18 votes

Court Date for Speeding From a Pursuer. Didn't Know it was the Police. Please Help.

At 1am on a long dark stretch of road, a car was apparently pursuing me.
I chose to flee (really fast) until the car turned on his police lights.

I heard of someone winning a case were the police presence was seen to be the cause of the offence.

Does anyone know of any cases or information that supports this argument?

Any replies, well appreciated.

-Garan

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

this is reminicient

of a situation I've seen around here a few times. A fake cop goes around attempting to get females to pull over. Almost unanimously and with no dissent all the police chiefs in the area who were interviewed by the media gave the same response. "When someone attempts to pull you over at night, proceed to a brightly lit area to stop". Shame this isn't anything the mentality the revenue producers are able to comprehend and follow. Don't count on attorneys to help you, these are the guys bringing them the cases. BTDT, had a cop admit in court he was following me at 45 MPH less than a car length behind me who used this as an excuse to pull me over for speeding when I tried to get out of his way. Had his high beams on and following me as I'm in my classic LITTLE 83 Fiat Spider and he's in this large patrol car. Clearly a case of entrapment but after paying $6500.00 due to the fact I had refused the DUI test my attorney would not challenge the Constitutionality of the stop. I was forced to accept an unrated misdemeanor. Not going to bite the had that feeds them.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

Garan's picture

Attorney Shopping

You may want to keep your eye open for a different attorney.
Many attorneys won't deal with petty-misdemeanors.

I was flatly denied help from one attorney, yet his partner/father was willing to take the case after he met with me and saw my concern.
I had to convince him that his fee was worthwhile to me. A little funny.

Me and a friend of mine made use of the same attorney who would slide into the judges office and walk out with a favorable deal. He might not have appeared to be a sharp and powerful attorney, yet worked his magic for me and my friend.

However, my friend was upset when this attorney would not make some fundamental legal arguments. I think that is natural. Who would want their client dictating your area of expertise, or pushing for a legal argument that the attorney is not prepared to make. Attorneys don't want to fall flat on their face in the eyes of a judge. Their next client might not get fair consideration if the attorney is seen by the judge as just a waste of time.

However, if you can find an attorney who is strong with constitutional legal arguments, then you might get the defence you are looking for. If you find one, please let me know.

Duel (1971)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5t2WEWxou8

Free includes debt-free!

Garan's picture

Update and Result

First of all, thanks to all the responders. I will have to digest the supplied information and try to argue the fundamentals and ideals with a court when the stakes are not as high.

I went to court with a local attorney. He was great; skillfully questioning the officer and myself.

It was a small town.
Everyone involved (except the prosecuting attorney) was nice and didn't resort to any tricks or misrepresentations (aside from common prosecutor techniques).
My case was the only one the court needed to deal with at that session.

It turns out the that police officer was approaching me at 125mph in a 65mph zone before he turned on his lights.

I won't say (or publish on the internet) how fast I was going. Let's just say while others might call my speed dangerous, it was no where near the speed of the officer, and I couldn't outrun the police vehicle if I tried.

I was always told that police had to turn on their lights if they were going to break the law. Turns out this is not true.
It's no wonder police think they can operate outside of the law, because they already do.
Yet, that wasn't what this case was about.

I ended up paying a ticket for the speed I was traveling before the police officer affected the situation, 72mph in a 65mph zone. We didn't get far arguing that normally officers don't ticket within 9mph over the speed limit (which is the federal guideline for establishing speed limits and enforcing them, adopted by my state).

That's probably the best I could have hoped for.

If it was ruled for a higher speed, I could have paid thousands of dollars in car insurance alone over a period of years.
This also helps me get more lenience when courts or police officers review my record when making decisions against me.

I don't think I could have done this myself. I was getting nowhere trying to communicate with the prosecutor, and my attorney couldn't either (due to the nature of the prosecutor).

The judge ended up being reasonable and practiced judicial leniency, since there was no way the prosecutor was going to do that.

Overall, I find the predatory nature of some law enforcers (and people) to be disturbing, ironically making me act paranoid. I call it, "being hunted".

B.T.W. The model of the radar that the police used is called "The Predator". Guess who the prey is?

paying anything for victimless crime is extortion

"leniency" is a farce

Garan's picture

I understand the ideals, yet have other reasons.

I would like to use any of my legal dealings to help push the legal envelope towards freedom.

However, I also want to be able to successfully defend myself within the court system as a survival skill.

I've been fighting tickets and have been making baby steps towards making more fundamental arguments and actions in my defence.

In this case, I needed to take into account the economics of the situation and the likelihood of a good (or decent) result.

I don't think I would have gotten anywhere with fundamental legal arguments in this particular case.

My use of a good attorney (one who could see, believe, and be willing to fight against my petty-misdemeanor) achieved probably the most I could have hoped for in the court room. ..and it was educational to witness my attorney do his work.

