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

Re: GOING TO TRAFFIC COURT

Expand Messages
  • mn_chicago
    ... You want to present a strategy for all states and then dismiss what applies in Texas does not apply in Florida? What applies in Texas likely does have
    Message 1 of 46 , Aug 13, 2008
      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "John H." <otoman@...> wrote:
      >
      > 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.

      You want to present a strategy for all states and then dismiss
      what applies in Texas does not apply in Florida? What applies
      in Texas likely does have pertinence to what appplies in Florida,
      with some slight changes.

      > PLEASE LET US ALL BUILD UPON THESE TWO IDEAS WHICH WILL APPLY TO
      > ALL STATES.

      What applies in Texas also applies in Illinois,by the way, and there
      is no set format that applies everywhere. You seem to be looking
      for a silver bullet remedy.


      > MAYBE WE CAN COME UP WITH A GAME PLAN THAT WILL KNOCK THE BIASED
      > AND CORRUPT JUDGES (SUCH AS THE ONE I HAD) OFF OF THEIR APPOINTED
      > BENCHES.

      This has been addressed numerous times by FF in the IMOC.



      > One major problem that we face in traffic court is the fact that
      > most states do not have a recorder in the court room.

      That is what bystander notes are for. [I have come to better
      appreciate FF's not "we."]


      > I had the officer by the tail at times but the judge literally
      > jumped to his defense.


      Sounds like you did not jump to your own? "Objection, are you acting
      as a witness for this "officer?" [the one you did not disqualify, as
      you begin to establish your own record by the objection.]

      > 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.

      "Objection! Do you have first hand knowledge of that as a matter
      or fact as you act as a witness? This witness just admitted, for
      the record, that thecalibration could be off!" [More record
      established.]


      > 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???

      It is not extortion. [You did ask.]


      > I also discovered that, according to the judge, that the citation
      > is NOT considered evidence.

      Now there's a clue. Then what IS a citation according to your
      state law? Something you would want to know in order to defend
      yourself, and you may discover why it is not extortion.

      > PLEASE do not respond to this email with "you should have done
      > this, or that."

      Okay, then I won't say you should have been more familiar with
      what conistitutes a legitmate cause because you are waiving that
      part anyway.


      > 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

      Idea number one does not belong at the top of the list, as you have
      it. Eliminating the officer and judge might be a better number 1.


      > 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.

      If only pigs could fly.


      > NOW, THEY GET AWAY WITH MURDER SINCE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THEIR
      > ACTIONS IN THE COURT ROOM.

      That's what bystander notes are for. Oops, I'm repeating myself.
      How can they commit murder and not leave any evidence in a courtroom?


      > (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.

      You are contradicting yourself. You want others to organize and
      contact state legislatures, but you do not have the time.

      > Citizens are being denied their right to a fair trial due to the
      > greed and corruption within these courts.

      I would say that citizens are being denied their right because those
      citizens are waiving rights instead of demanding them. I would also
      say you have not done a lot of homework, probably too busy to even
      read a lot of what is available here without having to go to a law
      library to look up the inforamation you want to know.

      Maybe it is just me today, but I cannot muster any sympathy for your
      post, and I have been in your shoes fighting the fight.


      Still fighting.
    • 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.