Chapter 25: The Sovereign Activist & the Quest for True Freedom
(Please note: This chapter was written in 2000. It has since been updated slightly, but the thought process going on here are not my current understanding or mindset. I will give a current mindset update at the end of the chapter)
As I mentioned in the introduction, I have been involved in the pot legalization movement since 1991, and I had a booth on the Venice boardwalk over the period of about 7 or 8 years from 1992-1999. Progressively, I got more active with my signs and information and it led to a “set-up” arrest for sales which was thrown out completely. But, I also got tangled up in a couple of felony cultivation cases as well, in the end of 1998, and mid-1999, both for “medical marijuana” which was and is still “legal” in this state. At the time I was first arrested for the felonies, Roger Elvick was just putting his first few people in line to present the information to. I didn’t find out about “Redemption” until after I was arrested both times. I filed my UCC-1 in Oct. of 1999 claiming my “Strawman” as my “debtor,” and listing myself as the “secured party.” This is when I took things into my own hands. At first, I didn’t know enough to do things myself, but I could have presented myself, and used court procedures. I was concerned they would use “judicial discretion” and disregard everything, and then get upset on top of that because I tried to “challenge” the system. I did, however, bring everything into court eventually, when they put me in a position where I felt they were going to “railroad” me, and I got results. In this chapter, the reader can follow my entire adventures as I went through my first arrests of six in 1998 and 1999 alone.
I also got into contact with Roger Elvick and while I was going through my ordeals I was on the phone with him getting some help on what to do. I recorded and transcribed these conversations and included pertinent pieces of those conversations in this chapter. I also took notes on every detail of what went on in the courtroom, and I had witnesses. My mother, a best friend, and my girlfriend at the time, were there during most proceedings when “acceptance” was applied. I’ll start at the beginning of my troubles:
At the time, my girlfriend Ginger and I lived together in Van Nuys, from about 1996-1999. In 1997, around June 3, so-called police officers knocked on our door requesting to search the premises. I opened the door and asked to see a warrant. They replied that they didn’t have one and that they received a tip that someone was growing marijuana on the premises. I told them that I was not and they asked if they could come in and take a look around. I replied that if they wanted to do their job, they would have to go get a proper warrant, signed by a judge. They then stated that if I wasn’t growing, I shouldn’t be opposed to them taking a look around. To that I replied that I am a state citizen’s rights activist and that I don’t believe in the blatant violation of privacy and rights and I would not support it. At that point one of them asked if they could wait in the living room while they got a warrant and to this I responded, “No, I am going to go about my business and this is where I live and I’m not going anywhere so if you want to come back I’ll be back in an hour.” After this they finally left.
A couple of days later, my landlord at the time, Jesse, told me that the owner of the gas station asked him what was going on in our apartment building, because he had noticed the police had set up surveillance on our apartment for some reason and had been there the last couple of days.
Around the first of November, 1998, during the evening time approx. 9 or 10 P.M., a man knocked loudly on the door. I responded by asking who it was without opening the door and he asked loudly, in a semi-drunken voice “Is Larry there?” I responded stating “there is no Larry here?” I thought this was a little suspicious.
At approx. 8 P.M. on Nov 11th, 1998, my girlfriend had just left to go borrow a little money so we could pay our phone bill on time, and I heard that same knock. When I asked who it was, it was the same voice asking for someone, I think, Larry, and I responded that they don’t live here. After that the man asked if this was so and so Cedros Ave. and I said, “No, it’s such and such,” and he left.
About ten minutes later, I heard a yell at the front door, “Police, open up we have a search warrant!! I hesitated momentarily after saying “hold on just a second,” to hide anything from plain view, mainly a bong on the table, when the door was broken in with a battering ram and a gun was pointed to my face. “Freeze, Don’t Move!!… put your hands up!!” Then I was taken and led outside while six or seven officers stormed into our tiny two bedroom apartment. I stated at that point that they were making a big mistake and that I lived here with my girlfriend who is a cancer patient and we both have doctor’s recommendations. I was told that none of that matters and 215 is not the law. They proceeded to dig through my two grow rooms, one for “mothers” and one for flowering. There were approx. 50 plants, some almost ready for harvest and some about half way through their cycle. In the “mother” room there were four plants, about 2 feet tall each. Not very bushy, we were having a problem with spider mites. As I sat in handcuffs they refused to look at any papers or doctor’s notes and they asked if there was anything else they would find. I told them “No” that we don’t hide anything and everything is out in the open. I tried to tell them that there are other ways of dealing with this and that this was not necessary. I told them there are many cases where the police do not arrest the person, but they are charged anyways and must present their documentation at the court on the date set, and that they don’t need to take everything. I told them they are committing theft of our medicine and that they are violating our rights and that this would eventually all come back on them in court. I offered to show them how to avert the criminal acts they were committing, and work with me to bring this before the court without damaging us or our medicine. The basic consensus of the ignorant group was that it didn’t really matter. They kept telling me they were only doing their job.
Ginger arrived at approx. 9 p.m. By this time, they were cutting down the plants and going through the entire house, tearing through our most intimate things. They stole two ballasts from us. There was one 1000w metal halide and a 1000w high pressure sodium, each worth about $300.00. The officers stole about 200 cookies baked with canna-butter, made from our leaves and trim. The herbal medicine value stolen is approx. $3750.00. Not including the loss in grow time needed to bring about a harvest. (In this case, it was 5 months, because we needed to grow the mothers before we could take cuttings).
On the way to the station I asked one of the so-called officers why they were doing this and basically the reply was, “215 is not law,” We decide which laws we enforce and which ones are bullshit, for instance 187, bullshit, English -only education – bullshit, Do you think the voters really wanted those laws?”
So your very humble narrator was taken and held on $25,000.00 bail and charged with 2 felony counts. One charge was for possession for sales and one for cultivation.
Next, I was arrested for petitioning at Trader Joes, and if I were you I wouldn’t support them at all, since they routinely violate petitioner’s rights by calling the police on them. So, I was charged by this ex-cop, with battery, which is the opposite of what happened. Actually two employees came up and pushed me out of the area and I kept going around them, but they were both bigger than me and I am not a fighter, unless it is to keep out of real danger. In other words she lied. An ex-cop lying and making up a story? Can you believe that? Surprise, surprise! Anyway, they had to change the charge later to trespassing, because she lied and probably couldn’t get anyone to back her story up when it would certainly go to court, which it did. This incident has since passed, and I got probation (stay away from this Trader Joes for two years). By the way this is the 2nd time in one year I was arrested for petitioning. The first time was Costco, which I filed a federal lawsuit on and I was since offered $24,000 in an out of court settlement. Next.
Venice Beach in March, 1999
There was an ongoing a conspiracy by members of the LAPD Pacific division Venice Beach patrol to subvert my rights to free speech, political activities, and fundraising. I have been working on Venice beach since 1991 and existed there without any problems for years.
The problems started around December sometime went I returned to working on the beach after having been gone for about 1 ½ years. I have a Hemp / Medical Marijuana legalization and political information booth. 80% of what I have is political information. Some of it is completely free. I have posters displaying political information. I registered people to vote and signed them up for petitions. Some of these petitions are paid some are not. I ask a minimum donation for Hemp products, t-shirts and bumper stickers, books and videos, all political, to help support myself and cover costs. I work closely and in coordination with Jack Herer and the H.E.M.P. organization in Van Nuys and Venice beach.
After having been gone for 1 ½ years doing strictly petitioning work I came back to a whole different Venice than the one I had left. There were different police officers whom I didn’t know and who didn’t know me. The first problem occurred the first day I was there. I had two “E-Z ups” these are four legged pop up 10’ by 10’ tents. I used these to cover the t-shirts and books that easily get ruined in the sun all day. They also enabled me to hang my signs and some products.
The police came over to me after I was set up already and told me that I couldn’t have a pop up tent on this side of the beach. (This was the artist’s side). At first I told them o.k. and they drove away. Then as I was taking it down, I thought to myself, wait a minute, this is going to make things very difficult for me. So I stopped breaking the booth down and left it until the officers came back around so that I could ask them to see the law or code that says you can’t have one on the beach or whatever it was that they were referring to.
When they came back I explained to them that I would be willing to take down the tents, but I would like to see the law first that they are referring to. This upset the officers immensely because they could not cite it and asked me if I was challenging the law. I responded by saying that I can’t challenge anything I haven’t seen, but that I wasn’t doing that, I was only asking to see which regulation they were referring to. After all I have done this for 7 years without a problem. I felt it might be arbitrary harassment.
Finally, the sergeant came over and he was very nice, I wish I could remember his name, but he pointed out to me that there was an old code that existed that they were never enforcing before which prohibited four sided tents and I agreed to take it down, which I did right away.
Well now, I had a dilemma or where to hang my main sign. I remembered that Jingles, the vegetarian political information booth also on the boardwalk has been using the trash cans to attach the poles of his sign to. I figured if there was a problem, they would have let him know. After all he has been setting up the same way for years on the boardwalk.
This worked fine for a few weeks. Then as I was setting up one morning, a lady from the parks dept. noticed my sign attached to the trash can and warned me that if her boss saw that he probably wouldn’t approve. I told her that if he has a problem with it to come and discuss it with me. She went right to the police and a half-hour later they were there at my booth telling me I couldn’t use the trash can to attach my sign to. I explained to them that the vegetarian information booth has been doing it for years and I didn’t believe there was anything wrong or someone would have said something to him by now. The officer informed me that it was no excuse to do it and I had to take it down or face getting cited. I told him I felt I was being unfairly harassed and that I would just like to see the code section he is referring to. This made him very mad as he tried to look it up and couldn’t find it, then telling me he would go get the sergeant and he won’t be too happy.
