Ticketed for turning left in a left turn lane

Here are the facts and sequence of events...

1. In December '10 I renewed my driver license with a full reservation of rights "without prejudice" and "at arm's length" - the clerk issued the new license with this language on it.

2. At the end of February of this year, a cop pulled me over for making a left turn in a left turn lane -- yes, you read that right. (On top of that, the cop was in the right lane attempting to make a left turn -- he almost hit me). He has the gall to ticket me for improper lane usage and "failure to yield". I signed the ticket "without prejudice."

3. Within 72 hours, I sent back the ticket marked "RETURNED FOR CAUSE" with an accompanying letter explaining the cause; such cause being I made a full reservation of rights was made and therefore they had no personal jurisdiction in the matter and the cop/prosecutor should have known this; and, that I was traveling by right and am not acting as surety of fiduciary for the ALL CAPS NAME that has been charged.

4. The TRAFFIC VIOLATION BUREAU clerk wrote back "We received your 'Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment' and set it for a hearing on March 23."

5. Exercising my right of inquiry, I wrote back asking who made a motion as I had not. (I also made an offer to contract that if they failed to respond they would pay me for my time in court - $1,000 in pre-1933 in gold coin). They did not respond. But the clerk's office said by phone the March 23 "Court" (i.e. private company) date was still on and if I failed to show up, they would enter default judgment against me.

6. I went to Traffic (i.e. private company) court March 23 where the matter was called (thank you for accepting my Offer to Contract!), and the "judge" asked what my motion was. I responded I made no motion and was there solely for the purpose of inquiry; the City attorney girl then chimed in it was actually their motion and they were striking it. They then said I have until April 13 to "pay the ticket or make a motion."

Though they should have already dismissed/retired the entire matter, what might you all think is the next best course of action?

Jethro...You may find this interesting...From: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...ge1304915/pg50

Hey Colonel;

We talked on the phone several weeks ago. I am the guy in Mississippi who beat the ticket.

The recording of it became corrupted on the computer. I've been having a guy try to recover it. Might work later. If yes, I'll let you know.

BUT, I wrote the transcript the next day. Here it is, exactly as it went down.

Prelim remarks. I believe the reason it worked is simply because I did not plead along the way. In other words, I talked with the clerk on at least 2 occasions before the date to move the date, etc., and on each occasion, she tried to get me to state how I pled or would plea.

Having gone to court and won on a wildlife charge and come to understand that "pleadings perfects jurisdiction," I had figured out the game. So, I fastidiously did NOT plead, and I made it abundantly clear to the clerk that although she is Christian and good person, she was, after all, an officer of the court and as such, she should, in no way, say or intimate to the 'judge' that I pled anything, and if she did, I was going to be very upset and sue her.

So, in court, here's the transcript:

judge: "So, Mr. File, are you here today to plead not guilty."

Me: "Your Honor, I have not pled anything." (my way of saying have not, will not be doing it now because I know you do not have jurisdiction now unless I screw up and give it to you.)

I waited 2 Mississippi:

Me: "Your Honor, may I ask the Court a question?"

judge: "Yes, you may."

Me: "Do pleadings perfect jurisdiction?"

Here, it was as though I farted in church on a wooden bench on the front row. Pussel-gutted prosecutor almost had a heart attack and started blurting out 'jurisdiction' stuff cause he had some more money to collect and they didn't see this coming.

Judge was taken aback and blurted,...

judge: "Yes."

I waited 2 Mississippi:

Me: "Therefore, your Honor, may I MOVE the court to dismiss the charges, immediately?"

judge had his head down writing. He needed a story like the prosecutor did. He said,

judge: "Yes, you may. The officer is not present anyway."

Officer WAS present in street clothes. judge needed a story for the other people cause they were domestic charges and didn't have an officer. Reason I know that is because I listened to all the attorneys talking with them before. I just sat there with my head down like I was napping and listened so hard I could hear the mice in the damn wall. I had everybody pegged. Lambs to the damn slaughter for Fed Res Notes.

