Category Personal Defense

Next Saturday, April 12, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.,  I’ll be giving a seminar in Chico, California.  We’ve arranged for the talk to be video taped and broadcasted live.

I’m going to be talking about the Constitution and how the legal system works today in America.  We will be covering various defenses and tactics that can be used to protect rights in the courts.

An understanding of the system generally can help people prepare for their own individual cases and help people understand why things go the way the do in court.

I’m going to answer all the questions so start thinking of some basic ones that you have so you can best prepare for a police encounter or an appearance in court.

There are a number of things that are happening in the lives of some individuals that cause them to be confronted by the executive power of the constitution, namely the police power.

What people are finding is that these “powers” of the executive are not following their own rules and regulations.  What is the next step when one is confronted with these challenges that seem to require an action or response?

There are many directions that one may proceed, so lets start with the broadest angle we can perceive and work toward the best or most logical action that we can take.

First, we can either proceed under the legislative power (inferior courts) or the judicial power (one supreme court).

The legislative power, which is what the police are enforcing and proceeding by, through illusion, give certain remedies to the defendant such as demurrer, trial, appeal, mandamus, cert. etc.

The problem with these remedies is that they are a “copy” of some of the remedies that are available under the judicial power of the constitution.  The remedies when attempted to be used in the legislative court are generally denied because the inferior court will not give a remedy that can only come from the judicial court.

So what I’m saying is that I believe we must proceed under the judicial power and not the legislative or executive process.  This means that regardless of how true or correct we are in an argument, it will not be heard in the case that they are bringing against you.

From this perspective, it means that in order to obtain a remedy against the legislative and/or executive powers, we must file a separate civil action in a judicial court.  If this is the answer, it would explain why everyone who moves in “their” court gets denied!

So, what needs to be filed in the judicial court that is going to stop them?  In my opinion, an injunction along with a common law complaint is the “action” that needs to be filed.

One further comment that needs to be made is that the “complaints” filed by police or other agents are not “actions” as defined by the rules of court.  They proceed by “special proceeding” every time.  There is only one action at law and that is Civil.

Hi everyone,

The upper court, appellate department of the superior court, overruled the suppression order (page 1, page 2) by the judge in Cassondra’s case.

After winning a motion to suppress, the district attorney appealed the case and just yesterday we found that the order was overruled and the appellate court found that because the officer said he smelled marijuana, that was enough “probable cause” for the officer to take out of the defendants pocket, a baggy, and search for anything illegal.

This decision shows me that once a court is given “discretion”, they can do whatever they want, unless, the upper court decides by their own “discretion” that the lower court was in error.

So we still have a chance if we appeal this decision to the appellate court in Sacramento, and if they like us, and/or they don’t like the appellate department Judges in the county court, they can use their “discretion” and overturn the decision.  I think we and the district attorney would then have one more chance, and that would be at the State Supreme Court.

I can tell you right now, that ain’t happening.  Why, because it takes too much time, energy and money to do all that work, and in the end, it’s a crapshoot.

This decision also tells me that the demurrer and mandamus is the way to go and may be the only way to go.  We will have to wait another week or 10 days to see how that “theory” works out.  For now we must take this decision and deal with it, however it gives me the idea that if the constitution is still in effect, we should prevail in the end upon a jurisdictional challenge.

There is a lot of talk about “trusts”, the birth certificate, “attachments”, “jurisdictions”, and other “legal” arguments or discussions when people are discussing the different ways to fight a traffic ticket.

A lot of these theories come about because people presume, conflate, convolute, and just simply misunderstand the language that is used in the legal community.

Almost every “patriot” argument begins with one or more of the above but it is usually a false presumption that there is some hidden attachment or contract that is in effect.  I do not want to delve into these theories or even determine if the are valid or not.  I want to start with the premiss that there are NO hidden issues or contracts and that all we have before us is a “ticket,” which loosely translated means a “complaint”.

All the marbles are on the table, so to speak, and the law allows us to determine, based upon the face of the complaint, whether we wish to “demurrer” or “plea”.  The law further provides that the demurer is the method of challenging the authority of the court to hear the case, based upon one or more of five separate grounds.

If one fails to interpose a demurrer, then any challenge to the face of the complaint will only be allowed if that challenge shows that the court lacks jurisdiction of the case or that the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a public offense.  Those challenges can be raised at any time, but only by the proper procedure!

If one goes past the demurrer and pleas, the trial and the evidence will be all that is left to fight the ticket, although there may be procedural hurdles that the court may run into and if they do not meet those, the case may be dismissed.

So it’s demurrer or plea.  All challenges to the jurisdiction of the court must be made by demurrer, motion in arrest of judgement or void judgement (these other two motions are in the nature of demurrer).  If you try to raise these issues after you have pled, other than by the motion in arrest of judgement or void judgement, the court will not hear your arguments, even if these arguments are 100% true, which they may be.

The court does not hear theories or what ifs and does not answer questions that are not directly related to the process.  You must know the elements of your own demurrer and what it is that you are challenging in the complaint.

You can either challenge the complaint or plea.

