Update (WOW) Just got a seat belt ticket in S.C.
It is irritating.
Here I was waiting at a light waiting to take a left turn when I had a cop pull up right behind me, I had control of the intersection (that means I was in the middle of the intersection so if the light turns red I have the right of way to go ahead and turn left, this is legal in S.C.) and after the light was yellow a couple of seconds I finally turned, he did not go till after it was red then he was still tailgating me and after we went a ways he turned on his lights. I of course pull over (this is by the police station but I avoided going in there). Well apparently he pulled me over because the year sticker on my tag was on the wrong side (apparently it has been this way since I got the car), he says that I wasnt wearing a seat belt either, even though when he walks up to the car I am wearing a seat belt. He gives me a warning for the registration thing (I have to go pay the taxes on it tomorrow), and a ticket for not wearing a seat belt. When he said that I simple asked when the court date was. He said that it doesnt add any points, or go to insurance and it is only 25 dollars, and I simply asked for the court date again, he told me it was november 23 (have to go to the court next week and see about getting that changed) then said it was a safty violation not wearing a seat belt. I said ok and then got to leave.
I know on this sight people have said sign the ticket without prejudice ucc 201 or 302, but here in S.C. they do not give you a place to sign the ticket so that doesnt actually work.
So what do the experts suggest.
UPDATE
................................................................................................
Just got out of court. It did not go as I had expected.
While I was waiting for the court clerk to call me up their I watched how the judge asked everybody if they understood the charge against them, I was paying close attention because my strategy (found here http://www.itulip.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-4106.html ) is that when he asks me if I understand the charges against me I start by saying no.
Well when I got called up there before the judge he said that I was charged with a seat belt violation, how do I plead. He skipped the whole do you understand the charges stuff required by the 6th amendment. Well I simply said "your honor I do not understand the charges against me" well boy he got mad, and asked if I had looked it up on the south carolina website I said I had, he then told me he was not going to give me legal advice and then he asked the officer when he was going to be back in court the officer said december 21 and the judge looked at me and told me to come back on december 21, and then said that he would not give legal advice. then he told me to leave. I said yes sir thank you your honor.
when I got into my car to drive off I couldnt keep my foot from shaking. whew
I understand this as a clear violation of his oath what should I do?
Be very careful.
You have existing contracts that your not aware of at work. Tread lightly.
However, I would recommend www.TeamLaw.net forum system.
I reserve the right to govern myself.
I reserve the right to govern myself.
cool thanks
..
Your very first statement should have been
...something along the lines of, "Your honor, before I can be compelled to make any statements, I need for you to affirm that the official record has been started." I think your strategy even gives this instruction (although I'll have to go back and look). This puts the judge on notice that he will be held accountable for his actions and procedures. This is important, no matter what else you do. Always make sure the record has been started and refuse to make any statements until the judge affirms. This always comes first, no matter what strategy you choose from there. This makes a judge think, "Hmmmm... why is he demanding that? Better mind my P's and Q's."
Also, your answer to the "how do you plead" question could have simply been, "I do not plead to courts of contract." However, following your strategy, your answer could have been something along the lines of, "Well, your honor - I'm not even sure who I would be pleading to... is this a corporate court? A court of admiralty? International court?" leading into your more-detailed jurisdiction questions from there, followed by, "...and I've not even seen the affidavit of damaged/injured party."
The strategy at the link you posted is very good; HOWEVER, you cannot count on the proceedings to follow a predetermined path. You have to adapt when the judge throws curve balls and does things out of step. Also, you cannot just parrot what's in that article; you must understand the rhyme and reason behind it. This will permit you to adapt in real-time when standing in a court. If this might present problems, then keep it simple (stick to a simpler strategy).
It looks like you're going to get a better chance on December 21st, so you have time to decide which strategy to stick to (and study it) before then. I'm not trying to force anything on you, but the strategy I posted below (raising questions of injured party, conflict of interest, proper cause of standing and et cetera) is very simple. Also, it's not theory - I've seen it work many times (never seen it fail).
EVERYONE ELSE WHO IS KNOWLEDGEABLE, CHIME IN! Let's help wraiththirteen and present him with as many options as possible.
didnt hit me till this afternoon
but as soon as I realized he skipped my sixth amendment rights I think I should have objected and motioned for a dismissal then.
Furthermore you are right about record being started stuff. I was thinking about it before I went up there, and when I got up there, I did not understand when I should ask it. Should I ask it before the judge says anything?
