Welcome
Welcome to SuiJurisForum.com --- You are currently viewing our boards as a guest. Members of this FREE Community are able to gain access to write capabilities, private messaging, a chat room, extra forums, and more!

***If you decide to Join our FREE Community... then DON'T FORGET to PASS/SKIP the multiple ADVERTISEMENTS during Registration that ask for Phone Numbers!! ***

Maine law and court cases prove that I need no registration.

Discuss right to travel in the world and Public highway.

Re: Maine law and court cases prove that I need no registrat

Postby country_hick » Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:01 pm

Shoonra wrote:When an amateur opts for pro se participation in a court case, he takes on the responsibilities that would have fallen to his attorney - this means, among other things, his has to file pleadings and papers within the proper deadlines, and according to the proper formats, and the pleadings have set forth all the requirements (evidence, authority, logic, etc.). He doesn't get the kiddie menu, he's expected to keep pace with the grown-ups in the room. And when an amateur insists on performing surgery, the surgical procedure doesn't make itself extra-simple out of consideration for his lack of training, either.


Are you saying that not being legally trained I could not get clear and effective communications from the Court? That without that I was unable to benefit form the Court trial? I agree. Those are A.D.A. violations.

I applied evidence, authority, and logic. The Court ignored separation of powers under Maine's constitution. It ignored "all civil suits" when it previously declared that all is used in the most inclusive meaning of the word all.

How can the constitution saying gold coin is required be misunderstood? Plain language is plain language. A debt is a debt. The requirement was never doubted until 1933. Until 1964 silver coin was still minted.

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 US 218 - Supreme Court 1973
That which is simple, orderly and necessary to the lawyer, to the untrained layman may appear intricate, complex and mysterious.
To preserve the fairness of the trial process the Court established an appropriately heavy burden on the Government before waiver could be found—"an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege."
As Mr. Justice Harlan once wrote: "The sound reason why [the right to counsel] is so freely extended for a criminal trial is the severe injustice risked by confronting an untrained defendant with a range of technical points of law, evidence, and tactics familiar to the prosecutor but not to himself.

When my learning disability got in the way of properly understanding what rules of court say and require the state has an obligation to provide me enough assistance to benefit from and understand their rules. See Title II of the A.D.A..

I do not receive communications as effectively as BAR members do from Maine statutes and Court rules. That ineffective communication violates my A.D.A. rights. My learning disabilities require simple and concise communications. Statutes use the language of the Court a language which is incompatible with the language I normally use as the definitions are very different. I find such communications incomprehensible without interpretation into plain language. Despite having looked up some legal definitions I can not be expected or required to act as my own interpreter. I can not be expected to hire a lawyer at my expense for the sole purpose of having that lawyer act as an interpreter to help me understand the confusing and incomprehensible communications presented by the State of Maine in its written communications which may include statutes and rules of Court.

Any time I ever quote someone I copy and paste exactly. Any editing I do I believe to be fair.
There is a reason that LEO has a new meaning: Legally Entitled to Oppress. Thanks to Bob Livingston for this one.

Williams v. United States, 341 US 97 - Supreme Court 1951
It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 US 54 - Supreme Court 1795
Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied
User avatar
country_hick
Freeman
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 46 time

 

Re: Maine law and court cases prove that I need no registrat

Postby Shoonra » Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:43 pm

The court gives you the option of having a lawyer or going pro se.

If you are a criminal defendant, it is very possible that a lawyer will be provided at no cost to you, and it often turns out that these public defenders are very skillful and effective. (And, if you are a criminal defendant, it also helps if you are innocent.)

If you are involved in a civil lawsuit, there are legal clinics, usually associated with lawschools, where you can get advice and possibly the assistance of an advanced law student under his prof's supervision. There are also, in some communities, various legal clinics available through the local bar association (and, no, 'bar' is not an acronym for anything). Ask around.

There is a very good reason why law school takes at least 3 years and has lots of exams. The generality is that amateur lawyering is about as effective as amateur doctoring.