Although most people might see the cost of an attorney not to be worthwhile for a petty misdemeanor, I believed my attorney will have saved me a greater amount of money going into the future. I had to make a financial sacrifice beyond my budget, yet (I believe) needed to do so in order to avoid greater loss.

At this point in my personal development, I am satisfied with being able to formally defend myself (with the help of an attorney) in the courtroom, where the odds are stacked against me.

Strategically, I think it is necessary to be able to effectively operate within the court system as well as being able to attack the roots of the legal ideals (or 'reality' to those who believe).

Hopefully, some day I will help create more legal leeway for us freedom lovers through more fundamental arguments and actions.

However, I think it is important to be able to play the legal game when necessary.

practce, practice!

practce, practice!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk-nxZ16tJY&list=PL2B0D84AD9D... Traffic Violations Court Procedures Part 1of2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpxvz3pR6-U&list=PL2B0D84AD9D... Traffic Violations Court Procedures Part 2of2

more goodies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcCPRe6vTtA Beating Civil Traffic Tickets - Part 1 Standing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi_3qP5ZLt8 Beating Civil Traffic Tickets - Part 2 Impeach a Witness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGNJ7ma-NHE&feature=c4-overvi... Beating Civil Traffic Tickets - Part 3 Fair Trial Impossible

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do3eTH-NtSk Rod Class - The Driver's License Issue Taken Beyond

http://www.notacitizen.com/index.php/articles/86-sample-docu...

Taken from Carl Miller: http://privateaudio.homestead.com/CARLTEXT.pdf
- if you get pulled over by a cop and hand him a paper that basically outlines the following (along with the relevant legal references):
(1) He took an oath to support and defend the Constitution
(2) That any act he takes in violation puts him at legal risk
(3) Article 6 of the Constitution (supreme law)
(4) Right to travel
(5) State cannot convert right to privilege
(6) If state does, it is null and void
(7) If LEO acts under "color of law," he can be liable for 1983 lawsuit -- and what "color of law" means
And a statement, "Officer, I would prefer you just tell me I am free to go and I'll get on with my day and you can get on with yours."
I wonder how many cops would say, "Have a nice day," versus how many would still issue a ticket (assuming a relatively minor infraction, such as speeding or running stop sign, etc.).
-This has worked for me when stopped by a leo
Submitted by go213mph on Wed, 11/21/2012 - 22:43. Permalink
Let it be known that I claim Common Law Jurisdiction. I have the constitutional right of common law process.

Amendment IX of the US Constitution states: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”

Amendment X of the US Constitution states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”

If I haven’t damaged any of your property and you can’t show me a contract that I’ve eneged on, I shall be fee to go. You can accuse me of something but you cannot kidnap me or take me to jail without violating my Constitutional rights under the supreme law of the land.

Supreme Court Decisions that provide precedence for my Constitutional right to travel unmolested on the public roads:

Supreme Court Decision #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." (Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221)

Supreme Court Decision #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579)

Supreme Court Decision #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." (Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125)

Supreme Court Decision #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." (Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941)

It cannot be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
-http://privateaudio.homestead.com/CARLTEXT.pdf

http://www.realtruth.biz/driving/supremecourt.htm

so.... 2 questions...

1-- have you used this(successfully) in person(ie traffic stop) and if so , can you kinda go through what happened?

2-- Could this be used in court , if you got stopped for say no license , reg, and ins? If so... do you know of anyone who has used it in court --successfully.

Thanks

It is interesting...

No visibility, headlights on your bumper, no way to tell if its a cop or a psychopath...fight or flight kicks in and you flee.

Did the OP stop once the cop identified himself?

Did the OP flee towards a safe location? Like a well lit public place that had other people or a police station?

If he would have just kept

If he would have just kept driving until the cop identified himself he could probably get away with it. His downfall is the moment he decided to speed during the pursuit, if he wouldnt have sped he'd be ok probably.

forgot where I got this, but very informative

If you have some time visit the law library and read about common law defaults. You might even find information on law procedure in your local library. Visit a traffic court to see how make hundreds of thousands a day moving tickets. Get on the net and find a copy of the court rules including “local court rules” and the code for future reference. You will need both. You will need to be familiar with the rules for courts of limited jurisdiction and at least the general outline of your state code, in particular the Motor Vehicle Traffic Rules and code or statutes.

Start building your own law library in your home. Seek out good used law books at second hand stores. Remember that those books you pay a couple of dollars, were bought for hundreds of dollars. While you may think old law books discarded for new ones are outdated, think about that outdated common law we brought with us to this country from England still exists and those old law cases that we use everyday to support our contentions, including 1886 Yick Wo. Please be responsible and save these lessons in a secure place for future reference and back them up as you should the L series files. They will always be available as long as I am alive in case you lose them, but don’t count on me always being around.

The material in this course and the application can be used in many and varied circumstances. The procedure is ancient in origin and well founded in all law. It is so powerful in the hands of a skilled opponent who is supported by foundational law; it is a threat to government which most often works from an inferior position (founded on deceit) and law. The key is to lay the foundational facts out in such a way as to show that the opponent’s case is without merit.

History of the Creation of the Traffic Default Procedure

For years we fumbled our way through traffic courts. We met as an organized body several times a month to discuss and review what we had learned during the interval between meetings. We had found valuable tools but nothing that was consistent or easy to use. There were specifics for various infractions but nothing generic. For instance if the cop lost sight of the vehicle, we could usually win those cases. Failure to file the ticket in 48 hours was an easy win as well, but we still lacked a good method.

Then, along came the “tacit procreations” which looked good but were hard to enforce. Usually the prosecutor ignored them and just did his little introduction and examination of the officer on the stand and the judge would rule against us. It seemed as if it were rigged against us and there seemed no way to beat them at the game.

One day I was shopping for law books as I always did in used book departments of second hand stores and bought a Federal book on Forms and Procedures. I started using it for the forms and procedures in it and found it a good general self help of endless examples of forms. Eventually I run into the “Default Judgment” part of the book and it hit me as being the long sought after procedure for put the prosecutor in his place. To set the stage for a default, I would need a good affidavit which couldn’t be rebutted. Then it was simply giving notice of the default with a chance to cure it, a Final Default and Praecipe to the clerk to enter the default as laid out in the Federal Forms book.

But I knew by this time how clerks work, they go to the judge to see what they should do if it is out of the ordinary and then the judge will instruct them as to how to handle the situation. I had seen this played out in my experience with the court clerks. I knew the judge would tell the clerk not to do it because they don’t want to allow it. I also knew that there had to be a way to force the clerk to do it, and I knew the remedy was Petition for Writ of Mandamus. I also knew the judge would not want to rule on the Petition unless pressed into doing it. So, I had to come up with a way to let the Judge off the hook in a collateral way, leads to the Motions to Dismiss, which gives him a good excuse if he is so dumb he can’t come up a reason to dismiss the whole thing on his own.

It wasn’t long before my Friend Dana Beaver an American Indian came to me for help with his ticket. I told him about my ideas and he said let’s try it. I prepared all the paper for him in about two hours and told him to file it on the dates on the paper. He came back several weeks later and told me they dismissed without him saying a word. I was shocked because this court was notorious for being corrupt. Soon others came and went, coming back telling me their cases were dismissed as well. One even told me the Judge wrote a Findings of Facts and Conclusions at law upon his false arrest and imprisonment. I was totally shocked and continued to do the paper for all who came to me, and they were all winning. One prosecutor even admitted in open court a driver’s license was not required.

Always keep in mind, the motions are fluff, the meat is the default and the tool that makes it work is the mandate.

The motions to dismiss also give you good cause for Writ of Error to the Trial Court should the judge not dismiss your case on the default alone. What you don’t bring up in the trial court, can’t normally later be brought up in any other court. This just puts more pressure on the judge as these issues are issues he doesn’t want you to pursue.

Constitutional Law Course

I jumped at the chance to take a Continuing Education law class offered by a retired judge professor at the local state college. It was a special class, open to anyone, one of those community learning forums but with credits if desired. I took the class and one Saturday we were discussing the Indian Burial Grounds Case in Northern California. There was a sweet young innocent Indian Woman in the class who was very quiet but interested in the case and at one point in the conversation a brash young man sitting beside her derogatorily said, “The Indians want to under the tribal law when it suits them, and at other times under the Constitution when that suits them.” I saw the offense on this Indian Woman’s face and raised my hand to speak. Before being called upon to speak, the professor went to the board and wrote, “Sovereignty” on it as he knew what the first word out of mouth was going to be as I proceeded to quote Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 from memory.

"Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.”

Then I asked if I could go to the board and draw out the chain of command in our country. I drew what you will see in the file “law.jpg” in L1.zip which both concepts were verified by the professor to the class. This would prove to me and the class that I was not some radical but had a true rational concept of the law. It also demonstrates that they know the secret and while on the bench deny it in the most hypocritical ways to the injury of those who trust them to make righteous judgments. I am sure this judge and professor knew exactly who I was and that I had observed him on the bench in the past.

He obviously knew my reputation based on the fact that he knew what I would say, before I said it. He also must have known that he was giving away a professional secret which he himself had abused. Obviously however, he also knew that I was the only one in the class who knew, that he knew what I suspected he knew.

Fundamental Forms of Law and Procedure

In our system of law, there are fundamentally four forms of law.
Natural Law
Common Law
Constitutional Law
Codified Law

Natural Law is the highest form of Law because it is The Law of our Creator.