10 seconds went by, maybe.

judge said: "You are free to go, Mr. File. Have a nice day."

I walked out through 5 attorneys and 2 police officers sporting 9 MM's and Tasers like I was Barac, 'Insane,' Obama.

Whole thing took less than 30 words from me. Saved me $168 Federal Res Notes.

You and I already talked about the procedure problems I set up on them using these words and getting the question before the court, first.

He had to address the question. If he didn't, I'd get it on the record and beat, and embarass him on appeal as the record is all that matters on appeal unless, of course, well, no matter right now.

The thing that made me figure it this way is I heard an attorney on the radio the day after my Fed Court Wildlife thing talking about pleadings. He was showing out and didn't even know what he said. He go broke lawyering if he practiced what he preached because no court, save a victim case of murder or rape, could get one of his clients into jurisdiction.

Hence, the Bar would sanction me if I were an attorney. Hee hee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian

Jethro...You may find this interesting...From: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...ge1304915/pg50

Hey Colonel;

We talked on the phone several weeks ago. I am the guy in Mississippi who beat the ticket.

The recording of it became corrupted on the computer. I've been having a guy try to recover it. Might work later. If yes, I'll let you know.

BUT, I wrote the transcript the next day. Here it is, exactly as it went down.

Prelim remarks. I believe the reason it worked is simply because I did not plead along the way. In other words, I talked with the clerk on at least 2 occasions before the date to move the date, etc., and on each occasion, she tried to get me to state how I pled or would plea.

Having gone to court and won on a wildlife charge and come to understand that "pleadings perfects jurisdiction," I had figured out the game. So, I fastidiously did NOT plead, and I made it abundantly clear to the clerk that although she is Christian and good person, she was, after all, an officer of the court and as such, she should, in no way, say or intimate to the 'judge' that I pled anything, and if she did, I was going to be very upset and sue her.

So, in court, here's the transcript:

judge: "So, Mr. File, are you here today to plead not guilty."

Me: "Your Honor, I have not pled anything." (my way of saying have not, will not be doing it now because I know you do not have jurisdiction now unless I screw up and give it to you.)

I waited 2 Mississippi:

Me: "Your Honor, may I ask the Court a question?"

judge: "Yes, you may."

Me: "Do pleadings perfect jurisdiction?"

Here, it was as though I farted in church on a wooden bench on the front row. Pussel-gutted prosecutor almost had a heart attack and started blurting out 'jurisdiction' stuff cause he had some more money to collect and they didn't see this coming.

Judge was taken aback and blurted,...

judge: "Yes."

I waited 2 Mississippi:

Me: "Therefore, your Honor, may I MOVE the court to dismiss the charges, immediately?"

judge had his head down writing. He needed a story like the prosecutor did. He said,

judge: "Yes, you may. The officer is not present anyway."

Officer WAS present in street clothes. judge needed a story for the other people cause they were domestic charges and didn't have an officer. Reason I know that is because I listened to all the attorneys talking with them before. I just sat there with my head down like I was napping and listened so hard I could hear the mice in the damn wall. I had everybody pegged. Lambs to the damn slaughter for Fed Res Notes.

10 seconds went by, maybe.

judge said: "You are free to go, Mr. File. Have a nice day."

I walked out through 5 attorneys and 2 police officers sporting 9 MM's and Tasers like I was Barac, 'Insane,' Obama.

Whole thing took less than 30 words from me. Saved me $168 Federal Res Notes.

You and I already talked about the procedure problems I set up on them using these words and getting the question before the court, first.

He had to address the question. If he didn't, I'd get it on the record and beat, and embarass him on appeal as the record is all that matters on appeal unless, of course, well, no matter right now.

The thing that made me figure it this way is I heard an attorney on the radio the day after my Fed Court Wildlife thing talking about pleadings. He was showing out and didn't even know what he said. He go broke lawyering if he practiced what he preached because no court, save a victim case of murder or rape, could get one of his clients into jurisdiction.

Hence, the Bar would sanction me if I were an attorney. Hee hee.