And lastly, you are correct I need to know my stratagy better. It is like every time I look at it I see something new in it, so I have a lot more to understand here.
You should have asked
...before the Judge said anything, but only if you could have done so without appearing to be confrontational/interrupting. Otherwise, no mater what statements he opened with, the very first thing out of your mouth should be about ensuring the record is started. However you choose to word it, you must make the point that you refuse to say (or hear) anything that is not going into record. If the judge refuses to affirm that the record has been started and tries to cite you with contempt of court, well... his accusation will not be in the record, so you can turn around and sue the pants off of him.
bump for the update.
Is that against the rules?
Yes, it is
How do you plead? :-D
hi
hi, i am in CA but have beaten 8 tix,. google constitutionalist beats seat belt ticket in CA, see my friends story. you can use same tactics. presumption of innocence is KEY, MAKE THEM W-O-R-K FOR IT!!!! GOOD LUCK
Hey wraiththirteen
Mondays, Thursdays and Fridays (four hour show) live online shows for a program called http://ruleoflawradio.com/ Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens and Eddie Craig.You need to talk to Eddie Craig, he's in Nacogdoches Tx, I'm in Houston and Randy and Deborah are in Austin. Eddie Craig knows traffic law like nobody I've ever spoken to. He's amazing. He just recently was driving back to Nacogdoches from Austin where they group was holding a seminar, he got stopped in Rockdale, just outside of Austin. Eddie has no registration, no inspection, no drivers license and no insurance. Well they arrested him and he was supposed to have a court date this Thursday, he sent them the laws and how they pertain, basically the things he teaches at the seminars and they dismissed the case, about $1,200 in fines because either they were confused or knew he was right and let her go. If you call shout out to Keith, we're all trying to get a national network established for folks to learn what the laws are and use them to our advantage.
Just one last kick in the nuts, then a final deathblow
Are you a US Citizen? I'd
Are you a US Citizen? I'd suggest that if under the jurisdiction of Caesar then give to Caesar what he requires of you. If you're not guilty then plead so, if you are guilty then pay the fine for breaking the covenant.
----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" Bugs Bunny
"Scwewy Wabbit!" Elmer Fudd
----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence
First, I call BS on that
First, I call BS on that give to Ceaser stuff simply because Caeser in this case, thinks everything is his! And that is simple BS.
Secondly, we have a God given right to care for our own safety, to make our own choices! We have a right to travel without interference. That has already been determined by law and is in accordance with the Constitution. I say make it cost them more than the $25 bucks they want from her. Make it cost them a lot of money to push this ridiculous, unconstitutional charge.
Blessings )o(
Blessings )o(
I am not trying to be found not guilty
I am trying to get the case dismissed. I am basically going to use my 6th amendment right when the judge ask me if I understand the law. I am going to say no, and once he allows me to ask him questions, I am going to ask if it is a civil case or criminal, If he says civil, I will motion for the case to be dismissed. He will probably say it is criminal, at which time I will ask if it is under common law or color of Admiralty. If he says common law I will ask for the case to be dismissed on the grounds that common law requires an injured party, and if it is under the color of admirbility, I again ask the case to be dismissed because that requires me to have entered into a international contract, and unless the prosicuter (local cop) has that in evidence it should be dismissed.
I havent gotten this down cold yet but I will before monday.
see http://www.itulip.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-4106.html
basically I am not trying to get to the whole plea thing because well I was not wearing my seat belt, but under the law (real law) the seat belt law is not legit and my whole not understanding the law and asking these questions bit will prove it.
But you HAVE entered into an
But you HAVE entered into an international Contract. Read down a couple of messages that starts "and none of it". The US Citizenship is international. You have made a private contract. The States are as foreign to each other as Canada is to Mexico, they are each Independent Nations. The United States is also an independent Nation. If you are a US Citizen then you have made a private contract with a Nation foreign to your own, your own nation being the State you were born within..
I truly hope you will come and post how this arguement works out for you.
The Statutes are not real Law, but they are Lawful. Statutes are the terms of a Contract. Article 1 Sec 10 of the US Constitution makes that contract Lawful. Your State Legislature is an extension of the US Government, as it is fully occupied by US Citizens, not Citizens of your State. Therefore the Statutes of your State, and even your Local City Government, are only applicable to US Citizens. But if you are a US Citizen you ARE bond by them and though they are not Law, they are Lawful. Statutes are not Law, but they are the "terms" of a Lawful Contract that the individual has agreed to by Oath and by Freewill, no one forced you to enter the contract under duress.
