Accepting traffic citation for value

Is anyone familiar with the accepted and returned for value process being applied to traffic citations? If I return the citation to the prosecuting attorney accepted for value and then get a notary's certificate of non-response could I obtain a judgement in estopple barring the state from proceeding since they would be in dishonor? I found an article on this from the worldnewsstand but am not sure what documents need to be sent. Am I supposed to file a court bond with this and how do I accomplish this?
Thanks

[Shoonra]

Someone who tried this stunt with a traffic ticket was put through the thresher and avoided prison only by winning an appeal on a technicality:
Saldana v. State (Texas App. 7/31/2002) 109 S.W.3d 4.

This has not worked. Courts have made clear that traffic tickets are not "commercial" papers, traffic court is not governed by the UCC, etc.
In many (most?) traffic courts, not showing up means a default conviction for the offense, sometimes with the license suspended until the driver shows up in court (and, since he wasn't in court, he might not know his license is suspended until he's pulled over and arrested for driving with a suspended license).

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Someone who tried this stunt with a traffic ticket was put through the thresher and avoided prison only by winning an appeal on a technicality:
Saldana v. State (Texas App. 7/31/2002) 109 S.W.3d 4.

This has not worked. Courts have made clear that traffic tickets are not "commercial" papers, traffic court is not governed by the UCC, etc.
In many (most?) traffic courts, not showing up means a default conviction for the offense, sometimes with the license suspended until the driver shows up in court (and, since he wasn't in court, he might not know his license is suspended until he's pulled over and arrested for driving with a suspended license).

Shoonra, You are incorrect. A friend here had a criminal traffic charge dropped using AFV and a Bill of Exchange. It went for 19 months with the court never receiving juridsdiction over the flesh and blood woman and the charges were finally dropped. The judge in court advised my friend that she remained in honor the whole time. I was a witness many times of what took place in court. Take a look at my posts under UCC regarding this situation.

[Shoonra]

I will try to be diplomatic: I have read your descriptions of a case where this nonsense apparently worked. I feel certain that something was going on, or some issue was involved, of which you were not aware, because it makes no more sense than believing that a magician can actually make a rabbit come into existence out of thin air.

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I will try to be diplomatic: I have read your descriptions of a case where this nonsense apparently worked. I feel certain that something was going on, or some issue was involved, of which you were not aware, because it makes no more sense than believing that a magician can actually make a rabbit come into existence out of thin air.

The judge obviously did not think it was nonsense or illegal either. I do beleive that if it was nonsense or illegal my friend would have been locked up. Did not happen. Believe what you will. That does not make the result any less true.

[theghost]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Someone who tried this stunt with a traffic ticket was put through the thresher and avoided prison only by winning an appeal on a technicality:
Saldana v. State (Texas App. 7/31/2002) 109 S.W.3d 4.

This has not worked. Courts have made clear that traffic tickets are not "commercial" papers, traffic court is not governed by the UCC, etc.
In many (most?) traffic courts, not showing up means a default conviction for the offense, sometimes with the license suspended until the driver shows up in court (and, since he wasn't in court, he might not know his license is suspended until he's pulled over and arrested for driving with a suspended license).

Shoonra, I concur with iamfreeru2. It works, if evrything is done properly, and you remain in honor. It is very easy to fall into dishonor, and probably not even know that you have. As for the courts having "made clear" that traffic tickets are not commercial papers, do you beleve everything the courts tell you? Not commercial papers, are you kidding me? The traffic ticket is the very backbone of commerce and the courts, in every state. Does the state make money from traffic tickets? Guess what that means. And the UCC governs all commerce, period.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

The judge obviously did not think it was nonsense or illegal either. I do beleive that if it was nonsense or illegal my friend would have been locked up. Did not happen. Believe what you will. That does not make the result any less true.

Such important precendent-setting cases need to be publicized...and since it would be public record, there's no need to conceal your friend's identity or the court involved, particularly if it would allegedly benefit so many people.

Then again, the 'net is littered with mythology and anecdotal stories that end up luring people into trying things that will only dig them in deeper.

Over the years, I've come to the conclusion that unless I can see the case records (and not snippets), it's just interesting, not factual, and I certainly wouldn't risk personal freedom on un-provable stories one finds on web sites.

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

Such important precendent-setting cases need to be publicized...and since it would be public record, there's no need to conceal your friend's identity or the court involved, particularly if it would allegedly benefit so many people.

Then again, the 'net is littered with mythology and anecdotal stories that end up luring people into trying things that will only dig them in deeper.

Over the years, I've come to the conclusion that unless I can see the case records (and not snippets), it's just interesting, not factual, and I certainly wouldn't risk personal freedom on un-provable stories one finds on web sites.

I will see if she will allow me to post the info for you. All I can say is that I and many others were eye witnesses to what took place. It is only precedent setting if it is published JRB, as I am sure you know. There is some info that the PTB do not want let out for the general public to see. Does that make any less the truth? In your eyes maybe, but not to those of us that were there. I will check with her though and will get back with you.