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

Traffic Ticket

Expand Messages
  • J
    Looking for some info on fighting a traffic ticket in Penn. My wife just got a ticket for going past a red light and the cop said if she did not pay it in ten
    Message 1 of 26 , Jun 15, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Looking for some info on fighting a traffic ticket in Penn. My wife just
      got a ticket for going past a red light and the cop said if she did not pay
      it in ten days, a warrant would be issued for her arrest. The ticket amount
      is $105.00 and he said that there would be no points..Any thoughts please.
      She is a timid person and I do not know how she would do in court, so is
      there some way to fight it with paperwork ?? Thanks Jay in Penn
    • tom
      Pay the ticket. It s not worth getting your wife stressed out over.
      Message 2 of 26 , Jun 16, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Pay the ticket. It's not worth getting your wife stressed out over.

        J wrote:

        >Looking for some info on fighting a traffic ticket in Penn. My wife just
        >got a ticket for going past a red light and the cop said if she did not pay
        >it in ten days, a warrant would be issued for her arrest. The ticket amount
        >is $105.00 and he said that there would be no points..Any thoughts please.
        >She is a timid person and I do not know how she would do in court, so is
        >there some way to fight it with paperwork ?? Thanks Jay in Penn
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Dave Miner
        Whatever happened to paying for your errors, mistakes and violations? Do we have to get out of everything? DO we have to evade all personal responsibility?
        Message 3 of 26 , Jun 16, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Whatever happened to paying for your errors, mistakes and violations? Do we
          have to get out of everything? DO we have to evade all personal
          responsibility?

          Just wondering out loud...

          Yours in financial freedom,

          Dave Miner
          www.IRx-Solutions.com


          -----Original Message-----
          From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
          [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of J
          Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 6:09 PM
          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Traffic Ticket

          Looking for some info on fighting a traffic ticket in Penn. My wife just got
          a ticket for going past a red light and the cop said if she did not pay it
          in ten days, a warrant would be issued for her arrest. The ticket amount is
          $105.00 and he said that there would be no points..Any thoughts please.
          She is a timid person and I do not know how she would do in court, so is
          there some way to fight it with paperwork ?? Thanks Jay in Penn
        • Liam99liam@aol.com
          Always just paying the ticket is why we are dealing with the problems we have now. Example: seat belt infractions used to cost $35.00 and now are $100.00.
          Message 4 of 26 , Jun 16, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Always just paying the ticket is why we are dealing with the problems we have now. Example: seat belt infractions used to cost $35.00 and now are $100.00. Where do we draw the line in the sand, at $500.00, a $1000.00, more? What price freedom?
             
            Bill
          • Tim Costello
            Dave, I appreciate your questions. I have thought about that a lot. Let me start by saying that if someone injures or damages another soveriegn human
            Message 5 of 26 , Jun 17, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Dave,
               
              I appreciate your questions.  I have thought about that a lot.
               
              Let me start by saying that if someone injures or damages another soveriegn human being...they should be help accountable for that damage or injury.  Period.
               
              However.  If we are not subject to operating a motor vehicle by their commercial code...why let them control us and extract money from us?
               
              They certainly get more from me by buying gas than they do by registering my car or obtaining a driver's license.
               
              We have allowed our soveriegnty slip away one misperception at a time.
               
              Cheers,
               
              Tim


              From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave Miner
              Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 8:07 PM
              To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Traffic Ticket

              Whatever happened to paying for your errors, mistakes and violations?  Do we
              have to get out of everything?  DO we have to evade all personal
              responsibility?

              --
              No virus found in this outgoing message.
              Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
              Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.7/21 - Release Date: 6/17/2005

            • Tiberius Pontificus
              Dave, While I agree that if his wife had injured or damaged somebody by running the red light that he and his wife should definitely indemnify that injured
              Message 6 of 26 , Jun 17, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Dave,
                While I agree that if his wife had injured or damaged somebody by running the red light that he and his wife should definitely indemnify that injured person(s), and while I agree that while one should not run red lights, trying to beat the ticket is not "evading" responsibility.  To prove that, simply picture the following scenario: his wife goes into traffic court; she asks the judge several questions: "Am I entitled to a fair & meaningful hearing?"  "Am I presumed innocent until proven guilty?"  "Am I entitled to get responsive answers to my questions?"  "Are you bound by the rules of this court?"  All of which he'll answer of course "yes" ("judges" think that they're "fair and impartial" and that, even though they get their pay from the same source as the cop, prosecutor, revenue agent, armed goons, etc. that they can "preside" objectively).  Then she asks "Do the rules of this court allow you to testify on behalf of the prosecution?"  The judge will of course answer "no."  Then she turns to the prosecutor and asks "Is there evidence of a complaining party?"  At this point, the prosecutor will most likely turn beet red, and look to the judge to bail him out; the "judge" will say, "Why that's the State of xxx (or City of xxx, or County of xxx, etc.).  Then she says, "Objection, the question calls for a yes or no answer; and I believe that about one minute ago, you said that you can't testify for the prosecution." 
                 
