after having only one drink in a bar with a buddy, i got pulled over, scared to give breath test the officer flipped, lied about everything in the report because i told him he was mistreating me. i live in washington and is there hope for a video and or audio to help me defend accusations this was a state patrol. thanx
-
Welcome to our legal community! Click here or the create new topic button to ask a question and receive answers and comments from our friendly and helpful legal community.
Articles that answer frequent legal questions are in our Law Guide. Important legal news is reported in The Law JournalYou can find a lawyer near you in the Lawyer Directory. If you know that you need to hire an attorney, you can submit a case review from a lawyer.
Alcohol & Drugs: DUI, DWI report written on a dui ALL LIES? (WA)
- Thread Starter dave1
- Start date
- Status
Scooterdog
New Member
Did you give the breath test? What are the lies he is saying? Do you have a copy of the report?
You can motion the court for discovery, some states you make a request, some you motion. Look into Wash. Crim. Procedures, it will be in there. If you make your request/motion, and there is a tape of some kind, they have to give it to you. (Usually, evidence like that will disappear to save the officer).
Cops are trained to lie and intimidate. They are the worlds worst on the witness stand, as you can get them to lie pretty darn easily.
If I had more information, I could dig deeper for you.
You can motion the court for discovery, some states you make a request, some you motion. Look into Wash. Crim. Procedures, it will be in there. If you make your request/motion, and there is a tape of some kind, they have to give it to you. (Usually, evidence like that will disappear to save the officer).
Cops are trained to lie and intimidate. They are the worlds worst on the witness stand, as you can get them to lie pretty darn easily.
If I had more information, I could dig deeper for you.
no did not give breath test. everything the officer wrote in the report excluding one or two sentances is a lie. Yes i do have a copy of the report ,it was sent to me when i requested a department of licensing hearing. when i read through it i was in shock. my public defender says there was not a video in the state patrol vehicle, i find that hard to believe. he also said he got me on radar going 60 , there is no way . how would i be able to obtain these two important things (video and radar info) seeing as i am not rich and cannot afford a hotshot attorney
Scooterdog
New Member
WOW. The crazy shit the "officials" pull.
Under what code/statute are you charged with as you gave no test??
You can make an affidavit as follows:
REQUIREMENT OF SWORN AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION
IN SUPPORT OF VERIFIED COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO U.C.C. 3-505(1)
NOTICE: to the arresting Officer and all prosecutors.
BE ADVISED:
The accused, whose name is: ___________________________ will require a VERIFIED COMPLAINT
pursuant to C.P.C. 853.9(b), C.P.C. 959(3) AND U.C.C. 3-505(1) ON CITATION
NUMBER _____________________ , DATED ___________________
Which verified complaint shall be required by the accused to be supported by a sworn affidavit or declaration executed by the arresting officer in support thereof; which affidavit or declaration shall allege under an "unqualified" statement under penalty of perjury the following:
I, __________________________________(arresting officer's name), declare that I am the arresting officer on Citation Number ____________________ dated __________________.
If called on to testify I would and could competently testify to the below stated facts, all of which are within my personal knowledge.
On (____________date) at approximately (______________) hours; pursuant to my duties as an officer with (agency); I had occasion to stop accused (__________________________name) and investigate accused for a violation of the vehicle code of the state of California.
During my investigation I "first" determined that one or more of the following indicia or conditions existed and that the accused was "in fact" engaged in one or more of the activities described on page 1 of Chapter 341 of the California Statutes at 706 (1923) and/or was "in fact" engaged in one or more of the following activities as described in 18 U.S.C. 31 below; and if called upon to testify, I can and will produce witnesses, evidence, and testimony in support thereof:
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
During my investigation, I determined that while engaged in the above activity, under the above conditions, accused (name) was in violation of the following:
Vehicle Code # ________________ # ________________ # ________________ # ________________
[ADDITIONALLY: List other pertinent conditions in support of probable cause to investigate and/or make a lawful arrest as noticed by the officer in justification for issuing a citation pursuant to C.P.C 853.5 or 6.]
