I saw a few people making some posts about 71 US .2 and Section 98, went digging around. Found some very heartening info that I'll post here. In short, from an 1866 SCOTUS case, 71 US .2 Ex parte Milligan, it was ruled that the Constitution cannot be suspended entirely and that martial law shall only extend to habeas corpus, and further shall only extend for such a time until the normal courts may return to regular hearings. Additionally, it was ruled that martial law does not give the military the ability to try civilians in military courts, because the civilian courts are assumed to have the ability to return to normal service in the future.
Very fun reading here: https://archive.md/O8v8f
They also cite American Jurisprudence 2d, section 98.
Something that caught my eye that may be a good read for many people on here is the ruling from Ex parte Milligan, seeing as it's never been overturned. I'll put a few excerpts, but also the link. The case ends and the Official Ruling is delivered in sections 426-493. The Dissenting Opinion begins in Section 494. https://m.openjurist.org/71/us/2
But Section 473 is where things get really interesting.
All other persons, citizens of states where the courts are open, if charged with crime, are guaranteed the inestimable privilege of trial by jury.
The ruling specifically disregards that the courts be ignored or denied their jobs when "the passions of men are aroused" or "the restraints of law are weakened".
Section 476 goes on to speak about what a country governed by unrestricted Martial Law would entail, and why it's restricted so that Commanders and Presidents cannot impede and punish citizens at will.
Martial law, established on such a basis, destroys every guarantee of the Constitution, and effectually renders the 'military independent of and superior to the civil power'—the attempt to do which by the King of Great Britain was deemed by our fathers such an offence, that they assigned it to the world as one of the causes which impelled them to declare their independence.
In Section 477, they speak to the fact that the Founders knew that we would see war, and furthermore they knew that evil men may indeed gain access to the powers delegated to the government.
For this, and other equally weighty reasons, they secured the inheritance they had fought to maintain, by incorporating in a written constitution the safeguards which time had proved were essential to its preservation. Not one of these safeguards can the President, or Congress, or the Judiciary disturb, except the one concerning the writ of habeas corpus.
In Section 478, they defend why the government has the ability to detain/arrest dangerous people without the writ of habeas corpus under martial law.
Knowing this, they limited the suspension to one great right, and left the rest to remain forever inviolable. But, it is insisted that the safety of the country in time of war demands that this broad claim for martial law shall be sustained.
But 479 is the real kicker, here.
Martial law cannot arise from a threatened invasion. The necessity must be actual and present; the invasion real, such as effectually closes the courts and deposes the civil administration.
Martial law cannot be declared from a threatened invasion. The courts and civil administration must be closed for martial laws to be engaged.
There's a ton of incredible stuff in this never overturned ruling, but that is the big boom. That was the keeper. The first question of this case was whether Martial Law could apply to Milligan in a time of peace, and this never overturned ruling declared that Martial Law may never apply while the civilian courts are open.
So, the reason for this dig, i think a lot of you may have figured out:
-
Why did [they] want to close the country so badly? Who were the targets then?
-
How many times and how many people have violated this case's precedent?
-
Head back to that first article, American Jurisprudence. Anyone who ever supported, aided, voted for, engaged with, comforted, or otherwise enabled this ruling to be broken engaged in war against the US, her Constitution, and her People. This includes Congress, the Judiciary, and even the Executive. What if every court had engaged in this behavior before? Including the FISA courts? Would they all have to close? Where would you try the cases? What precedent would make it legal?
This one. Enjoy the show.
So, we already covered that I'm not a lawyer, but if you weren't served that ticket in person, toss it. Don't acknowledge it. Never speak a word of it. Don't show up anywhere it told you to. For all intents in purposes, you never received notice of it. Note: none of this advice applies if any person physically spoke to you. Specifically, treat any mail tickets like you would those stupid telemarketers calling about your car's extended warranty. Click.