                So how about it Dave: is there evidence of a complaining party in this case?  If "yes," then please present that evidence; if "no," then the game (and the scam) is over.  In over 10 years of asking that question in traffic "courts" across the country, as well as other "courts," not once has Marc Stevens (author of "Adventures in Legal Land") and his clients has never received a responsive answer to that question.  Now, for extra credit, can you tell me why that question has never been answered?

                Dave Miner <dminer@...> wrote:
                Whatever happened to paying for your errors, mistakes and violations? 


                Yahoo! Sports
                Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football

              • Liam99liam@aol.com
                Yes, personal responsibility is indeed a rare commodity today. If you truly know and believe you owe a debt of restitution, then pay it. If, on the other hand,
                Message 7 of 26 , Jun 17, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Yes, personal responsibility is indeed a rare commodity today. If you truly know and believe you owe a debt of restitution, then pay it. If, on the other hand, someone else is attempting to claim or convince you an error has been committed, and you honestly believe differently, then having your opponent prove their claim is in order. "Just because you are a character, doesen't mean you have character" from the movie Pulp Fiction.
                • Robert Mulder
                  I have two things to say about this: 1) If we don t stand up for our principles, who will? What would our forefathers say if they saw our situation where we
                  Message 8 of 26 , Jun 17, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment

                    I have two things to say about this: 1) If we don’t stand up for our principles, who will?  What would our forefathers say if they saw our situation where we thought we were ‘free’ yet did nothing about the slavery/bondage we have unknowingly/unwittingly gotten ourselves into?  2) However, we must learn to pick our battles.  I thought to myself, ‘bring it all on’ - now I’m wishing I had picked my fights a little better, as it is mentally exhausting and taxing on the spirit to attempt to have too many irons in the fire…

                     

                    Just a tip from someone in the thick of battle and deep in the trenches.

                     


                    From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Liam99liam@...
                    Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 11:33 PM
                    To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Traffic Ticket

                     

                    Always just paying the ticket is why we are dealing with the problems we have now. Example: seat belt infractions used to cost $35.00 and now are $100.00. Where do we draw the line in the sand, at $500.00, a $1000.00, more? What price freedom?

                     

                    Bill

                     

                  • hilton27360
                    The traffic ticket is a bill. Period. And is based on the dmv agent s assumption that you are a consenting party to an implied/adhesive contract that assigns
                    Message 9 of 26 , Jun 18, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      The traffic ticket is a bill. Period.

                      And is based on the dmv agent's assumption that you are a consenting
                      party to an implied/adhesive contract that assigns monetary penalties
                      to non-performance, in return for the benefits of being protected.

                      Per UCC, you have three days to contest this contract, if not the
                      terms are set in stone. Stand and deliver.








                      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, J <272yb@c...> wrote:
                      > Looking for some info on fighting a traffic ticket in Penn. My wife
                      just
                      > got a ticket for going past a red light and the cop said if she did
                      not pay
                      > it in ten days, a warrant would be issued for her arrest. The ticket
                      amount
                      > is $105.00 and he said that there would be no points..Any thoughts
                      please.
                      > She is a timid person and I do not know how she would do in court, so
                      is
                      > there some way to fight it with paperwork ?? Thanks Jay in Penn
                    • Frog Farmer
                      ... When the price is denominated in an elastic unit of imaginary debt currency, what is the difference what number is used to multiply by zero? The real
                      Message 10 of 26 , Jun 18, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Jun 16, 2005, at 10:33 PM, Liam99liam@... wrote:

                        > Always just paying the ticket is why we are dealing with the problems
                        > we have now. Example: seat belt infractions used to cost $35.00 and
                        > now are $100.00. Where do we draw the line in the sand, at $500.00, a
                        > $1000.00, more? What price freedom?
                        >

                        When the price is denominated in an "elastic" unit of imaginary debt
                        currency, what is the difference what number is used to multiply by
                        zero? The real value remains the same. Zero. Now if YOU want to give
                        value to the imagination of your enemies, that is your right to do it.

                        So many choose to exercise that right. The 13th amendment only did
                        away with INvoluntary slavery. Today most willingly trade their
                        life(time), liberties, and property for "no thing" (what the Fed gives
                        for its "notes"). They remain confident that they will be able to get
                        "something for no thing" later from amongst the masses who will give
                        some thing for no thing everyday. No one muses on the morality of it.