---

That would be great to read the actual transcript. Do you suppose whoever described this hearing could order it up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

That would be great to read the actual transcript. Do you suppose whoever described this hearing could order it up?

---

If you could find "osbogosley" from that thread on GLP's he was the one who originally posted that. He references this site, so perhaps he is on here under a different handle. That would be a great transcript...if it was not shredded/burned afterwords.

Thanks Brian!

I was speaking about this with a new suitor. I heard a few snippets about the technique somebody was trying to help with. There was some interesting stuff but counsel took off. All of it was from one perspective. I have always been amazed that somebody can be intelligent enough to apply something like this, claim that there was a success in court; yet not think that a $15 transcript would make a big difference at convincing people.

One of the problem many would seem to be having in regards transcripts is that most of these cases are related to traffic tickets, which it is my understanding these courts are not courts of records. No competency here, one could say. fB

Possibly a counterclaim instead of a motion.

The common mistake here is that you attempted to explain the cause - to attorneys! They might have understood your timely Refusal for Cause if you would have just left it explaining the right of refusal, if you refuse for cause timely. So you tried to explain the law to attorneys, did you?

I am gathering the cop took a left turn from the wrong lane and nearly got hit for it; and then decided to blame you for not seeing him? If he had charged you with reckless driving or something you might have a problem. If this gets to trial the jury might have a time understanding the facts as a crime! BTW is there such an offense? Have you looked at that statute cited on the ticket in the Revised Statutes? It seems rediculous but they may badger you pretty hard to drive you into a plea bargain - to admit to turning left from a left turn lane like you did!



Regards,

David Merrill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian

Jethro...You may find this interesting...From: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...ge1304915/pg50

judge: "So, Mr. File, are you here today to plead not guilty."

Me: "Your Honor, I have not pled anything." (my way of saying have not, will not be doing it now because I know you do not have jurisdiction now unless I screw up and give it to you.)

I waited 2 Mississippi:

Me: "Your Honor, may I ask the Court a question?"

judge: "Yes, you may."

Me: "Do pleadings perfect jurisdiction?"

Here, it was as though I farted in church on a wooden bench on the front row. Pussel-gutted prosecutor almost had a heart attack and started blurting out 'jurisdiction' stuff cause he had some more money to collect and they didn't see this coming.

Judge was taken aback and blurted,...

judge: "Yes."

I waited 2 Mississippi:

Me: "Therefore, your Honor, may I MOVE the court to dismiss the charges, immediately?"

judge had his head down writing. He needed a story like the prosecutor did. He said,

judge: "Yes, you may. The officer is not present anyway."

---

Very interesting, Brian. Might this mean any pleading perfects jurisdiction? Even if one pleaded "no contract"?

Also, do you know if Mr. File had made a reservation of rights on his DL?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Possibly a counterclaim instead of a motion.

The common mistake here is that you attempted to explain the cause - to attorneys! They might have understood your timely Refusal for Cause if you would have just left it explaining the right of refusal, if you refuse for cause timely. So you tried to explain the law to attorneys, did you?

---

Thanks for the reply, David. No, I don't believe I attempted to explain the law to attorneys. I simply sent the ticket back "Returned For Cause" to the address on the ticket with the accompanying letter explaining the cop/prosecutor should have known from the DL he had no in personam jurisdiction. Apparently the Traffic Court Clerk (a.k.a. paper shuffler) received it and had no idea what to do with it, so he just made up a motion (a.k.a. fraud) and set it for a "Court" date. They admitted this in "Court."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I am gathering the cop took a left turn from the wrong lane and nearly got hit for it; and then decided to blame you for not seeing him? If he had charged you with reckless driving or something you might have a problem. If this gets to trial the jury might have a time understanding the facts as a crime! BTW is there such an offense? Have you looked at that statute cited on the ticket in the Revised Statutes? It seems rediculous but they may badger you pretty hard to drive you into a plea bargain - to admit to turning left from a left turn lane like you did!

