administrative proceeding
I suspect that the entire process in traffic court is an administrative hearing, dressed up to (falsely) look like a court of law. That can be the only logical reason why they think they don't have to follow the rules of court.
However, that does not change the fact that they must still provide due process (which is what the rules of court are largely for), and if they are hiding the true nature and cause of the action, then they are not providing due process, thus losing subject matter jurisdiction.
I have a speeding ticket, and am considering how to proceed.
hybrid between criminal court and an administrative proceeding
I do not believe that such an animal can legally exist. That is why they must lie, cheat, and steal in order to make it look like they are upholding the principles of American law. But they hide the true nature.
Like Rittenhouse - he wasn’t indicted, he was charged by Binger in a complaint.
I did not follow or research that aspect of the case. My initial suspicion is this: The vast majority of defense attorneys out there want to "play ball" because their first duty is to the court, not to their client (who merely pays the bills).
For that reason, they will often overlook things when the prosecutor or judge "cuts corners" because to dispute "routine-but-not-exactly-lawful-procedure" would step on toes and, hey, that attorney will be "doing business" with that judge and prosecutor in future cases. What's this one little case, after all, in the larger context of a financial career?
I know that defense attorneys often do not formally request discovery items in writing, but merely tell the prosecutor, "Give me what you got," and since there is no formal writing or hearing, the prosecutor might "forget" something and many defense attorneys will look the other way.
I recently spoke with a DUI defense attorney who has a client on his 5th or 6th DUI charge. Prosector offers to the defense attorney a "deal" that sounds good. The attorney's reply to prosecutor is, "We will take that deal, but give me some time to drag it out a bit. I gotta justify my $15,000 fee." I had no skin in the game on this conversation. He just told me this shit when we were having a beer.
For this reason, there are probably a lot of corners cut in terms of what is actually required by law, and many attorneys and judges benefit. So, they are hostile to someone like me who will demand that things are done by the book.
That's why I assume that a "strategy" is necessary. Just coming out with the law will be met with hostility, if it steps on their precious toes.
indictment is universal in federal cases because of the constitution. States vary considerably
The 14th Amendment and "republican form of government" under Article 4 both require the states to provide due process in any proceeding. That is basic American law, and a primary reason for the revolution against Britain.
I’ll mull this over and see if I can parse through it coherently.
Interested in your thoughts.
P.S. This is a basic speeding ticket. Caught in a known speed trap. No jail time to worry about. Max fine around $300 (because I won't roll over and pay, in which case it would have been half that). Anyway, I am considering filing a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Provide Due Process. I realize that is not an "official" motion, but as a pro se/pro per, the law says I have flexibility in my pleadings, and a judge is required to accept. My reasoning will be that I have not been informed of the nature and cause of the action against me; I have not been informed if this is a criminal or civil matter, or whether the rules of criminal or civil procedure and evidence apply; I have not been informed of who the complaining party is; I have not been informed of who any prosecutor, plaintiff, or plaintiff's attorney is; and therefore, I have been denied due process, and therefore, this court has lost subject matter jurisdiction to proceed. The case must be dimssed, as a matter of law. But I don't (yet) have all the sources and citations to back it up. At a minimum, I should demand that an attorney for the other side file a formal document with the court to inform me of what this action is about. The cop is not an attorney. Of course, I will state that I do not accept the citation as a charging document or a complaint, and will demand a more definite statement.
administrative proceeding
I suspect that the entire process in traffic court is an administrative hearing, dressed up to (falsely) look like a court of law. That can be the only logical reason why they think they don't have to follow the rules of court.
However, that does not change the fact that they must still provide due process (which is what the rules of court are largely for), and if they are hiding the true nature and cause of the action, then they are not providing due process, thus losing subject matter jurisdiction.
I have a speeding ticket, and am considering how to proceed.
hybrid between criminal court and an administrative proceeding
I do not believe that such an animal can legally exist. That is why they must lie, cheat, and steal in order to make it look like they are upholding the principles of American law. But they hide the true nature.
Like Rittenhouse - he wasn’t indicted, he was charged by Binger in a complaint.
I did not follow or research that aspect of the case. My initial suspicion is this: The vast majority of defense attorneys out there want to "play ball" because their first duty is to the court, not to their client (who merely pays the bills).