                        BTW, consenting to an infraction procedure is a waiver of other rights.
                        So the "price of freedom" isn't even an issue in the above scenario.
                        Freedom was already forfeited.
                      • Dave Miner
                        Frog -- You are sort of correct. But as a slight correction, I traded my life (time) for what you call nothing that I then traded for 3 houses, a dozen cars
                        Message 11 of 26 , Jun 18, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Frog --

                          You are sort of correct. But as a slight correction, I traded my life
                          (time) for what you call "nothing" that I then traded for 3 houses, a dozen
                          cars and tons of restaurant meals, to mention just a very few of the
                          "somethings" that I got. So I can't subscribe to your belief that it was
                          something for nothing. As long as the world. More specifically the fed govt,
                          and in particular other people and companies, agree on a value, then I
                          cannot see the truth in claiming it is worth nothing. Just because our
                          currency is not backed by gold DOES NOT mean it is worth nothing. If so,
                          then please send all your currency to me. I will even pay for the shipping,
                          so it will cost you nothing to ship me nothing.

                          Yours in financial freedom,

                          Dave Miner
                          www.IRx-Solutions.com


                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                          [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Frog Farmer
                          Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 3:39 PM
                          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Traffic Ticket

                          When the price is denominated in an "elastic" unit of imaginary debt
                          currency, what is the difference what number is used to multiply by zero?
                          The real value remains the same. Zero. Now if YOU want to give value to
                          the imagination of your enemies, that is your right to do it.

                          So many choose to exercise that right. The 13th amendment only did away
                          with INvoluntary slavery. Today most willingly trade their life(time),
                          liberties, and property for "no thing" (what the Fed gives for its "notes").
                          They remain confident that they will be able to get "something for no thing"
                          later from amongst the masses who will give some thing for no thing
                          everyday. No one muses on the morality of it.
                        • Frog Farmer
                          ... I can t speak for anyone but myself. But for me it s come down to who has the right to address me about my supposed errors? I m in Mexico north of
                          Message 12 of 26 , Jun 21, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Jun 16, 2005, at 7:07 PM, Dave Miner wrote:

                            > Whatever happened to paying for your errors, mistakes and violations?
                            > Do we
                            > have to get out of everything? DO we have to evade all personal
                            > responsibility?
                            >
                            > Just wondering out loud...
                            >
                            > Yours in financial freedom,
                            >
                            > Dave Miner
                            > www.IRx-Solutions.com
                            >

                            I can't speak for anyone but myself. But for me it's come down to "who
                            has the right to address me about my supposed errors?" I'm in Mexico
                            north of Sacramento, a seemingly lawless land. North of San Francisco
                            Bay. Various political entities have human memberships locally. I am
                            a member of none.

                            In all the years I had to defend myself in what I then believed were
                            lawful courts, there was no natural human being who could ever sign a
                            complaint against me, BUT there were brainwashed human beings who acted
                            for some of these political entities, supposedly either as an officer
                            of the entity, or a paid attorney representing the entity and/or the
                            officer of the entity. I was even more stupid and gullible back then.
                            I believed a lot more lies than I do today. I never checked out their
                            qualifications and figured they had to be qualified just to be there.
                            Then I saw the movie, Being There. Now I question qualifications first
                            thing.

                            For some reason, I feel that I must defend all of my rights at all
                            times. Do we have to "get out of everything"? I do, if "everything"
                            is based on lies that I can prove are lies. I do not need to wait for
                            a majority to believe my interpretation of the facts. Because these
                            neighbors of mine that today claim special powers in order to reap the
                            financial rewards of their next paycheck, who "just do their job"
                            because that's what they "were told to do", can be absolutely PROVEN
                            to be IMPERSONATORS and OTHERWISE UNQUALIFIED to ACT in the GUISE of
                            OFFICER or ATTORNEY REPRESENTATIVE.

                            My experience shows, like in poker, if you give them the chance to
                            fold, no cards need be shown.
                            They KNOW they have the losing hand because if you are needed to do it,
                            you can show it to them yourself. Are they going to call your royal
                            straight flush with a king high card? That's the situation as it is.
                            But show me any "patriots" who dared to call and raise on the false
                            claims of their impersonating neighbors! I always see "the people"
                            folding first, on the bluff of the impersonator with the real losing
                            hand. It is pretty disappointing to see. I see all these "big names"
                            going to "court" and NOBODY challenges the human beings arrayed against
                            them to produce REQUIRED ARTICLES OF EVIDENCE, evidence of being
                            qualified to even open their mouths in the situation.

                            This is where all the cases are won or lost on the merits. Any "wins"
                            past that are "permitted" by the "subject's" master.

                            Why do people permit impersonators to intimidate them with a king high
                            card, when they hold 4 aces? Fear. Fear of losing whatever they have
                            left. So the sheep permit predation by one wolf whom they could tromp
                            and stomp enough to make him develop a taste for mice.

                            > Whatever happened to paying for your errors, mistakes and violations?

                            I always pay for mine, but I don't need impersonators in sham
                            proceedings getting involved. Do you, really? I can pay for the
                            damages I cause, except for the emotional ones or the psychological
                            ones that this or that person may attribute to me. I'm not a
                            subscriber to the theories of psychology, and do not have to be,
                            anymore than I'm required to take any other theory as if it were fact.
                            I hear that a license is required to be taken seriously where
                            psychological theories are applied to sets of facts.

                            I know that certain "laws" do not apply to me, because I do not apply
                            to waive any rights over my signature like "everybody else". If the
                            majority, who have trouble finding Idaho on a map, questions my
                            exercise of rights, not privileges, and interprets them as
                            "violations", that's their problem, not mine.

                            The only thing I'm liable for is damages, and I'm not that much of a
                            clutz so far.

                            Your milage may vary.

                            Regards,

                            FF
                          • Frog Farmer
                            ... Dave, the reason is because you see many transactions as if they were one. The real fact is that you waived your rights to property when you accepted
                            Message 13 of 26 , Jun 21, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Jun 18, 2005, at 5:45 PM, Dave Miner wrote:

                              > Frog --
                              >
                              > You are sort of correct. But as a slight correction, I traded my life
                              > (time) for what you call "nothing" that I then traded for 3 houses, a
                              > dozen
                              > cars and tons of restaurant meals, to mention just a very few of the
                              > "somethings" that I got. So I can't subscribe to your belief that it
                              > was
                              > something for nothing.

                              Dave, the reason is because you see many transactions as if they were
                              one. The real fact is that you waived your rights to property when you
                              accepted commercial paper on the gamble that you could get something
                              for which the note maker would give you nothing but another piece of
                              paper.

                              The fact that you knew you could find another sucker who would do the
                              same does not absolve you from the facts as can be shown to exist by a
                              perusal of the laws of commercial paper and equitible rights versus the
                              trading of substance without debt and its attendant incapacities.

                              In other words, in your mind, you can justify it because LATER, AFTER
                              the act in question (your waivers of rights in return for expedience
                              and convenience, and your departure from the common law of substance
                              for the equitible jurisdiction of debt) you were able to exchange
                              worthless notes for real values, from people who like you maybe didn't
                              know any better. You speculated and profited. Congratulations. I
                              myself see no reason to enter into a dishonest system when an honest
                              system exists as an alternative.

                              > As long as the world. More specifically the fed govt,
                              > and in particular other people and companies, agree on a value, then I
                              > cannot see the truth in claiming it is worth nothing.

                              They don't agree on a value. To prove it, get the federal government's
                              own figures on inflation over the last 50 years. Don't you pay
                              attention when they announce the creation or destruction of billions of
                              the imaginary elastic debt certificates? Don't you know that ounces of
                              gold and silver remain the same over 50 years? What is it that you
                              think changes in value?

                              > Just because our
                              > currency is not backed by gold DOES NOT mean it is worth nothing.

                              Correct. The fact that you can get nothing from the maker reveals the
                              true value of the NOTES.

                              > If so,
                              > then please send all your currency to me.

                              First of all, to be currency, it has to be "current", but there is no
                              law making evidences of debt the opposite of debt (money current by
                              law). What makes you think I'd accept it? I haven't for over 25
                              years now, thanks to congressman Jack Metcalf from Washington state who
                              educated me and a number of my friends a long time ago on the harms
                              caused by using debt fiat. Time flies when you're having fun. I do
                              not need your dishonest middleman ther Fed to enter into my dealings.
                              I do not need to enter debt into my equation.

                              > I will even pay for the shipping,
                              > so it will cost you nothing to ship me nothing.

                              Dave, today your accepted medium is only 3% represented by pieces of
                              paper. The rest is electronic blips. Since they are imaginary,
                              imagine yourself all you want. Don't know how to do it? Ask the Enron
                              folks. All you need is three people who will sign papers. Then you
                              too can create unlimited credit based upon other imaginary blips in
                              computer files. It will be dishonest and you will be stealing, but as
                              you say, as long as everybody else does it...

                              > Yours in financial freedom,
                              >

                              Finances is debt. Debt is not the province of rights. I think you
                              must be more interested in the "civil rights" of freed slaves than the
                              older "rights of free Englishmen".

                              There IS a difference.

                              Regards,

                              FF
                            • WW011@aol.com
                              In a message dated 6/18/05 11:04:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time, tim@mygreatstuff.com writes:
                              Message 14 of 26 , Jun 25, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In a message dated 6/18/05 11:04:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
                                tim@... writes:

                                << Whatever happened to paying for your errors, mistakes and violations? >>
                                Down The Drain!

                                Iv not heard of any state not putting a point or something on your record
                                unless you go to traffic school.

