Speeding ticket from scratch

[TheBlackTruth]

<font color=darkblue size=3 face=tahoma>The 72-hour time period has to do with the 72-hour right of refusal per the Truth in Lending Act governing commercial transactions. The idea isn't to pay the ticket inside of that time, its to refuse the contract it inside of that time period.[/color]

[seeker]

BT, exactly! By attempting to pay you FORCE the issue -- they cannot accept payment on a contract not yet valid. So I guess the matter becomes if YOU refuse it or if THEY do by their actions. Just passing on some info that I have close knowledge of!



Seeker

[weishaupt1776]

<font color=purple>[b]Is it O.K. to do some baby steps w/this one?

1. We get pulled over 2. trooper issues ticket 3.sign w/ all rights reserve (I've been thinking if we could aplly the law of brackets to our signature) 4. Within 72 hrs refuse the contract.

This is where I get stuck. Do you go to the traffic clerk & ask for the hard copy ticket & write refused for cause w/UCC or site the code section from the T&L ACT?

Do you file an affidavit with the clerk?

IF so what language do you use?

[TheBlackTruth]

<font color=darkblue face=tahoma>

A contract less than 72 hours old is not invalid. The 72-hour period applies only to the right of refusual without repercussions. I haven't found any legal advantage in paying a ticket within the period (or paying it at all for that matter). In fact, most courts I've come in contact with don't even set the bail amount until after the 72-hour period has expired. I've seen several samples of how to refuse a presentment for cause. As soon as i see one that works well, i'll post it!

[/color]

ok, should i therefore change item 15 to read:



15. As 1146 did refuse Affiant's true signature, and did also willfully endeavor to deface CITATION by marking through parts of Affiant's "signature," thereby creating forgery, CITATION is defective upon its face.



ice: i will battle if given the proper tools and knowledge to do so.



jon

should i add an item around 12 that reads:



Affiant utilized the term signature upon applying marks in black ink to CITATION in order to appease 1146 as such marks were made under duress since 1146 refused Affiant's true signature ab initio.



keep those comments rollin!



jon

seeker - i'm going to send the affidavit in the preaddressed envelope to the processing center. let them route it properly as it doesn't exist as a "case" yet, there is nowhere else to submit it anyway.



jon

nobody has any further commentary?



jon

[Ice]

Are you <u>admitting </u>that you took pen to paper and wrote .... or are you just chanllenging the Signature that is there?



If you admit that you "signed", then they have your signature. If you admit that you wrote, you will confuse the issue.



Challenge the Signature that is there... and claim that it is a forgery. (Check "forgery").



What other issues in regards to the ticket will you raise/challenge?

i have been pondering ( a very dangerous pasttime i know)...



ice: as i see it there are two routes i can go with this at this time (not including paying FRNs, which makes that three) - forgery or, as ticketslayer puts it, claim sovereignty and be above the code.



in the former case, methinks that claiming a forgery leads to argument, which, as jerseee states, is wrong - never argue.



whereas claiming sovereignty and challenging the jurisdiction thereby puts the DA between a rock and a hard place and should result in a win by law.



what sayeth ye all?



jon