2017 1028

Transcript of the following recorded audio.

TALKSHOE ANGELA MYPRIVATE AUDIO 2017 1026 Rich Iverson Sales Tax
He who consents cannot receive an Injury.mp3

2:07:50 Caller Dallas…

Have you ever been in a uh… court case where you had a JURY?

2:07:57 Guest Speaker Rich Iverson…

No…
When I… when someone wants to work with me… standing rule is no jury NO JURY
TRIAL… NO JURY TRIAL. You want to know why?

2:08:15 Guest Speaker Rich Iverson…

Because you CAN’T CONTROL 12 people.

2:08:21 Guest Speaker Rich Iverson…

But you can CONTROL someone wearing that black robe. You can CONTROL them
with a COURT CASE called AUTO EQUITY SALES vs. SUPERIOR COURT… you’re
aware of that?

2:08:35 Guest Speaker Rich Iverson…

Okay, well… if you’re doing this work that’s PEOPLE vs. SAVA and AUTO EQUITY
SALES [vs. SUPERIOR COURT] are your two principle weapons.

PEOPLE vs. SAVA tells us that INFRACTIONS are NOT CRIMES. And here’s the
hyphen on that case… a little later on in the same paragraph you’re going to see this…

The legislature NEVER INTENDED INFRACTIONS to be CRIMES.

Now, anybody who knows about statutory construction and knows what judges and, you
know, what the prime directive for judicial officer is, knows that, that the court HAS TO
DETERMINE LEGISLATIVE INTENT.

And in PEOPLE vs. SAVA the court tells us what the LEGISLATURE INTENDED.
Wasn’t that nice of them? Of course!

Now, the other one is AUTO EQUITY SALES vs. SUPERIOR COURT…
Why is that an important court case?
Because it addresses the DOCTRINE of STARE DECISIS.

The DOCTRINE of STARE DECISIS is pecking order. All the folks in the military will
understand this concept. No traffic court commissioner or pro temp outranks the
Supreme Court or an Appellate Court.

So if the Supreme Court rules a certain way no pro temp, no commissioner, no trial judge
can rule contrary to a holding or a decision by the Supreme Court or a court of Superior
jurisdiction. That’s what you’re going to see in AUTO EQUITY SALES vs. SUPERIOR
COURT. That’s a precedent setting case and it hamstrings a judicial officer. So if you’ve
ever gone into court and you file paper, I don’t know if you do that, but one of things that,
you know, Richard [McDonald] taught and instructed and something I would do to this
day is PREPARE and FILE a lot of JUDICIAL NOTICES.

One of the JUDICIAL NOTICES I would file would be PEOPLE vs. SAVA.
The court HAS TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE of PEOPLE vs. SAVA.

I would also file a JUDICIAL NOTICE regarding AUTO EQUITY SALES vs.
SUPERIOR COURT because they have to take… they CAN’T DEVIATE from it once
it’s in THE RECORD. That’s BANG – you GOT ‘EM. If they do, you got them on
APPEAL, hopefully.

So, in any event, umm… yeah AUTO EQUITY SALES is very powerful for
hamstringing the judicial officer.

Now, in an INFRACTION case we DON’T get a JURY TRIAL anyway.

2:11:49 Caller Dallas…

But, yeah something like this… what you said there… I learned that from Richard
[McDonald] too NEVER, EVER enter MOTIONS… ALWAYS enter JUDICIAL
NOTICES because they CAN’T avoid seeing a JUDICIAL NOTICE it ??? the case.

02:12:01 Guest Speaker Richard Iverson…

Which is true, however Richard [McDonald] did advocate umm… the DEMURRERS…
you recall that? Okay, okay, now here’s the thing…

Umm… okay… I deviated from Richard, Richard’s TACTICS umm… beginning with
my very first case. And the reason I did that was because I was, I was talking with him
and also my other mentor law coach a guy named Steve Jones… and at the time we all
knew that INFRACTIONS weren’t crimes.
Now when it comes to a DEMURRER uh… a DEMURRER is… when you translate
word DEMURRER in street terms it means, “Yeah, So? So what? Okay, “So what?”
“Okay, what else you got?” Okay, that’s a DEMURRER.

