NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/activism/19812

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 6.0 KB

Xref: sparky alt.activism:19812 alt.conspiracy:13376
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!csus.edu!netcom.com!netcomsv!cruzio!snarfy
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Unidentified Parties vs. Ostrowski
Keywords: Demurrer Hearing and Jury trial schedule
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 20:20:57 PST
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Lines: 195



                       Unidentified Parties Vs. Ostrowski

         Today  ,  December  22,1992,I appeared in Los Gatos Municipal court
   and  served  the  following  Demurrer  on  the  representative   of   the
   still unidentified Plaintiffs:

   -------------------------------------------------------------------------

       James Ostrowski
       P.O. Box 4
       Soquel, ,CA 95073

                  MUNICIPAL  COURT  , LOS GATOS , CALIFORNIA

       Unidentified Parties                  )
                                             )
                   Plaintiffs                )     Case No. A9268359
                                             )
                                             )
                       vs.                   )
                                             )
                                             )
                                             )  Demurrer to the Complaint
                                             )
                                             )  Date: 12/22/92
       James Ostrowski                       )  Time: 1:30 P.M.
                                             ) Event: Continuing Arraignment
                         Subject Person      )
       ______________________________________)


         I am the  affiant alleged to be a defendant in the above enumerated

   case  .  To be defined as a defendant , an accusation must exist . I, the

   affiant , herewith deny that the documents provided by  the  unidentified

   plaintiffs in this case constitute a proper accusation . In so alleging I

   hereby DEMURR to the complaint on the following grounds:


   1.   The  "Amended  Citation  and  Complaint"  fails  to  comply with the

   Constitutional  and  statutory  requirements  to  properly  identify  the

   pleading  party, other than that the signature at the bottom is that of a

   one "Pat McGagin #7787 " of the California Highway Patrol.


   2.   The  "Amended  Citation  and  Complaint" fails to allege the court's

   presumed  Jurisdiction,  whether   it  be  Civil   Common   Law,  Equity,

   Admiralty-Maritime, Military or Criminal Common Law.


   3.  If the the complaint be Criminal in nature ,the "Amended Citation and

   Complaint" fails to allege whether the offenses charged are  infractions,

   misdemeanors , felonies, or a combination thereof .

                                     1.

   4.   If  the  complaint  be Criminal in nature, the "Amended Citation and

   Complaint" fails  to  list  the  name(s)  of  the  alleged  victim(s)  of

   Defendant's  alleged  criminal  conduct,  and  the  nature and extent  of

   the  injury  alleged  to  have  been  inflicted  by  Subject Person  upon

   said victim(s) .


   5.  The "Amended Citation and Complaint" fails to state an objective fact

   constituting a cause of action as required by the Fourth Amendment to the

   Constitution of the United States.  In the case of a citation issued by a

   police  officer  for  a violation  of criminal statutes committed in his

   presence , this objective fact is the  same  as  the  officer's  probable

   cause  for detention and subsequent issuance of the complaint against and

   summons to the Subject Person. Any document which merely  identifies  the

   offense  charged  cannot  be used alone to establish probable cause,as it

   "amounts to nothing more than  a  mere  conclusionary  assertion  by  the

   complaining  officer that defendant committed the offense charged." State

   v.  Miernik,284 Minn 316, 170 Nw.  2d  231  (1969).  The  court  must  be

   "supplied   with   sufficient   information  to  support  an  independent

   judgement" that probable cause existed for the issuance of a warrant  (or

   summons).  Whitely v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560 (1971),  see also  Giordanello

   v.  United States ,357 U.S.  480 (1958).


    Since an arraignment proceeding is a proceding to  determine  whether  a

   Subject  Person should be held answerable to a charge presumably based on

   a specific act committed in the officer's presence, the pleading document

   must include sufficient information on it's face to inform the court  and

   the  Subject  Person  of  the specific act constituting the cause whereby

   Subject Person was detained  and  subsequent  to  the  said  detention  a

   summons  was  issued.  The "Amended Citation and Complaint" thus fails to

   allege probable cause to hold Subject Person to answer . Also therefore ,

                                     2.

   -------------------------------------------------------------------------



   Plaintiff's documents fail to constitute an accusation. If  there  be  no

   accusation this Subject Person asks for the leave of the court to go back

   to  minding  his  own  business  ,and  for  the  Court's  warning  to his

   unidentified would - be accusers to cease and desist from the practice of

   what appears to be common barratry.




   _____________________________ ___/___/___

        James Ostrowski

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    *************************************


   The judge in this case scheduled a hearing on the merits of the demurrer
   for January 6,1993 at 8:30 A.M.

   He  indicated that a jury trial on the general issue (whatever that might
   be) would follow the demurrer hearing if the demurrer were overuled.

   This activity is scheduled to take place  in  courtroom  #6, 14205  Capri
   Drive, Los Gatos ,California.


   J.O.  12/22



























                                      3.