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.
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
.png)
