affirmative defense traffic court

[charlesa6]

Now, members speaking in tongue. Very exiting!

wrong sugar. again from the georgia criminal code:
16-2-2.
A person shall not be found guilty of any crime committed by misfortune or accident where it satisfactorily appears there was no criminal scheme or undertaking, INTENTION, or criminal NEGLIGENCE.

16-2-5.
A person of sound mind and discretion is presumed to INTEND the natural and probable consequences of his acts but the presumption may be REBUTTED.

16-2-6.
A person will not be presumed to act with criminal INTENTION but the trier of facts may find such intention upon consideration of the words, conduct, demeanor, motive, and all other circumstances connected with the act for which the accused is prosecuted.


16-2-20.
(a) Every person concerned in the commission of a crime is a party thereto and may be charged with and convicted of commission of the crime.
(b) A person is concerned in the commission of a crime only if he:
(1) Directly commits the crime;
(2) Intentionally causes some other person to commit the crime under such circumstances that the other person is not guilty of any crime either in fact or because of legal incapacity;
(3) Intentionally aids or abets in the commission of the crime; or
(4) Intentionally advises, encourages, hires, counsels, or procures another to commit the crime.

16-3-5.
A person shall not be found guilty of a crime if the act or omission to act constituting the crime was induced by a misapprehension of fact which, if true, would have justified the act or omission.

wait sugar, judge shoonra, it gets better:

16-3-20.
The fact that a person´s conduct is justified is a defense to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct. The defense of justification can be claimed:
(1) When the person´s conduct is justified under Code Section 16-3-21, 16-3-23, 16-3-24, 16-3-25, or 16-3-26;
(2) When the person´s conduct is in reasonable fulfillment of his duties as a government officer or employee;
(3) When the person´s conduct is the reasonable discipline of a minor by his parent or a person in loco parentis;
(4) When the person´s conduct is reasonable and is performed in the course of making a lawful arrest;
(5) When the person´s conduct is justified for any other reason under the laws of this state; or
(6) In all other instances which stand upon the same footing of reason and justice as those enumerated in this article. (PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO ITEM 5 ABOVE, REASON BEING, THE COMMON LAW IS STILL IN EFFECT IN GEORGIA PER THEIR STATUTES. GEE, GUESS YOU GUYS ARE RIGHT JUDGE, THE REMEDY IS HIDDEN IN THEIR LAW ALSO.
I COULD GO ON AND ON, IT EVEN LISTS STATUTE TELLING YOU THAT YOU CAN USE FORCE AGAINST ANYONE WHEN THEY TRESPASS AGAINST YOUR RIGHTS.

[Shoonra]

If you're going to be rude, at least be right.

Traffic offenses are (with very few exceptions) not classified as criminal offenses. Therefore, it is not necessary that mens rea or wrongful intent or even awareness be shown or even alleged. One may be penalized in traffic court for a variety of offenses that he did without realizing, such as exceeding the speed limit, or even something he did not do but merely allowed to happen, such as driving with a defective muffler.

Essentially, traffic court is administrative, notwithstanding it may be presided over by a regular judge. Traffic offenses are largely administrative infractions .... although if you demonstrate sufficient carelessness or disregard for traffic laws, the traffic court can take away your driving privileges.

[fulltitle]

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Originally Posted by Shoonra

If you're going to be rude, at least be right.
Traffic offenses are (with very few exceptions) not classified as criminal offenses.

Was I being rude?

One may be penalized in traffic court for a variety of offenses that he did without realizing, such as exceeding the speed limit, or even something he did not do but merely allowed to happen, such as driving with a defective muffler.

Sounds like admiralty to me? There must be a contract? I think it might be called the umm "motor vehicle code" (i.e. the '900 page' appendix to the driver license application). Criminal burden of proof means the enforces of the municipal ordinances/codes must do so in a manner whereby the violations are treated as thought they were crimes, no? Does that necessarily make the municipal ordinance violation (quasi-criminal) a crime?

Essentially, traffic court is administrative, notwithstanding it may be presided over by a regular judge. Traffic offenses are largely administrative infractions ....

I'm not sure whome you are addressing directly. Nonetheless, it seems then that we agree that they are not referred to as being criminal proceedings? Indeed they are not. Quasi-criminal means 'not criminal'. But ask a 'traffic court' judge in traffic court if they what the nature of the proceedings are. Will he reply with 'criminal' or 'civil'? As from the case cited, municipal ordinance violations can be in certain States given a criminal burden of proof even though the respective proceedings might not be criminal in nature.

