another TRAFFIC COURT WIN!!!

[scottinalaska]

I am beginning to the see the logic..or ILlogic in this.
But let me try and break this down without the shiny badge involved though.
I observed you shoot my dog(or at least I will accuse you of it shortly).
So I go in as the plaintiff, having filed my complaint, and accuse you of shooting my dog. I am the only one who supposedly saw it.
You now can deny it, if you like, or you can admit to it.
Is my testimony on top of my own complaint then worthless because they are coming from the same person?
Link me to the thread you are referring to, Idknow, if this is answered or discussed.
thanks for your thoughts though. You might win the salmon yet!
scott

[idknow]

Originally Posted by scottinalaska

I am beginning to the see the logic..or ILlogic in this.

But let me try and break this down without the shiny badge involved though.

I observed you shoot my dog(or at least I will accuse you of it shortly).

So I go in as the plaintiff, having filed my complaint, and accuse you of shooting my dog. I am the only one who supposedly saw it.

You now can deny it, if you like, or you can admit to it.
Is my testimony on top of my own complaint then worthless because they are coming from the same person?

Link me to the thread you are referring to, Idknow, if this is answered or discussed.

thanks for your thoughts though. You might win the salmon yet!
scott

--

.oO a challenge!

you're describing a tort;

a corporate-threaded-agent is only liable to tort when they act outside of their legislated authority.

Between you and I in your post-quoted, you and I have no such "liability", that is, there is no act of legislature which applies to us to join us as partners in some contract or agreement.

So that if you brought me into court to answer your plaint as you wrote it above, I'd consider impeaching the plaint as insufficient because I can prove that and your dog was on my property munching on my chattle.

With that, I might consider a counter-suit alleging trespass and damaged property (my goat that provides milk to my family is dead or maimed)

So, my dear Horatio, the fault isn't in your post but in your assumption.

Neither of us in your post is a corporate-agent.

Answering your post as it is tho:

As the witness to the alleged tort, and the subsequent filer of complaint, your testimony is in the filed papers to the court. it's not invalid, but I can attmept to impeach it.

How's that?

what's `the salmon'?
is that like ``the whole enchalada''?

(i'll hunt for the other thread or maybe it's in my archive)

[scottinalaska]

Post # 11 in this thread for the salmon answer.
But the question that I asked is still unanswered.
Str8raz stated in the first post of this thread, "rcsf (RCSF= rules of court state and federal)states one cannot issue summons and appear in the instant matter. you win on that alone as now the PA has no witness. to break it down in order, as i have done it:
me: im here in special appearance, judge the pa is gonna call the cop what gave me the presentment, but thats a violation of the rules of court. [have the site ready and read it off] now as the pa has no witness there can be no case against me as i would ask/demand the cop be disquilified because of [cite] go no further.

This is why I posed the dog story(two threads up). If I am complaining and testifying, it appears that I have violated the above rule(that I cannot find in my Alaska statutes). This seems illogical as much as I would like to use against my local cop.
scottinalaska

[idknow]

Originally Posted by scottinalaska

Post # 11 in this thread for the salmon answer.

But the question that I asked is still unanswered.
Str8raz stated in the first post of this thread, "rcsf (RCSF= rules of court state and federal)states one cannot issue summons and appear in the instant matter. you win on that alone as now the PA has no witness. to break it down in order, as i have done it:

<b>me:</B> im here in special appearance, judge the pa is gonna call the cop what gave me the presentment, but thats a violation of the rules of court. [have the site ready and read it off] now as the pa has no witness there can be no case against me as i would ask/demand the cop be disquilified because of [cite] go no further.

This is why I posed the dog story(two threads up). If I am complaining and testifying, it appears that I have violated the above rule(that I cannot find in my Alaska statutes). This seems illogical as much as I would like to use against my local cop.

scottinalaska

--

Scotty </montgomery>

i think you're still forgetting the paramount jurisdiction, a cop, or any agent-representative of *any* corporation has to abide BY the acts of legislature AND the "court."

the owner of the dog is not liabel to and owes no duty to obey such acts and rules if [s]he doesnt want to! we know that the courts have all said that the "judge" is to be lax in requiring pro se ligaments to obey the ''letter of the law or rule and to look AT the substance of the content filed by the ligament, not the rule. that's because we do not live by the letter but by the spirit of the law; ours is `substance over form'; their's is `form over substance'

in your 1st paragraph above, "someone" must be differentiated between agent for corporation and us.

We can use the rules to our benefit, but we aren't forced to obey them to the letter!

A Tort is a private trespass aginst someone else's property or being.

now, while I consider all litigation/complaints to be tort, the Law is organised with finer toothed organisation.

You as the late owner of said dog complaining that you saw me kill your dog, have standing (jurisdiction) to file a complaint in trespass, not because some act of legislature says so, but because you alledge that I tresspassed on your property.

does this make sense?
what say you all?

[idknow]

Originally Posted by scottinalaska

I too have searched my court rules here in Alaska about the cop who served the summons also being the witness not being one and the same. I have struck out, but if someone can show me in my rules, I'll take you fishing for serious mercury free salmon!
OK, Better yet, I'll mail you some!

Scott
btw, here is the link to our court rules:
http://www.state.ak.us/courts/rules.htm

--

OH! the salmon!!
heh
i totally missed that, heh.

[Shoonra]

Another website, somewhat similar to this, which has very recently been offered as a link here, cites a provision of the California Vehicle Code that creates a sort of a contract in the form of implied consent: By applying for and taking a California Drivers License, you thereby agree to comply with the traffic laws including the processes used for enforcing those traffic laws. I would expect a similar provision in every state's traffic laws. Among other things, it means that a ticket serves the purpose of a summons and complaint, the same cop who gave you the ticket can testify against you in court, etc.

There probably is a provision elsewhere that says that anyone, from anywhere, whether or not licensed, who drives on this state's public roads, thereby has made implied consent to comply, etc.

[RickA]

Soooooo, the piece of paper is the one, now complaining?

Doesn't add up. I'm not saying that a cop, who issues a ticket can or can't testify about the process behind it, I really do not know, but to say that a piece of paper is actually making the complaint or, that it could make the complaint, just doesn't sound right. Think that through people. We all agree that a man or women, acting as law enforcement, literally seeing john doe going by at 70 in a 55, is truely, probably close. I realize that the detection process isn't infallible hence probably close. With that set, are we to believe and/or accept that a piece of paper will carry more weight, as to guilt or innocence, than the eyes that truley saw it?

[Shoonra]

Perhaps I made a typo. The traffic ticket serves the purpose of the complaint, rather than of the complainant. A complaint is the term used for the document that commences a civil case. The complainant,in traffic court, is almost always the same cop who wrote out the ticket; he testifies as an eyewitness to the violation of traffic law.

I bothered to check up reported traffic cases (which must be a very small fraction of the total number of traffic cases): There are differing opinions as to whether speeding, drunk driving, and other traffic offenses are "victimless" offenses. Some courts are willing to accept that these are victimless, others insist that the community as a whole is a victim in the sense that someone's ignoring traffic laws diminishes the quality of life for everyone in the community (because, if the streets are unregulated and dangerous, everyone's enjoyment of life and property is impaired). But they do agree on this: (1) Even if it is victimless, it can be prosecuted and punished; (2) although it might usually be victimless, it is not inherently so, but is victimless only for a while - it can turn into producing a victim (probably more than one) in the most sudden and terrible way, and this distinguishes it from a multitude of other "victimless offenses".

I tried to look up "affidavit of truth" and hit a brick wall. Affidavits, by their very nature, should be truthful, so giving it a title that suggests that other affidavits are not supposed to be truthful is illogical.

[Jerseee]

You have a god given right to travel. Driving is a commercial venture which is why they say that it is a privilege.

Whether folks believe in it or not--the STRAWMAN is a tool to fool the masses. To create a business entity on behalf of another without their knowledge of it--is criminal. But to keep them fooled by willful omission and then contract with them (while still blind to the truth of the situation) is even worse.

What we are discussing here is a victimless crime without a complaintant. All of sudden a piece of paper is now the complaintant as well as the vehicle for the complaint. To top it off, you have someone here trying to justify this whole thing.

1. You have the right to face your accusor

2. There must be an injured party--not one where they "think" someone "might" get injured in the future (LOL)

3. They must have jurisdiction (the most important one)

Some would have you duped to think that this process advocates lawlessness--but it doesn't. In fact, this process demands accountability and responsibility for one's action.

Where is the accountablility with the current system? No crime, no witness, no valid complaintant, and definitely no jurisdiction. But they somehow still seem to find a crime to prosecute.

[RickA]

I have edited this post. Bolded words are my response.

What we are discussing here is a victimless crime without a complaintant.

I truly do understand what you have stated above.

All of sudden a piece of paper is now the complaintant as well as the vehicle for the complaint.

My post stems from the conversation from the beginning. That being a remedy, about the policeman not being allowed to testify as due to being a part of the corporation.

To top it off, you have someone here trying to justify this whole thing.

And here is where I responded with:
Me? Jersee, I'm not trying to justify shoonra's statements. I was trying to word it so that, surely, he could see how ridiculous that notion is. After he corrected his wording, it still is a ridiculous notion. That response being part of the overall conversation.

My sole intent was to try and show how rediculous the statement, a piece of paper could be speak, which was what Shoonra was saying. As for my example, regardless if a man is exercising his right to travel or, whether he is truly in commerce, the roadside stops will occur. Obviously, the outcome will be decided by what that man knows and whether that man can walk the talk.