---

Let me add some clarification -- the cop said the left turn lane wasn't for making left turns, even though it is; I have the pictures of the signs, video of the traffic (in the vernacular sense of the word) flow, and I'll subpoena the cop car video and traffic director to testify this left turn lane is, in fact, for making left turns. This cop is an idiot (and an arrogant one at that). Being this ticket was issued on the last day of the month, I suspect he was making up sh!t to meet a quota. They're finding out they bit off more than they can chew on this one. :)

I can win this 100% on the facts, but I want to win "pre-trial" as a matter of law, and for the benefit of those on this board. That's why I'm here.

Get into Records. Buy a copy of the Register of Action. You want to see the backside of the Original ticket and read the officer's version of what happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jethro

should have known from the DL he had no in personam jurisdiction.

---

What about your DL leads you to believe a Traffic Court has no " in personam " jurisdiction ...??

Did you attend such Court ..??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Binbokusai Yagyuu

What about your DL leads you to believe a Traffic Court has no " in personam " jurisdiction ...??

Did you attend such Court ..??

---

"Traffic Court" is not really a court, but an administrative tribunal. As it involves no constitutionally-guaranteed rights (e.g. proper summons, proper service, proper indictment, trial by jury, discovery, etc.), it moves by (presumptive) agreement or assent to its jurisdiction, such as a driver license and/or application for one. A remedy provided in every STATE (look it up in yours) includes the right to reserve one's rights "without prejudice" at the time the application/DL is made. I made that reservation of rights "without prejudice" on my DL and most recent application. The STATE accepted my conditions and issued the "license" also "without prejudice" on it; the STATE is bound by said conditions. Therefore the STATE has no enforceable contract in relation to me and any "citation" involving "driving" -- while "Traffic Court" has subject matter jurisdiction over "traffic" matters, it has no personal jurisdiction over me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jethro

"Traffic Court" is not really a court, but an administrative tribunal. As it involves no constitutionally-guaranteed rights (e.g. proper summons, proper service, proper indictment, trial by jury, discovery, etc.), it moves by (presumptive) agreement or assent to its jurisdiction, such as a driver license and/or application for one. A remedy provided in every STATE (look it up in yours) includes the right to reserve one's rights "without prejudice" at the time the application/DL is made. I made that reservation of rights "without prejudice" on my DL and most recent application. The STATE accepted my conditions and issued the "license" also "without prejudice" on it; the STATE is bound by said conditions. Therefore the STATE has no enforceable contract in relation to me and any "citation" involving "driving" -- while "Traffic Court" has subject matter jurisdiction over "traffic" matters, it has no personal jurisdiction over me.

---

That sounds interesting, I've never seen anybody do this before.
Would you be more specific please in the areas which I highlighted red in your quote:
Look up what where exactly?
Did you write that in with your signature?

Thank you in advance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Treefarmer

That sounds interesting, I've never seen anybody do this before.
Would you be more specific please in the areas which I highlighted red in your quote:
Look up what where exactly?
Did you write that in with your signature?

Thank you in advance.

---

Every STATE has statutorily adopted the UCC, including 1-308 "Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights." Examples:

Michigan Code 440.1207 Performance or acceptance of reservation of rights; applicability of subsection (1) to accord and satisfaction.
(1) A party who with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice", "under protest" or the like are sufficient.

Tennessee Code Annotated T.C.A. 47-1-308 (a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as “without prejudice”, “under protest”, or the like are sufficient.

You'll find the same in your STATE's code. This remedy had to be made available because Americans enjoy the right to travel and can't be compelled to waive any inalienable rights in relation to it. BUT... too bad if you don't know about it or know how to use it.

On my most recent DL renewal, I utilized this remedy by using the words "without prejudice" and "at arm's length" when signing both the application form and the DL itself. The STATE issued the license on the condition my rights are reserved and my right to travel is not waived, so they are bound by it by this agreement; the agreement being, (among other things) I (the human being) am not subject to their "traffic court" (or any other administrative tribunal), and I have no fiduciary duties in relation to them ("Jethro" cannot be compelled to answer for charges against "JETHRO").

