Dragon717XXX
New Member
I was stopped in Buncomce County NC for going 20 MPH over the posted speed (50 MPH). What are my options on getting this reduced enough so my insurance does not go up ? I have not had a ticket in 5 years.
-
Welcome to our legal community! Click here or the create new topic button to ask a question and receive answers and comments from our friendly and helpful legal community.
Articles that answer frequent legal questions are in our Law Guide. Important legal news is reported in The Law JournalYou can find a lawyer near you in the Lawyer Directory. If you know that you need to hire an attorney, you can submit a case review from a lawyer.
Speeding
- Thread Starter Dragon717XXX
- Start date
- Status
Just take any of the offers like defensive driving to or differed program to keep it of your record. Or you can even try pleading not guilty and hope the cop does not show up...........then ask for one of the above options if you fail. I am not familiar with your state's rules but you can find out if my suggestions hold there too.......
Scooterdog
New Member
You can default the prosecutor!
DEFAULT = NO MATTER OF CONTROVERSY = DISMISSAL
When there is a prosecutor in court:
KEEP THIS IN MIND: Courts can only hear matters in controversy. When the prosecutor defaults, there ceases to exist any matter of controversy between the parties (you and the state.) Thus, no controversy, no matter for the court to decide. The court has no jurisdiction over any party who is not apart of a controversy before the court. No controversy, - no jurisdiction. It's that simple.
You do this by filing 3 documents and serving the prosecutor:
1. DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT'S STANDING
2. AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH
3. ACCEPTANCE OF OATH OF OFFICE
DEFAULT = NO MATTER OF CONTROVERSY = DISMISSAL
When there is a prosecutor in court:
KEEP THIS IN MIND: Courts can only hear matters in controversy. When the prosecutor defaults, there ceases to exist any matter of controversy between the parties (you and the state.) Thus, no controversy, no matter for the court to decide. The court has no jurisdiction over any party who is not apart of a controversy before the court. No controversy, - no jurisdiction. It's that simple.
You do this by filing 3 documents and serving the prosecutor:
1. DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT'S STANDING
2. AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH
3. ACCEPTANCE OF OATH OF OFFICE
Green_Hornet
New Member
Usually, an appearance in court may result in a reduction on the traffic citation, which may save you hundreds of dollars on your insurance premiums and help keep your driving record clean. The Assistant District Attorney in your courtroom will talk with you about a possible reduction on your ticket
Scooterdog
New Member
Priceless!
Sounds like a feagin Geico comercial. Default the prosecutor and be done with it.
CdwJava
Moderator
What the heck is all this??
What is an "affidavit of truth"? For that matter, what do the other issues have to do with anything?
- Carl
Green_Hornet
New Member
That is SPAM,from a guy that believes he is a real lawyer. He is delusional.What the heck is all this??
What is an "affidavit of truth"? For that matter, what do the other issues have to do with anything?
- Carl
Last edited:
CdwJava
Moderator
Yeah, he has some very bizarre notions of the law.
I've heard many of the constitutionalist fictions before, but never this "affidavit of truth" or statement of defendant's standing. Those are new ones.
- Carl
Scooterdog
New Member
You have no idea what law is. You can't rebut the default, because your to stupid to understand it. (the quote above sounds like a lowlife public servant)
Put up or shut up. Prove that a default won't work. You can't because you are incompentent, and don't know anything about law.
Default the prosecutor, its the law. (Not greenhornets stupid little opinion)
Scooterdog
New Member
Better read up on the law.
Here again, " he has some very bizarre notions of the law" is a flat out public servant statement! Of course it sounds bizarre, when you ACTUALLY follow law and procedure.
Cdwjava, and gh are clearly ignorant of the Common Law, and it shows by cdwjava's quote.
Green_Hornet
New Member
You think the guys in the white suits knows he banging the keys?
CdwJava
Moderator
If you say so, pal.
Please cite some controlling case law that shows that some of these theories are, in fact, true.
- Carl
Please cite some controlling case law that shows that some of these theories are, in fact, true.
- Carl
Scooterdog
New Member
A completly worthless post. No facts, just more sarcasm comming from someone who knows nothing about the law.
As a matter of fact, greenloser has posted nothing but bs. Lies, twisted truth, and half ass'ed/half backed notions of how legal procedure works.
I stand by my experiences. loser's like this guy(gh) are just a waste of space. They offer nothing, run off at the mouth, and can only try to discredit someone else, because they are to imature/stupid of law to prove me wrong.
CdwJava
Moderator
A Google search of "DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT'S STANDING" provided zero responses ... must be a big theory.
A Google of "AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH" finds links to a great number of fringe "sovereign" sites ... amazingly, no legal resource sites seem to have cited this as a great legal loophole. The same was true with a Google search of "ACCEPTANCE OF OATH OF OFFICE" ...
Kinda tells you how firm these theories are within the law.
- Carl
A Google of "AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH" finds links to a great number of fringe "sovereign" sites ... amazingly, no legal resource sites seem to have cited this as a great legal loophole. The same was true with a Google search of "ACCEPTANCE OF OATH OF OFFICE" ...
Kinda tells you how firm these theories are within the law.
- Carl
Scooterdog
New Member
Sure, :
FIRST: This is lawful notification and is sent pursuant to the federal Constitution, specifically, the Bill of Rights, in particular, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and pursuant to your oath, and requires your written response to me specific to the subject matter. Your failure to respond, as stipulated, and rebut, with particularity, everything in this letter with which you disagree, is your lawful, legal and binding agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this letter is true, correct, legal, lawful and fully binding upon you in any court in America, without your protest or objection or that of those who represent you. Your silence is your acquiescence. See: Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385,391. Notification of legal responsibility is "the first essential of due process of law". See also: U.S. V. Tweel, 550 F.2d.297. "Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading."
and:
LAST: If you disagree with anything in this letter, then rebut that with which you disagree, in writing, with particularity, to me, within 10 days of this letter's date, and support your disagreement with fact, evidence and Constitutionally based law or case law. Your failure to respond, as stipulated, is your agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this letter is true, correct, legal, lawful, and your irrevocable admission attesting to this, fully binding upon you in any court in America, without your protest, objection, or that of those who represent you.
Only two prosecutors have ever tried to rebut it, and they lost. Sorry.
Scooterdog
New Member
Acceptance of oath:
Notice for loser prosecutor(or whatever public servant):
Point of Law: All contracts commence with an offer and only become binding upon acceptance. See: "Contracts" by Farnsworth, third edition, sect. 3.3, pages 112, 113. Infra.
The organic Constitutions of the United States of American, and the State of Montana and the Oath of Office of the above named PUBLIC SERVANT, amounts to nothing more than an offer of an intention to act or refrain from acting in a specified way between the respective governments and the private American people and for other purposes.
Be it known by these presents that I, Scooterdog, do hereby accept the organic Constitutions of the United States of America and of the State of Montana and the Oath of Office of the above named PUBLIC SERVANT as your open and binding offer of promise to form a firm and binding contract between the respective governments, their political instrumentalities and the above named PUBLIC SERVANT and myself in my private capacity.
I expect that, as a PUBLIC SERVANT, you will perform all of your promises and stay within the limitations of your constitutions, create no unfounded presumptions, seek only the true facts and tell the truth at all times and respect and protect my right of personal liberty and private property and all rights antecedent thereto.
The foregoing Notice of Acceptance of Constitutions and of Oath of Office is made explicitly without recourse and now constitutes a binding contract and any deviation there from will be treated as a breach of contract and a violation of substantive due process.