The Natural law of prudent Man is He shall defend his claims or actions. One of the earliest recorded demure was in the Garden of Eden when Adam was confronted by God and where he confessed but tried to shift blame to the woman. All unalienable rights emanate from our Creator and are carried into society by long honored and generally accepted law. Natural being that which exists in Nature, or in other words, established in Society as custom and not form any statute or man made law. Thus natural law is the highest order of law, some of which has been codified as is some of the common law.

Natural Law defined:
“An ethical belief or system of beliefs supposed to be inherent in human nature and discoverable by reason rather than revelation a nonlogically necessary truth; law of nature. See also nomological (law of nature) and in a second sense, the philosophical doctrine that the authority of the legal system or of certain laws derives from their justifiability by reason, and indeed that a legal system which cannot be so justified has no authority.” Collins Dictionary

More basically, God's law is never changing natural law as differentiated from man made law subject to constant change. There however are overlapping aspects of each form of law. Constitutional law is basically derived from the common law and natural law or sometimes called the law of nature.

"Hence also, the origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact, between the rulers and the ruled; and must be liable to such limitations, as are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the latter; for what original title can any man or set of men have, to govern others, except their own consent? To usurp dominion over a people, in their own despite, or to grasp at more extensive power than they are willing to entrust, is to violate that law of nature, which gives every man the right to his personal liberty; and can, therefore, confer no obligation to obedience."
"When human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void." Alexander Hamilton, 23 Feb. 1775

“We understand all laws to be either human or divine, according as they have man or God for their author; and divine laws are of two kinds, that is to say: (1) Natural laws; (2) positive or revealed laws. A natural law is deemed to Burlamaqui to be “a rule which so necessarily agrees with the nature and state of man that, without observing its maxims, the peace and happiness of society can never be preserved.” And he says that these are called “natural laws” because a knowledge of them may be attained merely by the light of reason, from the fact of their essential agreeableness with the constitution of human nature; while, on the contrary, positive or revealed laws are not founded upon the general constitution of human nature, but only upon the will of God; though in other respects such law is established upon very good reason, and procures the advantage of those to whom it is sent. The ceremonial or political laws of the Jews are of this latter class.” Borden v. State, 11 Ark. 527, 44 Am. Dec. 217.

“The Founders believed that self-representation was a basic right of a free people. Underlying this belief was not only the anti-lawyer sentiment of the populace, but also the "natural law" thinking that characterized the Revolution's spokesmen.” See P. Kauper, The Higher Law and the Rights of Man in a Revolutionary Society, a lecture in the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research series on the American Revolution, Nov. 7, 1973 quoted in Faretta v California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).

Justice Souter has numerous times dissented on the Natural Law. The following is the last time he has done so and it is a very interesting case to read for the principles involved, its discussion of common law and natural law, and the Constitution. It demonstrates how closely related these different forms of law are related and sometimes difficult to distinguish from each other, if such a distinction is really important in the first instance.

Speaking of Souter's dissent: "The dissenting opinion seeks to reopen these precedents, contending that state sovereign immunity must derive either from the common law (in which case the dissent contends it is defeasible by statute) or from natural law (in which case the dissent believes it cannot bar a federal claim). See post at 797-798. As should be obvious to all, this is a false dichotomy. The text and the structure of the Constitution protect various rights and principles. Many of these, such as the right to trial by jury and the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, derive from the common law. The common law lineage of these rights does not mean they are defeasible by statute or remain mere common law rights, however. They are, rather, constitutional rights, and form the fundamental law of the land." Alden v Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 733 (1999)

"The protection against unreasonable search and seizure might have primacy for one judge, while trial by a jury of twelve for every claim above twenty dollars might appear to another as an ultimate need in a free society. In the history of thought, "natural law" has a much longer and much better founded meaning and justification than such subjective selection of the first eight Amendments for incorporation into the Fourteenth. If all that is meant is that due process contains within itself certain minimal standards which are "of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325, putting upon this Court the duty of applying these standards from time to time, then we have merely arrived at the insight which our predecessors long ago expressed." Adamson v California, 332 U.S. 46, (1947)

"In these cases the common law adopts the principle of the natural law, and finds the right and the justification in the same imperative necessity." Burlem. 145, sec. 6; id., 159, c. 5, secs. 24-29; Puffendorf, B. 2, c. 6. Bowditch v. Boston, 101 U.S. 16.

These cases show the close relationship between the natural and common law. Indeed the first book in the course of study in the Constitutional Law Class was the Bible as a reference to show the origin of most of our fundamental law.

"It must be interpreted in the light of Common Law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. The language of the Constitution could not be understood without reference to the Common Law."
U.S. Vs. Won Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456.

Much of the natural, common law and of course Constitutional law has been codified in the statute or codes of various states and the USA. In fact our law is much the same as those of all other countries of the World.

