1 Anthony JG Hosier

2 c/o 70 Del Norte St.

3 denver, colorado, by [80221]
4 Tele: 720-495-2435
5

6 ADAMS COUNTY COURT

7
) Case No. 09-T14451
8 THE STATE OF COLORADO )
)
9 Plaintiff-in-Error, )
) MOTIONS TO DISMISS
10 vs. )
)
11 ANTHONY JG HOSIER, )
) Date: __ Day of ____ (month), 2006 (date of trial)
12 <sic> <misnomer> )
)
13 Aggrieved Defendant ) __:__ A.M. or P.M. (time of trial), Traffic Court
14

15

16 MOTIONS TO DISMISS
17

18 I, Anthony JG Hosier, having appeared under threat, duress, and coercion, only to protect
19 Aggrieved Defendant's interests, without any appearance of an adverse party, where the Judge
20 was not an impartial party, but also prosecution, which is a conflict of interests and gives rise to
21 violation of due process rights of the alleged defendant, who is now aggrieved because of such
22 impartiality, and as such this court has lost immunity and any preconceived jurisdiction.
23

24 Further investigation shows that there was no probable cause for the arrest and seizure at
25 the time of such arrest and seizure. There was no disturbance of the peace, felony, or warrant for
26 such action, and no commission of a crime leading to another cause of action against the
27 Plaintiff and Officer for harassment and obtaining a signature under threat, duress and coercion.
28

29 Aggrieved Defendant had committed no crime at the time of stop and seizure by citing
30 the Officer. The Aggrieved Defendant was charged with a traffic code or rule violation classified

MOTIONS TO DISMISS

-1-
 1 by state, or local government code as an infraction. An infraction is not a crime. Courts
2 commonly define the word infraction as, a ‘quasi-crime.’ Blacks Law Dictionary Seventh
3 Edition defines the word ‘Quasi’ as; “Seemingly but not actually; in some sense; resembling;
4 nearly” Therefore, an infraction is not a crime but rather, something that seemingly could be a
5 crime but, is not actually, - something that appears to be in some sense a crime but, is not
6 actually, - bares some resemblance to a crime but, is not actually, - nearly a crime but, is not
7 actually. Clearly the Aggrieved Defendant, committed no crime!
8

9 Created to protect the people from abuses of police powers, The Forth Amendment of the
10 Constitution for the United States of America, allows police officers to seize and/or arrest a
11 person of the flesh only when a police officer has ‘probable cause’ to believe that a person has
12 committed a crime, or is involved in the commission of a crime.
13

14 The Aggrieved Defendant is fully aware of and does not surrender or waive Rights
15 guaranteed in the federal and State Constitutions, or his free exercise of those Rights. SEE:
16 Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S., 742 at 748. “Waivers of Constitutional Rights must not only be
17 done voluntarily, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of
18 the relevant circumstances and consequences.” Further, the exercise of a Constitutional Right
19 cannot be converted into a crime. SEE: Miller v. U.S., 230 F, 2d 286, 489. “The claim and
20 exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.” However, that is exactly
21 what the State of Colorado has done by converting Aggrieved Defendant’s claim and exercise of
22 Constitutional Rights into a crime. The State opposes and contradicts those Rights and brings
23 action against Aggrieved Defendant for his/her exercise of those Rights, and in so doing, denies
24 and defies the Constitutions, including defying Constitutional provisions against Bills of
25 Attainder and pains and penalties. For such charges to be brought by the State against a Citizen
26 in any court constitutes treason by those who bring and prosecute the charges. For the court to
27 hear such charges demonstrates that the court fails to honor Constitutional Rights and fails due
28 process of law. The presiding judge has taken an oath to uphold the Constitutions, and pursuant
29 to that oath and his/her duties to the Constitutions, and not to fraud and color of law, the judge
30

MOTIONS TO DISMISS

-2-
 1 has the discretion to dismiss the unlawful charges, uphold his/her oath, the Constitutions and
2 dismiss this case.
3

5 In the interest of justice and to preclude further injury to the Citizen and Aggrieved Defendant:
6

8 MOTION # 1
9 Aggrieved Defendant hereby motions the court to dismiss for failure to establish probable
10 cause, or to issue a "Notice of Infraction", (officer issued a "NOTICE TO APPEAR"), therefore
11 the court has no jurisdiction in the matter.
12

13 MOTION # 2
14 Aggrieved Defendant hereby motions the court to dismiss for failure to establish probable
15 cause for the traffic stop, and a contested hearing within ninety days under the Constitution of
16 the Untied States therefore any jurisdiction is lost in the matter.
17

18 MOTION # 3
19 Aggrieved Defendant hereby motions the court to dismiss for lack of prosecution at
20 hearing. Prosecution failed to invoke jurisdiction, wherefore this court has lost any alleged
21 jurisdiction and has denied an adversarial proceeding amounting to lack of due process.
22

23 MOTION # 4
24 Aggrieved Defendant hereby motions the court to suppress all evidence unlawfully
25 obtained by the traffic stop "arrest" by the arresting officer who comes with unclean hands. The
26 Constitution of the United States forbids that a standing army may be maintained in peace time.
27 Such constitutional abuse of WAR POWERS, if not rebutted by some superior law, will be
28 evidence of such willful intent to injure the rights of peaceful Citizens.
29

30

MOTIONS TO DISMISS

-3-
 1 MOTION # 5
2 Aggrieved Defendant hereby motions the court to dismiss for failure to obtain and correct
3 the true name of the Defendant at hearing. The Defendant has never been known as
4 ANTHONY JG HOSIER or any other nom de guerre, and comes into this court under the
5 American Flag of Peace, and municipality has no express authority to use marshal war powers
6 upon this Citizen without lawful declaration. This Citizen also declares that the venue is
7 improper, in that the alleged infraction did not occur upon any municipal property and as such
8 must be dismissed.
9

10 MOTION # 6
11 The Aggrieved Defendant further motions the court to dismiss for lack of statutory
12 authorization of officer to issue a "NOTICE TO APPEAR", or provide such statute that
13 authorizes such form to be issued by a member of the executive branch.
14

15 The Aggrieved Defendant further motions the court to dismiss for lack of constitutional
16 authorization of officer to issue a "SUMMONS.” The officer is a member of the executive
17 branch of government and the Constitution forbids occupying or acting under two branches of
18 government simultaneously, also being a violation of a public officer’s oath of office.
19

20

21

22 Aggrieved Defendant objects to the martial law war powers summary judgment of this
23 court and lack of due process and I reserve all my rights under the common law including the
24 right to appeal, without cost and do not voluntarily waive any rights.
25

26 Submitted this (day (i.e., 8th day), month), 2005

27

28

29 _________________________________
30 (signature)

MOTIONS TO DISMISS

-4-
 1
Anthony JG Hosier, De Jure Soli, Sanguinis, Coronea
2
c/o 70 Del Norte St.
3
denver, colorado, [by 80221]
4

9
I, Anthony JG Hosier certify that, I have served the Office of Prosecuting Attorney a true
10
and correct copy of the Motions to Dismiss on this (enter date (i.e., 7th)) day of (type name of
11
month), 2005 by leaving a copy with the Clerk, also filing a copy of said legal document with the
12
Court Clerk on the above specified date.
13

14

15
Affiant, _____________________________________
16
(signature)
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

MOTIONS TO DISMISS

-5-