Motion to dismiss Traffic Ticket on US Constitutional grounds

Subject:

Comments:
: Here is the letter to the Texas Attorney General, : demanding exhibition of all lawful statutory and : constitutional authorities whereby new car dealers : are compelled to convey the MSO to the State DOT: : : [begin NOTICE AND DEMAND] : Office of Attorney General : Attention: Mr. Dan Morales : State Capitol Building : State of Texas : c/o USPS Post Office Box 12548 : Austin 78711-2548/tdc : TEXAS STATE : Subject: Lawful Authority(s) to Convey MSO [sic] : to Texas Dept. of Transportation ("DOT") : Dear Attorney General: : Formal NOTICE AND DEMAND are hereby served upon your : office, to exhibit a certified copy of all lawful : legislative and/or constitutional authority(s), : if any, by which new car dealers within Texas state : are compelled to convey the original Manufacturer's : Statement of Origin ("MSO"), (also known as the : Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin), into the : permanent possession, control, and custody of the : Texas Department of Transportation, upon the first : sale of a new car or truck within Texas state [sic]. : See the Tenth Amendment, in chief; also, 31 CFR : 51.2 and 52.2 ("State" and "state"). : Said certified copy(s) must be delivered to the : following United States Post Office no later than : 5:00 p.m. (17:00) on May 31, 1998, via first class : United States Mail, no signature required: : Supreme Law Firm : Attention: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : c/o general delivery at: : 2509 North Campbell Avenue, #1776 : Tucson 85719/tdc : ARIZONA STATE : See USPS Publication #221 for the proper format to use : with foreign addresses. We reserve the Right to refuse : U.S. mail which is not properly addressed, and thus : not properly served. See Daly v. The National Life : Insurance Company of the USA, Indiana Supreme Court : (1878), paraphrasing: Congress can only create a : private corporation in its capacity as the legislature : for the federal zone. : Thank you very much for your immediate consideration, : and timely cooperation. Your silence in this matter : will activate estoppel, pursuant to Carmine v. Bowen, : and constitute fraud, pursuant to U.S. v. Tweel. : Full citations are available in Gilbertson's OPENING : BRIEF in the Supreme Law Library at Internet URL: : http://supremelaw.com/library : Sincerely yours, : /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, Federal Witness, : Private Attorney General, and Candidate : for the U.S. House of Representatives : copies: The Internet (see below) : litigation files : p.s. I have redacted your email address : from copies of this message which : have been forwarded to the Internet, : to discourage abuse of your privacy. : [end NOTICE AND DEMAND] : : : : : A Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction : : is normally considered a special appearance, : : because it is a plea to the original jurisdiction : : of the court. It is NOT a "general appearance." : : If you are still in doubt about your position : : at present, refile a clerical update, nunc pro : : tunc, and put "In Propria Persona" in the : : upper left-hand area of the first page, : : right below your name. Confer at the : : definition of "In Propria Persona" in Black's : : Law Dictionary. Also, make it clear that : : the one appearing is making a special : : appearance, in the very first paragraph, : : as follow: : : COMES NOW John Q. Doe, Citizen of Texas state, : : expressly NOT a citizen of the United States, : : appearing specially and NOT generally, to submit : : certain clerical updates to this honorable Court, : : and to provide formal Notice to all interested : : party(s) of same. : : The following clerical updates are made nunc pro : : tunc, back to the date of original filing, of the : : pleading(s) now modified as follows: : : [enumerate changes here] : : etc. : : Respectfully submitted, : : /s/ John Q. Doe, Sui Juris : : : : All courts have enough power to determine, : : on their own, or on motion, whether or not they : : have original jurisdiction to proceed. You do : : NOT grant jurisdiction by appearing to litigate : : this question. : : Notice also that federal court complaints MUST : : specify the Act of Congress which grants : : original jurisdiction to that court, because : : federal court jurisdiction is presumed NOT to : : exist unless positive, affirmative proof is : : shown in the initial pleadings. The opposite : : is generally the case in state courts, however. : : Traffic courts are usually administrative : : tribunals, with administrative law judges : : presiding, who are there to enforce the : : contract consummated between the State and : : the "driver," when that "driver" applied for : : a "driver's" license and was granted the : : privilege(s) for which that driver applied. : : What these traffic courts are generally NOT : : geared to discuss, is the State's deliberate : : failure to disclose the legal interests which : : that State obtained, when the manufacturer's : : statement of origin ("MSO") for your car/truck : : was conveyed from the first seller (e.g. the : : new car dealer) to that State's Department : : of Transportation. The way to smoke out this : : MSO is to bring a Quiet Title action in the : : court of competent jurisdiction; this, however, : : is generally NOT the traffic court. Confer : : in your State's constitution to determine : : which court(s) have original jurisdiction : : over quiet title proceedings. : : You can either move the traffic court to : : transfer your case to the quiet title court, : : or start the quiet title action in parallel, : : with a request that the traffic court "stay" : : its proceeding, pending the outcome of the : : quiet title proceeding. If the traffic : : court denies either motion, you are in a : : great position to request leave to appeal : : such an interlocutory order. You must carry : : the burden of proving that the State committed : : fraud upon you, by unlawfully conveying the : : car's MSO to the DOT. This is done by : : attacking the constitutionality of the statute(s) : : which so direct the dealers in your State. : : We submitted a NOTICE AND DEMAND to the Texas : : Attorney General, for all lawful constitutional : : and statutory authorities compelling dealers : : to convey the MSO to the DOT; his silence has : : allowed us to estop the State of Texas on this : : point, namely, THERE IS NO LAWFUL AUTHORITY : : TO CONVEY THE MSO FROM THE FIRST SELLER TO : : THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. : [see above for text of NOTICE AND DEMAND] : : In any event, you MUST deal with the : : contract which the driver entered when s/he : : "applied" for the issuance of the license : : (read "permission to exercise a privilege"). : : Be prepared to rescind that "license" in : : writing and filed in the court record; : : otherwise, the existence of an apparently : : valid driver's license, will give the court : : all it needs to establish jurisdiction over : : the contract which it is convened to enforce. : : The rule here is this: equity is brutal. : : If there is a contract, either express or : : implied in fact, the court has power to : : enforce that contract's terms, whatever : : those terms might be. But, a fraudulent : : contract can be voided ab initio, and all : : Citizens enjoy the Right of Avoidance, : : namely, the Right to ignore a "contract" : : which was consummated by fraud. See the major : : affirmative defenses in your State Civil Code : : (e.g. fraud, duress, undue influence, mistake, : : etc.) for statutory authority supporting the : : Right of Avoidance. : : : : Sincerely yours, : : /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : : Counselor at Law, Federal Witness, : : Private Attorney General, and Candidate : : for the U.S. House of Representatives

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: