Forum

Free news

FREE blog

Donate

Search

Subscribe

jews/911

Feedback

dna

Gun poll

RCC

AIDS

Home

Fathers

Surveys

Holocaust

IQ

14th Amdt

19th Amdt

Israelites

NWO

Homicide

Blacks

Whites

Signatory

Talmud

Watchman

Gaelic

Traitors

Health?

 

 

Are Traffic Laws Constitutional

 

 

Michael Charles, La Mesa                                                                            March 3, 2002

C/o P.O. Box 6263

Amherst   near [03031]

New Hampshire

 

 

PRIVATE DEMAND IN THE NATURE OF

A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

 

 

To: Officer RICHARD VITALE, (hereinafter Respondent)

 

Re: MASSACHUSETTS UNIFORM CITATION # K2045369

 

1.  This demand for Information is a private demand pursuant to Michael Charles, La Mesa’s  (hereinafter Requester) rights to know the nature and the cause of the accusation against him.  Officer RICHARD VITALE (Respondent) has a duty to respond pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 5 U.S.C. 552(a), and State statues paralleling that act pursuant to federal mandate.

 

2.  This is Requester’s firm promise to pay all reasonable fees, if applicable, which is related to any information disclosed, and/or released, that may be statutorily consistent with the Privacy Act.

 

3.  If, for any reason(s), the disclosure and/or release, of any information is exempt, please furnish Requester with those portions which are reasonably segregable, and provide Requester with indexing, itemization, detailed justification, and statutory authority, concerning the information which is not being disclosed, and/or released.

 

4.  If, for any reason(s), the disclosure, and/or release, of any information is either partially or totally exempt, please furnish Requester with the specific number of records, documents, reports, notes, etc., contained under this exempt status.

 

5.  If, for any reason(s), the disclosure and/or release, of any information is exempt under statutory authority of the Privacy Act, please state the applicable statutory authority said information can be disclosed, and/or released under.

 

6.  This request is solely for information concerning agency and information concerning the Requester.

 

7.  If the information requested does not exist, please specify that it does not exist.

 

8.  The following particulars are necessary and material in the preparation of any continuing proceedings involving the Demandant in the Above Case.  The Demandant cannot adequately prepare or conduct any ongoing defense or remedy without This information, and Demandant will thereby be deprived of Demandant’s unalienable rights under the Laws of the One True God, as recognized, honored and upheld under the Due Process clause of the Forth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution for the united States of America, Amended A.D. 1791, and the Original Constitution of Massachusetts.  This Demand is to be previewed in the Nature of a Demand for a More Definite Statement if the Above Case is civil in nature, or a Demand for a Bill of Particulars if the case is criminal, whichever is applicable.  If this Demand is not the proper procedure to determine the Nature and Cause of the Above Case, then Demandant hereby empowers YOU to purview This Demand into the Proper Procedure as the law so requires.

 

DEFINITIONS

 

            The following definitions apply to the questions contained herein:

 

9. The words “Tribunal” and “Court” mean the CONCORD DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS and any of the proceedings held therein as it applies to MASSACHUSETTS UNIFORM CITATION # K2045369.

 

10. The word “Complaint” means the alleged charging instruments filed MASSACHUSETTS UNIFORM CITATION # K2045369.

 

11. The words “Case,” “Docket,” “Action,” and “Proceedings” mean the action or proceedings brought in the Tribunal by the Complaint in MASSACHUSETTS UNIFORM CITATION # K2045369.

 

12. The word “Pleadings” means the Complaint, and any other alleged charging instruments with regard to This Case.

 

13. The word “Respondent” means “Officer RICHARD VITALE,” it’s principals, predecessors, council, agents, assigns, and successors in This Case.

 

14. The word “Demandant” means Michael Charles, of the family La Mesa.

 

15. The term “fictitious name,” means “A counterfeit, alias, feigned, or pretended name taken by, or given to, a person, differing in some essential particular from her true name, consisting of Christian name and patronymic, with the implication that it is meant to deceive or mislead.”

 

16. The word “Defendant” means “MICHAEL LAMESA”, or “MICHAEL LA MESA”, or “MICHAEL C. LA MESA”, or “MICHAEL C. LAMESA”, or “MICHAEL CHARLES LAMESA”, or “MICHAEL CHARLES LA MESA”, a/k/a MICHAEL C. LA MESA”.

 

17. The term “Nature and Cause” means the right to know the parties of interest, venue, jurisdiction, right of action, and cause of action, upon Which This Case is based.

 

18. The Term “Arrest Warrant” means any Warrant, together with all required attachments thereto, described in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the untied States of America, as amended in 1791, without Its legislative Venue, used in the process of seizing the Person of the Defendant or the Demandant in This Case.

