Traffic Ticket Technique

[citizensoldier]

And that is what you're doing in "traffic court" - going before an admin judge for an admin hearing. You're free to your opinion, but the law is clear on the issue.

"When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially". Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 583.

"A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments, and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational." ASIS v. US, 568 F2d 284.

"Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities." Burns v. Sup. Ct., SF, 140 Cal.

[weishaupt1776]

Thing is people are WINNING using the APA MtD for improper venue letting them play along with the court front.

Have you won yet using that approach?

[Akira]

Originally Posted by 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.

The 'judge' said it's a 'court of law'... did I hold a gun to his head? Why is he mad? perhaps because he helped to corner himself? catch himself in a lie? a fraud?

Originally Posted by Shoonra

As for not showing up in court...

There are ways to deal with the state administratively, and still not have to go to court... but to do nothing, and not show up, is a fool's folly....

Originally Posted by Shoonra

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

Well of course they would... they're officers of the court...why would they advise that you bite the hand that feeds them..

Commencing my defense? who's defending? We're still discussing jurisdiction.

All this technique does is to address presumption by asking direct questions... You know the 'rule' for the gathering of testimony? Never ask a question, you don't already know the answer too? lol

The hardest thing to do, is more often then not, the right thing to do.

I believe going to court is exactly what we all need to do... If everyone did a little homework, and stood up for themselves, then the legal system in this country would change in a hurry... but we've been programmed to take the slaves approach... the easy way out...

When I go to court, I remain humble... I'm very polite, don't raise my voice, ect...

Wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove....Colossians 1:19-22, Romans 5:10,18, Matthew ,10:16, I Timothy 2:3-6.

But if the judge isn't wringing his hands, and turning red, with veins popping... then I'm just not doing MY duty.

For HIS Glory,
Akira

[RickA]

While I agree that not showing up is, as Akira said, is a fools folly, and I wouldn't do it myself, nor would I advise another to do so, it still wouldn't change the fact that there is still no jurisdiction. Simply put, it is bullying. It's about procedure.

[citizensoldier]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Thing is people are WINNING using the APA MtD for improper venue letting them play along with the court front.

Have you won yet using that approach?

Whether people are winning using the APA or not is irrelevant. There are many "methods" preached in the "patriot" community that have limited success for some, but not others. Unfortunately, this behavior isn't contained to traffic issues, but the whole gambit of problems facing We the People resulting from Corp US.

Lets take a look at the APA "method" - in a nutshell, you are challenging jurisdiction. If you were not engaged in commerce nor for hire, then its obvious they do not have jurisdiction. You don't need the APA to make such a challenge, the law clearly shows "traffic" laws only apply to commerce and for hire operators of motor vehicles.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by citizensoldier

Whether people are winning using the APA or not is irrelevant. There are many "methods" preached in the "patriot" community that have limited success for some, but not others. Unfortunately, this behavior isn't contained to traffic issues, but the whole gambit of problems facing We the People resulting from Corp US.

Lets take a look at the APA "method" - in a nutshell, you are challenging jurisdiction. If you were not engaged in commerce nor for hire, then its obvious they do not have jurisdiction. You don't need the APA to make such a challenge, the law clearly shows "traffic" laws only apply to commerce and for hire operators of motor vehicles.

I agree with every point, exceot the We the People part.
"We the People" always has meant the ones who signed the Dec of Independence

The commerce thing is the biggest, though
http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread.php?t=2705

I wish I had time to develop that research more

have you tried this yet how many times how many different applications have you applied it to?

raz

snip

[quote=Akira]Here is a simple "layman's" approach to dealing with those annoying traffic tickets.

In 1963, the government decided to try and save some money by consolidating the two courts into one, but they made a very large error. No one stopped to consider the repercussions of combining the two jurisdictions into one court.



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.



Today, when we go to court, we find just one court... LAW COURT, NOT EQUITY !.

[Akira]

Sorry so slow to respond.... I've been very busy, as of late...

Originally Posted by str8razor

have you tried this yet how many times how many different applications have you applied it to?

Originally Posted by Akira #11

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

Actually, it was the fall of 2002. I won, using this technique, in district court, on a "no seat belt, failure to signal, illegal lane change" charge.

I originally got the technique off a 6 hour video tape on common law, by Carl Miller, a counselor at law for 25 years. As of two years ago, the tape was still available on the net. I recommend it.

Millers knowledge and research was also the basis for this post as well. He had some good info on common law procedure, Quo Warrento, and general court etiquette as well... At that time, much of what he offered was over my head. Come to think of it, I'm due for a review.

I should caution that, Miller retired in the late 80's, and the courts have changed a great deal since then. While his constitutional arguements (imho) are still viable, and brilliant, due to the age of the info, his scripts fail to adaquately attack the presumptions that are so prevalent in court today.

For HIS Glory,
Akira