About 1 ½ hour later two police cars including the sergeant came over and he was screaming at me, “How dare you question the authority of these officers, what kind of crazy person are you? Nobody ever questions what we say. They just do what their told.” To this I responded, “well they must be a bunch of slaves that you’re dealing with because I am not a lemming and I’m not marching off the cliff and I’m also not marching into any concentration camp.” Then he said, “who said anything about concentration camps?” and I told him that is exactly where we are headed when everyone accepts authority without question, and does exactly as they are told. I mentioned that we are losing what little is left of our free society because the police waste their time bothering people for commercial crimes and consensual crimes instead of victim crimes. I told him there are concentration camps in the United States today and that U.N. troops are training in America right now. This he laughed about and told me I was crazy. In the meantime he was writing me a ticket for posting my sign on the trash and I didn’t have my I.D. on me so I had to go to the car and get it. This ticket has since been thrown out.
On the day of Jan 30th 1999, I was unloading in a private parking area. As I walked by transporting my boxes I noticed the police citing a homeless man sleeping in between a trash dumpster and a wall. It was right there where I was walking by and in passing I made a comment to the officers. I said “What’s the problem officers, is he sleeping in a no-sleeping zone?” I just thought of this as a little joke and didn’t bother even stopping, but the police officer Rex McDaniel called me over and asked me if I was the man’s lawyer, to which I responded, “No, I’m not but you don’t have to take things so seriously, I wasn’t trying to be rude, only funny.” I kept doing my thing, but when they were done citing the homeless man they told me to stop while they asked me some questions. They told me don’t interfere with what we’re doing, where is your I.D.? I showed it to them and they asked if the van was my vehicle, and where’s the registration? I told him the truth that it is not my vehicle, but it used to be and my girlfriend bought it off me, and more recently we decided to donate it to a foundation who allow us to use it. Then he started asking me why I was parked where I was? Did I have permission? Why is the van three inches over the white line that separates the spaces for the cars? I told him I needed room to unload and not hit the car on my right with the door as it was opening. Then he said, “So you did it on purpose!” I then responded “no, I did it to prevent damage to another vehicle.”
He then cited me with a parking ticket for being parked over the white line, even though it was on private property and he wrote on the ticket that I stated that I did this on purpose.
After this they brought in a new regulation that everyone has to set up at 9:30 and not before. Originally when I would set up you could be there at any time and some people would show up at 6:30 a.m. Well this got to be a problem because of fights over space early in the morning and the police and city, I guess decided that people shouldn’t be allowed to set up before 8:00 a.m. This is how it was when I returned to the beach in December. On a different day a while later, the day the so-called LA riot occurred on Venice Beach, earlier that morning the police came by and told everyone that they would have to wait until 9:30 a.m. to set up.
A week later when I was down on the beach, I asked a couple of the police officers to show me what “New” law or code they were referring to that says that political groups or anyone cannot set up before 9:30 a.m. For about 15 minutes the officers rummaged through their paperwork and couldn’t find it all the time insisting that it was there, somewhere.
I told them that the reason I was asking was because, every day there is some new “rule” or “regulation” limiting our activities on the beach and that pretty soon I felt we wouldn’t even be allowed to stand on the beach, while all the time the officers may not realize there is no such law or rule or code. So I explained that I was just trying to participate as a citizen to insure that the laws were being followed and not abused and made up. This was very upsetting and frustrating to the two officers, but I explained to them that my intention was not to bother them or harass them unnecessarily, that I believed it was their job to know the law especially the ones they are attempting to enforce. They ended up giving me a card for Sgt. Arneson, who I tried at least 5 times over the following days to reach but it was impossible. I waited on the phone for hours as they kept giving me the run-around.
The next event occurred a couple of weeks later when I returned to the beach. I had help. My sister’s friend Dan came along to help me with the booth. After a few hours, a couple of his friends stopped by to talk for a while and they sat down on the grass right behind the booth. I wasn’t paying too close attention at this time because the booth was very busy with people asking questions, but a couple of police officers came over and talked to the group sitting on the grass. There were 3 or 4 people. After the police left I asked them what that was all about and Dan was explaining to me that the police were giving them suspicious looks and asked Dan’s friend what was in his hand. Dan explained that his friend was holding a smoky quartz crystal and the officer wanted to see what was in his hand. Well, within a few minutes after Dan explaining this to me the Officers came back over and wanted to know what Dan was smoking. It was a cigarette that he was almost finished with. As he finished it right away by putting it out, as he was rubbing it in the grass and before he could even let go of it, if that was even his intention, the officer told him he was breaking the law by littering. At this point I stepped in and asked why the officer was harassing my friend as he was putting him in handcuffs and searching him.
The officer (Again Rex McDaniel), the same officer from the previous incident, asked me if I was his lawyer, to which I responded, “No, but I might have to be a witness and I was observing what was happening.” Then McDaniel told me to produce some I.D. and I told him that it wasn’t on me. He asked me if I accepted donations and I said “yes.” Then he asked me for a business license and I told him I was political and not a business. He asked me if I would accept nothing and give away a hat. I told him that would break me financially and I can’t just give things away for free that cost me. He then told me I had to give everything away or I am breaking the law.
He then told me to step over by the police car and I stated that I didn’t know there was a law that required you to carry I.D. on you when you go out or go somewhere. Then he put me in handcuffs and searched me after I told him not to and asked him if I was under arrest, to which he replied “yes.”
While searching me, McDaniel made a comment. He said, “So you like to interfere with us and our work, huh?” While searching me he found a half of a gram of cannabis in a bag and a pipe. He instructed the other officer to search the booth and the contents for more marijuana. They returned with a backpack, I’m not sure who it belonged to, but it wasn’t mine and I was never asked if it was mine. I explained to them that I have a doctor’s recommendation and it was in my pocket. They didn’t seem to be interested. I asked why they were arresting me for a half of a gram and not just citing me and the officer made a comment like, “What do you mean, you had almost just under an ounce or something,” to which I replied, “There’s no way, there’s only a half as gram in that bag and that is all I had on me.” However the officer was in possession of a small jar containing several grams of cannabis, I’m not sure because I only saw it for a second. They went over to the booth and took my two boxes of baggies that I use to display and hang my books and videos in and brought them over to the police car to be included as evidence. I use two sized bags, medium and large bags. I slip hooks through the tops of the bags on both sides. And I hang them on several peg-boards that I use to display information, books, and videos. These also protect them from the beach air and humidity as the bags are always open on top but protected from theft or the wind. I have done this for years.
I was then transported to the other side of the beach where Sgt. Arneson was, and after the officers got out of the car and were approaching him, I overheard him say something like “Oh yeah, that’s him, that’s the one who challenges our authority, he never listens, he’s a troublemaker.” Then he came over and approached me. He started telling me about how I don’t think I need to have I.D. on me and how I’m always a problem for them and like to get in their way all the time and I was going to pay for it. As he was telling me something about how he would like world peace and everything to be merry, but it just isn’t that way and I had to laugh because I thought what he was saying was genuinely funny, but I WAS NOT BEING RUDE. I was simply listening along with what he was explaining to me. Immediately when I laughed he got extremely angry and started accusing me of scoffing off what he was telling me. I responded desperately trying to communicate that that was not the matter and he was taking it all wrong. My attitude and laugh did not in any way provoke this kind of response. He continued yelling at me telling me that if I’m going to insist on interfering in their affairs that I would get what’s coming.
Off we went at this point to the police station, Pacific division, where I was booked. All along the way I was calmly trying to explain to the police officer that I didn’t believe that anything I did would warrant this kind of persecution and that obviously there was a vendetta among certain officers against me. At one point, when asking me “typical” medical questions I told him that it was private and he threw a hissy-fit turning around, yelling at me, “Your under arrest now!! you will do everything we tell you without question!!” I responded by saying “Bullshit!! I don’t have to tell you anything.” I was trying to be as nice as possible under the circumstances. I even apologized and told him that I agreed that it was wrong to interfere, but that Dan was with me helping me and I did not want to see him harassed unnecessarily. The officer didn’t care though, saying, “You want to interfere, but you don’t want to pay the price, well you should have had your I.D. on you,” etc.
At the jail after I found out I was being charged with possession with intent to sell, I got scared that the $10,000 bond would be too high and I would not be able to get out of jail for a while. I also fear being beaten up in jail at the request of the LAPD. I demanded to see a magistrate IMMEDIATELY! I told them they would not get shit from me, no fingerprints, no cooperation, nothing until I saw a magistrate to determine if I was being legally held and if the bail was not excessive and could be lowered.
The Sergeant McGarity (#25579) was brought in and told me that I not only could not see a magistrate until Monday morning, but that if I didn’t give them my fingerprints they would be forcibly taken from me by two big jailers that would come in and hold me down. I yelled at the officer that he could not do that. That fingerprints cannot be EXTRACTED by force and that I have a right according to the penal code to be brought before a magistrate as soon as possible. All I got back from him was “You will not be allowed to see a magistrate. There is not one on duty at this time, they have all gone home etc.” I told him there must be one always on duty in case of the need to issue warrants or in case someone like me demands to be brought before one. He just kept telling me “NO!” Then I warned him that I would be filing criminal charges against him for Obstruction of Justice if he did not bring me to a magistrate. Then at that point he tried to convince me that if I went along with him, I could call for bail reduction services and if I were approved they would contact the jailer and it is up to him to determine my approval. Well, needless to say, now I felt like he was the only person who could really help me and, being scared, I went along on the condition that he was telling me the truth about what he was saying and also that he would genuinely help me. Basically, this is called “under duress” and if expressed, it implies consent is not given.
Never at any time EVER was I read my Miranda Rights. (This charge was never pursued, fortunately for them.)
Penal Code Section 145 reads “Every public officer or other person, having arrested any person upon a criminal charge, who willfully delays to take such person before a magistrate having jurisdiction, to take his examination, is guilty of a misdemeanor”.
In March, the same month, was my pre-trial for the first two charges. Our Doctor William Eidleman appeared for us to help with our defense. J. David Nick, Peron’s Attorney, and James Silva, were both representing me.
