Traffic Court: Judge and cop fail to appear; I wait 45 min. then leave

[joseph sugarman]

BobT12 has identified his state as Pennsylvania. Its consitution, in Article 5, does identify all the court systems of the state. It names the traffic court, but does not make it clear if it is a completely separate system or a division of another court. I think it is Title 41; sections 1330, 1331 and 1332 which remove all doubt. Cumulatively they state the traffic courts of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and all third level cities are traffic courts not of record.

Pennsylvania has been created as a haven for the corrupt practice of traffice extortion under the color of law.

BobT12 has made me aware that state constitutions are much more different from each other than I had ever encountered. Those of us interested might start looking at all the consitutions of, at least, the states that border ours; as well as ours, again.

It is interesting, at least to me, to note the original poster of this thread has never reposted; even to acknowledge that some have tried to help it. I am sure this was one more case of someone trying to get others to do all the work for it.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by joseph sugarman

BobT12 has identified his state as Pennsylvania. Its consitution, in Article 5, does identify all the court systems of the state. It names the traffic court, but does not make it clear if it is a completely separate system or a division of another court. I think it is Title 41; sections 1330, 1331 and 1332 which remove all doubt. Cumulatively they state the traffic courts of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and all third level cities are traffic courts not of record.

This is very useful information.

Pennsylvania has been created as a haven for the corrupt practice of traffice extortion under the color of law.

BobT12 has made me aware that state constitutions are much more different from each other than I had ever encountered. Those of us interested might start looking at all the consitutions of, at least, the states that border ours; as well as ours, again.

It is my hope that everyone will examine their state's constitution.

It is interesting, at least to me, to note the original poster of this thread has never reposted; even to acknowledge that some have tried to help it. I am sure this was one more case of someone trying to get others to do all the work for it.

I will assume that the OP will use this information to defend his position. If the OP is successful, he/she will have fought the system. Even better, others may witness his/her efforts (yes, I agree that system is good at hiding most successes). Additionally, he/she may join us at a later time to share the experience.

Finally, this thread displays how we can cooperate to find solutions for some of the issues that challenge us all.

Thank you for your effort, mr. sugarman.

BOBT

[KITCHIE]

I would suggest you go get the original Constitution for your state. See what it says there about the judges requirement to have bondS. The current constitution that is forever changing is nothing more the corporate by-laws, for the corporate state.

The bonds must be filed in the county clerks office. They cannot be filed any where else. Many times the judge will spout some BS about his/her bond is in the Supreme Court or in the SOS office. Too bad so sad the law says they are to be filed with the County Clerk where the court is. Or they will claim they are under a blanket bond. This is a LIE!!! Blanket bonds are for government employees that do not deal with the public and employees that handle money (FRN's). Judges are required to have two bonds... and they are acting with NO bond in place.

Judges without bonds CANNOT perform ANY judicial acts!!!!! They are acting without their judicial requirements, and they are subject to civil suits.

Happy days to all!!!!!

Kitchie

[krljnk]

Originally Posted by BOBT12

The Original Poster must now confirm if he was found guilty or not, ASAP.

I assume not because the court's letter surely would have informed me of that and not have instead said that a rescheduling had been made. This court could not rehear the case at a later date if it previously found me guilty by default judgment due to my failure to appear (or pay by that date).

I replied to that judge last week by reiterating the points from my prior letter and this time also contended that I had been denied due process because of his failure to appear in general and specifically to render a default judgment in my favor due to the LEO's absence, which would have been the normal course of events.

I suspect what may have happened that day is that the LEO who wrote my citation, and many of the other people's who were there that day, was "indisposed" in some way and that would have meant a stiff loss of money for the system, so the judge just didn't bother to show and kept all the other poor shmoes sitting there waiting. I was the only one who wasn't going to tolerate it. The other three officers who were already present were sitting around chatting, "reviewing their notes," and randomly calling up people to whom they'd written tickets to try and negotiate something with them. Those officers were telling everyone who had a ticket from my LEO to just "put them there on the pile" that was sitting on the bar. I'm sure they all stall to cover for one another and try to get people to pay anyway when the LEO would have all his tickets dismissed en masse for failing to appear. What an unbelievable racket!

For the record, I was not in the wrong place or there at the wrong time.

For the record, South Carolina Adminstrative Law courts are clearly defined on the homepage at http://www.scalc.net/default.aspx as being "...an autonomous quasi-judicial agency within the executive branch of state government..." and were created by statute. Friends, you would be wise to read that *entire* website carefully. Unless I misread this state's constitution, no judicial powers can be exercised by the executive branch, under the fundamental "separation of powers" doctrine.