If you insist on going into court without a lawyer, nobody is going to take the responsibility of dumbing down the proceedings for you because that will only open up wide vistas of appeals based on "they didn't explain ALL the details to me in simple language."
/ Shoonra
"Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft."
First Samuel 15:23
User avatar
Shoonra
Statist
 
Posts: 5063
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:14 am
Location: suburban Maryland
Has thanked: 20 time
Have thanks: 207 time

Re: Maine law and court cases prove that I need no registrat

Postby country_hick » Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:20 pm

There was nothing available. Pine tree legal (low income help) exists but would not help with this type of issue. the ACLU would not help. The Portland law school was not interested. Big states may have more options. Maine has virtually nothing available. Maine does not even publish the steps a trial goes through. In short, the court is inaccessible by design. When I ask as an ADA request to have a rule explained to me and am denied that violates my right to clear and effective communications.
There is a reason that LEO has a new meaning: Legally Entitled to Oppress. Thanks to Bob Livingston for this one.

Williams v. United States, 341 US 97 - Supreme Court 1951
It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 US 54 - Supreme Court 1795
Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied
User avatar
country_hick
Freeman
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 46 time

Re: Maine law and court cases prove that I need no registrat

Postby Jethro! » Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:29 am

Shoonra wrote:The court gives you the option of having a lawyer or going pro se.

If you are a criminal defendant, it is very possible that a lawyer will be provided at no cost to you, and it often turns out that these public defenders are very skillful and effective.

As George Gordon aptly pointed out, the purpose of a public defender is to make sure you have no appealable issues. They are likely very skillful and effective at that.
Jethro!
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1279
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:23 pm
Has thanked: 209 time
Have thanks: 180 time

Re: Maine law and court cases prove that I need no registrat

Postby country_hick » Thu Mar 16, 2017 8:34 pm

It is time to file another ADA request with the court. I did not get meaningful communications from the written case decision.
The last part is true. I will use that if I do not get clear and effective communications from the court on this issue.

Title II of the A.D.A. in 28 CFR section 35 mandates that I receive clear and effective communications from which I can benefit. I need to effectively be told the reasons behind the courts decision. As an ADA request I ask to be told why my positions were “without merit” as that informs me of nothing I need to know the answers. My learning disabilities as recognized under the A.D.A. require clear and effective communications to provide me a benefit as required by 28 CFR section 35. I need to be clearly told the reason for my loss in the appeal decision. I need to be able to understand the issues. Not being told “why” I lost in a meaningful way I could understand after the original trial was a large part of why I appealed.

1 What basis did the court use to declare that articles III and IV of Maine’s constitution are without merit when determining which government branch must write the rules of court? I do not understand.

2.How could a charge be upheld that includes a “pickup truck” that did not have a registered weight on a current registration as required per legal definition? When I do not use my dodge ram primarily to carry property how could it be a truck per legal definition? How does improper registration not apply? How did Smith v Hawthorne not overturn Anton etc. decided previously? How does a registration fee schedule pointing to 29-A §504 have anything to do with an improper vehicle type being declared on a registration certificate? The issue raised was the §101 type not the §504 fee schedule. Does the court realize that commercial plates require a signature while pickup plates do not?

3. I need to have explained under the A.D.A. what I did not understand about 29-A M.R.S.A. §351 as I have received another ticket based on the same statute. As it is now when the judge asks if I understand the charge against me I must say no. Will this court enlighten me on what I did not understand about the statutes that I may properly understand them or must my next trial be stopped by my not understanding the statute?

4. Federal ADA law requires that I receive clear and effective language from which I can receive a benefit. Your decision left me even more confused about what 29-A M.R.S.A. §351 means after the appeal. As I have another 29-A M.R.S.A. §351 charge against me I must ask this court to explain what I do not understand about it.

5. A detailed analysis of where I went wrong in trying to understand 29-A M.R.S.A. §351 is needed. If I do not receive that analysis before it comes time for the new trial when I go to court the judge will ask me if I understand the charge. If I do not get a reply to this request I will be forced to reply… “No sir, the Maine supreme judicial court has declared that I do not understand the charge against me. As that court refused to tell me how and why I do not understand the charge I can not understand the charge sir. I only know that I do not understand the charge because the court told me I do not understand the charge. Not knowing why I do not understand the charge makes it impossible for the presiding judge to help me to understand the charge because I have no idea why I do not understand the charge sir. If the law court had told me why I did not understand the charge against me I might have been able to understand it but because I never got a response from the law court I am as clueless as to why I do not understand and why I do not understand it. Judge, would you please contact the law court to have them explain what I do not understand as they would not explain it to me?”

