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?