Slammed In Traffic Court
- 10 June 2008
Today, I had another 4 ticket event to deal with in
court. This happened once before, last summer, and
I had three tickets dismissed with the fourth one
having gone to appeals. (Traffic tickets)
As an aside, yesterday, I found out that the opposition
defaulted on responding by the 25 February 2008 date, re
the appellate case. Tomorrow I file a motion to dismiss
and get my bail money back,(bond not posted by me).
At today's session, I tried a demurrer to defective
tickets. The statutes require that a formal, verified
complaint is mandatory if demanded prior to trial.
Of course, I demanded one.
Judge: "Look! These tickets are verified and signed,
right here in the corner."
Me: "They are not signed by the complainant as required
by statute. They are signed by the issuer who lacks
the authority to initiate a complaint."
Me: "I challenge subject matter and personam jurisdcition
be proven on the record without a valid complaint."
Judge: "I have already ruled. These complaints are
vaild and there is subject matter jurisdiction. How do
you want to plead?"
Me: "I will not enter any plea without a verified
complaint which is required by statute."
Judge: "Have a seat. We will go to trial once the other
cases are finished."
Once recalled, I immediately objected to the lack of
verified complaints before proceeding to any trial,
and I would not participate in a trial without the
I was given a choice to join in the trial or go with
the bailiffs and spend some time elsewhere. I renewed
my objection, to which she responded, "I have not
charged anyone with contempt of court in four years,
but you are very close if you keep this up!"
Then, she started swearing in whoever was going to
participate in the trial. While I refused to swear
to anything, I said I would attest to what I had to
My thinking, at that point, was that I had already
accused her of error in saying that the issuing
officer (whose oath of office and legitimacy I did
challenge - to no avail, same with the prosecutor),
did not have the authority to issue a complaint,
and was merely a witness. I had objected sufficiently
on the record, and demanded that the proper party
plaintiff present verified complaints. Plus, I cited
the statute requiring that only the complainint could
file the complaint, and a second statute saying a
court had no jurisdiction without a valid comaplaint.
That has to be very ripe for appeals.
One would think my input would bring pause for any
attempt at proceeding with the matter, but this judge
steamrolled right over me.
I ended up with an additional $500 fine, plus court
costs, in addition to the $300 forfeited bail.
My purpose in posting this, along with some of what
actually transpired, is to demonstrate to many who
appear in court, less prepared and less savvy, not
that I am a bellweather for what it takes to stand
up for one's self in court, and wonder why they lose.
Cook county courts are out for blood and have a take
no prisoners attitude.
Bad analogy choice. They take as many prisoners as
is possible. Every other case I listened to today had
no one, absolutely no one defending themselves. A
few couldn't waive all their rights fast enough.
I really expected to fare much better.
On to appeals,
I friend of mine who knows a cop had her check my
license status. I am flagged for immediate arrest
and jail for 30 days if stopped for any reason.
(I would not pay the fine and court costs today,
out of spite, so I do not have my license back.)
- On Oct 19, 2010, at 8:30 AM, Snowman wrote: My brief was rejected 4 times: Didn't serve DA, couldn't submit exhibit not accepted at trial, Type not large enough, one day late.Well they did notify you of the defects, but putting this in the beginning of your filings can help sometimes…
MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE
THIS IS NOTICE THAT THE CONTROLLING CASE, IN ALL MY COMMUNICATIONS
WITH THE COURT, WILL BE
HAINES V.KERNER 404 U.S. 519,520,(1972).
In All My Communication with the court Haines V. Kerner 404 U.S.519,520(1972), In re Haines: pro se litigants are held to less stringent
pleading standards than bar licensed attorneys.
Platsky vs CIA. 953 F. 2nd 26 (C.A.2(N.Y.),1991)In re Platsky: courterrs if court dismisses the pro se litigant without instruction of how
pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings.
, Anastasoff v. United States,223 F.3rd 898(8th circuit) (2000)In reAnastasoff: litigants' constitutional rights are violated when courts depart
from precedent where parties are similarly situated.
- will be the controlling cases in regards to any deficiency in mypleadings.
(actually Spooner would rip them a darn sight stronger, but let's remember
his name , anyway.)