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

[krljnk]

Friends,

I ask your advice regarding the best way to proceed to fight my two traffic tickets (speeding and seatbelt). I appeared in the designated traffic (summary) court on Oct 2 at 2pm as instructed on both the traffic citations. However, neither the judge appeared to convene the court nor did the state trooper who wrote the tickets. I waited until 2:43 and then left the courtroom in disgust and impatience at having been kept waiting, particularly knowing that, in most courts, I would have been found guilty in absentia had I not appeared at 2pm as instructed. I felt that I waited a more than reasonable amount of time for the judge to show and convene court. On top of this, the (witness for the) prosecution failed to appear.

The next morning I wrote a letter and sent it certified, return receipt requested to the presiding judge for the traffic court that had been scheduled for the prior day, stating in effect that:
1) I showed up at the duly appointed time;
2) I waited for well over 40 minutes for both the judge and the trooper to appear;
3) I left after waiting more than a sufficient amount of time;
4) On my way out of the courthouse, I tried to get one of the security guards to let me "sign out" on a register or roster of courthouse visitors that I (thought I) saw sitting between the incoming metal detectors but they told me they didn't have anything like that; I did not see any security cameras to record my being there;
4) I considered myself to have fulfilled my legal obligation concerning appearance that day and that, if court was later convened and I was found guilty in my absence, the judgment should be null and void for the above reasons and that I consider their failure to appear a dropping of said charges against me.

I received the judge's response letter on Oct 6 stating simply: "Your assertion of appearance on 2 October 2007is no proof of same: therefore your motion for dismissal is denied. However, in a light most favorable to you, I am rescheduling your case until 8 November 2007 at 2:00 P.M. Should you fail to attend you will be tried in your absence."

I find the following things interesting about this Summary Court judge's response:
1) he takes my letter to be a motion for dismissal; I did not consider it to be such and was merely sending the court notice of facts that I would leave for them to rebut if they so chose;
2) he almost appears to challenge me to prove my appearance; I believe my averment of such should stand on its own until disproven;
3) his own tacit admission that I was *not* already found guilty in absentia is proof that he did not convene court at all that day (apparently) because, if he had, surely I would have been found guilty.

For these reasons, I believe this judge is playing games here. He knows he denied me due process by failing to convene court when it was scheduled, regardless of whether the trooper failed to appear, which itself would have been cause for dismissal (which is what I was hoping for).

I would like to know:
1) What is the extent of my obligation to appear in light of the judge's absence to timely convene court? How long must a defendant wait? I have looked and looked for info on the Net and found nothing aside from the Sheriff having the power to adjourn court after three days of a judge failing to appear for court.
2) What happens if the judge fails to appear?
3) Should I go to the great trouble of trying to prove my prior appearance and thus go that direction in trying to beat this?
4) Should I forget the whole thing and ignore the new court date, likely leading to a guilty verdict and a subsequent arrest warrant flag on my DMV record, and then fight it from there (I think this would be the less intelligent route to take)?
5) Should I fight this with "paper" instead, arguing the merits (if any) that I have in this situation?
6) Just go the TicketSlayer route, even though I will be highly inconvenienced a second time by have to drive over 100 miles, 2 hours, in order to show up a second time at the new court date?

Thank you in advance for your thoughts.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

motion to quash in the superior court

[Extramural]

This is why you should always bring a Notary or a court reporter with you. They can provide proof that you were there.

If I got a letter like that from the judge, I'd refuse it for cause, and record it in the case file, and get several certified copies of it.

But, that's me.

[starr747]

do you still have the papers with the date you were supposed to appear on it . If so i would then go the courts and request a copy of the transcript in your case for that day . there isnt going to be one. So with that i would then follow with a motion to quash or a motion to dismiss as neither one appeared on that day .

[joseph sugarman]

starr 747,

Your suggestion, while a thoughtful one, is applicable only if the appearance was to be in a court of record. We are not informed whether the court was or was not. As in so many other first posts there is so much information we are not given.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by joseph sugarman

starr 747,

Your suggestion, while a thoughtful one, is applicable only if the appearance was to be in a court of record. We are not informed whether the court was or was not. As in so many other first posts there is so much information we are not given.

Most, if not all, Traffic Courts are NOT courts of record (this can be confirmed in the state's constitution).

The Original Poster must now confirm if he was found guilty or not, ASAP. One may wish to call the courthouse for this information. Of course something will likely be mailed by the court, however, by the time it is received there may not be much time to act. If he was found guilty, there is a time frame to appeal (often 20-30 days). He must make an appeal, usually at the Common Pleas Court level. There is a cost to file, yet, it is likely resonable considering the cost of the fines. This court is a court of record. The trial is de novo, or a new trial.

Make sure that the officer/witness/accuser shows up, otherwise, one may prevail by the officers default (quite common). Be aware that the government may try to make a plea bargain, even if they are informed that the officer will not show up.

