From: rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole)
Subject: Re: traffic court...
Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, California
Distribution: ca
Date: 12 Apr 92 14:13:28

In article <1992Apr10.175009.19763@csun.edu> cbcscaar@mx.secs.csun.edu (Adam A. Ravid) writes:
   I went to watch traffic court yesterday, which was somewhat
   entertaining and somewhat sad.

I recommend this to everyone!!  Very instructive...

   A few things that I thought of bringing up...

     To me it looked like the Judge was both the Judge and the
     prosecutor...  Is this common to all traffic courts?  Is
     it legal?

No!  The judge cannot be a member of the injured party and therefore cannot
act as a prosecutor.

     --  Looks like the Judge is on the police officers'
     side always, even 'leading the witness' to saying things that
     are harmful for the defense.  Who exactly is the prosecutor
     in that kind of a court?   It's funny when the defense almost
     always do not know their rights, and when some are violated
     (which could bring motion to dismiss the trial, they are not
     brought up....)  So the Judge and Police officers thrive on
     the fact that the defense is unprepared and not knowledgable
     of their rights.  A lot of cases I saw that may have been able
     to have been beaten.

Educate yourselves...  Here are the relevant sections of the
California Penal Code:

"A crime or public offense is an act committed or omitted in violation
 of a law forbidding or commanding it, and to which is annexed, upon
 conviction, either of the following punishments:
   1. Death;
   2. Imprisonment;
   3. Fine;
   4. Removal from office; or,
   5. Disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or
 profit in this state."  Penal Code, Section 15.  Enacted 1872.

"Crimes and public offenses include:
   1. Felonies;
   2. Misdemeanors; and
   3. Infractions."  Penal Code, Section 16.  Enacted 1872; Amended
 Stats 1968 ch 1192 Section 1 p 2254, operative January 1, 1969.

"An infraction is not punishable by imprisonment.  A person charged
 with an infraction shall not be entitled to a trial by jury.  A
 person charged with an infraction shall not be entitled to have the
 public defender or other counsel appointed at public expense to
 represent him or her unless he or she is arrested and not released on
 his or her written promise to appear, his or her own recognizance, or
 a deposit of bail."  Penal Code, Section 19.6.  Added Stats 1968 ch
 1192 Section 3 p 2255, operative January 1, 1969.

"No person can be convicted of a public offense unless by verdict of a
 jury, accepted and recorded by the court, by a finding of the court
 in a case where a jury has been waived, or by a plea of guilty."
 Penal Code, Section 689.  Enacted 1872; Amended 1880 ch 7 Section 1 p
 4; Stats 1931 ch 1211 Section 1 p 2569; Stats 1951 ch 1674 Section 2
 p 3830.

"Trial of an infraction shall be by the court, but when a defendant
 has been charged with an infraction and with a public offense for
 which there is right to jury trial and a jury trial is not waived,
 the court may order that the offenses be tried together by jury or
 that they be tried separately with the infraction being tried by the
 court either in the same proceeding or a separate proceeding as may
 be appropriate."  Penal Code, Section 1042.5.  Added by Stats 1968 ch
 1192 Section 5 p 2255, operative January 1, 1969.

To further amuse and confuse, here are the notes of decisions with
regard to P.C. 19.6, et. al., from Deering's California Codes:

"Courts must read all of the sections of the Penal Code together, give
 effect in case of conflict to the latest enacted sections, and
 construe the provisions of the sections according to the fair import
 of their terms with a view to effecting their objective and to
 promote justice.  Thus, the provisions of Pen. Code, Sections 19c
 [renumbered 19.6 in 1989 -rjc], 1042.5, enacted in 1968, that persons
 charged with ``infractions'' shall not be entitled to a trial by jury
 and that trial of an infraction shall be by the court, must be read
 as qualifying the provision of Pen. Code, Section 689, enacted in
 1872 and last amended 1951, that no person can be convicted of a
 public offense unless by verdict of a jury."  People v.  Oppenheimer
 (1974) 42 CA3d Supp 4, 116 Cal Rptr 795.

