Re: GOING TO TRAFFIC COURT
>> There are two responses below to the same "basic" remarks made byMy Response: A person can demand their rights until they turn blue. When you are in a kangaroo court, it does not matter. Especially when there is no recorder to verify action and deed. Yes, someone could have been taking notes but how many friends do you have that would take off work for you when they would not do it for themselves. If you have been to traffic court then you also know that the only person, as a defendant, that knows even half of what is going on is YOU! The rest are clueless.
> two different members.
>> "I would say that citizens are being denied their right because those
>> citizens are waiving rights instead of demanding them."
>My Response: I definitely was not looking for sympathy. How is anyone supposed to understand a situation unless it is explained by the one who went through it. That is all I was doing. My case is over. It is done. I just wanted to use my experience to help others. I spent literally a dozen hours or more on reading posts from this group and my own study of state traffic law and ways to beat traffic violations. In no way would most posts from this group help a person to defend themselves in a Florida traffic court. YES, bits and pieces helped. BUT, I had to wade through 5 feet of mud (filter out what did and did not apply to Florida Traffic Laws. We can continue as we are in this forum, concerning traffic citations, and continue to wade through the mud to filter
> "I would also say you have not done a lot of homework, 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."
what applies to "my" state, or we can use common sense and find common ground.
>My Response: According to the judge, NOT IN FLORIDA. You have been issued with a civil "INFRACTION" and the requirements for an Article 3 lawsuit DOES NOT APPLY.
> Re: "still fighting."
> My Response:
> ME TO! That is why I was trying to find common ground for ALL states.
> In re: "There still must be a valid cause of action."
>My Response: YES, if I want to make it to the moon, I SHOOT FOR THE STARS. You are correct in stating that "there is no silver bullet." But I will set my goals high and know that I did the best I could because I aimed for the impossible and fough to achieve it.
> In re: to "looking for a silver bullet?"
>Your comments are understood but they are also idealistic. In a fantasy world where everything is on the up and up it would be guaranteed to work, if presented properly, because the surroundings are unbiased. IF the judges and courts were honest and impartial we would not have to be fighting for our rights to begin with. This country was founded upon the acknowledgement of fundamental rights, WITHOUT those rights having to be proven or fought for. You have rightly insinuated that the courts today demand that we prove our rights. But you seem to fail to see the fact that since they are unjustifiably demanding proof of our rights then they are already corrupt enough to deny us those rights, even WHEN we can prove that we have them. YES, we should still fight for and continue to stand up for our rights. But to judge a person in the way that it appears that I have been judged, when only a very small portion of a scenario has been given, is placing one on the same level as a judge who makes his decision solely on the "testimony" of an officer, when the defendant has given contrary testimony (not guilty). That is what being biased is. Making a decision, not based on hard evidence, but on the sole verbal testimony of one over the other. In any other court of law, that would be a "he said, she said" case. CASE DISMISSED. But many states have claimed they have found a way around Article 3 requirements for a "civil" suit. Florida is one of them and a TRAFFIC COURT does not have the authority to overturn a state law. They have renamed the charge as a "civil infraction" and have declared that Article 3 does not apply!!! According to the traffic judge, a traffic court only has the authority to UPHOLD the law as it is written.
> "Citizens are not being denied their rights, they are waiving their
> rights because they don't know what their rights are and how to defend
> With all due respect tell this "idiotlogical" (YES, I meant to spell it
> way) statement to all those that are in jail that when all was said and
> in the court, and the prosecution obviously DID NOT present any evidence
> other than Circumstantial Evidence of a defendents guilt and the defense
> flawless in proving that fact and because of a judges instruction the
> defendent is found guilty.With all due respect you make it sound as if you
> believe all judges and court rooms are 100% honest and if a person simply
> the law and demands their rights then the judge and jury will have to see
> their way. NOT! WHY the big stink over the past 10 years plus pertaining
> judges making law from the bench. STOP offering ideology and work towards
> finding a solution. That was my intent for my post.
> "Here is a fundamental maxim: If you can't defend your rights, then
> you probably don't have any rights! Either learn to defend them or
> learn to quit whining."
> I was not whining. Just explaining for the purpose of backround. A
> person can DEFEND their rights all they want but how many people are
> currently in jail for doing just that. The defense of ones rights does
> not necessarily mean that they will granted, or achieve those rights.
> You make it sound as though no one has ever lost a case, or was always
> acknowledged those rights just because they fought for them. DREAM ON.
> Even when a case is perfectly presented that does not guarantee a
> verdict in yourt favor. When a question is asked to an officer and
> refuses to answer your question with a smile and the judge says, he
> does not have to answer that, a person can scream and defend their
> rights all they want and the judge just responds 'Oh well.'
> I AM NOT WHINING, just explaining.
- 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.)