Signing ticket "Innocent/not guilty"

[Big Al]

Anybody who believes that a cop issues a summons is ignorant of the workings of the law. A cop can go before someone who can take a complaint and he can swear under oath to the complant. A clerk of the court or judge can issue a summons. That piece of crap paper they give you along side of the road is not a summons. What it is however is simulating legal process. Care to run with that Shoonra?

[RICKO]

You hit the nail right on the head Big Al .

[theghost]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Courts have held that this stuff, applicable to commercial paper under the UCC, has NO application to traffic tickets. No court decision exists where it did.

The "courts" have never "held" that the earth is actually round either, so I guess it must be flat, just like Columbus theorized, right? (By the way, why don't you post one of those cases for us?) A signature is a signature, no matter what you apply it to, the rules are the same. It's called signing without liability. It's what you do in situations when you're under duress/coercion to sign, or when you don't have access to full disclosure. Traffic ticket situations are highly stressful, highly coercive situations. I don't sign those things at all, but in some states they arrest you for that. Do you see the reason for a restrictive signature/endorsement yet? A forced/coerced signature in null and void in the law, period.

[theghost]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Courts have held that this stuff, applicable to commercial paper under the UCC, has NO application to traffic tickets. No court decision exists where it did.

The "courts" have never "held" that the earth is actually round either, so I guess it must be flat, just like Columbus theorized, right? (By the way, why don't you post one of those cases for us?) A signature is a signature, no matter what you apply it to, the rules are the same. It's called signing without liability. It's what you do in situations when you're under duress/coercion to sign, or when you don't have access to full disclosure. Traffic ticket situations are highly stressful, highly coercive situations. I don't sign those things at all, but in some states they arrest you for that. Do you see the reason for a restrictive signature/endorsement yet? A forced/coerced signature is null and void in the law, period.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Big Al

Anybody who believes that a cop issues a summons is ignorant of the workings of the law. A cop can go before someone who can take a complaint and he can swear under oath to the complant. A clerk of the court or judge can issue a summons. That piece of crap paper they give you along side of the road is not a summons. What it is however is simulating legal process. Care to run with that Shoonra?

This is covered in 61A C.J.S. Motor Vehicles sec. 1313 pages 216-217 (2002).

A traffic ticket, altho not the same as a summons, is mentioned side-by-side with a summons as a method of commencing a traffic case. Explicitly stated, with cites, "The uniform traffic citation is not controlled by statutes which apply to indictments."

The ticket serves the purpose of (very briefly) indicating the traffic infraction and designating the court date for the case. Many states now have an instruction somewhere on the ticket that if the motorist doesn't want to dispute the charge he can (at least for some situations) pay the fine by mail, thereby effectively pleading guilty, and avoiding the court appearance. If the motorist wants to dispute the charge then he'll have to show up in court.

No magic words will make the ticket, the charge, the court date, and the potential penalty vanish. If there were, lawyers -- and their relatives and friends -- would be using them.

As for a different message on this thread, "who is talking about commercial paper?", the magic words that are being suggested apply only to commercial paper. Conceding that traffic tickets are not commercial paper also concedes that those magic words won't work on them.

And, yes, the courts have acknowledged that the earth is round; e.g. XTC Products Inc. v. US (Ct of International Trade 1991) 771 F.Supp 401. Although I would doubt they'd attribute the discovery of that fact to Christopher Columbus. I have no idea why someone would think that courts would think otherwise.

[Big Al]

Would you then say this would meet the test of plenary due process? And why even bother having due process? Forgetting for the moment it is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and most state Constitutions. By the way this discussion is about administrative law and that is why plenary due process does not apply to traffic citations.

For any that are interested, administrative law is the monkey on the backs of America. Learn the truth about this, and find out how to put lawyers out of business. If it wasn't for this crap, nine tenths of lawyers would be out of work. We would only need a fraction of the prison space. And the fastest growing business in the country (government) would be in the bucket.

This is why I harp on this pay-tree-rot crap being for the birds.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

This is covered in 61A C.J.S. Motor Vehicles sec. 1313 pages 216-217 (2002).

A traffic ticket, altho not the same as a summons, is mentioned side-by-side with a summons as a method of commencing a traffic case. Explicitly stated, with cites, "The uniform traffic citation is not controlled by statutes which apply to indictments."

The ticket serves the purpose of (very briefly) indicating the traffic infraction and designating the court date for the case. Many states now have an instruction somewhere on the ticket that if the motorist doesn't want to dispute the charge he can (at least for some situations) pay the fine by mail, thereby effectively pleading guilty, and avoiding the court appearance. If the motorist wants to dispute the charge then he'll have to show up in court.

No magic words will make the ticket, the charge, the court date, and the potential penalty vanish. If there were, lawyers -- and their relatives and friends -- would be using them.

As for a different message on this thread, "who is talking about commercial paper?", the magic words that are being suggested apply only to commercial paper. Conceding that traffic tickets are not commercial paper also concedes that those magic words won't work on them.

And, yes, the courts have acknowledged that the earth is round; e.g. XTC Products Inc. v. US (Ct of International Trade 1991) 771 F.Supp 401. Although I would doubt they'd attribute the discovery of that fact to Christopher Columbus. I have no idea why someone would think that courts would think otherwise.

As soon as a ticket is pleaded not-guilty to it ceases to have any legal standing as a complaint in any court. The end. A ticket acts as a complaint to which a defendant may plead "guilty" or "nolo conendere" that is it. When one pleads "not-guilty" a mandatory complaint is required to proceed.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Codee

As soon as a ticket is pleaded Not Guilty to it ceases to have any legal standing as a complaint in any court. The end. A ticket acts as a complaint to which a defendant may plead "guilty" or "nolo conendere" that is it. When one pleads "not-guilty" a mandatory complaint is required to proceed.

"Pleadings" have to be submitted in the form and manner prescribed by the court rules. Scribbling something on the traffic ticket does not comply with the criteria for a "pleading". Just pleading Not Guilty doesn't make the charge or the court date go away, it only means that you want a trial, which was what was intended when you were given a court date on the traffic ticket.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

"Pleadings" have to be submitted in the form and manner prescribed by the court rules. Scribbling something on the traffic ticket does not comply with the criteria for a "pleading". Just pleading Not Guilty doesn't make the charge or the court date go away, it only means that you want a trial, which was what was intended when you were given a court date on the traffic ticket.

OK one more time. A pleading of not guilty in California MOST DEFINITLY makes the ticket "go awy" in terms of it being a complaint. The court cannot assaign a trial date until I have been arrained. They cannot arraign me unless there is a FORMAL COMPLAINT on the record. They lose jurisdiction as soon as I say "I cannot plead to this" OR "not guilty" unless the prosecuter has a formal complaint signed by the Cop. This is not myth. THis is the way it is done in this state and ANY judge will tell you so. This has been published in hundreds of those little cases you love,,,, nay probably thousands of times.

With all that I got to file court proceedure and crap... how do you get around the fact that there is no court of competent jurisdiction to recieve my plea. The court cannot have ANY jurisdiction before a complaint and the complaint is still in my hand on the side of the road. Are you to tell me that court rules apply before one even gets to court?

Please do share...

[RICKO]

Codee, can we some pull this case up (if you know what I mean) so we can read what went on in the courtroom that very day. Maybe that would silence most of this debate.