[starr747]

bob you state if the cop dont show it is over . Itthat also true at arraignment . which i beleave is so . but they wouldnt let us get it out in court that the cop wasnt there . We only got as far as it was criminal proccedings under common law. The da kept requesting that the judge make my husband be quiet . but he didnt , but he did excuse him befoe getting all of his question answerd and getting to the point that the cop wasnt in court . Is there something we can file to dismiss this since the cop wasnt there . Now we are in a state court .

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by starr747

bob you state if the cop dont show it is over . Itthat also true at arraignment .

My above comment were regarding a case that originated in Traffic Court (TC). Are you talking about TC or something else?

which i beleave is so . but they wouldnt let us get it out in court that the cop wasnt there . We only got as far as it was criminal proccedings under common law.

If this is in TC, the officers often do not show, however, you must appeal, as I stated above. If it is some other process, then something else may apply.

The da kept requesting that the judge make my husband be quiet . but he didnt , but he did excuse him befoe getting all of his question answerd and getting to the point that the cop wasnt in court . Is there something we can file to dismiss this since the cop wasnt there .

Usually you would do an appeal of some sort.

Now we are in a state court .

How did you get to state court?

[starr747]

Ok i will start at beginning for you Bob Myhusband got three tickets no seatbelt no license and improper tag . We went to municipal court(Kangaroo court) we had filed a notice of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction . the judge ask mu husband his plea he said innocent ,. the judge said not guilt my husband again said innocent . Well then he said he was gonna recuse. We came back the next court date and the judge said after looking thru the paperwork he seen that my husband wasnt going against him he was putting this in in his defense. My husband then said the only reason i am going after you with the courtwatch form . Oh by the way i am a courtwatcher . Is you are practicing law from the bench .He then said my husband was in the wrong courtroom he needed to be in a court of record . so now we are in state court . Where you speak with the Da and not the judge .and have no right apparently to do nothing more than make a plea . Well we were asking under what jusrisdiction he was being tried under . I am sure you have read about that . And as i said we got as far as criminla under common law then he was told he could go handed two peices of paper with the next courtdates on them . One is motions hearing and one is jury trial . and both are signed by the Da . With my husbands name .

[blu3duk]

To the OP

The courts play a game with the citations they issue via the "leo", at least in Idaho they do, you have to report to the clerk of the court on or before the date on your citation, then if you "plead" to the clerk anything but "guilty" and "pretend to pay" your fine [cant "pay" anything with obligatory contracts or "fraud"s] then they set a trial date for you to actually appear in front of a judge and that is when they bring out mr/ms patrolman as the state "voyeur".

from an non-statutory abatement paper a friend filed
WITNESS
The only witness that can be brought forward by the Plaintiff
is one single statute enforcement officer who is not a reliable witness.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, that
police officers may commit perjury with total impunity.

The officer is an interested witness, fully biased, fully
prejudiced, in that his personal reputation and future success as a
statute enforcement officer are involved. Therefore, to benefit himself
it would be in his best interest to perjure himself/herself to maintain a high
degree of credibility among his/her peers and to make his efficiency appear
greater in the eyes of his superiors.
Since it is in the best interest of the officer to appear
efficient, competent and reliable to his supervisors by filling his
"quota" and to make him/her more accepted by his peers, and so that his
reputation as a professional witness will remain active and
reliable, he/she needs to obtain convictions. Since there are no civil
or criminal consequences to him if he does commit perjury he has
nothing to lose and every thing to gain.
Therefore, the testimony of the officer cannot be reliable and
must be discarded by the Court.

the problem with a non-statutory abatement is the time frame involved in filing such has already passed.... so now you have to fight in their realm and under their rules.... learn them well.... particualrly where they are allowed to make "local rules" at a whim and you are supposed to know thaose even though they are not published and probably only apply to you or other like you..... the chess board in the "lawball game" is slanted and skewed to their side of the table and you have only one chess piece , the court has all the others against you..... <-----lovely thought eh?

Cross your eyes and dot your tees cause you are gonna be in for a bumpy ride that takes time, energy, and the ability to think quickly on your feet in front of the fella sitting behind a polished sacrificial alter wearing a black dress hoping you aint got any bleach in the paperwork you file to make it white.....

Better to pay the fine, and start research against the time in the future that you will again need to be yourself in court, and fight from a knowledgable stance..... been there done that, and the Idaho court of appeals limited oral presentation [they cal it arguement] before I could reply to them telling them I wanted to have Oral presentation..... cause i was gonna hit them with everything I had and then some so now I wait until they decide to rule in the action one way or another...... I cant sleep very well, I have trouble holding a conversation that is not related to law and even then I have trouble with those who just dont have a clue as to what I have been through..... it is not pretty what we go through in being In Propia Persona, Sui Juris, Jus-Sanguinis, Sua-Poteste-Esse

have an ordinary day

William
Central Idaho state