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Under an "unqualified" statement pursuant to C.P.C. 125, I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to C.P.C. 126 that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated this _____ day of _____________________ 2000
______________________________________________
Signature of arresting Officer
___________________________________________
Signature of Notary or other Officer Competent
to administer oaths
NOTICE: You are advised that failing to substantially allege all of the above shall constitute a deficient complaint as filed under information and belief by any prosecutor, and shall further be deemed by the accused to be an invalidation of the verified complaint pursuant to U.C.C. 3-505(2) and a possible abuse of process and/or possible violation of 18 U.S.C. 241; mandamus will lie to effect specific performance pursuant to U.C.C. 3-505(1).
YOU ARE FURTHER ADVISED THAT: Failing to file a verified complaint with the affidavit or declaration as above described will be deemed by the accused to be an "invalidation" of both the presentment/citation and the verified complaint pursuant to U.C.C. 3-505(2), and shall constitute a possible admission of an abuse of process by the officer in possible violation of 18 U.S.C 242; and that the citation is prima facie evidence that a possible unlawful arrest was made without benefit of a lawful warrant and shall constitute an admission that the Officer's "probable cause" was possibly valid only for the purpose of obtaining a warrant of law "after" a proper presentation to a magistrate under oath or affirmation; and that the citation may be evidence that a possible false police report has been filed.
Reference section:
18 U.S.C. 31 Definitions:
"Motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and "used for commercial purposes" on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
Pursuant to Hale v. Henkel; to wit,
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State since he received nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, ... among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not tresspass upon their rights (Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74).
and:
GOOD FAITH CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE TO
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER(S)
AND ALL OTHER STATE POLITICAL TRUSTEES
You have just been duly served with legal process :
These documents have been submitted upon your demand for identification; drivers license; registration; or proof of insurance, and therefore, are part of the official record of any ensuing lawful action and must be introduced as EVIDENCE in said action. It will be noted that your willful suppression of any evidence is a felony per STATE STATUTE additionally all causes for action will result in prosecutions under FEDERAL LAW Titles 18, 28, and 42 U.S.C.
I DO NOT CONSENT TO YOUR DETAINING ME - - I AM NOT ENGAGED IN ANY REGULATEABLE ACTIVITY.
I AM NOT DRIVING COMMERCIALLY - - I AM NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE.
I AM NOT OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE - - I AM NOT SUBJECT TO ANY ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.
I AM TRAVELING BY RIGHT AS AN INHERENT HOLDER OF THE POLITICAL POWER ON THE PUBLIC WAY
WITH MY PERSONAL PRIVATE PROPERTY.
1. If you decide TO arrest, issue a citation, issue a summons or notice to appear, issue a warning ticket, UTT or other legal process to me, You are required by law to, properly Identify yourself, your authority, and the cause on pages two and three of these documents by filling in the ten (10) blanks with the mandatory information, then sign and date page two and attach these documents to your paperwork or legal process and deliver them to the court.
2. If you decide NOT TO arrest, issue a citation, issue a summons, issue a warning ticket, UTT or other legal process, you may simply return these documents to me unsigned and continue to enjoy a nice day.
3. "The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he upon their rights does not trespass ." Hale vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74-75 U.S. Supreme Court
4. I AM NOT A "PERSON". I am a Sovereign Man and I deny all your alleged jurisdiction over me. See : ARTICLE 1 SECTION _____________________ CONSTITUTION ; U.S. v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315 ; Scott v. Sandford,Mo., 60 U.S. 393. "... the Right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed." Second Amendment U. S. Constitution and Article 1 ___________ Constitution At this time I am invoking my Right not to incriminate myself. Fifth Amendment U.S. Constitution ; Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) and Article 1 of the_____________ Constitution .
5. Unless you can now state a probable cause for continuing to detain me, or present a signed, lawful (not defective or colorable process) Fourth Amendment warrant, or formally arrest me for a specific and articulate COMMON LAW misdemeanor or felony crime committed by me, you MAY NOT SEARCH OR DETAIN me or my property.
6. I DEMAND that you unseize me and let me now FREELY proceed or take me immediately before a magistrate charged with the proper subject matter jurisdiction. ARTICLE 1 of the
_________________ CONSTITUTION.
7. This GOOD FAITH NOTICE was presented in an effort to remove false presumptions in the instant matter, to now disregard the undisputed facts herein evidences BAD FAITH on your part and constitutes prima facia damages.
