Speeding ticket from scratch

[Sorry if this post runs a little long, I throw myself to the mercy of the sui juris community. I'll be obscuring some of the details to protect certain partys' anonymity.]

Before I go on with the story, my observation about THE winning criteria was to fight the ticket while treating it as a criminal infraction, not as a commercial presentment. I still tried to reserve commercial rights should they become an issue at the proceedings.

Around September 1997 I was apprehended for speeding on California Interstate 5 by a Ca Highway Patrol officer. He claimed to have clocked me over 101 MPH, which doubles the fine over general speeding and allows for a 30 day license suspension. I don't normally drive cars, but keep a license for ID and rental cars. The car was a rental allowing me to travel to a conference from Orange County to the Bay area. It appeared to be a speed trap, since there was an officer on the other side of the highway a mile up also issuing a ticket.

At the time of this event I was working on some very old Sovereign information and applying it haphazard, so where I made mistakes in form I made up for later in substance. ;) My license then was not marked Without Prejudice or the like, and I did not add a signature to the citation other than my proper name. Since my license was coming for renewal in November, I got that done quickly, since I would still need to rent cars and drive four hours one way in order to appear at court. While getting the renewal, I did get apply a reservation signature, not that it mattered. The stakes would appear high (more about that later), but I psyched myself into thinking the outcome didn't matter, I was here to play my role in the drama. That attitude totally saved my bacon.

I appeared to the courthouse's village early and found the local diner (I grew up in the Ozarks so know village protocol). Having an early breakfast there, I was able to get some info on the one standing judge, who had the repuation of a hanging judge, but was also known to be a fair man. I decided my demeanor would be of utmost respect. While standing in line to sign in for the arrainment, a lawyer behind me chitchatted, and when finding what I would be charged with informed me I would be fined the $1,000 + $370 penalty assessment for such an infraction. I found out later that by showing up the judge would probaby halve it even if I were found guilty.

This court was what I called "turnstile justice". There is no time given the caseload, but when presented with an argument the judge will hear them, although preferring oral arguments to reading the written motions. The assistant DA prosecuting the case was quite able, and the public defenders were sort of laughable, especially one who spent more time proving legal points than getting his client the best deal. The aDA to his credit spent a lot of time answering my written pleadings, while getting in trouble with his boss for spending so much time on my case.

So, I was able to get my additional continuance in pre-trial motion to prepare my case, while not immediately challenging SJM (save that for later). Date was set for the next meeting, and I scampered home and looked up everything I could find from the Internet, given the Web was only about three years old, it was pretty meager. I also bought a copy of Black's Law Dictionary, and a copy of the Penal Code and Vehicle Code.

In the state of California the vehicle code is mostly styled as criminal infractions. Penal Code 17 specifies that apart from lack of incarceration penalties and lack of access to trail by jury, infraction trials are to have all other penal code statutes apply and to conform to normal criminal procedure. Detainment for traffic infractions constitutes arrest and release on own recognizance, with the only remedy of requesting to be immediately brought to a magistrate (something I could have done but wouldn't at the time). My strategy was to work within 17 but to raise the question of SMJ and commercial code applicability through written and filed pleadings. The aDA was required to rebut most of the points in his written pleadings, especially the one regarding SMJ. The judge ruled against my protestation against trial by jury but without providing precedence other than 17, but later I was able to find that it had been appealed in another case and relied on British Common Law precedence for the appeal!

I did not accept the citation in lieu of a criminal complaint, so the DA had to file a standard complaint form with the "dignity of people of the State of California" being the injured party! The aspect of the citation being a summons I respected by appearing, no quibble there (although a goofup on my part by showing a week late could have got me leg irons by the right Honorable)!

I exhausted my motions regarding SMJ, question of civil vs. criminal legal action, commercial code restrictions, right of travel, constructive Federal jurisdiction for interstate highway events (which was hinted could have been pursued given proper filing in Federal court), and residency/in personam jurisdiction. Now my strategy preparing for trial was to argue the case on California speed trap statutes (making it a crime under certain conditions for the police to conduct speed traps, and requiring an Engineering and Traffic Study to determine the fair speed on that section of highway), and to impeach the CHP as a witness. I initiated discovery against the DA with a subpeona for the Study and for a photocopy of the back of the citation. In all fairness on the day of the trial I brought copies of the statute and case study on the speed trap law for the aDA to brush up (I wanted it to be a fair fight!)

