To: Officer RE: Ticket #____________ CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND DEMAND NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, accused ___ ___, takes the following exceptions to your _____ __, 199__ issuance of a NOTICE OF PARKING VIOLATION # __ ______. The California Vehicle Code #22502 is cited as a Code of Regulation for curb parking. C.V.C. 17459, UNDER DIVISION 9, ARTICLE 4. SERVICE OF PROCESS STATES: "The acceptance by a resident of this state of a certificate of ownership or a certificate of registration of any motor vehicle or any renewal thereof, issued under the provisions of this code, shall constitute the consent of the person that the service of summons may be made upon him within or without this state, in any action brought in the courts of this state upon a cause of action arising in this state out of the ownership or operation of the vehicle." A parking violation ticket to appear or deposit bail is a summons in civil procedure. The code in section 17459 states that a certificate of registration constitutes the consent by the person of service of summons to a CAUSE OF ACTION. The Notice of Parking Violation #________ does not state a "CAUSE OF ACTION", as the Code of Civil Procedure defines "action", and what constitutes an action, and the Civil Code defines the condition of an action. An ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WILL BE FILED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT, along with a subpoena for your presence. Your failure to appear will constitute a contempt of Court (see Code of Civil Procedure). Failure to bring the injured body forward for examination will constitute grounds for contempt charges against YOU! If the Notice of Parking Violation #_____________ is on an account number, then bring forth an accounting for examination, as it is a civil matter. As an agent for the D.M.V. you have made a conclusion of law to which I have taken exception. Said notice is an attempt to extort funds from me by inverting the burden of proof without evidence that a crime has been committed in violation of Rules 2, 3, 4, and 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Since you are an executive officer, you have broken the law by impersonating a judicial officer by levying a bail against me. Title 18 United States Code, Section 241, provides that..."any person who goes on the highway in disguise to prevent or hinder the free exercise and enjoyment of any right so secured by law...shall be fined not more than $10,000.00 or imprisoned not more than ten years or both. The reference to the disguise in the foregoing section is in reference to someone impersonating an officer of the law. You are impersonating an officer of the law by declaring that to be law which IS NOT law because you are an executive officer performing a judicial function, and further, you have no victim or injured party to sign a complaint. Further, Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, provides for one or more persons who, under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any state, territory, or district to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution, or laws of the United States...shall be fined not more than $1,000.00 or imprisoned not more than one year or both. Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, with its color of law provision, gives a cause of action to apply Title 18, United States Code, Section 241, because Section 241 needs two persons in disguise and Section 242 provides the second person under color of law as the "QUASI SUMMONS" mentioned herein implies that a judge in the Municipal Court is acting in concert to commit an overt act of fraud and extortion for conversion. Demand is now upon you to dismiss this action within ten (10) days from receipt of this Notice and Demand. Unless, by appropriate return response to this Notice, the existence of some other factual basis to further compel an appearance in this matter is shown. No other will be deemed necessary by the undersigned accused. This Notice will serve as a basis for an action at law to commence in the United States Court by diversity pursuant to Rule 7 (a) and (c), and Rule 81 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the jurisdiction provided in Title 42, United States Code, Sections 1983 and 1985; Title 28, United States Code, Sections 1331 and 1343 and others with Title 18, United States Code Sections 241, 242, 872, 1621, 1622, and 1623 providing for the administration of the penalties upon failure to comply with the terms now on demand by this Notice. I suggest that you give me written notice, at the address listed below, of such dismissal as demanded herein within ten (10) days to avoid any unnecessary complications which may arise in court from further action on this matter from damages stated herein and other such violations and damages that apply, or will apply as future results will occur and be applied. SEND YOUR RESPONSE TO: Dated: ______________________ ---End--- So, there's a Constructive Notice. Not the one you wanted, but enough to give you an idea as to what they are. I left off the Court caption and heading at the top, for space considerations. Needless to say, any paper filed with the court has to conform to the local rules for filings, and that may change from court to court. Before doing anything like this, you should read all applicable rules and laws. In the next few posts, I'll be giving excerpts of the points and authorities quoted in the Constructive Notice that you really wanted. Frog Farmer [here's another] CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE TAKE