If you violate one of the Statutes you are being charged with Breach of Contract. But instead of calling it Breach of Contract, they will cite the specific part of the Contract you have violated, the specific Statute. This all has the illusion of real Law, but it is not Law. But Article 1 Sec 10 of the Constitution makes it Lawful, therefore it IS Law in that it is a Contract, and the unlimited right to Contract IS real Law.
----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" Bugs Bunny
"Scwewy Wabbit!" Elmer Fudd
----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence
What you've said is true
What you're referring to is a statutory citizen. But there is nothing requiring him to maintin his default/implied statutory citizenship; he can opt out, back to constitutional citizen.
The original Constitutional
The original Constitutional Citizen is no more. Originally one was a Citizen of their State. But a citizen is one who owes allegiance to an Authority, a Government. One can no longer be a Citizen of their State, the original "Constitutional Citizen", as there is no longer a State Government. The State Governments are occupied by Federal Citizens who owe their allegiance to the Federal Government, not the State Government. Therefore by default the States are extensions of the Federal Government. If one claims "Constitutional Citizenship", that is State Citizenship, then by default you are STILL a Federal Citizen because you owe your allegiance to a Government who in turn owes their allegiance to the Federal Government. If the State Goverments were not occupied by US Citizens this would be different. But all 50 States have in their Constitutions that only US Citizens may occupy office of Legislature. The only true way out is to claim your State as your NATIONALITY, and the Kingdom of Christ as your "Citizenship", to whom you owe your allegiance. And in claiming the Kingdom of Christ as your Sovereignty, you must know and follow the Bible, which is the "Statutes" of his Kingdom, his Covenant.
http://www.hisholychurch.org
----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" Bugs Bunny
"Scwewy Wabbit!" Elmer Fudd
----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence
Yes
"The only true way out is to claim your State as your NATIONALITY, and the Kingdom of Christ as your "Citizenship", to whom you owe your allegiance."
See this for more expansion on what you've said there: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/104252#comment-1141173
As still defined by current, prevalent law, one can still be a Constitutional citizen, although the laws pertaining to such are intentionally obscured and suppressed.
even citizens have some
even citizens have some rights;)
"Any law which would place the keeping and safe conduct of another in the hands of even a conservator of the peace, unless for some breach of the peace committed in his presence, or upon suspicion of felony, would be most oppressive and unjust, and destroy all the rights which our Constitution guarantees." Pinkerton v Verberg, 78 Mich 573, 584; 44 NW 579, 582-583 (1889).
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment... In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution JTM) it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
"Illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed." Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1884); Exparte Rhodes, 202Ala. 68 71.
"The State cannot diminish rights of the people." Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60.
And none of it is
And none of it is unconstitutional. A US Citizens rights are not unalienable, they are civil rights. This is by free will covenant between the Government and the individual. The 14th Amendment creates a new status of an individual, and it is a voluntary status, you don't have to take it. It is a covenant in which you argee to abide by the "Privileges and Immunities" of a 14th Amendment Citizen, in return for the "benefit" of being such Citizen. It is private law, a private FREEWILL agreement. It IS constitutional:
Article 1 Section 10 "No State shall...pass any...Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts"
The States cannot stop you from entering into this Private Citizenship, Contract, Covenant.
And when you enter into this Covenant you agree to abide by the Covenant, as defined by its Statutes, Codes, and Regulation (the contract). You agree to abide by Civil Rights instead of Unaleinable Rights of a Free Man. You have bonded yourself to a Covenant, you are not a Free Man but a Bond Man.
In exchange for your freedom you get the "Privileges and Immunities" as defined in the 14th Amendment for US Citizens. Look hard, you'll see where those "Civil Rights" are clearly defined within the 14th Amendment, right after the number "5".
5. "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
The privileges and immunities of a US Citizen are whatever Congress says they are, and always subject to change.
And none of it is Unconstitutional, it only appears that way because people stop reading the Constitution at the Bill of Rights. The 14th Amendment is a private Contract between the individual and the US Government, and the States, per the Constitution, can do nothing to impair the individuals right to make such a Contract.
If you have made Contract (covenant) with Caesar (man) then you owe all that Caesar (man) requires in that Covenant. But if you have made no Covenants with man, then you only owe what God requires of you.
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."
