Service to judge?

[phreeman2003]

As this would not be an intiation of suit, but refusal for cause on a future hearing scheduling (I might show to recover bond and seek restitution via their insurer) and an order to dismiss, as ministerially obligated, I'm of the mind fax service to the judge's office would suffice followed by mailed hard copy as supporting documentation.

Since, the service can be done by third party like kinkos, office max, or even at the local grocers "service" (lol) desk, as the cover and transmission sheets would be certificate of service.

The scenario being traffic stop refused for cause in April 2007, their court kept live on record to now. I defaulted their procedure via public notice May 2007. Two previous bonds relating to issue were noted either without predjudice or U.D.

Furthermore, their court never entered default against me, having set, at least, four hearings on the calendar, which I didn't show to surrender jurisdiction under, I was never sent any notice, unless they're using last known address. I've apprised them of my c/o P.O. Box mailing address numerous times.

If or when I've ever been dragged before judge I contest jurisdiction inform them of abtement actions, public notice of their default, and object to their rulings on the record.

More info upon request.

[Notorial dissent]

First, I think I would check to see how many bench warrants are outstanding for you, and then I would really seriously consider whether I wanted to put myself at the top of the judge’s idiot list. You irritate them enough, and they make a bench warrant a priority.

The rest of your maundering is just nonsense of no legal value or standing, and will accomplish nothing except to bring your name back to mind.

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by phreeman2003

As this would not be an intiation of suit, but refusal for cause on a future hearing scheduling (I might show to recover bond and seek restitution via their insurer) and an order to dismiss, as ministerially obligated, I'm of the mind fax service to the judge's office would suffice followed by mailed hard copy as supporting documentation.

Since, the service can be done by third party like kinkos, office max, or even at the local grocers "service" (lol) desk, as the cover and transmission sheets would be certificate of service.

The scenario being traffic stop refused for cause in April 2007, their court kept live on record to now. I defaulted their procedure via public notice May 2007. Two previous bonds relating to issue were noted either without predjudice or U.D.

Furthermore, their court never entered default against me, having set, at least, four hearings on the calendar, which I didn't show to surrender jurisdiction under, I was never sent any notice, unless they're using last known address. I've apprised them of my c/o P.O. Box mailing address numerous times.

If or when I've ever been dragged before judge I contest jurisdiction inform them of abtement actions, public notice of their default, and object to their rulings on the record.

More info upon request.

Are you making a statement, or are you asking for opinions from members of this forum?

I think most are familiar with abatements, personal as well as subject matter jurisdiction, notice, demand, default, ad naseum.

What can we do for you?

[phreeman2003]

About serving the judge via fax, refusing for cause the next hearing date she scheduled and including a demand to dismiss because of prior abatement. I surmise as they kept the issue alive and not made default judgment against me from June of '07, to date, her court is lacking any form of jurisdiction.

Based on the condensed statements of the situation I presented earlier.

[Shuftin]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

First, I think I would check to see how many bench warrants are outstanding for you, and then I would really seriously consider whether I wanted to put myself at the top of the judge’s idiot list. You irritate them enough, and they make a bench warrant a priority.

The rest of your maundering is just nonsense of no legal value or standing, and will accomplish nothing except to bring your name back to mind.

You can call the sheriff's office and give them the info that they use for you i.e. Name, DOB, SSN, etc and ask if they have any warrants out on you. Most times they will tell you and give you the option of turning yourself in. Then again some Counties will lie to you. Their belief is that by informing you that you have outstanding warrants makes you a danger to future police encounters as you are pre-warned.

Originally Posted by phreeman2003

About serving the judge via fax, refusing for cause the next hearing date she scheduled and including a demand to dismiss because of prior abatement. I surmise as they kept the issue alive and not made default judgment against me from June of '07, to date, her court is lacking any form of jurisdiction.

Based on the condensed statements of the situation I presented earlier.

You are wrong here but not because the State lacks jurisdiction. This is a State-by-State issue. Some State's have 18 month's to prosecute, other State's have two years. You have not heard the last of them. Some State's will will wait until the eleventh hour at 11:59 to prosecute.

The paper trail is fine and all. If or when you do go to Court it will not to be to defend your traffic citations, it will to be to defend your paper trail. Take this extra time to practice, practice, practice your defense of your paper trail. If it does not come to pass then COOL, you will be more prepared for next time it happens.

Never, never, never relax. YOU LIVE IN AMERICA, IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN. They learn from their mistakes just as you do. Stay 1/2 step in front of them.

[phreeman2003]

Any time I've shown to court, by agreement or force, I've only referenced my paper trail, which I believe is the reason this court has not entered default judgment convictions against me when I have previously, according to their court's terminology, failed to appear. Oh, and the SOL is 18 months for their prosecuetion here.

The next appearance should I attend will be like 4 days short of SOL. I was told to be prepared to go to trial that day, but logically, if I would require discovery or need to subpeona witnesses or any kind of procedural thing or even file an affidavit to rebut presumptions I'd have to wait until after the decision on the court's jurisdictional matters before doing so.

The time I was picked up for an alleged valid warrant I happened to have xeroxed copy of B.C. and S.S. hidden away in my wallet, which I informed was used only for necessity of being paid, that instance they default convicted for speeding and no insurance. Oh, and they forced a public pretender on me who I gather self-determined I was a resident from his questioning of where I was born. When dragged before the attorney in black I questioned jurisdiction and raised the abatement with public notice of default to have my bail raised from $250 cash to $2500, of course I objected for the record.

I appreciate the suggestions, however, I'm aware of knowing about any warrants out. My paper trail includes r4cing the warrants and bond appearances.

[Neilzinno]

Originally Posted by phreeman2003

Any time I've shown to court, by agreement or force, I've only referenced my paper trail, which I believe is the reason this court has not entered default judgment convictions against me when I have previously, according to their court's terminology, failed to appear. Oh, and the SOL is 18 months for their prosecuetion here.

The next appearance should I attend will be like 4 days short of SOL. I was told to be prepared to go to trial that day, but logically, if I would require discovery or need to subpeona witnesses or any kind of procedural thing or even file an affidavit to rebut presumptions I'd have to wait until after the decision on the court's jurisdictional matters before doing so.

The time I was picked up for an alleged valid warrant I happened to have xeroxed copy of B.C. and S.S. hidden away in my wallet, which I informed was used only for necessity of being paid, that instance they default convicted for speeding and no insurance. Oh, and they forced a public pretender on me who I gather self-determined I was a resident from his questioning of where I was born. When dragged before the attorney in black I questioned jurisdiction and raised the abatement with public notice of default to have my bail raised from $250 cash to $2500, of course I objected for the record.

I appreciate the suggestions, however, I'm aware of knowing about any warrants out. My paper trail includes r4cing the warrants and bond appearances.

Ok, let's clear up two things.

First, any papers you wish to file in your case should be filed with the Clerk's Office of whatever court this matter is before - that will be the only way to file whatever insane motions you're describing. You also need to mail a copy to whoever the Assistant District Attorney (ADA) assigned to your case.

Second, the statute of limitations is basically the time they have from when you commit whatever act they claim is a crime to the time they institute whatever proceeding against you.

So, if they gave you a ticket and you shortly appeared before a judge for it, that likely wasn't 18 months. It's not that they have 18 months to convict you.

Lastly, they're likely to hold you for two separate crimes now - your traffic problem, and the different crime of failing to appear.

You'll just make things worse - do yourself a favor and don't miss your court dates.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by N.Zinno

So, if they gave you a ticket and you shortly appeared before a judge for it, that likely wasn't 18 months. It's not that they have 18 months to convict you.

actually that is the case. There is the requirement for petty offenses under the Vehicle Code, perhaps the Fish and Game code as well, to prosecute within the time limit.

Its not a statute of limits on bringing the charge- its actually on getting a conviction, no matter what- even on enforcement of a sentence. The charge actually expires, like in European systems ("************ of time limits")

The usual SOL for charging in these cases is 30 days.

Heres an example from PA (probably similar in IL):

[quote]http://members.aol.com/StatutesP1/42PA5553.html

§ 5553. Summary offenses involving vehicles.
(a) General rule.--Except as provided in subsection (b) or (c), proceedings for summary offenses under Title 75 (relating to vehicles) must be commenced within 30 days after the commission of the alleged offense or within 30 days after the discovery of the commission of the offense or the identity of the offender, whichever is later, and not thereafter.

(b) Minor offenses.--Except as provided in subsection (c), proceedings for summary offenses under the following provisions of Title 75 must be commenced within 30 days after the commission of the alleged offense or within 30 days after the discovery of the commission of the offense or the identity of the offender, whichever is later, and not thereafter:


Chapter 31 (relating to general provisions).
Chapter 33 (relating to rules of the road in general).
Chapter 35 (relating to special vehicles and pedestrians).
Subchapters A (relating to offenses in general) and C (relating to accidents and accident reports) of Chapter 37.

