OT: legal advice about traffic violations

[imperialism2024]

imported post

Nonetheless, jury nullification would require traffic offense "suspects" to have a right to a jury trial, and in some states (*cough* PA *cough*) they do not.

I'd think it's fair to say that having the right to a jury trial for speeding tickets would pretty much the same effect on unreasonable tickets as jury nullification though... but only if enough people contest their tickets to put a strain on the system. That is... if even half of the offenders given a speeding ticket in a typical speed-trap operation contest their ticket, and demand their right to a jury trial, the state would lose much more money than they would gain. Not to mention all of the lost time in having officers in court...

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Gunslinger wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Jury Nullification.

Right on! And it is a factor more often than most would believe. Thank heavens!

Jury nullification means making a law void by jury decision, in other words "the process whereby a jury in a criminal case effectively nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her."

Here is a little bit more on jury nullification. It is worth finding out more about.

http://www.fija.org/

 

[ixtow]

imported post

FWIW...

I've been pulled over 4 times on my bike.

LEO: "I KNOW you were going really fast. Do you know how fast were you going?"

ME: "No Officer, at these speeds, I watch the road not the speedometer..."

LEO: Various other questions attempting to get me to incriminate myself, ad nauseum. Eventually gives up and lets me go.

ME: finds it odd.....

Just out of curiosity, I had a few acquaintances at the SO in the county where I work test the theory...

The only thing that even returns a result on my bike, AT ALL, is laser. Every radar gun they pointed at me thinks I'm freakin' invisible! Even with no other vehicle on the road in the area the radar is being pointed.

If you have such a vehicle, you could demonstarte on video, with the cooperation of a LEO, that your bike doesn't even show up on radar. So, any 'evidence' has to be of the speed of a different vehicle than yours!

So far, I haven't had to test that in court. YMMV

 

[Gunslinger]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

FWIW...

I've been pulled over 4 times on my bike.

LEO: "I KNOW you were going really fast. Do you know how fast were you going?"

ME: "No Officer, at these speeds, I watch the road not the speedometer..."

LEO: Various other questions attempting to get me to incriminate myself, ad nauseum. Eventually gives up and lets me go.

ME: finds it odd.....

Just out of curiosity, I had a few acquaintances at the SO in the county where I work test the theory...

The only thing that even returns a result on my bike, AT ALL, is laser. Every radar gun they pointed at me thinks I'm freakin' invisible! Even with no other vehicle on the road in the area the radar is being pointed.

If you have such a vehicle, you could demonstarte on video, with the cooperation of a LEO, that your bike doesn't even show up on radar. So, any 'evidence' has to be of the speed of a different vehicle than yours!

So far, I haven't had to test that in court. YMMV

Your front license plate is what the laser reflects from. Corvettes with no front plate are virtually invisible to laser. I had the SPs test it for me, and they couldn't get a bounce until I was inside 100'. If I can't see the cop on the side of the road by then, I'll pay the ticket. Radar will pick up a bike, at diminished ranges, but if you're the only one on the road, there will be a return. IF instant on, you're toast. Always obey speed limits. It makes it easier for me to pass you...

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Not all states, SC for instance, require front plates. Radar/laser does not depend on plates or even flat surfaces. Check out stealth technology.

 

[johnnyb]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

FWIW...

I've been pulled over 4 times on my bike.

LEO: "I KNOW you were going really fast. Do you know how fast were you going?"

ME: "No Officer, at these speeds, I watch the road not the speedometer..."

LEO: Various other questions attempting to get me to incriminate myself, ad nauseum. Eventually gives up and lets me go.

ME: finds it odd.....

Just out of curiosity, I had a few acquaintances at the SO in the county where I work test the theory...

The only thing that even returns a result on my bike, AT ALL, is laser. Every radar gun they pointed at me thinks I'm freakin' invisible! Even with no other vehicle on the road in the area the radar is being pointed.

If you have such a vehicle, you could demonstarte on video, with the cooperation of a LEO, that your bike doesn't even show up on radar. So, any 'evidence' has to be of the speed of a different vehicle than yours!

So far, I haven't had to test that in court. YMMV

i got pulled over this morning on my way to my real job... and i took your advice. sure as shit no ticket. he didn't get me on radar or laser or anything just "saw me going too fast"

i didn't admit and he got pretty frustrated. it was very entertaining. he finally said he left his ticket book at home so i was lucky :banghead: what kind of idiot cop leaves his ticket book at home, like i really believe that.

:lol:

 

[Gunslinger]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Not all states, SC for instance, require front plates. Radar/laser does not depend on plates or even flat surfaces. Check out stealth technology.

I know a bit about stealth technology, to put it mildly...while not required, both radar and laser reflect much better with a vertical cross section from a metalic surface. License plates being ideal, or a slab metalic front grill. Windshields without extreme cant also are good reflectors of radar, not so much laser. Multipath and sidelobe generally complicate the radar readings but don't stop it in a police mode. That is why you sometimes get charged with someone else's speed. Obviously, RAM is the way to go for radar with extreme angularity. Smooth curves with virtually no vertical play the way to go for laser. Cars aren't made that way, although some are much better than others. Radar cross section on sports cars with Cds below .30 being good examples.