Last edited:
Green_Hornet
New Member
Take your pick, RCW 46.61.502 RCW 46.61.5249 poster don't try to file some bogus motion as spamerdog implies it wont work.
maybe this will work but it stated the state of California a few times and i live in washington that might change things a bit and i do belive they go by RCW code anyway my charge is reckless driving and dui. driving under the influence and the crazy thing is that they put me on pre trial supervision and are forcing me to take ua's urinalysis tests prior to me going to trial and being convicted of anything . Innocent until proven guilty , i think not. would i be able to obtain the info i need without a spendy lawyer?
Scooterdog
New Member
Those are supreme court rulings, or the court can call it concurent if it's an equal court. You need to look up WA Constitution, and place the correct #'s there. I live in Montana, and it works for me.
The Aff. being the same. You simply cross-reference, or find the case that is similar. If you can't find it, the form would do no good, as you will be questioned on it. If you understand it, and defend what you file, they will probably want a plea agreement, or drop charges. You won't know unless you try.
Listening to someone telling you "that won't work" is clearly a drone. No, It's not attorney procedure, but it is procedure. The only law above constitutional is contract, you have a right to contract unlimitted. Everything you do is a contract, from the gas station, to the bills you pay. The government is the same way in some respects. Some "laws" are contracted to, which are not really "laws" at all. Once you grasp that, and see how they constantly want you to agree or sign something, it is to give away rights.
The Aff. being the same. You simply cross-reference, or find the case that is similar. If you can't find it, the form would do no good, as you will be questioned on it. If you understand it, and defend what you file, they will probably want a plea agreement, or drop charges. You won't know unless you try.
Listening to someone telling you "that won't work" is clearly a drone. No, It's not attorney procedure, but it is procedure. The only law above constitutional is contract, you have a right to contract unlimitted. Everything you do is a contract, from the gas station, to the bills you pay. The government is the same way in some respects. Some "laws" are contracted to, which are not really "laws" at all. Once you grasp that, and see how they constantly want you to agree or sign something, it is to give away rights.
Green_Hornet
New Member
Dave this guy is a complete idiot besides citing California law he citing the U.C.C (U.C.C. 3-505(1)) which is the Uniform Commercial code. Which deals with the law governing commercial transactions,and negotiable instrument.This is a criminal charge the U.C.C is completely irrelevant. Get an attorney,and take his advice.
Last edited:
Green_Hornet
New Member
Not only is this totally irrelevant its bad law. Hale is a 1906 case dealing with contract that was overturned as soon as the Clayton act as well as the Federal Trade Commission act both passed in 1914. If you listen to this guy the judge will give you 90 observation at Western State. The more you research Spamerdogs posts the more comical they become. Most people just scroll past it as spam,but if you look at what he is actually saying. Dude don't have clue.
Last edited:
Scooterdog
New Member
The authority of the prosecutor is vested unto him by the Constitution, which also limits the jurisdiction of his authority. The Constitution of the United States of America and all state constitutions are common law 'civil' instruments.
Under the provisions of our Constitution, all public office holders and people elected to or appointed to positions of public trust, including prosecutors, must take an oath of office. The oath of office is a contract between the office holder and the people, whereby the office holder swears to uphold the constitution, the law and the duties of his office. All contracts are civil. The prosecutor holds office and derives his power under the provisions of civil instruments, such as the Constitution and his oath of office, and any challenge to the power or jurisdiction of the prosecutor must be made by means of a civil instrument or document. A civil challenge to the authority or jurisdiction of a prosecutor in a criminal court or any other court, is the only legal avenue available to the people in making such a challenge.
Under the provisions of our Constitution, all public office holders and people elected to or appointed to positions of public trust, including prosecutors, must take an oath of office. The oath of office is a contract between the office holder and the people, whereby the office holder swears to uphold the constitution, the law and the duties of his office. All contracts are civil. The prosecutor holds office and derives his power under the provisions of civil instruments, such as the Constitution and his oath of office, and any challenge to the power or jurisdiction of the prosecutor must be made by means of a civil instrument or document. A civil challenge to the authority or jurisdiction of a prosecutor in a criminal court or any other court, is the only legal avenue available to the people in making such a challenge.