NOTICE! THIS CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE is being given you as the only legal warning you will receive. You would not be receiving it had you not failed to satisfactorily identify yourself in response to my timely and valid request pursuant to the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, the CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA and various State and Federal Statutes, including the Federal Privacy Act of 1974, and Title 42, section 1983, and others, and relevant U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, including Miranda v. Arizona, binding on you if you are indeed, as you claim to be, a public servant under oath to support the same and acting under color of law while violating my rights, which I claim and demand at all times, never waiving any right for any cause or reason at any time. These rights include the right to travel. Therefore: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT - ANYTHING YOU SAY CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF LAW - YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. It is within your discretion to release me without further proceeding. To fail to do so will irreparably harm me and will result in your prosecution. I hereby deny your jurisdiction over my person and property, and demand that you prove such jurisdiction within your own agency, before your superiors at a docketed administrative hearing on the record, and that I be provided with an opportunity to appeal any administrative determinations made in any ex parte hearings of which I have not received timely and proper legal notice. I demand that you exhaust all of your administrative remedies before seeking relief in an appeal to the Courts. You are hereby put on Notice that Title 18, United States Code, section 241 provides that any person who goes on the highway in disguise to prevent or hinder the free exercise and enjoyment of any right so secured by law (such as the rights to life, liberty, and property) shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years or both. Penalties exist under California law as well. The reference to the disguise is in reference to someone impersonating an officer of the law. You are impersonating an officer of the law by declaring that to be law which is not law and you have no victim or injured party to sign a complaint. Also, if you were not in disguise, you would not have refused to give the information that I requested in order to be sure that you were not an imposter with an evil intent or motive. Highwaymen have used disguises of various sorts, including pretending to be government agents, in the past, and will undoubtedly do so in the future, in order to get their victims to drop their guard. Be assured, my guard will not be dropped but upon your production of facts supporting your claims, the knowledge of which is my right which I demand. Until such due process is rendered me, you are abridging my right to travel, an inseparable part of my right to liberty. If you are indeed who you are holding yourself out to be, by your own claim, a member of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of government, you have no business in issuing any "summons" or judicially commanding either my person, my possessions, or my freedom to do anything beyond your limited executive powers. You may be under the mistaken impression that you are protected by your qualified immunity. You are not. Pursuant to Davis v. Scherer, 82 L.Ed.2d 139, 104 S.Ct.547 (1984); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800,818 (1982); and the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of Harlow in Copeoman v. Reed, 754 F.2nd 1512,1514 (1985) this NOTICE serves to "clearly establish" my rights (including my rights to travel and to due process) which you are bound to under ))40300-40604 of the Vehicle Code to be brought, without delay before the court. The above cited cases stand for the position that a State official's violation of state regulation, after an individual "clearly establishes" his rights at the time of the alleged violation, that official loses his qualified immunity from suit under 42 USCS )1983. A plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official's qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue. Davis v. Scherer, 82 L.Ed.2d 139,151. Though the State of California may have a STATUTE purportedly giving judicial powers to the executive branch of government, it could not have been Lawfully granted, and it, (if there is one), MUST BE NULL AND VOID! This is not just a naked assertion as I rely upon the following reasons: Firstly, the Supreme Law of the Land in the Third Article of the United States Constitution states that, "The judicial powers shall be vested in the courts"! It makes no provision otherwise as it did not say that, "the judicial powers are vested with the courts and CERTAIN OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCHES." This Belligerant Claimant in Person DEMANDS ALL HIS RIGHTS. This includes the Constitutional Right to a "Separation of Powers": "The United States shall guarantee to every State of the Union, a republican form of government..." Article IV, Section IV, United States Constitution And; "The powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted in this Constitution." Article III, Section 3, Constitution of the State of California It is plain and simple; the executive branch DOES NOT have any of the judicial powers to issue summons. An "executive summons" conforms to the WRITS OF ASSISTANCE which so incensed our forefathers as to require them to willingly lay down their lives in a