It should become obvious, to the freedom fighter, that the best move is the demurrer first, because it is the only (nothing is in stone when it comes to the court process, except maybe the notice of appeal, which must be filed within 30 days of the judgement) and most effective way to show that the court lacks jurisdiction because the complaint fails to state a public offense.  If you loose that, you can do a mandamus but you will still have the opportunity to enter a plea.  If you plea first, you waive your opportunity to demurrer.

When we take this perspective, we need to examine the complaint to find what fact is missing that is necessary in order for the complaint to state a public offense.  More than 80% of the “criminal” complaints filed, lack a necessary fact or element to establish a public offense.

Instead of doing research on how we were all hypothecated to the international banks by way of the birth certificate, social security number, licensing contracts, adhesion contracts, presumption, the all capital letter guys, the abbreviation of the state or this state, and the zip codes,  let’s look up the following words; demurrer, public offense, elements of a complaint, standing to sue doctrine, and other related terms so that we will be able to show the insufficiency of the complaint and thereby preclude the entire case from going into the court.  If they can’t start a case against us they can’t control and revenue us.

I recently was successful with a motion to suppress evidence in a case involving a woman named Cassandra who was charged with possession of a controlled substance.

I met Cassandra just before she was to have a trial so I was unable to put in any motions or make any type of pre-trial move.  I told her to tell her story just as she had told it to me because it seemed like a sound defense.

As it turned out, she convinced three people to vote not-guilty and the jury was hung.  Her story was basically that she loaned her pair of pants to her girlfriend who was the one who left the “drugs” in the coin pocket of her pants.

After this the assistant D.A. decided to refile the charges and this gave me the opportunity to file a motion to suppress.  The motion was heard on September 12 of 2013 and the ruling is found here.

After the ruling, the deputy D.A. decided to appeal the decision of the judge and the hearing on appeal is set for January 31, 2014.  Stay tuned!

Zeke is Interviewed By SGT Reports and Discusses How Courts Work, Rights and Money!

Think of the Constitution as a tool.  This tool does not grant you or anyone rights, and it is not self activating.  It can be used, in a court proceeding, to enforce the bill of rights, which is attached to the Constitution, and as an equitable remedy it can be enforced by an individual without an attorney.

Some people feel the Constitution has no power, and for them and those who feel that way, it doesn’t!  Remember, it is just a tool.  The knowledge that government power is separated for the benefit of the individual is a concept most recently explained in the Supreme Court case Bond v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2355, 180 L. Ed. 2d 269 (2011) [2011 BL 158313]

“The federal system rests on what might at first seem a counterintuitive insight, that “freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one.” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 758 (1999). The Framers concluded that allocation of powers between the National Government and the States enhances freedom, first by protecting the integrity of the governments themselves, and second by protecting the people, from whom all governmental powers are derived.”

In this particular case, the Court is referring to the separation between the federal system and State systems, but the federal system is also separated from the National system by way of the “Separation of Powers Doctrine” which the understanding of has been skewed for hundreds of years since it was referred to by Madison as the secret to the Constitution.

Once we understand how these powers are defined and that each branch (power) is separate and equal in relationship to the other, we can began to see how remedies are created that “enhance freedom” and “protect the people”, as was intended by the framers.

The first two powers, or branches of government, are legislative and executive in which representatives are elected and compose the administrative or democratic side of the government.  The judicial power, or branch, is a Court (the one supreme court), set up for each individual to redress his/her grievances and is the national (as opposed to federal) or republic side of the government.  Do not assume that this is the supreme court that congress and the presidential power (federal) enacted two years after the constitution was ratified.

The three powers are designed to represent the three positions of a criminal court in that the prosecutor represents the statutory scheme set up by congress.  The second position (president) or executive power is represented by the judge, magistrate or referee, leaving the third power (judicial branch) represented by the defendant who has equal power to the other two branches.

It is important to understand that the Judicial Power or third branch of government is a Court!  It is the “One Supreme Court” (as opposed to the ‘inferior’ supreme court created by congress under the judiciary act of 1789) and extends to all cases law and equity….  This court can be convened at any time by the Chief Justice (you).

The last Power Politics class session went very well. We discussed a very important case, Bond v. U.S., the Standing Doctrine, the 10th Amendment, and the concept of Federalism. This has been a very illuminating and informative experience for all who have attended and we are excited to continue this coming Tuesday, March 20, 2012 at the Butte County Library on E. 1st Avenue. For this session we will be conducting “Mock Court” and “Mock Traffic Stops” and answering all questions that arise. Should you be missing these courses, we will eventually be publishing them on DVD’s to be purchased. Hope to see you!

Hi Everyone,

The second class turned out very good and we have another one on Tuesday March 13, 2012 at 12:00 p.m. at the Butte County Library on First Avenue. Last time we talked about all the different approaches to defending tickets, starting with the officer, the court, and the D.A…. Next week I plan to cover more on the ‘standing issue’ and discuss the major points of the Bond case. This will all be recorded and released in case you are unable to make it in person.

Albeit short notice, we have just reserved the Butte County Library in Chico for our first Power Politics class to be held on Tuesday, February 14, 2012 from 12:00 AM to 2:00 PM.

This is going to be a historical, knowledgeable and resourceful event which you do not want to miss. However, if you do miss it, there will be a DVD recorded that you may obtain and view later.

Bring an open ear and any of your questions!