Big Week For No State Project – Documentary Proof of Tickets and Assessments Kicked Out



13 Responses

  1. I am almost done reading Adventures in Legal Land. I have an arraignment about a month from now. I plan on applying what I learned at the arraignment and trial, if it goes that far. I will post the results here and on Marc's website.

  2. I had my arraignment today. It was my first time encountering the system from the prospective of a person who was not in court to simply bow to the "authorities." Before I left, everyone there was yelling at me. The Judge entered a plea of not guilty for me even though I objected to it. When I tried to ask questions, he stated that he was the one who asks questions, not me. I have a trial date. It is scheduled for 12/12/12. The is unusually fast for Houston courts.

  3. (2) Anyway, the take away for me was that they are hiding something. If there was nothing to hide, why were all of my questions refused, and why was I threatened with violence for asking? I did not file any motions prior to the arraignment. It may have gone more smoothly if I had done that. I am not sure. At the trial next month, I will ask all the questions I want. 

  4. (3) Maybe the arraignment was not the place to call them out. Maybe it was because I was literally the only person in the court room (night curt and I arrived early). Whatever the reason, I am going to be diligent and try at trial next month. I will update this post and post the results on Marc's website. 

  5. Indiana Joe says:

    I looked up the definition for tax payer in Indiana within the code. There are SIX different definitions! That alone is evidence of fraud. What contract would stand in court that had six definitions for the same word? Best thing was, they all referred to a commercial business of one type of another. I pointed that out and they back off immediately.

  6. I purchased a motion template and a request for discovery template from Marc and filed them today. The result was a rescheduling of my trial from 12/12/2012 to 1/9/2013. The judge I saw today was so much more civil and well mannered than the first one I encountered. He read my motion and asked me questions and also answered some of mine. We had a rational discourse and even shook hands when we were done talking.

  7. He, unfortunately, was not the judge of court 9, the court where my trial was to be held, so he did not take any action on the motion. He rescheduled my trial to give the prosecution time to respond to the request for discovery. As he was reading my motion, he looked up at me and said, "You want me to believe that the STATE OF TEXAS does not exist?" I explained to him the concept of a legal fiction. 

  8. He used examples of love and friendship to explain his idea that intangible concepts do have existence. He cited a law that had to do with a spouse betraying their love for their partner. I reminded him that those were legal opinions and that there was no actual provable damage. We had a good conversation. He said the motion presented a "novel argument" and that I did a good job of backing it up during our discussion. 

  9. I hope that the next judge will be as considerate as him. I will post more here or discuss it on Marc's radio show. 

  10. So, I beat my case today. The reason given was that the officer was not present, but they dismissed it five minutes after 7pm, and my trial was scheduled for 7pm. The prosecutor avoided my motion for discovery as she did not attempt to discuss the matter with me at all from the time I filed it on Dec. 10, 2012. My motion to dismiss, very comprehensive by the way, was filed on the same day. 

  11. The prosecutor approached the bench and spoke with the judge for a few moments, and then another person's case and mine were dismissed together. Some will say that the officer not showing was the cause, but I think that the officer did not show because I served him a copy of the motion, and the prosecutor did not proceed because of the motion as well. 

  12. AnimeDock says:

    Always fight your traffic ticket: proffer(dot)ca

  13. ottkaji says:

    Can you describe the exact nature of evidence that would be required to meet the threshold of your burden of proof of jurisdiction or applicability of laws? Also is there any way to read those court documents in full?

Leave a Reply

© 2012 Pakalert Press. All rights reserved.