Redress Right Organization - Brett Jones

[LPC]

Call me a moron, but I have bought into his words,

Too easy.

[mursallus]

Sure, all of them were traffic court cases, on the county/state level. When they ask my name, I very smoothly state "I am making a special appearance here today, to discuss that matter". When the judge asks me if I understand, I say "no". He then asks what I don't understand, and I ask him who he represents, and then I turn to the prosecutor and ask the same thing. Then I ask how they can both represent the same party? At that point they cannot proceed, and usually reset it. I never hear back from them again.

[Pottapaug1938]

Sure, all of them were traffic court cases, on the county/state level. When they ask my name, I very smoothly state "I am making a special appearance here today, to discuss that matter". When the judge asks me if I understand, I say "no". He then asks what I don't understand, and I ask him who he represents, and then I turn to the prosecutor and ask the same thing. Then I ask how they can both represent the same party? At that point they cannot proceed, and usually reset it. I never hear back from them again.

They probably figure that it's easier to just drop the whole mater rather than waste time and effort dealing with idiotic premises like yours.

[rogfulton]

Sure, all of them were traffic court cases, on the county/state level. When they ask my name, I very smoothly state "I am making a special appearance here today, to discuss that matter". When the judge asks me if I understand, I say "no". He then asks what I don't understand, and I ask him who he represents, and then I turn to the prosecutor and ask the same thing. Then I ask how they can both represent the same party? At that point they cannot proceed, and usually reset it. I never hear back from them again.

Call me a moron, but I have bought into his words,

Too easy.

Mursallus last post deserves a repeat of LPC's last post. It applies so well.

[mursallus]

they absoluetly drop it versus deal with "idiotic" claims such as mine. Why would I ever stop if it works? Isn't the whole point for me to keep a clean record and stay out of jail/fines? I'm self employed, so I have all the time in the world to go back and forth to court. I love that place.

You see, we got to this point in the forum because everyone was jumping on Brett, but hasn't he paid his debt to society. He was sentenced and served time. Labeling him as a scam artist when he is simply letting it be known how to beat the system does not qualify him as a scammer. It actually noble. Who in there right mind without much money, knowing that this almost always works, wouldn't do it. I would call them automaton pansies.

[wserra]

There are certain low-level legal conflicts which are simply not worth the trouble for one side or another to pursue past a certain point. If you owe a credit card company a few hundred dollars, you'll get threatening letters from them. If you ignore them, you may get a summons to a local small-claims court (or the lowest-level court with jurisdiction). If you ignore that, they may take a default judgment against you. If you ignore that, and they know where you have a bank account, they may execute. With each succeeding step, the odds increase that they will drop it even if you do nothing at all. If you resist at any stage, the odds significantly increase. Debt verification demands under the FDCPA when the letters start. Contesting the lawsuit. Telling the judge you want a trial. Hiding your money. Any of these may well make the creditor decide that you're just not worth it.

Traffic offenses are similar. There is a point where it doesn't matter enough and the court has too much else to do. You say that you made "special appearances" and made them back down. Well, you could just as well have gone in with your magic wand and told them you would make the courthouse disappear if they persisted. Or told them that you were Superman and would simply fly off unless they left you alone. The result would quite possibly have been exactly the same. It's called "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" and it's a fallacy.

By the way, I wouldn't be so sure that they really did "drop it". We've heard it before. If I were you, I'd make sure. Otherwise, the next time you're stopped, some warrants may drop on you, and you'll spend some time as a guest of the State.

Isn't it funny how these magic bullets seem only to work in traffic court? I mean, if it's really the law, it should work anywhere. Puerto Rican courts can get a little weird, but we'll see if it works out for Jones. Would you be interested in a wager?

[Jeffrey]

Puerto Rican courts can get a little weird, but we'll see if it works out for Jones. Would you be interested in a wager?

Eh our courts aren't that bad. And anyways, I posted this guy here since he appears to be the first person to try Sov-Cit arguments down here that I've been able to find.

Good to know I was right about my guess that the arrest was related to the sex offender thing. Hopefully the judge throws the book at him.

[Judge Roy Bean]

they absoluetly drop it versus deal with "idiotic" claims such as mine. ...

Since those would be a matter of public record, I suggest you put up the proof.

[LPC]

There are certain low-level legal conflicts which are simply not worth the trouble for one side or another to pursue past a certain point. If you owe a credit card company a few hundred dollars, you'll get threatening letters from them. If you ignore them, you may get a summons to a local small-claims court (or the lowest-level court with jurisdiction). If you ignore that, they may take a default judgment against you. If you ignore that, and they know where you have a bank account, they may execute. With each succeeding step, the odds increase that they will drop it even if you do nothing at all. If you resist at any stage, the odds significantly increase. Debt verification demands under the FDCPA when the letters start. Contesting the lawsuit. Telling the judge you want a trial. Hiding your money. Any of these may well make the creditor decide that you're just not worth it.

Traffic offenses are similar. There is a point where it doesn't matter enough and the court has too much else to do. You say that you made "special appearances" and made them back down. Well, you could just as well have gone in with your magic wand and told them you would make the courthouse disappear if they persisted. Or told them that you were Superman and would simply fly off unless they left you alone. The result would quite possibly have been exactly the same. It's called "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" and it's a fallacy.

I've been told that the composer John Cage once gave a lecture, and then asked for questions, pulling out a stack of 3x5 cards. In response to each question, he shuffled the 3x5 cards, selected one, and then read whatever was on the card. (Google "John Cage" and "aleatoric.")

I suspect that his approach would work as well as many sovereign "special appearances."