Hosea 4:6
By accepting an authority over your life other than Nature, Nature forgets you. And in doing so we enter into bondage under Man. And as our children acquire our Status at birth, they too are forgotten. If we have "gods" before God, then we lose what God gives us, which is Unalienable Rights. Washington DC is a "god", it exercises Authority over men. And when we allow them to be an Authority over us and before Nature, we become slaves. It has been this way for thousands of years, and history has recorded it. But still we do not learn, and still we reject freedom in exchange for the dainty meats offered by Kings (benefits).
“The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 US 90), and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 US 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the States, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment by grand jury, contained in the Fifth Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 US 516), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witness is, contained in the Sixth Amendment. West v. Louisiana, 194 US 258. In Maxwell v. Dow, supra, where the plaintiff in error had been convicted in a state court of a felony upon information and by a jury of eight persons, it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the Fifth Amendment, and the trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the Fourteenth Amendment… the decision rested upon the ground that this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not forbid the States to abridge the personal rights enumerated in the first eight Amendments, because these rights were not within the meaning of the clause ‘privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.’ …We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the States…
“…it is possible that some of the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against National action may also be safeguarded against State action, because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law… If this is so, it is not because those rights are enumerated in the first eight Amendments, but because they are of such a nature that they are included in the conception of due process of law.”
(Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 98-99, 29 S.Ct. 14, 53 L.Ed. 97.)
----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" Bugs Bunny
"Scwewy Wabbit!" Elmer Fudd
----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence
Bump for Justice!
Bump for Justice!
JC
*****The Federal Reserve is neither. Audit the Fed, then end it!*****
*****The Federal Reserve is neither.*****
Update?
What ever happened with this?
court date is november 23
So I will update after that.
Thanks
Good luck!
Call them out
You: Officer, what is this?
Officer: It's the citation I issued you.
You: Is this a valid standing cause of action?
Officer: Yes.
You: Please describe for us the elements comprising a valid standing cause of action.
Officer: Uh...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You: Judge, may I please see the affidavit of the injured party?
Judge: What affidavit?
You: The affidavit necessary to allege that I committed a crime. The affidavit which outlines who the injured party/complainant is, and the nature of how I violated the rights and/or caused damage to the injured party.
Judge: Uh...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You: Judge, am I entitled to a fair hearing here today?
Judge: Yes.
You: Can I get a fair hearing if there is a conflict of interest?
Judge: No.
You: Who do you represent here today?
Judge: Uh...
You: Isn't it true, irrespective of any injury I allegedly caused, that you represent the state of S.C., which is the allegedly-injured party, a named party to the case, and the complainant?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You: Judge, do you know someone who has a claim against me? If so, where is this individual?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You: Courts are established to protect and maintain individual rights. It is clear that I have in no way violated or impacted an individual's rights. Based on what I have learned here, I cannot, in good conscience, be compelled to plead to this court of contract. It would appear that all public business concerning my private affairs is concluded here today. I'm finished. Let me know when I'm free to go.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
If things don't go well, then request a jury and reiterate the above in front of a jury.
If you request a jury and are refused, do NOT plead – period, no matter what you're threatened with. If the judge tries to enter a plea on your behalf, state to him that you are a flesh-and-blood individual who will not plead to a court of contract, and that any plea he enters on your behalf is a presumption and a personal opinion on his part, which is forbidden by law. Make sure to make statements that will show on-record that you do not plead and do consent for anyone to plea on your behalf.
If he enters a plea on your behalf anyway, always say (for the record), “I do not agree with that plea.” I had a judge try to enter a plea for me, which went something like this:
Judge: The court hereby enters a plea of guilty for the defendant.
Me: I do not agree with that plea.
Judge: Okay, the defendant disagrees with the guilty plea. Let the plea on behalf of the defendant be that of not guilty.
Me: I do not agree with that plea.
Judge: So you do not agree with “guilty” and you do not agree with “not guilty”? Then I'll enter a plea of nolo contende (no contest, which is basically considered guilty).
Me: I do not agree with that plea.
Judge: You can only plead guilty, not guilty, or nolo contende. There are no other pleas.
Me: That's the problem. “I” can only plead one of those and you're trying to plead for me, against my consent. You do not speak for me, and I do not plead to courts of contract, especially when they are not being fair with me. You do not represent me; you represent the complainant. In fact, no one represents me. I don't need anyone to represent me. I AM me. Any plea you enter on my behalf is a presumption expressly forbidden by law. Because there is no injured party, because your presence here represents an unambiguous conflict of interest, because the officer is not qualified to identify a valid cause of standing, and because a named party to the case, you, is presuming to plea on my behalf, which furthers the conflict of interest in this case, my position that I do not plead is solidified.