For that reason, they will often overlook things when the prosecutor or judge "cuts corners" because to dispute "routine-but-not-exactly-lawful-procedure" would step on toes and, hey, that attorney will be "doing business" with that judge and prosecutor in future cases. What's this one little case, after all, in the larger context of a financial career?
I know that defense attorneys often do not formally request discovery items in writing, but merely tell the prosecutor, "Give me what you got," and since there is no formal writing or hearing, the prosecutor might "forget" something and many defense attorneys will look the other way.
I recently spoke with a DUI defense attorney who has a client on his 5th or 6th DUI charge. Prosector offers to the defense attorney a "deal" that sounds good. The attorney's reply to prosecutor is, "We will take that deal, but give me some time to drag it out a bit. I gotta justify my $15,000 fee." I had no skin in the game on this conversation. He just told me this shit when we were having a beer.
For this reason, there are probably a lot of corners cut in terms of what is actually required by law, and many attorneys and judges benefit. So, they are hostile to someone like me who will demand that things are done by the book.
That's why I assume that a "strategy" is necessary. Just coming out with the law will be met with hostility, if it steps on their precious toes.
indictment is universal in federal cases because of the constitution. States vary considerably
The 14th Amendment and "republican form of government" under Article 4 both require the states to provide due process in any proceeding. That is basic American law, and a primary reason for the revolution against Britain.
I’ll mull this over and see if I can parse through it coherently.
Interested in your thoughts.
P.S. This is a basic speeding ticket. Caught in a known speed trap. No jail time to worry about. Max fine around $300 (because I won't roll over and pay, in which case it would have been half that). Anyway, I am considering filing a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Provide Due Process. I realize that is not an "official" motion, but as a pro se/pro per, the law says I have flexibility in my pleadings, and a judge is required to accept. My reasoning will be that I have not been informed of the nature and cause of the action against me; I have not been informed if this is a criminal or civil matter, or whether the rules of criminal or civil procedure and evidence apply; I have not been informed of who the complaining party is; I have not been informed of who any prosecutor, plaintiff, or plaintiff's attorney is; and therefore, I have been denied due process, and therefore, this court has lost subject matter jurisdiction to proceed. The case must be dimssed, as a matter of law. But I don't (yet) have all the sources and citations to back it up. At a minimum, I should demand that an attorney for the other side file a formal document with the court to inform me of what this action is about. The cop is not an attorney. Of course, I will state that I do not accept the citation as a charging document or a complaint, and will demand more definite statement.
administrative proceeding
I suspect that the entire process in traffic court is an administrative hearing, dressed up to (falsely) look like a court of law. That can be the only logical reason why they think they don't have to follow the rules of court.
However, that does not change the fact that they must still provide due process (which is what the rules of court are largely for), and if they are hiding the true nature and cause of the action, then they are not providing due process, thus losing subject matter jurisdiction.
I have a speeding ticket, and am considering how to proceed.
hybrid between criminal court and an administrative proceeding
I do not believe that such an animal can legally exist. That is why they must lie, cheat, and steal in order to make it look like they are upholding the principles of American law. But they hide the true nature.
Like Rittenhouse - he wasn’t indicted, he was charged by Binger in a complaint.
I did not follow or research that aspect of the case. My initial suspicion is this: The vast majority of defense attorneys out there want to "play ball" because their first duty is to the court, not to their client (who merely pays the bills).
For that reason, they will often overlook things when the prosecutor or judge "cuts corners" because to dispute "routine-but-not-exactly-lawful-procedure" would step on toes and, hey, that attorney will be "doing business" with that judge and prosecutor in future cases. What's this one little case, after all, in the larger context of a financial career?
I know that defense attorneys often do not formally request discovery items in writing, but merely tell the prosecutor, "Give me what you got," and since there is no formal writing or hearing, the prosecutor might "forget" something and many defense attorneys will look the other way.
I recently spoke with a DUI defense attorney who has a client on his 5th or 6th DUI charge. Prosector offers to the defense attorney a "deal" that sounds good. The attorney's reply to prosecutor is, "We will take that deal, but give me some time to drag it out a bit. I gotta justify my $15,000 fee." I had no skin in the game on this conversation. He just told me this shit when we were having a beer.
