HA HA! More evidence

[rushpat]

I know some people here don't listen to or don't follow Rice McLeod. I'm a little wary of some of his stuff because some appears to be experimental.



Well today, I've seen what could be evidence that at least his municipal court/traffic citation stuff is right. He's been saying for a while that the reason that traffic court dates are set so far out in the future from when you get the ticket is so that they are sure you won't try to do something within the first 10 days. He breaks it down as follows:



after 3 days = perfected contract (you can back out of any contract in 72 hours)



after 7 days = default



after 10 days = summary judgment



He's gone on to tell stories of how people try to pay within 3 days and are given the runaround on why they can't. He even told the story of a woman who used to work for a municipal court that quit and told him that they are absolutely forced to prevent the person ticketed from doing anything within the first 3 days to ensure the contract is fully in place.



Well this afternoon, I got ticketed (a litte agressive on trying to get into a turn lane). Yes, I know about "non-assumpsit", "without prejudice", etc, but I held off and pretended to be a mind-numbed sheeple to approach this as an experiment. As expected the court date isn't for 60 days. Or, if I'm not in the mood, just call and get the amount and mail it in.



Well, the moment I get home, I call the number to find out th e fine, with the intention of going on monday (within 72 hours) and try to pay to see what they do. Maybe even take an affidavit and a mobile notary with me to cancel the contract (just a thought at this point).



I call and get the recording (afterhours, you see), and the message says this, among other things:



"...to discover the amount of the fine for a citation, please wait 3 business days from the day of citation then call this number..."



So, it looks like it is correct. Maybe I should show up and tear up the contract on Monday? I'm just thinking about it. I pick and choose my battles, so I'm not sure what I'll do by Monday.



Thought you'd find that interesting.

I got a ticket yesterday afternoon for my right rear brake light which has been punchured out for three years now by a hit and run. He cited me with a fix-it ticket under Vehicle Code 24600(b) which states:



24600. During darkness every motor vehicle which is not in combination with any other vehicle and every vehicle at the end of a combination of vehicles shall be equipped with lighted taillamps mounted on the rear as follows:



(a) Every vehicle shall be equipped with one or more taillamps.



(b) Every vehicle, other than a motorcycle, manufactured and first registered on or after January 1, 1958, shall be equipped with not less than two taillamps, except that trailers and semitrailers manufactured after July 23, 1973, which are less than 30 inches wide, >may be equipped with one taillamp which shall be mounted at or near >the vertical centerline of the vehicles. If a vehicle is equipped with two taillamps, they shall be mounted as specified in subdivision (d).





I'm going to contest it because I was not driving in "darkness" - it was 3:00 in the afternoon. I know I should get it fixed but....at MY convenience not HIS.



I don't know what to tell you about your citation, Rushpat.



I hate moving violation citations-- they are NOT cheap and a pain in the ass to get rid of..



I would probably take care of it using my Griswold UCC-1. I swear that thing is magic! - even though Griswold is a $%#^&%.

you may have hit something. they do that in georgia too, telling you you have to wait so many days before paying the ticket. what you could do is write refused for fraud on the contract, void contract and give it back to the clerk within 72 hrs also and sign it in front of a notary if you want to.

[rushpat]

Originally Posted by Tora

I'm going to contest it because I was not driving in "darkness" - it was 3:00 in the afternoon. I know I should get it fixed but....at MY convenience not HIS.

Go get 'em!

I would probably take care of it using my Griswold UCC-1. I swear that thing is magic! - even though Griswold is a $%#^&%.

Besides writing to the Gemini Research, is there a place online to see how different Griswold's UCC1 is from the other methods like CTC3?

[rushpat]

Originally Posted by kgod999

you may have hit something. they do that in georgia too, telling you you have to wait so many days before paying the ticket. what you could do is write refused for fraud on the contract, void contract and give it back to the clerk within 72 hrs also and sign it in front of a notary if you want to.

I'm not sure if "Refused for Fraud" would be the way I'd go. Doing a "Refusal for Cause Without Dishonor, UCC3-501" would probably be the way I'd do it. Lack of full disclosure that this is a contract would probably be the main reason. It's all contracts.



Right now, I have so many other things going on that I might not take that track. Just thinking about it.

the reason i said that is because you cannot be in dishonor if the contract is void from the beginning. im looking at everything from a common law point of view. how can they ticket you? who is the damaged party? you cannot dishonor a fraud by telling them its fraud. im doing what ice, jerseee and others are doing now, strictly using the law. the ucc is ok, but lets be real, that stuff was written for the bankers and not us. use remedies that a common man or woman can overstand and the system cannot ignore you. why write down without prejudice ucc2-207 etc. when you can just as easily right down by your signature "i reserve all my rights".

[nralien]

rushpat



Are to talking about Banking Regulation Z, 72 Hour period regulation guideline governing retail agreements, as codified at: 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601?



nralien

Originally Posted by kgod999

the reason i said that is because you cannot be in dishonor if the contract is void from the beginning.

No, you cannot be in dishonor if the contract was void from the beginning, but you can be "WITHOUT" dishonor if the contact was void from the beginning. You would not have signed the contract if you knew there was fraud involved so you are now Refusing for cause without dishonor for lack stipulation among the parties as to the false and misleading statements contained therein.

Originally Posted by kgod999

im doing what ice, jerseee and others are doing now, strictly using the law. the ucc is ok, but lets be real, that stuff was written for the bankers and not us.

The UCC is not the easiest thing to understand, but once you do, you wouldn't leave home without it!

Rushpat wrote:

I'm not sure if "Refused for Fraud" would be the way I'd go. Doing a "Refusal for Cause Without Dishonor, UCC3-501" would probably be the way I'd do it.







Look for a corresponding GEORGIA commerical code section for 3-501. Always use the commercial code for your state. e.g., GEORGIA COMMERICAL CODE SECTION ________

Rushpat wrote:

Besides writing to the Gemini Research, is there a place online to see how different Griswold's UCC1 is from the other methods like CTC3?



You cannot compare Griswold's UCC-1 if you don't have it to compare it with something else. You need to see it to compare it. I've seen CTC3's Security Agreement and in my opinion, it doesn't compare to the Griswold security agreement.



CTC3's Security Agreement does not have an Indemnity Clause, although it does "refer" to a Hold Harmless and Indemnity Agreement. But what good is the Indenmity Clause if it's not in the Security Agreement?