'fresh arrest,' try to get the names of the officers involved in your arrest who cause the most
injury, threats or pain. Try to keep the details of your 'fresh arrest' in your head, as most likely,
they won't give you paper & pencil. DO NOT SIGN IN, DO NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS,
GIVE FINGERPRINTS, ETC., ONLY AFfER THEIR THREATS, AND DO NOT SIGN
WHEN YOU' RE GETTING OUT. As soon as you are out, you need to do up an affidavit of all
the facts of that unlawful arrest! It is best if you have someone that has your power of attorney to
assist you in these matters until you are out.
But, when you find yourself in a jail cell ... for whatever reason you' ve heard the story, seen it in
the movies... that you have a right to ONE phone call. So the question is "who do you call?"
Well, it's not to call your lawyer (God forbid!), your girlfriend, your pastor, the bondsman, your
buddy or your bookie! THE ONLY REASON FOR THE ONE PHONE CALL IS TO CALL
N THE JUDGE!
polite, but firm! It is part of your 'Due Process', as they say ... you have the right to one phone
call! Merely state that you need the number so that you can request an appearance bond
without fees or cost. This must be requested preferably before your arraignment.
Note; The Appearance Bond is the Bond that the Prosecutor puts up to bond the action brought
forward by the traffic officer/cop or he himself. They created the 'action,' they have to bond the
action in the event that they injure you in their misapplication of statutes or other injuries that
may occur!
If you are denied the phone call, then make the request at the next available opportunity, either
with any 'agent' to comes to you and or when you are taken into court for arraignment.
Remember, you want the 'Appearance Bond' as part of your due process, and if the judge
produces the bond, you can state that you "accept the bond for value, I do not intend to challenge
the facts of the case" (or it can be stated;) "I plead guilty to charges in behalf of the
defendant/debtor, but that's not me ... and I request the court to discharge the charges via the
Bond and I request that the Bond be released to me."
If the judge denies the 'bond,' he then has denied you remedy (due process), committed
commercial fraud, (as the charges are not laid on you, but on the corporate fiction
Defendant/debtor), and since you cannot pay the fine or pay off the commercial charge, and can
only be 'discharged,' and being the 'insurance policy' via the bond is created by the prosecutor
or some other agent via the 'case,' is to be brought forward to indemnify the
man/creditor/sovereign, in light of the bankruptcy, as everything is insured! But the system most
always get's the 'arrestee' (you) to bond the case yourself or get you to plead guilty ... and or
consent to the charges!
If the bond is denied, at your next available opportunity, and or with someone you have given
power of attorney to if you are still incarcerated, you can exercise your exclusive remedy ... and
that is a Tort Claim!
A FEW CASE CITES
LISTED HERE FOR REFERENCE ONLY!
When an individual is detained, without warrant and without having
committed a crime (traffic infractions are not crimes), the detention is a
false arrest and unlawful imprisonment:
DAMAGES AWARDED
TREZEVANT v. CITY OF TAMPA,741 F2d 336 (11th Cir. 1984) Motorist
illegally held for 23 minutes on a traffic charge was awarded $25,000 in
damages. (Sets foundation for $75,OOO/hr., l,600,OOO/day)
CIVIL RIGHTS
SANDERS v. ENGLISH, 950 F2d 1036 (6th Cir. 1992) False arrest, illegal
detention (false imprisonment), and malicious prosecution are recognized
as causes of action under Title 42 Section 1983. ( •.• and TORT!)
PRECEDENT
JAMES v. KENTUCKY, 466 US 341, 80 LED 2d 346, 104 S Ct. 1830 (1984)
The supreme court held that State statutes did not take precedent over
Constitutional law.
MOYA v. US, 761 F2d 322 (7th Cir. 1985) People are entitled to refuse to
provide information to police. Moya went to the supreme court and back.
(held to be valid)
Padelford, Fay a. Co. v. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah,
14 Ga. 438 (1854) "But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain,
by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The
Constitution, it is true, is a compact [contract], but he is not a party to it.
The States are a party to it .•• "
emphasis added.