"Law of the Land" means "The Common Law."
Taylor V. Porter, 4 Hill. 140, 146 (1843) See also the oft quoted by the Supreme court, Wynehamer v. People, 13 N.Y. 378 (1856)

Nature of Traffic Law

Traffic acts with the exception of vehicular homicide in general are Malum prohibitum as opposed to common law crimes which are said to be Mala in se (intentional homicide for instance). Such prohibited crimes or infractions are victimless for the most part.

Infraction or crime is mostly dependent upon state laws. In states that have “decriminalized” infractions, normal traffic infractions are not crimes, however reserve protection from abuse of courts as if they were in a sense criminal. This leads to a perverse concept that they are in essence criminal but there is no solid evidence that is the case when the intent to introduce a new form of offense as an infraction was to effect the purpose of “decriminalizing” the various acts of the states.

Kan.Stat.Ann. § 22-2401(d) (1999 Cum.Supp.) (for "[a]ny crime, except a traffic infraction or a cigarette or tobacco infraction," committed in the officer's view)

For instance, Texas traffic violations are petty misdemeanor crimes, while Washington’s are mostly infractions and civil in nature. However, some acts might be infractions of criminal law but criminal acts are never infractions. The distinction here is that the use of the word as a noun means the act, where used as an adjective or verb is equivalent to breaking of the law. So it is easy for some to read law and come to wrong conclusions based on the use of the term “Infraction”. The infraction scheme is nothing more than a tax and revenue method today and for this reason does very little to effect safety which is the ploy used to justify the common tax.

Common Law of Default

A good lawyer, if there is such an animal will always frame his paper to box the victim into either defending or defaulting. Thus it is common to always put reciprocating acts into a time frame, such as you must act by a certain date or some action will befall you.

“Once a defendant is served, the next step is for the defendant to either answer the lawsuit or have its default entered. Entry of Default is a separate step from obtaining a default judgment. The entry of default merely cuts off the defendant's right to answer. This is a relatively simple step which occurs by following a one-page document. In a simple case based upon a book account, the clerk can enter judgment with little documentation. However, in a more complex case involving a bad check, lease payment, etc., the attorney may need to obtain an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury signed by the client along with appropriate supporting information.” Commercial Law by Steven Lovett

There are four kinds of judgments in civil cases, namely:
1. When the facts are admitted by the parties, but the law is disputed; as in case of judgment upon demurrer;
2. When the law is admitted, but the facts are disputed; as in, case of judgment upon a verdict;
3. When both the law and the facts are admitted by confession; as in the case of cognovit actionem, on the part of the defendant; or nolle prosequi, on the part of the plaintiff;
4. By default of either party in the course of legal proceedings, as in the case of judgment by nihil disit or non sum informatus, when the defendant has omitted to plead or instruct his attorney to do so after a proper notice or in cases of judgment by non pros; or as in case of nonsuit, when the plaintiff omits to follow up his proceedings.

These four species of judgments, again, are either interlocutory or final.

JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT, is a judgment rendered in consequence of the non-appearance of the defendant and is either by nil dicit or by non sum informatus.
This judgment is interlocutory in assumpsit, covenant, trespass, case and replevin, where the sole object of the action is damages; but in debt, damages not being the principal object of the action, the plaintiff usually signs final judgment in the first instance.

JUDGMENT BY NIL DICIT, is one rendered against a defendant for want of a plea. The plaintiff obtains a rule on the defendant to plead within a time specified, of which he serves a notice on the defendant or his attorney; if the defendant neglect to enter a plea within the time specified, the plaintiff may sign judgment against him.

JUDGMENT OF NOLLE PROSEQUI, is a judgment entered against the plaintiff, where, after appearance and before judgment, he says, 'he will not further prosecute his suit.'

JUDGMENT BY NON SUM INFORMATUS, is one which is rendered, when instead of entering a plea, the defendant's attorney says he is not informed of any answer to be given to the action. .

JUDGMENT OF NON PROS. (from non prosequitur,) is one given against the plaintiff, in any class of actions, for not declaring or replying or surrejoining, etc. or for not entering the issue.
See http://www.lectlaw.com/def/j009.htm "Judgments"

"The principle which governs the practice in both these courts is that [93 U.S. 153] the defendant stall not be taken by surprise, but shall have sufficient warning before a decree is entered against him by default." O'Hara v McConnell, 93 U.S. 150, (1876)

Notice is one of the most important principles of default as will be explained by the above quote as well as basic default history in common law. It is absolutely mandatory that you give proper notice and time to respond. Any failure to do so, is fatal to the cause if objected to by the other party and a default taken without notice can and should be set aside for lack of due process. This is why the proc.txt outline must be followed and the timeline as set by individual court rules and established law to effect due process in the matter and issues brought before the court. Like playing chess it is improper to take the Queen without warning when you are the moving party.

