Traffic Stop Is an Arrest

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Ah yes, but keep in mind these are "those whose opinions matter" (as though anyones opinion mattered) It's a smaller fraction overall.

99.99% of the choir agrees with the preacher...

[Shoonra]

It is true that a traffic stop is an arrest, but it is usually (and intended to be) a very brief one. Traffic laws provide the cops with authority to make such brief stops and require motorists to be cooperative. Being unccoperative can turn what would have been a brief delay into a major event of the day.

The Bad Elk case rests on very unusual circumstances and has not been used as precedent to allow cop-killing. If George Sibley and Lynda Bloch were alive, they'd tell you how unlikely it is that a judge and jury would be sympathetic to cop killers.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Their innocent blood is counted against us all. The Land is cursed for it and so is the Nation.

[ThomPaine]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

I've beaten several tickets, up to and including one where I had to go to a jury trial because the prosecutor was an a-hole who wouldn't listen to reason.

But I think you're full of it. You're not going to beat a ticket arguing lack of subject matter or personal jurisdiction. Not unless something really unusual happened, like the cop wrote you a ticket outside the limits of the city or county where he has jurisdiction.

So, I want to see you prove it. Give me a city or county and case number, something I can look up that would prove your method worked. You can send it to me in PM if you don't want to post it here. I want to be able to look in the records of that city or county court and confirm what you say.

I'll give you the case number of the one I beat in DeKalb County last May, if you want it.

Time to put up or shut up.

My most recent case is posted here in the success forum, however I will indulge everyone with a quick recap. It was city of Alpharetta muni court, which is not a court of record so you wont find anything there. I used the TS docs slighly modified and went to court under special restricted appearance to challenge jurisdiction. Those were the first words out of my mouth... When the robe decided to make an ass of himself in open court by steamrolling all my points and motions and telling me that he didnt know what special appearance was, I continued with my attack until he backed himself into a corner. He just kept repeating the same gibberish over and again.. things like the PA didnt have to be there and a camera was a witness, the state was the damaged party, etc. I ignored all of that and continued with, "I am here by special restricted appearance to discuss jurisdiction. Are you going to grant my motion to dismiss or leave that to a higher court? Despite the fact that there was no PA and no witnesses against me and he was lawyering from the bench, he found me 'guilty'. I immediately filed an appeal in Fulton County Superior Court and in about two weeks had a case dismissed letter back from them with my fees, never even made it to court.

Think what you will about the procedures, but as someone else pointed out, there are tons of success stories on here of people challenging SMJ/IPJ and winning repeatedly. Clyde/TS and the Flynns and many others have developed or perfected systems that work repeatedly! Why, simply bc they are based in LAW and not corporate statutes and regulations handled by corrupt judges and attorners with no evidence of a crime or an injured party.

Thom

[weishaupt1776]

The reason Lawdog doesn't challenge SMJ/PJ is because he would disgrace his peers and the GA BAR would dump him like a cheap date:

Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.) Vol. 7 § 4:

"His first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client. And where ever the duties of his client conflict with those, he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of Justice (Just-US), the former must yield to the latter."

Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.) Vol. 7 § 4 further states:

"A client is one who applies to a lawyer or counselor for advice and direction in a question of law, or commits his cause to his management in prosecuting a claim or defending against a suit in a court of justice; one who retains the attorney, is responsible to him for his fees, and whom the attorney is responsible for the management of the suit; one who communicates facts to an attorney expecting professional advice. Clients are also called 'wards of the court' in regard to their relationship with their attorney."

If a client wanted his attorney to challenge SMJ/PJ in a traffic case the way we do, the interests of the client would conflict with that of the court (the masonic hall with benches, robes, guns and thugs who need to pump up their retirement funds) but not conflict with the constitution or common law.

It would impede the administration of JUST-US

[Lawdog]

First of all, Corpus Juris Secundum is not the law. It is a legal encyclopedia.

From the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct:

(Preamble, Paragraph 2)

As advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client's position under the rules of the adversary system.

This is patterned after Canon 7 of the ABA's Model Code of Professional Responsibility: A Lawyer Should Represent a Client Zealously Within the Bounds of the Law.

Dictionary.com is free if you need to look up the word zealous.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Then every lawyer I ever met routinely violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, for failure and refusal and obstruction of the zealous advocacy of a clients position, and potential remedies.

And I am not talking about rocking the political boat, either, or coming off as crazy or whatever. I mean a simple obvious challenge to the clear and plain lack of a stated cause of action to ordinary charges, or contradictions and admissions within the body of the claim itself that tend to mitigate or exculpate the defendant, or properly assert a client's rights.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

... the ABA's Model Code of Professional Responsibility:

ROTFL - That's an oxymoron if ever I heard one! Thanks for the great laugh.

[ThomPaine]

so an attorner is an officer of the court, which in most if not all cases is a private/municipal corporation and most attorners are members of the BAR, which i believe is also a private corporation/organisation.

So we have an officer of one corporation and a member of another corporate organisation has loyalties and allegiances to them and wouldnt do anything to harm either of those entities, himself or his relationship with them..

dont look at the man behind the curtain..


Thom

[weishaupt1776]

Okay I started another thread on Atty/Client here
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/court/...tml#post129623

Lets try to keep this thread focused on Traffic Stop, arrets, Probable Cause for such, etc . . .