Question on traffic ticket court

[freedom found]

After reviewing, I found that the hearing was just to answer my question as to the validity of the citation which had been altered after my signing at the time of stop.

It seems the Judge thought my claim was the alteration and thus void, the hearing was to determine if the cite was valid or not under statute.

In my special restricted/answer without joinder and R4C I just wrote, I simply "refused for cause without dishonor" informed the Judge that I am not xxxxx xxxx Defendant, and I understood his offer to hold a hearing was the reason for the BENCH ORDER and required my voluntary compliance, which I refused under duress.

I clarified my first Notice of Conditional Acceptance was just that and his 'consideration' it was a 'motion to dismiss' was not my intention but that it was exactly what it said it was (acceptance for value and return without dishonor of the citation). And I had included a question for clarification, which I have since answerd and "appreciated your offer to hold a hearing to answer my question, but it will not be needed and is hereby respectfully declined and refused, thank you."

I will certify mail it today and see what happens. Thank you all who contributed to my learning and understanding. I will not share this information with others in my trust without testing the premise for myself first. I chose this citation to do it, because I feel confident I could beat it under normal hearing conditions.

If I beat it useing UCC and soverign principles, I will share the information with you and others.

By the way, moishanb, no the envelope was just taped, not sealed.

Peace to all and thanks again! I will keep you updated.

[Dillon Hunt]

Originally Posted by gldskr

No, the A4V is the counter offer to the original citation. Jurisdiction was given the moment the registration docs were signed.

After the first offer they are all counter-offers


Registering into a system admits the jurisdiction of the system.

Jurisdiction is not just by registering in the system, the state also needs venue, (did the event occur on state property), the state needs factual evidence of a complaining party, the state needs first hand factual evidence witnessed by the prosecutor, factual evidence of an injured party (corpus delicti) and of course all police witnesses are all legally incomptent (if non-injury/non-damage traffic offenses) to testify if asked the right questions on the stand. (Nothing personal against police) There is more!

The state only has power (jurisdiction) to hear a case for a valid cause of action of a violation of a legal right in which relief can be granted. (who is the real man or woman getting the relief?)

Humbly, Dillon Hunt

[Steel]

Originally Posted by joseph sugarman

If you do not know what you are doing, why are you doing anything?

You should get educated before you take on the system; not while you are foundering with it.

Seeing is believing
believing is seeing
Study to show thyself approved unto god yes
but, faith without works is dead
fortune favors the bold
nothing ventured nothing gained
NO GUTS NO GLORY
he can sit here and read all this **** most of which is garbage or he can trust his instinct and make a move
I applaud your efforts wether or not they are fruitful you at least have a pair.

[freedom found]

Thank you steel, like I posted, a prima facia speeding ticket is easy enough to beat in a hearing, I want them to prove jurisdiction.

I was told just before I left Law enforcement the Gov. of Arizona blamed the majority of budget issues on the Dept. of Public Safety/Highway patrol, for not writing enough traffic tickets!! That should tell you something...

It's all about the $$$$$$.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by freedom found

Thank you steel, like I posted, a prima facia speeding ticket is easy enough to beat in a hearing, I want them to prove jurisdiction.

I was told just before I left Law enforcement the Gov. of Arizona blamed the majority of budget issues on the Dept. of Public Safety/Highway patrol, for not writing enough traffic tickets!! That should tell you something...

It's all about the $$$$$$.

Thanks for that piece of information. Yes, this certainly supports the position, that all this vehicle code is more about coercion, harassment, and the collection of more hidden taxes (tickets).

"The more laws that are written, the more criminals are produced." --Lao-Tse, Tao Te Ching

[Soldier of Truth]

I'm curious, isn't Arizona's Dept. of Motor Vehicles a part of the Commerce Division? Or something like that? I know I heard that for one of these states, for some reason I'm thinking its Ariz.

[freedom found]

Originally Posted by Soldier of Truth

I'm curious, isn't Arizona's Dept. of Motor Vehicles a part of the Commerce Division? Or something like that? I know I heard that for one of these states, for some reason I'm thinking its Ariz.

Update, the Judge did not like my responce, today he issued another 'bench order' which said if I did not complete a driver education course and proof of it, he would enter a default judgement and suspend my DL.

I wrote up a quick MOTION TO QUASH for three issues:

1. Lack of Subject matter Jurisdiction. Under Arizona Administative Code, which AZ Department of transportation is ruled by, and ARS 28, ADOT has jurisdiction of all highways in Arizona.

Under ARS 28, the Justice courts have Jurisdiction.
BUT, the AAC clearly states only uncontested cases can be heard outside the Arizona Department of Transportation.

I told him this is now a constested case, because I declared so.

Thus, it is the sole jurisdiction of ADOT admin hearing.

2nd issue: Violation of my due process rights as the Judge is violating his oath of office. Also, the threat to take my license without due process, in violation of the Constitution of Arizona, artical 4.

3rd issue, The Judge has no legal standing to act as prosecutor in this case, he is supposed to be a netural party. His threat of License suspension for a matter not in his jurisdiction is a violation of his oath of office and the Due process rights in the AZ Constitution. It also claims he has uspurped the power of the prosecutor and acted without a proper summons or complaint. Under the law, no peace officer can issue a summons to court, only the Clerk of the court can.

I set a hearing date for dismissal on the 28 of this month, the same day he ordered me to provide proof of completetion of drivers education.

I also requested a court of record for the hearing. I have all my cites and rule in the motion to quash and I have all my court cases to back up everything I said at the hearing.

We shall see.

Also, The Department of Commerce is under the same ACC (Secretary of State) but it is not the same department.

[freedom found]

double post

[the_awakening_one]

Definitely looking forward to the updates on this matter...

And I must say, fabulous to hear of a cop who quit being a cop after realizing about the institutionalized violation of peoples' rights. You sound like a good guy to me.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by the_awakening_one

Definitely looking forward to the updates on this matter...

And I must say, fabulous to hear of a cop who quit being a cop after realizing about the institutionalized violation of peoples' rights. You sound like a good guy to me.

I agree!

”Corruption leads to slavery; integrity to freedom.” -Cato

Thank you, freedom found.

“Business and design of government are to protect men's natural rights.” -Cato