For the record, the Traffic section of the South Carolina Bench Book for Magistrates and Municipal Court Judges at http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/tria...ok/traffic.cfm reveals some very interesting things:
1) "Traffic offenses are offenses against the State in violation of penal law and therefore are criminal in nature." This proves that the state does not consider these matters "civil" in nature.;
2) "Thus, the processes and procedural safeguards discussed in the CRIMINAL section apply to traffic offenses.";
3) "Traffic proceedings in the summary courts are required to be summary in nature or with only such delay as a fair and a just examination of the case requires. (S.C. Code Ann. § 22-3-730.)";
4) In answer to those on this board who have argued elsewhere that bringing in any electronic form of recording, short of a hired court reporter, is not authorized or permitted are incorrect on that point, at least in SC: ""In the trial of any case before a magistrate the testimony of all witnesses must be taken down in writing and signed by the witnesses except when the defendant waives the taking and signing of the testimony. In any case before any magistrate in which a stenographer takes down the testimony or in which the testimony is electronically recorded it need not be read over and signed by the witnesses." S.C. Code Ann. § 22-3-790. In municipal courts, the defendant may mechanically record the proceedings himself, or use the service of the municipal court reporter, at the defendant's own cost. S.C. Code Ann. 14-25-195. The Office of Court Administration recommends that all court proceedings be mechanically recorded.";
4) "Of special importance is the June 26, 1980, Order of the Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court that requires that all magistrates and municipal judges dispose of all criminal (which includes traffic) cases within sixty (60) days of the date of arrest in each case." My citations are dated Aug 25; tomorrow is the 60th day from that date. The judge has failed to fulfill this Order from his ultimate boss, in keeping with the charge of "[t]raffic proceedings in the summary courts are required to be summary in nature or with only such delay as a fair and a just examination of the case requires. (S.C. Code Ann. § 22-3-730.)"
5) "S.C. Code Ann. § 56-25-40 (b), which creates a new criminal offense of willfully failing to appear in court, as required by the uniform traffic ticket, when the driver has neither posted bond, nor been granted a continuance. The penalty for this misdemeanor is a fine of not more than $200.00, or imprisonment for not more than 30 days. This offense is separate and distinct from the original traffic violation. A numbered arrest warrant charging S.C. Code Ann. § 56-25-40 (b) failure to appear must be issued and served on the defendant." I was not granted any continuance prior to the first scheduled court date shown on the citations.

[blu3duk]

Originally Posted by krljnk

.....
4) In answer to those on this board who have argued elsewhere that bringing in any electronic form of recording, short of a hired court reporter, is not authorized or permitted are incorrect on that point, at least in SC: ...... In municipal courts, the defendant may mechanically record the proceedings himself, or use the service of the municipal court reporter, at the defendant's own cost. S.C. Code Ann. 14-25-195. The Office of Court Administration recommends that all court proceedings be mechanically recorded.";.......

WOW I like that idea, here in Idaho they like to ummmm change the transcript so they do not allow outside recording [meaning they dont allow ANY recording devices other than the ones they themself use in the courts here] We can however use a personal tape recorder for recording a note during the hearing, as long as it is not left on to record the whole hearing..... It sux biggtime cause they dropped about 15 mmintutes of one hearing that would have made my case in the supreme court.... and they changed a couple of other hearings [because it was my words and i read it from typed written notes and the response was not anywhere in the same ballpark as the my witnesses remember or wrote down in their notes]

This dont mean that i want to move to your state, but dang it sure looks like a fella could have a fair shake for transcripts being submitted to the next court if they could not change the hearing by deleting a few ey words or pages.

I hope you trun out alright in this endeavor.

William

[krljnk]

Friends,

Update: I received this magistrate's 2nd letter. Here was his terse reply: "Thank you for corresponding. Again, your court date in 8 November, 2007 at 2 P.M."

That was it. He ignored everything I pointed out regarding the "due process" denied me, the failure of the state trooper to appear, and the fact that he was attempting to reschedule *after* the first trial date had passed (for his and the trooper's convenience).

I immediately sent a final letter in which I reiterated the facts and said if I didn't receive a response that specifically denies those facts within 5 days of his receipt of the letter, I would consider that failure to be his/Court's agreement with those stated facts, including a dropping of the charges.

[ezrhythm]

Unfortunately he will ignore that to.

You need evidence. I would look in to Commercial Remedy.
http://www.webmavin.com/CommercialProcess.html

http://www.webmavin.com/CondAccept.html

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by krljnk

Friends,

Update: I received this magistrate's 2nd letter. Here was his terse reply: "Thank you for corresponding. Again, your court date in 8 November, 2007 at 2 P.M."

Appeal any negative decision.

[David Merrill]

It is in the Bill or Rights - Article 23 for Colorado.

Section 23. Trial by jury - grand jury. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate in criminal cases; but a jury in civil cases in all courts, or in criminal cases in courts not of record, may consist of less than twelve persons, as may be prescribed by law. Hereafter a grand jury shall consist of twelve persons, any nine of whom concurring may find an indictment; provided, the general assembly may change, regulate or abolish the grand jury system; and provided, further, the right of any person to serve on any jury shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex, and the general assembly may provide by law for the exemption from jury service of persons or classes of persons.

Traffic court is six jurists as prescribed by law. The only way I have found to successfully demand a court of record for any matter by right, is to become the court of record issuing the Order and Decree.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...and_Decree.rtf
court of record

That should make sense to a lot of you.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

Unfortunately he will ignore that to.

You need evidence. I would look in to Commercial Remedy.
http://www.webmavin.com/CommercialProcess.html

http://www.webmavin.com/CondAccept.html

Oh boy

600-900 FRNS?

All, the Clyde Hyde Default Course in the members section will get you there w/o having to spend so much money

PLUS

YOU WILL LEARN MORE !