Fighting another traffic ticket

This was a very cheap shot where I turned right onto a highway and didn't quite come to a full stop.  I was cited for a $90 ticket.
I have a policy of fighting every ticket.  It can greatly delay payment of the fine, will cost the authorities to process you, is an excellent education in the courts and law, and what the heck, I might even win or get a break!
My initial intent was simply to beg for leniency and lay out my reasons why I see the whole Motor Vehicle Code as a scam.  I figured I could at least warn the Judge that he will someday himself be judged by God.
My preliminary meeting with the prosecutor was delayed about 1.5 hours from my time to appear and I hadn't noticed that I never signed the ticket - technically I was under no obligation to appear.  I told the prosecution I would be pleading not-guilty and contesting jurisdiction.
A few weeks after this meeting I read a traffic citation package that said how to beat any traffic ticket.  It was based in CA but I figured I should read it and see if there were any arguments I could make.
It pointed out that the CA civil procedure does not allow a party of the case to serve a summons.  I tried to look for the ID equivalent rule but had a hard time searching it - they purposely format the rules in a way that is not searchable or easily navigated - it really makes understanding it difficult but looks like its all laid out for you.  This trick appears to be done by all the states.
I found the ID equivalent of the CA rule and went back to the clerk and gave her a written letter asking to see the Magistrate on this ticket matter and made the argument I found in the ID rule.  She denied my request without explanation so I asked her to write on my letter the gist of her response.  She said she wasn't comfortable with doing that so I just asked her to write down that she had read it and date it.
With this I felt I had a pretty good chance of wining based on the traffic packet's info.
Well, when I got to trial I brought this up and the judge said that an infraction is done under the criminal code.  That was interesting... something changed since that packet was written.
Not knowing the criminal code at all threw me and I was on my own.
I then pointed out that there was no damaged party, not tort and no trespass so this cannot be a crime.  The judge said I was under obligation, having a driver's license, to obey the traffic laws - throwing it into a civil matter.  I pointed out that my driver's license was entered into under duress and thus that contract was invalid.  He said that this was a criminal matter and that the argument was not applicable.

So there you have it.  An infraction is one of those sneaky in-between things where the judge can play whichever side he wants to to get you.  If you argue no crime - it becomes a contract issue.  If you argue under duress, it becomes a criminal issue.

Although I had a lot of things I wanted to say to the judge, mainly from a common sense argument from conscience I could see this was a laundry room and not a court and my dry throat would be wasting its efforts.  The judge nor clerk would allow me to submit the written argument due to it not being formatted properly.  To read it aloud would have worn my dry mouth out and the judge was already prompting me on the stand for factual points of the incident - he cared not about the law and its proper application.

I was toast.

I paid the fine and am wondering if its worth trying to appeal.
After the trial I investigated a few things.  I could not find the same technical argument in the Idaho Criminal Rule or the Idaho Infractional Rules that I found in the Idaho Civil rules.  The appeal process also appeared quite daunting.  I have 42 days to appeal so I will sleep on it for awhile.  Before leaving the court I asked the clerk what forms I needed to fill out to appeal - naturally that was considered legal advice and she said I needed to look it up on the internet for myself - thanks for all that help madam!

What drives me mad is that the infraction fine is just low enough to make it not worth your while to fight these things.  I know every ticket can be beaten - I had a wonderful lawyer in the Seattle area that did so for me and many others and won every time.
On principle I feel I should fight this but is it really worth all the grief?
It's just like a game of chess, except the game is stacked against you and full of traps.  You can pay the fine or you can pay the lawyer or you can really feel the pain and try to figure this crap out.  They will never help you in any way and they will change the rules midstream to trip you up.

My head hurts.

Just for the record, here were my written arguments:

Statement of defense for infraction 5908

This statement is my defense against the charges leveled against me in this court.  It is a witness against the court, the law and its enforcement that I wish to express to the court.  It is my hope that this statement will grant me some leniency from the court concerning this infraction.

My Plea

My plea for this case is “Not Guilty” mainly because making a plea to this court is the only way to contest this infraction and I realize that doing so admits jurisdiction of the court over me and this infraction.  My real plea would more accurately be labeled as “The Emperor has no clothes”.  I would normally ignore this petty infraction, which I never signed, and let it sit, but the state would further hassle me with higher fines and attachments to my driving record that would cost me more in required insurance costs and possibly eventually get my license revoked, so under duress, I appear before this court and grant their pseudo-jurisdiction over me so I may explain why I hold this whole charade in low esteem.

Technically guilty as charged.

