Thank you, Admin.

Have fun Sir, what else there is left anyway ? :-D

We have returned ... no positive outcome. We didn't kick arse as expected. We identified ourself as a 'MAN' and who reserved all rights. That's as far as we were allowed to proceed. We were told to leave and the case would be heard, in absentia, against the 'PERSON'. They cannot deal with a 'MAN', but only a 'PERSON'. We have another hearing on Friday, but not for the same case as today ... consequently, it will just be the same shit, different day. Prosecution will have to SUMMONS the PERSON, which, we being a MAN, we cannot accept. This will probably continue ad nauseum.

did you forget to open with "without prejudice"? I reserve ALL rights, and accept NONE of the benefits... For the Record... the Person is on Record with the State as Surety in this matter as evidenced by the birth record (and submit/hand to the security guard [he knows what to do with it, watch for eye/facial gestures] a notarized copy of the birth certificate)? then following with as I am the only party with jurisdiction, I hearby accept your offer to settle this matter outside, case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction... and walk out, LOL

Scott. I am beginning to think that it is all about them "getting paid". So far, all the "court" cases that I am hearing, they NEVER admit they do not have jurisdiction. I am slow, It seems the only purpose for forcing the case to be heard is they are securing payment.

, but,

and i think you ought to get the birth certificate lein in trust before they come after the person with a warrant

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF SPECIAL RESTRICTED APPEARANCE, a NOTICE OF AMICUS CURIAE and an AFFIDAVIT FOR AN AMENDED NOTICE OF MISTAKE (the AMENDED NOTICE OF MISTAKE is attached as an EXHIBIT to the AFFIDAVIT). I have seen the notice of mistake where is the other documents at I would like too read them please thank you.

Cara, its all presumed (until rebutted), and all accounting so yes.

So NEVER ignore any attempted contracts...

@David Johansen. We could not get that far. We only got to identify ourself as the 'MAN' known as Colin and we reserve all rights. The magistrate then said that we can go as we are not the PERSON mention in the charges and the hearing would continue, in absentia.

I'm not sure that's a bad thing Colin...If they're saying that they want to deal with the person (Which is an account they created) & they acknowledge that it's not you, then what do you care what they do in absentia if it's not you...just so long as down the track they don't try & join you with the person again

@Stuart. In theory, Stuart, yes. However, our driving licence remains suspended.

You're in Australia aren't you Colin?

This is part of the Roads Act for NSW: Roads Act 1993 No 33 Current version for 1 March 2012 to date (accessed 26 January 2013 at 06:08) 5 Right of passage along public road by members of the public (1) A member of the public is entitled, as of right, to pass along a public road (whether on foot, in a vehicle or otherwise) and to drive stock or other animals along the public road. (1A) The right conferred by this section extends to the right of passage of members of the public in a light rail or other railway vehicle. (2) The right conferred by this section does not derogate from any right of passage that is conferred by the common law, but those rights are subject to such restrictions as are imposed by or under this or any other Act or law. (3) For example, those rights are subject to such restrictions as are imposed: (a) by or under the road transport legislation within the meaning of the Road Transport (General) Act 2005, or (b) by or under section 72 of the Crown Lands Act 1989 (Cultivation of enclosed roads). If they have suspended your licence, then they don't want you hauling stuff around in your vehicle for their company anymore...unless you rely on that licence for your livelihood, can't you utilise your right of passage privately?

As you are the only party with standing they have no authority to continue without your consent. You are the lawful holder of the PERSON and have full control of it. You could have asked for them to show evidence of the authority they were acting on or given them custody of the PERSON by dispositioning the BC... As far as I know... I think the fact that you didn't object to them proceeding may be construed as your consent and as you are still the lawful holder of the PERSON then you may be liable... I don't think the fact that they acknowledged your not being the PERSON helped as obviously you (man) cannot be a security...

"we can go as we are not the PERSON mention in the charges" and so you then said, So Am I then FREE to go? Will you put that to writing and make sure you specify the docket #, and make sure everyone present witnesses it (autographs)...

so you have an issue withthe DL being suspended, which you dont need to have anyways. but never the less it exists. so you write an affadavit, notarized, send copies to the party who gives permit to 'drive' and specifically recind any/all presumtions of their even having been a lawful contract agreement and that you specify that they remove all refference to the name, address, all numbers, from their records AND to provide you withthe copy of the details of them having performed such with notice that if they do not get that data back you you that your presumtion of that fact has been remedied within 30 days, then send them notice of the 30 days having passed and all presumptions of their never having been a lawful contract between the parties has been expunged. (because they probably wont send you anything).

remember you should include any remedy, and the ability to carry out everything you want lawfully, on paper, notarized, with the expectation that they will never write to you.

