Toms court trial results for 10-31-2013
IC 18-705 Disobeying a lawful order- Limitations? written or ambiguous?
If all laws apply to all people and I can be guilty of obstruction, cannot the officer be guilty of obstruction by restricting the right to travel creating congestion on the motorway? Or can the officer be guilty of obstructing and detaining me for an alleged crime that was never committed? If Title 18 is crimes and punishments should I have not been charged Guilty, in a court of law prior to punishment? Have I committed a crime? If I haven’t, How can I be arrested?
IC 49-654-2 Basic rule and maximum speed limits-according to the proper statute I was not speeding. I know how fast I was going and the burden of proof is upon the officer to show evidence that I was guilty.(See attachment-IC Excessive speed)
IC 49-106-8 Excessive speed defined (See attachment)
Ambiguity between the statutes- which is proper siting? Details and intent of statute.
ISP manipulation of violation on ticket- 49-654-2 (See Ticket)
There is no state statute :
DRIVING SPEED-(1-15MPH) EXCEEDING MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT POSTED SPEED LIMIT, There is ALSO no legislative statute that denotes (1-15mph)
DOT manipulates speed limits- title 40 only allows for construction zones
All laws must be created in the legislature(See constitution)
Where is the evidence? Blood on the knife?
Where is the evidence that proves to this court that I am guilty of a crime?
Like the blood on a knife, there must be beyond a reasonable doubt that I am guilty of a crime. There has to be provable evidence in court that links me to the violation.
Where is the ACHD camera footage? Where is the audio and video of the traffic stop? Which is the proper statute that I am allegedly guilty of violating?
Excessive force- When asked for my driver’s license and proof of insurance In an effort to exercise my rights I asked the officer if they could be used against me in a court of law, to which he became angry but did not answer the question. After asking him two more times for the answer he refused and threatened me with arrest to which I submitted them.
Under what authority consistent with the principles of freedom and liberty can an officer or an employee of the court detain and demand complete submission without having to answer the questions that a detainee asks to protect his rights?
How then in exercising those rights can the court allow me to be labeled argumentative, when it is my right granted to me by God, guaranteed by the constitution to stand against the violations by a government on its people.
Profiling- As it is no secret law enforcement agencies and courts across the country adhere to the rhetoric of the SPLC and the DHS’s characterization that those that love liberty, have Don’t tread on me stickers of American flags or Christian symbols are ridiculously labeled terrorists…( See Truck photo attachment)
How can I be guaranteed that as I was traveling on the motorway that I was not profiled as an alleged “domestic terrorist” by an officer that may have a dislike for those that lawfully and respectfully challenge authority?
Unconstitutional creation and implementation of laws
It has been stated by attorneys and magistrates that all laws created are considered laws and somehow therefore constitutional but have never been challenged for constitutionality.
If laws are created by a legislature that have no understanding of the intent of our Founding fathers or the constitution, and have never been challenged, what safeguards the people from the abuses of government when they are defined by a government that lacks this understanding?
How can the accused be given a court date to meet with a judge and upon arrival be met with only prosecuting attorneys without the presence of a magistrate? Where was Judge Hawley?
Is it now proper, as the accused, to be called into court, delegated a judge and a time for a hearing only to meet with and subject to negotiations with the one that is my accuser without any firsthand knowledge of the crime?
If only the accused and the accuser are in the room how is this lawful and consistent with the rights and protections that were to be afforded to me in a court of law to protect me from the possible coercion and abuse of the state?
When I go into court to contest a traffic violation and I ask the prosecuting attorney if he read my paperwork and he looks at me smiles, laughs and says “ no, it’s a speeding ticket” What is the point of a court appearance when anyone accused of a violation is guilty regardless of evidence?
Jurisdiction- I am unable to plea for fear of entering into a foreign jurisdiction.
According to 4 USC, ch1, sec.1,2. Even the flag behind you represents no nation in that according to this title there is no mention of any adornment on the flag and appears to be identical to the Admiralty or military jurisdictional flag according to Army regulations and executive orders( See attachment-Gold fringe flag) Judge, are we under a state of emergency or martial law?
OATH- if the oath of state officials is to the constitution AND the laws of the state of Idaho, how can they be the same oath if the laws created are created by many without knowledge or intent of the constitution or the laws that have never been challenged for constitutionality?
