Okay, here is yet another fine example of people that THINK they know what the hell they are talking about and what is actually going on. Since this is from a California fake court setting for a traffic INFRACTION, I am not surprised at all by the comments, as the majority of folks there are socialist that can’t stop sucking statist balls long enough to form an individual libertarian thought of their own. And it is in cases like theirs that I would have to actually agree that government micro-managing of every detail of their lives is necessary to keep them all from drowning in the bathtub or choking on their own stupidity.
This article goes hand-in-hand with my previous article on civil infractions in states that have them, and the interrogatories that you should file in a form of discovery pleading titled “Motion for Admissions/Interrogatories.”
I copied in the comments on the posted video that existed at the time of this writing, just in case some were changed or deleted. The link to the actual video posting can be found here:
My comment for the post is written into this article below as well as posted on the video comments.
While most of the comments here from the statist peanut gallery are not only dead wrong, they are dead wrong for reasons that none of you appear capable of comprehending, so I won’t bother to try and explain them to you now. It should be enough that you SHOULD at least make an actual effort to READ and completely UNDERSTAND the law and process that this video deals with before making clueless comments about who was wrong and why, because NONE of you know what the hell you are talking about. You’re actually blaming the guy that is the real VICTIM of what your state officials are doing in violation of your own state constitution and laws. But I suppose that I shouldn’t expect any of you to know or care about any of that either since it requires a brain and the ability to use it in order to do so.
That being said, the things I would have addressed with the moron pretending to be a valid judge if this had been me personally in a state where traffic infractions are CIVIL rather than criminal. CIVIL being precisely what they are in California, which the administrative hearing officer in this matter obviously has no clue of or is knowingly lying about in order to commit FRAUD, which he is, and which is an ACTUAL CRIME.
NEVER MENTION THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IN THESE MATTERS IN STATE COURTS!! It didn’t apply to you when it was written, and it doesn’t apply to you now, UNLESS you are in a FEDERAL court. It has NOTHING to do with state matters UNLESS the state acts to violate those specific rights that the federal constitution requires the federal courts to protect. Cite your STATE CONSTITUTION instead and ALWAYS as your authority to tell these public serpents to go fuck themselves.
ALSO, NEVER call them “judge” or “your honor,” because these posers in these proceedings are NOT judicial officers acting judicially, they are ADMINISTRATIVE officers acting administratively, and they certainly aren’t real judges or possessing any ‘honor’ whatsoever. AND FINALLY, you must ALWAYS assert that you are there by special appearance as the FIRST THING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH!! Don’t even say “here” until you have made the statement in number one below.
Statements and questions for the criminal poser acting as a judge:
- “I am here by special appearance to challenge the jurisdiction of these proceedings.”
- “Are you presiding over this proceeding in the capacity of a sworn judicial officer of the state of California?”
- “Is the nature of this matter alleged to be civil or criminal?”
- “By what lawful authority do you presume to act by both ignoring and overruling the judicial decisions of the California 3rd Court of Appeals, who has specifically ruled on no less than three separate occasions that traffic infractions in the State of California are NOT crimes?” (Provide copies of the three court cases: In re Kay (1970) 1 Cal. 3d 930 [83 Cal. Rptr. 686, 464 P.2d 142]; People v. Battle, 50 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 2; People v. Sava, Cal.App.3d, Vol. 190 (1987)).
- “If this case is criminal as you allege, then I demand my inviolant right to a trial by jury as guaranteed and protected by Art. 1, Sec. 16 of the California Constitution’s Declaration of Rights. MY rights.”
- “Furthermore, if this case is truly criminal, then I demand my inviolant right to be provided with assistance of counsel as guaranteed and protected by Art. 1, Sec. 15 of the California Constitution’s Declaration of Rights.”
- “By what lawful authority do you presume to act in denying me in any fundamental right that is protected and guaranteed as inviolate by the provisions of the California Constitution’s Declaration of Rights?”
- “Objection! No judge in any court operating under the laws and constitution of the state of California has any more authority to ignore or deny the Accused’s inviolant protections and guarantees as written into the California constitution’s Declaration of Rights than you do, which is to say, none at all.”
- “I must inform you that your actions in this proceeding are not only criminal and civilly actionable, but also border on sedition and treason, and therefore, I hereby move that you be disqualified and remove yourself from these proceedings.”
- “If you refuse to remove yourself, you will leave me with no alternative but to file criminal charges and a civil rights violation lawsuit against you personally for your actions here today.”
rhashad881 year ago
You challenged his jurisdiction and he never proved it, the case should not have gone any further from that point till he proved his jurisdiction! Also, 5:13 he’s suppose to present his oath of office once asked to see it! Good job, you handled Caesar accordingly!
RJD1851 year ago
Do you have a statue or code or case law that states he’s suppose to show his Oath because if he doesn’t then anyone can be a judge I could throw on a black robe today and people would call me a judge.?
rhashad881 year ago
+RJD185 There are statues and codes, but the ultimate remedy that you would want to use would be Constitutional Law! Remember, Common Law; which is Constitutional Law, overrides ALL corporate statutes, codes, protocols, and legalese talk. When you use their codes your pulled back into their jurisdiction. It’s only good to quote their stuff to show how ridiculous and hypocritical their statues and codes are. However, in regards to your question when you asked for him to present his oath of office you were challenging his position; which is jurisdiction, to first establish is he authorized from Congress and an Article 3 Judge to even hear the case! Check out the link, remember these are SUPREME COURT CASES and they are over these lower courts and have final rulings in the matter! Put a period where it says (DOT) at. link: http://freedom-school(DOT)com/jurisdiction/challenge-jurisdiction(DOT)html
rhashad881 year ago
+RJD185 Above ALL and most importantly, what is your STATUS when you enter a court-room?….
Kirill Prokopenko (kprokopenko)1 year ago
philipem10002 months ago
The judge knows the law and the processes involved, and he has heard this crap all before. He did not take the nonsense…May I see your oath of office? “No.” Because it is pure nonsense that he has to show it to you. Not the law. He entered a plea of not guilty for you and you tried to claim that was a determination and he said it meant you had to appear for trial. When you said you wouldn’t he didn’t care because he knows what happens when people don’t. Because he knows the laws, the process, the procedures. And the stuff you’ve been sold and are peddling is nonsense. However I am enjoying the videos and look forward to the rest of the story.
Steve E1 year ago
You’re an idiot!!! Makes me laugh when retards think they know the law better the judge, or any lawyer in the court… lol, hilarious!!!
glimpcy637 months ago
i appreciate this video it gave me some insight point one when you claimed U.S. constitution the judge wanted you to also claim state constitution and he states that’s very important. i wonder why (jurisdiction). second he stated you had promised to follow all the rules when you applied to the dmv (contract). this gives me an idea to sign the license under duress or apply for a non-driver id
Cliff Yablonski1 year ago
These morons always lose in court hope he got some jail time instead of a fine.
YTtardsmustdie1 year ago
Greg Ward1 year ago
Sounds like he gave you the answer right there at the end. “You took a test by the DMV and signed saying you will abide by the rules, and now you want to not abide by them…” So, rescinding the license and asserting there is no contract. That being said, from experience on the road, much more difficult. Good attempt to assert your rights brother.. Blessings.