VERIFICATION
I, Scooterdog, declare under penalty of perjury in accordance with the laws of the United states of America that the foregoing is true correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Below your signature:
"Contracts" by Farnsworth, third edition, sect 3.3, pages 112,113
Offer and Acceptance. The outward appearance of the agreement process, by which the parties satisfy the requirement of bargain imposed by the doctrine of consideration, varies widely according to the circumstances. It may, for example, involve face-to-face negotiations, an exchange of letters or facsimiles, or merely the perfunctory signing of a printed form supplied by the other party. Whatever the outward appearance, it is common to analyze the process in terms of two distinct steps: First, a manifestation of assent that is called an offer, made by one party (the offeror) to another (the offeree); and second, a manifestation of assent in response that is called an acceptance, made by the offeree to the offeror. Although courts apply this analysis on a case-by-case basis, depending on the circumstances, it gives a reassuring appearance of consistency.
What is an "offer"? It can be defined as a manifestation to another of assent to enter into a contract if the other manifests assent in return by some action, often a promise but sometimes a performance. By making an offer, the offeror thus confers upon the offeree the power to create a contract. An offer is nearly always a promise and in a sense, the action (promise or performance) on which the offeror conditions the promise is the "price" of its becoming enforceable. Offer, then, is the name given to a promise that is conditional on some action by the promisee if the legal effect of the promisee's taking that action is to make the promise enforceable. Empowerment of the offeree to make the offeror's promise enforceable is thus the essence of an offer. When does a promise empower the promisee to take action that will make the promise enforceable? In other words, when does a manifestation of assent amount to an offer? This is one of the main subjects of this chapter.
What is an "acceptance"? It can be defined as the action {promise or performance} by the offeree that creates a contract (ie, makes the offeror's promise enforceable). Acceptance, then, is the name given to the offeree's action if the legal effect of that action is to make the offeror's promise enforceable. When does action by the promisee make the promise enforceable? In other words, when does the promisee's action amount to an acceptance? This is another of the main subjects of this chapter. Because of the requirement of mutuality of obligation, both parties are free to withdraw from negotiations until the moment when both are bound. This is the moment when the offeree accepts the offer. It therefore follows, as we shall see later in more detail, that the offeror is free to revoke the offer at any time before acceptance.
Notice for loser prosecutor(or whatever public servant):
Point of Law: All contracts commence with an offer and only become binding upon acceptance. See: "Contracts" by Farnsworth, third edition, sect. 3.3, pages 112, 113. Infra.
The organic Constitutions of the United States of American, and the State of Montana and the Oath of Office of the above named PUBLIC SERVANT, amounts to nothing more than an offer of an intention to act or refrain from acting in a specified way between the respective governments and the private American people and for other purposes.
Be it known by these presents that I, Scooterdog, do hereby accept the organic Constitutions of the United States of America and of the State of Montana and the Oath of Office of the above named PUBLIC SERVANT as your open and binding offer of promise to form a firm and binding contract between the respective governments, their political instrumentalities and the above named PUBLIC SERVANT and myself in my private capacity.
I expect that, as a PUBLIC SERVANT, you will perform all of your promises and stay within the limitations of your constitutions, create no unfounded presumptions, seek only the true facts and tell the truth at all times and respect and protect my right of personal liberty and private property and all rights antecedent thereto.
The foregoing Notice of Acceptance of Constitutions and of Oath of Office is made explicitly without recourse and now constitutes a binding contract and any deviation there from will be treated as a breach of contract and a violation of substantive due process.
VERIFICATION
I, Scooterdog, declare under penalty of perjury in accordance with the laws of the United states of America that the foregoing is true correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Below your signature:
"Contracts" by Farnsworth, third edition, sect 3.3, pages 112,113
Offer and Acceptance. The outward appearance of the agreement process, by which the parties satisfy the requirement of bargain imposed by the doctrine of consideration, varies widely according to the circumstances. It may, for example, involve face-to-face negotiations, an exchange of letters or facsimiles, or merely the perfunctory signing of a printed form supplied by the other party. Whatever the outward appearance, it is common to analyze the process in terms of two distinct steps: First, a manifestation of assent that is called an offer, made by one party (the offeror) to another (the offeree); and second, a manifestation of assent in response that is called an acceptance, made by the offeree to the offeror. Although courts apply this analysis on a case-by-case basis, depending on the circumstances, it gives a reassuring appearance of consistency.
