Driver license and registration please?

[charlesa6]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

[/i]

I don't know why it would infuriate you. Assuming this rule applies to traffic court, it means:

If you show up and the cop doesn't, you win by default.

On the other hand, the usual practice of a traffic court is that if the cop shows up but you don't, then you lose by default (and I have seen occasions when the judge issued an arrest warrant for a no-show, or suspended his license immediately - meaning he could be nailed for unlicensed driving even before he would know what happened while he was AWOL from court).

The point, that a previous message missed, is that the co must show up and testify for the trial in traffic court. Not for the arraignment, but for the trial. If the motorist shows up, he cannot be convicted simply by paperwork without some live testimony.

Absolutely correct! Win by default if the cop or you didn't show up for the hearing.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

[/i]

I don't know why it would infuriate you. Assuming this rule applies to traffic court, it means:

If you show up and the cop doesn't, you win by default.

On the other hand, the usual practice of a traffic court is that if the cop shows up but you don't, then you lose by default (and I have seen occasions when the judge issued an arrest warrant for a no-show, or suspended his license immediately - meaning he could be nailed for unlicensed driving even before he would know what happened while he was AWOL from court).

The point, that a previous message missed, is that the co must show up and testify for the trial in traffic court. Not for the arraignment, but for the trial. If the motorist shows up, he cannot be convicted simply by paperwork without some live testimony.

it meaneth that if the cop is late, the judge waits!
which bytes completely

[RickA]

I apologize, I did mis-post earlier. Idknow cleared it up for me, thanks Idknow.

Again, I apologize.

[SansRecours]

As for the previous few posts. Y'all need to get outside the box. I am talking about pre-plea and pre-arraignment issues of fact that are jurisdiction and venue related.

This will be my last post on this thread attempting to educate, as there will be no more to present.

The following quotations are lifted from House Report No 1980, May 3 , 1946 House Committee on the Judiciary, relating to the Legislative History of the Administrative Procedure Act, pg. 1195-1206.

I am only quoting a few relative parts relating to comments that I made previously concerning this administrative bastard child masquerading within the legislative, judicial, and executive branches. It is agood read, and I believe it has value.

One must remember that the following document is an abstract of reports making up the legislative history of the Administrative Procedures Act exploring the need of that act to streamline the bureaucracy resulting from the plethora of administrative agencies already in existence, as well as a need for uniformity in the way such agencies operating at the time conduct their affairs.

It is my personal belief that this is classic thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectics at work.

My thoughts notwithstanding, here is some relevant text upon the Legislative History of the Administrative Procedure Act (Now Title 5 USC) as proposed: [at pg 1195]

"For more than 10 years this legislation has been under consideration. Certainly no measure of like character has had the painstaking and detailed study and drafting. Both the legislative and executive branches have participated, and private interests of every kind have had an opportunity to present their views. In the legislative branch there have been four major proposals for the creation of an administrative court, and at least eight for the regulation of administrative procedure. Two important studies were conducted in the executive branch under the late President Franklin D. Roosevelt-each resulting in reports to Congress with legislative recommendations [I have not found these yet, or who the private interests of every kind were-Sans]. While various proposals have been made over the years, the continuous line of development leading to the present bill is clear and illuminating.
1937 Report of President’s Committee on Administrative Management
-The growth and intensification of administrative regulation of private enterprise and other phases of American life had moved President Roosevelt early in his administration to appoint a committee to study administrative methods, functioning, and organization. Although that committee approached the problem from the standpoint of executive branch management, it was soon deeply involved in the essential public process of administrattive regulation. It issued numerous studies and an intensive report (Report With Special Studies, 1937) whixch President Roosevelt transmitted to Congress with his endorsement and statement that it was ‘a great document of permanent importance’ (p. iii). At that time he also took occasion to remark that the practice of creating administrative agencies-
who perform administrative work in addition to judicial work, threatens to develop a ‘fourth branch’ of the Government for which there is no sanction in the Constitution.
To which the commitee added (p. 40):
There is a conflict of principle involved in their makeup and functions. *** [their marks] They are vested with the duties of administration *** and at the same time they are given important judicial work*** The evils resulting from this confusion of principles are insidious and far reaching *** Pressures and influences properly enough directed toward officers responsible for formulating and administering policy constitute an unwholesome atmosphere in which to adjudicate private rights. But the mixed duties of the commissions render escape from these subversive influences impossible. Furthermore, the same men are obliged to serve as both prosecutors and judges. This not only undermines judicial fairness; it weakens public confidence in that fairness. Commission decisions affecting private rights and conduct lie under the suspicion of being rationalizations of the preliminary findings which the Commission, in the role of prosecutor, presented to itself...."

