Judge admits traffic court is a sham

This is a first hand witness account. There is a city here in georgia that was forced to give people in traffic court the option for a jury trail, the catch being, if the person opted for the trail, the case was removed from municipal court to state superior court. i cant believe i waited this long to tell you guys, been busy with stuff, but i went with a friend last year who had a traffic charge. the judge presiding over the case told EVERYBODY who was convicted of a traffic "crime" that they could file a writ of habeas corpus within one year of the conviction. i was shocked but then realized, the reason he said so was plain and simple, his oath of office. see, the superior court judges decided the liability was too great at that level, knowing you can appeal to the state supreme court, thus, they give people (like us) a out, because they dont wanna hang for the sham they were forced to deal with (civil traffic cases being turned into criminal cases. ) amazing. im trying to figure out how to get the judge to put this in writing so i can show u guys. anyway, they know that of out of the people who ask for a trail, theres got to be somebody who can shake a stick at the system and they dont want the liability.On the flip side of the coin, the common person doesnt know what a writ of habeas corpus is and if they dare to ask a attorney, the attorney gonna word one up for him or her that gets denied. so, they tell you the remedy and play the odds which is in their favor.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by kgod999

This is a first hand witness account. There is a city here in georgia that was forced to give people in traffic court the option for a jury trail, the catch being, if the person opted for the trail, the case was removed from municipal court to state superior court. i cant believe i waited this long to tell you guys, been busy with stuff, but i went with a friend last year who had a traffic charge. the judge presiding over the case told EVERYBODY who was convicted of a traffic "crime" that they could file a writ of habeas corpus within one year of the conviction. i was shocked but then realized, the reason he said so was plain and simple, his oath of office. see, the superior court judges decided the liability was too great at that level, knowing you can appeal to the state supreme court, thus, they give people (like us) a out, because they dont wanna hang for the sham they were forced to deal with (civil traffic cases being turned into criminal cases. ) amazing. im trying to figure out how to get the judge to put this in writing so i can show u guys. anyway, they know that of out of the people who ask for a trail, theres got to be somebody who can shake a stick at the system and they dont want the liability.On the flip side of the coin, the common person doesnt know what a writ of habeas corpus is and if they dare to ask a attorney, the attorney gonna word one up for him or her that gets denied. so, they tell you the remedy and play the odds which is in their favor.

I dare say that a jpg or pdf would just be icing on the cake given that you're a competent witness to the statement!

I'm satisfied by your report.
(besides, I think pdf are sp0wn of Stan)

[macerico]

This is one of the few rays of hope we get.

A state agent (or several agents) realize a personal risk and playing CYA, they don't do as their globalist goosestepping masters demand.

You know full well that if the system realigns so that this "liability" is covered, they wouldn't refuse to go along with it.

The only thing protecing free men from the tyrrany of our current society is the spineless and mindless morons entrusted to impose their so******t utopia upon us. It's about the only reason I have to be thankful for an INCOMPETENT government.

[joseph sugarman]

Originally Posted by kgod999

This is a first hand witness account. There is a city here in georgia that was forced to give people in traffic court the option for a jury trail, the catch being, if the person opted for the trail, the case was removed from municipal court to state superior court. i cant believe i waited this long to tell you guys, been busy with stuff, but i went with a friend last year who had a traffic charge. the judge presiding over the case told EVERYBODY who was convicted of a traffic "crime" that they could file a writ of habeas corpus within one year of the conviction. i was shocked but then realized, the reason he said so was plain and simple, his oath of office. see, the superior court judges decided the liability was too great at that level, knowing you can appeal to the state supreme court, thus, they give people (like us) a out, because they dont wanna hang for the sham they were forced to deal with (civil traffic cases being turned into criminal cases. ) amazing. im trying to figure out how to get the judge to put this in writing so i can show u guys. anyway, they know that of out of the people who ask for a trail, theres got to be somebody who can shake a stick at the system and they dont want the liability.On the flip side of the coin, the common person doesnt know what a writ of habeas corpus is and if they dare to ask a attorney, the attorney gonna word one up for him or her that gets denied. so, they tell you the remedy and play the odds which is in their favor.

One way to get the judge to put it in writing is to write him a letter and ask him to provide you with his opinion in writing.
By the way, will you please identify the judge and the number or name of the court you were in; with the address, room number, if any, and the telephone number of the clerk.
Another way to get the information would be to sneak a tape recorder into the court and tape him saying it. Be sure to have the recorder on when the judge identifies himself or someone else identifies him.
Another way would be to go to the local press and tell them the story, and why it is important. Perhaps they would send a reporter to interview the judge, and therefore, make his statements available to the public.
Another way would be to go back to court, and interview as many of the defendants leaving the court as possible; to see if any of them remember the judge saying this to them. Be sure to get their names, addresses, et.cet; so you can go back to them and get their statements notarized.
I hope these ideas are just a start. If you do not particularly like any of them; maybe they will at least tickle your brain to come up with a viable solution,

i think bringing two witnesses to a hearing and getting them to write up affidavits of what they heard may do the trick. asking one of the "scared" of the system citizens, they would be afraid. they even thanked the judge for convicting them, poor fools. asking the judge for his opinion in writing, what they would do is stop verbalizing the remedy and possibly put the remedy into legalize in the contract so that noone will believe you when you explain its the common law remedy. i think we should let them continue as they are but get witnesses or recordings of the fact.

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by kgod999

...civil traffic cases being turned into criminal cases...

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
I dont say this as any kind of apologist. However, in ways it might be a 'criminal case' in the sense that its a civil proceeding (likely before a tribunal) being given a criminal burden of proof. In that respect, perhaps the style of proceeding is criminal only because of the criminal burden of proof required. That way the judges can say 'criminal' through gritting teeth when asked about the nature of the proceedings and not be lying. "Its {inaudible part} a civil proceeding given a {audible for one word} criminal {back to being inaudible} burden of proof."

[Livefire]

If the statement was in open court on the record, then you go and purchase a copy of the transcript. As for surrepitious recording of a judges comment being legally admissible....you have to check state statute on that. Here in MI its not admissible unless that party is informed that he/she is being recorded. If you really wanna laugh, a MI district court judge remarked that recording devices werent allowed in the court rooms to protect the "public's" right to privacy!! Stupid is as stupid says I suppose! LOL I like the idea of multiple affidavits!

Originally Posted by Livefire

If you really wanna laugh, a MI district court judge remarked that recording devices werent allowed in the court rooms to protect the "public's" right to privacy!! Stupid is as stupid says I suppose! LOL I like the idea of multiple affidavits!

Did the judge also tell the court reporter that he/she would have to leave their recording equipment outside the courtroom? Hmmmm.

jerry.

Hire you a court reporter. Pay for a half day.

Tell them to start recording the moment you walk in the door, and to not stop until you tell her to. Hand her the FRN's, and a silver dollar. You have a binding contract, and have your receipt made out, stating the terms. Have her sign it, and walk in.

When the guy in the dress walks in, she is rolling live.

Get your transcript, and record it in the Clerk's office.

Should be an interesting trip.

Henry Franklin

[weishaupt1776]

Yeah KG ; blow a stop sign in front of the cop shop and we'll float the bill for the Court reporter