On my fifth appearance, we did one final tango before the trial. The judge gave a BS reason why the Study wasn't necessary (which the aDA failed to provide anyway). More importantly, the aDA claimed they couldn't find the back of the ticket to copy it. I requested sanctions against the aDA for failure to answer discovery, specifically to exclude the citation from evidence. The clincher though was that the officer had been "scheduled for training" on the day of the trial. Normally this judge will reschedule a trial when an officer fail to appear because their territory here is so vast. But given that I had just sanctioned the aDA, when I motioned for dismissal on lack of prosecution, my motion was granted. Net outcome; I was out about $400 in travel expenses, but no points, no fine, no loss of license, and one heck of an education!

It appeared I was constipating the legal process so much, and at least appeared that I knew what I was doing, the aDA and the DA decided to give a convenient but face saving event to ditch the case. I didn't even have to invoke Henkel as it was given to me as a professional courtesy of a well behaved pro per defendant. I had already cost the prosecution far more in billable hours than they were going to collect from my reduced fine. The judge praised me for being a gentleman in his courtroom, and I gave him one bone, "Your Honor, if there was any lessoned to be learned from the charged offense based on the conduct of this case, I have learned it." I also was given an open invite by the judge to visit his court any time I pleased.

From my limited readings of sui juris, I think there are members making a big mistake taking an adversarial relationship with the courts and the police. Most of the time legal officials are just doing their jobs, trying not to blow a gasket in the process. They are never completely trained for every possible scenario in their day to day. Many of the parties in the court are ill prepared or flakey. Some appreciate it when a citizen strenously exercises his rights in a courteous and responsible fashion. The ones that act like trolls can be quashed with courtesy, thorough preparation, patience, and sometimes a little luck.

[charlesa6]

Originally Posted by infoscott

[Sorry if this post runs a little long, I throw myself to the mercy of the sui juris community. I'll be obscuring some of the details to protect certain partys' anonymity.]

Before I go on with the story, my observation about THE winning criteria was to fight the ticket while treating it as a criminal infraction, not as a commercial presentment. I still tried to reserve commercial rights should they become an issue at the proceedings.

Around September 1997 I was apprehended for speeding on California Interstate 5 by a Ca Highway Patrol officer. He claimed to have clocked me over 101 MPH, which doubles the fine over general speeding and allows for a 30 day license suspension. I don't normally drive cars, but keep a license for ID and rental cars. The car was a rental allowing me to travel to a conference from Orange County to the Bay area. It appeared to be a speed trap, since there was an officer on the other side of the highway a mile up also issuing a ticket.

At the time of this event I was working on some very old Sovereign information and applying it haphazard, so where I made mistakes in form I made up for later in substance. ;) My license then was not marked Without Prejudice or the like, and I did not add a signature to the citation other than my proper name. Since my license was coming for renewal in November, I got that done quickly, since I would still need to rent cars and drive four hours one way in order to appear at court. While getting the renewal, I did get apply a reservation signature, not that it mattered. The stakes would appear high (more about that later), but I psyched myself into thinking the outcome didn't matter, I was here to play my role in the drama. That attitude totally saved my bacon.

I appeared to the courthouse's village early and found the local diner (I grew up in the Ozarks so know village protocol). Having an early breakfast there, I was able to get some info on the one standing judge, who had the repuation of a hanging judge, but was also known to be a fair man. I decided my demeanor would be of utmost respect. While standing in line to sign in for the arrainment, a lawyer behind me chitchatted, and when finding what I would be charged with informed me I would be fined the $1,000 + $370 penalty assessment for such an infraction. I found out later that by showing up the judge would probaby halve it even if I were found guilty.

This court was what I called "turnstile justice". There is no time given the caseload, but when presented with an argument the judge will hear them, although preferring oral arguments to reading the written motions. The assistant DA prosecuting the case was quite able, and the public defenders were sort of laughable, especially one who spent more time proving legal points than getting his client the best deal. The aDA to his credit spent a lot of time answering my written pleadings, while getting in trouble with his boss for spending so much time on my case.

So, I was able to get my additional continuance in pre-trial motion to prepare my case, while not immediately challenging SJM (save that for later). Date was set for the next meeting, and I scampered home and looked up everything I could find from the Internet, given the Web was only about three years old, it was pretty meager. I also bought a copy of Black's Law Dictionary, and a copy of the Penal Code and Vehicle Code.