war against King George III, so as to divest themselves of such tyrannical bonds. Any intention or attempt to TRANSFER POWER from one branch of government to another is a flagrant violation of the Law. "Any fundamental or basic power necessary to government cannot be delegated." Wilson v. Philadelphia School District, 113 ALR 1401 No powers are more fundamental or basic to our American system of government than the legislative, executive, and judicial, because in every body politic these three branches, however divided, are the very roots of any form of government. As you have just been informed, these fundamental powers cannot Lawfully be transferred one to another. As was observed above, although California MIGHT have a statute purporting to give the executive branch certain judicial powers, it came without the proper authority to do so, and however well it has been established by precedents otherwise, we must note that: "If the legislature clearly misinterprets a Constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right." Amos v. Mosley, 77 SO 619. Also see Kingsley v. Metril, 99 NW 1044 Any statute or branch of government co-mingling the basic powers of one exercising some of the power of the other, must be seen as a clear misinterpretation of the Supreme Law of the Land, because: "Where the meaning of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous, there can be no resort to construction to attribute to the founders a purpose or intent NOT MANIFEST IN ITS LETTER." Norris v. Baltimore 192 A 531 And; "No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. It is not to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as fundamental law. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute." A.Hamilton, Federalist Papers #78 See also Warning v. The Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia, P.93; First Trust Co. v. Smith, 277 SW 762, Marbury v. Madison, 2 L Ed 60; and Am.Juris. 2d Constitutional Law, section 177-178 --End of this section of constructive notice-- 90Jul30 8:28 pm from Frog Farmer @ Interface The above few posts are only the part of the constructive notice that dealt with the Executive Branch and the Separation of Powers. Other sections deal with the Appearance Before a Magistrate. Frog Farmer The Notice ends with: THEREFORE, TAKE NOTICE that I claim all of my rights at all times never waiving any of my legal or Constitutional rights at any time. I object to being detained, questioned, or searched. I object to my person, my automobile, or my real or personal property being searched. I demand counsel of my own choice before answering any questions or making any other statement. I demand that you give probable cause for this arrest, and produce a 4th Amendment warrant. I deny any and all jurisdiction over my person, and demand that you or your agency exhaust all administrative remedies available to you before taking any action in the courts. I therefore demand a docketed administrative hearing on the record before your agency, with counsel of my own choice, scheduled so as to give me enough time to properly prepare my case. Dated:______________ Signed, Further, United States Code, Title 18, section 242 provides for one or more persons who, under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any state, territory, or district to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States...shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year or both. Title 18, United States Code, section 242, with it's color of law provision, gives a cause of action to apply Title 18, section 241, United States Code, because section 241 needs two persons in disguise and section 242 provides the second person under color of law as the Notice that you issued implies a judge in the Municipal Court is acting in concert with you to commit an overt act of fraud and extortion for conversion. Demand is upon you to withdraw the invalid Notice #_____ within ten ( 10) days from receipt of this Notice and Demand or Action will commence in the United States District Court pursuant to Rule 7(a) and (c) of the criminal rules of procedure by the jurisdiction provided in Title 42, United States Code, sections 1983 and 1985; Title 28, U.S.C. sections 1331 and 1343 and others with Title 18, U.S.C., sections 241, 242, 872, 1621, 1622, and 1623 providing for the administration of the penalties. I suggest that you give me written notice of such withdrawal as demanded herein within ten (10) days of your receipt of this Notice and Demand or action will commence against you for damages stated herein and other such violations and damages that apply to this matter or will apply as future results will occur and be applied. Ignorance of this letter and contempt for the rights and sovereignty of this inhabitant of California are folly on your part. Be advised that I am ready with papers prepared right now to file actions in Federal District Court in forma pauperis against you, should you fail to withdraw your invalid Notice within ten (10) days. This Constructive Notice is to inform you that those papers will be filed against you and other pending conspirators in this conspiracy and fraud against this sovereign natural individual inhabitant of the state of California, who has rescinded all contracts with the United States federal government, the State of California, and each of it's political subdivisions, thereby establishing himself as a freeman under the organic national Constitution of the Republic of the United States of America who is NOT a "person required" to have license plates or other registration evidence displayed on his vehicle. Send your response to: --end