Civil Case. Can I challenge a plaintiff's claim SERVICE? Never lived at the address where Sheriff came...?

Question

Hi. I lived in Los Angeles until 2004, when I had to move back to my native country for health reasons, leaving my credit cards debts behind (approx. $16,000). Before leaving, I went to the Post Office to have my mail forwarded from my last residence to a friend's address in L.A.. In 2006, my friend moved out, but he knows the current tenant at the address I had my mail forwarded to.
In Nov. 2006, I moved from my native country out to Puerto Rico, where I'm living... VERY poorly.
Last week, my friend from L.A. called me to tell me the police came to his previous place to serve a Plaintiff's Claim to me. The current tenant TOOK the papers, thinking they were destined to my friend's mother!!!!!!!!
On the L.A. Superior Court website, my case summary shows that everybody believes that I live in L.A.at this address, and the court hearing is scheduled in one month. Can I challenge the Claim's service with the Clerk's Office before the hearing? Or could a "Motion to Quash" help? Thanks ++++:)

Answer 1

Yes, you can challenge the service of process as being defective -- based on the fact that it was not given to a member of your household -- the fact that the person who took the service is not related to you and is not your friend (or your agent) means that it wasn't valid service.

The tricky bit is challenging the service of process in court without appearing before the court -- which would grant the court jurisdiction over you. You can have an attorney "specially appear" on your behalf to challenge the jurisdiction and challenge the service of process -- such "special" appearances are different than a general appearance which grants jurisdiction.

Answer 2

There are some methods you can use to try to have the service be found to be ineffective, but in the end, none of it really matters to you. You borrowed money from the credit card company and you either can't or don't want to pay it back right now. The court will eventually find you liable for the money and a judgement will be filed against you, whether you could be found to file service or not. If you ever desire to borrow money again from a source that checks such things, you'll eventually have to clear the debt or declare bankrupcy. But in the meantime, nothing substantially different will happen to you based on you having been served or not served these papers.

You owe the money, the credit card company will get the judgement anyway. And meanwhile, you running around trying to get out of it is causing the costs of collecting on the debt to go up, which means that everyone else has to pay higher rates when they borrow money.

Do the right thing and stand up and say you are sorry but you cannot pay much right now, but you will pay what you can and clear up the debt eventually. Or file bankrupcy.

The rest of us do not deserve to have costs increase because you are running away from your debts and obligations.

Answer 3

you can not challenge the service of process, the reason for this like you said you went to post office to list that addy as your residence. Also, the current tenant should have refused the service of process, in a fact that tenant took possession of those legal documents on your behalf.

Answer 4

this is a lots of information I hope it fits here, it it don't email me and will send it to you and you need this anyway so you will know who you really are. it would be better if I could you mail you the CD I put it on. You are a Moor, a desendant of moorocans born in America

Charge from Black's Law De Luxe Dictionary 4th Ed.

Commercial Redemption

CHARGE, v. To impose a burden, duty, obligation, or lien; to create a claim against property; to claim, to demand to accuse; to instruct a jury on matters of law. To impose a tax, duty,k or trust. Ex Parte Horn, D.C.Washl, 292 F. 455, 457. In commercial transactions(which is what we are all in with dealing with them), to bill or invoice. George M. Jones Co. v. Canadian Nat. Ry. Co., D.C.Mich.14F.2d 852, 855.

There are other definitions with the word CHARGE, n. in Black's Law, however, since we are speaking about the verb, I will leave the definition above.

John, you are someone who's work and research I have and do respect. I will give you this simple formula, as sometimes we all forget how simple this truly is..............We are all presumed to be in commerce, and in commerce rules. Where's the contract(aka agreement), where's the meeting of the minds(fictions don't have minds), where's the equal consideration, where's the injured party, where's the competent fact witness?

Now, by looking at the above definition of Charge, the verb, we see that in commerce it is simply a bill or invoice. Where does a bill or invoice get its origination? when services(contract) have been agreed upon. Bill Penal is the bill for a traffic ticket. Look at the definition in Blacks Law:
BILL: 7. In the law of contracts
An obligation; a deed, whereby the obligor(signor) acknowledges himself to owe to the obligee(alleged police officer of the political subdivision/municipality/agency) a certain sum of money or some other thing. It may be intended or poll, and with or without a penalty.
--Bill penal. A written obligation by which a debtor acknowledges himself indebted in a certain sum, and binds himself for the payment therof, in a larger sum, called a "penalty." Bonds with conditions have superseded such bills in modern paractice. The are somtimes called bills obligatory, and are properly so called; but every bill obligatory is no a bill penal.

Now, lets look up invoice and see what Blacks says:

INVOICE. In commercial law(of course it is). A list or account of goods or merchandise sent by merchants to their correspondents at home or abroad, in which the marks of each package, with other particulars, are set forth. Now here is the one I like best...........A list sent to a purchaser(us), factor, coconsignee, etc., containg the items(privileges charged for such as speeding, running stop sign, blah, blah, blah), together with the prices and charges of merchandis sent(our privileges of driving in commerce and the cost of doing something like speeding, etc.) or to be sent to him(property rights such as the state converting a right into a privilege and charging a fee for it!). The bottom line is this is all commerce, all contract law, and all about selling property(rights). You sign here, and we have agreement, so why are you whining.........that's the way I see it. The alleged peace officers in squad cars are pulling us over and selling us property, which is you can speed, but you must pay, you can run a stop sign, but you must pay.

Rebut the presumption that you are in commerce, rebut the presumption that you have contracted with the state/city/county, rebut the presumption that you have agreed to purchase this alleged property.

please read very carefully.........

24. The purpose of litigation is to arrive at truth and to render justice.
Buckskin Joe's, Inc. v. Ashton, 396 P.2d 933 (Colo. 1964). When the results
obtained are devoid of truth and lacking in justice a reversal and retrial
may be warranted. Id. C.R.C.P. 8(b) outlines procedures to be followed in
pleading defenses. Id. The rule contemplates an answer that speaks the
truth. Id. When an answer, or portions of an answer, has no foundation in
fact then C.R.C.P. 11 has not been complied with as it should be in all
pleadings and the answer should not be filed. Id. If an answer is lacking in
truth it should not be submitted to the jury as a part of the issues to be
resolved. Id. Pleadings are relied upon to frame the issues prior to trial
and to protect the adversary from surprise. Southwestern Supply Co. v.
Rostek, 1971.CO.40494 ¶ 19; 484 P.2d 1250
(Colo.App. 1971). C.R.C.P. 8(f) states that, “All pleadings shall be so
construed as to do substantial justice.” A trial, to be fair to both sides,
must proceed on the pleadings as they are constituted. Wendelin v. Ross.,
1936.CO.40035 ¶ 32; 62 P.2d 1157 (Colo. 1936) Mr.
Justice Bouck, dissenting. Issues framed by pleadings are necessarily the
framework upon which the evidence must be placed. Id. If evidence is offered
which is not within any of the issues tendered in the pleadings it is
properly objected to as immaterial. Lozier v. Hannan, infra.

