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

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

In my opinion, if I was a citizen of the United States and wanted to get out of that status, I do not need to do anything in so far as filing any rescission documents. All I have to do is put the burden of proof over on whoever is claiming it. I do not have to prove they don't have jurisdiction over me – they have to prove they do.

I agree with you 50%

I disagree with you on the status issue for the following reason:

Apparently, you have not studied the statutes, rules, and cases concerning what "Rebuttable Presumptions" are in the Evidence Codes.

The 14th amdmt and all the other adhesion contracts working together all create a MOUNTAINOUS presumption of status needing rebuttal

Once it is challenged/rebutted/disproven/cancelled, etc . . . - then the burden shifts to them

That's how the law works here in America

It sure would be nice to say "you don't have to do all that status correction stuff - just claim who you are in a brief you file"

Unfortunately, that is a feeble attempt at the last minute in the midst of an action, with no rebuttal evidence to submit which would prove "who you are"

PRIOR TO ANY ACTION; If one rectifies the status issue, with SOLID documentation with good law to the proper agencies, tehy can now enter in the docs as exhibits and back up "who they are"

I agree with you that the burden is on the state to prove jurisdiction first & foremost

[Brick Layer]

Ooops.....

[Brick Layer]

Ooops.....

[Brick Layer]

Ooops.....

[blu3duk]

Originally Posted by Brick Layer

Brick Layer an individual sovereign persona,

good enough to say, however my question is have you been there and presented that to any court? Do you have anything in place that keeps you a "federal subject" under the 14th amendment?

Because I have been there in court, in Idaho state Supreme Court [though they have kicked me down to a lesser appeals court even though my "fees" were for the appeal to the actual constitutional Idaho state court to sit there.... but that is an appealable issue into a higher court too] They really do not like to recognize anyone who claims sovereign status or who appears in their own right without claim of being incompetent [having re-presentation]

Then too the court does not care to speak in Latin and they require it be translated competently for them which means having an understanding better than most people do as nowhere is Latin taught and used as a first language in the several states, let alone anywhere else in the world today, ergo it is to put a body in between a rock and hard spot to try to be fluent in the use of maxims..... though I have placed a couple in my own paperwork from time to time, more to get a reaction from the opponent or the adversary [judge]

anyhow, the thought is a good one to be able to use maxims, the problem lay with the ability to think quick upon your feet enough to pull another one out of your brain in "live" court without a prop like a computer search engine!!

Blu3duk is one of the last free radicals, but not THE LAST nor the MOST RADICAL, as evidenced here on this forum and others.

William
Central Idaho nation-state under the Law of Nations

[Akira-]

oops... you dropped your "key"... lol

Regula pro lege, si deficit lex, If the law is inadequate, the maxim serves in its place.

[blu3duk]

more latin from http://www.wagonerlaw.com/DKlegalquo...Legal%20Quotes

" IN FORMA PAUPERIS. [Latin] In the character of a poor person -- a method by which a litigant without money for lawyers is considerately permitted to lose his case. When Adam long ago in Cupid's awful court (for Cupid ruled ere Adam was invented) sued for Eve's favor, says an ancient law report, He stood and pleaded unhabilimented. "You sue _in forma pauperis_, I see," Eve cried; "Actions can't here be that way prosecuted." So all poor Adam's motions coldly were denied: He went away -- as he had come -- nonsuited. G.J."
- Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914), "The Devil's Dictionary", 1911

have and ordinary day! yes this is OT a ways.

William
Cetral IDaho

[starr747]

very well said blu3duk . I was thinking spanish .lol i know it was latin. But typing and pronouncing is another thing also . there is enough to learn for me at this point so i will still with english 99 percent of time also . i like to look this stuff up and read on it but try to use it and remember it all . I couldnt do it . Something about the judge makes me tounge tied . I guess it is knowing his gavel has my husband next year in his hands..

[Rlynne]

It struck me as strange all these people didn't show up. It sounds as if you were given the wrong address on the back of the ticket. Did you ask anyone if the judge mentioned was convening there?

This happened to one of my brothers six years ago, his case was being heard at another location. Just so happened he called ahead of time to make sure. Lo and behold it was being held on the opposite side of town. He made it there on time.

I feel silly writing this but this could also be a ploy to ensure your guilt, by saying you failed to appear. Yeah I know it sounds absurd but after reading other people's plights and horror stories, anything is possible with the judicial system.

[joseph sugarman]

BobT12

I have to take issue with your blanket statement that most, if not all, traffic courts are courts not of record. A fact which you state can be confirmed by reading a state's constitution. Since you did not mention what state you live in, I cannot look at your state's constitution. But I can comment on the constitutions of most other states I have read.

The creation of various levels of courts is usually handled in a separate title of a state's statutes, revised statutes, code, revised code or some other complitation of various public laws. Except for Supreme Courts, in some cases, the discussion of various levels of courts inferior to the Supreme Court is never in the state's constitution.

I cannot comment on your state. No state in which I have ever lived or spent enough time in to be somewhat cognizant of there courts has a separate traffic court system. The traffic court is a division of a state court or a municipal court.

It is a separate division of a municipality usually, only if the municipality is large enough to have any court of record. Even then there are limited instances in which all the other courts are of record, but the traffic division court is not. However it is the exception rather than the rule.

Courts of record are almost always a condition of the size of the municipality, not of the nature of the court.

If you consider most cities, towns or villages which might have a court system are not larger enough to have any court of record, your statement might be partially correct. But only in that context. Even these hamlets do not have traffic courts, excepts as a division of the basic court system.

It may be your state is different. If you will identify your state, I will be happen to read the appropriate sections of its constituion and the title referencing courts.

I await your response.