In the state of California the vehicle code is mostly styled as criminal infractions. Penal Code 17 specifies that apart from lack of incarceration penalties and lack of access to trail by jury, infraction trials are to have all other penal code statutes apply and to conform to normal criminal procedure. Detainment for traffic infractions constitutes arrest and release on own recognizance, with the only remedy of requesting to be immediately brought to a magistrate (something I could have done but wouldn't at the time). My strategy was to work within 17 but to raise the question of SMJ and commercial code applicability through written and filed pleadings. The aDA was required to rebut most of the points in his written pleadings, especially the one regarding SMJ. The judge ruled against my protestation against trial by jury but without providing precedence other than 17, but later I was able to find that it had been appealed in another case and relied on British Common Law precedence for the appeal!

I did not accept the citation in lieu of a criminal complaint, so the DA had to file a standard complaint form with the "dignity of people of the State of California" being the injured party! The aspect of the citation being a summons I respected by appearing, no quibble there (although a goofup on my part by showing a week late could have got me leg irons by the right Honorable)!

I exhausted my motions regarding SMJ, question of civil vs. criminal legal action, commercial code restrictions, right of travel, constructive Federal jurisdiction for interstate highway events (which was hinted could have been pursued given proper filing in Federal court), and residency/in personam jurisdiction. Now my strategy preparing for trial was to argue the case on California speed trap statutes (making it a crime under certain conditions for the police to conduct speed traps, and requiring an Engineering and Traffic Study to determine the fair speed on that section of highway), and to impeach the CHP as a witness. I initiated discovery against the DA with a subpeona for the Study and for a photocopy of the back of the citation. In all fairness on the day of the trial I brought copies of the statute and case study on the speed trap law for the aDA to brush up (I wanted it to be a fair fight!)

On my fifth appearance, we did one final tango before the trial. The judge gave a BS reason why the Study wasn't necessary (which the aDA failed to provide anyway). More importantly, the aDA claimed they couldn't find the back of the ticket to copy it. I requested sanctions against the aDA for failure to answer discovery, specifically to exclude the citation from evidence. The clincher though was that the officer had been "scheduled for training" on the day of the trial. Normally this judge will reschedule a trial when an officer fail to appear because their territory here is so vast. But given that I had just sanctioned the aDA, when I motioned for dismissal on lack of prosecution, my motion was granted. Net outcome; I was out about $400 in travel expenses, but no points, no fine, no loss of license, and one heck of an education!

It appeared I was constipating the legal process so much, and at least appeared that I knew what I was doing, the aDA and the DA decided to give a convenient but face saving event to ditch the case. I didn't even have to invoke Henkel as it was given to me as a professional courtesy of a well behaved pro per defendant. I had already cost the prosecution far more in billable hours than they were going to collect from my reduced fine. The judge praised me for being a gentleman in his courtroom, and I gave him one bone, "Your Honor, if there was any lessoned to be learned from the charged offense based on the conduct of this case, I have learned it." I also was given an open invite by the judge to visit his court any time I pleased.

From my limited readings of sui juris, I think there are members making a big mistake taking an adversarial relationship with the courts and the police. Most of the time legal officials are just doing their jobs, trying not to blow a gasket in the process. They are never completely trained for every possible scenario in their day to day. Many of the parties in the court are ill prepared or flakey. Some appreciate it when a citizen strenously exercises his rights in a courteous and responsible fashion. The ones that act like trolls can be quashed with courtesy, thorough preparation, patience, and sometimes a little luck.

infoscott, Welcome to the forum! Your Comments, Points, and Success, have been noted.

I have one very important point I needed raise about California speed trap laws. Vehicle Code Section 40801 makes a speed trap (narrowly defined) illegal evidence, and Section 41602 prohibits the police departments from instituting arrest quotas.

Somewhere long ago I also read some clarification in the code about officer reviews and how they can not be tainted by quotas, either.

So put it all together, you should have the right of discovery to subpeona the periodic performance review of the citing (arresting) officer to see if he had been evaluated based on his "productivity". While you're at it, you could subpeona the chief of police of the relevant station to be examined as to whether it was his policy, formal or informal, that officers write a certain number of traffic tickets.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by jmunson

ok, here's a crack at it:



DISTRICT COURT

TRAFFIC PROCESSING CENTER

P O BOX 6676

ANNAPOLIS MD 21401-0676



RE: MARYLAND UNIFORM COMPLAINT AND CITATION CT07188 (*CITATION*)



To Whom It May Concern:



I*m returning the CITATION to you for fraud as it is defective upon its face.