What is an "offer"? It can be defined as a manifestation to another of assent to enter into a contract if the other manifests assent in return by some action, often a promise but sometimes a performance. By making an offer, the offeror thus confers upon the offeree the power to create a contract. An offer is nearly always a promise and in a sense, the action (promise or performance) on which the offeror conditions the promise is the "price" of its becoming enforceable. Offer, then, is the name given to a promise that is conditional on some action by the promisee if the legal effect of the promisee's taking that action is to make the promise enforceable. Empowerment of the offeree to make the offeror's promise enforceable is thus the essence of an offer. When does a promise empower the promisee to take action that will make the promise enforceable? In other words, when does a manifestation of assent amount to an offer? This is one of the main subjects of this chapter.
What is an "acceptance"? It can be defined as the action {promise or performance} by the offeree that creates a contract (ie, makes the offeror's promise enforceable). Acceptance, then, is the name given to the offeree's action if the legal effect of that action is to make the offeror's promise enforceable. When does action by the promisee make the promise enforceable? In other words, when does the promisee's action amount to an acceptance? This is another of the main subjects of this chapter. Because of the requirement of mutuality of obligation, both parties are free to withdraw from negotiations until the moment when both are bound. This is the moment when the offeree accepts the offer. It therefore follows, as we shall see later in more detail, that the offeror is free to revoke the offer at any time before acceptance.
Last edited:
Scooterdog
New Member
AUTHORITIES
"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.
"This/here is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.
"The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.
"Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp 150.
"Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio." In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
"Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27
"A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property." Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.
"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.
"This/here is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.
"The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.
"Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp 150.
"Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio." In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
"Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27
"A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property." Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.
Scooterdog
New Member
Although the above isn't all of it, this would be the body of the motion to dismiss the action:
I, Scooterdog, having appeared under threat, duress, and coercion, only to protect Aggrieved Defendant's interests, without any appearance of an adverse party, where the Judge was not an impartial party, but also prosecution, which is a conflict of interests and gives rise to violation of due process rights of the alleged defendant, who is now aggrieved because of such impartiality, and as such this court has lost immunity and any preconceived jurisdiction.
Further investigation shows that there was no probable cause for the arrest and seizure at the time of such arrest and seizure. There was no disturbance of the peace, felony, or warrant for such action, and no commission of a crime leading to another cause of action against the Plaintiff and Officer for harassment and obtaining a signature under threat, duress and coercion.
Aggrieved Defendant had committed no crime at the time of stop and seizure by citing the Officer. The Aggrieved Defendant was charged with a traffic code or rule violation classified by state, or local government code as an infraction. An infraction is not a crime. Courts commonly define the word infraction as, a 'quasi-crime.' Blacks Law Dictionary Seventh Edition defines the word 'Quasi' as; "Seemingly but not actually; in some sense; resembling; nearly" Therefore, an infraction is not a crime but rather, something that seemingly could be a crime but, is not actually, - something that appears to be in some sense a crime but, is not actually, - bares some resemblance to a crime but, is not actually, - nearly a crime but, is not actually. Clearly the Aggrieved Defendant, committed no crime!
Created to protect the people from abuses of police powers, The Forth Amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America, allows police officers to seize and/or arrest a person of the flesh only when a police officer has 'probable cause' to believe that a person has committed a crime, or is involved in the commission of a crime.
The Aggrieved Defendant is fully aware of and does not surrender or waive Rights guaranteed in the federal and State Constitutions, or his free exercise of those Rights. SEE: Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S., 742 at 748. "Waivers of Constitutional Rights must not only be done voluntarily, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequences." Further, the exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime. SEE: Miller v. U.S., 230 F, 2d 286, 489. "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." However, that is exactly what the State of Montana has done by converting Aggrieved Defendant's claim and exercise of Constitutional Rights into a crime. The State opposes and contradicts those Rights and brings action against Aggrieved Defendant for his exercise of those Rights, and in so doing, denies and defies the Constitutions, including defying Constitutional provisions against Bills of Attainder and pains and penalties. For such charges to be brought by the State against a Citizen in any court constitutes treason by those who bring and prosecute the charges. For the court to hear such charges demonstrates that the court fails to honor Constitutional Rights and fails due process of law. The presiding judge has taken an oath to uphold the Constitutions, and pursuant to that oath and his/her duties to the Constitutions, and not to fraud and color of law, the judge has the discretion to dismiss the unlawful charges, uphold his/her oath, the Constitutions and dismiss this case.
