-1-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Rik Munson
218 Landana Street
American Canyon California
By Special Appearance in Pro per
Sui Juris
Superior Court fot the STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of ___________

PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA ) _______________________________
)
v. )
)
RIK WAYNE MUNSON )
Notice of Motion to Quash illegal service of summons and Motion to Dismiss
for want of personam jurisdiction

To all parties; Please take notice that on_____________________ 2014, or as
soon thereafter as the matter may be heard; Defendant will move the Court to quash
service of summons in this matter.
Defendant, by special appearance, herein challenges the jurisdiction of this
Court over the person of the accused. Defendant challenges the service of summons
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 418.10 (a)(1) as the product of an illegal
seizure in violation of Article I section 13 of the California Constitution leaving the
court without jurisdiction over the person of the accused.



-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendant here challenges seizure without warrant for an infraction as
unauthorized by our legislature and therefore illegal. Defendant is not afforded
assistance of counsel at public expense on the infraction issue and therefore
challenges the police contact in pro per.
Code of Civil procedure 418.10 (a)(1) holds in relevant part:

Motion to quash service of summons or to stay or dismiss action;
procedure
(a.) A defendant on or before his or her time to plead or within any
further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file
a notice of motion either or both:
(1.) To quash service of the summons on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over him or her.

Defendant has not entered a plea and herein challenges the legality of the
arrest and the service of the summons (Notice to Appear ) as unlawful.
Defendant alleges his seizure was illegal because the seizure has not been
specifically authorized by our legislature, because it was factually pretextual at its
inception and because state of California cannot provide due process in this
instance.
Statement of the Case
______________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________

-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Summary of the Argument
1. When the peace officer activated emergency lights displaying the police
power of the state he seized Defendant within the meaning of Article 1 13 of the
California Constitution.
2. When the peace officer activated his emergency lights he was without a
warrant and without probable cause to believe Defendant was engaged in criminal
activity.
3. Infractions are not crimes,
1
if they were, statutes denying assistance of
counsel at public expense and jury trial would violate the California constitutional
guarantees for one accused of crime and would also conflict with Penal Code 689.
2

4. Courts that fail to follow the decisions of higher courts produce void
judgments.
3

5. Statutes do not trump the constitution.
4


1
People v. Sava 190 Cal.App.3rd 438
2
Joint Legislative Rule 8.5 precludes any notion that PC 1042.5 in any way amends or affects PC 689.
3
Auto Equity Sales Inc v Superior Court , 57 Cal.2d 450[S. F. No. 20843. In Bank. Mar. 22, 1962.
4
People v. Ortiz, (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 292, fn. 2 Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th
163 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JERRY ARBERT POOL, C.A. No. 09-10303,

-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6. To be valid the peace officers conduct must be specifically authorized by
statute. Arrest without a warrant for non-criminal conduct has not been authorized
by legislative statute
5
.
7. The exclusive procedures applicable to Peace Officers who enforce provisions
of the Vehicle Code for offenses not declared to be a felony are those found in the
Vehicle Code not the Penal Code
6
.
8. There is no delegation of authority from the legislature for a sworn California
Peace Officer to apply the police power of the state to non-criminal (civil)
infractions of the Vehicle Code in the absence of warrant or probable cause.
7

9. The peace officers unwarranted seizure of defendant was not authorized by
legislative statute. The issuance of a Notice to Appear
8
and the service of
summons were therefore unlawful.


IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (Opinion filed September 14,
2010), On Appeal From The United States District Court For The Eastern District of California
5
See VC 40300, 40300.5, PC 836(a)(1)
6
People v. Wohellben (1968), 261 Cal.App.2
nd
461, People v. Superior Court (Simon) (1993), 7 Cal.3d 186
7
VC 40300 & 40300.5 PC 836(a)(1)
8
VC 40500 NTA only authorized after arrest for misdemeanor.

-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

10. Pursuant to Government Code 26613 a County Sheriff may only enforce
provisions of the vehicle code in the unincorporated area of the County, only upon
county highways, only with the authorization of the Board of Supervisors, and only
in counties with a population in excess of 3 million.

A sheriffs deputy is not
authorized by our legislature to enforce the vehicle code in the corporate limits of a
city.
11. For these several reasons the Court is without personam jurisdiction and has
only the jurisdiction to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, nothing more.
Conclusion
Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired
Assertions of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by courts of the
United States must comport with due process in order to be enforceable either by the
court rendering the judgment or by other state or federal courts.
9

The procedures on arrest without a warrant for non-felony offenses that are
applicable to peace officers who enforce provisions of the Vehicle Code are those
contained in the Vehicle Code not the Penal Code
10
and thus we do not have to

9
1. Any deprivation of property by the United States, pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or
by a state, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, must comport with due process; either the extinguishing of a claim
by an unsuccessful plaintiff or the award of damages to a successful one constitutes such a deprivation. Courts of each
state are required to give full faith and credit to judgments of other states (Article IV, Section 1, U.S. Constitution)
only if those judgments also satisfy the constitutional requirement. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877).
10
People v. Wohellben (1968), 261 Cal.App.2nd 461, People v. Superior Court (Simon) (1993), 7 Cal.3d 186

-6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

argue the constitutionality of perceptions that Penal Code 19.7 extends the power of
a peace officer to arrest without warrant to non-criminal a.k.a. civil infractions
11
.
The Prosecutions claim to personam jurisdiction in this case is grounded upon
the service of summons. Service of a summons (Notice to Appear) was
accomplished by arrest without warrant or probable cause of crime with no
delegation of authority from our legislature and in violation of express state and
federal constitutional protections.
The police contact with defendant was an arrest without warrant not expressly
authorized by statute.
12
The seizure and service of summons were therefore
unlawful
13
.
Void for Vagueness
Further, infraction legislation, as demonstrated by the attached Memorandum
of Points and Authorities, is constitutionally void for vagueness and state of
California cannot satisfy the notice component of due process.
The attached Memorandum in support of this motion to quash is hereby
incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein.

11
Penal Code 19.7 under such an interpretation offends the California Constitution and would therefore be void.
12
Vehicle Code 40300, 40300.5 & Penal Code 836(a)(1)
13
See People v. Horvath (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 398 , 179 Cal.Rptr. 577

-7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendant does not have to guess at the nature and cause of action. The state
of California cannot provide notice as to the nature and cause of action for an
alleged vehicle code infraction and thus cannot provide due process of law.
When one is seized without a warrant or probable cause of crime and then
subjected to a hodgepodge of substantive and procedural rules there is no hope of
legitimacy coming from such a practice. The corner stone of due process is
fundamental fairness. When the full resources of the state are brought to bear against
a lone individual in a prosecution where not even legal professionals can identify the
nature and cause of the action according to established rules it imbalances the
playing field.
Relief Sought
"The right to relief without any showing of prejudice [is] limited to
pretrial challenges of irregularities. ... If the issue is raised before trial
... prejudice is presumed and the information is dismissed." (People v.
Pompa-Ortiz, supra, 27 Cal. 3d at p. 529.)

Defendant, appearing specially and not generally, hereby moves this Court to
dismiss plaintiffs cause for want of jurisdiction because of plaintiffs violation of
due process in the seizure, the search and the service of summons and for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.


Respectfully Submitted ________________________________
Rik Munson, defendant in error