"Under the provisions of Pen. Code, Sections 19c, 1042.5, that persons
 charged with ``infractions'' shall not be entitled to a trial by jury
 and that trial of an infraction shall be to the court, defendant,
 charged with the infraction of running a red light in violation of
 Veh. Code, Section 21453, was not entitled to a jury trial.  The
 right to trial by jury under Cal. Const, Art I, Section 7 [repealed
 Nov 5, 1974, and reenacted as Section 16 -rjc], is the right as it
 existed at common law at the time the constitution was adopted, and,
 at English common law as it existed at that time, offenses of the
 same class as those now classified as infraction by the Vehicle Code
 were triable by courts sitting without juries.  Moreover, by any
 judicial test employed in determining whether a right to trial by
 jury exists under Federal constitutional provisions, the offense in
 question is a ``petty'' one not falling within those requirements."
 People v. Oppenheimer (1974) 42 CA3d Supp 4, 116 Cal Rptr 795.

"When the Legislature enacted Pen. Code, Section 19c, providing that
 the infraction is not punishable by imprisonment and that a person
 charged with an infraction is not entitled to a jury trial nor to
 appointed counsel, it did not provide that all offenses not
 punishable by imprisonment are infractions.  It merely recognized
 that what might elsewhere be defined as an infraction could not be
 punished by imprisonment.  Although the Legislature recognized this
 common denominator for all infractions, it did not convert all
 misdemeanors not punishable by imprisonment to infractions.  Thus,
 all offenses which are not felonies remain misdemeanors regardless of
 how they are punished except those offenses that the Legislature
 chooses to classify as infractions."  Tracy v. Municipal Court (1978)
 22 C3d 760, 150 Cal Rptr 785, 587 P2d 227.

"The right to court-appointed counsel is guaranteed in all felony and
 misdemeanor proceedings.  However, in infraction proceedings, that
 right is denied by statute (Pen. Code, Section 19c)."  Kathy P., In
 re (1979) 25 C3d 91, 157 Cal Rptr 874, 599 P2d 65.

"The Legislature, in drafting Pen. Code, Sections 19c, 1042.5,
 (denying right of jury trial to one who commits infraction), intended
 merely to exempt infractions from those public offenses which require
 a jury trial, rather than exempting infractions from the definition
 of a public offense altogether.  Thus, the term ``public offense,''
 as it is used in Pen. Code, Section 830.1 (defining peace officer's
 authority with regard to public offenses), includes a traffic
 infraction."  People v. Hamilton (1986) 191 Cal App 3d Supp 13, 236
 Cal Rptr 894.

So:

  1. "Public offense is an act committed ... in violation of a law
     forbidding ... it, and to which is annexed, upon conviction, ...
     either of the following punishments: ... fine ...."  P.C. 15
  2. "... public offenses include: ... infractions."  P.C. 16
  3. "No person can be convicted of a public offense unless by verdict
     of a jury..."  P.C. 689

and yet:

  4. "A person charged with an infraction shall not be entitled to a
     trial by jury."  P.C. 19.6
  5. "Trial of an infraction shall be by the court..."  P.C. 1042.5

Taken all together, I interpret this to mean that if a person was
charged with an infraction and tried without a jury in a non-equity
jurisdiction, no conviction can be lawfully obtained unless jury trial
was waived, or person pleaded guilty.

So the key point here is... JURISDICTION...  The two you will
encounter in traffic court are territorial jurisdiction and personal
jurisdiction.  You can't win a territorial jurisdictional challenge
but you can challenge the accuser's jurisdiction over your person.
The point here is to use the same legal trickery on the court that
they would use on you.  Make them "mess up."  If you can't win in court,
get the ammunition you need to win on appeal.

                    "HOW-TO" INFORMATION FOR SOVEREIGNS
                  6TH-AMENDMENT JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE

                           by Howard J. Freeman

                  --------------------------------------

                               AMENDMENT VI

     "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a 
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district 
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been 
previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause 
of the accusation;  to be confronted with the witnesses against him;  to 
have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have 
the assistance of counsel for his defence."

     Since we often deal with usurpation of power by the hirelings of 
government, it is not a single lawless action that we must contend with, 
but rather a 180 degree turning in the "order of power" making the 
sovereign citizens, under "de jure" government, into subjects of the 
bureaucrats in our present "de facto" government."