"It is also contended for the appellant that if the truth of the general rule must be admitted, that he who seeks judicially to establish a claim based upon an alleged default of his adversary must affirmatively establish by proof the facts which justify his complaint, and that the burden of proof, as a principle of general jurisprudence, is assumed by the plaintiff, unless the cause of action is confessed or admitted judicially by the defendant; yet it is also true that if the defendant accompanies a general denial of the alleged cause of action with the admission of such facts as in law constitute his liability, the plaintiff's case is in fact admitted without other proof, and that in this aspect the libellant was entitled to a decree below on the basis of certain admissions of fact in each of the answers inconsistent with the general denials of fault." The L P Dayton, 120 U.S. 337 (1887)

While we are defendants in a traffic case, the same principles apply as if it were a counter complaint. The intent of the above reference is to show that the burden is upon you however in this case the Plaintiff will never defend and such is fatal to any claim he may have made.

"...that these defendants had not by any neglect or default brought themselves within any just principle of estoppel, and upon a careful review of all the evidence adduced upon the trial..."
Glenn v Garth, 147 U.S. 360 (1893)

The default naturally implies bars and estoppel on the order of lach against further action on the part of the party who neglects or fails to defend. The only remedy in case of outright misrepresentation is to “set aside the default” so it isn’t fatal till the point the failure to defend is sealed by the defaulted party in his neglect to motion to set aside the default for good cause, then proceeds to announce his good cause to the court. The court then has discretion to set aside the default, but until that time the default can’t be ignored because it is a ministerial duty to enforce it as a matter of law.

Courts of Limited Jurisdiction

Traffic infractions and lesser traffic crimes are held in courts of limited jurisdiction. The name limited jurisdiction is determined by code to have limits in value amounts generally and in certain matters, traffic offenses being one of the matters. Often misdemeanor crimes are heard and adjudicated in courts of limited jurisdiction while mala in se crimes and felony matters are held in the courts of general jurisdiction.

Appeals from these courts of limited jurisdiction are generally heard in the courts of general jurisdiction. You need to be familiar with your state law to know where the appeals are heard. Always be several steps ahead of the game so that you are prepared to move your case quickly with anticipation of what will likely happen next.

Normally the one who is supported in law and the moving party is the winner in any case. Learn to move your case and make the other party work for every inch of ground they retain. This is one of the secrets of success of the default process and changes roles for the prosecutor as he now becomes defensive and few will defend. I have only heard of two times when the prosecutor tried to defend and in those cases the defense was obviously flawed by personal opinion without any facts being established. You can proceed with the papers as if you don’t expect any action on behalf of the prosecution because it will be rare indeed if they move against you. Later we will explain why even if they answer, they don’t establish any facts.

In our country, courts are courts of common law and equity at the same time, but traffic courts are notorious common law courts. If you don’t know the difference between common law and equity, then you need to read the file “Basic Equity” in the files section of the lawwork group webpage. You will also find files on the common law and other subjects which will magnify your knowledge of law in general. Ignore those who claim the courts all rule in equity, these are those who don’t know the difference between the common law and equity. One of the maxims of equity is that it always follows the common law, that is, where there is no remedy in common law, equity will provide a remedy.

Conclusion
The default is well supported as a basic principle of law in Natural, Common and statute law. It is based on notice, opportunity to defend and judgment based upon failure to defend Nil Dicit (when plaintiff or petitioner) or Nolle Prosequi (defendant or respondent) in the case where the prosecutor fails to prosecute the case, both comprising Default Judgments in general.

You must not be passive to win, you must move quickly in your case in all instances. The prosecutor will rarely if ever defend his position so you can move without making any assumptions that you have to modify your paper in any significant way. Thus you can calculate the time in advance for each paper and date them accordingly, file them in the proper order and wait for the hearing.

Always remember the judge knows the law, he knows you are right, and he has a ministerial duty to give some kind of judgment in your favor. Show confidence in the courtroom like you are a professional who can’t be buffaloed with non sense. The courtroom is yours, bought and paid for by you either directly or indirectly, so make it your home for the time you are there.

Make wise use of the resources on the lawwork AND lawworks group web pages especially the files section and former messages on lawworks where only I post. Some of the best of the best messages are located on the lawworks group. Build your own library from published works from attorneys libraries donated to second hand stores.

Always carry pen and paper everywhere you go. Save any questions on this text in a special file till the conclusion of the course, so you won’t lose them.

Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst. With the knowledge you receive in this course, you should be an expert in your cause.

Next lesson is: The Arrest

The lesson will cover the basic necessities to be prepared for the stop and to lay the foundation for your case. It will also cover the legal aspects of the stop and how it plays in with the overall process of preparation for the default depending on your personal situation. You will be given some choices of approach depending on your nature and disposition at the time. What you do here could mean you win or have to go to court to win.

