them about their side of the story of their experience with you, at least until they're out of jail, so that prevents me from getting the information I want even further. That these lawyers might be, in the future, charged with contempt, suggests that the court case is not yet concluded, which would mean that you perhaps have been premature in claiming victory.
By the way, Google Chrome keeps telling me that your website is somehow unsafe. I accept a risk by coming here anyway, but you may want to doublecheck to see if your website is harboring malware or something. I also add that your website's editing features (italics, underlining, boldface) don't seem to work.
You have made some wild guesses about me which are wrong. One of the more significant is my age; I graduated from law school back in 1979. And before you call me an idiot, perhaps you ought to count the misspellings in your own message.
The orders for contempt have already been issued, ao the victory is not premature at all. We are merely pushing the sheriff to do hus job. In my experience, the longer it has been since someone graduated "law" school, the worse they are at comprehending common law. Since I know from experience that attorneys do not study law, I do not refer to attorneys as lawyers. I have yet to meet an attorney who knows law, although I have had attorneys refer to my paperwork as a "work of art". I also have had another judge with Phd in law, tell me directly that "you are doing it right".
I apologize for offending you. I do get impatient with people who parrot the same arguments over and over and ignore the primary arguments that he cannot overcome. You have repeatedly evaded the argument of sovereignty and even refused to accept the definition of a court of record when it is right in front of you. Again, this is not theory. It is experience. Multiple judges have honored the paperwork we submit, including our orders.
The italics seems to work fine for me. Even when I make it bold, or even underline it. I would suggest you use firefox.
As to the typos, one having extremely little time to proofread does not constitute ones inability to spell. I can assure you when I write a court order that overturns a judges order, everything is spelled correctly.
The warning you are getting is due to an expired security certificate. I is a warning that occurs when a site is encrypted and the certificate is expired. A new certificate has been ordered and should be installed soon.
M. R. Hamilton
A lawyer, especially one as active as those attached to the law firm you named, would not try to evade an arrest for contempt, since they would have to go back to their offices or to the court every day. And most contempt citations are issued while the offenders are in the courtroom. So I am little surprised that you describe it as though the lawyers are still on the loose. More to the point, a lawyer charged with contempt or some other offense can expect some very unwelcome attention from the disciplinary committee of the State Bar, so I would expect that these lawyers would eventually be named in disciplinary cases before the State supreme court.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to name the court and the case in which these contempt citations were issued?
John Wayne was very sparing with the facts but I would suppose from what little he did say that his case was in traffic court. Traffic court does not provide for jury trials. The 7th Amendment guarantees jury trials only for "suits at common law" - which is not the category of a traffic court case. Nor do I see any choice but to go in as the defendant, as there are no provisions for any other sort of participation, such as intervenor, nor is there any provision for a counter-claim or a special appearance. If the defendant wishes to challenge jurisdiction (which is a long shot in traffic court) he may do so as part of his general appearance.
The vehicular code very much applies to the defendant as an individual, as a person, as a motorist. Whenever the cops stop a car, they invariably find a flesh and blood living human behind the steering wheel. The traffic court is unlikely to care about anything but the vehicular code - but unlicensed driving is usually treated as a criminal offense, which moves the case into criminal court - that could give the defendant a jury, a court of record, and perhaps the opportunity to raise some issues of his own (as well as risk a jail term).
There is so much case law the says people are not subject to the code. You can challenge jurisdiction at any time. Granted, you would not file a claim in the traffic court, because traffic court is not a judicial court. I serves merely as an administrator for the corporation. You would file a counterclaim in a court of record to challenge the jurisdiction of the inferior court. Since the court of record proceeds according to the common law, none of their statutory arguments apply.
One of our members here relinquished his drivers license about 16 years ago now. There was also a case in Illinois recently wherein someone who was traveling without a drivers license presented his documents to the interior court and the judge dismissed his case.
I have also been informed recently of evidence of a transport having to be in travel mode. For example, I have yet to see it yet and usually need to, but one case involve a truck driver who was traveling with a load towards his home due to an emergency. I do not recall what he was charged with, but since he was not delivering the load to its destination, he was not in driving mode. He was in travel mode. As such he won his case even in the statutory system.
