Question on traffic ticket court

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Set down the Kool-Aid right now!!!!

This is exactly the kind of knucklehead attitude that gets people in trouble. YOU do not have the right, power, or authority to schedule any dates and times for any hearings in this case. You are the defendant. The judge (or someone working for him, like his calendar clerk) sets the dates and times for motion hearings and trial. Even assuming the judge actually received and read your nonsense, he is under no obligation to respond to it, and his silence is not "consent."

You are playing with fire, kiddo. Not too long ago, a poster on this board named "planetmark" decided he could file some gibberish paperwork and thereby "default" the authorities in Washington state who had awarded custody of his kids to his ex-wife. He ended up spending a year in jail after being arrested for interference with a custodial order and attempted kidnapping when he went to collect the kids pursuant to his self-issued "order". He was either found guilty or pleaded guilty. I checked with the Washington authorities' online database and verified his convictions.

You're on the fast track to having your license suspended and/or having a warrant issued for your arrest if you fail to appear at the times and dates set BY THE COURT. Try these little nonsense games in court, and you could be held in contempt, which means you get fines and/or jail time above and beyond whatever fines and jail time you may be facing with the ticket.

Rule number one when you're in a hole is this: STOP DIGGING. So stop digging your own grave, metaphorically speaking.

HEIL HILTER!!!!
LOL!



Peace

[mrg]

Originally Posted by I_am_me

"all" of what?

You mean all are equal except that "persons" are not equal to "men."

What, precisely, and with particularity do you mean?

I thought the whole foundation of the site was founded on this principle.

Why, precisely, and with specific particularity, did you "think" that?

Aren't sui juris men not equal to those who be not sui juris?

I don't know; "aren't" they "be not?"

Does a triple negative neutralize a double negative?

Again, is English your primary language?

Aren't 14th amendment citizens not equal to state nationals?

What is a "14th amendment" citizen?

What is a "state national?"

What is a double negative?"

What message are you trying to convey?

Which means that the judge, which is a person, is not equal to you the man under the law.

What is "a person?"

[Lawdog]

Ah...the typical tactic of the fool who is losing an argument badly. Instead of responding rationally to the points being made by the other side, the loser blurts, "Oh, yeah? Well, you're a Nazi!" (Or racist, sexist, etc.)

Pathetic, boys. Really pathetic.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Ah...the typical tactic of the fool who is losing an argument badly. Instead of responding rationally to the points being made by the other side, the loser blurts, "Oh, yeah? Well, you're a Nazi!" (Or racist, sexist, etc.)

Pathetic, boys. Really pathetic.

If the shoe fits.....

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

loser tactic

Ah...the typical tactic of the fool who is losing an argument badly.

Instead of responding rationally to the points being made by the other side, the loser blurts,

"Oh, yeah?

Well, you're a Nazi!"

(Or racist, sexist, etc.)

Pathetic, boys. Really pathetic.

Would you care to see a truly "pathetic" compilation of your own prolific use of a despicable rhetorical artifice that is, indeed, "the typical tactic of the fool who is losing an argument badly?"

Hmmmm......



Yes, "it is pathetic, really pathetic."

In your own words, "boy."

And it comes from less than 50 posts out of over 500.

The 50 or so most recent posts; reverse chronological order.

Perhaps a full compilation....?

Originally Posted by Lawdog
Ah...the typical tactic of the fool who is losing an argument badly.

Why did you write "argument?"

Who is "arguing?"

I just read the whole thread and could not really find anyone "arguing."

I saw a couple of people trying to start "argument," maybe.

At post #22 the thread was effectively derailed.

"Argument" started at post 27?

As well as the signature condescending arrogance?

That would be you?

You cannot support your life style without "argument" can you?

You cannot seem to support your "arguments" here without arrogant condescension either, can you?

Perhaps you must out of necessity see everything in terms of "argument," whether there is one or not?

And if not, would you perhaps attempt to start one?

Why do you seem to see "reality" only in terms of "winners" and "losers;" one who dresses smartly, drives a Mercedes, and conceals an expensive designer firearm under his Armani; and one who lives, perhaps, in a trailer, or a shack, or under a bridge?

Fear perhaps?

Gnawing numbing fear?

Fear that eats at one's guts until one must suppress it, bury it, deny it, and clothe it in the trappings of a "winner?"

Fear of "losing?"

Something so deep and dark that one must denigrate others in order to ingratiate oneself?

That is truly abject poverty, son.


Thank you sir, may I have another?

[freedom found]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Set down the Kool-Aid right now!!!!

This is exactly the kind of knucklehead attitude that gets people in trouble. YOU do not have the right, power, or authority to schedule any dates and times for any hearings in this case. You are the defendant. The judge (or someone working for him, like his calendar clerk) sets the dates and times for motion hearings and trial. Even assuming the judge actually received and read your nonsense, he is under no obligation to respond to it, and his silence is not "consent."

You are playing with fire, kiddo. Not too long ago, a poster on this board named "planetmark" decided he could file some gibberish paperwork and thereby "default" the authorities in Washington state who had awarded custody of his kids to his ex-wife. He ended up spending a year in jail after being arrested for interference with a custodial order and attempted kidnapping when he went to collect the kids pursuant to his self-issued "order". He was either found guilty or pleaded guilty. I checked with the Washington authorities' online database and verified his convictions.

You're on the fast track to having your license suspended and/or having a warrant issued for your arrest if you fail to appear at the times and dates set BY THE COURT. Try these little nonsense games in court, and you could be held in contempt, which means you get fines and/or jail time above and beyond whatever fines and jail time you may be facing with the ticket.

Rule number one when you're in a hole is this: STOP DIGGING. So stop digging your own grave, metaphorically speaking.