For this reason, there are probably a lot of corners cut in terms of what is actually required by law, and many attorneys and judges benefit. So, they are hostile to someone like me who will demand that things are done by the book.
That's why I assume that a "strategy" is necessary. Just coming out with the law will be met with hostility, if it steps on their precious toes.
indictment is universal in federal cases because of the constitution. States vary considerably
The 14th Amendment and "republican form of government" under Article 4 both require the states to provide due process in any proceeding. That is basic American law, and a primary reason for the revolution against Britain.
I’ll mull this over and see if I can parse through it coherently.
Interested in your thoughts.
P.S. This is a basic speeding ticket. Caught in a known speed trap. No jail time to worry about. Max fine around $300 (because I won't roll over and pay, in which case it would have been half that). Anyway, I am considering filing a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Provide Due Process. I realize that is not an "official" motion, but as a pro se/pro per, the law says I have flexibility in my pleadings, and a judge is required to accept. My reasoning will be that I have not been informed of the nature and cause of the action against me; I have not been informed if this is a criminal or civil matter, or whether the rules of criminal or civil procedure and evidence apply; I have not been informed of who the the complaining party is; I have not been informed of who any prosecutor, plaintiff, or plaintiff's attorney is; and therefore, I have been denied due process, and therefore, this court has lost subject matter jurisdiction to proceed. The case must be dimssed, as a matter of law. But I don't (yet) have all more sources and citations to back it up. At a minimum, I should demand that an attorney for the other side file a formal document with the court to inform me of what this action is about. The cop is not an attorney. Of course, I will state that I do not accept the citation as a charging document or a complaint, and will demand more definite statement.
administrative proceeding
I suspect that the entire process in traffic court is an administrative hearing, dressed up to (falsely) look like a court of law. That can be the only logical reason why they think they don't have to follow the rules of court.
However, that does not change the fact that they must still provide due process (which is what the rules of court are largely for), and if they are hiding the true nature and cause of the action, then they are not providing due process, thus losing subject matter jurisdiction.
I have a speeding ticket, and am considering how to proceed.
hybrid between criminal court and an administrative proceeding
I do not believe that such an animal can legally exist. That is why they must lie, cheat, and steal in order to make it look like they are upholding the principles of American law. But they hide the true nature.
Like Rittenhouse - he wasn’t indicted, he was charged by Binger in a complaint.
I did not follow or research that aspect of the case. My initial suspicion is this: The vast majority of defense attorneys out there want to "play ball" because their first duty is to the court, not to their client (who merely pays the bills).
For that reason, they will often overlook things when the prosecutor or judge "cuts corners" because to dispute "routine-but-not-exactly-lawful-procedure" would step on toes and, hey, that attorney will be "doing business" with that judge and prosecutor in future cases. What's this one little case, after all, in the larger context of a financial career?
I know that defense attorneys often do not formally request discovery items in writing, but merely tell the prosecutor, "Give me what you got," and since there is no formal writing or hearing, the prosecutor might "forget" something and many defense attorneys will look the other way.
I recently spoke with a DUI defense attorney who has a client on his 5th or 6th DUI charge. Prosector offers to the defense attorney a "deal" that sounds good. The attorney's reply to prosecutor is, "We will take that deal, but give me some time to drag it out a bit. I gotta justify my $15,000 fee." I had no skin in the game on this conversation. He just told me this shit when we were having a beer.
For this reason, there are probably a lot of corners cut in terms of what is actually required by law, and many attorneys and judges benefit. So, they are hostile to someone like me who will demand that things are done by the book.
That's why I assume that a "strategy" is necessary. Just coming out with the law will be met with hostility, if it steps on their precious toes.
indictment is universal in federal cases because of the constitution. States vary considerably
The 14th Amendment and "republican form of government" under Article 1 both require the states to provide due process in any proceeding. That is basic American law, and a primary reason for the revolution against Britain.
I’ll mull this over and see if I can parse through it coherently.
Interested in your thoughts.
