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

[mrg]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

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

Section 23. Trial by jury - grand jury.

The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate in criminal cases;

Are you going to demand and "enjoy" "trial by jury," or be hornswaggled by a bastard Tory Loyalist BAR Association Attorney vested as a religious cleric sitting six feet above everyone else and plying his/her TRADE at the edges of the room, or compelled by force of arms of mercenary corporate municipal troops, into acquiescing to a "jury trial?"

A Constitutional trial by an IMPARTIAL jury, may be beneficial, however a jury trial occurs only in a Kangaroo Court.

provided, the general assembly may... abolish the grand jury system;

As far as I know, at least in theory, if not in law, the Supreme Law of the Land says quite otherwise.

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.

That is the ONLY court of law there is in our guaranteed republican forms of government, as far as I can see.

As far as I know, one IS already the court, but must be tenacious enough to hold his/her court of competent jurisdiction as the one supreme Court, vested; Article III of "...this Constitution for the united States of America," of "We the People," and, as specifically enumerated and guaranteed in the "Articles in Addition to..." "...this Constitution for the united States of America," of "We the People," at Article the First.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by mrg

As far as I know, at least in theory, if not in law, the Supreme Law of the Land says quite otherwise.

That is the ONLY court of law there is in our guaranteed republican forms of government, as far as I can see.

As far as I know, one IS already the court, but must be tenacious enough to hold his/her court of competent jurisdiction as the one supreme Court, vested; Article III of "...this Constitution for the united States of America," of "We the People," and, as specifically enumerated and guaranteed in the "Articles in Addition to..." "...this Constitution for the united States of America," of "We the People," at Article the First.

For good or for ill, this is a state issue. It will need to be appealed according to the state's Constitution and laws, before it goes to the "one supreme Court", however one wishes to define it. Otherwise, the matter will likely be in default.

[artificialsteve]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

I would say to the Judge. Yes, we have two issues (1) we have an issue here of jurisdiction and ((2), in asking me if I have a problem with the procedure you used the words "our procedure". The word "our" is a plural word, your interaction with the DA and your use of the words "our procedure" clearly indicating that this court and the District Attorney have combined their constitutionally mandated separate procedures into one single Unconstitutional procedure. What I see here is a clear violation of the separation of powers doctrine and you are disqualified for cause, and I presume this matter is dismissed."

If, after I had said as stated herein above, the judge persisted in asking me if I had anything else to say, I would have then reminded him of the jurisdictional issue I had previously mentioned. If he asked me any questions I would have responded, "I beg your pardon, but at this point it is my clear understanding that as this court's jurisdiction in this matter is challenged, this court's jurisdiction is in limbo, and as the executive branch has initiated these proceedings that it is incumbent upon the executive branch to bring forward and present to the court whatever evidence the executive branch may now have to establish jurisdiction, and, moreover, in as much as the judge of this court, in questioning me, has initiated the seeking of evidence to establish the executive branches jurisdiction, which is the responsibility of the executive branch, so it is clear there is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine, so you are disqualified for cause; And, in as much as you asked me questions in a clear effort to develop jurisdiction at this time, it is clear that you do not as of this moment have any proof of jurisdiction and this is especially relevant because if jurisdiction lies, it had to lie back all the way to the date that the officer issued me the citation, not beginning here today.”

And I would get that all out in one breath so I could not be interrupted.


EVER!!!

Talk about breaking them down! Whoever wrote this gets 17 Kudos from me.

[krljnk]

Friends,

Today I received a neat little 5" x 6" perforated tear sheet from this magistrate's office. The sheet is styled "STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA" and "NOTICE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH TERMS OF CITATION" while then proceeding to simply reiterate the various details of when my alleged "second trial" date was scheduled and that I failed to show up for it. It is simply a demand for payment in the amount of the speeding ticket fine originally written by the trooper on the face of the ticket in the upper right corner. Interestingly, there was only one of these notices in the envelope and no notice has so far been received separately for the seatbelt citation.

Also of mild interest:
1) my street address is quite misspelled on this tear sheet for some reason (but the USPS was still able to deliver it properly), even though my DL is clearly readable and the citation's copy of it is too;
2) my DOB, which they somehow obtained even though it wasn't copied on the citations (for lack of a field), is incorrect -- it is off by two years;
3) the tear sheet comes (signed) from the "Chief Magistrate" and not his underling magistrate with whom I was corresponding all along.

Now that I have clearly been found "guilty" for this speeding charge, does anyone here have any new thoughts on how to approach beating this? The form says "Failure to remit the fine ($76.50 for 10mph over) within 15 days from the date (12-03-07) shown in the lower right corner of this notice will result in notifying the licensing authority in your state to suspend your driver's license until the fine has been paid. Payable by certified check or money order."

[heyday]

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, that
police officers may commit perjury with total impunity.

U.S. Supreme Court
BRISCOE v. LaHUE, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by krljnk

Payable by certified check or money order."

1. Offer to pay with Federal Rogue Notes with witnesses or a notary. When they refuse, the debt is discharged.

2. Look in to a Silver Bond. I've seen them used by two people on this board to discharge traffic fines or bail.

[krljnk]

Friends,

Thank you for your comments.

On Friday, Dec 7, I received a nearly identical "Notice of Failure to Comply With Terms of Citation" as I received on Tuesday. This latest one differs only in that the code in 'Section Violated' field is different and the 'Description of Violation' field says "Seat Belt Violation."

I find it odd that I am receiving a "Guilty" notification for a violation that the SC Code of Law clearly says is not criminal: "A violation of this article does not constitute a criminal offense." SECTION 56-5-6540 (A)

and whose "punishment" is clearly stated as being a "civil fine": "If the trier of fact is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was not wearing a safety belt at the time of the incident, the penalty is a civil fine pursuant to Section 56-5-6540. If the trier of fact determines that the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was not wearing a safety belt, no penalty shall be assessed." SECTION 56-5-6540 (F)

Also odd is the fact that this "Notice..." has a form number DL-53 which it indicates was last revised "7-85" because form DL-53 is supposedly an NRVC (Non-Resident Violators Compact) form. I would be considered by them to be a resident though because I have a SC address and DL.

[Ownmaster]

Originally Posted by krljnk

and whose "punishment" is clearly stated as being a "civil fine":

Please show this statement.

[krljnk]

Ownmaster: What statement? If you're asking upon what basis I made my assertion that the punishment is clearly stated as being civil in nature, specifically a "civil fine," I cited the exact verbiage of the law and its code section.

[ezrhythm]

Ownmaster won't be able to reply.