The allegation of the officer is correct.  I did, by accident, fail to stop at the designated location of this charge due to distractions at the time.  I was observing my speed and the traffic but due to the nature of the preceding intersections, the darkness of the evening, and due to distracting thoughts in my mind at the time, I failed to notice the stop sign or perceive that I was passing through it till I was half-way into the intersection.  I therefore kept going to get out of the intersection and proceeded safely towards my destination.

Why this charge should not be enforced

No crime was committed

No tort or trespass was involved in my actions and therefore no damages caused to anyone by them.  The prosecution itself has termed this as an infraction which would appear to be a technical term falling outside the definition of a true crime.  Indeed IRCP 2 states that all actions take the form of a “civil action”.  This implies a violation of contract which I have no knowledge of being a party to.  Since I did not sign the citation (nor was asked to) I submit there is no contract involved here to support a civil action.

Denial of rights

Denial of due process

IRCP 4(c)(1) (By Whom Served) states:

Service of all process shall be made by … not a party to the action.

Since the officer consists of the sole accuser, witness, and prosecutor he is a party to this action and cannot be the server of the summons.

Upon discovery of this error I immediately came to the court to attempt to resolve this with the magistrate.  I asked the clerk if I could see the magistrate to resolve this matter and was denied the ability to do so.

See Exhibit A for proof of my communications with the clerk.  I asked the clerk to write on my letter her response refusing to grant me access to the magistrate.  She said she was “uncomfortable” with stating her response in writing and did not give me any explanation as to why I was not allowed to see the magistrate.  I did manage to get her to note that she read the letter.  If the court has a problem with this being sufficient evidence of my being denied access to the magistrate on this matter, I would like to call Deputy Clerk Nicole Kinzer to testify on this matter.

This is a further violation of due process.

Denial of jury trial

The ticket I was given clearly states that I am denied a jury trial (although a sign posted on the clerk’s office window states that traffic violations can have a jury trial).  No reason is given for this but it is presumably because the value of the fine ($90) is insufficient to warrant one.  The constitution states that a jury trial will not be denied for issues in excess of $20 but because of the perversion of our currency (using Federal Reserve Notes rather than lawful gold and silver as legal tender) it is no longer easy to determine where that true $20 value line exists.  Further we know that congress has officially set the price of gold far from the natural market value (See public law 92-268 (http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/92/268.pdf ) where congress authorized the US Treasury to value gold at 38FRNs/oz which would make $20 in gold = $640 in FRNs) so this further blurs the line.

The jury is one of the most powerful of instruments devised by the people to keep a rogue government in check.  The policy of denying the right to trial by jury is evidence that the court is not interested in upholding the rights of the accused but rather in its expediency in processing cases.

The true common law Jury has jurisdiction over determining both the validity of the law and the facts however, because the law cannot be judged until a guilty verdict is reached, it is rare that a jury issues any statements concerning the validity of a law.  An acquittal may mean that the law is in fact in error, but again, as far as the case is concerned, the point is moot.  Thus over time the jury has been reduced to only concerning itself with the facts of the case.  Further, through procedures such as voir dire, the jury is typically gutted of all thinking individuals and should some sneak through to hear a case, courts routinely restrict what the jury is allowed to see and hear so as to further corrupt the purpose of the jury – that is, as a check on the court and law itself.  Thus even in cases granted a jury, the process is far from the common law ideal that produced juries in the first place.

It is very simple to logically show that a jury, being a sampling of the people, has an authority that outranks that of the judge – even in matters of law.  Our courts are established by the constitution (either state or federal) and the constitutions are established by “we the people” and so by the simple maxim of law that the created can never be greater than the creator we can clearly see that the authority of a jury exceeds that of a judge.

Denial of the right to travel

It has long been argued that travel is a fundamental right of men because we are a communal creature that must cooperate with each other in order to live.  Men simply cannot survive completely independent of each other and so methods of both communication and transport have been devised to allow for the necessary commerce between men.  In this case I was traveling in a private capacity, serving the community on a volunteer basis as a chess coach to Kamiah High School.  This forces me to use the public right of way often.

The state sees the roads as it’s domain and thus it’s property (usurped) and uses this as one of the arguments to gain jurisdiction over traffic violations such as this infraction.  The argument goes that public safety is important to the public and thus justifies regulating travel.

Regulation is by definition a pre-crime type of idea and has no place in a truly free society.  Like the hypocritical pharisaical traditions of bible times, it attempts to prevent harm by building a fence around the true law of God and enforces it with fines and punishments, creating a behavioral modification program for its subjects.  By doing so it often steps over the line of what is really state business in an effort to enforce regulations designed to prevent harm or true crime.