In the interest of justice and to preclude further injury to the Citizen and Aggrieved Defendant:
MOTION # 1
Aggrieved Defendant hereby motions the court to dismiss for failure to establish probable cause, or to issue a "Notice of Infraction", (officer issued a "NOTICE TO APPEAR"), therefore the court has no jurisdiction in the matter.
MOTION # 2
Aggrieved Defendant hereby motions the court to dismiss for failure to establish probable cause for the traffic stop, and a contested hearing within ninety days under the Constitution of the Untied States therefore any jurisdiction is lost in the matter.
MOTION # 3
Aggrieved Defendant hereby motions the court to dismiss for lack of prosecution at hearing. Prosecution failed to invoke jurisdiction, wherefore this court has lost any alleged jurisdiction and has denied an adversarial proceeding amounting to lack of due process.
MOTION # 4
Aggrieved Defendant hereby motions the court to suppress all evidence unlawfully obtained by the traffic stop "arrest" by the arresting officer who comes with unclean hands. The Constitution of the United States forbids that a standing army may be maintained in peace time. Such constitutional abuse of WAR POWERS, if not rebutted by some superior law, will be evidence of such willful intent to injure the rights of peaceful Citizens.
MOTION # 5
Aggrieved Defendant hereby motions the court to dismiss for failure to obtain and correct the true name of the Defendant at hearing. The Defendant has never been known as SCOOTERDOG or any other nom de guerre, and comes into this court under the American Flag of Peace, and municipality has no express authority to use marshal war powers upon this Citizen without lawful declaration. This Citizen also declares that the venue is improper, in that the alleged infraction did not occur upon any municipal property and as such must be dismissed.
MOTION # 6
Aggrieved Defendant hereby motions the court to dismiss the charge for failure to explain the nature and cause of the accusation, thereby leaving the Defendant in ignorance and without aid of knowledge to prepare a knowledgeable defense, and amounts to denial of due process.
MOTION # 7
The Aggrieved Defendant further motions the court to dismiss for lack of constitutional authorization of officer to issue a "SUMMONS." The officer is a member of the executive branch of government and the Constitution forbids occupying or acting under two branches of government simultaneously, also being a violation of a public officer's oath of office.
Aggrieved Defendant objects to the martial law war powers summary judgment of this court and lack of due process and I reserve all my rights under the common law including the right to appeal, without cost and do not voluntarily waive any rights.
I, Scooterdog, having appeared under threat, duress, and coercion, only to protect Aggrieved Defendant's interests, without any appearance of an adverse party, where the Judge was not an impartial party, but also prosecution, which is a conflict of interests and gives rise to violation of due process rights of the alleged defendant, who is now aggrieved because of such impartiality, and as such this court has lost immunity and any preconceived jurisdiction.
Further investigation shows that there was no probable cause for the arrest and seizure at the time of such arrest and seizure. There was no disturbance of the peace, felony, or warrant for such action, and no commission of a crime leading to another cause of action against the Plaintiff and Officer for harassment and obtaining a signature under threat, duress and coercion.
Aggrieved Defendant had committed no crime at the time of stop and seizure by citing the Officer. The Aggrieved Defendant was charged with a traffic code or rule violation classified by state, or local government code as an infraction. An infraction is not a crime. Courts commonly define the word infraction as, a 'quasi-crime.' Blacks Law Dictionary Seventh Edition defines the word 'Quasi' as; "Seemingly but not actually; in some sense; resembling; nearly" Therefore, an infraction is not a crime but rather, something that seemingly could be a crime but, is not actually, - something that appears to be in some sense a crime but, is not actually, - bares some resemblance to a crime but, is not actually, - nearly a crime but, is not actually. Clearly the Aggrieved Defendant, committed no crime!