25. A sham pleading is one good in form, but false in fact.
Bollen v. Woodhams, 190 P. 427 (Colo. 1920). 'Sham pleading,' as defined by
Chitty, is the pleading of a matter known by the party to be false, for the
purpose of delay or other unworthy object. 1 Chit. Pl. 541. Patrick v.
McManus, 23 P. 90 (Colo. 1890). In Bouvier's Law Dictionary a 'sham plea' is
said to be one entered for the mere purpose of delay, concerning a matter
which the pleader knows to be false. Id. The essential element of a sham
plea is its falsity. Id. Upon the presentation of facts clearly showing a
sham pleadings falsity and bad faith of the party pleading it, it may be
stricken out. Steinhauer v. Colmar, infra. In Patrick v. McManus, supra the
Court said:
“In counties where the dockets are overburdened with causes, the temptation
to interpose sham answers, for the purpose of delay only, is great; and when
it clearly appears that such answers are false in fact, according to the
great weight of authority and reason, the court may, upon motion, strike
them out. This power must, however, be exercised with extreme caution;
otherwise a trial to the court upon affidavits might be substituted for a
jury trial. It cannot rightfully be exercised for the purpose of determining
the truth or falsity of a defense upon conflicting evidence. The inquiry
ought not to be extended in such cases further than may be necessary for the
court to determine that such a conflict in fact exists; but where, as in
this case, the material averments of the complaint are directly supported by
affidavits positive in form, we think the defendant has no right to complain
of an order requiring him to support his unverified answer by an affidavit
of merits, and, upon failure to comply therewith, to have his pleading
stricken from the files. And it would make no difference if a portion of
this answer be treated as a counter-claim, as the Code provision is directed
not only against sham and irrelevant defenses, but to answers as well, and
the counter-claim must be considered as a part of the answer. Any other
construction would permit defendants to evade the consequences of the act,
and delay judgment, by interposing sham counter-claims instead of sham
defenses. It requires no argument to show that the affidavit of defendant in
support of his answer in this case does not amount to an affidavit of
merits.”
If an answer does not appear to have been made in good faith it should be
treated as a sham answer. Hertz Drive-Ur-Self System v. Doak., 1934.CO.40211
; 29 P.2d 625 (Colo. 1934). If inconsistencies
and self-contradictions give the impression that the answer was contrived
only for purposes of delay then a court must hold that a sham answer cannot
operate as a stalemate to check the claimant in his rightful demand.

26. The function of the motion to strike is to clear away
rubbish, and so clarify the issues, not to test the sufficiency of a
pleading. Bollen v. Woodhams, 190 P. 427 (Colo. 1920). If an answer is
deserving of censure on the charge of irrelevancy, then it is properly
stricken out, and judgment was properly rendered on the complaint.
Steinhauer v. Colmar, 55 P. 291 (Colo.App. 1898). And it is entirely proper
to move to strike out an answer, and at the same time move for judgment on
the pleadings. Id. The only safe rule for courts to adopt as a guide, in
disposing of motions strike, is not to strike out answers as sham on the
ground of falsity, unless the defendant while denying its falsity in general
terms, by his own showing demonstrates that the denial is not in good faith,
and that the answer is in fact false. Greager v. Kittleson, 86 P.2d 265
(Colo. 1938). Judgment on the pleadings is properly entered when an answer
is a sham and unsupported by the evidence. Id.

27. In Davis v. Green, 1922.SCT.40631
; 260 U.S. 349 (1922) the Court described a
negative pregnant as one that admitted the fact and only denied the
conclusion. Id. @ ¶ 11. That Court noted that the negative pregnant in that
case was very probably intended to deny the fact and called this mode of
traversing a paragraph very common in “the present careless ways,” but
stated that the denial did not deny the paragraph in legal effect. Id. A
negative pregnant with an admission may be defined as that form of denial
which involves an affirmative implication favorable to the adversary.
Wingfoot California Homes Co. v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix,
1956.AZ.40102 ¶ 20; 294 P.2d 370 (Ariz. 1956).
The general rule is that a negative pregnant is a negative which implies an
affirmative. Id. In Anderson v. Kurtz, 182 P. 533 (Colo. 1919) the Court
held that when an answer denies an allegation that is a matter of public
record, such as an entities incorporation, the denial was to be treated as
an admission. In Anderson the Court held that if a party attempts to deny
allegations in a complaint in “ipsis verbis”[1] and in the conjunctive[2],
negatives pregnant, this amounted to an admission. In Anderson the Court
applied what I would call raw logic and practical thinking in its analysis
saying:

“His replication is contradictory, and as to inconsistent allegations those
must be accepted which are against his interest. He says he did not
understand the purport and effect of the instrument he was asked to sign,
yet admits these were fully and correctly explained to him. He makes the
same allegations as to the lack of understanding of the purport and effect
of the receipt which he signed the following day, but it clearly appears he
knew it to be a receipt for $35, and that he knew the purport and effect of
the instrument he had previously signed. Again there was no coercion, no
undue restraint, no misrepresentation. Plaintiff does not deny that the $25
was then paid to him. He alleges that he tendered this money back more than
three months later. He must have obtained it on the date of the receipt, and
known for what purpose it was paid. His signature of this receipt and
acceptance of the money thereunder was an affirmance and ratification of the
settlement executed the preceding day.”