The constitution grants the state the right to regulate commerce.  This sounded good to the signers of the constitution but the minority that refused to sign that document soon after produced the Pennsylvania minority report (see the Anti-federalist papers or http://teachingamericanhistory.org/bor/pa-minority-report/ ) which listed this clause as a door to tyranny.  In their words “… we .. found it to be .. surrendering up your dearest rights”.  Our bill of rights directly came from this report but the commerce clause was not purged from the document by those amendments.  The commerce clause is the nexus of much of our current system’s pre-crime laws.

In order to accomplish it’s regulatory goals the state has devised several ways to force its citizens into its jurisdiction.

Registered Automobiles

The first method is to force car dealers to surrender the bill of sale, the only evidence of true private ownership, to the state in exchange for a certificate of title which constitutes a declaration of mutual interest between the state and the new caretaker of the automobile, now designated a motor vehicle, which is a commercial legal term.  This is the owner’s only allowed proof of ownership by the state and such regulations constitute theft by the state of private ownership on its face.  This can be bypassed by building your own car or by resurrecting a car no longer considered as viable and thus free of this state title status but doing so is tedious and costly.

Thus I am denied private ownership of a non-commercial automobile by state policy.

Notice of Vehicle Registration

The state requires that all registered vehicles have license plates on them which uniquely identifies them, granting law enforcement the information needed to identify the likely driver even before taking action.  It can require this because the automobile has been registered with the state as stated above.  This is a violation of our right to privacy on its face as this license plate number is associated with the registered owner whom a law enforcement officer will presume to be the driver per SOP.

This license plate also openly declares to all that the car being operated is an interest of the state and immediately places its operation under (presumed) state jurisdiction.  I am thus denied the right to privacy by state policy and denied the right to privately travel outside of a commercial status.

Driver Registration

Now that the state has obtained a near-forced interest in the automobile it requires that its operators become drivers and obtain a driver’s license.  A license is permission to do something that is normally illegal and thus driving a commercial motor vehicle must be a commercial activity which the flawed commerce clause gives jurisdiction to the state.  Clearly if “driving” was not a commercial term but a common law equivalent of “traveling” then it would not be the state’s business how I travel so long as no trespass or tort arises. 

Showing a law enforcement officer your driver’s license now becomes declaring to him that you are using a commercial vehicle under a commercial license, further granting evidence that you are operating under commercial law and thus applying statutes based on the commerce clause to your activity.

However, should I not obtain a driver’s license or refuse to surrender it to the officer, I will be guilty of not cooperating with law enforcement and will likely be hassled and possibly charged with more serious offenses than an infraction.  So now I am being forced to testify against myself via my commercial documents.

Driver’s licenses in the past were clearly marked as commercial entities, then just abbreviated as a CDL and finally completely omitted from the document as being essentially commercial in nature.  This is evidence of fraud in that it hides the nature of the document I am carrying and must sign when obtaining.

Thus I am under duress when I obtain and sign my driver’s license and give it to the officer.  This renders the document void as a contract.  I am denied the right to claim private travel rights because I am forced into commercial contracts by state policy.

Perversion of the law

The law in this case is clearly perverted in the following ways:

Confused language

Legalese is a term often used to describe the language of lawyers.  Law dictionaries are available to help understand this language but they have changed significantly over time giving clear evidence of perversion of the language.  Also the law itself will frequently re-define its own terms internally and so the meanings of sometimes very common English words will have entirely different meanings depending on its context within the law.  Add to this the fact that section titles of law are not to be construed at all as part of the law and we have another instance of deception foisted upon the un-initiated reader.  Thus just understanding the true meaning of law requires computer or legal assistance in many cases.

The language of the motor vehicle code is clear on its surface but vague when trying to identify jurisdictional issues.  The definitions of such terms as “driver”, “vehicle” and “operation” have changed significantly over the years to hide the commercial character of the law and its true source of authority.

Copious volume of the law

The sheer size of the code, even locally, often requires large volumes to contain.  State and federal statutes and regulations fill a library.  It is nearly impossible, even for lawyers, not to specialize because knowledge of the whole law is now virtually impossible.

Public availability obfuscated

While doing research for this case I came across the public website containing the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure (IRCP).  I was trying to find where it says a party of the action cannot be the server of the summons as sited above.  Because the site breaks up the code into sections and subsections it becomes difficult to search.  Even section references within the code are not cross-linked.  This formatting also makes it difficult to navigate and understand.  Luckily, search tools on the internet allowed me to bypass this obfuscation – with some difficulty.  I left a note at https://www.isc.idaho.gov/main/contactus asking if there was raw text of the code available for searching but received no response.  I was unable to find a raw text version of the code on the internet.