 

19.  The term “Organic Massachusetts state” means the lawful de jure state defined in the Constitution of Massachusetts, Anno Domini 1783, without its legislative venues and jurisdictions, the Legislature of THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS and the legislature of the UNITED STATES, and having the meets and bounds description belonging to Massachusetts as a lawful state under international law proclaimed by the inhabitants therein.

 

20. The term “Organic Massachusetts constitution” means the constitution for the Organic Massachusetts state, dated Anno Domini 1783, as lawfully amended.

 

21. The term “Organic united States of America”, means the lawful de jure Union defined in the Constitution for the united States of America, Anno Domini 1787, as lawfully amended, without the legislative venues and jurisdictions of the Legislature of THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS and the Legislature of the UNITED STATES, and including the several organic states Which were part of the original Union, or Which have since been Lawfully admitted pursuant to the Equal Footing Doctrine.

 

22. The term “constitution for the Organic united States of America” means the constitution for the Organic united States of America, dated Anno Domini 1787, as lawfully amended.

 

23. The term “people of Massachusetts” means those people living on the land in the organic Massachusetts state, who possess unalienable rights from Our One True God, which rights are secured by the Organic Massachusetts constitution and the constitution for the Organic united States of America, and not liened or diminished by any legal impediment, including, but not limited to, such prejudices as the bankruptcy of the UNITED STATES.

Questions

24. Please give the full name and address of the agent responding to this Request for Information.

 

25. Please disclose: Does the Respondent to this Request have authority to act as agent for the County Prosecutor in answering this Request for Information?

 

26. Please disclose: Is the Respondent acting in his official capacity or a private capacity in answering this Request for Information.

 

27. Questions Regarding Definitions of Terms.

            a. What is the Respondents definition of the term “Person?”

            b. What is the Respondents definition of the terms “drive” and “drove?”

            c. What is the Respondents definition of the term “motor vehicle,” and is said term synonymous with “self-propelled carriage,” “car,” or “automobile?” If not, then list the difference between these terms.

            d. What is the Respondents definition of the term “public highway,” and is said term synonymous with “common way,” “public road,” or “public right-of-way?”

            e. Do the terms “motor vehicle” and “public highway” describe the substance of a thing, or its use?

            f. Are the terms “motor vehicle,” “public highway,” “drive,” and “drove” of a commercial nature?

           

28. Questions Regarding the Parties:

            a. Are STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS and the state of Massachusetts one and the same?

            b. Is the Respondent herein the same Respondent required by the Organic Massachusetts constitution, as recognized, honored, and upheld by all subsequent lawful constitutions, to be party to a cause styled “STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS?” If not, then Who is the Respondent?

            c. Is the Respondent in This Case the Principle Party of Interest? If not, then what is/are the Christian appellation(s) or Name(s), and Mailing Location(s) or Address(s) of said Principle(s)?

            d. Is the Respondent in This Case in a condition of bankruptcy? If so, does a bankrupt person have a capacity to sue as a principle? What authority does the Respondent claim as a right to sue in Respondent’s name as a principal?

            e. What is the true and correct Christian appellation of the Demandant; please state the complete praenomen, nomen, and cognomen?

            f. What is the true and correct spelling of the Defendant’s appellation in the Pleadings?

            g. Are the Pleadings in This Case brought in the appellation of the Demandant?

            h. Are the Demandant and the Defendant one and the same? If yes, then what facts are relied upon to make that claim?

            i. Does the Respondent claim that Demandant can be held as surety for the Defendant?

            j. Does the Respondent claim that the Demandant is a juristic (legal) or statutory person who spells Demandant’s name in all capital letters?

            k. Is the Court the Same Court established by the Organic Massachusetts constitution?

            l. If “state of Massachusetts” and “STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS” are one and the same; and/or the Demandant and the Defendant are one and the same; then what is the purpose of styling the Respondent, the Defendant, and the Court with improper English, using all capital letters, in violation of common usage and customs of the people of Massachusetts, and does this practice of using fictitious names prejudice the Demandant?

            m. Does the Respondent claim that the Demandant is not a natural person, or is an unlawful inhabitant of the Premises of the jurisdictional Venue of the Organic Massachusetts state?  What material facts are relied upon to make that claim?

            n. Does the Respondent claim that the Demandant is subject to any impairment or disability of character or Status which would make Demandant inferior in standing to any of the people of Massachusetts?

o. Who is the damaged Party?

            p. Is the damaged Party a Natural Person?

            q. If the damaged Party is a fiction, what is the name of the Relator for the damaged Party?

            r. If the damaged Party is a fiction, is the Relator an officer, employee, agent, contractor, or subcontractor for the damaged Party?

            s. What is/are the Christian appellation(s) or Name(s), and Mailing Location(s) or Address(s) of the Injured or Damaged Party(s) in This Case?

            t. If any body corporate is alleged to be a damaged or injured party in This Case, then give the Christian appellation(s) or Name(s), and Mailing Location(s) or Address(s) of one or more Principles or Agents thereof Who were injured.

            u. Is This Case being prosecuted by a public prosecutor under the general powers of an organic government, unfettered by legal disabilities including bankruptcy or military oversight or control, or by a common informer or other such private prosecutor?

            v. Is the Prosecutor and/or Judge in This Case a member of the Utah Bar Association and/or the American Bar Association?

