Re: [tips_and_tricks] Traffic Ticket Possible angles and downfalls with UCC
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.
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.
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
- Visit your group "tips_and_tricks" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
- Visit your group "tips_and_tricks" on the web.
- On Sep 26, 2005, at 6:48 AM, realjethro wrote:
> We've seen this "quazi-criminal" crap, as well. In our observations,The way to beat this is to not go along with it, and thereby grant it
> 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
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
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Advancepum@a... wrote:I had to leave Illinois because it was too much of a police state for
>> Traffic Tickets are "Quazi-Criminal" Which is realy not defined, in
>> law at least
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.
- " 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! ;-)