P.S. This is a basic speeding ticket. Caught in a known speed trap. No jail time to worry about. Max fine around $300 (because I won't roll over and pay, in which case it would have been half that). Anyway, I am considering filing a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Provide Due Process. I realize that is not an "official" motion, but as a pro se/pro per, the law says I have flexibility in my pleadings, and a judge is required to accept. My reasoning will be that I have not been informed of the nature and cause of the action against me; I have not been informed if this is a criminal or civil matter, or whether the rules of criminal or civil procedure and evidence apply; I have not been informed of who the the complaining party is; I have not been informed of who any prosecutor, plaintiff, or plaintiff's attorney is; and therefore, I have been denied due process, and therefore, this court has lost subject matter jurisdiction to proceed. The case must be dimssed, as a matter of law. But I don't (yet) have all more sources and citations to back it up. At a minimum, I should demand that an attorney for the other side file a formal document with the court to inform me of what this action is about. The cop is not an attorney. Of course, I will state that I do not accept the citation as a charging document or a complaint, and will demand more definite statement.
administrative proceeding
I suspect that the entire process in traffic court is an administrative hearing, dressed up to (falsely) look like a court of law. That can be the only logical reason why they think they don't have to follow the rules of court.
However, that does not change the fact that they must still provide due process (which is what the rules of court are largely for), and if they are hiding the true nature and cause of the action, then they are not providing due process, thus losing subject matter jurisdiction.
I have a speeding ticket, and am considering how to proceed.
hybrid between criminal court and an administrative proceeding
I do not believe that such an animal can legally exist. That is why they must lie, cheat, and steal in order to make it look like they are upholding the principles of American law. But they hide the true nature.
Like Rittenhouse - he wasn’t indicted, he was charged by Binger in a complaint.
I did not follow or research that aspect of the case. My initial suspicion is this: The vast majority of defense attorneys out there want to "play ball" because their first duty is to the court, not to their client (who merely pays the bills).
For that reason, they will often overlook things when the prosecutor or judge "cuts corners" because to dispute "routine-but-not-exactly-lawful-procedure" would step on toes and, hey, that attorney will be "doing business" with that judge and prosecutor in future cases. What's this one little case, after all, in the larger context of a financial career?
I know that defense attorneys often do not formally request discovery items in writing, but merely tell the prosecutor, "Give me what you got," and since there is no formal writing or hearing, the prosecutor might "forget" something and many defense attorneys will look the other way.
I recently spoke with a DUI defense attorney who has a client on his 5th or 6th DUI charge. Prosector offers to the defense attorney a "deal" that sounds good. The attorney's reply to prosecutor is, "We will take that deal, but give me some time to drag it out a bit. I gotta justify my $15,000 fee." I had no skin in the game on this conversation. He just told me this shit when we were having a beer.
For this reason, there are probably a lot of corners cut in terms of what is actually required by law, and many attorneys and judges benefit. So, they are hostile to someone like me who will demand that things are done by the book.
That's why I assume that a "strategy" is necessary. Just coming out with the law will be met with hostility, if it steps on their precious toes.
I’ll mull this over and see if I can parse through it coherently.
Interested in your thoughts.
P.S. This is a basic speeding ticket. Caught in a known speed trap. No jail time to worry about. Max fine around $300 (because I won't roll over and pay, in which case it would have been half that). Anyway, I am considering filing a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Provide Due Process. I realize that is not an "official" motion, but as a pro se/pro per, the law says I have flexibility in my pleadings, and a judge is required to accept. My reasoning will be that I have not been informed of the nature and cause of the action against me; I have not been informed if this is a criminal or civil matter, or whether the rules of criminal or civil procedure and evidence apply; I have not been informed of who the the complaining party is; I have not been informed of who any prosecutor, plaintiff, or plaintiff's attorney is; and therefore, I have been denied due process, and therefore, this court has lost subject matter jurisdiction to proceed. The case must be dimssed, as a matter of law. But I don't (yet) have all more sources and citations to back it up. At a minimum, I should demand that an attorney for the other side file a formal document with the court to inform me of what this action is about. The cop is not an attorney. Of course, I will state that I do not accept the citation as a charging document or a complaint, and will demand more definite statement.
administrative proceeding
I suspect that the entire process in traffic court is an administrative hearing, dressed up to (falsely) look like a court of law. That can be the only logical reason why they think they don't have to follow the rules of court.
However, that does not change the fact that they must still provide due process (which is what the rules of court are largely for), and if they are hiding the true nature and cause of the action, then they are not providing due process, thus losing subject matter jurisdiction.