Denial of interpretation

A common statement from the bench in pro-se cases like this is I am not allowed to give legal advice.  This is often confused with legal information which is typically what I would ask of a judge but often am denied.  I have actually asked judges questions such as “what is the cause and nature of this charge?” and have been told that answering this question constitutes giving legal advice and am denied a simple quo-warranto response which is one of the main purposes of having a judge in the first place.  This denies the questioner an interpretation of the law in the context of the case from the bench and thus forces the burden of understanding the law’s true meaning and applicability onto the pro-se defender.  Because it is illegal for anyone but a Bar Association approved lawyer to give legal advice we have a forced monopoly on understanding and using the law – denying its full usage by the people, the true creators of the law.

The use of private code

The law is so perverted that the courts routinely use “the code” as if it were the law rather than the true law which are the statues at large as written by the legislature.  The code is actually a private interpretation of the law published under copyright by private institutions such as West Law and are not in themselves law at all, yet the code is routinely sited by government officials as if it were the law. 

The code became necessary due to the law’s corruption.  The existence of the code is further evidence of the law’s corruption and the failure of the legislature to publish law in a form easy for the courts to use.

Perversion of the court

Collusion between officers of the court

Because all lawyers and judges are members of the “Bar Association” and because both defense and plaintiff attorneys are considered officers of the court, all three parties have a vested interest in the process of fine extraction being maintained as is.  Their loyalties to their clients take a back seat to their loyalties to the Bar Association and to the system as a whole.  Seeking truth and justice or even restitution is no longer a priority with the court because of this collusion.

Loss of separation of powers

Some statutes now do not allow a judge to grant any leniency on the fine of an infraction.  This removes the independence of the court from the legislature and its ability to independently judge the law for the case and determine a just punishment for the crime.

Most officers of all three branches are members of the common Bar Association further eroding a true separation of powers.

Which law am I under

Because the court shows evidence of operating as a part of the judicial branch, it would appear that I may be under the common law in a case.

Further, court rules are typically issued by the legislature which would make it appear that the court is under the jurisdiction of the legislature rather than a separate branch of government.

Because the court shows evidence of being under the legislative branch, it would appear I am being tried under statutory law applicable by the commerce clause as an administrative action.

Most courts show a gold-fringed flag in their courtrooms which is defined by title 4 of the U.S. Code as not a flag of the united states but is in fact used for military jurisdiction which implies that the court is acting under the control of the executive branch.

Because the court shows evidence of operating under the executive branch, it would appear that I am operating under admiralty law.

Because I have typically been unable to get a judge to declare to me which law I am under (common, statute or admiralty), I am denied knowledge of the nature of the charges which is fundamental to forming a proper defense.

Not doing justly

The true definition of justice is the ability of the weak to hold the powerful accountable to the law and to obtain restitution from the offender to repair the damage done by the crime.

Because the courts are routinely involved in enforcing regulations and statutes instead of dealing in the common law, and because fines and incarceration are the typical form sentences take, and because of the expense and time involved in winning a case via lawyers, true justice is not being served.

When I lived in the Seattle area, I had a lawyer that I could pay to get me off of any and all traffic infractions.  She never lost a case and I used her probably a dozen times over a 20 year period.  I watched her at work one time successfully dismiss 50 some cases within an hour using various technical arguments or creative negotiations.  It is clear to me that with sufficient legal resources all of these motor vehicle statutes can be beaten.  We often see clear and public high crimes go unpunished by our highest officials and yet have thousands of people in jail right now under punishment for mala-prohibita classes of crimes (ie: pre-crime) sometimes receiving decades of incarceration for issues that caused no one any harm.

On the other side of things, I have people that have robbed me personally of very large amounts of money by fraud and negligence.  I have found I cannot get justice from these people.  Prosecutors are corrupt and the system has no interest in helping me to obtain redress – it is only interested in getting your money.  Some cases of crime are big enough to warrant the expense of lawyers and they can result in some compensation but more often than not, the lawyers take all the money and both sides lose.

Our current justice system thus provides neither restitution, nor the ability of the poor and weak to truly use it.  It is the primary reason for the existence of government and it is the least well done aspect of most governments.

Taking bribes

I did some investigation on a previous case that showed that our counties typically obtain the lion’s share of their fines from traffic infractions.  I can produce what I found for Latah County on request but was unable to obtain this same information for Lewis County in time for this hearing.

I do not know the exact course that these fines take but I suspect that both law enforcement and the judge’s retirement would be adversely affected if all traffic violations were dismissed by a court.