M. R. Hamilton
?
Robert Deason
The laws of every state require every motorist when on the public roads, whether for pay or for personal amusement, to have his driver's license in his personal custody AND to show his driver's license when stopped and asked by police.
A passport identifies you but it does not show that you are qualified to drive a motor vehicle on the public roads. Only a driver's license does that.
?
Robert Deason
The Georgia Code §40-1-1(14) defines 'Driver' as the person operating a vehicle - without regard to whether he's doing it for payment or pleasure. The Georgia Code also uses the term 'motorist' plenty of times, such as §§ 40-6-331, 40-6-365, 40-8-91, 4-8-116, 40-14-6, etc.; the word is defined clearly enough even in paperback dictionaries and Georgia has no problem with the common definition.
The Georgia Code goes on to say that only a licensed driver can operate a vehicle on the public roads (§ 40-5-20), that when driving on the public roads the driver must have his driver's license in his personal possession and be willing to show it if asked by police (§ 40-5-29). Other States have laws that require exactly the same.
A driver's license is NOT a contract; there is no negotiation, no meeting of the minds, no consideration, none of the tokens of a contract. A license is issued only to applicants who meet the precise specifications set by the DMV, no haggling. A judge does not offer the license; it is available only from the executive branch, not the judicial branch. And the driver's license is necessary for a motorist to bring his vehicle onto the public roads; the state is responsible for policing the roads, maintaining the roads, keeping them safe, and frequently owns the roads, and the state sets the requirement that the public roads are open exclusively to licensed drivers. Drivers without licenses are effectively trespassers on the roads and a danger to themselves and everyone around them (the distinction is that licensed drivers who commit an infraction are ticketed to appear in traffic court where the penalty is points against their license; since unlicensed drivers have no license for points to be counted and since unlicensed driving is a criminal offense, unlicensed drivers are arrested and taken to criminal court where the penalty could include jail time). The court, either traffic or criminal, has jurisdiction of driving offenses based on in personam jurisdiction, very easy to establish on a road map based on where the police encountered the vehicle (about the only way to deny jurisdiction is to prove that you weren't in the car). The US Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently upheld the States' authority - and responsibility - to limit the operation of motor vehicles on public roads to licensed drivers.
I have no idea where you got the notion that someone born in this country and still here is a citizen only voluntarily or has to comply with the law only on his whim. Everyone who is here, citizen or not, has to comply with prevailing law.
?
Robert Deason
And the human behind the steering wheel of a vehicle isn't a corporation either - even if he has gone to the trouble of incorporating. The vehicular code treats motorists as individual persons - living, breathing, flesh & blood, etc.
I ask this only because there that word is again, "PERSON." As defined by O.C.G.A., person includes a corporation. You know "includes" shall not be a word of enlargement when used in defining meaning and can only include that which follows. That is according to the GA Supreme Court. You musht know these things.
Robert Deason
No I don't know that "includes" is not a word of enlargement. The US Supreme Court upheld a definition of "includes" that made it a word of enlargement, and I have no reason to suppose that the Georgia definition of 'person' fails to encompass a human being. Never did the Georgia courts suppose that a corporation was driving a vehicle.
As for being a citizen voluntarily. State Citizens are not citizens of the U.S. unless they voluntarily place themselves in that role.
Robert Deason
... if a person is born in the United States, he is a US citizen, regardless of which state in which he was born.
Arguably a person could be a US citizen without being the citizen of a specific state.
Are you a corporation? The 14th amendment created a new class of citizen. That doesn't fly with me. I'm trying to help but you are back sliding. Again, are you a corporation?
Robert Deason
Asked and answered.
The 14th Amendment did not create a new class of citizen but it did clarify who was a citizen. I doubt you were born prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment (July 1868), so that you were born a US citizen under it, whether you think it flies or not.