After 3 days of testimony, and after I testified, as well as my girlfriend, they finally threw out the possession for sales charge. True, we had a scale, a triple beam at that, but it was in the kitchen, along with the cookies, and was used for measuring leaf amounts for cooking. And since no one was seen going to and from my residence in any suspicious manners. (No late night visitors or people coming in, and then leaving 5 minutes later.)
But the judge did not want to let this go. Judge Jessica Silvers decided on her own judgment, that the doctor was a quack and nothing more than a “Mill for marijuana doctor’s recommendations.” The reason she stated this was because the doctor did not cite very many sources for his knowledge of cannabis. Even though he has written a book on it, and never mind the fact that for 22 years he practiced in a completely separate field, before Prop. 215 was passed. But none of that mattered to the High Priestess of the Church of the Inquisition, Judge Jessica Silvers, and her Deputy D.A. hunchback henchpal Theresa Hutchison.
After the pretrial was over, and a trial date set, the D.A, Hutchison insisted to the judge that I be tested and kept off cannabis, just so, in case the DEA raided me again next week, I would not be in anymore trouble. The subhuman sack of filth actually stated this. She would want to see patients suffer, because she doesn’t believe in alternative medicine.
At first, the issue which seemed to present a problem was the fact that, since I have had asthma as a kid, since I was 9 or ten, I haven’t seen a doctor about it once. I had Pneumonia when I was 4 or 5. Severe allergies, since I was born, and chronic bronchitis as well. Since I had discovered cannabis, when I was around 13, (like most of us when we first try to experiment with drugs), I had come to realize the medical benefits. For instance, when I smoke, instantly, phlegm comes up and out of my system, and allows me to breath. Twice at concerts in Sacramento, where there is a lot of dirt blowing around, and pollens, I was saved from having to go to the hospital, because I couldn’t breathe at all. Marijuana made the difference, and could have saved my life.
But since, I had never tried an inhaler, and don’t believe at all in pharmaceuticals or conventional medicine, this was seen as an opportunity to point out that I must not be serious about my conditions, if I haven’t seen a doctor, or don’t take any conventional medicine for my asthma. Another reason I use it medicinally, is to prevent migraine headaches, which if you ask any of my close friends, occurs whenever I am around cigarettes, which I am highly allergic to. When my father died of Lung cancer, when I was 12, I forced my mom to quite cigarettes. Ever since then, if I get near them, they affect me in a devastating way. I can’t stand them, and they make me sick, and I get an instant migraine headache, and start to feel disoriented. Cannabis helps that tremendously by making the headaches go away. And finally, though it’s not a listed condition, stress affects and kills more people each year than every other illness and act of death combined. Stress is said to directly kill as many as 110 million people per year, according to the CDC. (1) So, basically, I have found a cheap alternative way to self-medicate without their corporate synthetic pharmaceutical monopoly patented poisons, and they didn’t like it one bit.
Next incident arrived in May. On May 3rd, two days after my birthday, and almost two months after the pre-trial, there is another loud knock on my door. I heard shouting “Police, Open Up, we have a warrant!!” I am thinking to myself at this moment, I can’t believe this, don’t these fascist pigs have anything better to do?”
We had continued growing cannabis despite the first raid and the upcoming trial, because we were IN THE RIGHT, and THEY were the criminals, and it was just a matter of time before we would be vindicated. I had grown 5 mother plants in between that time, and I had just taken 30 cuttings (clones), the night before the raid. So when they came in they saw, you guessed it, 35 marijuana plants, and arrested me again. Despite the fact that the cuttings had not taken root, were only 4 1/2 inches tall and some may not have survived. It doesn’t matter because, NOW, it costs another $10,000.00 for lawyers, and cultivation experts, and airfare and hotels for your “experts.”
This time it was “enhanced” because of the fact that I was out on bail from the first one. While the cops were in my home, the one officer, (it was the same ones again) said to me “Why don’t you move to Oakland or something,” to which I replied, “I am about to, if you guys would just let me get out of here. I am just waiting for the case to be resolved.” So, now, even though it was only cultivation, no possession for sales, they still put a $35,000.00 bail on me. If it wasn’t for the services of a really “good hearted” bail bondsman, I would have spent all my time in jail awaiting trial.
By this point they had ruined us financially. We had to borrow from people that didn’t even exist at this point. We were out of money with all the bail costs, which I’m still, as of June 2000, paying off. So now, I just had to wait till the trial to see if they throw out the charges, but to no avail.
During this second raid, after I got home from the police station, I noticed the license plate had been removed from my van. The van is in a trust, and does not belong to me. It belongs to a foundation, for which I do research. The foundation is located outside of California. The plate must have been removed by the police to keep me from driving around. This made me very suspicious. I have been without a license (sovereign minded) for a couple of years, as well as no insurance, etc. Well, I had a court date coming up in June, and felt it would be best to renew my license soon. Also, by this time, I had spotted and caught someone watching my apartment early in the morning, so I figured they weren’t done with me, yet. I reported the missing plates to the foundation, so they could replace them for me. They did, and when I received them, they were from New Hampshire, instead of Tennessee, where it was registered previously. Also, coincidentally, the license plates read “Live Free or Die” on them.
About a week and a half later, I’m going to go to court again, and I decided to renew my license, as I felt “heat” coming down. And boy, I am glad I did. This next incident happened the very NEXT DAY!
I had noticed on the search warrant, that the officer made a point of the Tennessee license plates, and made the comment that I might be defrauding the DMV and to instigate an investigation. The reason being, that if you live in California and you own a car, and it’s in California, it MUST be registered in California. Well, that’ fine and all, BUT, I don’t own the van anymore. We donated it to the foundation, and now all we do is travel around in it. Well, it isn’t my fault they don’t have a law for that one.
On my way back from court (I only lived a few blocks away at the time), I noticed a cruiser SPEED up to catch up with me, and then I started to make a left turn into my driveway, and the lights go on. “Please pull over.” At this point I felt like a hamster in some lab experiment, and I knew, that they wanted to “GET” me. It just felt “all too real and unbelievable.” But, within moments, my worst fears at that time were confirmed. The officer asks to see License, insurance, etc. Fortunately, I went and got my license, ONE DAY BEFORE this. So, after reviewing the information for less than 60 seconds, the officer comes back with “Sir, please step out of the car and put your hands behind your back, your being placed under arrest for suspicion regarding ‘Felony Defrauding the DMV’.” Can you believe this? You the reader, can you believe this? Does it all seem too unreal? Like a bad dream? — Welcome to the New World Order!!
So, now I’m at the station, yelling and screaming for someone to protect me, and that my life is in danger, and that there is a conspiracy to kill me. A couple of officers tried to talk to me, and I informed them to my best ability, that I was the victim of a political conspiracy, and that they probably wanted me dead. I kept repeating this, along with the statements that I was innocent of any wrongdoing. As they were booking me in, they couldn’t find the appropriate code section, because there was none, because there were no laws against what I was doing. So this took over an hour, then an attorney, friend of the family came down to help me, and it was really strange, but they told him right off the bat that they were not going to violate any of my constitutional rights and so forth. But then, they ended up releasing me, because they didn’t want to enter something that wasn’t appropriate in the computers. Thankfully, they released me, and only citing me with an infraction for a cracked windshield, and to show “proof of proper registration” in court. However, they impounded the van, and tried to play games with us to get us to re-register it in California.
This “struggle” went on for a week almost, as Ginger was on the phone constantly between the foundation and the police. It turns out that the computer at the DMV in New Hampshire wasn’t reporting the registration because it hadn’t come into the computer yet. Remember, I said earlier, that the foundation had re-registered it in New Hampshire. What happened was, the foundation opened a new office in New Hampshire, and registered it there this time, and sent me the plates. I put them on, but the registration was not in the computer yet in New Hampshire. So when the cops ran it, in their eyes, it wasn’t properly registered at that moment. But, the truth was that IT WAS, they just didn’t know it. This was on Friday. On the following Monday, only three days later, it came up in the DMV. But the police still refused to release the vehicle. They insisted we had to register it in California. Until finally, the Foundation insisted that we did not have the authority to do that. That that was the end of that. Van released.
On top of that, remember, the “please investigate for defrauding the DMV” that I saw on the warrant for the search at my residence. Well, that was my proof that there was indeed a “conspiracy” at this point, and I was being targeted and set-up for slaughter.
As the trial approaches in Oct. 1999, I had been in court a couple more times. (This is what they do in order to justify their bloated budgets. Spend as many unnecessary days as possible in court doing nothing at all). The public defender on the second case, since I couldn’t afford a lawyer anymore for the second case, ended up trying to tell me (like I am going to fall for this one) that the doctor’s note I had, since it was a form letter, was invalid, and couldn’t be relied on as legitimate. He said it didn’t state the illness on it, (too vague) and that it was a simple “form letter.” Therefore the judge was going to laugh at it, and the jury would reject it. Somehow, he must have thought that if I “bought” this line of crap, then the system would be more justified in MY eyes for coming at me. This is the Psychological Warfare (Psy- Ops) that they use against us. See, if I “believed” him about that, then there is nothing wrong with their enthusiasm for coming after me. That means I am defeated now, in MY mind. The truth IS that they were coming after me for political reasons, and this was just a cover for their actions. But, they didn’t want me to know this, because the conspiracy would then be more obvious to me.
And, besides the point, I brought it up to the public defender too, that my original note, which I still have a copy of, did, in fact, state my illness, and was not a form letter at all. The Doctor switched to a form type letter, without specifics, because he felt it was not anyone’s business to know what is private between a patient and their doctor.
So, the next big event is the day we are supposed to do jury selection, and the plea bargains just keep coming. (Offers) They throw them at you, so you have to take one sooner or later. (Let’s make a deal) Finally, my attorneys tell me they have struck a “great deal” with the D.A. I have to plead “guilty” to both offenses, they will be combined, and I will only get probation, which requires admission to a treatment program. (Regular meetings for 5 months, which if I wasn’t ever exposed to criminal elements and chemical drugs, I was sure to be now). They even made it so that I could continue to use and grow, as long as I remained within the provisions of 215!!!!!! CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS SHIT?!?! I hesitantly accepted the deal, since it only included summary probation for a limited time, and a few meetings. What I didn’t consider was that they would keep coming after me for other bullshit.