If yes, then      1) Are said Bar Associations organized under the authority of the Crown of England?

                         2) Do Members of said Bar Associations enjoy titles of Nobility, and/or do they owe allegiance to the Crown of England?

                        3) Are said Bar Associations operating as agents of the Bank of England or any other bank, financial institution, or commercial process, and if yes, then for what purpose?

                        4) Are said Bar Associations operating as agents to collect a private debt for the creditors of the Respondent in bankruptcy under principles of international law as acknowledged by Congress in the Act of March 9, 1933, setting the United States citizens as enemies of the UNITED STATES or UNITED STATES OF AMERICA under international letters of Marque and Reprisals?

                        5) Will said membership create a bias or prejudice upon the Demandant?

            w. Who are the holders in due course of the surety and fiduciary bonds of the Prosecutor and Judge for This Case?  Where are the bonds filed, who is in charge of the bond filings, how much is the face value of the bonds, and are the funds behind the bonds public?

            x. Who are the holders in due course of the surety and fiduciary bonds of BEDFORD officer RICHARD VITALE in This Case? Where are the bonds filed, who is in charge of the bond filings, how much is the face value of the bonds, and are the funds behind the bonds public?

            y. Do the Prosecutor and/or the Judge in This Case have any financial interest Therein?

            z. Does MASSACHUSETTS officer RICHARD VITALE in This Case have any financial interest Therein?

 

29. Questions Regarding Venue

            a. Did the acts or actions described in the Pleadings occur within the boundries of the Organic Massachusetts state?

            b. Are the Pleadings filed or pending in a court of record within the Venue and jurisdictional boundaries of Organic Massachusetts state?

            c. State the exact Venue where the offenses listed in the Pleadings are alleged to have occurred?

            d. Are the Pleadings filed or pending in the same Venue as the one in which the offenses listed in the pleadings are alleged to have occurred?

            e. Is the Demandant within the Venue of the process purported to be properly and lawfully served upon the Defendant? If yes, then did the Demandant enter said Venue voluntarily?

            f. Is the Demandant in any venue other than one limited by Christian common law?

            g. State the Nature of the Venue for STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, i.e. divine right, private contract, Organic constitution, District of Columbia and its Federal territories and possessions, or other?

            h. Is This Venue based upon acts or actions conducted in law or based upon Treaties, Contracts, and/or Consent of the Parties?

i. Who is the controlling sovereign of the Venue in which the charging Instrument is made?

j. Is this court under the Venue and Jurisdiction of the President of the United States, or the people of Massachusetts?

k. If the action is criminal, did the crime take place in the Venue of the people of Massachusetts or in the Venue of the STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS?

            l. Does STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS have lawful authority to prosecute crimes in the Organic Massachusetts state?

            m. In what Venue has the Prosecutor and Judge taken oaths of office, i.e. United States or united States of America or other?  Are the oaths in writing? Where are the oaths filed? Where are the oaths kept and who is in charge of the filed oaths?

            n. In what Venue has BEDFORD officer RICHARD VITALE taken oaths of office, i.e. United States or united States of America or other?  Are the oaths in writing? Where are the oaths filed? Where are the oaths kept and who is in charge of the filed oaths?

            o. Have any public officials taken any oaths that nullify, supersede, or cancel any written oaths on file? If so, what oaths, to what Venues?

p. Have any public officials taken any oath to any Venue or Jurisdiction that would override or negate that official in his official duty from upholding Demandant’s rights to unalienable rights set forth under the Venue and Jurisdiction of Nature’s God and Nature’s Laws? What oaths have You taken, have You taken a Kohl niedre oath, a Masonic oath, any others?

            q. Describe the heraldry displayed by the Court, and explain the Details of it’s significance?

            r. Is the heraldry displayed by the Demandant of superior or inferior standing to that displayed by the Court?

            s. Does the Court claim Venue and Jurisdiction superior to Christendom, for which the Demandant’s heraldry stands? If yes, then can the court’s said Claim, and Its attempt to attorn the Demandant from Our One True God, be construed as attempted genocide?

            t. Does the Tribunal and/or Respondent have authority to compel the Demandant into proceedings by way of the Pleadings in This Case, or to prejudice the rights of Demandant, knowing that Demandant is unable to plead without first being advised of the Nature and Cause of the proceedings, having not refused to plead nor stood mute?

            u. Did the Demandant create a trespass upon legislative Venue and Jurisdiction of STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS?

            v. Where does the CONCORD DISTRICT COURT get its legal and lawful authority and power to apply a criminal or civil jurisdiction over the Demandant herein, when the Demandant is without the legislative Venue of the UNITED STATES and within the premises of the people’s Venue of Organic New-Hampshire state, without the Demandant’s consent?

