Traffic court criminal?

[chapka]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Chapka, Is one entitled to a fair hearing regardless of which state they are in?

Yes. But that doesn't mean the hearing procedures, or even the specific protections you get, have to be the same in every state.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by chapka

Yes. But that doesn't mean the hearing procedures, or even the specific protections you get, have to be the same in every state.

Agreed. But are these following inquiries limited by state specific law?

Do I have basic human rights? Yes or no.

Does the judge respect or have to respect those basic human rights? Yes or no.

Would a fair hearing require the judge to respect those basic human rights? Yes or no.

Am I entitled to a meaningful hearing? Yes or no.

What are the consequences, if any, if I am not given a fair and meaningful hearing?

Am I entitled to be informed of the nature and cause of the charges and proceedings against me? Yes or no.

Would the judges orders be valid if I don’t get a fair hearing? Yes or no.

Should the judge seek to enforce his orders if I don’t get a fair hearing? Yes or no.

Should the judge seek to enforce his orders if there was no evidence of jurisdiction over me? Yes or no.

Am I entitled to responsive answers to my questions? Yes/No

[chapka]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

[b]Agreed. But are these following inquiries limited by state specific law?

To be honest, I don't see what those questions have to do with the post I was replying to. Yes, you're entitled to a fair hearing. No, the court shouldn't act outside its jurisdiction. But the point I was making is that the specific status of a bad act as an "infraction" or "violation" is subject to state law.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by chapka

To be honest, I don't see what those questions have to do with the post I was replying to.

[b]You alluded that each state has different laws. So, those questions beg whether or not one has the right to a fair hearing and a meaningful hearing in which responsive answers are necessary in order to have a clear picture of the nature and cause of the charges because "I am not an attorney and I don't understand". I was wondering if you thought that such elementary principles were or even could be limited due to some legislative opinion reflected in a statute which would limit such fair and equitable principles.

Originally Posted by chapka

Yes, you're entitled to a fair hearing. No, the court shouldn't act outside its jurisdiction.

You have only answered reszponsively to 2 out of 9 questions.
If there wer only 3, then we could apply the Law of Meatloaf:

• Don't be sad, cuz 2 out of 3 ain't bad"

2 out of 9 is bad. No Meatloaf for you . . .

Originally Posted by chapka

But the point I was making is that the specific status of a bad act as an "infraction" or "violation" is subject to state law.

Point well taken. So regarding this allleged infraction and how it can be enforcable or legitimate according to Law and procedure:

Does the judge have to comply with ALL the rules of Procedure in his state regarding this infraction subject to state law? Yes or no.

Are there rules in his state procedural rules that he can ignore regarding this infraction subject to state law? Yes or no.

If yes: Which ones, why?

Do the constitutions, US and His state, govern these "infraction" proceedings? Yes or no.

Does the judge have to comply with the constitutions, or are there clauses he can ignore? Yes or no.

If yes, then which ones? Why?

Is the ticket for the alleged "infraction" consistent with the constitutions(his State & US)? Yes or no.

[chapka]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Does the judge have to comply with ALL the rules of Procedure in his state regarding this infraction subject to state law? Yes or no.

Of course the judge has to comply with all applicable local, state and federal rules and laws, including the constitution. The point is that this question:

Is the ticket for the alleged "infraction" consistent with the constitutions(his State & US)? Yes or no.[/b]

doesn't have a single answer, because it depends on, among other things, which state constitution applies and what the procedures are for handling "infractions" in that state.

For what it's worth, I agree that the various state "infraction" or "violation" schemes often provide inadequate due process. My point was simply that it's a mistake to talk about these schemes as if they're identical when they're not.

Originally Posted by chapka

Of course the judge has to comply with all applicable local, state and federal rules and laws, including the constitution. The point is that this question:

doesn't have a single answer, because it depends on, among other things, which state constitution applies and what the procedures are for handling "infractions" in that state.

For what it's worth, I agree that the various state "infraction" or "violation" schemes often provide inadequate due process. My point was simply that it's a mistake to talk about these schemes as if they're identical when they're not.

Case in point. In California, infractions are criminal. The US Constitution guarantees right to trial by jury in all criminal cases. The California penal statute DENIES trial by jury to infraction cases, limits fines, and precludes a sentence of incarceration. All other procedures and rights under criminal trial are available to infraction cases except these points. The California infraction system was tested by a landmark appellate case, that appealed to British common law regarding 19th century carriages used as taxis to justify their position. Never mind that California never had British law as a precedence, only Spanish law, and that only American common law has standing in US jurisprudence.

Until that case is overturned on another appeal, California has case law to back an abrogation of a US Constitutional right; trial by jury. In my case I no longer have standing at the appelate level to complain, because my case was dismissed with prejudice. The only thing I can do about it is file an amicus brief.

The due process of the California infraction system is totally without adequacy, yet it is the law of the land until some member of the appellate system has the gonads to grant certiori and dispel this abomination. Each state is going to operation under a slightly different environment, depending on the particulars of how they bastardized that segment of the law.