Categorized | Articles, NSP Traffic Study

Donald Eyre – No Explanation or Grounds For His Decisions

Posted on March 2nd, 2012 by Marc Stevens

Billy is a participant in the No State Project Traffic Study.  A ticket was filed into the Spanish Fork district court and a lawyer, and former prosecutor named Donald Eyre is the judge assigned to the ticket.  Being a former prosecutor we can safely assume Donald’s a company man, he’s all about finding in favor of himself.  After all, as a judge he represents the fictional “STATE OF UTAH”, the same fictional plaintiff  in traffic tickets.

So it’s no surprise he denied a motion to dismiss without explanation.  As I’ve said many times, if they have grounds, then they would provide them.  When they yell: “I don’t have to tell you!” it only reminds me of when I was a child and caught someone lying.  It’s childish and deserves no consideration.  People like Donald Eyre forcibly take millions of dollars from people every year and think they are somehow immune from responsibility and explaining their decisions.  I guess it does come with the job.

I’ve left numerous messages with his office for an interview and he has not responded.  Lawyers like Eyre tend to have a “no media” policy, they just don’t talk to the media about the courts (they can hardly start screaming about contempt when we’re on the phone, though if they did it would be hilarious).  If it wasn’t so dangerous to go into “their” courts, then I’d just walk in and ask.  However, much experience has proven to me that what they don’t like is to be questioned; that’s why they fly into fits of rage and threaten to cage you.  Answering  questions reveals they are criminals, they’re not administering justice at all.

So I faxed Donald today and made another request to speak with him about Utah courts.  The fax is below.

Lawyers don’t like to be questioned.  If their opinions are going to be questioned by anyone, then it’s not going to be someone like me, some schmuck from Long Island; it’s only going to be lawyers on the same team with the same oath of allegiance and a little higher up in their hierarchy.  And that’s the thing that gets me and makes this all the more worse; this is all about the opinions of lawyers.

What makes these people think their opinions are not subject to questioning?

 

              

3 Comments For This Post

  1. Dale Says:

    I really liked this letter and its blunt and in your face presentation. I do not believe judges are use to people who are educated regarding the law and how it is legitimized asking them tough questions. I think this letter is far too challenging to Mr. Eyre and may very well have caused him just a bit of discomfort, if he even dared to read it, or it stopped at the delivery gate and he is not even aware of the request for an interview.

    Your request of Donald is too much for a sociopath to handle, where any judge worth his salt should not have a problem answering the tough questions we would ask. It would be majorly cool if he would dare to peek around the corner and see whether he can handle the real heat of our line of questioning. If he were to dare to be a guest and you had Twitter or Skype running others would add to the questions thereby making it our questioning.

  2. MickeyG Says:

    The judge is a judicial officer of the state and the state is a party in the action. The rules of civil procedure and rules of judicial conduct says he shall recuse himself.

  3. Anonymous Says:

    I just found this article, and after some wildy puzzling decisions from Judge Eyre regarding an adoption case that required the termination of parental rights of a 4 time felon living out of state who is $60k behind in child support and hasn’t seen his children since 2006, I wanted to investigate.

    In this case, he gave 90 days to receive permission to change the jurisdiction from California to Utah AFTER the case had been presented, and without an attorney contesting jurisdiction. Though he received all jurisdiction documents from my attorney, he threw out the case, even though it was HIS job to speak to a judge in California.

    An attorney in California has validated that there is no record with California regarding his contacting anyone, which means he threw out a case because it was inconveniencing him, and not because of legal implication.

    I’d love to know if there are more complaints about this judge.

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events


Saturday, November 29th, 4-7pm EST: Marc will be back for another LIVE show this week and we'll be taking your calls about tickets, tyrants, and assessments.

If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then you can call into the LIVE show at (218)632-9399 or we can skype you in during a break. You'll need to contact Marc on Skype by searching for username: frankrizzo3, and we can also add you to the NSP skype group chat where you can engage in some role play to refine your litigation and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up.

Here is a comprehensive list of ways you can interact with the No STATE Project community should you feel compelled to fall even deeper down the rabbit-hole.











Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter


Advertise Here