 

30. Questions Regarding Nature

            a. Has the Tribunal established personal Jurisdiction over the Demandant, and was such personal Jurisdiction regularly and lawfully obtained?

            b. Declare the Jurisdiction upon which the Tribunal will be operating: Christian common-law, ecclesiastical, admiralty/maritime, equity, probate, military/martial, administrative, manorial, statutory, contractual or other, and cite the Authority under which said Jurisdiction may be applied upon Demandant, and upon Subject Matter of the Pleadings.

            c. Are the charges in This Case mala in se crimes, or mala prohibita crimes?

            d. Is the Defendant being charged with the violation of a criminal law, or is This Case civil or remedial?

e. If action is criminal, is it common law or admiralty?

            f. Does the Court have lawful authority to apply a criminal jurisdiction over the Demandant, absent the Demandant’s consent?

            g. If the Pleadings are of a quasi-criminal nature, then state where the rules of quasi-criminal procedure may be found.

            h. Is This Case based upon any contract, duty, obligation, or license, to which the Demanadant is a Party?

            i. Can the Demanadant be held liable upon any instrument, if Demandant has no signature thereon?

            j. Does the “Massachusetts Revised Statues” contain actual law which the people of Massachusetts are bound to obey?

            k. Has a determination been made that the Character and/or Status of the Demandant are such that the Demandant is subject to specific performance with regard to the alleged Laws contained in the Pleadings? If yes, then When, and by What Authority? Please produce all authorities and enabling acts for said alleged laws.

            l. Was the Demandant engaged in trade, commerce, or business-for-profit on a public highway at the time of the offenses alleged in the Pleadings? If so, state with particularity the description of the Goods, Cargo, Freight, or passengers being transported.

            m. Does the Court have authority in This Case, without the Demandant’s consent, to impose or levy fines, forfeitures, taxes, court costs or punitive damages? If so, are such said amounts imposed in lawful coin as required by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the constitution for the Organic united States of America?

            n. What Substance do(es) the alleged Damaged Party(s) have at risk?

            o. Do you have a duty as part of your job, to uphold the Constitution of the united States of America as set forth in 1787?

            p. Do you recognize that I have unalienable rights? If not, why? When did I lose them? What act or action did I take to loose them? What act or action did someone else take to make me loose my rights as they apply to this Statutory prosecution? What contract did I enter into that nullified my rights? Was I notified before I entered into the contract that I would loose my rights in this matter?  When was I noticed? How? By what document?

            q. What statute was I charged under? When was it passed into law? Who passed it? Who signed it? Was it brought into law by proper process?  Does it apply to me? Is it constitutional as it applies to me? Does it violate unalienable rights set forth by Nature’s God and Nature’s Law? Does it violate public policy? Does it violate laws of Nations? Is it under police powers? Is it under revenue powers? Is there regulations adopted to enforce it and within what Venue and Jurisdiction?

            r. Is the statute, ordinance, or regulation founded upon duties owed by a citizen, resident, or creation of the State? If so what State? Where is the definition of that State found in the statutes, ordinances, or regulations?  Is that duty one created by a trust? What trust? When was it established? Where was it established? Am I a subject or res of said trust? How did I join the trust? What instrument establishes my nexus to said trust that creates the duty and obligation to said trust? Do I have my signature on said instrument? When did I sign it? Who holds the original copy of said instrument? Is it the policy of the fiduciaries to disclose the purpose, duties, privileges, and rights of the trust with full disclosure prior to soliciting my signature to said trust application?

            s. Does the BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS POLICE have proper delegation of authority to enforce the statute, ordinance, rule or regulation?

            t. Can a BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS POLICE officer prosecute for the STATE of MASSACHUSETTS as a third party?

            u. Does officer RICHARD VITALE have a license to practice law?

            v. Who issued the license? Was it legislative or judicial?

w. Does the Prosecutor have an allegiance to any foreign power?

            x. What department of the three (3) departments of Government is the BEDFORD MASSACHUSETTS POLICE’S office?

            y. Is the BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS POLICE’S office or any of it’s officers, agents or assigns authorized to exercise functions of another department other than the exercise of powers properly belonging to their department of Government?

            z. Who has legal title to my body? The corporate state or it’s principals?

            aa. What benefit or consideration do I receive in return for being estopped from exercising my liberties of free travel?