There is a lot more, but the basic questions are:
After 60 years, has the Administrative Procedure Act corrected the problem, or made the problem worse?
Is the judicial review of the administrative procedure really judicial if the relief sought is in its nature a de novo?
Those musical prophets, the Eagles words are going through my head:

"They stab it with their steely knives but the just can’t kill the Beast.
Last thing I remember I was running for the door, I had to find the passage back to the place I was before.
‘Relax,’ said the night man, ‘we are programmed to receive- You can check out any time you like-but you can never leave."

In Christ, and as always I hope this info has been a blessing and/or a curse depending on which side of the coin you look.

I am SansRecours

[idknow]

Originally Posted by RickA

I apologize, I did mis-post earlier. Idknow cleared it up for me, thanks Idknow.

Again, I apologize.

huh? what did i do?

heh

[idknow]

Originally Posted by SansRecours

As for the previous few posts. Y'all need to get outside the box. I am talking about pre-plea and pre-arraignment issues of fact that are jurisdiction and venue related.

This will be my last post on this thread attempting to educate, as there will be no more to present.

The following quotations are lifted from House Report No 1980, May 3 , 1946 House Committee on the Judiciary, relating to the Legislative History of the Administrative Procedure Act, pg. 1195-1206.

I am only quoting a few relative parts relating to comments that I made previously concerning this administrative bastard child masquerading within the legislative, judicial, and executive branches. It is agood read, and I believe it has value.

One must remember that the following document is an abstract of reports making up the legislative history of the Administrative Procedures Act exploring the need of that act to streamline the bureaucracy resulting from the plethora of administrative agencies already in existence, as well as a need for uniformity in the way such agencies operating at the time conduct their affairs.

It is my personal belief that this is classic thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectics at work.

My thoughts notwithstanding, here is some relevant text upon the Legislative History of the Administrative Procedure Act (Now Title 5 USC) as proposed: [at pg 1195]

"For more than 10 years this legislation has been under consideration. Certainly no measure of like character has had the painstaking and detailed study and drafting. Both the legislative and executive branches have participated, and private interests of every kind have had an opportunity to present their views. In the legislative branch there have been four major proposals for the creation of an administrative court, and at least eight for the regulation of administrative procedure. Two important studies were conducted in the executive branch under the late President Franklin D. Roosevelt-each resulting in reports to Congress with legislative recommendations [I have not found these yet, or who the private interests of every kind were-Sans]. While various proposals have been made over the years, the continuous line of development leading to the present bill is clear and illuminating.
1937 Report of President*s Committee on Administrative Management
-The growth and intensification of administrative regulation of private enterprise and other phases of American life had moved President Roosevelt early in his administration to appoint a committee to study administrative methods, functioning, and organization. Although that committee approached the problem from the standpoint of executive branch management, it was soon deeply involved in the essential public process of administrattive regulation. It issued numerous studies and an intensive report (Report With Special Studies, 1937) whixch President Roosevelt transmitted to Congress with his endorsement and statement that it was *a great document of permanent importance* (p. iii). At that time he also took occasion to remark that the practice of creating administrative agencies-
who perform administrative work in addition to judicial work, threatens to develop a *fourth branch* of the Government for which there is no sanction in the Constitution.
To which the commitee added (p. 40):
There is a conflict of principle involved in their makeup and functions. *** [their marks] They are vested with the duties of administration *** and at the same time they are given important judicial work*** The evils resulting from this confusion of principles are insidious and far reaching *** Pressures and influences properly enough directed toward officers responsible for formulating and administering policy constitute an unwholesome atmosphere in which to adjudicate private rights. But the mixed duties of the commissions render escape from these subversive influences impossible. Furthermore, the same men are obliged to serve as both prosecutors and judges. This not only undermines judicial fairness; it weakens public confidence in that fairness. Commission decisions affecting private rights and conduct lie under the suspicion of being rationalizations of the preliminary findings which the Commission, in the role of prosecutor, presented to itself...."