     We all know that true "law" leaves everyone free to do as one pleases 
so long as there is no damage done to life, liberty or property of another. 
Upon a sworn complaint of damage by a fellow sovereign citizen, one may be 
brought into a Court of Law and ordered to pay for proven damage to 
another.  That is where true law ends.  When we come upon something 
"called" law which compels us to perform in some specified manner, we know 
that what is "called" law in that instance, is "not true law," but that it 
properly comes under what our Constitution terms as "equity." Equity 
Jurisdictions are authorized in our Constitution, and they stem from our 
unlimited right to contract.  An Equity Jurisdiction compels performance 
upon the exact letter of any contract obligation.  So any statute, 
ordinance or regulation which compels us to perform in a specified manner 
must, of necessity, involve a contract of some kind:  be it written, oral 
or implied.  It is around "implied" contracts that licensed attorney 
legalese has worked to "use our Constitution" to destroy our rights 
declared to be inalienable rights by the Constitution and unalienable by 
the Declaration of Independance, the Supreme Law of the Land and of the Law 
of Nations.

     The Constitution is still an obstacle in the path of those who seek 
complete and absolute mastery over the citizens of this nation.  The 
obstacle in the path is, that State Statutes or City Ordinances that compel 
performance around a contractual base of American contractual law must be 
considered "Civil" Statutes or "Civil" ordinances to be enforceable in an 
Equity Jurisdiction, and Article III, Sec.  2, Clause 2 of the U.S.  
Constitution states that any Civil controversy in which a State is a party, 
cannot be tried in a State Court, but that the U.  S.  Supreme Court has 
original jurisdiction in such cases.  So, States and Municipalities, in 
order to try violations of State Statutes or Municipal Ordinances in their 
own Courts, have to declare that said violations are of a "Criminal" 
nature, since State and Municipal Courts are empowered with a Criminal 
Jurisdiction to hear offenses against the people of the City.  It is in 
this area that the Sixth Amendment approach to a jurisdictional challenge 
is effective, and it works as follows:

     Suppose you are stopped for not using your car's seat belts in a State 
which has a statute that compels performance in the fastening of seat belts 
in any moving motor vehicle.  It is foolish to talk to the arresting 
officer;  demand of him only that you be tried in a Court of Record.  At 
arraignment in such a Court the Judge will read the charge, and the State 
Statute that you supposedly violated.  He will call the Statute Law, but 
you know that it is not true law, because it compels performance, but let 
the Judge have his say because your chance will come later.  After the 
Judge reads the charge, and the "law" you violated, he will ask if you 
understand the charge against you.  Always say "No." The Judge will then 
ask what it is about that simple charge, that even a fool could understand, 
yet you do not understand?  Tell him that the Sixth Amendment to the U.  S. 
Constitution requires him to inform you of the "nature" and "cause" of the 
action against you.  Ask him:  "Judge, is the action against me in this 
Court a Civil Action, or a Criminal Action?" The Judge, now answering under 
your Sixth Amendment authority to ask, will tell you that the action before 
his Court in this particular case is a Criminal Action.  Now, while you 
have the Judge responding to your first question, ask him the question, 
that he does not want to answer.

     Question #2 is as follows:

     "Judge, I need further instruction regarding the 'nature' of this 
charge pending against me in order that I may properly defend against it.  
As you know, Judge, there are two separate and distinct, Criminal 
Jurisdictions authorized for this Court by the U.  S.  Constitution:  One 
is for Criminal Action under a Common Law Jurisdiction, and the other is a 
Condition of Contract violation under the Criminal Aspects of an Admiralty 
Jurisdiction.  As you well know, Judge, the defenses for a Criminal Action 
under a Common Law Jurisdiction are distinctly different from the defenses 
under an Admiralty Jurisdiction.  Which Jurisdiction:  Common Law or 
Admiralty, is this Criminal Action pending against me to be tried under?"

     There are four possible responses that you will receive from the above 
question.  I will cover all four:

     Response #1:

     "This is a Crime against the People of this State so it is a Criminal 
Action under a Common Law Jurisdiction."

     With that response, you now repeat into the record of the case as 
follows:  "Thank you Judge, let the record of this particular case against 
this particular individual (include your name) show that this Court has 
gone on record as stating that the pending Criminal Action in this case is 
to be tried under a Common Law Jurisdiction." If the Judge does not dispute 
you at this point, you have set a Common Law Case in concrete, and no 
future Court can alter that fact.