You, as a citizen, have the right to be served any papers in person. This right is fundamental for several reasons, but the most obvious are so that the court has proof that the correct person was served and so that you are aware that you were served. This is also why you'd have been held for 24 hours if you were under any intoxicating substances, to ensure that you had the wherewithal to understand that you had contact with law enforcement and were served notice of court.
I'm not familiar with Richard Cornforth by name, but the concept of Personal Jurisdiction sounds like what I'm mentioning above.
The subject of Subject Matter is one I'm familiar with for the same reasons I'm familiar with courts and cases. Officer Training in recent years has started to train police on how to use their wording effectively to defeat most challenges against SM Jurisdiction. Wording like "I was able to determine so because of my years of experience and expertise on the matter" or "I was able to determine that a serious injury/incident/accident was likely to occur from their behavior if it was allowed to continue, because I have seen numerous such incidents during my tenure as an officer." While this honestly deserves an eye roll in the real world, in the legal one it yields a serious quagmire for the defendant to dig out of.
From personal experience, if you want to beat a ticket, the best defense (if you were served in person) is to show up in traffic court and simply say "I don't think I was speeding." or "I don't understand how the officer could have gotten my speed in that situation. I don't think they got my speed accurately." This puts the onus on the officer to testify and prove that all things were true, tested, and accurate. While many judges will have a relationship with their local LEO to give some slack here, some will take Innocent Until Proven Guilty very seriously and require much more than a story in a report to throw the fine at you.
I got out of a ticket where I (maybe) got clocked on a highway going quite a bit over because there was another truck the same color as mine passing at roughly the same time. From a simple statement and the video, it wasn't possible to determine if they or I were actually captured on the radar (and honestly, I didn't know if I was speeding). When footage was reviewed (this took a while a decade ago, but everything is digital and cloud based now), neither I, the officer, nor the judge could definitively say whether my truck or the other was the one who blasted by at double digits over.
But if you have the $300 and the time, just avoid perjury. No definite statements under oath. Comey style, "I don't know." Make a day out of it. The officer will be there all day for court either way.
If you have the $300 and don't have the time, let the county have their blackmail money.
If you want to file anything with the court, speak to an actual lawyer. There's good reason for the saying "the man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client."
I was.
We're talking about two different things here. SMJ must be proven by the other party -- in this case, the prosecuting attorney. Witnesses are not involved. You are talking about bogus testimony, and cops do that all the time, but it is a different discussion from SMJ.
Yes, and I want to test the legal theories that are supposedly based on higher case law. Basically, the idea is that all traffic cases are set up in a manner to quickly process them to maximize money coming into the government, not to uphold due process. For that reason, they always violate due process, and nobody (including attorneys) ever challenges that. I want to challenge it.
A violation of due process makes the court lose subject matter jurisdiction, which means the court loses jurisdiction, which means there is no case, which means the government cannot proceed. That's what I have read, but now I need to put the abstract principle into action in the real world.
This is our fundamental disagreement. That's a convenient little statement for the legal industry, but is it actually true? I look at it quite differently.
I think hiring an attorney to get legal advice is fine. But hiring one to represent you in court, especially on relatively minor matters, is throwing money down into the sewer. I have seen it too many times to be deceived into believing otherwise. I suspect that knowledgable pro se/pro per litigants have an overall better track record than attorneys. Most are not knowledgeable, though, and no statistics are kept on this issue, for obvious reasons.
First, more than half of all attorneys-at-law lose their cases. They have a less than 50% success rate. Therefore, is it really foolish to leave them out of the game?
Second, one of the reasons they lose more than they win is because the deck is stacked in favor of the prosecution (98%+ win rate), and attorneys are officers of the court. Their duty is to the system, not to the client. They are not trained to pursue justice or even to really know the fundamentals of law. They are trained like doctors are -- just enough to benefit the system, but no more. Look up "attorney" in AmJur. It will tell you they are defined as "an officer of the court, with a duty to the court, not to the client." Says it all.
