Colorado's New Cash Cow!

I think this image speaks for itself if you imagine being pulled over, informed your license has expired and then being charged with a mandatory jail time and $1K fine offense. Therefore in spite of paying insurance premiums, you pay a fine and go to jail too. Note especially the DO NOT COPY watermark; like that works on Planet Merrill!!

This is being handled through the system now. But it shows a dangerous possible outcome for the citizenry in Colorado and entire nation. For one thing - allowing a police officer to testify for an entire insurance industry in the capacity as legal expert...

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...0&d=1301916913

David is this a new ticket or an old one. fB

That is a trial transcript. It has been appealed on another cause. And is now in federal appeal.

The defendant was stopped by a female motorcycle officer and presented a driver license card but stipulated to the female officer; I am not giving you this card for identification purposes. There are only one or two female motorcycle officers so a cursory investigation will prove that the male officer on the witness stand at trial committed perjury.

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/3492/perjury.jpg

Interestingly, objections to the wrong officer were not heard by the trial judge. The reason is demonstrated in Joseph VINING's book - Legal Identity; The Coming of Age of Public Law as early as Page one of the Preface. So if she would have said, "Objection!" then she would have been accepted as a member of the Bar Association pro se.

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/5...ticipation.jpg

See that? So the trial judge keeps saying that the accused at trial made no Objection and the objection obviously made was never "heard" according to that privatized system of procedure.

It went through appeal, simply requesting an investigation to reveal that a female motorcycle cop made the Stop based on the Constitutional bond on the trial judge to see to it that the prosecutor brought the stopping officer for a witness. The right to question the witness. It went through appeal in Colorado to the district court and then to the state supreme court. They keep to VINING's doctrine and maintain that the defendant made no objection.

It has been through the US District Court in a civil suit for Constitutional violation by the trial judge - Violation of the Right to Examine the Witness. This is funny! When inquiring the District clerk instructed to file Notice of Appeal in the District Court, not the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and encouraged to try for In Forma Pauperis - a request for the Court to pay the $455 filing fee for the Appeal Court. What the Judge in the District Court produced is quite revealing:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...4&d=1301928362

The Rule cited is only saying the US Judge does not want to pay for it; in the other court! Why is he overstepping, making decisions for the Circuit Court?

You have to take a clear perspective to comprehend how sleezy BLACKBURN is. He is making a ruling about whether he wants to pay for this Appeal to the Tenth Circuit sound like he is making a ruling on the merits of the appeal itself! Additionally to the layman, this looks like he is Ordering that the appeal cannot go forward at all! By the clerk directing to try getting the funding from the USDC, BLACKBURN has managed to get his opinion in, hoping to sway the justices in the Circuit Court of Appeals that they should just dismiss this silly matter - which can be resolved, and always could have been resolved by finding out where the one solitary woman motorcycle cop was that afternoon of the Stop! One phone call made in the authority of any court along the way - one question to somebody in authority to speak about the schedule of the officers.

Please observe the date and understand that I am going to be reticent on details that might affect the justices in the Tenth Circuit.

The new Colorado Cash Cow is likely the reason for all this obfuscation but the fact that the county court was (effectively) abolished in 1933 to accomodate only one character of party - endorser of private credit - that is likely as strong a factor. Page 1, Page 2. If you understand that - you understand VINING and why the "judge" could not hear the man in the courtroom that day at trial.



Regards,

David Merrill.

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/2...courthouse.jpg

Maybe this will help people find some interest:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...8&d=1302385526

It was suggested:

Quote:

---

There is one addition under "Statement of Facts", which I believe needs to be added to help explain your last statement about the new "cash cow" of the police department. Let me know what you think about the following addition to be inserted under your first statement under the title, "Statement of Facts".

"The female Stopping Officer signed only one of the citations falsely stating that Plaintiff-Appellant had no insurance and was driving without insurance. Defendant provided proof of up-to-date insurance with a signed letter from the insurance company, but could not question the female Stopping Officer as to why she lied on both counts on the citation, because the female Stopping Officer was not present at trial."

---

That brings out an important aspect of being denied the proper witness alright.

The delicate dance is around trust and fiduciary obligation. There is a very good point being brought up by the officer on the witness stand. The insurance company is not typically obligated to cover any uninsured driver at the wheel. It could be a 10-year old for that matter. The carrier is not expected to cover somebody untrained at heavy equipment. However on the other side of that coin is somebody trained to have had a valid driver license and is still paying the carrier premiums on a constructive trust that the company will honor receipt of those payments. The fact of the matter is that there are other reasons than incompetence to operate a motor vehicle that could be at play and the... well, do you see where I am going?

The officer is testifying for somebody else. The officer in this instance is likely a shill who was replacing the actual Stopping Officer in order to get a plug in for this New Cash Cow. What is technically inappropriate is that the Officer on the Stand would be assuming to know the mind of the Insurance Industry - not whether or not he is correct in doing so.



Regards,

David Merrill.

There's another cash cow in Denver. There's a statute that allows the police to impound your car.
You have to pay storage - even if you are found not guilty! Then, when you don't pay storage,
they sell your vehicle and get a judgement against you for the remaining amount!

Here's the story. http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-denver...,5394794.story

David, if you want to move this to it's own thread it's ok. I just thought of the cash-cow aspect and this
fits. I don't want to clutter your thread if that's the case...it would be cool if you could help this dude!

never pull over on the shoulder of a State Right-of-way. Drive to a private parking lot, hopefully a well lit parking lot, convenience store, park and handle your business. Call the Trustee - no wait - the car is in trust right?

I am okay letting the conversation diverge while we wait on the next stage of appeal here.

I think it best to understand the in rem seizure of the vehicle is happening in admiralty and is not directly associated with the traffic court. It is called forfeiture and the best way (in hindsight for me) is to execute a Verified Statement of Right (Rule E) and Interest on the property.

I learned a lot from that TV show JAG. CHEGWIDDEN, the bald JAG had his SUV impounded from his girlfriend's son borrowing it and smoking pot in it. Forfeiture. CHEGWIDDEN dressed up in his dress uniform to go intimidate the impound lot manager, in greasy coveralls.

You are in my court now! This is a forfeiture - you better go get yourself a good lawyer.