In Massachusetts, operating without a license is a 100$ non criminal fine. which is much easier to discharge as their is no money...

never say you are a resident or a citizen, or anything else. let THEM say everything and REBUT IT IMMEDIATELY! I AM NOT OPERATING, doctors operate. I am not DRIVING, their are NO passengers or CARGO being transported FOR ANY FEE. everything is my private property. NAME, BADGE #, Insurance BOND,... freedom of information act of 1974 states I have the right to know what ANY information you request from me will be used for BEFORE i reveal ANYTHING to you.

the only thing you are is a man

THEFT of private property results in loss of protection under color of law making the officer a common criminal conducting a felonious act which you have the right to protect and defend against.

when pirate officers interfere with my freedom of movenment I always ask is there an emergency? or a breach of the peace? he then says no you violated such and such...where is your license? then i say What do I need a license for I am not doing business today. I am just in actual possession of my private(personal) property; no commercial driving or operating is taking place here.

etc... etc... then notify him of more things ask for his oath or has he taken one does he have a business card? and then they proceed to call back up to potentially kick my face in lol or be a peace officer and be wise to let me go because civil infractions can be attacked as RICO violations.

and actually the "towing companies are the ones that have to be attacked for "conspiring to deprive us of our rights under color of law authority" for towing our vehicles while conspiring with police officers such being STATE ACTORS. These attacks can be initiated in federal courts under title 18 USC and title 42 USC.

officers can act under "color of law" also however its harder to prove such behavior.

Colin S Tonks I applaud your effort, after I was lied to by an assistant clerk of the court about my next appearance date a few weeks ago I guess the warrant for my arrest has finally been issued bailable for 10% of 10,000.00 (1,000.00). These jerks want to make it tough and I need to get organized real quick, my goal is to get the warrant and case dropped without appearing ( I appeared 3times so far).

@Stuart. 1_Yes, we are a Queenslander although born in Sydney. 2_Sect 92 of the 'Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900/01' states that we have free right of use to road and waterways. 3_Interestingly, the licence which we hold belongs to the Qld Dept Transport, not us. It is a corporate licence and we are not that corporate person. They cannot issue and charge for a licence to use something that is constitutionally free to use by right.

If there is an order to seize your vehicle and you are present when the tow truck arrives, make sure you are buckled up inside the locked car ... if the tow truck driver continues to tow your vehicle, he can be charged with kidnapping.

Scott has posted before that a/the MAN cannot be seen/heard in LAW. A BELLIGERENT/PEOPLE on the other hand, yes, but that there is some gamesmanship with the Judge that goes along with that first in order for that to occur. He's also posted in my case to ask, something in regards to - "What CONTEXT of PERSON does the court/Crown believe me to be here in today? (i.e. there's LOTS of definitions of PERSON out there)

In hind sight to what occurred yesterday. Perhaps we could have been more successful in, ultimately, having the cases dismissed if, after denying being the PERSON, we would have began with: We are here as the MAN known as Colin and 'in behalf' of the accused PERSON, and we exercise all rights. Does Scott have any comment to that?

Colin, its all accounting, they need the account "name" to do any business. You are not supposed to be there. They don't "see" a man. You should be a "friend of the court" there to "help resolve this matter", if anything.

It is meant to be 'in behalf' and not meant to be 'on behalf' ... there is a serious difference.

No, they don't SEE a MAN. Whether in behalf or on behalf... its ACCOUNTING

drop the man shit

@Beverly. We know the court can't see the MAN. We were told to go because we denied being the PERSON. The magistrate had a document of ours, a NOTICE OF AMICUS CURIAE, on file. However, as the magistrate shut us down immediately, we could not get it mentioned 'on record', together with the other 3 documents they had on file.

I think Scott's comment would be- "Did you start-off by blurting-out as soon as the Judge began to speak- 'POINT-OF-ORDER'.....?"

We could not accept or acknowledge being the PERSON, as the PERSON's name was a creation of the State and, therefore, they own the name, which makes them the trustee and surety for the PERSON.

but you showed up as a "man" in lieu of the PERSON... then denied the PERSON, so the PERSON didn't show up.

I agree with Derek, if you are going to show up. Otherwise, send in your paperwork before the court date so they can prove their claim. Its best to settle out of court.