Judge: You will plead or you will be found in contempt!
Me: With all due respect, finding me in contempt may not be a bad idea. What we have here is a representative of the complainant, who, in the interest of extracting money from me irrespective of whether or not I've committed a crime, which I could not have done because there is no injured party, is trying to enter statements for me into the record. A contempt charge, while immediately inconvenient for me, would open the door for me to have this matter more fairly-reviewed by civil court in a different venue (implying a law suit, without directly threatening a law suit). I am willing to sit it out in a cell to accomplish that, based on the unwaivering unfairness and bias demonstrated here today.
Judge: THAT'S IT! You are hereby charged with contempt! Bailiff, remove the defendant from my court room and remand him to the city jail!
I was taken down the hall and sat in the booking room for about 40 minutes. While I was there, one of the cops said to me, “Man, you're pissing off the judge. That's not good. You oughtta just plead, pay the fine for the ticket and be done with it. It would cost you like 50 bucks and you can go home.” My response to that was,”Nope, the judge serves me and he's not doing a very good job of it. He's not being fair with me. I think this should be brought to the attention of others in authority over him. He's not upholding the laws that he's sworn to uphold. He seems to make them up as he goes. You guys will never, under any circumstances, no matter how long I have to sit here, see one penny out of me. You guys can pay to house, feed and clothe me.” At that point I was fully prepared to sit there for a few days, then turn around and sue, making sure to get it all over the local media. The cop left the booking area and, about 10 minutes later, he came back to let me know that the case was dismissed and that I was free to go.
It may not work this way for you. Be advised that there is the distinct possibility that the judge has made up his mind that you're going to pay money, no matter what you say. You can guage the judge's demeanor toward your questions/statements above. There is always a danger that you could end up spending a few days in jail, but with good recourse to bring a subsequent suit. It's up to you whether or not you wish to stand your ground and assert principals.
Be assertive and authoritative, but not arrogant. Do not raise your voice. Do not make gestures or exhibit body language to indicate anger, disappointment or outrage. Do not smirk as if to say, “gotcha!” The judge is your servant. Your attitude must convey to him that you know this, but do so courteously and professionally.
Also, if asked, “Are you John Doe?” respond with something along the lines of, “If you're asking whether or not I am John Doe, in the flesh and blood, the real-life John Doe, then yes. If you're asking if I am a legal representation of John Doe, then no.” If asked whether or not you're a U.S. citizen, see this (scroll down to the “Are you a U.S. Citizen” part).
Good luck! Let us know which way you end up handling it and how it turns out for you.
it may get there
next month on the 21st
Judge: I am fining you for contempt would you like a cell too?
"Human beings with love and compassion are some of the most beautiful creatures in the universe... Those without are a plague on us all."
"Human beings with love and compassion are some of the most beautiful creatures in the universe... Those without are a plague on us all."
Read from...
“Judge: THAT'S IT! You are hereby charged with contempt! Bailiff, remove the defendant from my court room and remand him to the city jail!”
They will threaten you with a cell every time. Often they'll go through the motions (take you to booking and hope you'll crack). Occasionally they will actually put you in a cell for a couple of hours – at which point you have good grounds for recourse against them.
That's why I gave the warning...
“There is always a danger that you could end up spending a few days in jail, but with good recourse to bring a subsequent suit. It's up to you whether or not you wish to stand your ground and assert principals.”
It depends on how dedicated you are to standing up against a false system and what risks you're willing to take. If a few more (fraction of the general public) would wake up and start doing it, the risk would diminish. Still, it's worth it for me, even with the current risk level. I will say, though, that most judges are very good at gaging whether or not you know their scam. If they can tell you're just parroting what someone else told you to say, the risk is higher. If they can tell that you're onto their farce, they generally won't carry through on their threats (although they will generally still threaten).
I swear
I'm not an English buff nor a grammar nazi
but I have to giggle at what I envision when u say "assert principals"
never happen! A judge isnt
never happen! A judge isnt going to put anyone in jail for a seatbelt ticket....He probably doesnt even have an oath on file...I would check that before your court date...If he does not, then he CANT issue judgments
Nice Response Echelon
Thanks for the practical situational strategy. I may need it at some point.
I agree
One never knows when they'll be placed in a situation where they might need this info... I'm reading through the "itulip" wraith13 posted below.
I assume you're also from Penna... have you heard of anyone trying these types of strategies in the Commonwealth?