Traffic Ticket Technique

[Akira]

Here is a simple "layman's" approach to dealing with those annoying traffic tickets.



Previous to 1963 there were two separate courts in all states of the United States. There were courts of equity and courts of law. Traffic, divorce, and Contract Law (equity) court was in one building, and Criminal Law court was in an entirely different building. Separate buildings, separate staffs, including Judges, and separate budgets.



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 !.



Can the court hear an equity arguement in a court of law? NO ! The two jurisdictions can not be mixed ! But because the sheeple trust their "friends in government", they get away with it.



We, however, can use this to our advantage. It should go something like this....





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 !"



You have just cornered the Judge ! and he needs a way out, bad ! He knows he can't hear an equity arguement in a court of law, and he knows you know, too. Depending on the Judge, you will get a variety of reactions, but most seasoned Judges will take it in stride. The judges goal will be to deal with you and get you out of the courtroom without letting the others in the courtroom know what has just happened. So listen for the Judge's "cue" when it is offered. In one case, the Judge simply said he would schedule the case for trial, and to check with the court clerk for the specifics of date and time. For more than a month, daily phone calls were made to the clerks office to get the date and time of the trial. It was never scheduled.



This is a very powerful technique if not over used and abused.



Hope this helps

Akira

[Jerseee]

Akira,

From my education and understanding, equity law and statutory law were combined in the 30s or 40s. This was done so you can get remedy in civil and in criminal courts.

I may be a little off but, the basic idea of what I speak is what I learned. I could be mistaken--it has been a while.

I mean no offense 'cause everyone around here has gone the extra mile to be helpful and courteous to me. My experience, however, must be nearly singularly unigue in dealing with BB.


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...hate...BB...and...all...agents.


Apologies for the digression...back to the regularly schedule program....


Randy

[Ice]

Randy,


Regardless of what they want the law to mean... they must deal with what the Superior Courts have decided it means.& And that is why the Superior Court decisions are so necessary to have.


Ice

[Paul88]

<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">I can use that against my tickets. And I have a lot of them. It would also be good to ask the judge if he/she has the oath of office. I have a court on Tuesday. He gave me a ticket for no front plate. I’m being harassed in one of the towns here. I already got about 10 tickets in 1 month. And this one last one told me “YOU DON’T KNOW THE LAW” And said he would arrest me. </SPAN>


<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o>I simply say. I will see you in court. Thanks.</o></SPAN>

About speeding tickets? I'd forgotten all about "challenging" the radar-thing.& Until last night, when I found this:


http://www.the-moneychanger.com/


What a great insight on matters of traffic court!& Oh, I SO should have thought about this....


Randy

Randy,

Where is the traffic stuff on this site you mentioned?

I can't find it. Thanks for any help.

HB

Hey, HB....


Well, crap. The link went back to the homepage, didn't it?


Be right back....


Go to main page. Click on "humor." Look for "next time you get a traffic ticket." That'll do it.& Sorry 'bout that.


Randy


&

[LUKE2447]

would that work on the radar device also???

[seeker]

Did we ever get any resolution on the "equity v law court" decision?& Is this still valid?


Seeker


Also, on a traffic citation, can you return& for value and decline their "invitation" to attend and ask for validation on the officer's jurisdiction and authority over you?


Just thoughts.