"Point-of-order...barring any objections from the court...as i am the only party with any standing in this matter...at this time i wish to RESERVE ALL RIGHTS, now...are there any objections from the court...?" (this is what i remember from off the top of my head, alot more to this though)

We came up for mention 3 times, but when questioned, the magistrates denied reading any of the filed documents ... well, so they said.

Pretty much. I think it would depend on the CONTROVERSY itself. If its just a traffic thing, you are there as a friend of the court.

Yes Derek. We could not blurt-out 'POINT OF ORDER' ... we were told to leave.

Yes, we were there as a friend of the court (AMICUS CURIAE), but we could not get that mentioned on record.

these things MUST be blurted out right at the beginning. Did you say "I am here as a friend of the court to help resolve this matter"?

One other personal issue was that this was the 1st time ever for us to be in court. We were extremely nervous and shit-scared, all of which was not conducive to our anxiety disorder (GAD) and depression.

Yes Beverly, we did do that, but the 'beak' just told us to leave.

We will get a transcript to see what was actually said.

Yah, that doesn't help. They will really try to intimidate you unless you know the exact thing to say... A friend of mine went in for photo-radar ticket and wouldn't "be" the PERSON, had 5 thugs surrounding him. Good thing he knew enough to say "forgive me" to back up...

"... amici curiae are generally organizations with sizable legal budgets." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae

We surmise that the Beak read all the filed documents and realised our plan of attack (defence), so wanted to get rid of us ASAP, knowing they would lose their case and, hence, revenue, their objective.

I am guessing they want to see that you know what your paperwork is about and enforcing it verbally. They could be copies of someone else's stuff also. Like Dean says, "Did you get my paperwork? Did you READ it?". He enforces it.

"An amicus curiae (literally "friend of the court") is someone who is NOT a party to a case"

Derek, a solicitor advised the use of the term, AMICUS CURIAE.

If you just hand it to them and sit there hoping everything will go away, that is just not going to be that easy. Otherwise everyone and their dog will just copy/paste stuff and live "happily ever after"

COLIN TONKS = party... BAR Association with sizable legal budget, LIMITED Liability Partnership = NOT a party, so, who has the most rights and more importantly, who is the ONLY party with any STANDING in your case?

We realise they will use every dirty filthy tactic available, even if it means [legal] psychological abuse and assault, to break ppl down.

"...a solicitor advised the use of the term, AMICUS CURIAE." = CONSIDER THE SOURCE

That would be why you send them your paperwork ahead of time, demanding their proof of claim. That way you don't stand there, shrinking to 1/50th of your size (Fred Flintstone style) in front of them...

Scott has mentioned "friend of the court" before.

Yes, he has. But only in trying to explain why it is that WE have the ability to reserve all rights in court. 'Friend of the court' = they can only offer their BELIEF, and OPINION, nothing more. Therefore they are NOT a party, and therefore have NO STANDING in the case.

Yah, gotcha.

We thank you all, most sincerely, for your valuable input and constructive criticism :-)

We think it may well have been Scott who recommended 'AMICUS CURIAE' a few months ago. At least we have time to amend and rewrite our notes for Friday's hearing.

..notice Colin, that Scott clicked 'Like' on what i mentioned about 'Friend of the court'/Amicus Curiae ;)

Yup

Hey, this is off topic but since this is where the attention is... what happened to Pierre's Tribe Name post?

He killed it. Pussy :P

You gave him AUTHORITAH?

Fucks the Puppy! I slay me :D

THAT THREAD WAS PRICELESS

shit

my makeup was ruined for the day because of that

No, it was his post. He asked for a name, and he got one. It seems he does not see quality when it's in front of him.

Oh, so anyone can delete their posts?

I did well, then. :D

Cause if Pierre gets AUTHORITAH... we're screwed!

He's what I'll use as a "Self-destruct" for the group if/when needed.

He won't mind... until he has thouts

Beverly, our concern is not to identify with or acknowledge being the PERSON, hence the use of MAN.

As Scott Duncan says, in some very specific circumstances, Pierre would be VERY useful with AUTHORITAH ! :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbZBb2HOEbs

I wish I could like that more than once Pierre Donkey Feather ;-)

:/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEk9xNrH7gs

the use for "friend of the court" Amicus Curiae here is pretty much only with family related issues like child support cases here in the states, that's use on a common level, now an amicus brief submitted by a non-party to a case is different and usually done by some organization with an interest.

Update of Tues hearing. Convicted in absentia (of the PERSON)

Accommodation party