In Anderson the trial court sustained the defendant’s demurrer and the
Supreme Court affirmed that decision. In Wiltshire v. Modern Woodmen of
America, 232 P. 925 (Colo. 1925) something similar happened. The complaint
in Wiltshire alleged that the defendant was an insurance company 'commonly
designated by itself as a fraternal beneficiary society, duly organized and
existing under the laws of the state of Illinois and authorized to do
business as such and to transact a general insurance business within the
state of Colorado. Id. The answer alleged that the defendant was a fraternal
benefit society organized as such under and according to the laws of
Illinois and, as such, authorized to do business in Colorado. Id. The
replication (the common law term for our modern day answer) admitted the
defendant's authority to do business as a fraternal benefit society, but
denied the facts distinguishing it as such, alleging that it was operated
for the profit of its officers without a representative form of government,
etc. Id. To that portion of the replication the trial court sustained a
demurrer. Id. The contract of insurance sued on had been made a part of the
complaint. Id. A portion of it read: 'The within benefit certificate is
issued and accepted only upon the following express warranties, conditions
and agreements: That Modern Woodmen of America is a fraternal beneficiary
society, incorporated, organized and doing business under the laws of the
state of Illinois, and legally transacting such business in the state where
said member resides.' Id. The Court held that the defendant's character was
determined by its charter, by the law of the state of its organization, and
by its authority to operate in Colorado, and was thus affirmed by the
contract itself. Id. The Court held that the plaintiff's allegation was
therefore a general denial and a specific admission and that the latter
governed that portion of the demurrer was properly sustained. Id. "Normally,
a party may not assert a lack of knowledge or information if the necessary
facts or data involved are within his knowledge or easily brought within his
knowledge, a matter of general knowledge within the community, or a matter
of public record." 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil
§ 1262 (1969).

28. In Lozier v. Hannan, 54 P. 399 (Colo.App. 1898) the action
was for the balance due on an account for goods sold and delivered. In the
first paragraph of the answer, the defendant attempted to raise an issue
respecting his indebtedness for that balance. Id. The Court held that he had
lamentably failed and explained why:

“He proceeded to admit the co-partnership of the plaintiff, and that he
bought goods of a certain description, denied that the total amount was
$26,344.42, and then denied that he was indebted to the plaintiff on said
account in the sum of $578.80. The denial of the indebtedness raised no
issue, nor was the purchase of the goods charged to have been bought so
negatived as to force the plaintiff to prove his case. Pueblo Co. v. Gould,
6 Colo.App. 45, 39 Pac. 895. If a party desires to raise an issue respecting
the purchase and delivery of goods, he is bound to so frame his denial as to
compel the plaintiff to prove his case, or else admit it to a certain
extent, and deny it as to the balance. The plea was a negative pregnant.”

In Lozier the Court also observed that the amended answer in the cause was a
perfect negative pregnant throughout and that therefore the allegations of
the complaint stood admitted.

29. From Mastin v. Bartholomew, 92 P. 682 (Colo. 1907) I
learned that affirmative defenses and a counterclaim, and a failure to deny,
coupled with direct allegations could result in the virtual admission of all
of the allegations of the complaint. I also learned that if the replication
did not traverse (a common law term for deny) these affirmative averments
then the denial of the alleged fraud is merely a conclusion of the pleading
in the conjunctive instead of the disjunctive. Id. There must be a denial of
the alleged facts set out in the answer which constitute the fraud or the
warranty and its breach. Id. If the defendant further attempts to put them
in issue by saying that he has not and cannot obtain sufficient knowledge or
information upon which to base a belief it is wholly ineffective, because he
is presumed to know what he himself and his agent said and did. Id.

PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c.
For mailing: Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115, Greeley, CO
80634
BEAR'S WEB PAGES:
www.irs-armory.com
www.irslienthumper.com
www.legalbears.com
www.legalresearchvideo.com
www.cantheydothat.com
www.judgeonaleash.com

To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:

[e-mail]


_____

[1] I was unable to locate this exact phrase in Black’s Law Dictionary or an
online version of Bouvier’s Law Dictionry. In Black’s 6th Edition on page
828 I did find the phrase “ipsissimis verbis” meaning “In the identical
words; opposed to “substantially.”
[2] Meaning connecting elements or meaning.

Definition of charge:

I was checking on some legal definitions and found this one interesting. The word charge is not used as the statement of the violation. It appears to be another word game. When the court states "you are charged with speeding", it appears to actually mean "you are being billed for receiving a benefit". This sounds like another definition trick.

I was charged with speeding, yet since in Arizona speeding is a civil court issue and charge is, by definition, only an accusatory statement in a criminal matter, this would mean that I have been billed against my equity (*) for said speeding. The court does not mix criminal and civil definitions accidentally. The confusion being created by using the word charge is purposeful.

My point being, they are not even allowing a defense. The charge in this case would be similar, since it is in civil court, to any other contractual matter. Meaning it is the same as the charge directed upon you when purchasing groceries. In such instance you can't tell the checkout girl "I object, I am not purchasing these apples" and still leave with the apples.

I have yet to discover any other reason why the court is using the word charge. It does not seem appropriate if there is an actual allowable defense. It also seems strange they don't say, "you have been accused of speeding", the docs state "you have been charged with speeding". There again, civil court is contractual in nature and thusly the definitions for contract law apply, not the definitions for criminal law.

There appears to be no other definition for charge in civil matters other than the one listed (*), underlined and bold. I have also checked Black’s 6th edition.
Bouvier's 6th, 1856:
charge n. 1) in a criminal case, the specific statement of what crime the party is accused (charged with) contained in the indictment or criminal complaint. 2) in jury trials, the oral instructions by the judge to the jurors just before the jury begins deliberations. This charge is based on jury instructions submitted by attorneys on both sides and agreed upon by the trial judge. 3) a fee for services.
In law:
• A criminal charge is an indictment before a court by a prosecuting authority
• A jury charge is are jury instructions given by a judge to a jury concerning the law applicable to the case under consideration
• (*) An equitable charge is a security interest similar in effect to a mortgage

Points on the definition of charge:
1) A prosecutor is the only one that issues the charge in a criminal matter. Civil litigation has no prosecutor. Absent a prosecutor a charge may only be defined as a bill.
2) In the case of traffic violation issues some items must be noted: (Arizona specific, but may apply elsewhere)
A) the box concerning criminal violations uses the word charge;
B) the box concerning civil does not;
C) the signature box for criminal states "without admitting guilt";
D) the signature box for civil states "you were given a copy of the receipt";
i) it does not state you "received a copy of the violation".
ii) A receipt is evidence of a bill, ie; "a charge".
iii) Due to the civil nature it is known in law the charge is not an accusation, thusly, it may only be a bill.
3) On the back of the ticket it states that it may be turned over to collection.
A) You can not turn over an accusation over to collections;
B) Any adjucicated, valid bill may be sold for collection.

Now I know why judges just laugh at everyone in traffic court. People want to fight the validity of the accusation, when there never were any accusations made, only bills issued. Accordingly, under the rule of nihil dicit, especially the Tweel ruling, U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (5th Cir. 1977) (silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading). Since people fight the accusation that does not exist and don't fight the bill that was issued, the bill is accepted by the judge as valid.


In criminal litigation;
Charge is synonymous with accusation; for example: The defendant is accused of, the defendant is charged with. Prepositions are almost universally interchangeable in legal ease.

In civil litigation;
Charge is synonymous with bill; for example: The defendant is charged with, the defendant is billed for.
Also, a fine is a charge, not an accusation. You can pay a fine, you can pay a bill, but you can't pay an accusation.

