Thomas James Vinson 16748 Sausalito Drive Whittier, California Restricted jurisdiction By special visitation (special appearance) to challenge

jurisdiction of the Court.

Superior Court of the State of California City of Los Angeles, Traffic Division

Los Angeles Police Department Plaintiff, vs. Thomas J. Vinson, Defendant in Error,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No.:0929530 Citation No.: 09 29530 Motion to Dismiss for lack of corpus delicti. Date: October 13, 2010 Time: 8:30 am Court Room: Dept. 67

Greetings to the Court: I, Thomas J. Vinson, the Defendant in Error, am not a trained attorney or lawyer and have not been to law school. This motion may have defects, but because the accused is a functional illiterate in the law and does not speak Legalese, the accused has had to rely on law dictionaries, court cases, legislative enactments and his assistant of council, otherwise it would be impossible for the accused to file any pleading with the court that would not be defective in some way, as the

Law and rules are written for trained bar attorneys, why else would all words in the laws and codes be written in Legalese. Even the federal court recognizes that untrained litigants' pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers or attorneys. See Spencer v. Doe, 139 F3d 107 (2nd Cir. 1998); Green v. Branson, 108 F3d 1296 (10th Cir 1997; Boag v. MacDougall, 454 US 364, 70 Led 2d, 102 Sct 700 (1982); Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 519, 30 L Ed 2d 652 92 Sct 594 (1972). The Right to Redress the federal or state Government is a fundamental Right that goes all the way back to the Common-Law, the Magna Carta, original Book of the Law. Thomas J. Vinson, Defendant in Error, by special appearance only to challenge jurisdiction of the court, is hereby moving this court to dismiss the case for lack of corpus delicti. "In every prosecution for crime it is necessary to establish the "corpus delecti", i.e., the body or elements of the crime." People v. Lopez, 62 Cal.Rptr. 47, 254 C.A.2d 185. "In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delecti, or the body of the crime itself, i.e., the fact of injury, loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause." People v. Sapp, 73 P.3d 433, 467 (Cal. 2003) [quoting People v. Alvarez, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169, 119

Cal.Rptr.2d 903, 46 P.3d 372.]. "Elements of "corpus delecti," injury or loss or harm and a criminal agency which causes such injury, loss or harm, need only be proven by a "reasonable probability," i.e., by slight or prima facie proof." People v. Ramirez, 153 Cal.Rptr. 789, 791, 91 C.A. 132. "Corpus delecti" of crime consists of fact of injury, loss, or harm, and existence of criminal agency as cause." People v. Daly, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 21, 28, 8 CA4th 47. "Generally, "corpus delecti" of crime is (1) the fact of the loss or harm, and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as its cause." People v. Dorsey, 118 Cal.Rptr. 362, 43 CA3d 953. "There is no requirement of independent evidence 'of every physical act constituting an element of an offense,' so long as there is some slight or prima facie showing of injury, loss, or harm by a criminal agency." In re I.M., 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 375, 381 (2005). "The corpus delecti rule requires that the corpus delecti or the body or substance of the crime charged be proved independent from the accused's extrajudicial confession or admissions. The corpus delecti of a crime consists of two elements: (1) the fact of the injury or loss or harm, and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. [citing] People v Jennings, 53 Cal 3d 334, 279 Cal Rptr 780, 807 P2d 1009, 92 CDOS 2576, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4222, reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 464, 112 S Ct 443.People v Pensinger, 52 Cal 3d 1210, 278 Cal Rptr 640, 805 P2d 899, 91 CDOS 1514, 91 Daily Journal DAR 2504, mod 53 Cal 3d

729a, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4745 and stay gr (Cal) 1991 Cal LEXIS 3318 and reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 290, 112 S Ct 351, 91 Daily Journal DAR 12909, reh den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 821, 112 S Ct 923; State v Pullos, 76 Idaho 369, 283 P2d 590; People v Friedland (1st Dist) 202 Ill App 3d 1094, 148 Ill Dec 415, 560 NE2d 1012; Brown v State, 239 Ind 184, 154 NE2d 720, cert den 361 US 936, 4 L Ed 2d 360, 80 S Ct 375; Joseph v State, 236 Ind 529, 141 NE2d 109, 69 ALR2d 824, cert dism 359 US 117, 3 L Ed 2d 673, 79 S Ct 720; People v Aiken, 66 Mich 460, 33 NW 821; People v Gould, 156 Mich App 413, 402 NW2d 27; State v Simler, 350 Mo 646, 167 SW2d 376; State v Hill, 47 NJ 490, 221 A2d 725; State v Robinson (App. Scioto Co) 83 Ohio L Abs 259, 168 NE2d 328; State v Brown, 103 SC 437, 88 SE 21. there must be sufficient proof of both elements of the corpus delecti beyond a reasonable doubt." 29A American Jurisprudence Second Ed., Evidence Section 1476.

Wherefore, I, Thomas J. Vinson, the Defendant in Error, move this court to dismiss Citation No.: 09 29530 and the charge be abated at once, because of this tribunal's clear and complete absence of all jurisdiction and venue, or in the alternative, show cause, on the appealable record, why the herein information might be considered as specious, frivolous or without merit, so I may be able to timely and properly correct any mistakes or errors. Thus, dismissal for lack of corpus delicti is justifiable and reasonable. VERIFICATION I, Thomas J. Vinson, make this verification, and hold this motion to dismiss to be truthful, complete and not misleading. I hereby state these facts to be true of my own personal knowledge, information and belief, and as to those matters of information and belief, I believe them to be true, and if called as a witness I am competent to testify to the facts as so stated.

Dated October , 2010 Thomas J. Vinson, Defendant in Error