DUI Advice

[zeyeon]

Originally Posted by Shuftin

WORD OF WARNING

The Federal, State, County, and City governments WILL NOT assist the people in restoring Common Law and the Constitution because it is not in their interest to do so. Why? Because the entire system of welfare, income taxes, the codes, ordinances, rules, regulations, and bureaucracy, would cease to exist in very short order - within the states.

ATTORNEYS

A WORD OF CAUTION: One who hires an Attorney-At-Law cannot bring a lawful Process against an Emergency Powers Court because Attorneys are Agents of the Court (Officers of the Court) and they only use the Process allowed by the Court (that licensed the Attorney to practice before that Court). All Bar Members are Agents of Emergency Powers Courts. You must, therefore, never hire an Attorney to appear on a case in an Emergency Powers Court. Doing so makes one non compos mentis (i.e., not mentally competent) and automatically gives the Court jurisdiction over one's self.

From my web page at:

http://www.policecrimes.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1063

what about a paralegal?

[Sharing Lights]

Originally Posted by Shuftin

WORD OF WARNING

The Federal, State, County, and City governments WILL NOT assist the people in restoring Common Law and the Constitution because it is not in their interest to do so. Why? Because the entire system of welfare, income taxes, the codes, ordinances, rules, regulations, and bureaucracy, would cease to exist in very short order - within the states.

ATTORNEYS

A WORD OF CAUTION: One who hires an Attorney-At-Law cannot bring a lawful Process against an Emergency Powers Court because Attorneys are Agents of the Court (Officers of the Court) and they only use the Process allowed by the Court (that licensed the Attorney to practice before that Court). All Bar Members are Agents of Emergency Powers Courts. You must, therefore, never hire an Attorney to appear on a case in an Emergency Powers Court. Doing so makes one non compos mentis (i.e., not mentally competent) and automatically gives the Court jurisdiction over one's self.

From my web page at:

http://www.policecrimes.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1063

That all may be true;

however, "survivor of the fittest law" may dictate
the survivor clause in its, own sequence.

Yes, it is better to be so competent that we can
outdo lawyers and, given enough time and efforts put is, we shall!

That takes considerable time and efforts and not an overnight success.


But, when one knows that the court is better
equipped to De-rail him/her, than apply justice,
any ammunition to negate that is better than
going in pride and "smoke."

Most lawyers are like prostitutes - they would
apply their skills on anyone who pays them
and may even try to satisfy you if like enough.

I say - common sense suggests us to survive first
so that we can get in position to become stronger
than lawyers.

May it become a maxim.

.................

[Sharing Lights]

re:

My defense will look like this... From the light that the cop was stopped at, till the point I was pulled over to a dead stop, measures 1800 feet. Now, the cop who "paced my speed" claimed to have done so from a dead stop in a distance of 1500 feet (if it took me 300 feet from the time the lights went on till the time I was pulled over in a parking lot). But for argument's sake, let's use 1800 feet: If one were to use the Distance = Rate X Time Formula, he or she would find, the cop is claiming that his cruiser was able to go from 0 to 70mph in 2.11 seconds. The Lotus 2-Eleven can't reach 0-60 in less than 3.8! (In my opinion, the COP should be the one required to submit to a sobriety test.)

No wonder why he "forgot" to have me sign the citation!

Plain facts and physics may be cemented defense.


You would need to get a few photos showing the distance in reference
to the start-end of the "chase."

Combine with timing and summons data.

Need to foresee what arguments in the defense
of his position the cop may use.

Looking for any inconsistency and probing it long enough
in court may give you that.

When you sound that you know what ask and why, many judges would
give you that opportunity to cross-examine.


If proceed by irrational, non-related questions, their fuse may be too short.

Coherence in conduct and calmness are 50% of the opportunity
to drive somewhere.

.................

[zeyeon]

Originally Posted by Sharing Lights

re:






.................

Thank you once again for your reply.

I've had conversations today with defence attorney's as well as my friend who is a state prosecutor in FL. Defence attourney's like my defence, my prosecutor friend states that cops are allowed to "estimate" my speed, and are trained to do so... and that they would argue that the burden of proof lies with the state.

My arguement is though, I'm not questioning whether or not the burden of proof lies with the state. I'm questioning the state's position on whether the burden of proof lies with a human being (the cop) who is fully capable of making an honest mistake in estimating my speed. If that were true, why are radar detectors and pacing procedures even needed?

[Sharing Lights]

You can sense that all, reasonable members here, including guests want you to win, as well as be safe in the future and not take unreasonable chances for yourself and others in terms of alcoholic consummation before driving.

You sound like someone who has logic and perseverance to defend.

You should win.

Before you go, you need to establish three corners so that a solid triangle of success is formed.

16. I won my traffic court case over the issue of speeding in mph zone
in the city by such calmness and humane approach together with prepared rational.


Sweet sixteen (1-16 above) or the standoff in the traffic court turned into
a calmer drive around one center only.

On that - in the next Post.

[Sharing Lights]

By being non-confrontational, I "made" the cop feel so guilty that,
while the judge was ready to skin me raw up or down to the underwear,
the cop hesitated enough for me to seize the momentum of the fight.

I asked the cop,
"Officer, can you tell with 100% percent certainty that
it was my car that was speeding and not that, green van
that passed me by on the right lane?"

[Fact: There really was a van which outspeeded me and exactly on the right]


I continued, "of course there was speeding in the zone and that is why
you did your job {thank you} but the reason you pulled me over is the fact
that I drove at the speed limit and that's why was left behind.

Since that van passed me by, obviously it speeded. [more]

I would not be surprised if it pulled 60 mph the way it flew by.

Your radar showed "60 mph?"


Great! You see? I knew it had to pull at least that,
damn those irresponsible drivers.

What if there was a grandma crossing the road?

Actually, withdraw that, judge, the light was green and the van
did not run the red light and neither did I.
[second defense angle was covered by association.]

I was ahead of the van, the light was blinking yellow;
the van behind me was speeding up so that could make the light.

That is self-evident.

I "made" the light at the normal speed - the van definitely rushed.

I know because I was there. I did about 27-28 mph, I looked.

The van just had to pull about sixty the way it passed me, about 60 or close.

I rationalized further, seeing that both: the judge and cop were listening
intensely, making me gaining confidence by their silence.

"No one can dispute that fact that the van was not stopped
but it got away while you stopped me."

"Why you? - asked judge

"I was the slowest out of the two - that's why was stopped."

Is there a summons for a green monkey
(sorry -green van)
on that day at that location by you, Officer?"


He looked at his notes, the reply was "No!"

"You see, that what I mean."


The judge was confused but I sensed that he wanted to find me guilty -
just in case.

His facial expression, "what else are you going to pull, boy?" -
was not giving me enough confidence to relax a bit.

"So, officer, can you state under Oath that that van did not speed,
did not pass by and that I was not a slower
vehicle, while your radar clocked one of the two vehicles,
bypassing the corner where you were parked on the service road?

"What? Repeat that!" - was his response
about 3 times, and each time, I repeated with a slight variation
to no avail.

I sensed tensions on a judge too and hints of constipation,
as

being stuck at retardness of the traffic courts.

So, may I, respectfully, get an answer? - kept digging I.

"I am not sure!" replied the cop looking down.

The judge jumped, "Not sure, what?"
"Not sure if would reply or not sure who speeded?"

I came to the cop's "rescue."

"I wish this officer good luck, confirm that he was courteous
when pulled me over and I know well that
errors and misunderstandings happen."

"Thank you officer for not holding me there for too long,
and I was not late at work."

[God forbid, to say, I or you were rushing to our job.
Nobody rushes - we all stroll along, we "love the law.")

"What's you answer, officer?"

"Penalty of perjury, remember the Oath!" was trying to "help" I.


"Was this driver speeding as stated on the summons?"
the judge was getting impatient already.

"I am not sure!" replied the cop again.


"Nobody is sure" eagerly inserted I, always willing to help
a fellow citizen in distress "but I am sure that a green van was speeding
and I was stopped because the officer sincerely thought it was I..."


"DISMISSED!" said judge and both of them finally took a deep sigh.


"I am f..... getting out of this s--h--i--t hole"
thought I, quickly making my exit, after grabbing signed papers,
remembering to say "thank you"
to both and "hope we don't have to meet again."

Oh, I meant that one to the max.


"Hiding on damn corners -just not manly - like awaiting crocodiles" -
kept philosophizing I in my mind.

I, also, remembered to thank God and my parents for giving me
some abilities to negate negative.

The road was clear, I was not drunk, there was a green wave (light)
I was riding along and yes, there was a green van indeed that passed me by
about 5 mph.

When there are two cars that "act" as a probable cause for pulling over,
the one which is slower and behind,
usually, gets punished.

Go figiure......

After the tribunal, as a faithfully contributing member of society concerned
for strong economy, I enriched an electronic merchant by purchasing
a radar detector with 360 degree angle and all bandwidths.

"I am not driving without that e-condom now" - thought I.

Hiding men, like crocks and roosters-****s, hiding in corners
undercover cars are watching me - I want to know where these crocks bath,
then too.

At that time, I had not much knowledge of laws, Sovereignty, and traffic court procedures.

But, I spent time, drew flowcharts and designed strategy.

I came to court not to concede but to fight for my right not to be
under surveillance by hiding cops while

I came to use the power of the prepared mind and opened perception -
not to utter wild phrases in wild hope.

I knew that I could not make an enemy out of the cop.

I also adjourned once before and the cop had to do the same.

Much time passed - it worked in my favor. [keep adjourning if can]


He truly could not remember a s--h--i--t by then but only had his notes
to rely on.

They were not extremely accurate when I probed enough.

I asked few questions of my appearance, exact directions, and
some details that already showed the hesitation on the side
of the cop and inconsistencies.

Time factor, discrepancies, and calm self-respect and same for
others with a consistent drive around one issue
(the green van did it - I was behind...) produced the win.


Had I not studied, not flowcharting at home, I would have been eaten alive.

That is a subject by itself.

...............

[Sharing Lights]

By the way, I was acting fair to the cop and did not abuse my skills,
retaining a level of respect.


His colleagues were in the same room, waiting for their cases, and listening.
I might have been able to embarrass him if really pressed.

I sincerely feel that the cop was forced to do his job as coached.

If they don't do so, they get questioned what did they do the same day
in such wicked city as New York?

He sensed that I was fair to him and a not playing on that issue.


If he did remember, he should have realized that, regardless of the speed,
it is not very fair to pull a slower vehicle out of two.

If I were given a summons, then what about the other vehicle?
Logic was not there, indeed.

I believe that he could, still, have said more than said but, probably,
remembering how rude, combative or lying "outright"
(maybe a stretched a bit "inleft" by me - well -
try to survive otherwise, when accused of crimes
against nobody and damaging no one!)
others are, my direct and fair approach appeared to make him feel guilty
going all out.

After all, he has so many other drivers to handle, that the one who
retains coherence, directness and a bit of sense of humor under pressure,
deserved some break in comparison to a

typical New York no rules fight
at each other's throat.

A remainder: