Tyler.Durden wrote:EBSB52 wrote:
Sorry brother, this is a Naziocracy... don't be so utopian... last one out, flush the toilet.
This is a constitutional republic, where "we the people" are the masters of gov't, its time we learned a few things and start treating our public servants as such...
EB, the answers you seek are in LAW not Equity.....LAW is not Utopia, LAW is strict, LAW is harsh, and must be invoked properly to sit on your side. The NAZI court you mock is embedded in LAW for if there was no LAW there would be no EQUITY and hence no NAZI traffic court.
Yes the LAW does exist, whilst the average joe squanders about in EQUITY during his citation, he will get quashed by administrative process. One must learn the severability between LAW and EQUITY and how to envoke it. Everything done in the court is LEGAL even though prima facia it appears fraudulent. Traffic court is not a court, it is administrative review, plane and simple. Constitutional rights are non-existent in EQUITY matters such as a citation. Appearence at an EQUITY venue, unless properly challenged prior, tacitly admits jurisdiction to the court....its their rules not ours....plane and simple.
Never battle the enemy on his terms.
--Sun Tzu
Well, we're forgetting that procedure and admissions are the substantive basis for getting this justice, to think that your description is real and applicable to all is the part I call utopian. You sound very versed in the law and I can't imagine you haven't watched a trial or two; have you ever seen discrepancies in the administration of the law via procedural bias / flaws? The judge has to allow you to be your own counsel, even if you're an attny. The judge has to admit your defense, admit evidence and ultimately issue instructions to the jury, given you have the right to a jury trial and ask for one.
LAW is harsh, and must be invoked properly to sit on your side
You invoke it and the judge says no, such as with my asking to admit the audiotape at the scene of the ticket described - then denied.
The NAZI court you mock is embedded in LAW for if there was no LAW there would be no EQUITY and hence no NAZI traffic court.
So you're saying the NAzi courts, traffic and otherwise, are supported by this system of law; you're saying they're legitimate? How about a case where a guy was wrongfully fired from a supermarket manager position, sued the corp pro per against the largest law firm in the state, won a 33k jury verdict to have the judge toss it a week later? Was that legitimate that the judge had Fascist, corp-loving leanings instead of being for this system of law to which you refer? Again, I agree with you that it should be that way, just that it is that way to insist that it applied that way. You sound like a law school student; am I right?
Then we have selective prosecution on the part of the cops and the prosecutor. How does this fit your perfect model of your flawless system? How about when innocent people are executed or sentenced to prison? The part I call utopian is the party where you seem to infer if you invoke all of your safeguards you will be afforded enough law to have equity, fairness, and general SUSTANTIVE due process, not just procedural due process.
I guess that's the crux of what I'm saying, as college/univ professors have said:
5th procedural due process versus 14th substantive due process; you can have the 5th/6th w/o getting any 14th.
One must learn the severability between LAW and EQUITY and how to envoke it.
I understand and don't appreciate your condescension; talk to other's that way. I watched a guy in traffic court say it was his constitutional right to have a reflective cover over his license plate - that's more about equity. To approach it from a strict law perspective you would read the statute's text and look for a defense within that.
Everything done in the court is LEGAL even though prima facia it appears fraudulent.
Hmmm, maybe you can explain how the Honorless Judge Ron Johnson of the Chandler Justice Court was grabbing ass in the court administration, lending plaintiffs money to continue their case, issuing summary judgments before even seeing defendants and a myriad of other things; 7 charges in all for which he admitted to 6. He was eventually disciplined by a 30-day suspension and agreed to never run for office (just of peace) again, but allowed to finish his term. Maybe it's just me, but I didn't see that as legal.... utopia, everyone aboard - Tyler, I believe you have a ticket for utopia. Maybe the prima facia appearance skews the reality that he is a great guy and that these things were legal.
Traffic court is not a court, it is administrative review, plane and simple.
Traffic court really isn't just traffic court. In Nazizona the lower courts, JP's and Muni's are courts of limited jurisdiction. They are not courts of record, but an audio record is produced and transferred to the real court (Superior Ct) if a party doesn't like the usual fucking he or she receives. The limits for these courts of civil litigation are up to 10k and they handle many eviction procedures and restraining order type actions, just as the Superior Court does.
Administrative review? Get a clue. The Rules of Court apply, whereas administrative boards, Registrar of Contractors, AZ Department of Real Estate, FAA/DOT, and list of hundreds of other are administrative and have no requirement to even listen to arguments of civil procedure as established by the State Supreme Courts. To read your arguments is to listen to idealistic kids.
Constitutional rights are non-existent in EQUITY matters such as a citation.
Are you talking US Constitutional rights or State Const rights? It is harder to draw Federal Const rights into traffic as the USC allows individual jurisdictions to Nazi how they wish.
Appearence at an EQUITY venue, unless properly challenged prior, tacitly admits jurisdiction to the court....its their rules not ours....plane and simple.
Remember, you’re writing these utopian motions to uneducated imbeciles, so what do you expect them to do and what is your recourse if they deny and put their X on the signature line? I know lawyers who refuse to work out of lower courts due to the ignorance of these judges. So the judge fails to understand it, then tell you to fuck yourself and to appear….. You appear with your argument about them not having jurisdiction and they proceed, you lose and then what? Complain some more? Then have the Superior Court tell you that even though oath was not read, it was a harmless error? I took it all the way to the State Supreme Court? What exactly are your arguments here?
Plane and simple, you lose with your utopian arguments, even though you might be right.