(c) Exception.--Where proceedings are timely commenced against a person reasonably believed to have committed the offense charged and it subsequently appears that a person other than the person charged is the offender, proceedings may be commenced against the other person within 30 days after the identity of the person is discovered and not thereafter.

(e) Disposition of proceedings within two years.--No proceedings shall be held or action taken pursuant to a summary offense under Title 75 subsequent to two years after the commission of the offense.[/QUOTE]

[Neilzinno]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

actually that is the case. There is the requirement for petty offenses under the Vehicle Code, perhaps the Fish and Game code as well, to prosecute within the time limit.

Its not a statute of limits on bringing the charge- its actually on getting a conviction, no matter what- even on enforcement of a sentence. The charge actually expires, like in European systems ("************ of time limits")

The usual SOL for charging in these cases is 30 days.

First off, let's get our terminology straight. There are two time limits in a criminal case - the statute of limitations and "speedy trial" time. The statute of limitations dictates how long from the commission of the offense. This will vary from state to state, and from offense to offense.

Second, once the Government starts the case (thus tolling the statute of limitations) they're governed by a second timeline that starts at the point they initiate the case.

This is obviously an oversimplification - it can get complicated.

The statute you posted clearly says "proceedings for [the offense[ must be commenced within 30 days after the commission of the alleged offense or within 30 days after the discovery of the commission of the offense or the identity of the offender."

That means after you commit the offense, they have 30 days to BRING charges . . . only proceedings must be commenced within 30 days, not the entire trial. So on day 29 they could indict you for whatever offense. The trial then, theoretically, could take an entire year - no statute of limitations problem.

"e) [b]Disposition of proceedings within two years.--No proceedings shall be held or action taken pursuant to a summary offense under Title 75 subsequent to two years after the commission of the offense."

This means that, even if the Government "discovery of the commission of the offense or the identity of the offender" which can be later than 30 days - it can't be later than two years. Nothing says anything about proceedings having to have been resolved.


Here are the exampled from New York (which I am more familiar with):

NY Criminal Procedure Law § 30.10 ("Timeliness of prosecutions; periods of limitation") is the general statute of limitation for criminal actions, providing, in part:

"(c) A prosecution for the misdemeanor must be commenced [commenced - not completed] within five years after the commission thereof"

However, a different statute deals with how the "clock" runs after the prosecution "commences" pursuant to the above statute. The "commencement" is typically the filing of the accusatory instrument (in a felony case, an indictment).

NY Criminal Procedure Law § 30.30 ("Speedy trial; time limitations") provides, in relevant part:

1. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision three, a motion made [to dismiss the indictment or complaint] must be granted where the people are not ready for trial within . . .

(c) Sixty days of the commencement of a criminal action wherein the defendant is accused of one or more offense, at least one of which is a misdemeanor [and none of which is a felony] . . ."

The statutes are riddled with exceptions and other provisions, but that's the general gist of it in criminal prosecutions. Most states probably have a very similar framework - administrative procedures for traffic tickets, obviously, could be different.

So there are two "clocks" - one starts when the defendant actually commits the crime, and stops when the prosecution charges him. Then a second clock starts which makes the Government do things in the case within a certain time (this is because of our constitutional right to a speedy trial).

When you say "statute of limitations", you're referring to the first clock.

Obviously, if the statute of limitations is five years, and they conclude their investigation in six years and charge the defendant - the "charge has expired". Similarly, if they (in New York) don't declare themselves ready for trial in the allotted time, the charge can also "expire" that way.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by NeilZinno

"e) [b]Disposition of proceedings within two years.--No proceedings shall be held or action taken pursuant to a summary offense under Title 75 subsequent to two years after the commission of the offense."

This means that, even if the Government "discovery of the commission of the offense or the identity of the offender" which can be later than 30 days - it can't be later than two years. Nothing says anything about proceedings having to have been resolved.

That last sentence is wrong, and a quick call to the local court always confirms that point. NO ACTION is no action. There really cannot be any process after 2 years. I personally have seen that warrants of this nature disappear after that time.

Most states probably have a very similar framework - administrative procedures for traffic tickets, obviously, could be different.

exactly- they arent crimes at all. there wouldnt even be any criminal aspect if it werent for the civil arrest powers, that dont exist in civilized countries.