The lesson covers your choices with or without license and how to set the officer up for the administrative review or contest of wits in court better known as contested hearing. You should be mentally prepared for the traffic stop after this lesson.

Your homework assignment is to visit and become acquainted with your local law library. At least learn how to find Yick Wo v Hopkins in the United States Supreme Court Case Citations.

sounds like your screwed bud.

sounds like your screwed bud. You should have never ran in the first place even if you didnt know it was a cop. If a guy is speeding up behind you then let him pass you dont speed up like your running from some mob boss. Your gonna have to pay the fine im pretty sure.

First, lawyer up

edit: just read your post saying you did get a lawyer. Fantastic!

Don't listen to the people on this site (like below) who will tell you to not get a lawyer. They are flat out wrong. Dealing with the system is hard, it has nooks and crannies and rules and deadlines and you'll never navigate it by yourself.

Next, I'm guessing that your lawyer will be able to subpoena the dash cam and show two things. First, that the officer didn't have his lights on and thus, you had no indication that you were under pursuit. Second, as the car approached yours, your driving shows signs of fear. Since you didn't know you were under pursuit, you were obviously driving that way to escape danger, not the law.

I do know of one situation like yours. A friend of mine did the same thing you did. When the cop asked why, she said "it's the middle of the night and I'm a single woman with my kids in the car. I didn't know who you were, you just kept getting closer and closer to my bumper. I was scared." The cop left her alone and it never went to court.

I did a search

on this page for "dash cam" and your post said pretty much what I was going to say. A dash cam, if there is one, should show the car stalking you with no lights and, to me anyway, it's perfectly reasonable to be concerned over the intentions of an unknown car behind you. If you pulled over when he put the lights on that's even better although I did get an email recently about fake cops using lights so even then you have to be cautious.

Good luck~

Garnet
Daughter of 1776 American Revolutionists

Garan's picture

I hit my breaks the moment the police car lighted up.

I also immediately expressed relief to the officer that he was an officer and not someone else chasing me. This probably helped my case.

He ended up being a nice cop, yet wrote the ticket.
Maybe in the future he will be a little more lenient if he finds that he pushed someone to break more laws.

Garan's picture

Thanks for the tips.

I managed to find an attorney to help me with this.

The prosecutor doesn't seem to practice any judgement themselves; simply prosecuting to the full extent, regardless of individual circumstance.

We'll just have to argue our side and hope for some leniency from the judge.

WHY YOU DON'T WANT AN ATTORNEY

1. To what or whom is an attorney's first duty? We consult the latest Corpus Juris
Secundum (C.J.S.) legal encyclopedia, volume 7, section 4 for the answer below:
2. What is the legal relationship between an attorney and his/her client?

3. What is a ward of the court?
(Are you an infant or person of unsound mind?)

4. Do you need to challenge jurisdiction? Better read the following, particularly
"...because if pleaded by an attorney....."
Conclusions of law:

1. When you hire an attorney, you become a ward of the court and a second
class citizen and you admit the jurisdiction of the court in the matter at hand.
2. You can't hire an attorney if you want to challenge jurisdiction.
3. If you want to challenge jurisdiction, the only way you can do it is as a "sui
juris" and/or "in propria persona".
Should you hire an attorney? What do you think?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Dont use a lawyer, go yourself see my article the law and you po

My article posted here THE Law and YOU

Never use a lawyer they do not defend you. They will never bring up the corpus delicti. Or Jurisdiction They have no case on you period and you may be able to collect funds from them as the injured party.

Thanks
May GOD Bless each and everyone.
I pray that God may see that Ron Paul will not be hurt or wounded, that he may become our next full two term President of the united States of America!
Tim

can you post the link

to your article please.

http://www.dailypaul.com/311523/the-law-and-you

Thanks for the info listsells. Will look into it. Seem like a lot of good info.

OK you get it, now here's what we do.

Now is where we really start working. Now that you are properly disillusioned that anything like truth or justice exists in these courts.

If this attorney working with you even breathes "plea deal" stop payment their check. Our standard advice, and we didn't hear the cops found drugs on you or that you were fleeing the scene or an accident and you didnt' rob anybody and try to escape.......

is that they are gonna want you to assume culpability to justify their screwed up system and count you as another "successfully resolved crime" for their bullshibbit statistics.

What you want is to enter a plea of not guilty and allow opposition to show you what they have for evidence. And you want to request EVERYTHING THEY HAVE. ALL DOCUMENTS, DASH CAMS, EVERYTHING AND BY THE WAY IF THIS IS A CRIMINAL CASE YOU CAN SUBPOENA PRETTY MUCH ANYBODY.

In your case from what I hear we don't need this one to "go federal" and I think what we are looking for will be a negotiated settlement that primarily doesn't impact your (non) criminal record AND doesn't bang your insurance rates.

In case you don't know I'm not joking consult my latest post about my friend Ray. We know you need help and we intended to give it from the start. Just takes a while until you are in the frame of mind eh?

We're never in trouble until we are. Then all we got is each other.

There is nothing strange about having a bar of soap in your right pocket, it's just what's happening.

I wouldn't do that

You said:
"What you want is to enter a plea of not guilty and allow opposition to show you what they have for evidence."

As soon as one enters a plea they appear generally and grant jurisdiction for something the court most likely has no jurisdiction to hear.

Of course if the poster is asking this question now the poster has likely screwed him/her self and lost the most important opportunity to get admissions to lack of jurisdiction, lack of lawful agency, lack of valid cause of action, and possible admissions of criminal acts by the man who interfered with their path of travel.

Also, an attorney is an officer of the court and will be construed as granting subject matter jurisdiction if the attorney does not challenge jurisdiction. Also, if this happened in Cali, Rule 4.100 of the Cali rules of court prohibits an attorney appearing specially at arraignment and if the defendant is represented by counsel at arraignment enables (unlawfully) the court to plea not guilty for the defendant thereby granting jurisdiction to itself. Also, attorneys play the game of 'be nice to judge so he will like me and give me what I want' so the attorney will not challenge jurisdiction on the most opportunistic and most valuable points to the upholding the rule of law.

Also, the attorney will not go after questioning the man claiming to be 'judge' on the fact that they actively stand outside of their lawful capacity due to their on-going breach duty at the very moment the man claims to be under the capacity of his office. The attorneys will NEVER do that because they are already bound as an officer of the court and a BAR member and could face sanctions, fines and even disbarment if the attorney is not 'liked' by the criminals claiming to be "court".

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

I think many miss the point here, the proof burden is on Garan

unless this is a criminal matter. Not sure, we don't have much info to go on. There IS case law that deals with this not knowing the other person involved was a cop and some judges in some circuits have indeed found there's no obligation to stop for a person if you have no reason to believe they are an officer performing normal duty.

UNFORTUNATELY Garan never heard that in that situation you immediately call 911 OR you drive WITHOUT STOPPING OR BREAKING THE LAW to a police station where you seek protection. Failing that, any well-lit area with other people where you can drive up and SCREAM FOR HELP so you have plenty of witnesses that attest you felt like the person in question was threatening you.

FROM HERE, absent proof that the officer followed her in an unmarked car and NEVER ACTIVATED HIS LIGHTS OR SIREN, in most cases the cop will just lie and say they did and that Garan fled from their lawful order.

So if Garan has no such recordings or actions or witnesses, about all you have left is a dashcam the unmarked car MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE, MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN OPERATING AT THE TIME AND MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE GOTTEN "LOST".

That's the playing field here. We have no other info to work with.

There is nothing strange about having a bar of soap in your right pocket, it's just what's happening.

who was injured??? the accuser has burden of proof

No injury, no damage, no crime. Simple as that

I was in exactly the same

I was in exactly the same situation. I was driving the car and unmarked car started stalking behind me.

It was the day I bought a car, I had no intention of speeding or fooling.

I did speed up because because I did not want the car to follow me, I did not feel safe with the car being so close to me.

When i was pulled over that was 25mph over the speed limit where there was the speed limit of 55 mph or so.

I have talked police officers over not to write me anything so I avoided any penalties or even the record of being pulled over.

I did mention them that their car got too close to me. I don't know if that was a valid argument for them (probably no). I think they wanted to record so that they would have plate numbers clear on their automated video recorder.

Either way: 1) try to postpone your trial day as much as possible. 2) do as much research as possible, even try locating some older cases 3) the rest of DP's are right, everything you need to know is either on internet or you can buy some books from Barnes and Noble.

I have also recently beat automated radar ticket, maybe I need to share my experience here....

Engage in Secure Exchange

Garan's picture

Yes. Post your automated radar ticket story, please.

I'll might have to face that situation some day.

Garan's picture

Here is what I do when drivers try to stick with me.

If it is a two lane road with the car approaching me from behind, then matching my speed, I'll change to the other lane (the fast lane usually) and then sharply slow down.

If they do something overt to get behind me, I'll do just about anything to get them off my tail, including pulling over or taking an exit to let them pass.

Another thing I will do is frequently change my cruising speed so that they will have to slow down and speed up with me. If this doesn't shake them away, I'll perform more overt actions, and they usually get the picture.

Make a Brady motion

You want the dispatch log. You want to here if he called in the pursuit....

request a delay for some reasonable explanation and

educate yourself about civil procedure in your state. Everything you need to know is available online. You can delay your court date over and over again if you are wise...and then when you do attend the hearing you will be prepared.

Of course sometimes its just easiest to pay the shake down money...look at the police exactly they way they have become (or possibly exactly how they have always been) a "legalized" mafia.