This was around Oct. 1999. Now I have learned that this is what they are offering a lot of people these days. So, I guess, it wasn’t that “great” of a “deal” after all. They usually never are, when you deal with the DEVIL!
But, unfortunately, the war wasn’t over yet, as they say. Labor Day weekend and more problems. I was partying with some friends during Labor Day weekend at an event in San Bernardino. I am not going to get into all the details here. Anyhow, it went something like this. My friend and I are in our van with the doors open on “private property” partying with some friends. We have nitrous oxide (laughing gas) in a couple of large bottles, and some balloons. (Hey, don’t pass judgment, you beer drinkers, some of us party on other things besides Budweiser. I don’t really care for alcohol much myself, and I don’t do chemical drugs at all. Never tried cocaine, heroin, speed, or anything truly bad for you. And I don’t hang around people who do these drugs, unless they use them very moderately. So, if anyone says I have been selling, doing, or involved in cocaine, heroin, or other chemical drugs, they are lying, without a doubt. And if I ever O.D. from any of these drugs, or pills, or anything like that, something is definitely fishy, and it should be looked into.)
The Sheriffs pull up on horseback, and people split. I am inside the van with everything, not knowing that they are right there, but I’m not doing anything wrong, just partying and having a good time. They order me out of the van, and run my name, finding that I am on probation, and then tell me how much trouble I’m in, as they are reading me my rap sheet. (Battery, from the Trader Joes arrest, which wasn’t battery at all, cultivation, possession with intent, possession with intent in Venice, trespassing / COSTCO arrest, and now this. Needless to say folks, it didn’t look good. Along with the nitrous, which I am not saying is mine, I had some cannabis, a little, about 3 grams, and my friend had about 7 grams, and they took both of them, let him go, and charged me with the herb, even after I showed him a doctor’s note I had on me. AGAIN, the officer stated that “215 may be law in some parts of the state, but that hasn’t been decided here yet,” to which I replied, of course, “It is not up to you folks to decide whether it is law or not in your county, it is your MANDATE, your job is to uphold the law, which was passed by the voters overwhelmingly.” And since there were two pipes, they charged me with possession of paraphernalia as well. But, the problem was they listed it as 2 “needles,” not 2 pipes. Do you think they were trying to make me look bad??? Maybe those “Rap Sheets” should be cleaned by the system, once in a while, since they don’t portray your true character at all, only how many times the Police have subverted your rights, and set you up and lied in their paperwork. I don’t use needles, never have and never will.
Oh well, those are cops for you who live in a methamphetamine rich area of the country, where, if you aren’t part of their drug empire, and not working for them, selling their speed, then you aren’t much good to them, and only could be a troublemaker. I don’t have much use for them, and they don’t have much for me. I told him that, and that he should let me go because I wasn’t injuring anyone, and the sheriff is the highest law enforcement officer in the county, and that they could decide right there to let me go, but “No.” They wanted MONEY.
I had broken down the last time I went to San Bernardino, and remembered that my transmission had broken as I was trying to get up the hill. I was getting close to needing a new transmission, and I thought it would be good to bring some extra cash along. I brought $500.00 cash extra in hundreds, just in case. I didn’t have a bank account at the time either. When they searched me and found this, they assumed it was “drug money.” (Well, from what I have learned about what is really going on, anytime you can’t prove where you got money from, it is considered “drug money.” If you look on your IRS master file, and you can interpret it correctly, they have a lot of us down as “drug dealers” and “insurance salesmen.” and various other odd “pursuits.” This is what is really going on. All that money in circulation is borrowed, therefore, it doesn’t belong to you, and if you can’t prove (with receipts) where it is from, it is considered “drug money.” Well, if this is true then I guess they are right with that one. The only thing is, I had been collecting signatures for various initiatives, and making really good money. (Over $1000/week) So, the money was actually mine.)
Then at the jail, I signed the paperwork “all rights reserved” under my name, and the lady at the desk crossed it out, and made me do it over. (There is 1 criminal charge, right there). I got out on bail $900.00, and they haven’t proceeded to press charges, until last month (May 2000).
So then I decided to move to Oakland after making a killing on petitions. It was now or never, because petitions are a seasonal thing. You can make good money, but only for a short time. Well, the Native American gaming, and the schools (bonds) were paying outrageous money for signatures, and I worked 12 hours a day every day, so I could move and start a new life. After the petitions were over, around December 1999, I attempted to move. I had made almost $10,000 in 3 weeks. (Now that’s criminal!)
I made 2 trips up north to look for a place, without incident. There and back, there and back. No problem. On the second time I found a place to live and came back to L.A. to get everything. I packed my van with everything I own. EVERYTHING. It was full, and I was outta there. Until, I was about 5 miles from the county line going up the 101, when red flashing lights went on and I was pulled over. I had been weaving slightly due to the weight, but not enough for anyone to notice, I thought. This was really suspicious. It made a little more sense later, but at the time, I didn’t understand what the officer was talking about.
He said “sir, these plates are registered to a mustang.” I thought he was making things up, as this was the final set-up. But he seemed nice enough, but affirmed to me that he wanted to see the registration. Well, I couldn’t find it since the van was packed full, and I didn’t have a clue where it was. He wasn’t too happy with that, and threatened to seize the van, and everything in it. Everything in the world that I own and it’s 10:00 at night, and I want to get the hell out of dodge. Fortunately, my girlfriend at the time, Ginger, a soul mate and true friend, was there in another car following behind me to make sure I made it up there safe. Which she did. (Thank you very much Ginger. You’re a true goddess.)
So then the officer was a lot more friendly to me after there is a girl standing there screaming at him to let us go and that all the paperwork is in order. So he lets us go, and tells me to take care of it when I get a chance. (Take care of what, I thought)
Well, it just so happens that I made a stupid mistake and didn’t realize it. Just a month prior, my front plate was stolen, and I requested the foundation to send me another one. I didn’t realize it, because they never told me, but they re-registered it again, with new plates, and so the old plates had gone to a mustang, apparently. But I still had not opened the package with the plates in them yet, as I had no need to, since I still had my back plate. BUT, that still doesn’t explain or convince me why I should get pulled over, when I was moving out of town, when it was at night, and the truth IS, if you THINK about it, that the officer would have had to pull up alongside me or behind me, in the DARK, look at my plate, then RUN IT, to find out it wasn’t the right # I.D., etc., THEN pull me over.
What I saw was the officer drove up on the side of me, behind me for approx. 30 seconds, then tried to nudge in, between Ginger’s car, who was behind me, and the van. She drove close so that no one would get in between us. The officer insisted, and pushed his way in, then within 10 seconds more, he was pulling me over. I seriously don’t think he had the time to consider whether he should call my plate in, then actually get the plate #, then make the call in, then etc. It all happened too quick. But the final result was that he let me go with a warning. TO ME, this was a warning from LAPD, to GET OUT & STAY OUT!
Accepted For Value
Around March, 2000, I sent in my “Acceptance” paperwork. I sent in the 2 search warrants “accepted for value” to the judges that signed them. I sent them to the police officers that signed them as well. I sent them to the 2 judges from the first raid (municipal and superior court), and then the judge that presided over the situation during the “deal,” and afterwards, who, incidentally is the same judge I have been dealing with all through the end of this. I also sent “acceptances” to the D.A.s in the first raid and the D.A.s in the “deal” proceedings, and afterwards. There were 2 different ones in the last episode. (All in the Van Nuys cases).
So, about a week later, I get a letter from the Clerk of the court, with a minute order, setting a court date for me to appear and explain this “paperwork” which they claim they don’t understand. I promptly “Accepted for Value” the minute order, and sent it back. This should have closed the account on their books. A warrant issued for my arrest anyways, along with one in San Bernardino, which, at the time had not been “accepted for value,” yet, as I was in a learning frenzy, and didn’t want to make any mistakes. I failed to appear there after firing my liar/lawyer, and blew it off for the time being. A few months go by and I got arrested near my home and extradited back to Van Nuys and San Bernardino to face the judge. (One thing I learned here is to never let things like this go by. It is better to walk in there and face things as they are at your convenience than to have them pick you up at theirs, and at the most inopportune times. I lost another garden because of this. They faked a domestic violence call and check up on the apartment building I was living in, probably after smelling cannabis, and knocked on my door in order to “investigate.”)
First day in court, on arraignment for the warrants. Van Nuys.
I told the Public Defender’s office, when they came over and spoke to me in the cell, that I wanted them off my case. When I’m brought out, the judge says “are you sure you want to represent yourself pro per?” I hesitated, wondering if that is a trick question to gain jurisdiction. Is this an offer? Then the judge says, “I’m going to let you speak to the public defender briefly, and he’ll explain a couple of things to you, and we’ll come back out, and you can let us know what you want to do, o.k.?” He exits.
The public defender comes over to me and says “the judge just wants to know if you are going to answer his questions or not, or if you are playing some kind of a game,” “So, do you want to represent yourself?” I answer “yes.” He asks “are you going to answer the Judge’s questions?” I answer “yes.”
Then the judge returns, along with the prosecutor, from the other room, (chambers), and says, “Okay, the P.D. had a chance to speak with you. What do you want to do? Do you want to represent yourself pro per?” I answered “yes.” He then proceeds to say “a warrant went out after you filed some rather unusual paperwork with the court, and we wanted you to come in and explain it, and you failed to appear, and so a warrant was issued.” Skipping right away to the next sentence, “if you’ll agree to sign a paper agreeing to appear in thirty days to come back in and explain your paperwork, then I’ll release you on your own recognizance,” and you can go free and come back in 30 days and explain it.” Then I hesitate, not knowing what to say, right away, and he proceeds to say, “or you can stay in custody another 2 weeks until we can set a court date for you to come in and explain it,” again I hesitate, and he repeats the original offer, “So would you like to agree to come back, and I’ll release you on your own recognizance, and the Marshall’s service will release you and you can go free?” I then answered, “yes.” And he stated that the clerk would prepare some paperwork for me to sign and I’ll be released. I never received the paperwork, but I was released.
Next I spoke with Roger Elvick for the first time. Date Aug. 28th, 2000. I had been in touch with several people, but nobody seemed to know exactly what Roger was doing, or understood his philosophy very well. Most people thought there was some “package” or “procedure” or some exact order or way to do things. Barbara, (a.k.a. Elexis in the transcripts, then later Barbara) who I was developing a friendship with at this time, was helping me to understand exactly what Roger was doing, but she herself, was not completely clear on everything at the time. However, Barbara was in touch with Roger and learning directly from him, so I was put in touch with Roger Elvick for the first time. Here are some important excerpts from the transcripts of the recordings:
J: One of the things that I’m wondering, doing the Acceptance for Value with your Birth Certificate, if that’s even very important. I first did mine for $1,000,000, when we were first learning this, because that’s what we were learning, and I didn’t do a 1040 ES voucher, and I’m concerned, so I’m wondering how important that really is.
Roger: Well, when we actually did that, we did it to do away with these, well, I would say, members of the Bar, but it might be a broader than that. People are using your name here as a Tax Exemption, without your consent or knowledge. And so, what that was here was a method that we used to create a fact that would do away with an assumption, here on things going on that we didn’t know anything about. So it, it wasn’t like you’re going to see any specific remedies except here, that in some cases, and in mine, there were things here that were going on in my accounts here that had to be changed and to force the change here, and I’m not going to get into any of that, but that’s really all that was for. There was too much, how do you get something done about it, cause when people started looking into, and getting comments from us on how and what we were doing, pretty soon, all of the sudden here, this is getting sold here as a program. (* Right…) And that wasn’t it at all.
Roger is explaining here how the “Redemption” information had been turned into a for profit program being offered in the patriot and freedom community. Some were just given away for free as well, but they were packaged up by different people, re-interpreting Roger’s information incorrectly. 98% of what you read about on the internet currently about “Redemption” is this re-interpretation, some of which might even be intentionally “planted.”
Roger: Yeah. And that’s how we rolled with it. But, basically, if you get into a wrestling match you’re not going to be able to rely on some of that stuff here. I filed this and we get those results. It doesn’t work that way.
J: Now one thing a lot of people did was they attached that to the UCC-1 when they filed and the fact that they had accepted their Birth Certificate for value and had put that along with it as part of the attachment when they filed their UCC-1. Was that significant at all?
Roger: Oh Yeah!. That’s pretty… You see, what you have to do is take a position. And the position is that HJR-192 holds here that there is no money in circulation. You see, it did away with money. It stated that they must discharge their duties dollar for dollar. They can’t discharge here, a dollar for something. It’s a dollar for dollar. So you see what we’re doing is when we “accept” and they don’t give us a negotiable instrument…then there’s no negotiation. When they don’t give us a negotiable instrument, see if they made a claim on you…if people made a claim on you, and also gave you a negotiable instrument with it, then all you would have to do is endorse the instrument and give it back to them. (* Right….) Roger: A negotiable one. So, when they didn’t give you a negotiable instrument, then you have a non-negotiable.
J: Do you think it’s wise to even bother showing a judge your UCC-1, that you’ve done, a certified copy, or something?
Roger: Well, why are you talking about the judge?
J: Well, if your involved in a case like I am right now where I have them coming after me and up until this point, I’ve had an attorney, but he’s not dealing with it right now, because I ended up doing a plea bargain, I’m currently on probation, and they wanted me to report back after going to a program for a certain amount of time. There was no need to do that, I had accepted the case for value and sent it back to them. The charges. I had sent back the paperwork they put a minute order out for me to appear in court to explain the paperwork. I didn’t appear. I sent it back to them “Accepted for Value,” and they put a warrant out for my arrest. Recently, I was picked up on that warrant, and extradited back down to Los Angeles, where I appeared before the judge. Briefly, and he basically just agreed, before I even said anything, I just let him know at that point, I had told the public defender’s office to get off my case, and I’m going to represent myself, whatever, when they came to visit me in the cell….
Roger: Is that what you told them?
J: Yeah. I had already sent it back to the public defender, “Accepted for Value,” the case. And I came before the judge really quick and he said I’m going to release you on your recognizance if you agree to sign a paper agreeing to come back in thirty days to explain your paperwork.
Roger: Oh! Okay. … But you see, you’re explaining your paperwork he’s assuming there that you’re going to be a witness. You see, what happens here, are there are only two kinds of people in court. If you’re a witness, you’re going to get the shaft.
J: And being a witness, making any direct statements, instead of asking….
Roger: Identifies… Yeah. It identifies you as the defendant. All defendants here get the railroad shaft.
Roger: Oh, no, no. He knows here that you’ve got enough here going, but you see, don’t direct your stuff at the judge, direct it at the guy who’s bringing the charges on you.
J: The prosecuting attorney. (Roger: Yeah!)…the D.A. (Roger: He’s the one that’s holding the bond.)
Roger: He’s the one that’s holding the charges. The judge is just reading the evidence.
J: Okay. Well, there’s been two different D.A.s on the case and only one of them I have sent the acceptance to, and the one I sent it to was not the one that was there. The other one was the one that was there.
Roger: That’s Right!! You see they are going to play that little game here, because these guys here are the ones here that can’t afford to have you examining them in court.
J: So now I should also follow through and make sure that the other D.A. who hasn’t received it, should also get one too?
Roger: Oh yeah! Give him a copy of it, and not only that here, but you can let the judge know that you are going to call two witnesses, and those are the two guys you are going to call. You’re not going to call the prosecutor.
J: I’m not going to call the prosecutor?
Roger: No. You’re going to call Joe Blow, who says he’s the prosecutor. Don’t call him here by his title.
J: Call him by his name.
Roger: That’s right. Those are the guys here you are going to call to tell the court, to explain your papers. You’re not going to do it. You’re going to call a witness to do it.
J: I see.
Roger: Because if you do it here. You’re going to go bye, bye.
J: I see, I understand.
Roger: Now, that’s the essence of the entire thing. Now, the business of your Birth Certificate and that being registered. That there is your position in your own mind to know here that that is your property, which is the Strawman.
Roger: Okay, that’s…You see, you’ve listed your Strawman as the property and now they’re trying to use it.
J: Right. Well, that’s why I’m wondering whether it would be proper even, to let them know, and give them a copy of the paperwork.
Roger: Sure you can, but not to the judge here, but to the prosecutor, the guy that’s prosecuting you. Now, do you have an attorney or do they assume that you have one?
J: No, I’ve gotten the attorney off the case and the public defender off the case. Now I’m ready to do whatever I need to do or say whatever I need to say, “May I have your name please? Do you have a claim against me?”
Roger: Yeah, you see, you want to be sure of that, because otherwise they may assume that those guys are the holders of the bond. So you see, if you can’t get it concluded by calling those two fellows as your witnesses, then you call those attorneys. But you see, the only way that you are going to really get hurt is that somebody has got to be up in the witness chair now.
J: Even though I’m on probation, they still have to get me through the hearing, and identify me they still have to get somebody?
Roger : Yeah, but even if they come up and say, “you’re on probation, or this guys on probation blah, blah, blah,” somebody’s still got to get up on the stand and enter that into evidence, okay? When they do, you know what the three magic questions are. That’s when you smack them with it. You see, the only thing that’s going to hurt you is what comes out of that witness chair. So, you see, when you go in there… You can do your discussion here with the judge here, but, you don’t start to explain what you’re doing. When he asks you those questions you tell him here, “well, I’m going to call a witness for that.” (* Okay.) That’s when you ask them the three magic questions.
As you study this material, you may wonder to yourself, what exactly is an “offer?” When a cop beats the shit out of you, yes, that’s an offer, but the only “account” of it is set up in your minds. Now, with an arrest, there is a booking, and then there is an “account” set up, and the “acceptance” hinges onto that account, (the offer). But, otherwise, you have to address it separately, as an offer, in writing to the person who injured you. I didn’t quite understand this at the time when I was asking this next question:
Roger: Don’t start that. You’re going to have to testify if you going to start trying to press that kind of stuff. You will get yourself here in a jam. Who cares what you’re going to call it, you’re just saying I accept here whatever you guys say it was, and if you think here, if the judge needs more testimony, I’m going to call you as a witness and you’re going get in there and tell them. So the thing is here…
J: So, you wouldn’t accept something like an incarceration as an offer?
Roger: Oh, yeah. A warrant or anything. That’s an offer. You bet it is. And you serve it on them “Accepted for Value” so that they’ve got it in the court record here when you go in there. Because when you go in there, the judge is going to make some remarks here about you being there or whatever and if you’re prepared now here to tell him here…why…and what this is…and what you mean by everything. Then guess what you’re going to do? You’re going to tell him, “Well, your honor, I’m going to call a Witness here who will give you that information. And then you name them. Don’t name them until then. You see, you can even let them know, the prosecutor, that you’ll see him in court here that particular day, and that you’re going to call, and you’re going to bring a witness. (Laugh.) You’re going to bring a witness here for the information here that you require. Whatever, however you want to do it. You don’t have to tell them if you don’t want to.
J: Right. I understand what you’re saying though. So, I would be considering the warrant that went out and my subsequent arrest and incarceration, that would be a separate offer? Or it wouldn’t be?
Roger: Well, you, however you want to take it, but the thing is, that’s the central issue.
J: Because see, I understand there’s the account that was created where they’re borrowing on my name…
Roger: But don’t get into that. That’s exactly what that warrant represents. So don’t start to get into those abstracts here or you’re going to wear yourself out, and you’re probably not going to address it right. You’re going to have too many abstracts on your mind. That’s the central issue.
Also, it is obvious, that they were going to try to “trick” me into testifying against myself.
Roger pointing this out to me really helped. In this next part, I was doing a lot of assuming and trying to think everything out in my head. Roger was explaining to me why this is not a good idea. Be in the moment, and don’t try to plan for everything in advance. Also, a lot of people think this information will “keep them from being arrested.” NOTHING in this world will “keep you from being arrested” while you live in this country, unless maybe your name is George Bush and you are related to the royal bloodline families. There is NO WAY to protect yourself from “initial arrest,” even Roger goes through this. The important part is to know how to keep from going to jail for a long period of time. Sometimes you have to go to jail in order to be “free.” Usually, it will only be for 72 hours, or maybe up to a month. On rare occasions it may be longer, but if you know this information well, you should have no problem, unless you get a really corrupt judge. If you are afraid of getting arrested, then this information is probably not for you to try to go out in the world and experiment with.
There are methods being perfected at this time to reduce the chances of being arrested off the street and to reduce the time spent behind bars. Those methods will be discussed in the final chapters. (Printed book only)
J: Okay. Well, I’ve sent them in one notice of the acceptance. Should I be sending them now my second notice and request for Taxpayer Identification #?
Roger: Well, you have…Just send them the acceptance, yeah, you can ask them for the taxpayer I.D., and blah, blah, blah…that’s all the paperwork that’s going to be in their hands when you get into court. And then when you get in there, then we go about this other business about you calling the witness and everything…
*End of transcript excerpt from conversation*
Next appearance in San Bernardino.
The D.A. calls me in to speak with her. She is a nice lady, mild mannered, Indian or Middle Eastern, very easy going. I step into her office, and ask her name. She replies with her name and puts out her hand to shake hands with me, which I accept, and I sit down. She then reads the charges to me, and I ask her “Did you receive my paperwork?” She replies, “there is quite a bit of paperwork here, mostly filed by your previous attorney” (she’s just referring to his substitution out, there really isn’t a lot of paperwork). Then I say “I am referring to the paperwork which I sent you by certified mail about a week ago.” She tells me she hasn’t received it yet or it could be in the bin, and she just hasn’t got it yet. So then I tell her, “I sent you some very important paperwork, which you ought to get a hold of right away. I have accepted this case for value and the property belongs to me now.” Then I produced my UCC-1 and told her that “I have an aggregate relationship with my strawman, and I am the creditor and the secured party of interest in this matter. This account has been accepted for value by me.” She then tells me “well I don’t understand all of that.” Next I said, “Do you know what a UCC-1 financing statement is? Do you know the meaning of Secured Party, creditor, debtor?” She looked at me with a blank stare. Then I stated “It’s all covered in the bar exam study guide.” Then she broke a smirk from the corner of her face and said, “Oh, thank you,” (I am supposed to be the attorney here and I don’t need you to point those kinds of things out for me, thank you very much, kind of attitude, but never losing her cool, always calm and pleasant.)
Then she tried to talk about a pre-trial or a trial date, and tried to set one with me. She asked me if I wanted to plea bargain. She stated “I am prepared to make you an offer if you want to plea guilty to count 1 and 2, then I’ll throw out count 3.” I said, “There is no need for any of this, as I have accepted the account for value, you really ought to read the paperwork I sent you.” She replied that she would, but she needed to set a date here or figure out if I wanted to make a plea. To which I responded, “Thank you, I’m perfectly happy with the contract we already have, but if you insist on making a new offer, I’ll have no choice but to accept it for value, as well.” At that point she revealed a little of herself, I believe, and asked me “are you talking about accepting the plea bargain or accepting the contract?” And I stated “The contract” very boldly. She asked me if I wanted to go to trial and I said, “Sure, I’ll be calling a couple of witnesses and you’ll be one of them,” and she hesitated and started to fumble slightly as she asked me what would be an appropriate date to set, or if I wanted a pre-trial first. And she mentioned that the offer could be taken back at any time in the near future. (That’s a little interesting. Rescind the offer?)
Then I asked her, “Do you have a claim against me?” and she started to say “Yes,” but caught herself and said “no,” then I asked, “Do you know anyone who has a claim against me?” and she replied “No.” Then I asked her “why are we here?” and she replied that there are charges against me for blah, and blah blah, and she asked “what would be a good date to set for trial?” I said, “Whenever, I ‘m ready.” So she brought out a piece of paperwork, where she had signed on it, and it stated the charges against me, and had a place for the defendant to sign over on the right. She asked me to sign it, and I told her, “Are you sure you want to make me a new offer? Because I’m going to accept it for value right here,” and she really didn’t say anything. She just waited for me to sign and I said “Okay, your choice,” and I wrote across the face “Accepted For Value, this property is exempt from levy, please adjust this account for the proceeds products, accounts, and fixtures, and release the order of the court to me immediately,” then I signed dated and put my employer I.D. number. The interesting thing was that she didn’t try to correct me or ask me what I was doing or anything, while it took about a minute to write it across the face of the document. Then she asked me to take it to another court and give it to the clerk. I did that, then I got sent back to the original courtroom I was supposed to appear in, and sat down.
A few minutes later the judge, a woman, called my name. I replied “I’m here in regards to that matter,” and went up through the bar, and stood there. She looked through the paperwork and asked me if I had spoken with the D.A. on the matter and I told her I had. She asked if there was a disposition and I told her that she wanted to set a date for trial or pre-trial. She asked me what I wanted to do, and I asked her if she had received my paperwork. She replied really fast and not very loud, that it was irrelevant to the matter of the charges, and she asked me if I wanted a pre-trial or a trial, and when to set a date. I asked her, “Are you aware that this case has been accepted for value?” She replied that it was not the issue or something to that effect, and asked when I wanted to come back for a pre-trial date. I then asked, “Do you have a claim against me?” and she said “there are charges, there is no claim, the court has charges against you (all the while NEVER looking directly at me, only looking down at the paperwork, and she couldn’t keep the talking rolling any faster at this point, she went on …), there are 3 charges, one is blah, blah, and then there is blah, blah, blah, and then also a charge of blah, (also reading the code sections as well, basically stalling, while she was thinking, I perceived). Then, when she finished, I asked, “Do you know anyone who has a claim against me?” and she said “no, but like I said the court has charges of so and so, and I’m going to set a date for so and so and if you don’t show up, again a warrant will go out like before,” then I said “I request the order of the court be released to me immediately,” and she asked “what?,” and I repeated it. Then she said, “Oh, I’ll have the clerk write you up a copy of the minute order,” and I said “okay,” and the clerk/ bailiff pointed me to a chair and I sat and waited.
Then the clerk came over to me and handed it to me and I said, “Oh, is that my money order,” and the secretary said “Minute Order,” correcting me, and I said, “Thank you,” and left, but went back in when I realized it wasn’t signed. I then said to the clerk, “You know, I noticed that this wasn’t signed and I was hoping to get the judge’s signature on this,” The clerk said it was a courtesy and I said, “It would have been more courteous if she had put her signature on it,” and he said, “We don’t have to give you anything.” Then I said, “I just don’t see what kind of force and effect it could have without a signature,” and the secretary interrupted and said “It isn’t an Order,” and I replied right away, “What do you mean, it says right here ‘Minute Order’,” and she started to smile, as she couldn’t help it, cause she was “caught” right there. That was kind of a fun rehearsal.
In Van Nuys again: First, before my case was called, the judge asks, “Mr. Bempechat, do you have an attorney?” I resplied, “No,” then he asked, “Do you want one?,” and I replied, “No.” Then a couple more cases were called, and then mine. The judge called my name, Mr. Bempechat. I responded, “I am here in regards to that matter.” The judge continued, “We would like to set a hearing date for this. When would you like to come back?” I responded with, “I would like to call a witness for Direct Examination!” The judge abruptly stated, “We are not going to hold a hearing today! When would you like to come back?” I replied, (speaking my mind without thinking), “I don’t want to have a hearing.” Then the judge says, “O.K., I’ll have you remanded to custody then,” and they took me away to the holding cell.
About 20 minutes later, the public defender came in and started talking to me. He asked me first off, “Who are these witnesses you are going to call?” I responded with, “well, we’ll just see when we get out there, won’t we?” And then he told me that the judge assigned him to my case and I told him that I didn’t want the public defender’s office on my case. Then he said, “What are you going to ask, what questions? There’s is a procedure here.” Then he stated, “you paid the diversion program fees, have you completed the meetings?? Then I answered, “Am I on the stand?” He responded, “You’re in jail! you can’t leave. Why are you making this difficult?” Then I asked him, “Would you like to be my witness, I’ll call you as my witness.” Then he asked, “What are you going to ask me?” And I answered, “We’ll see when we get out there.” Then he told me, “the judge doesn’t want to send you to jail, all you have to do is cooperate. You paid the fine. Have you attended the classes?” I asked him, “Are you asking me to testify?” He then said, “If you blow this the judge could sentence you to 16 months in prison. Do you want to sit in jail?” I said, “of course not.” Then he said, “Then you’ve got to cooperate.” I said to him, “I’ll talk to the Judge. I just don’t need the Public Defender’s office.” Then he stormed out.
A few minutes later, I went before the judge again. He was a little calmer, but not much. He went about setting a date for me to return and afterward, he told me once again, just as before, “I’ll release you on your own recognizance if you’ll agree to come back on so and so, a date. I then said, “Yes.” Then the public defender adds in, “I would like to ask the court, since Mr. Bempechat stated he would be calling me as a witness, and I hardly know him, having only met him just now, I couldn’t imagine what he would want me to testify to. Could I ask the court to have him do an “offer to prove,” to find out what questions he’s going to be asking me?” Then the judge looks at me and asks, “What questions are you going to ask of the witness?” I responded with, “That’s kind of hard to say at this moment. It’s a moment to moment thing. But I’ll be thinking about it.” Then the judge said, “Well, while you’re at it, look up a few phrases for me would you? Abuse of Process, Contempt of Court, and Sanctions.” Afterwards, I went up to the Public Defender and told him to tell the prosecutor to look up a word for me. He told me flat out, and clearly, “I won’t be there the next time,” but I continued and told him the word was “Barratry,” which he tried to laugh off, like it was a joke. That was the end of the court for today.
I appeared in San Bernardino again, but only to speak with the Prosecutor, briefly. It was a new prosecutor, a guy this time. (It seems that every time you do an acceptance, they change the host of characters. Maybe because you have “Accepted” the other one’s offer already, and they are trying to trick you into a non-acceptance. This whole affair was strange indeed. So I can’t remember the details as clearly because there was ALOT of conversation back and forth, but I will say the things I do recall approximately. I went into the office, a new prosecutor was present. He introduced himself. I showed him my UCC-1 and asked him if he had ever seen one of these before. He said, basically, “so what”.” I asked him if he was aware that this matter had been “Accepted” by me, and he tried to say that this was criminal and it was different and that that would only apply to a civil matter, and so on. (He was about 26-29 age range, with little experience) I informed him that I was trying to keep the previous D.A and judge out of trouble, and that they were in possession of delinquent taxes, which they needed to make the “return” on, and the adjustment on my account. I basically explained the workings of what I was doing without going into details or “defending” myself. A couple of times he tried to talk about the event I was arrested for, and I kept going back to my paperwork. “This matter has been accepted by me, please adjust my account, or provide me with a copy of your taxpayer I.D. number.” This seemed to get me nowhere. He suggested I get an attorney, and I told him I will represent myself, and I’ll be calling him as my witness. The morning ended with him giving me 3 copies all hand-signed of the paperwork saying I am the defendant, and what the matter involves etc. I “Accepted” all 3 and he let me retain one of them. He asked me why I keep signing like that, and I responded with, “Well there’s something you have to learn, right?” Then I apologized for leaving the Strawman at home, while the previous D.A. was standing there, and she suggested I bring him along next time. That was basically it for this day, and another date was set. After this appearance, before I left, I filed my “Affidavit of Denial of Existence of Corporation”) (This was probably a much bigger mistake than I realized at the time, denying the existence was a reversal of my position, and something Roger would recommend NOT to do) but I did it naively to cover my tracks)
I appeared in the Van Nuys court on October 11th as I had agreed to. The judge called the case forward and called out my name. I went up to the chair and sat down, as they prompted me to. At this point, I wanted to get the witness on the stand and ask the questions, not get sent to jail again by doing a technical mishap, like refusing to sit in the defendant’s chair, or refusing to respond to my name etc. Then I was asked if I had an attorney, and if I wanted one, again. I responded “No.” The judge looked at the prosecutor and said, “Prosecutor?” and the prosecutor called his witness to the stand. This was the probation officer. He swore in under penalty of perjury and so and so, then the prosecutor asked him several questions about whether I had given proof of enrollment in the “drug program.” He responded that I hadn’t and he didn’t really say much otherwise. (A side note here is that they switched probation officers on me at some point, and the previous one I had only met once before, briefly, a female. This guy seemed really nice, and didn’t seem like he wanted to be there much, yet alone give testimony that would hurt someone when they hadn’t truly done something wrong, except that they didn’t go to the program. In other words, he was a nice guy, and I later met with him and talked about the situation. He stated that he didn’t know how to respond to my questions, or even really understand them, but that it appeared to him that the judge was quite pissed off about the whole matter.)
So after these few questions, and a comment from the prosecutor referencing my Labor Day arrest in San Bernardino, the prosecutor was questioning whether my arrest fell into the time period that was where my “probation” really just “deferred entry of judgment.” It was never totally resolved in that instance, but I believe it was before the period started. Next, the judge asked, “do you have any questions for the witness?” And I responded “yes,” and he motioned me to go ahead. I asked, “May I have your name please?” and he gave me his name. Next I asked, “Do you have a claim against me?” and he said “No.” Next I asked, “Do you know anyone who has a claim against me?” And he said, “No,” with a confused look on his face. Then I looked at the judge and said, “I have no further questions at this time,” and I said, “I request the Order of the court be released to me immediately.” The judge looked at me and said, “I don’t know what you’re talking about. Do you have anything else to say?” I responded with, “Do you have a claim against me?” He said “No,” and then I asked, “Do you know anyone who has a claim against me?” and he said, “I am not going to repeat myself, I am going to ask you one last time if you have anything else to say,” and I said “I request the order of the court be released to me immediately.” He stated once again, “I don’t know what you’re talking about, do you have anything else to say before I set a sentencing date.” Again I repeated myself and said, “There being no one to step forward with a first-hand claim against me, I request the order of the court be released to me immediately.” And he said, “O.K., I am going to remand you to custody pending sentencing,” and I said, “I don’t consent or assent to you passing sentence on me.” (What I should have said, is “I don’t consent or assent to go to jail,” except one doesn’t always remember these details all the time when pressure is on.) So, then I was taken away and put in handcuffs. As I was leaving I handed the bailiff my UCC-1 to show to the judge along with a letter I wrote to him, which included his definitions he asked me to look up. Except that everything applied to him and the D.A. and I pointed that out in my letter. The letter is reproduced here as follows:
This is not an offer. This is not a public disclosure. DO NOT FILE
There is no intent here to violate any private copyright works of West Law Publishing or any other publishing corporation.
If you are reading this, you have probably lost patience with me, and decided to attempt to railroad me. In no way do I intend to embarrass, humiliate, or disturb you. That is not my intent. It appears to me that you feel threatened by me, and I do not intend to threaten you, however, I feel threatened myself, and my liberties are at stake. We have a big communication problem here and I believe it is due to your refusal to communicate with me. I have requested that you adjust my account, and if you are not responsible then please turn over the matter to someone who is, like the Comptroller General, for instance. Your failure to handle this matter puts you in a dishonorable position and it was not my intent to have you dishonor, leading to the lessening of the dignity of the court. I wasn’t sure whether you wanted me to look up the terms in Black’s 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, or Bouvier’s, Barron’s or Ballantine’s, so I just used Black’s 4th for most of these.
Terms & Definitions
Abuse of Process:
There is said to be an abuse of process when an adversary, through the malicious and unfounded use of some regular legal proceeding, obtains some advantage over his opponent. Wharton. Employment of process for doing an act clearly outside authority conveyed by express terms of writ. — Holding of accused incommunicado before complying with warrant requiring accused to be taken before magistrate. — Warrant of arrest to coerce debtor. A malicious abuse of legal process occurs where the party employs it for some unlawful object, not the purpose which it is intended by the law to effect; in other words, a perversion of it.
Contempt of Court:
Any act which is calculated to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct court in administration of justice, or which is calculated to lessen its authority or its dignity. Contempts are also classed as civil or criminal. The former are those quasi contempts which consists in the failure to do something which the party is ordered by the court to do for the benefit or advantage of another party to the proceedings before the court, while criminal contempt’s are acts done in disrespect of the court or it’s process or which obstruct the administration of justice or tend to bring the court into disrespect.
In the original sense of the word, a penalty or punishment provided as a means of enforcing obedience to a law. In a more general sense, a conditional evil annexed to a law to produce obedience to that law;
And a few more I found while looking those up:
In criminal law. Also spelled “Barratry.” The offence of frequently exciting and stirring up quarrels and suits, either at law or otherwise. Common barratry is the practice of exciting groundless judicial proceedings. Penal Code Cal. Section 158; In Maritime law. An act committed by the master or mariners of a vessel, for some unlawful or fraudulent purpose, contrary to their duty to the owners, whereby the latter sustain injury.
A person appearing in the writ or record as the plaintiff in a suit, but who in reality does not exist, or who is ignorant of the suit and of the use of his name in it. It is a contempt of court to sue in the name of a fictitious plaintiff.
The term is derived from the Roman law, and means, (as a noun) a person holding the character of a trustee, or a character analogous to that of a trustee, in respect to the trust and confidence involved in it and the scrupulous good faith and candor which it requires.
One is said to act in a “fiduciary capacity,” or to receive money or contract a debt in a “fiduciary capacity,” when the business which he transacts, or the money or property which he handles, is not his own or for his own benefit, but for the benefit of another person, as to whom he stands in a relation implying and necessitating great confidence and trust on one part and a high degree of good faith on the other part. The term is not restricted to technical or express trusts, but includes also such offices or relations as those of an attorney at law, a guardian, executor, or broker, a director of a corporation, and a public officer.
- Lat. A man of straw, one of no substance, put forward as bail or surety.
And these are some I found from some other Law Dictionaries:
The voluntary act of receiving something or agreeing to certain terms. In contract law, acceptance is consent to the terms of an offer, creating a binding contract; the taking and receiving of anything in good part, and as if it were a tacit agreement to a preceding act, which might have been defeated or avoided if such acceptance had not been made. The act of a person to whom a thing is offered or tendered by another, whereby he receives the thing with the intention of retaining it, such intention being evidenced by a sufficient act. — Black’s 6th
“Acceptor” means a drawee who has accepted a draft. UCC 3-103(1). The person who accepts a bill of exchange, (generally the drawee) or who engages to be primarily responsible for its payment. — Black’s 1st
Account means any right to payment for goods sold or leased or for services rendered which is not evidenced by an instrument or chattel paper, whether or not it has been earned by performance. All rights to payment earned or unearned under a charter or contract involving the use or rights of a vessel and all rights incident to the charter or contract are accounts. UCC 9-106
- To impose a burden, obligation or lien; to create a claim against property; to claim, to demand; to instruct a jury on matters of law. n. In general. An encumbrance, lien, or burden; an obligation, or duty; a liability; an accusation. In contracts. An obligation, binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a discharge. Black’s 1st
A challenge of property or ownership of a thing which is wrongfully withheld; to demand as one’s own; to assert. A right or title. Black’s 4th
A term applied to the non-fulfillment of commercial engagements. To dishonor a bill of exchange or promissory note, is to refuse or neglect to pay it at maturity. Bouveir’s 3rd
In mercantile law and usage. To refuse or decline to accept a bill of exchange, or to refuse or neglect to pay a bill or note at maturity. A negotiable instrument is dishonored when it is either not paid or not accepted, according to its tenor, on presentment for that purpose, or without presentment, where that is excused. Civil Code Cal. Section 3141 Black’s 1st
A “front,” a third party who is put up in name only to take part in a transaction in name only. Nominal party to a transaction. Black’s 6th — The term is also used in commercial and property contexts when a transfer is made to a third party, the straw man, simply for the purpose of retransferring to the transferor in order to accomplish some other purpose not otherwise permitted. Barron’s 3rd
I have also filed an affidavit into the court that it appears you are attempting to overlook. This is my “Affidavit Denying the Existence of Corporations.” It has not been rebutted. Therefore, after having looked up these definitions, it appears to me that Richard Walmark, is a “Fictitious Plaintiff,” and therefore in “Contempt of Court,” as well. Richard Walmark is also engaged in “Barratry.” I have “Accepted for Value” the accounts in question, and have provided Richard Walmark with copies of a Certified UCC-1, evidencing myself as the “Secured Party” and “Creditor” and my “Strawman” as the “Debtor.” I have a Priority “Claim” in this matter, and there has not been anyone to come forward evidencing a “claim” against me. I have “Accepted” the “Charges” for Value. Yourself, or Richard Walmark, or whoever is maintaining a “claim” against me, is in possession of taxable income, a criminal charge, which is my tax return to you, or Richard Walmark, or whoever is the “Fiduciary” in this matter. Are you my “Fiduciary” in this matter? Or is Richard Walmark my “Fiduciary” in this matter? Or maybe it is Anne Korban? Basically, what I want to know is, “Who has a claim against me,” and what I want is my account adjusted.