I have a speeding ticket, and am considering how to proceed.
hybrid between criminal court and an administrative proceeding
I do not believe that such an animal can legally exist. That is why they must lie, cheat, and steal in order to make it look like they are upholding the principles of American law. But they hide the true nature.
Like Rittenhouse - he wasn’t indicted, he was charged by Binger in a complaint.
I did not follow or research that aspect of the case. My initial suspicion is this: The vast majority of defense attorneys out there want to "play ball" because their first duty is to the court, not to their client (who merely pays the bills).
For that reason, they will often overlook things when the prosecutor or judge "cuts corners" because to dispute "routine-but-not-exactly-lawful-procedure" would step on toes and, hey, that attorney will be "doing business" with that judge and prosecutor in future cases. What's this one little case, after all, in the larger context of a financial career?
I know that defense attorneys often do not formally request discovery items in writing, but merely tell the prosecutor, "Give me what you got," and since there is no formal writing or hearing, the prosecutor might "forget" something and many defense attorneys will look the other way.
I recently spoke with a DUI defense attorney who has a client on his 5th or 6th DUI charge. Prosector offers to the defense attorney a "deal" that sounds good. The attorney's reply to prosecutor is, "We will take that deal, but give me some time to drag it out a bit. I gotta justify my $15,000 fee." I had no skin in the game on this conversation. He just told me this shit when we were having a beer.
For this reason, there are probably a lot of corners cut in terms of what is actually required by law, and many attorneys and judges benefit. So, they are hostile to someone like me who will demand that things are done by the book.
That's why I assume that a "strategy" is necessary. Just coming out with the law will be met with hostility, if it steps on their precious toes.
I’ll mull this over and see if I can parse through it coherently.
Interested in your thoughts.
administrative proceeding
I suspect that the entire process in traffic court is an administrative hearing, dressed up to (falsely) look like a court of law. That can be the only logical reason why they think they don't have to follow the rules of court.
However, that does not change the fact that they must still provide due process (which is what the rules of court are largely for), and if they are hiding the true nature and cause of the action, then they are not providing due process, thus losing subject matter jurisdiction.
I have a speeding ticket, and am considering how to proceed.
hybrid between criminal court and an administrative proceeding
I do not believe that such an animal can legally exist. That is why they must lie, cheat, and steal in order to make it look like they are upholding the principles of American law. But they hide the true nature.
Like Rittenhouse - he wasn’t indicted, he was charged by Binger in a complaint.
I did not follow or research that aspect of the case. My initial suspicion is this: The vast majority of defense attorneys out there want to "play ball" because their first duty is to the court, not to their client (who merely pays the bills).
For that reason, they will often overlook things when the prosecutor or judge "cuts corners" because to dispute "routine-but-not-exactly-lawful-procedure" would step on toes and, hey, that attorney will be "doing business" with that judge and prosecutor in future cases. What's this one little case, after all, in the larger context of a financial career?
I know that defense attorneys often do not formally request discovery items in writing, but merely tell the prosecutor, "Give me what you got," and since there is no formal writing or hearing, the prosecutor might "forget" something and many defense attorneys will look the other way.
I recently spoke with a DUI defense attorney who has a client on his 5th or 6th DUI charge. Prosector offers to the defense attorney a "deal" that sounds good. The attorneys reply to prosecutor is, "We will take that deal, but give me some time to drag it out a bit. I gotta justify my $15,000 fee." I had no skin in the game on this conversation. He just told me this shit when we were having a beer.
For this reason, there are probably a lot of corners cut in terms of what is actually required by law, and many attorneys and judges benefit. So, they are hostile to someone like me who will demand that things are done by the book.
That's why I assume that a "strategy" is necessary. Just coming out with the law will be met with hostility, if it steps on their precious toes.
I’ll mull this over and see if I can parse through it coherently.
Interested in your thoughts.
administrative proceeding
I suspect that the entire process in traffic court is an administrative hearing, dressed up to (falsely) look like a court of law. That can be the only logical reason why they think they don't have to follow the rules of court.
However, that does not change the fact that they must still provide due process (which is what the rules of court are largely for), and if they are hiding the true nature and cause of the action, then they are not providing due process, thus losing subject matter jurisdiction.