                                You could do a trial by mail/declaration. Always a chance you could win.
                              • strengthcoach4
                                Anyone know any tips and tricks on getting out of a traffic ticket. Over a year ago I recieved one in South Carolina and sent it back rejecting their terms
                                Message 15 of 26 , Sep 23, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Anyone know any tips and tricks on getting out of a traffic ticket.
                                  Over a year ago I recieved one in South Carolina and sent it back
                                  rejecting their terms under regulation-Z. I dont think I am welcome
                                  back in South Carolina.

                                  This one is in Florida. I signed it By: my name and under it without
                                  prejudice. A good start. I am not sure which direction to go with
                                  this.

                                  Start with a commercial affidavit of truth showing I am not in their
                                  jurisdiction...or just go try to accept it for value (which no one or
                                  their mother knows about and will look at me like a confused bulldog).

                                  Thank you for your direction.
                                • Bob: Gross
                                  DO NOT USE ACCEPT FOR VALUE! that means you accept the charge and will pay it. better to use I choose not to contract with you for failure to state a claim
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Sep 23, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    DO NOT USE ACCEPT FOR VALUE! that means you accept the charge and will 'pay' it.  better to use 'I choose not to contract with you for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." printed across the face, and filed with the traffic court clerk, which must be done < 72 hours of ticket issue or they already have default in 7 days and summary judgment in 10days.  That is why they say not to do anything for 10 days. They want you to forfeit your rights.
                                    Bob 
                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of strengthcoach4
                                    Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 5:39 AM
                                    To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Traffic Ticket

                                    Anyone know any tips and tricks on getting out of a traffic ticket. 
                                    Over a year ago I recieved one in South Carolina and sent it back
                                    rejecting their terms under regulation-Z. I dont think I am welcome
                                    back in South Carolina. 

                                    This one is in Florida.  I signed it By: my name and under it without
                                    prejudice.  A good start.  I am not sure which direction to go with
                                    this.

                                    Start with a commercial affidavit of truth showing I am not in their
                                    jurisdiction...or just go try to accept it for value (which no one or
                                    their mother knows about and will look at me like a confused bulldog).

                                    Thank you for your direction.






                                  • Christopher Dilts
                                    Hello Hope this not offend anyone but I know I have seen court cases stating that the uniform commericial code does not apply to tickets unless State clearly
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Sep 24, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment

                                      Hello

                                      Hope this not offend anyone but I know I have seen court cases stating that the uniform commericial code does not apply to tickets unless State clearly regards it traffic violations as civil infractions or ticket states on it it is commerical (For example I have see Michigan tickets for Dot violations that clearly state commerical instrument on it and in Washingtion their traffic offenses are pruely civil which the UCC should apply in threoy) I think that one of the problems with the whole UCC argument and the like and why it works some times and not others is based simplely on the State. In Iowa and Illinois traffic offenses are still considered quasi criminal (bear with me I am awear that there is only suppose to me 4 different types of jurisdicitions) not actaully civil or commericial offenses.

                                      What I am getting at is I have never seen anyone in at least these two States use the UCC or similiar argument successfully in a criminal or quasi criminal action, but have seen and myself have won using the courts rules, annotated statutes, and positive case law on issues of proceedure and constitutional grounds. So maybe that is why those arguments work in some states or in different types of cases and not in others.

                                      So I would check to see what your state classifies traffic offenses as (not asking a judge what it is in court but look to the case law your self they could always be wrong and most time never give easy to understand answers) and only apply UCC law to cases that are clearly commerical and in equity. Also one thing I have learned most generally no one ever follows proper proceed in courts espeically in petty offense study up on the rules and you could bet the ticket on that. For example All criminal or quasi criminal charges *tickets* must have four essential elements to comply with due process *the more serouis the charge the more requirements* these are

                                      Proper Parites

                                      Statement of Offense

                                      Nature of Offense ( suffiienct facts clearly showing all elements of the offense as defined in statute)

                                      Verification

                                       

                                      If one of these is incorrect, missing, or wrong most states case law allows for a dismissal. This is how I usually attack a complaint if the officer did not in fact mess up and the ticket by citing wrong law, wrong, location etc.

                                      I personal first attack the partie asspects by using the misnomer argument but not how most patriot arguments cite it. I first find court rule that states when and were an party must make this objection usaully before you plea. Then find case law or statute that states that a man has only one name, it is his christian name, and in some cases statute that state a person can have only one legal name. Then raise a first amendment argument stating if prosecution does not change my name to upper and lower case then it is a violation of my spirtual beleifs and therefore causes prejudice to me and in most states that is the only grounds an misnomer can be used to actually have cased dismissed according to case law

                                       

                                      Second I attack the statement of violation or reference to statute using enactment argument since in Illinois for example there was an enactment cause in the statute books up to 1975 then they stopped putting them in there. Since most states constitutions require an enactment cause and most of the new traffic laws came after 75 it makes for a good arguemnt

                                      Thrid attack nature and offense the easy way to do this is just go to the annotated statutes for the offense and it will show with case law what are the required elements that should be stated in ticket.