What You have done by using the UCC is quite neatly tied Yourself to a Commercial Venue

when You should have been avoiding Operating in Commerce

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Binbokusai Yagyuu

What You have done by using the UCC is quite neatly tied Yourself to a Commercial Venue

when You should have been avoiding Operating in Commerce

---

The contract is everything!

I uploaded a 2009 Colorado Constitution - Article II the Bill of Rights §23 tells of "courts of no record". That is the only form of legal avoidance for traffic court. Playing the UCC and non-commercial cards are pointless - at least in Colorado.

It is how you identify yourself that counts. If you become the fiduciary responsible for settling the charges, then that is who you are for the duration of the cause.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Binbokusai Yagyuu

What You have done by using the UCC is quite neatly tied Yourself to a Commercial Venue

---

Except I didn't use the UCC, I used a remedy provided by the "state" Legislature. (Interestingly, under the Part titled "Territorial Applicability" - my intent was to untie myself from a commercial venue).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

The contract is everything!

It is how you identify yourself that counts. If you become the fiduciary responsible for settling the charges, then that is who you are for the duration of the cause.

---

I agree, David. That's why the DL and application for renewal were also both signed "at arm's-length".

arm's-length, adj. <an arm's-length transaction does not create fiduciary duties between the parties>. Black's 7th.

I would say obligation is everything.
Obligation implies imperfect rights with the term containing both the right and correlative duty .....
Presumption is often used to impose such obligations on others.
When one starts challenging to show cause how such an obligation is valid, things become interesting :).

An update...

Since my last post there have been a number of developments, including an "administrative hearing" where they refused to allow me to put a declaration (including the controlling law, time, space and place) on the "record", then they kicked me out under the threat of violence; also there have been a number of "appeals" of various "administrative" decisions upholding the purported "suspension". Now we are about at the end of the "administrative" process, and through it all the "Department of Safety" has ignored the fact that there is no enforceable signature (but rather an express reservation of rights "without prejudice" and "at arm's length") on any document ("driver license" application, card and purported "citation").

Any thoughts as to how to compel them to recognize the reservation of rights they agreed to? What are the next possible steps... suing them w/ a preliminary injunction?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jethro

An update...

Since my last post there have been a number of developments, including an "administrative hearing" where they refused to allow me to put a declaration (including the controlling law, time, space and place) on the "record", then they kicked me out under the threat of violence; also there have been a number of "appeals" of various "administrative" decisions upholding the purported "suspension". Now we are about at the end of the "administrative" process, and through it all the "Department of Safety" has ignored the fact that there is no enforceable signature (but rather an express reservation of rights "without prejudice" and "at arm's length") on any document ("driver license" application, card and purported "citation").

Any thoughts as to how to compel them to recognize the reservation of rights they agreed to? What are the next possible steps... suing them w/ a preliminary injunction?

---

I'd take a peek at your State's equivalent to the Administrative Procedures Act.
You may be able to cook up some magic and raise the heat simply by following it.

Its amazing how much you can get out of a court simply insisting that it abide by due process :).

Another speculative tidbit could be you are raising issues of law upon which equitable courts, such as administrative courts, like to keep silent on. Issues of law are out of their jurisdiction.

In which case, a trial de novo may be a better forum in which to raise such issues.

One last point, what evidence has the prosecutor put into record? Have you thought about going after that?
How much operation on presumption is taking place?

At this point, it sounds as if you have waived many opportunities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

One last point, what evidence has the prosecutor put into record? Have you thought about going after that?

---

I submitted discovery for all evidence and documents related to the "case". Among the few documents produced were the "Application for DL" with "Without Prejudice / At arm's length" clearly written on it; and they produced the purported "citation" with "Without prejudice" written on it. Amazingly, in my Request for Admissions, they denied the DL Application was issued "without prejudice" even though the very document they produced says so! (IOW, their attorney lied in discovery).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

How much operation on presumption is taking place?