 

31. Questions Regarding Cause and Due Process

a. What is the Controversy set forth in the Pleadings?

            b. Is the charging Instrument an Affidavit, an information, an indictment, or a complaint?

            c. Is the charging Instrument signed?

            d. Who signed the charging Instrument?

            e. What is the title and position of the person(s) who signed the Instrument?

            f. Where was the charging Instrument signed?

            g. Has an Indictment been issued by a grand jury? If yes, then;

1) Where and When did the Grand Jury meet;

            a) How many members constituted the Grand Jury that brought             

said Indictment;

b) How many members voted for the Indictment as a true bill in

This Case; and

c) What is the Citizenship, the Status, and Character of each of the members of said Grand Jury?

            h. Does the Respondent have a lawful authority to bring This Case before the Court absent any Indictment?

            i. Is there an Arrest Warrant or Summons for the Demandant in This Case? If yes, then;

                        1) When and Where was said Arrest Warrant or Summons issued in This

Case?

2) Who signed it;

3) When and Where was it served; and

4) Who was the Officer(s) Who served such process on the Demandant?

            j. If the charging Instrument is an Affidavit, is it signed under penalty of perjury?

            k. If the charging Instrument is an Affidavit, is it brought under first hand knowledge of the facts related therein?

            l. If the charging Instrument is an Affidavit, what venue was the Affidavit signed in?

            m. If the charging Instrument is a Complaint, is it signed by a prosecuting attorney or law director?

            n. Do the Pleadings in This Case bear the bona fide signatures of Petitioners, Complainants, and Real Parties in Interest in This Case, signed under penalty of perjury under the laws of the united States of America? If said Pleadings bear the signatures of agents, then are said Agents acting under delegated Authority of Their Principals?

            o. Has the Complaining Party stated under penalty of perjury under the laws of the united States of America, that Demandant is the Party named in the Pleadings?           

p. State the amount of compensatory damage sought in lawful money; include damage estimates from two (2) sources, and state any amount being sought for punitive relief pursuant to This Case?

            q. Is This Case filed in a court in which the Demandant has an unalienable right to a trial by jury in which the jury can judge both the facts and the law of the Case?

            r. Is This Case filed in a court in which the Demandant has the right to appear and defend inperson and with one or more private next-friend counsel of His Own choosing to help and speak in His behalf without requiring that said next-friend be a member of a bar association?

horizontal rule

04/17/2008 11:17:39 AM -0700

 

From:   Michael Charles, La Mesa                                                                  May 27, 2002

            c/o PO Box 6263

            Amherst   near [03031]

            New Hampshire

 

To:        Officer RICHARD VITALE

            BEDFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT

            BEDFORD, MA

 

SUBJECT: Notice of Default regarding MASSACHUSETTS UNIFORM CITATION # K2045369

 

Reference: My Private Demand In The Nature Of A More Definate Statement, dated March 3, 2002 and my Acceptance to your solicitation #K2045369 pending presentment of a Certified Proof of Claim.

 

Dear Officer RICHARD VITALE,

 

1.  I Accepted Your Offer of MASSACHUSETTS UNIFORM CITATION # K2045369 for Value, Pending Presentment of Certified Proof of Claim.  You have not responded to my acceptance of your offer and have not provided a Certified Proof of Claim as requested in my March 3, 2002 request. 

 

2. I sent you a lawful Private Demand In The Nature Of A More Definate Statement, dated March 3, 2002.  You have not responded to this lawful request.

 

3. You are in default and demonstrating a Dishonor of my Acceptance of Your Offer by not providing Your Presentment of a Certified Proof of Claim under the U.C.C. 3-505(1)(a).

 

            a. Also, In providing your Presentment of Certified Proof Of Claim, you are required to make reasonable identification of the person making presentment and evidence of his authority to make the presentment for a third party.  Who is this third party MASSACHUSTETTS?  U.C.C. 3-505(1)(b).  It is unknown if officer RICHARD VITALE is a BAR certified Attorney who is authorized to practice law issuing COMPLAINTS for a third party.

 

            b. Payment of the alleged Debt you say I owe can not be made unless you provide the Certified Proof of Claim, U.C.C. 3-505(1)(c).  I would be glad to pay the alleged debt if you Present a Certified Proof Of Claim, signed by the victim under the penalties of perjury that there was a damage to either a person or property which I am liable for.