[Prof]

Like Wes, having spent my life in the courts, when I hear stories about traffic cases being "dropped" in the face of a "special appearance," I doubt the story.

A "special appearance" in the Texas courts is to allow a person to appear and contest jurisdiction without, by appearing, consent to jurisdiction. A "special appearance" does not apply in the criminal courts. The Defendant was either arrested in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed or arrested elsewhere and brought to the jurisdiction where the crime was committed, and then was charged and indicted in the jurisdiction or he or she was not. As far as traffic tickets go, either the ticket was issued in the jurisdiction (in the J.P. precinct of an unincorporated area or within the boundaries of the municipality where the municipal court sits) or it was not.

In federal courts, jurisdiction is challenged by a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b) motion -- as is venue. Jurisdiction may not be waived by delaying a challenge under Rule 12; venue may be waived.

Rule 12 of the Rules of CIVIL Procedure does not apply in Civil[oops], I mean, CRIMINAL cases.

[rogfulton]

Rule 12 of the Rules of CIVIL Procedure does not apply in Civil cases.

I take it then, that the Rules of Civil Procedure cover Civility in the Court?

[wserra]

A few days ago, Jones filed this motion to dismiss. It's the usual sovrun gibberish. No jurisdiction blah blah blah; identity of the complainant blah blah blah; standing blah blah blah; CAFR blah blah blah; and so forth. What distinguishes Jones' sovrun missive from other sovrun missives is the length he goes to endear himself to the Court.

He addresses the DJ as follows:

You are too old a person to lack as much as you do, what happened to you? When did you become so vile? So harsh? So dishonorable? You lie to yourself daily masking your disapproval of yourself... You are all corrupt, bad fruits, bad vines in need of uprooting.

Jones refers to the assigned M-J as "your pet Marcos Lopez" and asks "is he nuttered (sic)?"

Brett, you nuttered silver-tongued devil, you.

[Jeffrey]

A few days ago, Jones filed this motion to dismiss. It's the usual sovrun gibberish. No jurisdiction blah blah blah; identity of the complainant blah blah blah; standing blah blah blah; CAFR blah blah blah; and so forth. What distinguishes Jones' sovrun missive from other sovrun missives is the length he goes to endear himself to the Court.

He addresses the DJ as follows:

You are too old a person to lack as much as you do, what happened to you? When did you become so vile? So harsh? So dishonorable? You lie to yourself daily masking your disapproval of yourself... You are all corrupt, bad fruits, bad vines in need of uprooting.

Jones refers to the assigned M-J as "your pet Marcos Lopez" and asks "is he nuttered (sic)?"

Brett, you nuttered silver-tongued devil, you.

Hey Serra any idea if it's possible to sit in during one of Jones appearances?

And yeah Jones appears to have an almost racist disposition towards Puerto Rico's government.

[wserra]

Hey Serra any idea if it's possible to sit in during one of Jones appearances?

Absolutely. Court proceedings are public. And, since Jones is pro se, it should be a good show. Hopefully Judge Cerezo has had some past dealings with sovrun nutcases.

Given the pending competency exam, there is currently no court date set. The report was filed (sealed) last Friday. A hearing should be scheduled in short order.

[notorial dissent]

WES, I would say working to "endear himself to the Court" is a masterstroke of understatement. Filing something like that with a couple of our local judges would get him a whole lot more than just a competency hearing. There are at least two of them who aren't known for suffering fools and or abuse.

You're quite right, I expect the upcoming hearing ought to be a real funfest, for the audience, not so much for Mr Jones I am thinking, and I rather suspect he just got himself an all expense paid trip back to NM for breaking his parole at the very least.

[Jeffrey]

New video up on his youtube channel begging for donations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9hJ_b-JVL0

[Jeffrey]

Could one of you guys with PACER access check out what the result of the trial was? It appears he's out of jail currently, so around 18 months in jail if my math is right?

[LPC]

Could one of you guys with PACER access check out what the result of the trial was? It appears he's out of jail currently, so around 18 months in jail if my math is right?

A docket entry of 2/4/2015 reports "IMPR: Time served. SRT of two (2) years. No fine. SMA of $100.00."

Which sounds to me like he was convicted, but sentence to time served, and released.

A notice of appeal was filed, but the appeal was apparently dismissed as interlocutory (which doesn't make any sense to me).

But then, on 3/10/2015, the docket shows "MOTION Notifying Violations of Supervise Release Conditions and Request for an Arrest Warrant by Probation Office as to Brett Toriano Jones-Theophilious (1). Suggestions in opposition/response due by 3/27/2015 (Aponte, Luz) Modified on 3/11/2015 to add restriction (ov). (Entered: 03/10/2015)"

And there are docket entries showing that mail sent to Brett Toriano Jones-Theophilious was returned as undeliverable.

So he seems to be out of jail at the moment, but maybe not for long.

[nancydrew]

Brett is back at it, on YouTube going under Eeon and Eeon2, this time he’s a UCC1 guru.
Here is an example of showing his followers how to files lien on California.
https://youtu.be/4jx09Ukb-4Y

Btw, this one has aka’s as long as my arm. Here are the ones I was able to locate.

Brett Toriano Jones-Theophilious
Brett Randoff Toriano Keeffe Henry Kana-Shaphel Hithrappes Jones-Theophilus, aka Brent Jones aka Brent O. Jones aka Brett Jones Theophilius, Brett Jones-Theophilius, aka Keeffe T. Branch, Keefe T. Branch, aka Keith Branch, aka K.T. Branch, aka B.J. UC

[Gregg]

He's not Docktor Reverend Druana Raven Moon Fawn Wails Johnston out of drag, per chance?