Now I never… now Richard [McDonald] would always did… he recommended a

DEMURRER in a MOTION TO SUPPRESS. I chose not to do a DEMURRER and I
chose not to do MOTION TO SUPPRESS because we were aware that INFRACTIONS
were NOT CRIMES. So what I used was a MOTION TO QUASH. Even though the
word MOTION is part of the identity of the paper [PLEADING] it’s a type of paper
[PLEADING] that it is.

A MOTION TO QUASH is a frontal attack on jurisdiction. Given that INFRACTIONS

are NOT CRIMES where is the AUTHORITY were an ARRAIGNMENT commissioner
to accept a PLEA when NO CRIME has been alleged? When NO CRIME has been
charged?

Well, that’s interesting to know, but here’s this part…

Unless that judicial officer has all the legs of the JURISDICTIONAL STOOL the only
thing they can do is DISMISS for want of jurisdiction.

Now there’s three legs primarily to the JURISDICTIONAL STOOL.

They have JURISDICTION to determine jurisdiction, there’s IN PERSONAM
jurisdiction, and there is SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction. So if they… so they always
have the leg of the STOOL JURISDICITON to determine whether they have it or not.
But if they don’t have the IN PERSONAM leg or the SUBJECT MATTER leg well they
CAN’T sit on the STOOL okay. Oh, they can, but they’re going to fall down.

So a MOTION TO QUASH is a direct uh… attack on the JURISDICTION of the court.

So in my first, you know, case… that’s what I did. Well, I was NOT successful. And the
reason I WASN’T SUCCESSFUL is because I was a rookie, and I was learning, and I
didn’t do things correctly even with Richards and Steve’s help. They weren’t in court
with me. I did it, you know, I did it by myself and I, you know, they weren’t there and
there’s unknown variables. And so I did that with my first four cases and I LOST the first
four cases, but I learned a lot. Yeah they were expensive. I never went to jail. Uh…
none of that stuff. But, you know, I lost the cases and I had to pay.

And I subsequently, after all these years of study, uh… have… there’s one court case…
you see the judges do NOT believe you can use a MOTION TO QUASH in a criminal
action. You see the majority of MOTIONS TO QUASH are only done in civil actions
and it only has to do with QUASHING the SUMMONS, you know, it’s MOTION TO
QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS. They’ll say something was defective about the
SERVICE OF SUMMONS.

Well, I have a court case that tells me that uh… no, you can use a MOTION TO QUASH
in a criminal action. Well, they DON’T want to tell me that umm… a traffic trial is civil,
they’re NEVER going to tell you that. But, that’s what it really is. Because it’s
technically a BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION for 99% of all the reasons people are
stopped. Burned out tail light, expired tag, no plate, umm… overly tinted windows, you
know, fuzzy… two big fuzzy dies, not wearing a seatbelt, talking on a cell phone, five,
ten miles over the speed limit those AREN’T CRIMES okay.

Now in California you probably remember this, uh… when you were, you know, working
with Richard [McDonald] uh… you were probably made aware that the Californian
INFRACTION was based on the New York model.

And they had the INFRACTION in 1933. Well, California didn’t get around to codifying
it into law until 1968, but California chose, they left out a part from the New York model.
Now, in INFRACTION in New York is NOT a CRIME. So you don’t go to court to
resolve a traffic issue. If there’s anybody on the call from New York please correct me if
I’m mistaken or if I’m wrong. But, you don’t go to a courtroom you go to an office
because it’s an ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING.

Well, California chose to leave the ADMINISTRATIVE part out of it. And so those of us
who get uh… get a NOTICE TO APPEAR with an INFRACTION on it we go to a
courtroom, not an office building. So here’s what they did. They uh… they’re taking a
BREACH OF CONTRACT case which is technically a civil action but they’re rectifying
or attempting to remedy it within a criminal environment… a criminal trial environment.

2:18:35 Caller Dallas…

That’s based on the assumption of the court?

2:18:36 Guest Speaker Rich Iverson…

Yes.
Now have you read uh… “Driving Ms Hazy”?