There is a lot more, but the basic questions are:
After 60 years, has the Administrative Procedure Act corrected the problem, or made the problem worse?
Is the judicial review of the administrative procedure really judicial if the relief sought is in its nature a de novo?
Those musical prophets, the Eagles words are going through my head:

"They stab it with their steely knives but the just can*t kill the Beast.
Last thing I remember I was running for the door, I had to find the passage back to the place I was before.
*Relax,* said the night man, *we are programmed to receive- You can check out any time you like-but you can never leave."

In Christ, and as always I hope this info has been a blessing and/or a curse depending on which side of the coin you look.

I am SansRecours

SansRecours, while I havent participated all that much in this particular thread, I want to thank you for your obvious dedication to learning and publishing what you have learned to us who have read; For myself, I'll admit that it's going to take me some time to assimilate and osmose this information - it contains information that I've not looked at before but now that it's complete, by your last post, I can save locally now for further study.

I did understand the point about the citation being a business record - that was fascinating, and I couldn't have imagined it.

Again, thanks for an excellent thread and subject.

--
later that minute; the thread contains six pages by the Forum's software-count, here on my drive, those six pages take 1.6 Meg!

that's impressive, Sans.

[charlesa6]

Originally Posted by SansRecours

As for the previous few posts. Y'all need to get outside the box. I am talking about pre-plea and pre-arraignment issues of fact that are jurisdiction and venue related.

This will be my last post on this thread attempting to educate, as there will be no more to present.

The following quotations are lifted from House Report No 1980, May 3 , 1946 House Committee on the Judiciary, relating to the Legislative History of the Administrative Procedure Act, pg. 1195-1206.

I am only quoting a few relative parts relating to comments that I made previously concerning this administrative bastard child masquerading within the legislative, judicial, and executive branches. It is agood read, and I believe it has value.

One must remember that the following document is an abstract of reports making up the legislative history of the Administrative Procedures Act exploring the need of that act to streamline the bureaucracy resulting from the plethora of administrative agencies already in existence, as well as a need for uniformity in the way such agencies operating at the time conduct their affairs.

It is my personal belief that this is classic thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectics at work.

My thoughts notwithstanding, here is some relevant text upon the Legislative History of the Administrative Procedure Act (Now Title 5 USC) as proposed: [at pg 1195]