Can you make sure to avoid the necessity for the above conversation with a judge by having 29-A M.R.S.A. §351 explained to me from this decision so that I may understand the charge? I would hate to have to use this precedent to prove I do not understand the charge against me.

Not to be included for the court as they are presumed to know the law. The applicable law is below.

28 CFR
§35.130 General prohibitions against discrimination.
(a) No qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any public entity.

(b)
(1) A public entity, in providing any aid, benefit, or service, may not, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, on the basis of disability -
(i) Deny a qualified individual with a disability the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service;

§35.150 Existing facilities.
(a) General. A public entity shall operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.

§35.160 General.
(a)
(1) A public entity shall take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with applicants, participants, members of the public, and companions with disabilities are as effective as communications with others. (Rules of court are written by BAR members for Bar members. With my learning disability I am not as effectively communicated to as to those BAR member “others”.)
(b)
(1) A public entity shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford individuals with disabilities, including applicants, participants, companions, and members of the public, an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a service, program, or activity of a public entity.
There is a reason that LEO has a new meaning: Legally Entitled to Oppress. Thanks to Bob Livingston for this one.

Williams v. United States, 341 US 97 - Supreme Court 1951
It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 US 54 - Supreme Court 1795
Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied
User avatar
country_hick
Freeman
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 46 time

Re: Maine law and court cases prove that I need no registrat

Postby country_hick » Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:18 am

I filed the 3 motions below about the completed case yesterday. Using the ADA in this manner is likely unprecedented. Telling me my argument was without merit did not benefit me. Telling me why it was without merit could benefit me. Having another ticket based on the same statute gives me serious leverage. I do not understand the statute so the court needs to allow me to understand the new charge or this case proves I do not understand the same charge brought against me once again. Case law proving that I do not understand a new charge against me creates a serious problem for the court. Yes, this approach will likely **** off the justice who reads it but I already lost so what difference can an unhappy justice make at this point?


I (NAME)present this ADA motion to the law court regarding (CASE NUMBER) determined on (DATE)2017. Reply address: (ADDRESS).

Title II of the A.D.A. in 28 CFR section 35 mandates that I receive clear and effective communications from which I can benefit. I need to effectively be told the reasons behind the courts decision. As an ADA request I ask to be told why my positions were “without merit” as that informs me of nothing. My learning disabilities as recognized under the A.D.A. require clear and effective communications to provide me a benefit as required by 28 CFR section 35. I need to be clearly told the reason for my loss in the appeal decision. I need to be able to understand the issues. Not being told “why” I lost in a meaningful way that I could understand after the original trial was a large part of why I appealed.

1 What basis did the court use to declare that articles III and IV of Maine’s constitution are without merit when determining which government branch must write the rules of court? I do not understand.

2.How could a charge be upheld that includes a “pickup truck” that did not have a registered weight on a current registration as required per legal definition? When I do not use my dodge ram primarily to carry property how could it be a truck per legal definition? How does improper registration not apply? How did Smith v Hawthorne not overturn Anton etc. decided previously? How does a registration fee schedule pointing to 29-A §504 have anything to do with an improper vehicle type being declared on a registration certificate? The issue raised was the §101 type not the §504 fee schedule. Does the court realize that commercial plates require a signature while pickup plates do not?

3. I need to have explained under the A.D.A. what I did not understand about 29-A M.R.S.A. §351 as I have received another ticket based on the same statute. As it is now when the judge asks if I understand the charge against me I must say no. Will this court enlighten me on what I did not understand about the statutes that I may properly understand them or must my next trial be stopped by my not understanding the statute?