Which law supersedes which law, the statue statute, that more often than not, restricts the rights of the people or the constitution that restricts contains and limits government? They are not the same unless we have also allowed government to define what our rights are.
Original Closing statement:
After years of Tyrannical rule, the founding fathers fled from the oppression of the king, so that they may be free to exercise their God given rights of Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to be secure in their effects and to travel without restriction. In doing so, they created a government to protect and preserve those rights. In an effort to guarantee this preservation, they created documents that specifically enumerated those rights that kept government limited preserving those rights for future generations.
After decades of apathy, ignorance and complete lack of vigilance, governments incrementally continually increased their power and authority and due to the general faith and trust of the people in their government allowed it to happen, without the proper delegated authority, acting unlawfully until today, the once inherent power and authority that was once in the people has been taken where today governments, once the servants have become the masters and the people have become the subservient slaves.
It is because of this unauthorized continual taking of power and the erosion of our rights, where the people have begun to rise and take back what rightfully belongs to us, bestowed upon us by our Creator and guaranteed by our constitution to protect and preserve those rights for future generations.
It is for this reason I am here and nothing else, to urge this court to reconsider its place in our alleged constitutional republic and to acknowledge its limitations, that were to preserve the freedom of the people not to exercise authority without limitations and generating millions of tax revenue to further restrict their rights.
I ask this court to rule in favor of the accused in this case because the weight of the historical record is in my favor, and consistent with all of the founding principles of this nation’s creation and not in favor of one or two manipulated and contorted statutes that violate those principles. In addition I also request that the term “argumentative” is removed from my traffic history.
I also request that this case not in any way affect my driving record because nothing could be proven because there was no wrongdoing.
I also request that a correction be made to clarify the ambiguity within the law regarding the statutes 49-654-2 and 49-106 as well as the corrections made on future traffic citations that are misleading because of this ambiguity.
I also ask that I or someone of any basic knowledge of the constitution and the principles of freedom educate these governmental agencies as to not only the proper role of government but the purpose of the creation of government and the historical reasoning of its implementation.
It would be my pleasure to volunteer to take the time to help educate our officers on these principles, reducing the ever increasing communication gap between law enforcement and its people, proving that we are not the enemy creating a more harmonious relationship, one built on trust, faith and understanding and not one of forced submission at the point of a gun.
I also ask that there are no imposed fines upon the accused.Thank you.
Toms court update 11-1-13
Well, my friends, I attended court last night, along with two dear friends Lee Arthur Rice II and Matthew Townsend III as my support team, the time scheduled for 3:15pm didn’t actually begin until 3:45pm because the magistrate came in late. (Can you imagine if we were 30 minutes late?)
As we were headed toward the court room I saw the arresting officer out of the corner of my eye, he was early. As we were standing in the hall, my friends and I were talking about law, justice and the general abuses of government and my prayer was that a morsel of what we were talking about would plant a seed in the mind of the officer and that somehow today, with my testimony, I would be able to plant a seed to really have him reflect on his position and the enmity between law enforcement and the people that he feels does not exist but I was hopeful he would understand my presence there today anyway.
The court room had two cases scheduled, One guy, apparently a foreigner, charged with failure to signal in a lane change (seriously?) to which after the magistrate explained how the proceeding works and explained that the state will have to prove with evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty, he pleaded for mercy upon the court to lower his fine. The magistrate said the fines were fixed and sent the poor guy on his way. “Welcome to the America!, the land of the free” I thought to myself. Poor guy, the state had no evidence against him. I was floored!
My name was called and I walked into the galley (against my will) and addressed the magistrate with a respectful greeting and a smile, I was extremely comfortable.
The magistrate asked me specifically if I had heard the explanation on how the process works regarding the state having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and I affirmed.
The proceeding began with a lovely young prosecutor that put the officer on the stand and began to cross examine him and through this line of questioning he gave his testimony, this is where it gets interesting but I will reveal this part later.
The officer was on the stand under oath and stated he was driving his patrol CAR and explaining about the difficulties seeing through the windshield and making hand gestures for me to move over. He also stated that the way he found me was that he saw two CARS that were going faster than the flow of traffic; he noticed that I allegedly was not slowing down so after following me for a mile, he pulled me over.
