|
rumor
Translation:
You heard a rumor that this happened to someone, somewhere, sometime. It was your best friend's sister's hairdresser's cousin.
"Testimony" is given under oath subject to the laws relating to perjury.
What we have here is a typical claim of success. Maybe the judge let this guy off the hook. Maybe he didn't. But some of his arguments were typical wingnut crap that don't work, as I have proved.
For example: his argument that because the State of North Carolina was a party to the case, original jurisdiction was in the U.S. Supreme Court. Yeah, the Supremes exist to try traffic cases. <eyes rolling>
More likely: the cop didn't bother to show up, so he got the ticket dismissed for that reason. I got a red light ticket dismissed once because the cop didn't show.
And once again: trial level rulings/verdicts don't create precedent. I still want to see some APPELLATE COURT RULINGS that uphold wingnut arguments.
__________________
We reject Skurdal's argument that he is a "free man" exempt from the laws because he has "no contracts" with either the state or federal governments...No persons in Montana may exempt themselves from any law simply by declaring they do not consent to it applying to them...Accepting Skurdal's assertion of exempt status is an invitation to anarchy. We decline that invitation. - State v. Skurdal, Supreme Court of Montana, 235 Mont. 291, 767 P.2d 304 at 308 (1988).
|