I have a speeding ticket, and am considering how to proceed.
hybrid between criminal court and an administrative proceeding
I do not believe that such an animal can legally exist. That is why they must lie, cheat, and steal in order to make it look like they are upholding the principles of American law. But they hide the true nature.
Like Rittenhouse - he wasn’t indicted, he was charged by Binger in a complaint.
I did not follow or research that aspect of the case. My initial suspicion is this: The vast majority of defense attorneys out there want to "play ball" because their first duty is to the court, not to their client (who merely pays the bills).
For that reason, they will often overlook things when the prosecutor or judge "cuts corners" because to dispute "routine-but-not-exactly-lawful-procedure" would step on toes and, hey, that attorney will be "doing business" with that judge and prosecutor in future cases. What's this one little case, after all, in the larger context of a financial career?
I know that defense attorneys often do not formally request discovery items in writing, but merely tell the prosecutor, "Give me what you got," and since there is not formal writing or hearing, the prosecutor might "forget" something and many defense attorneys will look the other way.
I recently spoke with a DUI defense attorney who has a client on his 5th or 6th DUI charge. Prosector offers to the defense attorney a "deal" that sounds good. The attorneys reply to prosecutor is, "We will take that deal, but give me some time to drag it out a bit. I gotta justify my $15,000 fee." I had no skin in the game on this conversation. He just told me this shit when we were having a beer.
For this reason, there are probably a lot of corners cut in terms of what is actually required by law, and many attorneys and judges benefit. So, they are hostile to someone like me who will demand that things are done by the book.
That's why I assume that a "strategy" is necessary. Just coming out with the law will be met with hostility, if it steps on their precious toes.
I’ll mull this over and see if I can parse through it coherently.
Interested in your thoughts.
administrative proceeding
I suspect that the entire process in traffic court is an administrative hearing, dressed up to (falsely) look like a court of law. That can be the only logical reason why they think they don't have to follow the rules of court.
However, that does not change the fact that they must still provide due process (which is what the rules of court are largely for), and if they are hiding the true nature and cause of the action, then they are not providing due process, thus losing subject matter jurisdiction.
I have a speeding ticket, and am considering how to proceed.
hybrid between criminal court and an administrative proceeding
I do not believe that such an animal can legally exist. That is why they must lie, cheat, and steal in order to make it look like they are upholding the principles of American law. But they hide the true nature.
Like Rittenhouse - he wasn’t indicted, he was charged by Binger in a complaint.
I did not follow or research that aspect of the case. My initial suspicion is this: The vast majority of defense attorneys out there want to "play ball" because their first duty is to the court, not to their client (who merely pays the bills).
For that reason, they will often overlook things when the prosecutor or judge "cuts corners" because to dispute "routine-but-not-exactly-lawful-procedure" would step on toes and, hey, that attorney will be "doing business" with that judge and prosecutor in future cases. What's this one case, after all, in the larger context of a financial career?
I know that defense attorneys often do not formally request discovery items in writing, but merely tell the prosecutor, "Give me what you got," and since there is not formal writing or hearing, the prosecutor might "forget" something and many defense attorneys will look the other way.
I recently spoke with a DUI defense attorney who has a client on his 5th or 6th DUI charge. Prosector offers to the defense attorney a "deal" that sounds good. The attorneys reply to prosecutor is, "We will take that deal, but give me some time to drag it out a bit. I gotta justify my $15,000 fee." I had no skin in the game on this conversation. He just told me this shit when we were having a beer.
For this reason, there are probably a lot of corners cut in terms of what is actually required by law, and many attorneys and judges benefit. So, they are hostile to someone like me who will demand that things are done by the book.
That's why I assume that a "strategy" is necessary. Just coming out with the law will be met with hostility, if it steps on their precious toes.
I’ll mull this over and see if I can parse through it coherently.
Interested in your thoughts.
administrative proceeding
I suspect that the entire process in traffic court is an administrative hearing, dressed up to (falsely) look like a court of law. That can be the only logical reason why they think they don't have to follow the rules of court.
However, that does not change the fact that they must still provide due process (which is what the rules of court are largely for), and if they are hiding the true nature and cause of the action, then they are not providing due process, thus losing subject matter jurisdiction.
I have a speeding ticket, and am considering how to proceed.
hybrid between criminal court and an administrative proceeding
I do not believe that such an animal can legally exist. That is why they must lie, cheat, and steal in order to make it look like they are upholding the principles of American law. But they hide the true nature.