4. Federal ADA law requires that I receive clear and effective language from which I can receive a benefit. Your decision left me even more confused about what 29-A M.R.S.A. §351 means after the appeal. As I have another 29-A M.R.S.A. §351 charge against me I must ask this court to explain what I do not understand about it.

5. A detailed analysis explaining how I misunderstood 29-A M.R.S.A. §351 is needed. If I do not receive that analysis before it comes time for the new trial when I go to court the judge will ask me if I understand the charge. If I do not get a meaningful reply to this request I will be forced to respond… “No sir, the Maine supreme judicial court has declared that I do not understand the charge against me. As that court refused to tell me how and why I do not understand the charge I can not understand the charge sir. I only know that I do not understand the charge because the court told me I do not understand the charge. Not knowing why I do not understand the charge makes it impossible for the presiding judge to help me to understand the charge because I have no idea why I do not understand the charge sir. If the law court had told me why I did not understand the charge against me I might have been able to understand it but because I never received a meaningful response from the law court I am clueless as to what I do not understand and why I do not understand it. Judge, would you please contact the law court to have them explain what I do not understand as they would not explain it to me?”

Will the MSJ court avoid the necessity for the above conversation in district court by having 29-A M.R.S.A. §351 (1) and (6) with §101 legal definitions applied clearly explained to me according to this decision so that I may understand the charge? I do not wish to have to use this case law as precedent showing that I do not understand the §351 charge that is once more filed against me.





I (NAME)present this ADA motion to the law court regarding (CASE NUMBER) determined on (DATE)2017. Reply address: (ADDRESS).

I missed finding Arnheiter. Based on this newly found evidence I present the following for consideration leading to a change of decision about trial by jury for a traffic infraction civil suit.
Arnheiter stated “We ruled precisely to the contrary in State v. Anton, 463 A.2d 703 (Me.1983), and we find no reason to depart from that authoritative precedent.”
If the reasons for Anton not applying were missed by the court that completely missed the important parts involved I will explain some reasons to depart from Anton below.
1. The City of Portland v Depaolo case reversed the standard used to decide Anton. Moving the burden of proof for a civil trial by jury from the defendant to the state after Anton was overturned is the Maine Constitutional reason the court seems unable to comprehend. I previously erroneously believed that justices had honor and integrity. A decision based on a faulty foundation that has been subsequently removed and declared to be null and void is without merit.
2. Not committing perjury by your oath of office to uphold Maine's constitution, remaining within the Maine Constitution while not committing treason or sedition, applying the constitution to a wrongly decided case, and your desire not to continue perpetuating a fraud are all strong reasons for men and women of honor and integrity to depart from a case that was directly overruled without naming it 4 years later in 1987 by Depaolo. Only those who live without honor and integrity and/or that suffer from extreme mental illness or serious mental disability would fail to see these compelling reasons.
3. It is important for the people to have court justices that do not practice sedition and treason against the written will of the people of Maine put forth in Maine's Constitution.
4. Perhaps the biggest reason to follow Maine's Constitution as written is when the constitution of Maine is not applied precisely as it is literally written and was voted on the state steps outside of its corporate charter and then ceases to have any legal existence. The constitution was either fraudulently written and presented when put up to by the free white men who read it exactly as written and so voted to agree to the constitution exactly as written without exception meaning exactly what it says. If the constitution was presented based on fraud it is without merit. If the constitution does not mean what it says when it was voted on its adoption was based on fraud in the inducement. It therefore can have no merit or legal cognizance.
When the state does not abide by the written will of the people as shown in the constitution by providing those protections guaranteed by the constitution the state violates its duty and releases the people from their duty of allegiance and thus obedience to any law, regulation, or anything the state requires.
Luria v. United States, 231 US 9 - Supreme Court 1913
“Citizenship is membership in a political society and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. “
When I do not get compensation from the state which includes the protection of a trial by jury for a civil suit known as a traffic infraction and Maine ignores the protection that must be given to me by rules of court written by the legislative branch as they would be more understandable as reciprocal obligations then I can owe Maine no allegiance or obedience. When the contract is violated upon which membership in a political society is based by the party with more apparent power that contract ceases to have any authority or application to the other members with less apparent power. A contract which includes a constitutional corporate charter contract binds all or none. Once the corporation violates that charter it ceases to exist.



