Accept Ticket Conditionally

[Dillon Hunt]

Matt 5 : 25 [Jesus said] "Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison."

It's funny how Jesus knew how to deal with traffic tickets.

Looks like He was ahead of His time!!!

Dillon

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Dillon Hunt

Matt 5 : 25 [Jesus said] "Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison."
It's funny how Jesus knew how to deal with traffic tickets.
Looks like He was ahead of His time!!!
Dillon

There is no court. There is no adversary unless you call "The people" who is no one an adversary. There is no case nor a controversy and that is why they use non-judicial special poceedings against individual persons.
I wonder if Jesus ever concidered "Gee, these "tribunals" don't have any authority over me..." I hope so. Was Jesus walking around scared of the "court" or was he encouraging you to give up your claim. Should I agree with the Devil so as to not have him haul me into a "court." Seems like Jesus was quick to be turned on not by and adversary but by his friends. So do we agree with our advisaries who never had power over me and distrust friends?

Who cares if I dishonor your crappy presentment. It never will have authority over me anyway and niether will the enforcement powers of that presentment. SMJ cannot be conferred PERIOD!

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

You don't get to argue the law with the policeman. You don't get to put conditions on your acceptance of the ticket. If you have any sort of legal arguments bring them up in court, don't waste the policeman's time and yours by trying to recite them on the side of the road.

Yes who wants to argue with cops when your only duty is to notice them the facts. It is the time on the side of the road to plea innocent. It is on the ticket I write "factually innocent" in the signiture bar. Now you have something on the administrative record. Next you do not argue in court. You argue your case at the administrative hearing. Your case being that you were not engaged in licenceable activity and as such there is no SMJ for administrative extra-judicial review. If they pass on the hearing then no court has jurisdiction in the first instance which still must happen. Then you make the same argument to the "court" sitting as agency thus being an administrative adjunct.

2) What wasted time was me getting pulled over. Now its on.

3) Refuse the ticket for fraud AFTER you have noticed the officer of the facts. If he administratively determines with no evidence that there is cause for ticket then that is fraud and you refuse it. If I get notice in mail saying come to court I go and tell court to go home. There is no SMJ and there never will be.

4) If this happens twice I file for criminal and civil restaining orders against aggency director and all minions.

[Fed-Up]

Thats right! These days, the powers that be only require that the officer follow orders. if the order is to turn on the Zyclon B cyanide gass to off 1000 citizens in the 'showers'....then the little fascist bastards get a treat,if they start asking uncomfortable questions such as.... 'is this right?, they will join the people in the showers or be shot for treason.

cops today are the enemy .

Originally Posted by kgod999

shoonra is right, dont get into any arguments with the mafia, i mean, private security officers working for the corporate city. they are armed, dangerous and will kill or kidnap you. they will not know the law or care because most cities give a I.Q. test and if they score too high, they will not be accepted into police academy. cant be going around figuring out that police are actually terroists. and the summons they have, only judges can issue summons, no traffic tickets originate from a courthouse, they orginate from police headquarters,massive fraud on the face all out in tha open, thats why they have low intelligence.

[Dillon Hunt]

I Agree with/accept thier offer to appear "condictionally" (instead of going to jail) upon proof of jurisdiction/injured party, if none I win. If it ends up in court I just put the officer and my witness on the stand as to what I told the officer at the time of citaton.

Basically a refused counter offer is their refusal and their disagreement to do business!!!

[Shoonra]

This could be settled if someone could cite a genuine court decision that somehow said "Because the motorist wrote "Refused for Cause" or "Without Prejudice" or "Conditionally" or someother magic words on his Drivers License or on his traffic ticket, he is allowed to ignore speed limits, right-of-way, or whatever other traffic laws apply to other people.

I'm gonna wait for someone to provide a citation to such a decision.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

This could be settled if someone could cite a genuine court decision that somehow said "Because the motorist wrote "Refused for Cause" or "Without Prejudice" or "Conditionally" or someother magic words on his Drivers License or on his traffic ticket, he is allowed to ignore speed limits, right-of-way, or whatever other traffic laws apply to other people.

I'm gonna wait for someone to provide a citation to such a decision.

No Shoonra you have it all wrong again. This time really try yo get it because it is easy.
It is not that "refused for cause" is written on the instrument which gets the win. It is that the court never onbtains jurisdiction because the ticket is inherintly flawed. All a decision is going to say is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or colaterally estoppeled. Did you read how people have cut and pasted the SMJ arguments and applied them to a diverse number of tickets? I don't know what else to tell you. Lots of people are crushing the tickets in California and all using the same argument.
Now if an infraction ticket has no chance of being prosecuted succesfully and lawfully then why on Earth could one not refuse it for cause and/or fraud? I could wipe my A$$ with the ticket and it would do nothing. I could even erite on the ticket "I waive subject matter jurisdiction" and still go to court and win on SMJ.
I would argue that on a speeding ticket there is no way to make it valid no matter how much a defendan wants to. I CANT EVEN AGREE AND MAKE IT LAWFUL. I can even win on a ticket after decision and get reversals.

THERE IS NEVER, NEVER, NEVER the authority to issue an infraction tickeet to a private person.

Please read this link and you tell me why people are getting cases dismissed with the argument.
CLICK HERE

[ezrhythm]

You'll be waiting a looooong time.

Writing such on the ticket is for the purpose of getting the case dismissed in which there won't be any cites to cite.

There is nothing "magic" about those words, they are an example of how the statutory/commercial law functions.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

This could be settled if someone could cite a genuine court decision that somehow said "Because the motorist wrote "Refused for Cause" or "Without Prejudice" or "Conditionally" or someother magic words on his Drivers License or on his traffic ticket, he is allowed to ignore speed limits, right-of-way, or whatever other traffic laws apply to other people.

I'm gonna wait for someone to provide a citation to such a decision.

Yep. She fails to see how a hired bank employee with a gun can be abated as a nuisance. And by nature of abatement she will be holding her breath for a citation from a court where the cause was abated prior to getting there.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Yep. She fails to see how a hired bank employee with a gun can be abated as a nuisance. And by nature of abatement she will be holding her breath for a citation from a court where the cause was abated prior to getting there.

Of course she keeps missing steps and simplifying it down to an unusable format. Yes in perfect world just writing it works. we however live in world where judgments count and nobody is going to do nothing unless there is judgement mandating. So NO just writing refused for cause will probably never work. However writing it, serving it, and filing it as judgment will work.