RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Slammed In Traffic Court
> Here in Texas we have the new bastardized creation "Municipal Court ofThis is news to me. I appreciate the heads-up.
> Record", which is totally unconstitutional, and was created solely to
> prevent appeals. Although the name says "court of record", the only
> record is an audio recording, and in order to appeal you must purchase
> a "transcript" for several hundred dollars. The state Criminal Code,
> which governs the form and manner of appeals, states that none of this
> is necessary, but that is routinely ignored.
> The Constitution also states, as well as the Criminal Code, that theI find the uniformity requirement at Article 5, Section 31a and 31b in the
> rules of court shall be uniform throughout the state.
> The "court of record" rules are different for each municipality across
> the state.
Constitution, but my search for "uniform" yielded no such results in the
Code of Criminal Procedure (the Criminal Code):
Article 5 - JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Section 31 - COURT ADMINISTRATION; RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY; ACTION ON MOTION
(a) The Supreme Court is responsible for the efficient administration of the
judicial branch and shall promulgate rules of administration not
inconsistent with the laws of the state as may be necessary for the
efficient and uniform administration of justice in the various courts.
(b) The Supreme Court shall promulgate rules of civil procedure for all
courts not inconsistent with the laws of the state as may be necessary for
the efficient and uniform administration of justice in the various courts.
- 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.)