                                      Fourth I attack verificiation this simply means charge must be under oath(in most states) or must be made by a real victum. Of coarse you will need case law, and references to the mana charta to make this work

                                      I hope this helps and you do not think I was too long winded but I have had more success by using these types of angles then I have seen with UCC.Although it does in facttake alot of time and research into case law in order to first win respect of judge second force him to rule in accordance with case law but it can be done. Oh regulation Z of TILA does not even apply to UCC or ressicision under anything but mortgages and the like that is clearly shown in Statute that purpose that states what the statute applies to. If trying to do an ressiscion of contract your States Case law or Commmon law will be more apporiate for that. Well good l--k and hopes this does not offend

                                      Jamie


                                      From: "strengthcoach4" <strengthcoach4@...>
                                      Reply-To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Traffic Ticket
                                      Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:38:51 -0000

                                    • consultants4all@aol.com
                                      In a message dated 9/25/05 4:18:15 AM !!!First Boot!!!, ... Youngstown Ohio, and mahoning county judges follow a law know as prejudice, bias and contempt for
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Sep 24, 2005
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        In a message dated 9/25/05 4:18:15 AM !!!First Boot!!!, christopherdilts@... writes:


                                        argument


                                        Youngstown Ohio, and mahoning county judges follow a law know as prejudice, bias and contempt for pro se litigants.  they can twist a case better that a rat.  tom
                                      • Advancepum@aol.com
                                        Traffic Tickets are Quazi-Criminal Which is realy not defined, in Illinois law at least . So they must either give you all of the rights afforded to a
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Sep 25, 2005
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Traffic Tickets are "Quazi-Criminal"  Which is realy not defined, in Illinois law at least . So they must either give you all of the rights afforded to a criminal charge or handle it as Civil. there is no other choice.
                                          While thinking of it, the Constitution says that any tin any case where a state shall be a party, that the Origional jurisdiction is the Supreme Court. (Art lll Section 2, Clause 2:) I think that this should also include  "the people of the state of _______" after all the people are the state. any way when ever I bring this into the mix it causes a big "hula baloo"
                                          Clause 2:
                                          In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
                                          Paul

                                          Hope this not offend anyone but I know I have seen court cases stating that the uniform commericial code does not apply to tickets unless State clearly regards it traffic violations as civil infractions or ticket states on it it is commerical (For example I have see Michigan tickets for Dot violations that clearly state commerical instrument on it and in Washingtion their traffic offenses are pruely civil which the UCC should apply in threoy) I think that one of the problems with the whole UCC argument and the like and why it works some times and not others is based simplely on the State. In Iowa and Illinois traffic offenses are still considered quasi criminal (bear with me I am awear that there is only suppose to me 4 different types of jurisdicitions) not actaully civil or commericial offenses.



                                        • realjethro
                                          We ve seen this quazi-criminal crap, as well. In our observations, what they re doing is allowing a municipality to proceed *civilly* for *criminal*
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Sep 26, 2005
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            We've seen this "quazi-criminal" crap, as well. In our observations, what they're doing is
                                            allowing a municipality to proceed *civilly* for *criminal* charges, thereby bypassing the
                                            defendant's criminal rights (grand jury indictment, right not to testify against oneself, etc.)
                                            This is blatantly unconstitutioinal - there are no constitutional provisions (either state or
                                            federal) for "quazi-criminal" - or as they also call it, "hybrid civil/criminal" - cases.

                                            Anyone up for joining us to challenge the constitutionality of this one?

                                            --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Advancepum@a... wrote:
                                            > Traffic Tickets are "Quazi-Criminal" Which is realy not defined, in Illinois
                                            > law at least
                                            > . So they must either give you all of the rights afforded to a criminal
                                            > charge or handle it as Civil. there is no other choice.
                                            > While thinking of it, the Constitution says that any tin any case where a
                                            > state shall be a party, that the Origional
                                            > jurisdiction is the Supreme Court. (Art lll Section 2, Clause 2:) I think
                                            > that this should also include "the people of the state of _______" after all the
                                            > people are the state. any way when ever I bring this into the mix it causes a
                                            > big "hula baloo"
                                            > Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
                                            > Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have
                                            > original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme
                                            > Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such
                                            > Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
                                            > Paul
                                            >
                                          • Advancepum@aol.com
                                            Speeking of the constitution, If the inditement says the people of the state of _____ the court that they have you in has no jurisdiction in the case. Article.
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Sep 26, 2005
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Speeking of the constitution, If the inditement says the people of the state of _____
                                              the court that they have you in has no jurisdiction in the case.
                                              Article. III.  of the Constitution of the united States of America
                                              Section. 1.
                                              The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
                                              Section. 2.
                                              Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
                                              Clause 2:
                                              In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
                                              Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.



