Re: GOING TO TRAFFIC COURT
- You would probably get more help on the YahooGroups:
They are both specifically focused on 'Driver License' and 'court'
issues in all states.
[At this point it looks like you are 'way behind the curve on this
matter. Those Groups are focussed on the Administrative Procedures
Act and its application to 'traffic' matters [for various states].
"John H." <otoman@...> wrote:
>OF SPEED AND ARTHRITUS, NOT YELLING AS IS IN CHAT LINGO!! I AM NOT
> PERSONAL NOTE TO BEAR: PLEASE FORGIVE THE CAPS. IT IS FOR THE SAKE
TRYING TO MODERATE YOUR FORUM. TRUST ME! I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME OR
>ORIGINAL POST IS TO PUT TOGETHER A STRATEGY FOR THE VICTIMS
> BUT, I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY TO ALL THAT THE PURPOSE OF MY
(DEFENDENTS) GOING TO TRAFFIC COURTS IN ALL STATES. WHAT APPLIES IN
TEXAS DEFINITELY DOES NOT APPLY IN FLORIDA.
- 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.)