"For more than 10 years this legislation has been under consideration. Certainly no measure of like character has had the painstaking and detailed study and drafting. Both the legislative and executive branches have participated, and private interests of every kind have had an opportunity to present their views. In the legislative branch there have been four major proposals for the creation of an administrative court, and at least eight for the regulation of administrative procedure. Two important studies were conducted in the executive branch under the late President Franklin D. Roosevelt-each resulting in reports to Congress with legislative recommendations [I have not found these yet, or who the private interests of every kind were-Sans]. While various proposals have been made over the years, the continuous line of development leading to the present bill is clear and illuminating.
1937 Report of President’s Committee on Administrative Management
-The growth and intensification of administrative regulation of private enterprise and other phases of American life had moved President Roosevelt early in his administration to appoint a committee to study administrative methods, functioning, and organization. Although that committee approached the problem from the standpoint of executive branch management, it was soon deeply involved in the essential public process of administrattive regulation. It issued numerous studies and an intensive report (Report With Special Studies, 1937) whixch President Roosevelt transmitted to Congress with his endorsement and statement that it was ‘a great document of permanent importance’ (p. iii). At that time he also took occasion to remark that the practice of creating administrative agencies-
who perform administrative work in addition to judicial work, threatens to develop a ‘fourth branch’ of the Government for which there is no sanction in the Constitution.
To which the commitee added (p. 40):
There is a conflict of principle involved in their makeup and functions. *** [their marks] They are vested with the duties of administration *** and at the same time they are given important judicial work*** The evils resulting from this confusion of principles are insidious and far reaching *** Pressures and influences properly enough directed toward officers responsible for formulating and administering policy constitute an unwholesome atmosphere in which to adjudicate private rights. But the mixed duties of the commissions render escape from these subversive influences impossible. Furthermore, the same men are obliged to serve as both prosecutors and judges. This not only undermines judicial fairness; it weakens public confidence in that fairness. Commission decisions affecting private rights and conduct lie under the suspicion of being rationalizations of the preliminary findings which the Commission, in the role of prosecutor, presented to itself...."

There is a lot more, but the basic questions are:
After 60 years, has the Administrative Procedure Act corrected the problem, or made the problem worse?
Is the judicial review of the administrative procedure really judicial if the relief sought is in its nature a de novo?
Those musical prophets, the Eagles words are going through my head:

"They stab it with their steely knives but the just can’t kill the Beast.
Last thing I remember I was running for the door, I had to find the passage back to the place I was before.
‘Relax,’ said the night man, ‘we are programmed to receive- You can check out any time you like-but you can never leave."

In Christ, and as always I hope this info has been a blessing and/or a curse depending on which side of the coin you look.

I am SansRecours

Good job, and Informative.

[weishaupt1776]

Sans, do you want me to lock 'er up or should I keep it open for discussion amongst ourselves?

[SansRecours]

Weis, We can start a new thread and reference post numbering from this thread, thereby giving you the discretion to pare this one down from the stuff that is not necessarily on point, and lock it up (its gotta be pushing a couple meg if saving to the PC).

This thread could keep going, but I believe that it will detract from its content if it becomes full of pages of posts going off on tangents.

It might be a good idea too, if someone has questions on specific things relative this thread, to private message me on the topic, and I can start a new forum thread in that direction. In that way, I know the location of that thread. Further, I believe that the status, standing and agency principles I am laying down will work in other facets of the legal arena, not just travel.

Posting on this forum is a blessing to me because it helps in the articulation of my position, and my writing skills. Kinda like practicing on my bass guitar. That's what's in it for me. I am willing to make the time. Iron sharpeneth iron, so it is said. I don't claim to "know it all."

I notice that many of those actively participating, seem to be Christians, and maybe moreso than nominal antinomian church attendees. I say this because there is more than just a legal and/or constitutional reason involved in this struggle to regain our "lost" liberty (Is. 9:6&7; Is. 33:22; 2 Chron. 7:14). After all, we struggle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, powers, mights, dominions, and spiritual wickedness in high places. More important than knowing some basic legal principles or an angle of attack, is to have the faith, fortitude, and confidence that no matter what happens as a result of standing on that surer foundation (I don't think anyone is just doing it for themselves are they?) that the Great God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and our Savior do not decide to "sleep in" on us on the day the "law" runs afoul of us.

I hope others view and use this forum in the same way.

Last, if ANYONE is intending to use and/or apply the information I present herein, PLEASE, let me know how and for what, and give me props if quoting me. I want to perfect my position and not make bad case law.

THEN millions will come to me and throw worshipful (or was that worthless) fed notes at my feet, so that I can try and take over the world (he said in an Orson Welles type voice a la "Brain" from Pinky and the.).

SansRecours

[mrg]

Amen.

And thanks sans.