Scooterdog
New Member
............
Last edited:
Green_Hornet
New Member
1. True
2. False an oath is not a contract. Contract law is irrelevant.
3. False The Constitution is not a contract.
4. Authority False.Jurisdiction True.
Spam that sounds good is still Spam,now lets get back to YOUR WRONG!
Scooterdog
New Member
1. I know it's true, it's all true, you are just ignorant of law, I will explain.
2. An oath can be defined as:
Certainly appears to be a contract.
3. Who said the constitution was a contract? There you go again, making things up. The Constitution is a civil instrument based on common law. I don't know what you're crying about here.
4. Nice opinion.
Green_Hornet
New Member
Say what read you own post spamerdog,or did you just cut and paste it off the John Birch Society website?
Poster it should be clear that Spamerdog does not have a clue,he believes an oath is a contract,and you can cite the U.C.C to question the courts authority. Do you see how this wont work,you don't have to know alot about the law to see how silly,and non scenical this guy is.
Green_Hornet
New Member
deleted....
Scooterdog
New Member
Thats because it is an "agreement"(the oath). It is a contract. GH will never overcome that. They take the oath, promising us (we the people) to perform their duty. IT really is simple. No matter how you look at it, it falls under the deffenitions of "contract". Contracts go back to the biblical days.
Agaiin, I never said the CONSTITUTION was a contract. I said, and for the last time" the constituions is a civil insturment, based on common law. Now, a stupid person would say" Gee, if a contract ia civil instrument, then all civil instruments are contract". Wrong! The constitution is a civil instrument. It surely isn't a criminal instrument.
Here is what an oath looks like:
Lets see, if we promise to do something for something in return(employment), what do we call that?? CONTRACT.
The Oath Of Office Index for the 110th Congress measures the extent to which our Senators actually support and defend the Constitution in their legislative actions. How many times have they violated the oath? Look it up.
Wrong again. You are challanging the public servant authority, not the court. Those are two different arguements. Nice try though.
Last edited:
Green_Hornet
New Member
1. No. Oaths do not deals with employment (Such as being sworn in under oath),when an oath is violated. There are serious criminal implications involved,not just the office holder loosing a job. Perjury charges,UCMJ proceedings etc,etc. When a contract is violated it is civil proceeding. The U.C.C is liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which are: (1) to simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; (2) to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement of the parties; and (3) to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions.
When I make a commercial transaction at let say Sears there is no judge with a bible making me swear an oath I will make payment on said item.
2. If they have not been prosecuted for it. The answer is never.
3.Dumb ass the prosecutor is a recognized officer of the court. You can not challenge his authority through a motion citing the U.C.C. its that simple. You can try it the judge will dismiss it,as frivolous. A real attorney would be sanctioned possibly disbarred for it.
You seem to be under the impression since the moderator of this website let's you introduce spam,the courts have to as well. The court is not an Internet free for all,the judge controls the court room,what evidence is introduced,and what motions will or will not be granted. The Spam motion you laid out for the poster would not be entertained,its that simple.
Last edited:
Green_Hornet
New Member
To my knowledge there are no lawyers on this site.
Scooterdog
New Member
I can't make heads or tails of that bable. An "oath" is a "promise" is a "contract".
The funny thing is, I provided deff. from both Black's and Bouvier's and dummy don't recognize these books that judges read. LOL
Every agreement is a contract. Each public official swears to an oath, and files, pluss pays a bond. When you file a civil action challenging this, you also file a lien against the oath. This exludes the servant from working. (I did just hsi, and have a front page of new paper to prove it, unlike the jag off preaching his/her opinion) They are now out of office.
I beat an entire city and pd, all by myself. I heard all this before, the same crap GH is spreading. In my state, this person would be charged with a crime. No evidence, speculation, renagade of the contstitution, no back ground to back up all the bs, distortion of fact(obstruction of justice)
Hell, I would put that worm in the ground so far, we would ever wonder if GH ever exsisted.
- Status
Share this page