He stated that the traffic conditions were light to moderate and the rest of the testimony was logistical information on exactly how he allegedly saw me to detain me.
After the states testimony, it was my turn to cross examine the witness and I had prepared my line of questioning beforehand so I was ready, this seemed to take a good part of 45minutes.
I began my questioning (until I receive the audio, this is the best and most accurate I can remember)
Tom: Do you suspect those that respectfully question authority subversive?
Officer: The officer said no.
Tom: Do you view those that respectfully question law as argumentative?
Officer: He said no (but if this is true why did he threaten to arrest me for failure to answer my questions as I was detained for no wrongdoing?)
Tom: Have you ever heard of the Southern Poverty Law Center?
Officer: He said yes but stated he did not know what they do.
Tom: I asked him if he had ever been trained or informed by any agency, state or federal or private on the dangers of constitutionalists, sovereigns, constitutionalists etc., he
Officer: no
Tom: Do you believe that those that support the foundations of liberty, limited government and knowledge of the constitution are as domestic terrorists as defined by our federal government and the SPLC?
Officer: The officer unsure of the question basically wanted me to restate the question which ultimately ended in a
Officer: no.
Tom: Are you presently, as you sit on the stand, under oath?
Officer: He stated yes
Tom: If yes, oath to whom, The state or under God?
Officer: He stated God, I smiled and thanked him
Tom: Would you answer any of these questions untruthfully to win your case?
Officer: He said he would not lie.
Tom: To the best of your knowledge, when you went through the academy prior to becoming an officer, did they teach you anything about the constitution regarding why it was created?
Officer: He said NO!
Tom: Can you remember why it was created?
Officer: There was no point in asking this question because he admitted he was not taught about the constitution in POST.
Tom: What about the Federal Bill of Rights, the state constitution and the states Declaration of rights, did you learn about those too?
Officer: NO, but he said that he did read them.
Tom: So, why do you believe that constitutions and rights declarations would need to be written? He said so it would prevent chaos. I stated to make sure everyone understood the laws right and
Officer: he agreed.
Tom: Can you tell me what form of government the Founders created for America?
Officer: He was silent at first then stated it was a representative republic. I asked if he could be more specific and he couldn’t.
Tom: Was it a democracy? What does that mean to you?
Officer: Since he was unable to elaborate I declined asking this question.
Tom: In your oath you stated that you support the constitution and the laws of the state of Idaho, is this right?
Officer: He said yes
Tom: So, what if one conflicts with the other? Which one supersedes which?
Officer: He was silent so I helped him, I said
Tom: “Officer in your oath of one conflicts with the other which one would you choose as the supreme law between the two, to which he stated
Officer: The state statutes!
Tom: Did you know the only branch that is capable of making law?
Officer: He stated the legislative. The magistrate chimed in several times during my cross examination to remind me that I was being argumentative, to which my witnesses say I was not.
Tom: Did you know that many do not even have any understanding of our heritage or the intent of law like the fact that law was created to punish wrong doing not to prevent crime?
The magistrate interjected and stated that although he appreciated the civics lesson, I needed to stay on track to questions pertaining to the case to which I stated they actually do, but apologized anyway and continued.
Tom: So, if we have a branch that makes law, without any knowledge of law or its intent and these laws are implemented without being challenged for their constitutionality, do you see how the state laws you enforce could conflict with your oath to the constitution?
Officer: He stated his job was to uphold the laws, if they make them he follows them.
Tom: As you stated when you stopped me your support of 18-705, disobeying a lawful order, can you define and produce those written limitations placed on officers that protect the rights of the people from abuses of officers of government in general?
The prosecutor objected and stated that it was irrelevant because I was not charged with 18-705. I objected and stated it was directly related because it was evidence of the officer’s elevated authority to use this law out of context since I was not detained for a crime, which is what 18-705 pertains to, crimes and punishments of crimes.
Tom: What protections are offered to the people to prevent such possible abuses if they are not written or adhered to, specifically because 18-705 clearly defines during the commission of a crime? Am I guilty of a crime officer?
Officer: He stated there are a variety of judicial remedies afforded to the people. He stated I WAS GUILTY OF A CRIME even before my trial? (my charge was an infraction, not a crime and the state makes that clear, but yet I was in a criminal court with an administrative magistrate?)