Finally, Blackstone wrote that the power of the People is not in the voting booth (as we have seen), but rather is in the courts. There needs to be a movement for the People to relearn about law and how to enforce it against the government in the courts. Back in the founders' day, most people understood the law. It was simpler, based on biblical principles, and people had time to read (no TV, internet, etc.). We have lost that. But I want to be part of helping us all regain it. This small traffic ticket is a step in that direction.
First, 100% agreement on getting the system straightened out, and if you're looking to do that via this endeavor, I'm completely in your corner. I honestly wish I were a better resource here. However, I know there are several knowledgeable and patriotic attorneys in the US who love these types of battles and can give good legal advice (likely some pro bono and maybe even representation). Lin Wood's groups come to mind, over at fightback.law, for one.
I will say that the 98% win rate is somewhat inflated for a few reasons. Yes, there are fairness and partisan issues at hand (judges wanting to preserve relationships, attorneys swearing to uphold the court, citizens not understanding the complex legal system and laws), but also keep in mind that the prosecution can choose to drop any case they want to. When they do, that number is no longer part of their ratio. Which cases are they dropping? Certainly not cases they think they'll win. (This is one extremely good reason to keep some liability insurance like USCCA, because you can intimidate tf out of a DA)
The phrase about having a fool for a client does not mean that you can't successfully defend yourself, but rather that the average person who did not attend law school will have a lesser understanding about the law than someone who did their time in law school and in the legal system. Even my limited experience in that world yielded insights that were mindblowing, and that was only from the ground level.
Also, one last bit here, just in case you get this absolute gift. If the officer who wrote your charge doesn't show for court, plead Not Guilty. The court will have no witness to call on their defense, and therefore the only statement entered is yours. You'll walk, no fine. 100% guaranteed. It's an awful practice, but it's useless to pretend it doesn't happen: Officers will write tickets simply to hit their numbers (not called quotas anymore) so they'll seem proactive, then let people who pay the tickets without challenge settle their ultimate scorecards for promotions.
Yes, that is one of the big reasons for the 98% win rate.
The other big reason is they can use the resources of the state to come after individuals who can never match those resources. They can pile charges on top of charges and push someone into taking a plea deal, even though the prosector really has no case. This is evil. Look at what they did to Gen. Flynn.
Add to that that most (not all, but most) attorneys for the defense are too chicken shit to really stand up to them. This is especially true for public defenders who are not paid a million dollars to defend a wealthy person. They are working for peanuts, as they see it, so why put in any "extra work," like challenging due process before a judge and prosecutor who the defense attorney wants as friends?
You probably know who Gerry Spence is. Here is what he said about the system:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcjwgaVuMhw
Yes, I know that, but I am looking at something way more important than that. If the JUDGE HAS NO AUTHORITY, then there is no case, no witness, no nothing.
It is a challenge of the system itself, not a mere technicality.
The legal system is great for the People. It is protective of the rights of the People. But ONLY IF it is actually followed as it was intended (older case law and legal principles that still apply). It is only because of the corruption of the system that so many people get into jams in the first place.
That's the road I'm interested in checking out.
I think you should throw a line out to Fight Back. https://fightback.law/contact/
I have a feeling they could at minimum offer some legal advice on how to proceed versus the court, they may offer next steps if the court fully ignores your filing/argument, and they may even have a lawyer in network willing to work to set/use a precedent to lay down some case law on your locality.
Patriots like yourself in situations like your own are how most of these case law protections came about, so certainly worth the convo with them, yeah? Worst case (pun!), they ask for donations and don't have a lot of help to offer. However, Lin Wood does surround himself with patriots (and some paytriots), so you may strike the hot iron and make some serious waves, as it seems you're amped to do.
I'm in full support. Reach out to me however things start to shape up. I'm on here and Gab under the same moniker.