Speeding ticket from scratch

[weishaupt1776]

[color=black][b]Your Honor, it is not my intention to refuse to plea & it is also not my intention to be evasive. I have responded to this citation with forced handwriting on it under duress which has extorted a promise to appear for this matter. I am here by special appearance only to respond to the prosecutions point by point rebuttal of my 8 page, 23 point affidavit which challenges jurisdiction.



Judge ignores you.



Your honor, it is not my intention to refuse or an evade your offer. I do conditionally accept your offer to enter a plea upon proof of claim that my previously filed 23 point affidavit is not a pleading with this honorable court



Judge ignores you



Your honor, I have not seen or been presented with any material fact or evidence that my response by affidavit does not constitute a plea, & I believe that no such facts or evidences exist.



HOPEFULLY by now you've softened the blow. IMMEDIATELY AFTER I state the above, I wanna jump in w/this:}



Your honor, is there on file, your oath of office to uphold the Constitution of Florida?.



Judeg replies



I hereby petition this court to take judicial notice of (name's) oath of office to uphold the Constitution.

{I need to look up the rules of evidence here to really nail 'em}

[Ice]

How about -- ask for evidence of a plaintiff and piss off the judge ?



I'm not going to give serious suggestions on traffic issues. Personally, I'll go in there and piss 'em off . . . I want the rest of the sheeple in the court room to find out just how <u>"fair and meaningful"</u> those procedures are and what it is all really based on.



Ice

[weishaupt1776]

[color=black][b]I'm making seperate sheets of all Florida case cites as Memoranda of Law for the Judge.

One is all affidavit cites. Here's a tasty morsel:<BLOCKQUOTE>Affidavits are generally necessary to support challenges to personal jurisdiction because the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, by itself, only raises the legal sufficiency of the pleadings which is not an issue in these proceedings; <U>the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to prove by affidavit or other sworn statement that jurisdiction is proper</U>. Law Offices of Sybil Shainwald v. Barro, App. 5 Dist., 817 So.2d 873 (2002) </BLOCKQUOTE>



Then an SMJ sheet, Evidence sheet, oath sheet. I'm also gonna have a questions sheet in case it starts to get a little hot up in there.

[TheBlackTruth]

<font color=darkblue face=verdana>. . .and a tasty morsel indeed!



-BT[/color]

well, today is court day...whoopee!! i'm a little nervous as the last two times i was in court (before i joined this forum and gained a couple a grains o sand o knowledge) i got railroaded...



i'll post back later today with results...



jon

[TheBlackTruth]

<font color=darkblue face=verdana>Good Luck!



-BT[/color]

[re-ality]

Not to put a wrench in any ones findings of this thread, this is just another way to look at the situation, isn't it fruitless to go into the court about a traffic ticket(LIEN/CONTRACT) when there is already an underlying contract with the very beast that u are arguing with, if someone has SIgNed that white card when at around eighteen or so to get a driver LIcENse card, isn't the very fact that u went to a "MASTER" to ask for a "benefit" to do something that a "SOVEREIGN" can already do, an (UN a LIEN ABLE) right. So when one goes in to argue about this issue, all the DA has to show(evidence of) or the JUDGE has to see(contract in place) is if there is an existing contract with the DMV(has SIgN taken place), if there was no contract with them(DMV) in the first place, how could you be given a ticket if ur not apart of their LIcENsABLE paper scam(not in the computer) just a thought....contract supurseded any statute that you argue about, mybe this is why everyone gets railroaded and they are plead for, because the slave that SIgNed already, all of a sudden wants to be strong now.....not saying this about anyone, but just showing folks what the judge might be thinking all along in his sneaky lil head....just a thought

[TheBlackTruth]

<font color=darkblue face=verdana>re-ality,



You bring up some good points. However, the proceedings are much less about contracts and much more about presumption. You see, there is no need to argue if there is or is not a contract. I'm perfectly ok signing a contract to obey the statutes prescribed to regulate commercial activities on the commercial right-of-ways and I even acknowledge the State's authority to enforce the contract. However if you are ever charged with a violation of this contract (vehicle code), then the plantiff is presuming that you were engaged in an activity governed by the contract. THAT is what you should be attacking. If you were not, at the time of the alleged offense, transporting passengers or goods FOR HIRE, then you were not "driving" within the meaning of the Vehicle Code neither was your automobile a "Motor Vehicle" within that same meaning.



-BT[/color]

[re-ality]

Black,



u pose a very good point, however, your private movement aperatus that u are in has a license in it /on you, is registered, and has tags on it(an assumption) all u need a license, registration, and tags for is commerce. The thing is u gave them the right to lien you with a contract with them, then u followed the guidlines of commerce, so if u leave these things on and carry a license, ur commercial, if u take them off and don't carry it on you, then u might be ale to say that, but then if u get caught on the side of the road, u would be in much more trouble by not giving them the assumption, see the catch 22 in it, so why even be in the situation the first place. If a man has to go get a benefit from something that is not his creater but the creater of a fictitious name then that man will become and be treated like the fictious name that that man is claiming to be.



JUDGE: Then if u are not in commerce why are YOU carrying the license, tags, and plates on it?Most likely this will not even be asked, he will ask for a plea, plain and simple



as soon as u utter anything after that contract/question, u/your name becomes the witness(recognizing the accuser), if u/ur name don't say anything then u are guilty....just another thought

[TheBlackTruth]

<font color=darkblue face=verdana>re-ality,



The law is very clear as to what sorts of activities are to be regulated by the Motor Vehicle Code. The keyword is "activity". It is well-settled in case law that it is the USE of the property that determines its class.



Take the 18-wheeler driver as an example. He loads up at his client's place of business to transport goods from one state to another. On this leg of his journey he is an active, knowing participant in interstate commerce and as such he needs to be licensed and his motor vehicle registered. However, once he has delivered his load and returns home empty, having completed the task for which he was hired, he is NO LONGER participating in commerce and although his license is on him that does not serve as conclusive evidence that he is a "driver" nor his vehicle a "Motor Vehicle".



I have a pilot's certificate/license in my wallet, does that mean that the FAA can cite me in my car for "flying too low" simply because I had the document on me at the time?



Activity is key; and the burden of proof is on the claimant.



Was there a specific and articulable cause to believe that the defendant was transporting passengers or goods for hire?



-BT[/color]