Tom: Can you tell me, as we sit in this court room if we are in a proper article 3 court, since you are charged with knowledge of the law allegedly superior to mine?
Officer: He stated that all laws apply to all people and that all testimonies are equal.
Tom: Are you familiar with Idaho statutes 49-654-2 and 49-106?
Officer: He said he is familiar with 49-654 but not 49-106. I asked him if he would like me to read them to him so the magistrate gave him the code book to read.
Tom: Please can you define the difference between when the two statutes, 49-654-2 and 49-106 are used and why?
Officer: He could not.
Tom: When I asked him about the ambiguity between the statutes and the violation written on the ticket, the magistrate stepped in and stated that there was a district difference between the statutes and between the words Excessive and exceeding! (I was so shocked I was speechless!)
Tom: Is there a reason why the definition on the citation, you gave me without an acknowledgement or signature of acceptance is actually nowhere in the legislatively created statutes indicating the circumvention of the legislative process to increase the authority of the officer or the agency?
Officer: He had no answer. There was some confusion about why I asked the question, I moved on.
Tom: Would you please state for me and show the evidence you have against me to prove, in this court that I am guilty of the crime that I have been charged with?
Officer: He stated “I have no evidence, just my testimony”
Tom: Are you aware of the federal government’s ability to unlawfully enforce state laws, according the Nampa Police department’s head of SWAT, to the point of withholding funding that violates the sovereignty of the state and the feds agencies forcing local agencies to violate their lawful creation of the separation of powers which I assume you were to protect?
Officer: He stated that the feds have nothing to do with state law.
Tom: Did you know that the DOT has no authority to manipulate speed limits which is why the speeds are defined in the state statutes?
Officer: He said no! I asked him if he knew that the DOT was the one that lowered the speed limit to 65 from 75 on the interstate, he was silent.
Tom: Do you have any idea of how much danger this state and nation are in because of our lack of knowledge of history, the constitution and the proper application of law down to the most local level?
Officer: He was silent
Tom: In rebuttal to his testimony, I asked the officer if he was sure he was in his car, to which he answered, as a matter of fact, that’s right, I was on my bike. I reminded the officer he was under oath, under God and if he was sure this time,
Officer: he stated he was.
Tom: I asked him if there was a policy that allowed him to swerve erratically back and forth to get my attention to which he explained he was an experienced driver. I stated that that was interesting because I am also trained and an experienced driver but if you saw me do that I would be guilty of a misdemeanor!
Then I asked him about the two CARs that he originally saw going faster than the flow of traffic and asked him which car I was in the white of the gray car, to which he stated earlier, to which he stated the grey car. I asked if he could prove it because not only was I not in a car but it wasn’t gray or white to which he said “but I know it was you, you are here in this courtroom.
I stated, I am in this courtroom because you pulled me over but I want to know why when I was not even on your radar, I wasn’t in a car and the color you stated I was in is inaccurate?
I asked him as I showed him a picture of the back of my black truck with all of the liberty stickers on it, officer do you have any proof for me not to believe that you in fact pulled me over because you actually do have a problem with liberty minded people and this was just an attempt to single me out?
The court objected and I objected stating it was absolutely relevant due to the fact that the officer had no evidence, couldn’t remember what he was driving or the TRUCK I was driving either!
Tom: Finally officer, do you believe people that support and defend the constitution with knowledge of history, freedom, liberty and justice for all are the terrorists and true subversives or the ones that undermine these principles?
Officer: He was silent.
Tom: After my cross examination I stated there were no further questions the state rested, as did I and we gave our closing arguments.
The prosecution stated that due to the evidence provided, we ask you to find the accused guilty…..
My closing began with thanking the magistrate for allowing me grace to do the best I could as I was new to court procedures and assured him my intentions was not to be argumentative in any way, only to clarify the points to make sure they were on record.
Then I stated the following (paraphrasing):
Your honor, As we have listened to the case before us today, you stated that the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt with evidence that I was guilty and yet we have an officer that is charged with knowing the law, properly applying the law, under oath without any knowledge of the oath and acknowledgment of the limitations on his power. He adheres to laws that were created by the DOT and not legislatively through the lowering of speed limits. He is an officer that believes that the state statutes supersede the constitution because he has no knowledge of them and weren’t even taught in POST, yet his testimony is held superior to mine when I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt I have more knowledge of law than the officer does under oath charged with the administration of laws? Furthermore, the state has admitted that it has no evidence against me, the officer can’t remember if he was in a car or a bike or what color my car which wasn’t even a car was.
