Ticketed for turning left in a left turn lane

[David Merrill]

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

[Jethro]

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).

[Jethro]

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.

[shikamaru]

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 .

[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?

[shikamaru]

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.

[Jethro]

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).

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?

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.

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.

[shikamaru]

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?

[David Merrill]

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.

[Jethro]

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.

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.

[David Merrill]

Thanks! I apologize for jumping you into traffic court.