The results for the first NSP Traffic Study ticket are in: Ticket kicked out. As I’ve mentioned before, seventy-five percent of the time my motion to dismiss for a lack of a cause of action is filed, the cops don’t show up. That’s what happened 5 January 2012. Or so it seems.
This parking ticket, as any other bureaucrat attack, does not allege a cause of action; there are no allegations of injury and damage. As the PR in Arizona is the governments are created the “protect and maintain individual rights”, the jurisdiction of the courts is limited to the same thing. A cause of action requires the violation of a legal right. This is what the PR tells us and governments’ first line of defense when you file against them in court.
It was described by the people at the Tempe, Arizona court, as a civil proceeding. I filed a motion for a more definite statement and it was ignored of course. None of them wanted to tell me if this civil action was a contract dispute or tort. Criminals always have a problem with silly things like answering questions to clarify what they’re talking about.
I went to court and wanted the cop to show so I could confront the judge and cop about their many fictions i.e., state, law etc. It was obvious the cop, Jamie Draeger, was not going to show though.
It was cool, though short notice, three friends showed up to support as media reps. We each informed the court workers we were from the media doing a series of shows on judicial misconduct. I gave my card to the clerks and told them I was a radio show host and wanted the judge to know I was there as part of a study.
I think that’s why the judge looked relieved the cop was not there; he quickly dismissed the ticket and started to leave. I told him I’m glad the ticket was thrown out, I had a few questions though. He said he was not going to answer any questions, it was moot as the ticket was dismissed.
I reminded him that he forced me to be there, that if the cop showed, we’d be engaged in a trial, so the least he could do was answer a few questions.
He sat back down and I figured I better not hit him with a difficult question right away, so I asked if the dismissal was with prejudice. He said it basically was with prejudice.
When I asked about my motion to dismiss that was denied without explanation, he refused, stood up and walked out. I would have been more aggressive, but he was using a walker.
I did get a record from the clerk proving the ticket was dismissed. You’ll notice there appears to be a discrepancy as to why it was thrown out. On the last page, it has “DISMISSED OFFICER FTA”. But on the first page, it has: “DISMISSED ON REQUEST OF OFFICER”. Click on the thumbnails for larger views:
Why would the cop request the ticket to be thrown out? I asked the judge and he said he knew as much as I did about the cop not being there. I went to the police department (they are in the same building as the court) and the cop was at another unit a few miles away. I didn’t have time to go and will follow up and ask why she didn’t show up and if there is any truth to the ticket being dismissed on her request.
I can only speculate at this point though. You can argue maybe it was her day off; that is typical and they are getting paid overtime even if I was the only one she had to appear for. What if it was not her day off? The clerk confirmed there was a notice to appear issued to her; why the disrespect for the judge’s order?
But why blow off a court appearance when the motion was already denied? Talk about it being a sure thing, the judge is clearly on the cop’s side as the motion was denied without explanation. I don’t understand why, when I’m so stupid and mixed up on legal issues, why the cop would not show up.
I am disappointed I did not get to confront them on their fictions. I’m not doing this to prove I can get tickets kicked out and help others with damage control; there’s already plenty evidence of that. I want more evidence the decision we’re guilty is made in advance, the facts must conform to their opinions and traffic courts are scams run by criminals in black robes.
But, to anyone who has been in traffic court can attest that’s already self-evident truth.