Respond to:
Charles Timothy: Sowers
to be called for in general delivery
Camp Verde Post Office
Camp Verde [ZIP code exempt]
ARIZONA, USA
All Rights Reserved
without Prejudice
Superior Court of California
San Francisco County
Charles Timothy: Sowers, ) Case Numbers: MCN 1930003
) SCN 180092
Cross-Plaintiff, ) SCN 314418
)
v. ) VERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT
) FOR QUIET TITLE RELIEF,
State of California, ) DECLARATORY AND
City and County of San Francisco,) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
Does 1 thru 100, ) AND DAMAGES:
) JURY DEMANDED
Cross-Defendants. ) California Constitution (1849)
_________________________________) (first impression)
COMES NOW Charles Timothy: Sowers, Citizen of Arizona State, expressly not a citizen of the United States (“federal citizen”), and Cross‑Plaintiff in the above entitled action (hereinafter “Cross‑Plaintiff”), to petition this honorable Court for quiet title relief, declaratory and injunctive relief, award of damages, and all other relief which this Court deems just and proper, under the circumstances which have occasioned this petition.
See 16 Stat. 419, 426, Section 34 (1871); 18 Stat. 325, 333, Section 1891 (1873).
The Proper Parties to this action are Cross-Plaintiff Charles Timothy: Sowers and Cross-Defendants State of California, City and County of San Francisco, and Does 1 thru 100 as yet unnamed.
Cross-Plaintiff hereby verifies the existence of a bona fide controversy over title to the private properties itemized as follows:
(a) one 1994 Honda Civic 4-door, color of gray;
(b) one original Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin (“MCO”);
(c) one California license plate enumerated 3VQV154;
(d) one annual registration sticker affixed to item (c);
(e) $4,580.00 in Federal Reserve Notes; and,
(f) miscellaneous chattel property (see evidence locker).
Title to item (a) supra (the “car”) is clouded because the original purchaser was defrauded by the first new car dealer, acting contrary to Law and in collusion with Cross-Defendant State of California.
Title to item (b) supra (the “MCO”) is clouded because said MCO was conveyed unlawfully to the Department of Transportation (“DOT”), an agency of Cross-Defendant State of California. Cross-Plaintiff alleges that the MCO, or a reasonable facsimile of same, is presently in the custody of the DOT.
Title to item (c) supra (the “plate”) is clouded because the previous unlawful conveyance of said MCO to the DOT resulted in creating a controlling legal interest in the car in favor of Cross‑Defendant State of California.
Said conveyance was not fully disclosed to the original buyer, nor was the controlling legal interest now disputed by Cross‑Plaintiff.
Title to item (d) supra (the “tag”) is clouded for reasons identical to the reasons why title to the plate is clouded.
Title to item (e) supra (the “cash”) is clouded because the Cross-Defendant City and County of San Francisco has now filed papers and miscellaneous documents into Clerks’ docket number SCN 314418 supra, variously styled PETITION FOR FORFEITURE IN REM.
Said papers and documents allege a property right in said item, when no such right, title, or interest exists in favor of any named Cross‑Defendants.
Title to item (f) supra (the “stuff”) is clouded because Cross‑Defendant City and County of San Francisco currently has custody of same, but without any right, title or interest in same.
Cross-Plaintiff was under no obligation whatsoever to any named Cross-Defendants, by virtue of any valid contract or commercial agreement, whether written or verbal, whether expressed or implied in fact. No such contract or commercial agreement exists, from which any obligation might arise.
Moreover, Cross-Defendant denies that any such obligation ever arose under operation of Law, because none of Cross-Defendants’ claim(s) to items supra have any basis in Law.
Cross-Plaintiff denies ever having damaged any property(s) of any named Cross-Defendants, and Cross-Plaintiff denies ever having injured any Person(s) employed by, or associated in any way with, any named Cross‑Defendants.