                                              We've seen this "quazi-criminal" crap, as well.  In our observations, what they're doing is
                                              allowing a municipality to proceed *civilly* for *criminal* charges, thereby bypassing the
                                              defendant's criminal rights (grand jury indictment, right not to testify against oneself, etc.) 
                                              This is blatantly unconstitutioinal - there are no constitutional provisions (either state or
                                              federal) for "quazi-criminal" - or as they also call it, "hybrid civil/criminal" - cases.

                                              Anyone up for joining us to challenge the constitutionality of this one?


                                            • pefra4@bellsouth.net
                                              pefra4@bellsouth.net this is what they are doing at the city of forest park and clayton cty ga planing zoning code enforcement and enviromental courts
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Sep 27, 2005
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                pefra4@... this is what they are doing at the city of forest park and clayton cty ga planing zoning code enforcement and enviromental courts i am a disabled viet nam combat veteran and after many years of being legally shafted i started reading the websites on property rights constitutional and all related sites i have spent a lot of money defending my rights in their kangeroo courts here but after reading the info on the websites i have the info and knowing i amnot alone in the struggle on our uninalieniable and constitutional rights our founding fathers established for us i am willing help in the cause of freedom and a limited constitutional government and the free exercise of all our rights and welcome any info and or direction concerning freedom and liberty what price is freedom worth ? its priceless ! frank
                                                ----- Original Message -----
                                                From: Advancepum@...
                                                To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                                Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 9:45 PM
                                                Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Traffic Ticket Possible angles and downfalls with UCC


                                                Speeking of the constitution, If the inditement says the people of the state of _____
                                                the court that they have you in has no jurisdiction in the case.
                                                Article. III. of the Constitution of the united States of America
                                              • Sherrill Parnell
                                                ... pefra4@bellsouth.net this is what they are doing at the city of forest park and clayton cty ga planing zoning code enforcement and enviromental courts i am
                                                Message 23 of 26 , Sep 27, 2005
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  --- pefra4@... wrote:

                                                  pefra4@... this is what they are doing at the city of forest park and clayton cty ga planing zoning code enforcement and enviromental courts i am a disabled viet nam combat veteran and after many years of being legally shafted i started reading the websites on property rights constitutional and all related sites i have spent a lot of money defending my rights in their kangeroo courts here but after reading the info on the websites i have the info and knowing i amnot alone in the struggle on our uninalieniable and constitutional rights our founding fathers established for us i am willing help in the cause of freedom and a limited constitutional
                                                  government and the free exercise of all our rights and welcome any info and or direction concerning freedom and liberty what price is freedom worth ? its priceless ! frank

                                                  > ----- Original Message -----
                                                  > From: Advancepum@...
                                                  > To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                                  > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 9:45 PM
                                                  > Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Traffic Ticket Possible angles and downfalls with UCC
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > Speeking of the constitution, If the inditement says the people of the state of _____
                                                  > the court that they have you in has no jurisdiction in the case.
                                                  > Article. III. of the Constitution of the united States of America
                                                  > Hi! My name is Sherrill W. Parnell, I'm also a vietnam vet. I love my country and its
                                                  people, they are all our people. And when the so called United States government can tell you
                                                  what to do and when to do it. Without any regard to what your beliefs are? When is it going to
                                                  stop? The irs, is a prime example, they don't have the right to take out money out of your check,
                                                  just because they want it and do not want to earn it themselves. When is it going to stop?????
                                                  We are people of our Father in Heaven, not of men on earth. They only think that they have the
                                                  law, and in realty, they don't have any power at all. Only, if we let them have it!!!!! And I
                                                  will go to my grave believing that. Hope to hear from you real soon!!!!!
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                • Christopher Dilts
                                                  Hello Do not mean to offend but yes quasi criminal is defined in Illinois the quote below comes from Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Town of Calumet 1893 WL 2171
                                                  Message 24 of 26 , Oct 4, 2005
                                                  • 0 Attachment

                                                    Hello

                                                    Do not mean to offend but yes quasi criminal is defined in Illinois the quote below comes from Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Town of Calumet 1893 WL 2171 which is positive case law. Almost everything is defined in the law either in case law or statute.


                                                    Civil cases are of two kinds--those purely civil and those quasi criminal. A quasi criminal case is not a criminal case nearly like a civil case; it is a civil case somewhat resembling, in its nature, a criminal case. That a quasi criminal case is not a criminal offense as defined by the criminal code, is made plain by the cases of Wiggins v. City, 68 Ill. 375; Tully v. Northfield, 6 Brad. 356; and Berkowitz v. Lester, 121 Ill. 99 (113, 114).
                                                    That a case may be civil in form and quasi criminal
                                                    in nature, is established by Baldwin v. City, 68 Ill. 418; Town of Greenfield v. Mook, 12 Brad. 281.