Created to protect the people from abuses of police powers, The Forth Amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America, allows police officers to seize and/or arrest a person of the flesh only when a police officer has 'probable cause' to believe that a person has committed a crime, or is involved in the commission of a crime.
The Aggrieved Defendant is fully aware of and does not surrender or waive Rights guaranteed in the federal and State Constitutions, or his free exercise of those Rights. SEE: Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S., 742 at 748. "Waivers of Constitutional Rights must not only be done voluntarily, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequences." Further, the exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime. SEE: Miller v. U.S., 230 F, 2d 286, 489. "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." However, that is exactly what the State of Montana has done by converting Aggrieved Defendant's claim and exercise of Constitutional Rights into a crime. The State opposes and contradicts those Rights and brings action against Aggrieved Defendant for his exercise of those Rights, and in so doing, denies and defies the Constitutions, including defying Constitutional provisions against Bills of Attainder and pains and penalties. For such charges to be brought by the State against a Citizen in any court constitutes treason by those who bring and prosecute the charges. For the court to hear such charges demonstrates that the court fails to honor Constitutional Rights and fails due process of law. The presiding judge has taken an oath to uphold the Constitutions, and pursuant to that oath and his/her duties to the Constitutions, and not to fraud and color of law, the judge has the discretion to dismiss the unlawful charges, uphold his/her oath, the Constitutions and dismiss this case.
In the interest of justice and to preclude further injury to the Citizen and Aggrieved Defendant:
MOTION # 1
Aggrieved Defendant hereby motions the court to dismiss for failure to establish probable cause, or to issue a "Notice of Infraction", (officer issued a "NOTICE TO APPEAR"), therefore the court has no jurisdiction in the matter.
MOTION # 2
Aggrieved Defendant hereby motions the court to dismiss for failure to establish probable cause for the traffic stop, and a contested hearing within ninety days under the Constitution of the Untied States therefore any jurisdiction is lost in the matter.
MOTION # 3
Aggrieved Defendant hereby motions the court to dismiss for lack of prosecution at hearing. Prosecution failed to invoke jurisdiction, wherefore this court has lost any alleged jurisdiction and has denied an adversarial proceeding amounting to lack of due process.
MOTION # 4
Aggrieved Defendant hereby motions the court to suppress all evidence unlawfully obtained by the traffic stop "arrest" by the arresting officer who comes with unclean hands. The Constitution of the United States forbids that a standing army may be maintained in peace time. Such constitutional abuse of WAR POWERS, if not rebutted by some superior law, will be evidence of such willful intent to injure the rights of peaceful Citizens.
MOTION # 5
Aggrieved Defendant hereby motions the court to dismiss for failure to obtain and correct the true name of the Defendant at hearing. The Defendant has never been known as SCOOTERDOG or any other nom de guerre, and comes into this court under the American Flag of Peace, and municipality has no express authority to use marshal war powers upon this Citizen without lawful declaration. This Citizen also declares that the venue is improper, in that the alleged infraction did not occur upon any municipal property and as such must be dismissed.
MOTION # 6
Aggrieved Defendant hereby motions the court to dismiss the charge for failure to explain the nature and cause of the accusation, thereby leaving the Defendant in ignorance and without aid of knowledge to prepare a knowledgeable defense, and amounts to denial of due process.
MOTION # 7
The Aggrieved Defendant further motions the court to dismiss for lack of constitutional authorization of officer to issue a "SUMMONS." The officer is a member of the executive branch of government and the Constitution forbids occupying or acting under two branches of government simultaneously, also being a violation of a public officer's oath of office.
Aggrieved Defendant objects to the martial law war powers summary judgment of this court and lack of due process and I reserve all my rights under the common law including the right to appeal, without cost and do not voluntarily waive any rights.
Green_Hornet
New Member
What does contract law have to do with a speeding ticket? Completly ireelavant,traffic court in North Carolina is very informal. You dont file motions, you moron.
- Status
Share this page