 

4. As an Officer, you must by law disclose the nature and cause of the charges of your MASSACHUSETTS UNIFORM CITATION # K2045369 under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 

5. I am also confused about why you even attempted to contract with me.  I am not the person named on the Presentment, and I do not have a Contract with the person making the presentment or his agency.  Please produce and present the contract bearing my signature making me liable for the alleged debt.

 

6. Attached is a representitive copy of my Private Demand In The Nature Of A More Definate Statement, dated March 3, 2002 (you have the original signed copy) that was sent to you on March 3, 2002 which you have not responded too.  Your timely response to the above questions and the original Private Demand In The Nature Of A More Definate Statement, dated March 3, 2002 will be a positive step by you to remedy your default and demonstrated bad faith.

 

7. Officer RICHARD VITALE has 5 days from date of receipt to respond to this request.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Michael Charles, La Mesa

 

 

 

 

NOTICE AND DEMAND

 

            The foregoing demand for a More Definite Statement is not to be construed as discovery, a traverse into any issue(s), a general appearance, a waiver of any rights, or in any way a motion or joinder to the Case or the Tribunal.

 

            Until such time as YOU answer the foregoing questions as to the Nature and Cause of the charges in the alleged charging instruments, the Demandant can only presume to know what the Nature and Cause is. The Demandant does not even know if the Demandant is the Party named in the charges set forth in the alleged charging instruments. Demandant cannot obtain any remedy based upon mere presumptions.  Presumptions do not lead to due process of law.

 

            Because of the exigent circumstances forced upon Demandant, YOU have five (5) days to respond to the forgoing questions.  If more than five (5) days are needed to respond, a reasonable extension will be granted You upon written request. Failure to respond within five (5) days from receipt hereof will result in a fault thereto and default therefrom.  A default will be construed as the best evidence of bad faith on YOUR part, and on the part of YOUR principles, councils, agents, and assigns, and evidence of YOUR own admission that continued process against the Demandant in This Case is Fraud, and exhaustion of Demandants administrative remedies. Default shall be construed as Demandant’s Right of Action and Cause of Action to seek Judicial remedy for denial of due process of law and abuse of process by an original action.

 

            All questions must be answered and certified under penalty of perjury as true, correct, and complete.  A non-responsive answer to any question set forth herein will be deemed a non-responsive answer to all questions.  All answers must be accompanied by certified true copies of all evidence upon which the veracity of YOUR answers depend.

 

            If the Person upon Whom This Demand for a More Definite Statement is served is not the Proper Party to receive This Demand, Demandant will presume that said Person will promptly notify the Demandant of the Name and Title of the Proper Party to Whom This Demand should be served, or that said Person shall bear the liability of forwarding it promptly to the Proper Party.

 

            Failure of any Officer Who has a fiduciary duty to serve the public to comply with this lawful Demand shall be admission of breach of fiduciary, and a Cause of Action for Demandant. The principle of “notice to the agent is notice to the principal” applies to This Demand, and also applies to any successors or assigns in the Above Case.

 

            If any response to This Demand raises new questions or new issues as to the Nature and Cause of the action in the Above Case, then Demandant reserves the right to amend and/or continue This Demand and the questions posed herein.

 

            If This Demand is not procedurally correct, then YOU shall notify Demandant, within the time allowed for response to This Demand, of the correct procedure.  Failure to comply shall be admission of YOUR acceptance of This Procedure.

 

            Attempts to compel, prior to Demandant’s receipt of the herein demanded Bill of Particulars, any act or action from Demandant that would prejudice Demandant’s rights set forth under the Laws of Our One True God, as recognized, honored, and upheld by the organic Massachusetts constitution, and the organic constitution for the united States of America, shall be construed as an attempt by the Respondent to withhold full disclosure of the Nature and Cause of the accusation(s) purportedly brought in This Case, and will make it impossible for the Demandant to Meaningfully respond to, plead, traverse to, or defend against any accusation(s) made, or process issued or caused to be issued by the Plaintiff.

 

            Further, failure to provide a true sworn, accurate, and complete Demand in the Nature of a More Definite Statement forthwith shall be construed as a failure to prosecute, a request to dismiss This Case and release the Demandant sine die, and constructive intent by the Prosecutor to enter a nolle prosequi by tacit procuration.

 

 

 

 

Signed this fourth day in the third month of the year of Our Lord, Two Thousand Two (March 4, 2002), at Bedford, Massachusetts.

 

 

 

                                                                        ___________________________________

                                                                                                            Christian Appellation

 

 

 

On this 4th day of March 2002, before me personally appeared Michael Charles, La Mesa, to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed.

 

 

 

 

                                                            ___________________________________

                                                                                                            Notary Public

 

 

 

Altho we're on the same team, and I support your
efforts, I'm in disagreement with the way you're doing
things and what you're suggesting. This is coming
from hands-on success and experience:

Number one, in NY, altho they *claim* traffic is
civil, it most certainly is NOT. One does not make a
"guilty/not guilty" plea into a civil matter.

