The foundation for this case is a traffic accident. But the real battle is the question of who is the higher authority: one of the people acting in his personal sovereign capacity, or the government agencies. The judge has made several attempts to assumptively grant judicial powers to himself. Now he has been found in contempt of court (see 02-02-00 Ruling below). Once these jurisdictional issues are settled we expect the remainder of the case to be rather mundane.

The contempt ruling is complete. Everything is in that ruling to establish the jurisdiction of the people over the judge.



     Action for Trespass filed in a California superior court.

     Demurrer by defendant.. At the hearing the magistrate was quite authoritative, tense, and quite unwilling to grant anything anyone wanted. Defendant's demurrer was denied.
     Transcript #1 tells the story.

One thing to note: although the magistrate also carries a state-assigned title of nobility, namely that of "judge," his capacity in this court of record is that of a magistrate. In other words, he has a ministerial capacity, not a judicial capacity. Every time he attempts to "judge" something, or to exercise any discretion, his attempt is met with some sort of oppositon from the sovereign of the court, usually in the form of an objection or a corrective court order such as a writ of error coram nobus.

05-06-99 Plaintiff filed
     Judicial Notice,
     Findings of fact acknowledging plaintiff's status., and a
     Writ of Error reversing the magistrate and granting the demurrer in part. Defined

05-07-99 a hearing was held. The magistrate was a real gentleman. He was polite, relaxed, and asked the plaintiff "What are we doing at this point?" The plaintiff simply said, "The only business before the Court, at this point today, is making sure the defendant got the paperwork that was served yesterday. As far as -- barring that, there's no business before the Court today." The hearing was terminated.

When the plaintiff left the room, the defendant's attorney was heard to ask, "Okay. Am I correct in that the Court's made no ruling on this apparent request to amend the complaint today?" The magistrate replied, "I've made no rulings. I've made -- what I've done -- the record speaks for itself."

Actually, the hearing lasted a little longer than that, but that was the essence of it.
     Transcript #2 reports the day's proceeding.

06-07-99, Plaintiff filed
     First Amended Action

Initially, the clerk refused to file the First Amended Action because, she said, it was not a "First Amended Complaint." Then the clerk's supervisor refused to file it because there was no court order signed by a magistrate. Plaintiff guided her to the filed writ of error that encouraged the filing of a first amended action. She again refused to accept the paper, so the plaintiff reminded the clerk that she could "file on demand." She accepted the paper and marked it "FILED ON DEMAND".

06-09-99, the supervising clerk filed a
     "CERTIFICATE AND ORDER VACATING DOCUMENTS." The form lays out a simple procedure: The clerk first supplies the facts, then the court decides upon the facts. Here the clerk certifies that she was directed to reject the documents; then, based upon her certification, the court orders her to reject the documents. An interesting procedural anomaly.

08-16-99, a hearing was held in which the magistrate makes certain admissions.
     Transcript #3 is referenced in the plaintiff's affidavit used in the contempt proceeding.

09-27-99 plaintiff filed a Motion for Contempt against the clerk and the magistrate. The motion was accompanied by an Order classifying the motion as a court personnel matter and sealing the papers to protect the privacy of the accused. The way it was packaged was as follows:

     Order: Sealing of Papers and a copy of the top sheet from each of the following 4 papers:
     Notice: Motion for Contempt (Confidential Personnel Matter)
     Motion for Contempt (Confidential Personnel Matter)
     Affidavit of Witness in support of motion
     Affidavit of Plaintiff and exhibits in support of motion
     An envelope with a notice on its face stating that it may only be opened by the accused, the plaintiff, or the court. The envelope contained the Motion, Notice of Motion, and the two supporting affidavits with exhibits.

Generally all proceedings are held in open court. Under California law public officials are prohibited from holding secret meetings except in certain special situations such as when an employee's performance is being reviewed. Emulating that state privacy policy, this court treated the contempt accusation as if it were a private personnel matter, namely concerning the job performance of the clerk and the magistrate, thus sealing that portion of the record from public view. However, the court empowered the accused themselves to make the matter public any time they wished.

10-14-99 Contempt hearing held. See
     Transcript #4.

02-02-00 Ruling in re contempt of court.
This ruling brings together the complete picture of the relationship between the people and the government. The preceding papers only touched upon some aspects of personal sovereignty, whereas this paper is complete.

04-05-00 A case management conference was held. Judge, defendant's attorney, and plaintiff were all present. Overall, the conference was very quiet with minimal contention. Judge seemed to understand that he was acting in a ministerial capacity and not as a judge.
     Transcript #5

Note: the papers are not exact reproductions of the papers filed. For example, line numbers have been removed, and double spacing has been changed to single spacing. Also, the names have been changed to protect the guilty. The papers included here are to show how one litigant is handling challenges to his personal sovereignty. Much of the information is transferable to other cases. However, if you decide to copy the information, be certain you understand every word, and be certain that you personally check every cite--don't trust anybody or anything; not even what you find at this web site.