Pearl Timmerman, Sui Juris, Student of the Law
2110 North 2nd Street, Wahpeton, North Dakota 58075
701-642-9017
With assistance of learned counsel:
Attorney Douglas Palaschak of LaSalle County, Illinois,
a graduate of the University of Illinois, and a former Member
of the Marching Illini, world’s foremost Marching Band.
805- 652-0334 Fax: 775-383-7885
This document is posted at: www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6147.html Also available in Wordperfect. Just ask.
General navigational links:
Lawyerdude’s most important page. His top 10 lists: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5459.html
Back to www.lawyerdude.8m.com Or my mirror site: www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com
Telephone Lawyerdude: 805 652 0334
Back to Lawyerdude's discussion group: www.groups.yahoo.com/group/lawyerdude
Email lawyerdude: dlawyerdude@hotmail.com
The Steve 762 program to fight traffic tickets: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5695.html
In the Municipal Court of North Dakota, Judge Samuel Johnson
205 North 7th Street,(P.O. Box #5) Wahpeton, North Dakota, 58075. Voice: 701 642 2060
Court/Judge’s email address: ___
City employee Evan Mehl,
City employee James Hartman,
City employee Mike Smykowski,
City employee Tim Appell,
City employee April Jose,
Steve Lies, prosecutor,
Jeannette Novotny, Clerk of Court,
dba under false color of law and fraudulently engaging in the ludicrous position that they are “the People”
v
Pearl Timmerman
(I am not PEARL TIMMERMAN)
Pearl Timmerman
v
City employee Evan Mehl,
City employee James Hartman,
City employee Mike Smykowski,
City employee Tim Appell,
City employee April Jose,
Steve Lies, prosecutor,
Jeannette Novotny, Clerk of Court,
dba “the People”
Cases #2003-145 and #2003-184
Document #6147 Version 2
6th Motion for Pearl Timmerman.
Suppression motion.
Reminder of concurrent, previous, and future Motions:
1. June 13th plea in Abatement which you ignored.
2. Motion# 6059 Rule 12 Motion which I am not prepared to argue.
3. #6059 Dombrowski Petition Pursuant to 42 USC section 1983 et seq to enjoin prosecution of Pearl Timmerman and to Enjoin police employee from contacting Pearl Timmerman regarding her licensure.
4. #6059 Application for Order to Show Cause why North Dakota should not be enjoined from prosecuting Pearl Timmerman regarding her right to drive.
5. Motion #1002 Continuance motion which bears amendment in view of Email #6139.
6. This Suppression Motion.
7. #6148 To vacate trial date as having been improvidently set prior to the pre-trial appeal of denial of rule 12 and 995 motion.
8. Quo warranto motion. Challenge to jurisdiction - which stops this case.
9. 995 Motion to dismiss.
10 Overbreadth Motion. 11. Gerstein Motion #5572.
12. Motion to strike unsworn affidavit of police witnesses.
13. Motion to expunge previous convictions as void ab initio.
Reminder of concurrent demands:
1. Adequate time to prepare motions/ briefs/ trial.
2. Courtesy of e text versions of all opposing paper.
3. Jury trial.
4. Services of court reporter at every hearing.
5. Prompt (within 3 days) email transcripts of all hearing.
6. Thou shalt not meet in chambers.
7. Side bar conferences shall be reported.
8. Everything shall be on the record.
9. Time to write adequate jury instructions.
10. Demand for indictment by grand jury.
11. Demand for full panoply of criminal due process procedures.
12. Demand for effective assistance of counsel.
13. Demand for judge - not a commissioner.
14. Proposed jury instructions a month in advance of trial.
Date: Thursday 30 January 2004
Time: 1:15 pm
Place: Court of Judge Samuel JohnsonWe use the roads as tenants in common; I seek no License.
Notice of Two Motions: 6th Motion: Suppression Motion and 8th: Quo Warranto Motion.
To all parties and counsel: Be advised that at the venue designated in the caption or at such other venue as the court shall designate, I, Pearl Timmerman will demand that this court suppress all the evidence in this case as being the fruit of the forbidden tree.
Notice of Quo Warranto Motion and Challenge to Jurisdiction.