I (NAME)present this ADA motion to the law court regarding (CASE NUMBER) determined on (DATE)2017. Reply address:

The court did not respond to the due process violations raised. I need answers to those issues.
1. Can a judge remove the right to object for an entire trial by saying to a learning disabled man who is very literal based on a non-verbal learning disability that he can “speak later” which makes him wait to speak as required to object until the judge grants permission to speak again?
2. Can a man be forced to be part of a trial when he does not understand how a trial is supposed to work? The judge by presenting everything all at once at the beginning of a trial results in mental overload that results with no understanding.
3. When no evidence is provided at trial proving that registration requirements exist and apply how can due process be met?
I do not believe I was given fair notice of what was required by statute as the Supreme court said is required. My use not being primarily to carry property left me outside the statute. I came across new information in cases shown below.

Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 US 156 - Supreme Court 1972; This ordinance [or STATUTE] is void for vagueness, both in the sense that it "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute," United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 617, and because it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88; Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U. S. 242.

Living under a rule of law entails various suppositions, one of which is that "[all persons] are entitled to be informed as to what the State commands or forbids." Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 453. The poor among us, the minorities, the average house-holder are not alerted to the regulatory schemes and we assume they would have no understanding of their meaning and impact if they read them.

The state did not command registration when my dodge ram would not be used primarily used to carry property. How is that lack of notice not a due process violation? How does not meeting the legal definition of “pickup truck”, an important element of the charge not a due process violation? I believe federal courts will not agree based on supreme court decisions.

Screws v. United States, 325 US 91 - Supreme Court 1945; If a statute does not satisfy the due-process requirement of giving decent advance notice of what it is which, if happening,an opportunity to avoid the happening (see International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 216; Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 634; United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81; Cline v. Frink Dairy Co., 274 U.S. 445), then "willfully" bringing to pass such an undefined and too uncertain event cannot make it sufficiently definite and ascertainable.
Certainly these considerations of vagueness imply unconstitutionality of the Act.

State v. Chappell, 149 Ohio Misc. 2d 80 - Ohio: Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Court 2008; it is reasonable that a fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed. To make the warning fair, so far as possible the line should be clear."[70] [70] McBoyle v. United States (1931), 283 U.S. 25, 27, 51 S.Ct. 340, 75 L.Ed. 816 (Holmes, J.). Put another way, "[n]o one may be required at peril of life, liberty[,] or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes. All are entitled to be informed as to what the State commands or forbids."[71]
[71] Lanzetta v. New Jersey (1939), 306 U.S. 451, 453, 59 S.Ct. 618, 83 L.Ed. 888, citing Champlin Refining Co. v. Corp. Comm. of State of Oklahoma (1932), 286 U.S. 210, 242, 243, 52 S.Ct. 559, 76 L.Ed. 1062, 86 A.L.R. 403; Cline v. Frink Dairy Co. (1927), 274 U.S. 445, 458, 47 S.Ct. 681, 71 L.Ed. 1146, Connally v. Gen. Constr. Co (1926), 269 U.S. 385, 391-393, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 128, 70 L.Ed. 322, A.B. Small Co. v. Am. Sugar Refining Co. (1925), 267 U.S. 233, 239, 45 S.Ct. 295, 297, 69 L.Ed. 589, United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co. (1921), 255 U.S. 81, 89-92, 41 S.Ct. 298, 300, 65 L.Ed. 516, Collins v. Kentucky (1914), 234 U.S. 634, 34 S.Ct. 924, 58 L.Ed. 1510, and Internatl. Harvester Co. v. Kentucky (1914), 234 U.S. 216, 221-223, 34 S.Ct. 853, 854, 855, 58 L.Ed. 1284.
There is a reason that LEO has a new meaning: Legally Entitled to Oppress. Thanks to Bob Livingston for this one.

Williams v. United States, 341 US 97 - Supreme Court 1951
It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 US 54 - Supreme Court 1795
Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied
User avatar
country_hick
Freeman
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 46 time

Previous

Return to Travel

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

suspicion-preferred