 

[johnnyb]

imported post

Ok i've been researching and learning about the court system, subject matter jurisdiction, and standing.

im getting ready to plead not guilty and take the matter to civil court.

here are my arguments.

1. Standing and subject matter jurisdiction.

Since the plaintiff (LEO) cannot show any standing (he cannot allege personal injury or violation of legal right)

since there is no violation of legal right of the plaintiff, there cannot be subject matter jurisdiction

2. I'll try to impeach the only witness (the LEO) (disqualify the LEO from testifying and having all his testimony thrown out)

asking if the LEO has filed a valid cause of action, and also ask a specific question about what makes a valid cause of action, which the office will most likely be unable to answer and will be unable to testify and have his testimony thrown out.

3. conflict of interest.

if the judge is representing the city of vernonia and the officer (only witness) represents the city of vernonia or columbia county. there is a clear conflict of interest. and the LEO will be unable to testify or his testimony will be thrown away.


what do ya'll think? i'm still researching

 

[johnnyb]

imported post

does anyone have an example of a motion to dismiss letter that will work in oregon?

 

[imperialism2024]

imported post

johnnyb wrote:

Ok i've been researching and learning about the court system, subject matter jurisdiction, and standing.

im getting ready to plead not guilty and take the matter to civil court.

here are my arguments.

1. Standing and subject matter jurisdiction.

Since the plaintiff (LEO) cannot show any standing (he cannot allege personal injury or violation of legal right)

since there is no violation of legal right of the plaintiff, there cannot be subject matter jurisdiction

2. I'll try to impeach the only witness (the LEO) (disqualify the LEO from testifying and having all his testimony thrown out)

asking if the LEO has filed a valid cause of action, and also ask a specific question about what makes a valid cause of action, which the office will most likely be unable to answer and will be unable to testify and have his testimony thrown out.

3. conflict of interest.

if the judge is representing the city of vernonia and the officer (only witness) represents the city of vernonia or columbia county. there is a clear conflict of interest. and the LEO will be unable to testify or his testimony will be thrown away.


what do ya'll think? i'm still researching

Well, since John hasn't locked the thread yet, I'll bite...

If #1 and #3 haven't worked for countless drug cases, I doubt they'll work for you for a speeding ticket. Though perhaps the judge will give you credit for being creative... it might be worth it to try.

I'd say you're better off sticking to the standard ones of checking the radar maintanence records and such.

It might not even matter, since you may arrive at court and the LEO involved might not show up, and you'll automatically get the case dismissed. Or, the LEO may offer you a deal of fewer points if you plead guilty... I'd recommend taking the deal. Like I said, even if you have a good case, good luck getting a judge to listen to it in regard to a speeding ticket, regardless of how much of a rights violation we know it is.

There might be a glimmer of hope if you can get a jury trial. If this is as much of a speed trap as you say it is, chances are that a lot of local residents have been snared by it, or know friends or family who have. So they'll be prejudiced toward your side, so long as you present yourself well.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Re 'standing', in some jurisdictions a LEO is somehow a 'member' of the Court, with standing for the enforcement of laws.

 

[johnnyb]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Re 'standing', in some jurisdictions a LEO is somehow a 'member' of the Court, with standing for the enforcement of laws.

STANDING - The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person

must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.

There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id.

Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief "must show `a very significant possibility' of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit." Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).

 

[johnnyb]

imported post

Constitutional requirements There are three constitutional standing requirements:

1. Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury - an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.
2. Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (global warming caused by EPA's refusal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions satisfied element of causation for Massachusetts's alleged injury of loss of coastland).
3. Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.[4][/sup]

 

[johnnyb]

imported post

i got pulled over again today, they can't radar my motorcycle, didn't admit to speeding when he tried to get me too.... finally gave up and it was "my lucky day" he was giving me a warning.

what a douche

 

[Gunslinger]

imported post

johnnyb wrote:

Ok i've been researching and learning about the court system, subject matter jurisdiction, and standing.

im getting ready to plead not guilty and take the matter to civil court.

here are my arguments.

1. Standing and subject matter jurisdiction.

Since the plaintiff (LEO) cannot show any standing (he cannot allege personal injury or violation of legal right)

since there is no violation of legal right of the plaintiff, there cannot be subject matter jurisdiction

2. I'll try to impeach the only witness (the LEO) (disqualify the LEO from testifying and having all his testimony thrown out)

asking if the LEO has filed a valid cause of action, and also ask a specific question about what makes a valid cause of action, which the office will most likely be unable to answer and will be unable to testify and have his testimony thrown out.

3. conflict of interest.

if the judge is representing the city of vernonia and the officer (only witness) represents the city of vernonia or columbia county. there is a clear conflict of interest. and the LEO will be unable to testify or his testimony will be thrown away.


what do ya'll think? i'm still researching

Sorry, won't work except for impeaching the witness against you by showing his incompetence to testify against you--wasn't actually there, relying on hearsay, prejudiced against you thereby showing malicious prosecution, impaired vision/view of offense, etc. Remember, traffic court isn't a real court. Just a guy sitting up there, bored as hell, and a cash register.