Also note that on Feb 6 2004 Thursday at 1:15 in the court of Judge Samuel Johnson I will challenge the court’s jurisdiction to hear this case. I hereby the presumptions of corporate existanec and personhood. I hereby deny the existence of the city of Wahpeton, the county of Richland and the state of North Dakota. I deny that Samuel Johnson is a judge. I deny that he has taken the requisite oath of office and that even if he has taken it, he has no jurisdiction over me. I have immunity from prosecution under the Privileges and Immunities clause. Under Rhode Island v Massachusetts (1838) 37 U.S. 657 which is found here: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/rhode.html
All proceedings must immediately stop pending resolution of this issue of jurisdiction and I need time to prepare and counsel regarding this motion.
Signed _______________________ Pearl Timmerman. Date: ___ December 2003
Pearl Timmerman demands that all evidence be suppressed.
Sign on side of Grampa’s truck: “Not for Hire”
"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." -Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133,147
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] American Jurisprudence 1st. Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p 1135.
Table of Contents:
Tables of Authorities cited herein:
Table #1 U.S. Supreme Court cases cited herein:
Table #2: Lower Federal Court Cases cited herein:
Table #3 California Cases cited herein.
Table #4: Cases from other states cited herein:
Table #5: North Dakota statutes and rules cited herein:
Table #6: Constitutional clauses cited herein:
Table #7: Learned Treatises and Encyclopedias cited herein:
Tables of Authorities cited herein:
Table #1 U.S. Supreme Court cases cited herein:
Under Rhode Island v Massachusetts 1
Weeks v US (1914) 232 US 383, 58 L Ed 652, 34 S Ct 341 www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/weeks.html 1 2
Table #2: Lower Federal Court Cases cited herein:
Table #3 California Cases cited herein.
Table #4: Cases from other states cited herein:
Table #5: North Dakota statutes and rules cited herein:
North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 12 states in part: “All other pleas, demurrers and motions to quash are abolished. Defenses and objections raised before trial must be raised only by motion to dismiss or to grant appropriate relief, as provided in these Rules” Rule 12 is included in its entirety in the appendix. Rule 12 is patently unconstitutional for many reasons. Most obviously, the rule pretends to eliminate the pleas of “no contest” and “once in jeopardy”. The latter plea is implicit in the double jeopardy clause. From this we learn that all statutes and rules are merely codification of established law - a point that we must remember when dealing with traffic statutes. Traffic laws are suspect. The are administered with unbridled discretion by person untrained in the law. They have, by stealthy encroachment served as an instrument of oppression. See http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5724.html 1 for further discussion of instruments of oppression. 2 3
Table #6: Constitutional clauses cited herein:
Table #7: Learned Treatises and Encyclopedias cited herein:
American Jurisprudence, 1st Edition. Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135 “The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public
highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may
be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways
or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's
Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
1
Pearl Timmerman is an adult woman who grew up on a farm and has been driving since age 10 - just like her lawyer and many other creative, productive, and skilled folks who enjoyed the blessings of a rural upbringing. She was an accomplished driver with 6 years of driving experience at age 16. She nonetheless subjected herself to a state test of her driving skills. She passed the test and has been driving without incident for all of her life. In recent years, Pearl concluded logically that a driver license is not a legal prerequisite to driving her car. Pearl, like many legally educated Americans, has studied history and can see the stealthy encroachment. Pearl dislikes the police mentality and the police state.
In December 2002 Pearl was driving around Wahpeton in a caravan of cars looking at the displays of Christmas lights in the yards. Her car wheel struck a curb and a fellow driver reported this non-incident to the police - thereby creating an incident. Striking a curb is not a violation of any law. Indeed curbs are designed be struck. When we park a car, we strike the curb. Police had no probable cause to inquire of Pearl. Police nonetheless arrived and demanded to see a card proving that Pearl was authorized by North Dakota to drive. Evan Mehl was the responding police employee. Smykowski was riding with Evan Mehl.
Like many folks in a small town - and like Pearl’s lawyer - Pearl became the subject of heightened police scrutiny thereafter. Five months later, in May 2003, Evan Mehl again stopped Pearl for no reason other than he remembered that Pearl had no license at his previous encounter with her back in December.
We plan to file a separate motion to suppress evidence in these cases on the obvious basis that the police had no authority to inquire as to the licensure or not of Pearl. At the Christmas stop the officer had insufficient probable cause to inquire based merely on the uncorroborated report by an unnamed unproven complainant reporting a non-crime, to wit: the striking a curb by a tire. When Evan did inquire, he was able to quickly determine that no law had been violated. He should have moved on. He violated Pearl’s rights when he inquired about her license.