---

It's entirely presumption! But they've ignored every notice rebutting their presumptions. They're proceeding as if they had an enforceable signature when they've been given umpteen notices they do not. Are they truly that arrogant, or stupid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

Another speculative tidbit could be you are raising issues of law upon which equitable courts, such as administrative courts, like to keep silent on. Issues of law are out of their jurisdiction.

---

That could be it as there has not been a "judicial" determination of anything thus far. However, the administrative side can't proceed without an unqualified signature, and this is where they're getting themselves into trouble. I have made numerous offers to contract for trespass against my rights, all of which they have accepted. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

At this point, it sounds as if you have waived many opportunities.

---

I don't believe so. On the contrary, I believe I have nearly exhausted every "administrative" remedy available. They just don't seem to care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jethro

I submitted discovery for all evidence and documents related to the "case". Among the few documents produced were the "Application for DL" with "Without Prejudice / At arm's length" clearly written on it; and they produced the purported "citation" with "Without prejudice" written on it. Amazingly, in my Request for Admissions, they denied the DL Application was issued "without prejudice" even though the very document they produced says so! (IOW, their attorney lied in discovery).



It's entirely presumption! But they've ignored every notice rebutting their presumptions. They're proceeding as if they had an enforceable signature when they've been given umpteen notices they do not. Are they truly that arrogant, or stupid?



That could be it as there has not been a "judicial" determination of anything thus far. However, the administrative side can't proceed without an unqualified signature, and this is where they're getting themselves into trouble. I have made numerous offers to contract for trespass against my rights, all of which they have accepted. :)



I don't believe so. On the contrary, I believe I have nearly exhausted every "administrative" remedy available. They just don't seem to care.

---

Have you looked at your State's equivalency of the APA?

I spot a comment above that the court would not allow something on the record. Ergo, it is not a court of record if it is fudging the record like that. It is probably evidence in the state constitution that it is not a court of record too; like in Colorado the signal is less than a jury of twelve. For traffic offences the jury is six unless you get into a felony charge then they bump you into district court with twelve jurors - a court of record.

So indeed you have contracted and it would seem that your signature is considered valid, even with the disclaimer. That may not be exactly true though, there is a small window where they hear you, the man on the record called allocution. Meanwhile the judge is arranging what you are requesting with your Not Guilty plea (arraignment). There are two parties organizing the trial and compelling him to do his job and provide one - the prosecution and the defense. You are the defendant and by being arraigned you are requesting a trial by taking a not guilty posture. In the administration of justice the judge only sees that narrow scope of vision. Your argument about never being subject by a valid signature binding you in contract will likely have to wait until after you are convicted:

Do you have anything to say before I execute this sentence?

Watch very carefully. You will be able to say whatever you want for as long as it takes and you are finally getting your allocution on the record. The judge will likely say, That is all? Shrugging his shoulders like it was stupid, what you said if it made any sense in law at all. He will take a ten minute recess where you will conclude business and leave the courthouse. If you are there when he gets back he will conclude business by executing the sentence.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I spot a comment above that the court would not allow something on the record.

---

David, this is entirely "administrative" -- not even "traffic court" has heard the matter. The administrative persons (whoever they are or represent) have been provided notice and evidence of no signature; and my demand for proof of signature has been ignored (i.e. they admitted none exists). Their statutory administrative state of affairs (not UCC) expressly recognizes a reservation of rights may be made and that words such as "without prejudice" suffice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Meanwhile the judge is arranging what you are requesting with your Not Guilty plea (arraignment).

---

There has been no plea whatsoever. Again, this is entirely an administrative effort to "suspend" the "license." Nothing more at this time, so allocution is premature.

My position is, by issuing the "license" "without prejudice" and "at arm's length" (no fiduciary duties), it is not a "license" per se, but merely 1) evidence I am competent steering a car, and 2) serves as means of comity between myself and their foreign revenue collectors (aka. "cops"). Neither it nor I are subject to the laws of "this state" or administrative suspension -- they agreed to this and now they're attempting to violate that agreement.

Thanks! I apologize for jumping you into traffic court.