AFFIDAVIT



COMES NOW Jon Carl Munson II, (*Affiant*), Sui Juris, by special visitation, as first party to the instant matter, therefore with full knowledge of the facts, deposes and says:



1. On August 10th, 2004, at approximately 7:13 AM, a MARYLAND STATE POLICE OFFICER bearing the badge number 1146 (* hereafter referred to as 1146 *) did direct Affiant to move to one side of Pennsylvania Avenue, MARYLAND STATE ROUTE 4, in a part of Upper Marlboro.

2. 1146 informed Affiant that Affiant was *pulled over for your speed.*

3. Affiant, in fear of arrest, did, under duress, comply with 1146*s request to supply a driver*s license and registration.

4. 1146 processed the information then returned to the vehicle bearing the CITATION.

5. 1146 presented the CITATION to Affiant, and requested a signature.

6. Affiant attempted to comply with 1146*s request by applying a true signature in red ink.

7. 1146 immediately objected to the red ink.

8. Affiant informed 1146 that red ink was used to supply Affiant*s signature.

9. 1146 again objected.

10. Affiant, in fear of arrest, under duress, did then utilize a black-ink instrument to apply marks to the CITATION.

11. 1146, upon seeing the marks, did ask what words were used.

12. Affiant informed 1146 of what was written and stated that was Affiant*s *signature.*

13. 1146 immediately crossed out part of Affiant*s *signature,* thereby defacing the document.

14. 1146 gave copies of CITATION to Affiant, stating 1146 was only interested in a *signature* and nothing else * anything else was to be marked upon the court copy and rendered to the court.

15. As 1146 did deface the CITATION, it is defective upon its face and therefore fraudulent.



FURTHER Affiant sayeth not.





comments please!!!!



jon

==
as an h0nest judge would note, Direct and to the point. Minimal verbiage and no repetition.

I rewrote paragraph one just alittle, 1146 is the agent's identification number, not her name. review my change please? I edited it in place.

or is that a line of dialog from the Old StarTrek series?

Good Luck, Mr Phelps.

I would refer to the citing officer as "Officer So-And-So", unless you yourself like to be addressed by your state license number. The courtesy will go farther.

[quote=seeker

snip

PS. When my daughter got her ticket I prepared the Affidavit but did not send -- couldn't actually figure out WHERE to send it! Know I think I know -- to the court clerk, to the officer and who else ??? The State's Attorney for Default? (from ticketslayer)

You are right jon -- this could be a learning experience![/QUOTE]

Ice i disagree with you traffic court is just the place to start a fight. reason being you pretty much pick how much you want to pay should u loose. in T/c you can get over being scared of being in court and learn the ropes. all the fun i had in T/c was the foundation of what i can do now, how i think about presentments and more. (sometimes i miss bein in T/c)

seeker

if you have anything for the court always send it Registared mail (no green tag) to the clerck of court 4 copies should do, also send to the PA or DA the same way. once in federal court i sent some docs without doing this and they came back to me over a year later from the dead letter office. :( but i learned.

idknow

your affidavit looks real good and while it is correct in what happened there is nothing there to stop the process from moving forward. like sending the ticket back to the PA for CAUSE not for fraud. (the cause is on the ticket itself) if jon would look at the ticket he would find at least one thing that would shut down the process no going to court or anything read the ticket. and if he wants to go to court then there are more mistakes they make to shut them down at anytime he wants. been there done this for over 15 years.

[Mutt]

For once I find myself in agreement with Ice. If you are trying to learn procedure and poise in the courtroom, traffic court is fine. However, if you have just come to the realization that you have rights and want to defend them, then you need to take the time to learn and arm yourself prior to entering court. The law is a veritable minefield for the unwary, or unlearned if you prefer.

I don't propose that you just remain a sheeple, but let me ask you this: Would you go into a firefight with a strange weapon? I would hope not. You are preparing to enter the enemy's turf. Best learn the rules of engagement first. More beginners are shot down due to procedural errors than anything else. Unless you're a REALLY quick study, you may not have time to really grasp your argument well enough to keep it in your head once you enter court. I gues at this point I should say I don't think much of the affidavit idea, but try it if you like.

Good luck to you in your quest for knowlege.

Mutt