If you, Michael Hoff, are going to assist him in this criminal effort, then you would be a co-conspirator, and liable as well. And you are in a position of “Dishonor,” having done nothing to get my Account adjusted, and having not rebutted my affidavit. I have already sent notice of my Acceptance of Dishonor to all of the above mentioned parties. I am currently extending Grace time to you, in expectance that you, an uninterested party, would honor my acceptance, or remain uninvolved in this matter, if you are not making a claim against me. So far, my account has not been adjusted, and it appears you are the one who is making the claim against me. If this is the case, you leave me no option, but to place this information with the appropriate agencies.
I request the order(s) of the court be released to me immediately.
My friends who were with me said the judge was dealing with another case, but couldn’t concentrate because he was reading my letter, then he looked pale and “visibly shaken,” went into chambers, then wouldn’t come out for about 20-30 minutes later. Then he asked the bailiff to get the names and addresses of my friends and family and he escorted them out of the building, all the way to the front door. I’m not positive this (escorting them out) was in response to my letter or not, as Ginger made a comment about the follow-up of the paperwork I would be filing and how they will be in a lot of trouble.
My sentencing was scheduled for two weeks ahead and that is how long I was going to have to sit in jail. I hired a lawyer, to get the court date set a week in advance, but they held me the full 72 hours after, which came out to a total of ten days in county and wayside (Pitchess).
“Acceptance,” itself, will never make things go away, unless you can do the “court of conscience” properly, and it is respected (honored) as well. I also learned that asking the judge the questions, doesn’t make all the difference in the world either, as I have done this twice now, without so much as a look down, and a loud grumble. I also believe it may have upset the judge quite a bit. It might have been a good idea to hire the attorney, as I found out in court that a psychiatric evaluation had been ordered, and my lawyer had asked that it be cancelled since he explained to the judge that he
understood what I was trying to do in court, and with the paperwork, but that he had also explained to me why it wasn’t appropriate, and that you would have to be crazy to file those papers in a criminal matter. All of this was written up to this point on Oct. 27, 2000.
On Oct. 28th, I spoke to Roger on the phone for the second time. This transcript will be available at some point in the future. This next paragraph was written on Oct. 29.
Before my release hearing, after 7 days in jail, the lawyer said a couple of interesting things to me in the holding cell. Mostly to the effect of “you are infamous in this courthouse, somehow you have managed to make a name for yourself, and everyone knows who you are.” I asked “in what way do you mean that?” and he responded, “by screwing up so bad.” I don’t know if that is really the correct answer. I wholeheartedly believe in what I’m doing, and according to Roger, I had them pushed as far as you could, without them relenting. Roger explained that they had to “place the bond in someone’s hands,” and that when I hired the attorney, (they probably) at that moment gave the bond over to him. And now he is holding the bond. You see, I was thrown in on Wed. morning. Technically, I would have to have been released Sat. Morning, but that is on the weekend. Which, I don’t think they have to count as the 72 hours, but I’m not sure. I need to look into this, as I get conflicting stories. So, if the lawyer had spoken to the prosecutor before Monday afternoon, then the whole thing is blown, and we will never know what they might have done. If it was after that time, then they would have probably held me the full 2 weeks regardless, and far passed the 72 hour point. I will be inquiring as to the exact time, because I think it was very close, like Monday morning. This was discussed in the conversation with Roger. The Attorney claimed that “Acceptance” would never work in court, in a criminal matter, but I don’t think he understood the “court of conscience” part and the “Direct Exam,” and what exactly we are doing here. We know, or at least I know that “Acceptance” doesn’t finish the job, unless you can keep out of jail as well. (Pertaining to criminal matters.) I figured that maybe I had done something wrong by not getting the Direct Exam, however, Roger feels I did a good job, but that they are holding out better now, as they see what we are doing, and that they are going to “test” us further, to see if we truly know what to do. I was speaking with Ron Lutz, and he was telling me of a guy who was in court, and every judge in the courthouse stopped what they were doing to go watch this guy do his thing in the court. Apparently, there was talk in the courtroom about this so-called “new thing” going on. Make what you will of that, but it is interesting. Everything was objected to, and sustained, and the guy was railroaded as well, but the judge kept saying you could take it up on Appeal. The reason for this is that the lower courts cannot rule on controversial matters, according to Ron, and they are seeing if people will go all the way to deal with these matters, or just give in. I don’t know if this is 100% true, but it makes sense, nonetheless.
I appeared in San Bernardino again, 2 days after I was released. I was supposed to be in court on Friday but the jail hadn’t released me yet. A warrant went out for my arrest, and I’m lucky it didn’t get into the system before I was released early Sat. morning because they would have put another “hold” on me and I would have stayed a couple more days and had to post bail again so I didn’t wait in jail until the court date for arraignment on the new warrant. (This could have possibly been another week or two.) When I appeared, as expected, there was a new D.A. for no apparent reason. Having been exhausted from lack of sleep and food (I’m vegetarian, and only ate a couple of times in 10 days), I wasn’t prepared to fight this one out anymore, at this time. They gave me a plea bargain that didn’t sound that bad, and I took it. A fine and a plea of no-contest to two of the three misdemeanor charges. Which is actually BS, because I am going to bring in proof the van didn’t belong to me, which they claim the cannabis and pipe and nitrous oxide were in, and I am providing proof of my doctor’s recommendation for the cannabis and pipe. I am going to try to get the pipe (paraphernalia) charge thrown out as well.
Here is an interesting note, written on Feb. 20th 2001. I was supposed to pay a fine of $500, which I had agreed to pay. However, the court had agreed to release my funds to me immediately. ($747.00 dollars that was seized from me on the day of my arrest.) I later found out that they had given it all to my previous attorney, at his request. I was supposed to pay this by Jan. 5th, and haven’t to this day, except for my “acceptance,” which is “payment in fact.” To this day, I have not heard a thing from the court, or even received a letter. Now, it could be because they screwed up and gave it to my attorney, precluding me from using it for payment, or most likely, the “Acceptance” paid it off, and they can’t come asking for it again. (I have still not given them any Federal reserve notes or other forms of payment other than my “Acceptance.” I have not heard anything from them to this day.) (Apparently they took the acceptance and adjusted the account to “zero”.) (I should have looked to see if they had “closed the escrow” and “sealed the record.” If they didn’t, they are subject to some government interference if I turn them all in, for “securities violations” and “delinquent taxes”.)
Here are parts of the conversation I had W/ Roger when I got out. Oct 28, 2000. He comments on several things like the “assignment of the bond in the background.” He also brings up a good point, about how people who did what I did would have prevailed before but now, as of this time and several people in the courts doing this, they were starting to work harder at concealing their crimes.
J: I had the probation officer on the stand, after the prosecution had asked their questions. The judge turns to me and asks, “Do you have any questions for the witness?,” and I said “Yes,” and I asked the questions, “May I have your name please?,” Do you have a claim against me?, Do you know anyone who has a claim against me?, and everything went smoothly as far as that goes, the probation officer had no idea really what I was talking about, and then I looked at the judge and I said, “I have no further questions at this time, I request the order of the court be released to me immediately,” and the judge looked at me and said, “I don’t know what you’re talking about,” and then I …..(Roger stepping in)
Roger: It doesn’t make any difference.
J: Well what do you mean, go ahead….
Roger: It doesn’t make any difference here what he says. Go ahead, because….
J: O.K., well, what happened was the judge said, “Do you have anything else to ask?” Then I turned to the judge and asked “Do you have a claim against me?” and he said “No,” and I asked, “Do you know anyone who has a claim against me?” and he says in a stalling kind of tone, “I’m not going to keep answering these questions, if you have nothing else to say, I’m going to set a date for sentencing,” and I responded once again with “I request the order of the court be released to me immediately.” Again he repeated, “I don’t know what you’re talking about,” and he asked “do you have anything else to say?” and I replied back, “There being no one to come forward with a first-hand claim and testify against me, I request the order of the court be released to me immediately,” and he said, “I don’t know what you’re talking about, I’m going to remand you to custody pending sentencing.” And he did that, and I got taken into custody and I was held for ten days. My date for sentencing was set for two weeks later, and I had to hire an attorney that knew the judge by some weird coincidence, and I came to find out they had a psychiatric evaluation scheduled…..
Pages 314, 315, 316,317, 318, 319, 320 Not Included in Free Version – To Order the FULL Version in either Softcover or E-Book, Please Visit the Store.