Perversion of law enforcement

No longer under local control

Today our law enforcement is no longer locally controlled.  Homeland Security typically funds much of what our police and sheriffs officers use.  All money received from this and other government agencies outside this district have or will have strings attached.  This constitutes a foreign influence on our local law enforcement personnel. Law enforcement is thus not really free to obey their oaths of office and protect the rights of individuals.  They have been co-opted into becoming enforcers of the will of entities and interests outside of their proper jurisdiction.

Typical violations of rights by policy

I am pretty sure that my confession to the officer of my guilt concerning technically not stopping at the stop sign was recorded electronically without notice and will likely be presented by the plaintiff as evidence.  This is another typical policy of law enforcement that violates our right to privacy and engages them in getting us to testify against ourselves even before being placed on the stand in court.

This country is in near-riot state over issues such as police brutality and it can be easily shown from internet testimonials (see http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/why-police-officers-lie-under-oath.html  for an example) that police officers commonly lie in court all the time in order to get convictions.

But what will happen if we just let people drive crazy?

I got a chance to have a private conversation with the officer that gave me the citation for this case.  He expressed a point which I am sure most law enforcement officers have.  That being that people out there are crazy and if we didn’t stop them, people would be killed and property damaged.

Officers rarely realize that a collective right is derived from and not higher than an individual right.  We are raised in public school from a very young age to give credence to the idea that democracy is good and that we are in one.

But a group such as say the Bar Association has no more right to tell me how to handle my own affairs than do I to meddle with its internal affairs.  Just because the government is one of the largest collective agents there is does not grant it rights superior to any individual’s.  It is only through contracts like constitutions and voluntarily signed permits and licenses that we grant rights to others over us.  This was how this fundamental violation of equal protection under the law was breached.

If proper restitution were used as the punishment for real crimes, the consequences of our actions would be made clear and the public would be allowed to mature into people that can govern themselves and thus be free.

Something that is practiced all the time in our society, yet never open labeled as such, is involuntary servitude – like when you pay your income taxes.  This is a just and good form of restitution for crimes that are so bad that restitution is otherwise impossible yet it is not used for that purpose.  If this were used properly, if you commit a crime, you could become a slave, even for life.  Granting the power to the victim to give or restrain mercy is where mercy belongs.  Should the slave fail to obey, the crime becomes a capital one.

I have driven in the Philippines and I know what it is like to see people traveling free of regulations and insurance.  It may be very scary to a typical American that is used to everything being regulated from cradle to grave but these people are freer and much happier than Americans are.

I believe the fact is that if you hold people accountable for their actions and properly administer justice with restitution to the victim and mercy from the victim you will have a free people with much more respect for one-another and overall you will not see so much collateral damage caused by allowing people to simply be responsible for themselves.

The crime of running a stop-sign by accident has no victim.  Thus there is no restitution to be had and there is no crime.  Once an accident happens, the sign becomes additional evidence for who was at fault and presents a character witness against the offender.  This is when restitution is due and the sign becomes a factor in the judgment of the crime.

What you can do as a judge

I understand your situation.  You are paid to conform to the statutes and use the code.  You are restricted in what you can do by the Bar Association and by your superiors.   However I believe there is something you can do.  You can call a jury, fully inform them of their power to judge both the facts and the law, and you can even ask them to suggest a solution by way of restitution in the case of a guilty verdict.  You can then issue that sentence under the authority of the people and I believe you would be acting well within your proper authority under the common law.

You would of course eventually be fired but you would be demonstrating to the people the publicly pretended idea that the people own the state and not the other way around.  You could then become a productive citizen with your conscience clear and your future bright, if not in this world, then certainly in the next.

Summary

The state has become a tyrant using perverted language, law, lawyers, legislators, courts and law enforcement to wield power that routinely violates the rights of citizens.  Standard operating procedure includes routine violation of the rules of procedure such as the officer being the sole witness, accuser, prosecutor and server.  The state is striking fear into its citizens by issuing copious regulations and fines to maintain control.  It is no different a situation than what the Declaration of Independence described of King George.

There is however a final judge of this world and at the proper time He will call all things into His courts and will meet out true justice.  He will not be mocked nor will the unjust go unpunished.  I appeal to the God of Abraham and Isaac and Israel and I know that ultimately all will be made right. I witness before this court this day, that what is being done here is wrong and I give warning – what you are doing will not go unpunished.  Indeed, you are perverting justice which perverts your very own community and ultimately reduces your own happiness and freedom.

I pray that the court will consider these offenses and compensate me for this harassment by dismissing this case or at least waving all or part of the fine if possible in the interests of true justice.

Sanford Staab

4/28/2016