Like Rittenhouse - he wasn’t indicted, he was charged by Binger in a complaint.
I did not follow or research that aspect of the case. My initial suspicion is this: The vast majority of defense attorneys out there want to "play ball" because their first duty is to the court, not to their client (who merely pays the bills).
For that reason, they will often overlook things when the prosecutor or judge "cuts corners" because to dispute "routine-but-not-exactly-lawful-procedure" would step on toes and, hey, that attorney will be "doing business" with that judge and prosecutor in future cases. What's this one case, after all?
I know that defense attorneys often do not formally request discovery items in writing, but merely tell the prosecutor, "Give me what you got," and since there is not formal writing or hearing, the prosecutor might "forget" something and many defense attorneys will look the other way.
I recently spoke with a DUI defense attorney who has a client on his 5th or 6th DUI charge. Prosector offers to the defense attorney a "deal" that sounds good. The attorneys reply to prosecutor is, "We will take that deal, but give me some time to drag it out a bit. I gotta justify my $15,000 fee." I had no skin in the game on this conversation. He just told me this shit when we were having a beer.
For this reason, there are probably a lot of corners cut in terms of what is actually required by law, and many attorneys and judges benefit. So, they are hostile to someone like me who will demand that things are done by the book.
That's why I assume that a "strategy" is necessary. Just coming out with the law will be met with hostility, if it steps on their precious toes.
I’ll mull this over and see if I can parse through it coherently.
Interested in your thoughts.
administrative proceeding
I suspect that the entire process in traffic court is an administrative hearing, dressed up to (falsely) look like a court of law. That can be the only logical reason why they think they don't have to follow the rules of court.
However, that does not change the fact that they must still provide due process, and if they are hiding the true nature and cause of the action, then they are not providing due process, thus losing subject matter jurisdiction.
I have a speeding ticket, and am considering how to proceed.
hybrid between criminal court and an administrative proceeding
I do not believe that such an animal can legally exist. That is why they must lie, cheat, and steal in order to make it look like they are upholding the principles of American law. But they hide the true nature.
Like Rittenhouse - he wasn’t indicted, he was charged by Binger in a complaint.
I did not follow or research that aspect of the case. My initial suspicion is this: The vast majority of defense attorneys out there want to "play ball" because their first duty is to the court, not to their client (who merely pays the bills).
For that reason, they will often overlook things when the prosecutor or judge "cuts corners" because to dispute "routine-but-not-exactly-lawful-procedure" would step on toes and, hey, that attorney will be "doing business" with that judge and prosecutor in future cases. What's this one case, after all?
I know that defense attorneys often do not formally request discovery items in writing, but merely tell the prosecutor, "Give me what you got," and since there is not formal writing or hearing, the prosecutor might "forget" something and many defense attorneys will look the other way.
I recently spoke with a DUI defense attorney who has a client on his 5th or 6th DUI charge. Prosector offers to the defense attorney a "deal" that sounds good. The attorneys reply to prosecutor is, "We will take that deal, but give me some time to drag it out a bit. I gotta justify my $15,000 fee." I had no skin in the game on this conversation. He just told me this shit when we were having a beer.
For this reason, there are probably a lot of corners cut in terms of what is actually required by law, and many attorneys and judges benefit. So, they are hostile to someone like me who will demand that things are done by the book.
That's why I assume that a "strategy" is necessary. Just coming out with the law will be met with hostility, if it steps on their precious toes.
I’ll mull this over and see if I can parse through it coherently.
Interested in your thoughts.
administrative proceeding
I suspect that the entire process in traffic court is an administrative hearing, dressed up to (falsely) look like a court of law. That can be the only logical reason why they think they don't have to follow the rules of court.
However, that does not change the fact that they must still provide due process, and if they are hiding the true nature and cause of the action, then they are not providing due process, thus losing subject matter jurisdiction.
I have a speeding ticket, and am considering how to proceed.
hybrid between criminal court and an administrative proceeding
I do not believe that such an animal can legally exist. That is why they must lie, cheat, and steal in order to make it look like they are upholding the principles of American law. But they hide the true nature.
I’ll mull this over and see if I can parse through it coherently.
Interested in your thoughts.