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

Re: GOING TO TRAFFIC COURT

Expand Messages
  • tthor.geo
    You would probably get more help on the YahooGroups: legality-of-drivers-license No-Drivers-License They are both specifically focused on Driver License and
    Message 1 of 46 , Aug 13 10:16 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      You would probably get more help on the YahooGroups:

      legality-of-drivers-license

      No-Drivers-License

      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:
      >
      > PERSONAL NOTE TO BEAR: PLEASE FORGIVE THE CAPS. IT IS FOR THE SAKE
      OF SPEED AND ARTHRITUS, NOT YELLING AS IS IN CHAT LINGO!! I AM NOT
      TRYING TO MODERATE YOUR FORUM. TRUST ME! I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME OR
      ENERGY!
      >
      > BUT, I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY TO ALL THAT THE PURPOSE OF MY
      ORIGINAL POST IS TO PUT TOGETHER A STRATEGY FOR THE VICTIMS
      (DEFENDENTS) GOING TO TRAFFIC COURTS IN ALL STATES. WHAT APPLIES IN
      TEXAS DEFINITELY DOES NOT APPLY IN FLORIDA.
    • 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
      • 0 Attachment

        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.