Number two, one never ever files anything remotely
resembling a "motion" into an attempted prosecution.
To do so confers judicial discretion, hence
jurisdiction established. I've been over this in many
forums and people can and do disagree with me, but I'd
appreciate it if everyone gave it thought yet once
again; we are proving this to be conclusively true
with the wins we stack up. A motion IS a
discretionary instrument, period. Enter a motion, or
anything that can be *construed* as moving, and you're
sunk. You're offering judicial discretion. Keep a
judge duty-bound, NOT in discretion and immunity.

All one needs to do is demand the verified complaint.
Use FOILS. Use simple letters. Certified Return
Receipt. They need the verified complaint to move
forward in any criminal action. Once I receive that
(I never do), I come in for arraignment and probable
cause hearing, and am ready and willing to plea and
put myself in jail for the crimes I've committed, as
any honorable person would.

Without a crime having been committed, however, I
expect govt to stay out of my life.

Lastly, none of this then goes to an appeal when they
steamroll. That once again confers jurisdiction
successfully. A conviction rendered without
jurisdiction established is not a conviction, it is
void. To take it to an appeal is to assume that the
conviction is lawful, which it never was.

One needs to vacate the order, not ever appeal it. To
appeal is to defeat the whole point.

Consider the approach I'm suggesting. It makes sense,
and most importantly, it works because it has to; it's
the law.

Tim
law_wins@yahoo.com

--- "Ken (desco) Ramsey" <desco1kr@americainter.net>
wrote:

> Special Appearance:
> From my post; "Notice that no personal jurisdiction
> has been established
> hence no obligation to haul my body before the
> court. Supported by case
> law."
> Agreed that many attempt the "Special Appearance"
> then show their lack of
> faith in the filed "special Appearance" by dragging
> their stupid ass in
> front of the judge anyway. IF facing the judge, it
> is much easier for the
> court to presume personal jurisdiction and enforce
> it most often illegally.
> Do not walk into the courtroom, let the filed
> special appearance do the
> appearance.
> Ideally, the non-represented defendant has a copy
> that is stamped 'filed' by
> the court clerk to prove challenge. Mailed certified
> return receipt is also
> viable if long distance or refusal of the clerk to
> stamp the Motion to
> Dismiss.
> If you have not already done so, do a search on the
> phrase 'special
> appearance' in your state's case law.
> Since traffic is civil in your state, the use of
> special appearance should
> be easier to justify.
> Note also that the personal jurisdiction challenge
> is not a silver bullet to
> dismissal, but simply the first challenge. Personal
> jurisdiction can be
> cured by the corrected paperwork and service.
> IF the judge attempts to move forward, he/she does
> so in the absence of all
> jurisdiction thereby opening up a basis for suit.
> Additionally, the personal jurisdiction challenge is
> a dispositive motion,
> therefore should be ripe for an interlocutory appeal
> if denied.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: teaparty@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:teaparty@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
> Tim Scott
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:22 PM
> To: teaparty@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: Tea - Traffic law violation no a crime
> - Depends
>
> I agree with everything up to the "special
> appearance." I find it to be an old patriot tactic
> that rarely works.
>
> If it works for you, great. I personally wouldn't
> take the chance. Too much opportunity for them to
> sneak in appearance on the record with someone who
> isn't extra-sharp and fully aware of what's going on
> every single second in that court room in an attempt
> to acquire that Personam. It would be such a mess
> of
> a battle to try to make sure the record showed
> "special appearance," when witnesses for the court
> can
> and would insist otherwise.
>
> Other than that, I agree with everything you said.
>
> Tim
> law_wins@yahoo.com
>
> --- "Ken (desco) Ramsey" <desco1kr@americainter.net>
> wrote:
>
> > These forums have many lurkers that could and
> > sometimes do file paperwork
> > based on inappropriate information. It only takes
> a
> > simple notice that our
> > posts are based on "X" jurisdiction.
> >
> > A presumption is simply an ASS-U ME. :)
> >
> > Indeed a verified complaint is rarely if ever
> filed
> > for 'traffic citations'.
> > Additionally a 'citation' does meet the
> requirements
> > of a verified
> > complaint, that is required to initiate a criminal
> > proceeding. For starters,
> > the citation is not signed under jurat before and
> > officer of the court
> > authorized to take oaths. Even the 'citation' is
> not
> > properly served under
> > any rule of service, civil or criminal because the
> > LEO is not a
> > disinterested party. These failures deprive the
> > court of personal
> > jurisdiction IF properly challenged.
> > The presumption that jurisdiction is valid will
> > carry the case forward
> > unless properly challenged.
> >
> > Simply challenge by citing the appropriate rules
> by
> > way of special
> > appearance. The challenge by special appearance
> > serves to properly fulfill
> > the promise to appear. Notice that no personal
> > jurisdiction has been
> > established hence no obligation to haul my body
> > before the court. Supported
> > by case law.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: teaparty@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:teaparty@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
> > Tim Scott
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 1:35 PM
> > To: teaparty@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Tea - Traffic law violation no a
> crime
> > - Depends
> >
> > My statements are always made with the presumption
> > that the reader has some basic understanding of
> law.
> >
> > Of course state laws vary. That is a given.
> >
> > But even so, I'd be willing to bet that any
> > "violation" in TN/TX that does raise to
> misdemeanor
> > will not include a verified complaint, again
> making
> > it
> > void. There is a general theory of equal
> protection
> > that I'm willing to bet will apply to both of
> those
> > states as it can correlate to NY. We've found
> this
> > to
> > be the case in several other states. I have not
> > studied TN/TX personally.
> >
> > For the record, as defined in Black's law, a
> > "violation" is NOT a crime by definition. If a
> > state
> > attempts to raise a violation to a crime, it must
> > include a verified complaint.
> >
> > Tim
> > law_wins@yahoo.com
> >
> > --- "Ken (desco) Ramsey"
> <desco1kr@americainter.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > All traffic violations of state law in TN & TX
> are
> > > crimes. Municipal
> > > ordinances ore not.
> > > CA and some other states have decriminalized
> > > traffic. State laws vary so
> > > please do not make a blanket statement that is
> > only
> > > partly true.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: teaparty@yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:teaparty@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
> > > Tim Scott
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:54 AM
> > > To: Reality_101@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Tea - Re: KILL A COP AT A TRAFFIC STOP?
> > > LAWFULLY?
> > >
> > > The first link carefully addresses the most
> > > important
> > > aspect of a traffic stop: Where there is
> > *criminal*
> > > activity, and where there is not. Traffic
> > > infractions
> > > are not criminal. The only part where I see a
> cop
> > > overstepping bounds is in the part where the
> > supreme
> > > court allegedly grants an officer the right to
> > have
> > > the driver step outside the car at his whim.
> > >
> > > No problem...I'll step outside of it, but I'll
> be
> > > getting right back in. Full compliance.
> > >
> > > Note that not only in such an instance, but in
> > every
> > > other mentioned, probable cause is necessary to
> > > complete the usual round of anti-freedom
> behaviors
> > > (searching/seizing unlawfully). The rights of
> The
> > > People do remain intact, it becomes a matter of
> > > understanding where criminal jurisdiction is and
> > is
> > > not. In 95% of all traffic stops, it does not
> > > exist.
> > > Rights remain intact that can and should be
> > > exercized.
> > >
> > > In the latter link, the court takes the case
> > because
> > > it effectively attacks the wrong issue, creating
> > bad
> > > case law once again. The issue should've been
> the
> > > "investigative stop" aspect, NOT the "time of
> > > detention," being "excessive." What a great way
> > to
> > > create the wrong impression amongst the majority
> > of
> > > The People who do not study law nor understand
> it.
> > > The time of a detention is completely
> irrelevant;
> > > what
> > > matters is the fishing expidition, the most
> > > important
> > > aspect of the case that wasn't addressed.
> > >
> > > Thru this manipulation, case law gives the
> > illusion
> > > that certain inherent rights are forfeited in
> many
> > > instances. But even this case law, as lousy as
> it
> > > is,
> > > does reinforce the fact that probable cause of
> an
> > > actual CRIME must still exist.
> > >
> > > If officers are given full power to
> "investigate"
> > as
> > > they choose and at whim, they can and will find
> > > citations for any number of things. There are
> > > thousands upon thousands of "laws" on the books
> > > offering the opportunity for legalized
> > governmental
> > > revenue-raising extortion for just this purpose.
> > > Everyone can be cited for *something* when
> driving
> > > their car.
> > >
> > > But the all-important question remains: WHERE IS
> > THE
> > > CRIME???
> > >
> > > When The People learn how a criminal action is
> > > commenced and what is required of the government
> > in
> > > order to commence any action, we can learn how
> to
> > > stop
> > > waiving rights at every turn and stop
> volunteering
> > > to
> > > be randomly prosecuted for the government's
> > benefit.
> > > The traffic court machine depends upon this
> > complete
> > > waiver of rights, and full volunteering.
> > >
> > > As supreme court nominee Bork once said,
> "Everyone
> > > in
> > > jail, is in there voluntarily." I guess he
> would
> > > know.
> > >
> > > Tim

 

TRAITOR McCain

jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law

f.ck Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition

 

Hit Counter

 

Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party