An individual by definition within statutes and codes is a legal entity. A person by definition within statutes and codes is a corporation. Statutes and codes only apply to legal entities and corporations. If you refuse to read the definitions, as most, no wonder you are confused. As for the 14th amendment, it has nothing to do with me. My bloodline on both sides of my family is traced back to before 1600's. I was born in Georgia. Not a federal territory. READ THE DEFINITIONS BEFORE YOU PRESUME THAT A STATUTE APPLIES TO YOU. Voluntary servitude is your choice. As for your answer from #28, you have not answered. Are YOU a corporation? As for the Supreme Court upholding a decision that the word "includes" may be a word of enlargement goes to the intent of use. The legislature when defining a word uses includes, only those words following are included in its meaning. It cannot be used as a word of enlargement in a definition or ambiguity would diminish the intent of the legislature. Remember, the legislature creates the statute.
Robert Deason
This is typical of amateur attempts at lawyering: a smattering of quotations from statutes or cases and then something thrown in from godknowswhere that's completely wrong, like a card pulled from someone's sleeve, that completely misdirects the whole argument.
In the instance of your message, it's this: The Georgia Code says, right up front in § 1-2-1(a) a person could be either of two kinds, a natural person (i.e., a human being) or an artificial person (e.g., a corporation, partnership, government office). Then in another section, § 1-3-3, it simply says the word Person "includes a corporation" - doesn't mention humans nor partnerships nor anything else. Further along, altho you didn't mention it, in several places, e.g. §§ 2-7-52, 2-7-92, 3-1-2, it says Person "includes any individual, partnership, ..." etc.
You are stuck on § 1-3-3, "Person includes a corporation". You ignore the other instances. Here's the card up the sleeve: More than that you insist that the word "includes" must mean "only includes" - the Georgia Code does not say this. You say that I know that - I know nothing of the kind; you say the Georgia Supreme Court says that, but the Georgia Supreme Court said quite the opposite in Wetzel v. State (2015) 298 Ga 20, 779 SE2d 263.
Driver's licenses are given to individuals - to human beings, not to corporations or partnerships or govt agencies or trusts or associations or any other artificial/juridical persons, only to natural persons. Whoever is behind the steering wheel is a natural person - however you want to phrase it, a living breathing flesh-and-blood individual - notwithstanding what he may call himself.
And, to reiterate, I am a natural person, not a corporation, partnership, govt agency, trust, or any other kind of artificial person.
Berryhill v. Georgia Community Support 2006. GA Supreme Court. This is the basis for the meaning of includes. Sorry, I was trying to paste for you but my browser won't allow. Had the legislature intended enlargement then, "includes but not limited to," would have been used. This is consistent with other States as well. As far as you considering yourself a Natural Person, still a corporation. By definition, person is the equivalent of a corporation. Basis is from case cited. Therefore, the two classes of persons are natural corporations and artificial corporations only. It has been a pleasure.
Robert Deason
Berryhill v. Georgia Community Support & Solutions Inc. (2006) 281 Ga 439, 638 SE2d 278, which is cited in Wenzel, actual discussed the DIFFERENT POSSIBLE MEANINGS of "includes" - either expansive or restrictive - and mentioned a previous Georgia decision that went (like Wenzel) for the expansive meaning. It depends on the context or situation.
In the case of the meaning of "person" it is Very Obvious - such as from several other definitions in the Georgia Code - that "person" can mean (amongst other things) a human being, that it follows that the one instance in the code where it says "person includes corporation", without mentioning a human, the meaning is expansive. Either that or you have to explain why the definition in § 1-3-3 is the definition that applies to the vehicular code (where it isn't located) and all of the other definitions in the code (that do mention an individual human) don't. And that would include the definitions of 'person' that are contained in the Georgia vehicular code, e.g., §§ 40-1-1(43), 40-1-22(7), 40-1-100(15), 40-1-151(6), etc.
Avoid the courts as much as possible.
Check out: www.ticketsbite.com
This guy and his friends that fought the federal system are behind bars and won't ever get out!
http://irwinschiff.homestead.com/casesTraffic.html