O.J. Simpson was charged with murder and beat the criminal accusation, yet he lost the civil case when he fought the accusation, since he did not fight the bill. He was never accused in the civil case because the law does not make accusations in civil disputes. It can make charges, but those charges are bills.

Charge is probably the greatest legal word trick since the word person.



John-Chester: Stuart: sovereign without subjects

623-206-4339
[e-mail]
c/o postal service location
21001 N. Tatum Blvd. Suite 1630472
Phoenix, Arizona republic cf 85050 cf

A corporation, while by fiction of law recognized for some purposes as a
person and for purposes of jurisdiction as a citizen, is not endowed with
the inalienable rights of a natural person, but it is an artificial person,
created and existing only for the convenient transaction of business.
Northern Securities Company V. United States,
1904.SCT.116 ¶ 284; 193 U.S. 197 (1904).

Defendants insist that it is immaterial that a combination can be discovered
by going behind the fiction that the Securities Company is a private person
with an existence separate and apart from its members, because, as they say,
the law will not allow that fiction to be disregarded or contradicted --will
not allow the acts of the corporate entity to be treated as the acts of the
natural persons who compose it. The defendants thus seek to defeat the ends
of the law by a fiction invented to promote them. This proposition cannot be
sustained. People v. North River Sugar Rfg. Co., 121 N.Y. 82, 615. Northern
Securities Company V. United States, 1904.SCT.116
¶ 225; 193 U.S. 197 (1904).

In Gibson v. Chouteau, 13 Wall. 92, 100, the court, by Mr. Justice Field,
said:

"By the doctrine of relation is meant that principle by which an act done at
one time is considered by a fiction of law to have been done at some
antecedent period. It is usually applied where several proceedings are
essential to complete a particular transaction, such as a conveyance or
deed. The last proceeding which consummates the conveyance is held for
certain purposes to take effect by relation as of the day when the first
proceeding was had." Knapp v. Alexander-edgar Lumber Company, 1915.SCT.174
¶ 25; 237 U.S. 162 (1915).

I am posting these because I believe it is important to recognize “fictions
of law”. If we recognize them, we can tell when they are being abused and
when they are being used against us. I believe it is under a fiction of law
that the IRS treats us like we had income and that it was the rebuttal of
that fiction that won the recent acquittals and hung juries in the Las Vegas
IRS/money case. I also think that a “fictions of law” are being used against
us in traffic cases where they treat us all as residents. I ran the word
citizen in Colorado statutes and did not find the word used even once in
Colorado’s Motor Vehicle Code. Maybe that is because it does not apply to
citizens?? Bear

PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c.
For mailing: Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115, Greeley, CO
80634
BEAR'S WEB PAGES:
www.irs-armory.com
www.irslienthumper.com
www.legalbears.com
www.legalresearchvideo.com
www.cantheydothat.com
www.judgeonaleash.com

To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:

[e-mail]

Writ in the Nature of Discovery

Date: September 27, 2007
[Dhakiy Muhammad Zodoq Aqiel El©]
c/o P.O. Box 9381
[Chicago Territory, Illinois republic], usA
NON-DOMESTIC

LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR & SAMPSON,LLC.
P.O. BOX O6152
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
60606-0152
NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO THE AGENT AND NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPAL.

I am Dhakiy Muhammad Zodoq Aqiel El©, In Propria Persona Sui Juris. Moorish American National, Non- Resident Alien, descendants of Moroccans born in America.
This Writ In Nature Of Discovery is being dispatched for clarity for a presentment (suits) suggesting that I owe for a contract that I am not party too. These line of questions must be answered under Penalty of Perjury. If these questions are not answered and returned back to my natural person within ten days from the above date I will accept your acquiescence as a cease and dismissal. But, if the CITY OF CHICAGO a MUNICIPAL CORPORATION or CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REMITTANCE CENTER continues to proceed with these erroneous accusations, I am prepared to follow through to the full extent of the law according to Title 18 of the U.S.C. for all the constitutional torts that apply to every offense perpetrated against my natural person.
1. Who is the CITY OF CHICAGO MUNICIPAL CORPORATION and the CHICAGO DEPARTMENT REVENUE REMITTANCE CENTER?
2. Do I have a contract with the CITY OF CHICAGO MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OR THE CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REMITTANCE CENTER?
3. Can this contract be produced?