                                                    From: Advancepum@...
                                                    Reply-To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                                    To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                                    Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Traffic Ticket Possible angles and downfalls with UCC
                                                    Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:05:24 EDT

                                                    Traffic Tickets are "Quazi-Criminal"  Which is realy not defined, in Illinois law at least . So they must either give you all of the rights afforded to a criminal charge or handle it as Civil. there is no other choice.
                                                    While thinking of it, the Constitution says that any tin any case where a state shall be a party, that the Origional jurisdiction is the Supreme Court. (Art lll Section 2, Clause 2:) I think that this should also include  "the people of the state of _______" after all the people are the state. any way when ever I bring this into the mix it causes a big "hula baloo"
                                                    Clause 2:
                                                    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
                                                    Paul

                                                    Hope this not offend anyone but I know I have seen court cases stating that the uniform commericial code does not apply to tickets unless State clearly regards it traffic violations as civil infractions or ticket states on it it is commerical (For example I have see Michigan tickets for Dot violations that clearly state commerical instrument on it and in Washingtion their traffic offenses are pruely civil which the UCC should apply in threoy) I think that one of the problems with the whole UCC argument and the like and why it works some times and not others is based simplely on the State. In Iowa and Illinois traffic offenses are still considered quasi criminal (bear with me I am awear that there is only suppose to me 4 different types of jurisdicitions) not actaully civil or commericial offenses.





                                                    YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS





                                                  • Frog Farmer
                                                    ... The way to beat this is to not go along with it, and thereby grant it legitimacy. But people tend to choose it when offered the alternative, which is to
                                                    Message 25 of 26 , Oct 10, 2005
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      On Sep 26, 2005, at 6:48 AM, realjethro wrote:

                                                      > We've seen this "quazi-criminal" crap, as well. In our observations,
                                                      > what they're doing is
                                                      > allowing a municipality to proceed *civilly* for *criminal* charges,
                                                      > thereby bypassing the
                                                      > defendant's criminal rights (grand jury indictment, right not to
                                                      > testify against oneself, etc.)
                                                      > This is blatantly unconstitutioinal - there are no constitutional
                                                      > provisions (either state or
                                                      > federal) for "quazi-criminal" - or as they also call it, "hybrid
                                                      > civil/criminal" - cases.
                                                      >
                                                      > Anyone up for joining us to challenge the constitutionality of this
                                                      > one?

                                                      The way to beat this is to not go along with it, and thereby grant it
                                                      legitimacy. But people tend to choose it when offered the alternative,
                                                      which is to insist on a criminal prosecution with all attendant rights,
                                                      that is, if you are foolish enough to insist (or even ask) that anyone
                                                      do anything. I like to disqualify everybody so there's nobody left to
                                                      do anything. But a lot of people want to be prosecuted so they can try
                                                      out some new theory, and so they grant jurisdiction for one reason or
                                                      another. Go figure. I don't see any reason to join anyone to
                                                      challenge the constitutionality of it. It's voluntary participation
                                                      here in California. They call "quasi-criminal" cases "infractions",
                                                      and they have two separate processes, one for them, and one for purely
                                                      criminal prosecutions where you have all your rights. You have to read
                                                      the law and demand one of those, otherwise you'll be treated as a
                                                      normal incompetent. People choose the former, with all the attendant
                                                      rights waivers, for convenience and expedience.

                                                      I don't know about any other state, but here a reading of the law makes
                                                      it plain. It's just that nobody reads it, and nobody has a duty to
                                                      hand-select parts they think you ought to know about! "It's ALLLLLLL
                                                      Goooood"!

                                                      > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Advancepum@a... wrote:
                                                      >> Traffic Tickets are "Quazi-Criminal" Which is realy not defined, in
                                                      >> Illinois
                                                      >> law at least

                                                      I had to leave Illinois because it was too much of a police state for
                                                      me (and too flat). I used to deliver pizza in the NW Chicago suburbs,
                                                      and pairs of detective cars would try to follow me on deliveries.
                                                      Between trips, and whenever I lost them, they came in to eat pizza, but
                                                      when I got up to go, so did they. We all had fun. Once I took them 90
                                                      miles away and lost them. Beat them home by hours. One unusual day
                                                      I was traffic stopped a total of 13 times, but was not ticketed. That
                                                      was long before I knew anything about law.
                                                    • southlodge
                                                      I like to disqualify everybody so there s nobody left to do anything. Frog Farmer I m the same way, Froggy. Let them use their own energy against
                                                      Message 26 of 26 , Oct 12, 2005
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        " I like to disqualify everybody so there's nobody left to
                                                        do anything. " Frog Farmer

                                                        I'm the same way, Froggy. Let them use their own energy against themselves,
                                                        and when they're tangled up enough, watch them try to wriggle out.

                                                        Much less tiring for us, and it almost ranks as entertainment! ;-)
                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.