     Now you can ask that the case be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, 
since there is no injured party in this case to give the Court a cause of 
action under a Common Law Jurisdiction.  Also, in a Common Law 
Jurisdiction, you have ALL of your rights from the Magna Charta through the 
Constitution, and it is a felony under 18 U.S.C.  Section 241 for any Judge 
to deny you any right guaranteed by the Supreme Organic Law of the land 
(under said Criminal Action under a Common Law Jurisdiction, which is now 
established in the record of the case.) You may put the Judge on 
Constructive Notice of the above law, which if violated after Constructive 
Notice of same, causes the Judge to lose his immune status as a judge, 
opening him to trial as an individual on the felony charges.

     Response #2:  (of the Judge to question #2)

     "I am sorry.  I am not here to advise you on the law.  If you want 
answers to such questions, I advise you to contact a licensed attorney."

     YOU:  "But, your honor, the Constitution requires this Court to tell 
me the nature of this Criminal Action pending against me.  How can I 
properly defend myself, which I am lawfully entitled to do, if I am not 
told the type of Jurisdiction the case is to be heard under?

     THE JUDGE:  "I told you before, if you want answers to legal questions 
of this nature I advise you to secure the services of a licensed attorney."

     YOU:  "Thank you, your honor, I would like the record of this case to 
show that this court has refused my request made, under the authority of 
the Sixth Amendment to the U.  S.  Constitution, to be informed of the 
'nature' of the jurisdiction by which this Criminal Action is to be tried, 
and would like the record to show that the Criminal Action pending against 
(your name) is a Criminal Action under a secret jurisdiction known only to 
licensed attorneys making it impossible for one to defend himself in 
Propria Persona."

     Response #3:  (of the Judge to question #2)

     THE JUDGE:  "This case is to be tried under Statutory Jurisdiction."

     YOU:  "Thank you, your honor.  I am not acquainted with the Court 
rules for such a Jurisdiction.  I will, however, accept such Jurisdiction 
if this Court, prior to trial date, will provide me with, or tell me where 
I can find a book containing the Rules of Criminal Procedure for Statutory 
Jurisdiction."

     Since there are no such rules published, the Judge will advise you to 
obtain the services of a licensed attorney.  At that point, speak into the 
Court Record as listed in Response #2 that the Court intends to conduct a 
Criminal Action against you under a secret jurisdiction known only to 
licensed attorneys.

     Response #4:  (of the Judge to question #2)

     THE JUDGE:  "This case will be tried under an Admiralty Jurisdiction."

     YOU:  "Thank you, your honor, but, as you know, an Admiralty 
Jurisdiction depends upon a valid international contract in dispute.  I am 
not aware of having entered into any such contract and so I deny that any 
such contract exists.  Will you have this prosecuting attorney prove into 
the record of this case that a valid international contract exists as a 
fact of law, and that I am a party to said contract, and that my being a 
party to said contract obligates me to obey this State Statute #_____" etc.

     Most prosecuting attorneys would be at a loss to offer such proof.  
This takes the problem off the Judge's back, and places it on the back of 
the prosecuting attorney (where it belongs!).  Failure of proof of 
Admiralty Jurisdiction on his part is ground to have his action dismissed 
by the Court.

     Should you run into a learned prosecuting attorney, who would dare to 
expose the legalese by which the order of power in the United States has 
been turned upside down, allow him to proceed with his proof, which will be 
along this fashion:

     "Your Honor, in 1933 the American People, being sovereigns in this 
country, voted Franklin D.  Roosevelt into the position as their spokesman 
and president.  In order to accomplish the task desired of him, Mr.  
Roosevelt had to spend more money than the sovereign citizens were willing 
to pay in taxes.  This made it necessary for the people's representative to 
borrow bank credit from the International Banking Houses.  It was written 
into that loan contract that the loans of bank credit, in addition to the 
interest (usury) upon them were to be repaid in gold coin.  By the year 
1938 the International Banking Houses had extended their credit to the 
United States in excess of the gold coin, available for repayment of same, 
thus the former sovereign citizens of the Nation, through Mr.  Roosevelt 
their representative, could no longer meet their contract obligations to 
pay their international debts in gold coin, and they lost their sovereign 
status under the Common Law, because of this default on the debt to the 
International banking houses, and the Bar Associations accomodated the 
situation by blending "law" with "equity" in 1938 in such a way as not to 
alarm the American citizens over their newly acquired servile status.  As 
every licensed bar attorney knows, the rules of equity are quite different 
from the rules of law.  American equity compels performance upon the letter 
of a contract obligation, or in the interest of the creditor in case of 
financial default, but it allows a jury trial for controversy above $20.00, 
and it outlaws debtors prisons.  However, the equity jurisdiction of 
International default on debt is tried in Admiralty Courts, which do not 
recognize any of the constitutional protections of American Equity Courts, 
since they are international.  A Jury in an Admiralty Court is only 
advisory to the Chancellor (called Judge) who may rule contrary to a jury 
verdict if he wishes. Also Admiralty Courts impose Criminal penalty on 
those who fail to perform.  The legislative bodies in America today, no 
longer pass Public "law" statutes, pursuant to the limitations upon such 
statutes by National and State Constitutions, but rather our legislative 
bodies in America are now the Sovereign, over the Courts and Executive 
officers, as well as over all of the so-called citizens, and their function 
is to pass Public "policy" statutes in the interest of the nation's 
creditors, which civil statutes contain Criminal penalties under an 
Admiralty Jurisdiction.  In this particular Public Policy Statute requiring 
the fastening of seat belts, the defendant is charged with a Criminal 
Action for his failure to perform within a public policy statute written in 
the interest of the Nations' Creditors, who feel they want this man 
protected from his own careless behavior because dead men pay no taxes, and 
the nations' Creditors need this man's labor to help pay the International 
debt, which is in default.  This Court has an Admiralty Jurisdiction over 
the person of this defendant in this Criminal Action, because he failed to 
perform according to the contract for the repayment of the nation's debt." 
     
     Your answer to the above is to challenge the validity of a contract to 
which you were not a direct party and you inform the Court that the 
validity of the international Contract, lupon which this case rests, must 
be settled before the trial on issues may begin.

     * * * * * * Howard L.  Freeman, an avid student of law and sovereignty 
for more than 30 years, is a retired civil engineer.  He lives in Lusk, 
Wyoming.
                               O U T L I N E

Note:  this outline of Mr. Freeman's work is not complete.  I got 
interrupted and never finished it.  Read the text carefully.  Maybe you can 
finish it.

IS ACTION CIVIL OR CRIMINAL?
     CRIMINAL
          IS CRIMINAL JURISDICTION COMMON LAW OR ADMIRALTY?
                COMMON LAW
                      DISMISS FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
                            THERE IS NO INJURED PARTY
                ADMIRALTY
                      HAVE ATTORNEY PROVE INTO RECORD
                            VALID INT'L CONTRACT EXISTS
                            YOU ARE PARTY TO CONTRACT
                            CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO THE STATE
                STATUTORY JURISDICTION
                      SEE CIVIL
                GET A LICENSED ATTORNEY
                      SEE CIVIL
     CIVIL
          IS STATE A PARTY?  SUPREME COURT HAS JURISDICTION
                STATUTORY JURISDICTION
                      WHAT ARE COURT RULES FOR THIS JURISDICTION?
                             (THEY DON'T EXIST, but if you ask 
                              this question, the judge might just 
                              refer you to the court rules of 
                              another jurisdiction.) 
                      GET A LICENSED ATTORNEY (SEE NEXT)
                GET A LICENSED ATTORNEY
                      INSIST UPON BEING INFORMED OF NATURE OF
                            THIS CRIMINAL ACTION.  LET THE RECORD
                            SHOW SECRET JURISDICTION

               ----------------------------------

7 audio 60-minute tapes of Howard Freeman for total of $20

Tape Titles:

     ADMIRALTY COURT JURISDICTION (2 CASSETTES)
     ADMIRALTY COURT JURISDICTION UPDATE
     BIBLICAL MEANING OF WORDS - OBEDIENCE & COMMAND (2 CASSETTES)
     CLASSICAL ECONOMICS (2 CASSETTES)

Order tapes from:

     Pastor Dan Gaymon (417)432-3119
     C/O Church of Israel
     Route 1, P.O. Box 62-B-3
     Schell City, MO  64783
Bill Martin
12603 8th ave So.
Seattle Washington

--
Ronald Cole           +----------------------+  internet: rjc@unify.com
Software Engineer II  | This space for rent. |  uucp:     uunet!unify!rjc
Unify Corporation     +----------------------+  voice:    +1 916 928 6238
          "THE BILL OF RIGHTS --- Void where prohibited by law"