Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Slammed In Traffic Court

Expand Messages
  • John H.
    One major problem that we face in traffic court is the fact that most states do not have a recorder in the court room. Thus the judges are free to roam into
    Message 1 of 46 , Aug 12, 2008
      One major problem that we face in traffic court is the fact that most states do not have a recorder in the court room. Thus the judges are free to roam into the wild blue yonder with their handling of a case. I recently, just last week, went to traffic court in Osceola Cty., FL. I had the officer by the tail at times but the judge literally jumped to his defense. The officer even admitted that the calibration could be off on the Laser but the judge jumped in and said that the calibration cert was in order and that is all that mattered. Florida requires the laser to be calibrated, according to manufacturers specs, every SIX MONTHS!!! The one used on me was in it's six month! My frustration level was so high due to the officer literally refusing to answer my questions and the judge jumping in when I could get him to answer that I did not think about the fact that a calibration certificate only shows that the speed measuring device was calibrated. It does not show whether the device was in or out of calibration at the time it was calibrated! I asked the officer to provide me with a copy of the calibration cert for the pace vehicle, which he said he did not have, and the judge said that 'Florida law did not require the officer to have that on hand so it does not matter. The officer had what was required by FL. law for him to have at the trial and that is all that mattered.' I got to the point where I brought forth the truth in regards to a forced signature on the citation. Basically, the citation states that if you do not sign it you may be arrested on the spot and charged with a misdemeanor!!! HMMM, IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE THAT CAN HONESTLY SAY THAT THAT IS NOT EXTORTION??? You are accused of a "CIVIL" infraction and threatened with a CRIMINAL CHARGE IF YOU DO NOT SIGN THE CITATION, and in turn admit that you are the one accused of the CIVIL infraction and therefore offered evidence against yourself, BY FORCE!!! I ASK AGAIN, IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE THAT CAN SAY THAT YOUR 5TH AMENDMENT RIGHT WAS NOT VIOLATED??? I even gave the judge a " Statement of Fact with an Affidavit in Support" that stated these very things and the fact that the citation was signed under DURESS due to threat. I DO believe I saw him squirm but he still found me guilty. I also discovered that, according to the judge, that the citation is NOT considered evidence. (That is their rational to get around the Fifth Amend. issue). The citation is ONLY the CHARGE. The ONLY evidence offered in a traffic violation case IS the officers(s) testimony. (Of course unless he used a speed measuring device that takes photos). PLEASE do not respond to this email with "you should have done this, or that." There is much that I knew I should have done at the time and have learned even more after the fact, BUT, after the judge and the officer started the tag team match on me I lost my focus. ( I AM STILL BEATING MYSELF UP FOR THAT). Here are some suggestions that have logical reasoning. Let us build upon them and maybe we can put a few corrupt judges and officers out of business. Idea number One: IF the officers testimony is the only evidence presented, then is it not logical that if the defendent provided the court with a "Statement with Affidavit in Support," stating the things I mentioned above (citation signed under duress, violation of 5th Amend rights, etc.) and add "to the best of my knowledge and belief I was not going 36 mph in a 25 mph zone; I did not run the stop sign, etc." It is my understanding that an Affidavit takes precedence over verbal testimony. (Can anyone validate that with law, or case law? I actually had this on my Affidavit but removed it, for a reason, as I watched the judge beat up on a traffic attorney! THAT removal may have been my downfall! I AM NOT encourageing anyone to lie. I could state this honestly in my case. I was not watching my speedo but know I was going a reasonable speed for the area. ANYWAY, Second idea. Our state legislators need to be inundated with letters, e-mails, and phone calls from their constituants demanding that COURT RECORDERS be present during traffic court. (Especially from those that can offer testimony such as I have here). Then the judges and officers would be accountable for their actions since public record is now available.  NOW, THEY GET AWAY WITH MURDER SINCE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THEIR ACTIONS IN THE COURT ROOM. (I wish I had the time to organize something like this for my state, but I do not). Let's build upon these two and others that some of you may come up with. THIS TYRANNY NEEDS TO STOP IN TRAFFIC COURTS ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY. Citizens are being denied their right to a fair trial due to the greed and corruption within these courts.
    • stonekutteral
      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
      Message 46 of 46 , Oct 19, 2010

        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: court
        errs 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 re
        Anastasoff: 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 my
        pleadings.



          SIGNED 

              Lysander
        Spooner____________________________________________________-
        (actually Spooner would rip them a darn sight stronger, but let's remember
        his name , anyway.)

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.