I asked the magistrate to allow me to read my final statement and as I read this statement with all of the passion and energy I could muster looking into the eyes of the magistrate, the prosecutor and the officer I know what I had been there for was done, I saw the emotion in the eyes of the prosecutor, I was there to plant the seed of liberty in that court room and to challenge the paradigm of our present system and I believe I did just that.
Here is my actual closing statement:
After years of Tyrannical rule, the founding fathers fled from the oppression of the king, so that they may be free to exercise their God given rights of Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to be secure in their effects and to travel without restriction. In doing so, they created a government to protect and preserve those rights. In an effort to guarantee this preservation, they created documents that specifically enumerated those rights that kept government limited preserving those rights for future generations.
After decades of apathy, ignorance and complete lack of vigilance, governments incrementally continually increased their power and authority and due to the general faith and trust of the people in their government allowed it to happen, without the proper delegated authority, acting unlawfully until today, the once inherent power and authority that was once in the people has been taken where today governments, once the servants have become the masters and the people have become the subservient slaves.
It is because of this unauthorized continual taking of power and the erosion of our rights, where the people have begun to rise and take back what rightfully belongs to us, bestowed upon us by our Creator and guaranteed by our constitution to protect and preserve those rights for future generations.
It is for this reason I am here and nothing else, to urge this court to reconsider its place in our alleged constitutional republic and to acknowledge its limitations, that were to preserve the freedom of the people not to exercise authority without limitations and generating millions of tax revenue to further restrict their rights.
I ask this court to rule in favor of the accused in this case because the weight of the historical record is in my favor, and consistent with all of the founding principles of this nation’s creation and not in favor of one or two manipulated and contorted statutes that violate those principles. In addition I also request that the term “argumentative” is removed from my traffic history.
I also request that this case not in any way affect my driving record because nothing could be proven because there was no wrongdoing.
I also request that a correction be made to clarify the ambiguity within the law regarding the statutes 49-654-2 and 49-106 as well as the corrections made on future traffic citations that are misleading because of this ambiguity.
I also ask that I or someone of any basic knowledge of the constitution and the principles of freedom educate these governmental agencies as to not only the proper role of government but the purpose of the creation of government and the historical reasoning of its implementation.
It would be my pleasure to volunteer to take the time to help educate our officers on these principles, reducing the ever increasing communication gap between law enforcement and its people, proving that we are not the enemy creating a more harmonious relationship, one built on trust, faith and understanding and not one of forced submission at the point of a gun.
I also ask that there are no imposed fines upon the accused. Thank you.
The magistrate after an extremely brief moment at about 5pm stated he rules in favor of the prosecution finding me guilty and that I have the option to appeal, that’s it, Done, just like that!?
After the magistrate left the room I met with the prosecutor and shook the hand of the officer. We spoke for about 30 minutes and we left joking and smiling, I enjoyed that time immensly. We got a chance to get to know each other a bit and I think they appreciated the fact that I was not nuts!
Guys, this problem we face today is not only a fight between officers and the people, it is a battle of ignorance and the lack of knowledge between freedom and security and the abandonment of the foundational principles of freedom, liberty and justice and the confines set forth by the written constitution that limited government to few, specific and enumerated powers. Without this knowledge, governments have no limitations and the people are left without protection from their abuses, in many cases where they are unaware that they were abusive.
The officers in their lives see death, thankfully and understandably so, they want to keep people safe, I told them I thank them for that but at some point the line between freedom and security will be blurred and that is why I do what I do, to attempt to ask the questions in an effort to re-establish the jurisdictional boundaries and limitations between the two.
I left then with Benjamin Franklin’s quote “Those that would give up a bit of freedom for security deserve neither and both will be destroyed”
His last statement to me was that he really should look more into what I know…I was pleased…
I would like to thank the prosecuting attorney and the officer for taking the time to chat with me after the trial. These officers of the court seem like good people, with families that believe in what they do like we do, its just that what they were taught is not what they should have been. Officers, you have my prayers on the road and in court and I wouldn’t have your job if I had too, you guys are nuts! :)
No comments:
Post a Comment