To the OP
The courts play a game with the citations they issue via the "leo", at least in Idaho they do, you have to report to the clerk of the court on or before the date on your citation, then if you "plead" to the clerk anything but "guilty" and "pretend to pay" your fine [cant "pay" anything with obligatory contracts or "fraud"s] then they set a trial date for you to actually appear in front of a judge and that is when they bring out mr/ms patrolman as the state "voyeur".
Quote:
from an non-statutory abatement paper a friend filed
WITNESS
The only witness that can be brought forward by the Plaintiff
is one single statute enforcement officer who is not a reliable witness.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, that
police officers may commit perjury with total impunity.
The officer is an interested witness, fully biased, fully
prejudiced, in that his personal reputation and future success as a
statute enforcement officer are involved. Therefore, to benefit himself
it would be in his best interest to perjure himself/herself to maintain a high
degree of credibility among his/her peers and to make his efficiency appear
greater in the eyes of his superiors.
Since it is in the best interest of the officer to appear
efficient, competent and reliable to his supervisors by filling his
"quota" and to make him/her more accepted by his peers, and so that his
reputation as a professional witness will remain active and
reliable, he/she needs to obtain convictions. Since there are no civil
or criminal consequences to him if he does commit perjury he has
nothing to lose and every thing to gain.
Therefore, the testimony of the officer cannot be reliable and
must be discarded by the Court.
|
the problem with a non-statutory abatement is the time frame involved in filing such has already passed.... so now you have to fight in their realm and under their rules.... learn them well.... particualrly where they are allowed to make "local rules" at a whim and you are supposed to know thaose even though they are not published and probably only apply to you or other like you..... the chess board in the "lawball game" is slanted and skewed to their side of the table and you have only one chess piece , the court has all the others against you..... <-----lovely thought eh?
Cross your eyes and dot your tees cause you are gonna be in for a bumpy ride that takes time, energy, and the ability to think quickly on your feet in front of the fella sitting behind a polished sacrificial alter wearing a black dress hoping you aint got any bleach in the paperwork you file to make it white.....
Better to pay the fine, and start research against the time in the future that you will again need to be yourself in court, and fight from a knowledgable stance..... been there done that, and the Idaho court of appeals limited oral presentation [they cal it arguement] before I could reply to them telling them I wanted to have Oral presentation..... cause i was gonna hit them with everything I had and then some so now I wait until they decide to rule in the action one way or another...... I cant sleep very well, I have trouble holding a conversation that is not related to law and even then I have trouble with those who just dont have a clue as to what I have been through..... it is not pretty what we go through in being In Propia Persona, Sui Juris, Jus-Sanguinis, Sua-Poteste-Esse
have an ordinary day
William
Central Idaho state