Furthermore he inquired regarding licensure without issuing a Miranda warning despite his obvious focus on Pearl as the subject of a criminal prosecution. He intended to pursue a criminal case against Pearl if the results of his fishing expedition proved fruitful. He should have shared that information with Pearl in the form of a Miranda warning. Police now intend to use Pearl’s statements against her.
Thereafter at a 3rd traffic stop on July 19, 2002,, police employee James Hartman arrested Pearl after jerking Pearl violently from her Van causing Pearl to fall to the pavement striking her knees on the pavement. At the jail Hartman wrote out tickets 2003-145 and 146 which Pearl refused to sign. Pearl served Hartman the Miranda Warning there in the jail. Pearl asked asked to use the phone to call her support group. A woman jailer did the booking, finger printing, and picture taking all without Pearl’s consent. She led Pearl into a room where she told Pearl to put on the jail clothes. Pearl refused. The jailer disrobed Pearl exposing her bare skin from the waist up and her shorts and sandals. She led Pearl to the cell with a pillow, blanket, cup, etc.
Thereafter a 4th traffic stop arose in September when police employee Smykowski who was the 2nd officer in the original incident, recognized Pearl against and arrested her. Assisting Smykowski were April Jose (the double minority affirmative action employee) and Tim Appell.
So now today Pearl, having violated traffic control laws faces this court in the same status as a repeat drunk driver - although her only offense is the civil claiming of her right to use the road. No one accuses Pearl of any driving impropriety. Like many innocent hard working rural people who know the law, becomes the poster girl of Wahpeton. She must carry the banner explaining to the dull sheeple that by stealthy encroachment municipalities and other corporations are taking away our rights and selling them back to us as licenses.
The court has thus far trampled on Pearl’s rights. Although her intent was to argue the legal issues, the court simply ignored those issues and entered a plea for her, thus attempting to deny her due process. Pearl now demands her full panoply of procedural due process including the time-honored right to demur – or - as it is called in North Dakota - to move to dismiss under rule 12. Incidentally, to the extent that rule 12 impairs Pearl’s right to immediately move to suppress evidence, rule 12 is unconstitutional. And on that note, to the extent that the court does not so advise lay persons, like Pearl, of this matter, the court denies Pearl due process. It is likely that the court in fact advises Pearl incorrectly on matters of her rights; all courts do.
Under Weeks v US (1914) 232 US 383, 58 L Ed 652, 34 S Ct 34 which is found at this link,
www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/weeks.html , all evidence must be suppressed in this case as being the fruit of the poisonous tree, the booty of an illegal search violating Pearl’s rights.
The 1836 Rhode Island case says about a challenge to jurisdiction:
“However late this objection has been made, or may be made in any cause, in an inferior or appellate court of the United States, it must be considered and decided, before any court can move one further step in the cause” - The Supreme Court in Rhode Island v Massachusetts (1836) found at this following link: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/rhode.html
Proof of Service
I certify that I served the prosecutor at his email address at 5 a.m. Pacific time on Friday 19 Dec 2003. Douglas Palaschak
I, (print name)_______________, declare the following under penalty of perjury. I served this document #6059 on the persons listed in the service list that follows. I served the motion by U.S. mail, first class postage affixed.
Signed _____________________ Date _________________
Service List:
Prosecutor Steve Lies
PO Box 275
Wahpeton, ND 58075
Criminal Court Filing Window
P.O. Box #5
Wahpeton, North Dakota, 58075.
City employee Evan Mehl
Police Dept.
413 North 3rd Ave.
Wahpeton ND 58075
City employee James Hartman,
Police Dept.
413 North 3rd Ave.
Wahpeton ND 58075
City employee Mike Smykowski,
Police Dept.
413 North 3rd Ave.
Wahpeton ND 58075
City employee Tim Appell
Police Dept.
413 North 3rd Ave.
Wahpeton ND 58075
City employee April Jose,
Police Dept.
413 North 3rd Ave.
Wahpeton ND 58075
Steve Lies, prosecutor
Police Dept.
413 North 3rd Ave.
Wahpeton ND 58075