if you weren't served that ticket in person
I was.
Officer Training in recent years has started to train police on how to use their wording effectively to defeat most challenges against SM Jurisdiction.
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.
But if you have the $300 and the time
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.
There's good reason for the saying "the man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client."
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.
if you weren't served that ticket in person
I was.
Officer Training in recent years has started to train police on how to use their wording effectively to defeat most challenges against SM Jurisdiction.
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.
But if you have the $300 and the time
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.
There's good reason for the saying "the man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client."
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.
if you weren't served that ticket in person
I was.
Officer Training in recent years has started to train police on how to use their wording effectively to defeat most challenges against SM Jurisdiction.
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.
But if you have the $300 and the time
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.
There's good reason for the saying "the man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client."
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.
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.
if you weren't served that ticket in person
I was.
Officer Training in recent years has started to train police on how to use their wording effectively to defeat most challenges against SM Jurisdiction.
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.
But if you have the $300 and the time
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.
There's good reason for the saying "the man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client."
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 to believe 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.
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.
if you weren't served that ticket in person
I was.
Officer Training in recent years has started to train police on how to use their wording effectively to defeat most challenges against SM Jurisdiction.
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.
But if you have the $300 and the time
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.
There's good reason for the saying "the man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client."
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 a lawyer to get legal advice is fine. But hiring a lawyer 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 to believe otherwise.
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.
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.