Cross-Plaintiff seeks specific relief from this honorable Court, declaring, as a matter of Law, that the display of the plate on the car, while moving on the common roads and highways, does not give agents of either Cross-Defendants State of California or the City and County of San Francisco probable cause to stop the car; or, to search the car, the contents of the car, or the Person in control of the car; or, to arrest the Person in control of the car, for apparent violations of traffic control signs, absent a verified complaint of damage or injury.
Cross-Plaintiff also seeks specific relief declaring, as a matter of Law, that the absence of a plate on the car, while moving on the common roads and highways, does not give agents of either Cross‑Defendants State of California or the City and County of San Francisco probable cause to stop the car; or, to search the car, the contents of the car, or the Person in control of the car; or, to arrest the Person in control of the car, for apparent violations of traffic control signs, absent a verified complaint of damage or injury.
Moreover, Cross-Plaintiff seeks relief declaring, as a matter of Law, that Cross-Plaintiff was under no obligation at any time to obtain a California Driver’s License (“CDL”), and that His failure to produce a CDL, when requested to do so by the arresting police officer(s), arose from Cross-Plaintiff’s lawful exercise of His fundamental Rights to privacy, liberty, freedom of movement, freedom of contract, and pursuit of safety and happiness.
Accordingly, Cross-Plaintiff’s failure to produce any CDL during the routine traffic stop in question, did not give the arresting officer(s) probable cause to search the car, to search the Person in control of the car, or to search any of its contents.
Exercising a fundamental Right is not, and cannot ever be equated with damage to property or injury to people. They are mutually exclusive. The exercise of any fundamental Right cannot be converted into a crime, ever.
Cross-Plaintiff alleges that the practice of conveying MCO’s to the DOT is uniform throughout California State, upon first sale of new cars and trucks. This practice is unlawful, for failing to give the first buyer an option to acquire the original MCO, and for creating a colorable and controlling legal interest in said cars and trucks in favor of Cross-Defendant State of California, without full disclosure of same. Confer at “fraud” and “novation” in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856).
Accordingly, Cross-Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction barring Cross-Defendant State of California from requiring MCO’s to be conveyed from new car dealers and from new truck dealers to the DOT, upon the first sale of any new car or truck.
Thus, all statutes which appear to mandate this conveyance are necessarily unconstitutional, ab initio.
For all of the above stated reasons, also including unspecified acts and omissions committed heretofore by employees and agents of all named Cross-Defendants, and all as yet unnamed Does 1 thru 100 inclusive, Cross-Plaintiff alleges actual damages in the amount of two million five hundred thousand dollars in lawful money, for fraud, unlawful conveyance, trespass of liberty, false arrest of movement on the common ways, unlawful search and seizure, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, racketeering, malfeasance of office, grand theft, extortion, perjury, impersonating a State officer, deprivation of fundamental Rights under color of law, and possession of stolen property.
Cross-Plaintiff also alleges damages in consequence of their unlawful conduct, an amount to be determined by lawful jury verdict.
Cross-Plaintiff also alleges punitive damages to be assessed by lawful jury verdict.
Cross-Plaintiff also seeks costs of this suit, including also costs to retain lawful assistance of Counsel.
I, Charles Timothy: Sowers, Cross-Plaintiff in the above entitled matter, hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). See Supremacy Clause in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended.
Dated: April 10, 2001 Anno Domini
Signed: /s/ Charles Timothy Sowers
____________________________________________________
Printed: Charles Timothy: Sowers
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
(see UCCA 1207 in par materia with U.C.C. 1-207)
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Charles Timothy: Sowers, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age, a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and that I personally served the following document(s):
VERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR QUIET TITLE RELIEF,DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND DAMAGES:JURY DEMANDED
by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class U.S. Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to:
Office of Attorney GeneralState of California1300 “I” StreetSacramento 95814CALIFORNIA, USA Office of the District AttorneyCity and County of San Francisco850 Bryant Street, Room 300San Francisco 94103CALIFORNIA, USA Dated: April 10, 2001 Anno Domini Signed: /s/ Charles Timothy Sowers _____________________________________________________Printed: Charles Timothy: Sowers