Traffic Ticket Technique

[Akira]

I'm bumping this thread up, because I think it bears repeating...

It is (or was) an easy fix for traffic tickets. I haven't used it in years.

Originally Posted by Me

As anyone who has done any reading on the traffic court situation knows, you surrender your "right of travel" for the lesser "priviledge" of contracting with the state for a drivers license. When an officer writes you a ticket, it isn't because you are breaking "the law" but because you have breached one of the provisions of your licensing "contract". That is why, up until 1963, when you got a traffic ticket, you went to equity court for your drivers license "contract" hearing.(new emphasis mine)

Because licenses are based on contract, drivers license 'issues' are still equity issues and this is where the trick comes in...

If you ask the judge directly, he will tell you that "you are in a court of law". WE know this isn't the case, but he will call it that, and in doing so, hang himself !

Can the court hear an equity arguement in a court of law? NO ! The two jurisdictions can not be mixed !

If it's a court of law, (an injury/tort) then let them produce the injured party, so they might take the stand, and personally testify to their (nonexistant) affidavit.

If it's a court of equity (contract), then let them produce the (nonexistant) contract.

JUDGE: "In the case of State of XXXXX vs. Joe Blow, failure to stop at the stop sign on Elm Street and the corner of Main. How do you plead?"

Joe: "Well, your Honor, before I enter my plea, may it please the court, I would like to ask one question, if possible?"

JUDGE: "Certainly, what is the question?"

Joe: "Well, your Honor, I'm a bit confused...with all this statuatory stuff... Is this a court of equity, or a court of law?"

JUDGE: (startled) "There's no equity here ! This is a court of law !"

Joe: (now exposing his copy of the traffic ticket) "Then how do you propose we deal with this obvious problem of jurisdiction? The court can't hear an equity arguement in a court of law !"

The courts are getting wise to this...

In this state, tickets used to say "Civil Infraction" on top. That was later changed to "Notice of Infraction". Now, they just say "Notice". Check your ticket !


Too simple?


For HIS Glory,
Akira

[Hesed]

I like this arguement, its very simple to overstand and execute.

It appears to have the judge in a bind. Regarding Randy's comments:

"I've not yet encountered any agent, acting in any capacity, who responds to any sort of attempts at "education" or "challenge" without resorting to the one thing they have on their side: Power.
I.E., around here, at least, agents flatly don't care what the law IS, only what "they" want it to mean, and they enforce what they want it to mean, period."
I agree But Akira's dispute is a Jurasdiction dispute and although the agent has the power to enforce what they see fit they are also aware of the consequences of their fraud being exposed therefore they would use discretion to aviod scandle and thats appears to be the point. To decline out of plain view to shut you up.

[2501]

I got to the link "next time you get a ticket" but it went 404 file not found on me. Can any one who has this text post it?

[RickA]

Akira. Question. If the ticket says notice of infraction or just notice, couldn't one just simply ignore it? My thinking is this. By ignoring it, it place the burden on the court to enforce or try to enforce it. if one chose not to ignore, but simply ask for verification, wouldn't that force their hand as well?

Virginia say notice as well.

Thanks

[Im Huami]

Originally Posted by RickA

Akira. Question. If the ticket says notice of infraction or just notice, couldn't one just simply ignore it? My thinking is this. By ignoring it, it place the burden on the court to enforce or try to enforce it. if one chose not to ignore, but simply ask for verification, wouldn't that force their hand as well?

Virginia say notice as well.

Thanks

From the back of one of the revenue generators tickets in Ramsey County, Minnesota "For petty misdemeanor offenses failure to appear will be considered a plea of guilty and waiver of the right to trial unless the failure to appear is due to circumstances beyond the persons control."

[test]

Originally Posted by Im Huami

From the back of one of the revenue generators tickets in Ramsey County, Minnesota "For petty misdemeanor offenses failure to appear will be considered a plea of guilty and waiver of the right to trial unless the failure to appear is due to circumstances beyond the persons control."

It sounds like a default clause in a contract, doesn't it?

Would there be a way to somehow get it to a Interlocutory appeal as far as the court being a equity court. Not quite sure how you would be able to position that.

[Shoonra]

Traffic court is an administrative court, created by statute. It is not an ordinary civil court for cases either in law or equity. However, pushing the judge's buttons with this sort of argument might bring out the fact that traffic court does have some of the aspects of a criminal court.

As for not showing up in court, the usual practice is that the defendant (the ticketed driver) loses by default, and his absence doesn't impede the court from adding to his points or even suspending his license, or notifying the DMV that he owes a fine and therefor cannot renew his DL until that fine is paid. I have also seen traffic judges issue bench warrants which enable the police to arrest that driver whenever or wherever they find him.

Most lawyers would advise you against commencing your defense by irritating the judge who is presiding over your case.

[citizensoldier]

Shoonra provides good advice, but even better is the point about traffic court being an administrative court derived from statute. When dealing with an administrative court, one should review the statutes dealing with such court and determine if those statutes apply to you or the situation.

A good place to start is reviewing the definitions used in the statutes.

[weishaupt1776]

I'll have to disagree and agree on the admin issue

The ENTIRE NATURE of ANY department is that it is under the Umbrella of the Executive Branch

Because of this they are subject to the APA

So yes this is an admin situation

I disagree that the (kangaroo) court is admin, though

IT is simply the wrong venue and they have no subject matter jurisdciton, because they can only review an admin agency determination AFTER a hearing before an admin law judge

Go to How to use your state's apa and Statutory web page 3 in the travel forum