|
Bean,
It seems that you dont "stand-under" 6th amendment
enumerated right for an accused to "under-stand" the charge brought against him or her.....The judge in Kitchie's case effectively trampled all over that when he said "No, Im not going to answer that." Got news for him....YES he does have to answer because the court CANNOT proceed without establishing jurisdiction, otherwise any verdict they render is a nullity in law. And your brethern have stated stare decisis that THE COURT, not the defendant has the burden of proof. The answer, No Im not going reply rendered his court without authority in the instant matter because he didnt reply to an inpersonam jurisdictional challenge. On appeal, Kitchie could probably file a writ of quo warrento with the higher court demanding the lower scumbag to prove up he actually had jurisdiction.
Actually you legal types could rather easily defeat the types of challenges that processes like TS present, IF you didnt care about people knowing about the traffic citation scam perpetrated in American courts. But we know that isnt usually the case. It would be easy for judge to rebut by saying to a defendant that the drivers license constitutes a contract between you and the state. Upon consideration and payment of fees you agreed to follow all rules, regulations, and codes of the state DMV and be subject to all forfeitures and fines for failure to perform (i.e. fines, points, suspensions, imprisonments) This court is the statutorially appointed agency to make adminstrative determinations concerning all parties disputes involved in the drivers license contract, therefore I have jurisdiction...now sir how do you plead!?
You stand rebutted!
|