Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Livefire
If you have this on the record....I'd say you have a slam dunk on appeal. You have mounted a juridicitonal challenge and the judge totally ignored it and shammed his own court.
"Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven." Hagens v Lavine. 415 U.S. 533 Note3.
"No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction."
Standard v. Lavine. 415 U.S. 533 Note 3.
|
Appeal what? The filing of a not guilty plea on behalf of a defendant who refuses to understand what is going on?
Sorry. It's an arraingment; an opportunity for the defendant to plead guilty or not. She wouldn't enter a plea so the court has no choice but to enter a not-guilty plea for her. Jurisdiction isn't a question at this stage (and won't fly as a challenge anyway), as several have tried to point out to Kitchie. She wouldn't be in that court if there weren't already proven jurisdictional rulings. Please - don't try to tell me courts haven't heard this kind of thing before. These things keep coming up all from time to time as if it was some new-found black-magic secret. It isn't. I'd venture to say about 5% of pro se cases (depending on where you are in the country) try some kind of bogus tactic they pulled off the 'net.
And the judge was correct - she does not have to show up at her trial. But if she doesn't, a warrant with be issued for her arrest for failure to appear. That only adds more excitement when and if she's pulled over again. Instead of issuing a ticket, the officer will have to take her into custody for the open warrant. Then there's all the fun of being booked into jail, having the car impounded, getting someone to come down and bail you out, having an arrest record and even more future visits to courts, not to mention the fines.
So, isn't being lured into doing stupid things in court worth all that fun?
Personally, the people in jail aren't all that nice to be around.