Re: Motion to dismiss Traffic Ticket on US Constitutional grounds

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Dot on July 13, 1998 at 10:23:15:

In Reply to: Traffic Ticket posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on April 29, 1998 at 22:38:29:

My husband appeared in court to debate whether the court had jurisdiction over him. The judge then stated that my husband was: "granted permission to file legal motion to dismiss on US Constitutional grounds." This is to be filed on 7/15 and according to the "Court Order:" the "State must/may reply by
7/29/98. Legal hearing set for time/date given above" which is 8/4.

Perhaps his mandate sounds great on the surface, however what I have studied is that a plea will automatically bring you into their jurisdiction and also a "general" appearance (he made this in error of not knowing the legal term of appearance) as opposed to "special" appearance. -- Therefore, I have a suspicion that this motion to dismiss has some undercurrents. Therefore, instead of doing the motion to dismiss, we did a Notice to Withdraw Motion to Dismiss --- That the objection was that the court jumped forward without the matter of jurisdiction ever being determined -- Bypassed his right to counsel and due process. We also added in the notice of my husband's status of being a free and natural man, not a 14th
Amendment citizen or a legal fiction person created by the state, his rights, etc. -- That he was rescinding his driver's license and any other instrument that connected him to this so-called complaint due to fraud. They were to be terminated and any benefits he would receive from such are to he waived, forfeited and rejected thereon. Also, we made a demand that the court file a written declaration proving the existence of jurisdiction and cause to even hear this case.

A copy of the rescission will be attached.

We're finding it is very difficult to regain your rights -- However, once you know who you really are, it is very difficult to compromise.

This so-called Motion to Dismiss surely sounds like a benefit to me -- Or am I wrong and reading more into it than is warranted?

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]