|The Great Questions not Answered... Lets answer it!!!
Current time: 10-20-2014, 07:09 PM
The Great Questions not Answered... Lets answer it!!!
01-13-2008, 10:39 PM
Re: The Great Questions not Answered... Lets answer it!!!
In the Top 10 tips for Traffic Court thread post #16
I asked 10 questions that one must answer before refusing to enter a traffic court. No one has meaningfully considered these questions, and they are important to consider.
If the big buzzword is "voluntaryist" then why would anyone condone going into a lower inferior court that has a voluntary jurisdiction????
Are there facts? Is there evidence? Is the traffic ticket a complaint? a motion? a request? How about a business record?
Does a police officer's signature carry with it the necessary authority to bind any one or thing but himself?
I will answer and say that it is not honorable or wise to enter into the court. The second part of the question concerning someone claiming and adversarial position without standing, must be answered factually and with confidence for one to rest on that premise and begs these questions:
What is the nature and the character of this "someone"?
What do you mean by the terms "claim," and "adversarial position"?
What admission of fraud are you expecting to get that will vitiate your traffic ticket?
What two things can a lower inferior court presiding offical do without any parties present at any time with any writing/charge before him?
Here is the answer: The official can do one of two things: 1) dismiss on the court's own motion 2) move the matter to a court of competent jurisdiction.
Let's say that he has before him an unsigned traffic ticket? Number 1
Let's say that he has before him a ticket, and the recipient of the ticket makes a special appearance on paper with an affidavit judicially notifying him (with offers of proof attaching) that even the basic rules of pleading, the city charter, the state constitution and stautes of the particular jurisdiction contain no grant of authority to a police officer to commence an action in the name of the state/city etc upon his signature alone? What if the affidavit contained the rules judicially notifying that official of 1 & 2, and the truth that there exists no set of facts sufficient enough to cause an arraignment, and no signature of any value to ratify and bind the state's participation in the event? What if the affidavit judicially notified the official with an offer of proof that there is no DUTY for the ticket recipient to make an appearance and assist the state in his own prosecution?
What if all that was accompanied by an order that you wrote ordering the proper signatory (i.e attorney) to produce the facts necessary (namely identity) to create a jurisdiction before the date of the alleged arraignment, or the court will dismiss on its own motion for lack of facts enough to create a jurisdiction? Number 1 and Number 2
Is your warrant REALLY a warrant, or is it just a computer generated business record worthless piece of hearsay?
Is your driver license "proof" of identity, or hearsay upon hearsay?
What is your birth certificate from an evidentiary standpoint? What is your SSN from an evidentiary standpoint? If these two pieces of hearsay are needed to create another document (DL) how is that document something more than hearsay??
And what a good argument is waived by showing up and standing when your name is called. If you show up and stand up for that then all the rest is prima facie factual when it was not factual immediately before you stood up.
Don't mean to ask so many questions, but if you want wisdom and confidence to do the Right thing (which is NOT always the honorable thing as its happening) you need to consider answering these questions.
The honorable and wise thing just might be to pay the fine "this time" and prepare for the next.
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)