4. Where does the CITY OF CHICAGO MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Or CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REMITTANCE CENTER’S Delegation Of Authority derive from?
5. Is the CITY OF CHICAGO MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND THE CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REMITTANCE CENTER a Corporation or a Flesh and Blood natural person?
6. If the CITY OF CHICAGO MUNICIPAL CORPORATION or CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REMITTANCE CENTER a Flesh and Blood natural person, who is it's mother?
7. Is the CITY OF CHICAGO MUNICIPAL CORPORATION and the CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REMITTANCE CENTER a lawful agency of the United States Republic Article 4 Section 4?
8. Is the CITY OF CHICAGO MUNICIPAL CORPORATION And the CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REMITTANCE CENTER a lawful department of the United States Republic?
9. Was there a violation of travel?
10. What is "travel" according to law?
11. What is "traveled way" according to law?
12. What is "traffic" according to law?
13. What is "commerce" according to law?
14. What is traffic court?
15. Where is traffic court listed in the Constitution for the Illinois State republic Article Six Section One?
16. When did Congress Amend Article 1 Section Nine Clause Three of
the Constitution for the United States republic?
17. When did Congress repeal Article One Section Ten Clause One of the

Constitution for the United States Republic?
18. Did the present President of the United States Republic abrogate Executive Order numbers 6073, 6111, and 6260 under Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917; codified as U.S.C. Title 12 Section 95a House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933 by 3/5ths vote of Congress?
19. Did my Unalienable rights which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness endowed by the Creator, mentioned in the Declaration of
Independence some how dissolve without my knowledge?
20. Who is the injured party (Corpus Delicti)?
21. Where are the Medical Records?
22. What are all the names of every natural person affiliated with the CITY OF CHICAGO MUNICIPAL CORPORATION and the CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REMITTANCE CENTER?
23. What are the Nationalities of every natural person affiliated with the CITY OF CHICAGO MUNICIPAL CORPORATION or the CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REMITTANCE CENTER?
24. Was Article Thirteen Section One of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights deleted by the United Nations?
25. In Supreme Court Case MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 it is stated that NO STATE shall convert a Constitutionally secured liberty into a privilege to license it and attach a FEE TO IT, Was this reversed?
26. Were any of these case law overturned? Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116
(1958) at 125-126, De Jonge v Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, Chicago Motor Coach
v Chicago 169 NE 22, Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579.
27.Was the following case overturned “The RIGHT to TRAVEL on the public highways is a constitutional right.” Teche Lines v. Danforth, Miss. 12 so 2d 784, 787.

Certified Mail # 7006 2760 004 4515 2045
Complaint Number(s)  9066001119, 0976160A
WITNESS___________________________


WITNESS___________________________


_____________________________________________________
SPECIAL APPEARANCE IN PROPRIA PERSON SUI JURIS


NOTARY PUBLIC FOR [ILLINOIS] ________________________________

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ____________________________________
I used this letter and a red stamp that say, REFUSEAL FOR CAUSE WITHOUT DISHONOR UCC 1-308 to dismiss all traffic tickets and bonds.

If the City answers any of these questions, I can sue for two million dollars and win and police will loose their job and if I go to court some judges may be put in prison and yes it has happen before.......

Stop trying to deal with Civil law and deal with natural Civic law it has all the power you need, it is above all other, if you learn this stuff you will never, I said never loose another case in any court in the world, but you must be who you really are and you must know your self, you are a Moorish American, not black, colored, African or afro American, not Purtorican however it's spelled, not Indian, or Native American or Ethiopian, we are Moors, and they know and that is why they leave us alone and it is not perfect but is getting better and better.