Speeding ticket from scratch

this is a copy of an email i sent to two very important folx here on suijuris this morning:



i received a speeding ticket this morning at 0713 hours (ain't it nice how the gov't dox stuff for us?) - doing 70 in a 55 (the vast majority of the population in the area does that on this road).



here's the rundown:



as i can't afford an arrest, and don't know nearly as much as you all do, i decided upon a more gentle path to dealing with the officer. i handed over the requested papers. when the officer came back and asked me to sign, i attempted to sign in red ink (that got her a bit riled) - she said she required black, i said i sign in red, she said black. i changed pens, signed my name as "Jon Carl; Munson II UCC 1-203 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED". the officer asked if i added something after the name and i said that is "UCC 1-203 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" and that is my signature. i repeated that for her. she then crossed through my last name & the other verbage and said "in the future, on your core ticket all i'm interested in is your signature, nothing else" (or the like).



as i can't get to suijuris to read through i'm sure the many things there - now what? should i send a VOD (the very short version) with a CPN just like everything else? or should i just pony up and pay the $75 FRNs that they seek? or is there a better alternative?



now, i'm interested in "contesting" (i use that term loosely jerseee - i don't intend to argue vehicle code...) this ticket, so any thoughts and advice would be useful.



i took a brief look at ticketslayer.com and it seems they've got the dox everyone here sayeth to create and use (with a few selective title changes of course).



thanks guys!



jon

[TheBlackTruth]

Well, for starters, i would suggest he drop the UCC citation and just put, "All Rights Reserved" or "Without Prejudice" or "Under Duress" or to that effect. I'm sure he MEANT to put UCC 1-207, but its since changed to 1-308 and I am now not too sure we should even claim an exemption under that code.

regardless of what i would intend to tag after my "signature," the officers will line it through - as evidenced by this morning's incident.



believe me, i thought of saying a few things, but realized the futility of dealing with a servant and not the master...



and, of course, as time has allowed, i have reflected upon others things to try the next time...



the only problem i have is confronting authority - very tough for me indeed, especially by myself...



jon

[Ice]

If they line through you "Signature" then you can claim that you did not put your "Signature" upon that ticket. Your "Signature" is made in a specific form and fashion and carries "weight" ... check the definition of "Signature".



If they line through the Signature, claim the ticket to be a "forgery" and see what happens. All you have to do is claim that you always sign your "Signature" with "All Rights Reserved" and if it doesn't bear that phrase then it is NOT your "Signature".



Give them something to freaking think about!! A "Signature" is required upon the ticket... not "your name". There is a difference in "writing your name" and giving your "Signature". Maybe we should come up with a decent strategy to PUSH this POINT into their stupid little THICK skulls.



Ya think?



Ice

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, MARYLAND STATE POLICE OFFICER 1146 (“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

ice: regarding your email - if one doesn't learn, one will never be prepared. i have an opportunity here to tackle this from the start, with something being done within the first 72 hours to rebut the alleged contract. while i expected you to say what you did, i did not appreciate that stance. i can be prepared, provided i know what is coming. if you know what is coming and can inform, then please do so so that i may get my sling and face goliath. i learn in many ways - reading, cogitating, seeing, doing. but i will most certainly not learn by staying a sheeple.



kpm

[Ice]

I did not suggest that you "remain a sheeple". I merely stated that if you were not prepared for the battle then pay the FRN's and educate yourself for the next time.



This advice is not any different than I have posted in the past. Sometimes we are better off to "follow the path of least resistance" and concentrate on the bigger issues.



I would advise every member to NOT MAKE A TARGET of themselves when it comes to TRAFFIC violations. Then we can spend more productive time on issues a bit more larger than "traffic" that could have more impact in our attempt to reach our goal of freedom.



<font size=3>Whether you appreciate the stance I take in regards to this issue is irrelevant. You asked, I answered. You did not reply and state that you were prepared for such a battle so I did not comment further.



Ice[/color]

[Ice]

By the way, maybe you should research "forgery"... because that is pretty much what the officer did to your signature... made it a forgery. You don't need to admit to having "written your name upon the ticket". The basis for it being a "forgery" is the fact that the words "All Rights Reserved" are not clearly written by your name... as you would do when applying your "Signature" to any document. Make sense?

[TheBlackTruth]

<font color=darkblue size=3 face=tahoma>JMUNSON,



I like your affidavit. Make sure you have the Certified Mail number as part of the document as well as a Notary Acknowlegement.



This isn't critical, but i think the "cause" for your returning of the instrument is for LACK OF SIGNATURE as well as THREAT, DURESS AND COERSION. Looks good![/color]

[seeker]

Well, two things -- one, an acquaintance was given a ticket and not asked to sign it -- when research (gently) the story was that it was not required to be signed. AND, nearly ever piece of info written on the face of the citation was incorrect-- the only correct thing on the whole thing was the name -- and that was written in a strange and curious manner of upper and lower case -- not necessarily in the English form. Bith date- incorrect;DL # -- incorrect; Address, incorrect; place of stop, incorrect.

And second, remember the thing about trying to pay the thing before the 72 hours has lapsed -- again, curious as to what occurs. Had another acquaintance who tried to pay within 24 and was told to "come back in a couple days" -- hmmm. No valid contract before the 72 hr mark? He did not know better, but should perhaps have insisted on the clerk marking his invitation as payment refused -- date -- name.

Random thoughts.



Seeker



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!