Well, I guess I gotta prove you wrong in this case, Law dog. I did have a court date, and the court held my hearing. The Justice of the peace asked if he could talk to me before the hearing, which I did, in front of three of his office girls, two probation officers and he and I. He told me he had every right to try civil traffic cases, I told him my Motion quoted the issue, the rule and my understanding that he, under the rule had no jurisdiction in a contested traffic case, he said he did.

Long story short, we had the hearing, I presented my motion to dimiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and violation of my due process rights, all I can tell you is this, Mr. Lawdog, I walked out of that hearing with my drivers license and the Justice of the peace got an education on what a soverign American man who knows his rights can and cannot do.

Digging a grave? I did not do this on my own, I studied very much and knew what the game he was playing was, just because you choose to play games with God given rights does not mean a Justice of the Peace will once he is called on it, this one did not, this time.

[freedom found]

Now for those of you who would like to know, I went in, the JP talked to me, he said he has been to school, he is a JP, he knows the law, he did not understand my motion. BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Let me tell you the turning point and pay close attention: I looked him dead in the eye and asked "Are you bonded?" He said; "WHAT?"
I said, "Are you Bonded?"

Brothers, you would have thought I punced him in the face! He started stammering, looking around, avoiding eye contact and on and on. After avoiding the question three more times, he finally said, "The county has insurance on its employees." I could tell I was not going to get an answer, so I went on.

He told me, "your understanding of the law is wrong, I said I do not agree. We both agreed we did not agree on what the law/rules said. Fine, he told me he had set another hearing date for 6/11/3008 on the motion to quash. I told him, that is fine, he then said, I need you to sign this (bench order for the hearing).

I said, "I do not understand what you are saying, so, I will not sign it." He said, OK, and tried to hand it to me. I did not touch it, I just said, "No thank you, I will be here on the 11th." And I turned to walk out.

JP then says "Do you have time now for a hearing?" I said sure.

[freedom found]

I said, "In my motion, I requested a court of record, will this hearing be on the record?" He said he was not a Superior court and could not hold a court of record." I said, well, I want in on the record.

He said it would be recorded and I said that would be agreeable.

At this, his clerk let out an audible HUF and unlocked the door to the court room. (We were still at the front counter up till now).

The court started, after admitting my motion into the record, I asked the JP, "Are you bonded?" he started with the stammering and looking around again, and said something about the insurance policy and he was elected and dully appointed..."

I asked, "What does the insurance policy cover?" He said he did not know. I asked, "You do not know?"
JP: "No, you will need to ask an attorney."
Me: "You have an insurance policy, but you do not know what it covers? That is strange...where it the policy at?"
JP: The county has it.
Me: "So you are not Bonded?"
JP: "I have not purchased a bond with my own funds. And I am not going to answer any more of your questions about it. You need to ask an attorney."
Me: "Aren't you an attorney?" (I knew he was a prosecutor for the county before becoming JP)
JP: "Yes"
Me: "You are still a member of the Bar?"
JP: "Yes, this has nothing to do with the case, I will not answer any more of your questions about it."

Me: "Okay, did you take an oath of Office?
JP: "yes"
Me: "Did you, in your oath, swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States and of Arizona?"

[freedom found]

JP: "Yes, I did."
Me: "will you take Judicial Notice, on the record, or your oath?"
JP: "Yes"
Me: "Thank you, Judge. I have filled my motion, I have only one thing to add. I am not in conflict with you personally, nor this court, nor the Law, I am not arguing with you. But I will to say this: If you vilolate any of my rights to due process or any other right I have under the Consitutions or the laws in this case, I will do every thing in my power to make sure you are held responsible, do you understand?"

JP: "Yes, and just so I understand, your claim is I have no jurisdiction to hear a contested traffic case, is that right."
Me: My motion says that, and that is the main issue, lack of subject matter jurisdiction."

JP: (He excused himself and came back with a book) "I just wanted to review something." He then read the statute in ARS 28 which grants sole jurisdiction of all highways in Arizona to the Department of Transportation and said "I will have to review somethings before making my ruleing."

Me: "I just want to thank you for your time and understanding and answering my questions, I think your understanding of my lack of knowledge was commedible, I appreciate the courts time and yours in this matter."

JP: "You are welcome, this hearing is adjourned."

And I walked out of there with my drivers license.

Ok, I do not want to sound like I am some know it all, or big bad dude, I was scared as hell when I was talking to the judge out side the court room. I was like, man if this is all BS, I am so screwed!!! But, I prayed before I went in, I knew he did not have Jurisdiction, I knew I did not want to argue, and I knew I was acting as one of the people, with rights, which he was sworn to uphold, I kept telling myself that and let it fly.

[freedom found]

I do not know if the JP is not bonded and that was the reason for his complete change of attitude or not. But I can tell you, I saw the change inside him when I asked that question, it was like the lights in his head went out.

The girls in the office were all standing there, looking at him and me like "who the ef does this guy think he is?"

I can tell you, I don't think the UCC stuff had much to do with it, but I know for sure when I told him I did not understand what he was telling me, he could not do anything, in fact, he came right back at me with "I dont understand what you are saying!" And, he sure did not push me to sign the bench order when I told him I did not understand it, nor did he try anything when I would not touch the paper and told him "I will be here." and started to walk out.

Thanks be to the Creator for giving me the words and grace I needed to stand up for myself. It was a great feeling.

Thanks to all of you who have shared your information and beliefs here, I used some things I learned here.

I can tell you, in THIS case, the soverign was the mover and setter of the pace, even if it was uncharted territory for me.

I still do not know what the JP will say about my case, but right now, after he told me in 3 written orders he was going to suspend my license, I still have it right now.

Thanks guys!