Can anyone answer this question?

[dochendrix]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Traffic court, as I had already said (perhaps on another thread), is an odd creature, only partly like a regular court and also partly like an administrative tribunal.

The vehicular law provides that the traffic cop will issue a ticket or citation, notwithstanding he is also the complaining witness. Traffic cases only partly resemble regular court cases.

Double post, deleted, see below.

[dochendrix]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Traffic court, as I had already said (perhaps on another thread), is an odd creature, only partly like a regular court and also partly like an administrative tribunal.

The vehicular law provides that the traffic cop will issue a ticket or citation, notwithstanding he is also the complaining witness. Traffic cases only partly resemble regular court cases.

My question still stands: How can a cop/officer/public servant possibly be a COMPLAINING WITNESS and serve you with process? (From the laws I'm looking at, you CAN NOT be a witness to the case and serve process)

So, is the ticket an actual SUMMONS, or is it a mere notice of "violating an infraction"? And, then the Judge summons you?

I'm confused as to what the heck is going on in these cases and how criminal and civil process is being ignored. Uless they are going under Adm. process, which I would think you still would have to follow civil or criminal process on this. Please clearify.

Something smells fishy here.(That's putting it mildly)

If these cases: "only partly like a regular court and also partly like an administrative tribunal.", I find that statement confusing as well. Jail time for these "offenses" sure seems criminal in nature to me. Revoking your DL seems criminal.(Although, I found a Case in North Dakota, guy gets dui, wins in court, then they have an addmin. hearing, and find him "guilty?" and revoke the DL. NOW I'M REALLY CONFUSED! Is that not double jepordy?(sp)? How can Adm. procedure allow you to be deemed "guilty" when a jury finds this person "Not Guilty"??

I guess we need to buckle up, drive 55, and mind our p's and q's. Something is wrong on this issue, and nobody is explaining this with laws.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by dochendrix

My question still stands: How can a cop/officer/public servant possibly be a COMPLAINING WITNESS and serve you with process? (From the laws I'm looking at, you CAN NOT be a witness to the case and serve process)

Yes serving of process is not usually allowed by interested parties.

I brought it up in my case and it is in my transcripts. It got overuled but the judge encouraged me to bring it on appeal. I could not bring it on appeal however because I won.

[dochendrix]

Originally Posted by Codee

Yes serving of process is not usually allowed by interested parties.

I brought it up in my case and it is in my transcripts. It got overuled but the judge encouraged me to bring it on appeal. I could not bring it on appeal however because I won.

THATS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!! Did you post this transcripts on here? IF so, where is it?

I think people over look little things like this. I was posting as though I know, rather extremely confussed as to what is going on with process serving here.

Perhaps Codee, the judge was hinting, that you hit the nail on the head? This sounds like a real judge, not somebodys brother's, sisters, cousin out to hang everyone that isn't part of the family.

Great job by the way, interesting and educational all in one. Don't see that everyday.

[Codee]

HERE IS THE CASE.

[Notorial dissent]

Originally Posted by dochendrix

My question still stands: How can a cop/officer/public servant possibly be a COMPLAINING WITNESS and serve you with process?

I would suspect because the laws specifically say that he can, and for the same reason that in other cases the says that (you)CAN NOT be a witness(or interested party) to the case and serve process, and also by the same logic that allows the arresting officer to testify in court about why he arrested someone he thought committed a crime.

[dochendrix]

Originally Posted by Codee

HERE IS THE CASE.

Codee: Nothing to click on, no link.

[dochendrix]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

I would suspect because the laws specifically say that he can, and for the same reason that in other cases the says that (you)CAN NOT be a witness(or interested party) to the case and serve process, and also by the same logic that allows the arresting officer to testify in court about why he arrested someone he thought committed a crime.

I would like to see this "counter" law of which you speak. The law seems very specific to me on process service. Seems more like opinion than fact. Please provide the law.

If we go to Codee's case, it seems the judge him/herself was was hinting at something when Codee brought this to their attention. Although the traffic judge rejected it, apparently the judge "knew" something was wrong, and indicated it by pointing out to bring it up on appeal.

I don't want someone's opinion, I want the law that I can look up, and either accept it, reject it, or formulate a different plan of attack.

I see no logic in the above quote. NONE. Sounds like circle talking.

The questions I have possed have only been breifly answered by Codee. I appreciate this, but, I asked two people at this point to show me the law, and am getting damn tired of waiting, and refuse to put up with these "beating around the bush' tactics. Explain by law, or don't respond.

[Dillon Hunt]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I reach a similar conclusion for a different reason. The cop, having given chase on the public road, can continue his pursuit onto private property. However, if he thinks your off-the-public road driving is an attempt to evade the police, another (and more serious) charge can be added to the traffic ticket.

It 's for the officers safety, so he will not be hit by a stray car. I also believe it a bigger issue to tow cars off of private property.

[Dillon Hunt]

Originally Posted by dochendrix

THATS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!! Did you post this transcripts on here? IF so, where is it?

I think people over look little things like this. I was posting as though I know, rather extremely confussed as to what is going on with process serving here.

Perhaps Codee, the judge was hinting, that you hit the nail on the head? This sounds like a real judge, not somebodys brother's, sisters, cousin out to hang everyone that isn't part of the family.

Great job by the way, interesting and educational all in one. Don't see that everyday.

Good example