For anyone who only read the HEADLINE.
He did not really win because of his "constitutional" arguments. Even the article notes that, so the title/headline should be changed.
Here is WHY he won per the article: "Technically, Shanahan was found NOT guilty of the latest seat-belt offense because the officer, who is the witness for the prosecution, did not submit a response to the Trial by declaration. .... and no officer in any case has yet taken the time to rebuke the arguements- which is interesting in itself- hence, John wins every time."
Even the article explains why no officer makes a trial by declaration:
"officers do not collect overtime for going to the courthouse if it's a trial by declaration, so they have to take their own time and write up responses to court filings. If the cop is to lazy to do the work and doesn't reply, it's considered a 'lack of prosection' and the defendant wins."
If you vote this down you are just a fact denier.
If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: