Two traffic stops snubbed.

[KnowLaw]

Well at the court hearing with the judge, I noticed there was no prosecution, no police accusers. All those appealing their traffic tickets were being dismissed with "Not responsible, lack of prosecution" as was mine.

That phrase sounds familiar. That's what was mentioned to me in a phone call to the court when checking on whether or not a ticket had been submitted to the court. I had "refused it for cause" sending the original back to the presenter (a highway patrol officer with the DPS who apparently hadn't informed the court yet of the refusal).

The person on the other end of the phone told me after I mentioned having "refused for cause" the ticket that I would need to come in and enter a "not responsible" something or other (it was unclear what she was talking about; and I wasn't all that certain that she wasn't attempting to coax me into pleading into the case, so I approached it with caution). But yes, she used that phrase about "not responsible."

They are apparently trying to separate those who know from those who don't know the law, was my take on the situation. Because all those who knew about this method were separated into a separate group (separate court date and time) from those who were unaware and therefore "easy pickins" for the state legal machine.

I'll be re-posting my victory story in the "Success Stories" section once I have some time to sit down and format the post. It should help some people gain some sense of confidence in the "refused for cause" movement as well as a peek at one person's practical experience in the matter and how it was handled.

We also made another observation regarding citations - that many of them seem to include an error! For what purpose, do you imagine?

Well, don't stop there! What, pray tell, was the error you observed? If I knew what you were speaking about, I might be able to proffer an answer to the question you posed.

[David Merrill]

Yes!! That's what I'm talking about! It may just be me but you two just bumped the Fun Meter around here triple.


Dipping back into the hearsay - (meaning that the suitor is around and he might pick this up in detail if he does not mind the general readers knowing which member did this).

This fellow formed his Libel of Review (LoR) around a ticket for no papers while traveling. That means he had a certified copy of the Refusal for Cause (R4C) with him when he went to see if the CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST still appeared on the docket anyway - meaning that the Chief of Police was likely defrauding the court by not sharing the additional Information - the R4C.

When he entered cattle court he had three chutes:

1) Go to the cash register last minute, pay the fine and plead guilty - leave.
2) Go visit with the DA and hear your deal for pleading guilty, then to option 1).
3) Go to the court and plead not guilty before the judge, set for trial.

He and his witness (another suitors) mistakenly went down chute 2). When they showed the R4C (marked by the US Court) to the ADA (Assistant District Attorney/prosecutor) the ADA showed it off to his ADA friends for loud ridicule and threw it in the wastepaper basket. My pals called me from the steps of the courthouse. I suggested they go get another copy of the R4C but that was 20 minutes each way back home so I amended that they might go fish the one out of the wastepaper basket.

They went back in and found that the ADA had already fished it out and sent it up to the court on the fifth floor. The ADA beat them to the courtroom to and retrieved it for him from the bailiff; he was immediately called to the podium; which felt like an altar so he stood in front of it - just for safe measure. He announced that he was there, To prevent fraud on the court. The judge asked to see the paper so he brought it to the bench and tendered it. The judge examined it a moment and said, Okay. - As he placed it in the case file. The suitor left.

Two weeks later the suitor returned and asked to see the case files (as there were more than one case) but there was now only one folder. Nothing was in the folder except the Copy of the R4C that he had tendered to the judge.

Keep in mind these are commercial financial transactions. That is why they call them charges.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

That one is a lot of fun too Osbogosly.

The other way to convey jurisdiction is to swear or affirm. But that would usually be limited to consent for perjury or contempt. Here it is in the Colorado constitution:

Section 23. Trial by jury - grand jury. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate in criminal cases; but a jury in civil cases in all courts, or in criminal cases in courts not of record, may consist of less than twelve persons, as may be prescribed by law. Hereafter a grand jury shall consist of twelve persons, any nine of whom concurring may find an indictment; provided,

Courts not of record are a waste of time all around because they have no authority to fine or imprison you. They can proceed though, on your consent. You plead and you volunteer into the jurisdiction.

However, in many instances the judge might correctly presume that by identifying yourself First Middle Last - a full legal name matching the LAST, FIRST M. spelling on the driver license card, that you have plead into the jurisdiction. Therefore change the signature on your driver license card to First Middle. When you give it to an officer announce clearly:

Officer, I am not showing you this driver license card for identification purposes. I am only showing it to you to prove my competency to operate this vehicle and so you know I keep a valid insurance policy active on it. I am noting your name and hope that you will recall this conversation accurately on the witness stand at trial - how I just identified myself to you. My name is clearly spelled there on the signature line.

Furthermore you might be sure to pay for your driver license card with redeemed lawful money. But it really comes down to risk management on their part. The prosecutor did not seem willing in the anecdote to step up, Judge, the stopping officer is right here.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Crosstalk;

Anyway, just had occasion to use the line I learned from David again. While handing over the DL: "I'm showing this for competency not for identification." Well after several minutes in his cruiser, presumably some onboard communications, the officer hands back the DL saying: "come to a complete stop next time." No citation, no written warning, no nothing, nada. (!) My second success with this line.

P.P.S. I saw Adjustment Bureau last night. It is the kind of SciFi that builds a great legacy for SciFi! Of course for me it was about through responsibility and competence (in the movie, laying it all on the line for true love) we break through having others govern our path and develop self-governance.