What is a criminal burden of proof?

although if you demonstrate sufficient carelessness or disregard for traffic laws, the traffic court can take away your driving privileges.

By "you" do you mean "one"? Or is that to be taken as universal and broad? I dont drive. I dont traffic either. I'm neither a 'road merchant' nor a taxi driver. Even if all the police on the continent were at a convention, I'd still take utmost care when I travel by means of automobile--for my own sake and the sake of others.

[squirrel]

traffic court is administrative, notwithstanding it may be presided over by a regular judge.

Blacks 4th rev, pp.67
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.
That branch of public law which deals with the various organs of the sovereign power considered as in motion, and prescribes in detail the manner of their activity, being concerned with such topics as the collection of the revenue, the regulation of the military and naval forces, citizenship and naturalization, sanitary measures, poor laws, coinage, police, the public safety and morals, ect. See holl.Jur. 305-307.

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.
Politically and as used in constitutional law, an officer of the executive department of government, and generally one of inferior rank; legally, a ministerial or executive officer, as distinguished from a judicial officer. People v. Salsbury, 134 Mich. 537, 96 N.W. 936.

One who performs mere ministerial or administrative functions. In re Gold, C.C.A.N.J., 93 F.2d 676, 680. Officers that are neither judicial nor legislative; executive officers, Spivey v. State, 104 P.2d 263, 277, 69 Okl.Cr. 397. Such as: The clerk of circuit court, State ex rel. and to Use of City of St. Louis v. Priest, 348 Mo. 37, 152 S.W.2d 109, 112. Receivers in bank liquidation proceedings, People ex rel. Nelson v. Crawford State Sav. Bank, 310 I11.App.533, 34 N.E.2d 872. State highway commisioner, Strobel Steel Const. Co. v. Sterner, 125 N.J.L. 622, 18 A.2d 28, 29.


in Ihrem Gesichts****tracy!


Es wird offensichtlich, daß Sie nicht wissen, über was Sie sprechen.


Durch Ihre eigene Hand Sie condem sich.

[squirrel]

Blacks 4th rev. pp.66
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTS.
Acts of an officer which are to be deemed as acts of administration, and are commonly called "administrative acts" and classed among those governmental powers properly assigned to the executive department, are those acts which are necessary to be done to carry out legislative policies and purposes already declared by the legislative body or such as are devolved upon it by the organic law of its existence. Ex parte McDonough, 27 Cal.App.2d 155, 80 P.2d 485, 487.


Necessitas non habet legem.

Necessitas facit licitum quod alias non est licitum.

Necessitas vincit legem; legum vincula irridet.


Es gibt keine Richter in den Richtern Amerikas nur !!

[squirrel]

Nous attachons dans les extrémités lâches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adminis..._Procedure_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...mic_Powers_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_with_the_Enemy_Act

L'ignorance de la loi n'est aucune excuse, ainsi ce qui est à vous

[mrg]

QUOTE=squirrel]Blacks 4th rev. pp.66
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTS.
Acts of an officer which are to be deemed as acts of administration, and are commonly called "administrative acts" and classed among those governmental powers properly assigned to the executive department, are those acts which are necessary to be done to carry out legislative policies and purposes already declared by the legislative body or such as are devolved upon it by the organic law of its existence. Ex parte McDonough, 27 Cal.App.2d 155, 80 P.2d 485, 487.

Necessitas non habet legem.
Necessitas facit licitum quod alias non est licitum.
Necessitas vincit legem; legum vincula irridet.

Es gibt keine Richter in den Richtern Amerikas nur !![/quote]





"those acts which are necessary to be done"

Theme and Variations No. One
Composed by the "Continental Congress"
adaptation by The "Supremes"
(Performed by various "artists")

judge shoonra, traffic offenses are civil. ok, is that why ive been arrested before for driving on a suspended license? seems we agree on the scam of traffic court.

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

One may be penalized in traffic court for a variety of offenses that he did without realizing, such as exceeding the speed limit, or even something he did not do but merely allowed to happen, such as driving with a defective muffler.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
This may be partly redunandt. But it does seem that you are also admitting that there could be some kind of waiver of rights built into the contract? From what I recall, by experience there is a principle that statutory rights cannot be waived by contract.