Welcome
Welcome to SuiJurisForum.com --- You are currently viewing our boards as a guest. Members of this FREE Community are able to gain access to write capabilities, private messaging, a chat room, extra forums, and more!

***If you decide to Join our FREE Community... then DON'T FORGET to PASS/SKIP the multiple ADVERTISEMENTS during Registration that ask for Phone Numbers!! ***

Advocate-witness rule in Traffic court

Discuss court cases, citation, ordinance, foreclosures, Bankruptcy, and family laws etc.

Re: Advocate-witness rule in Traffic court

Postby Pumpkin » Tue May 16, 2017 6:48 am

It simply is missing a prosecutor, and plaintiff.

There is no court without a plaintiff. Otherwise it is a fictitious plaintiff. A fictitious plaintiff is contempt of court. It seems without a prosecutor that the case is abandoned. The 'does anyone here have a claim against me, or know of someone who has a claim against me' should suffice. Or a demand of ratification of commencement may be in order.
The created serves the Creator. As with man to God. As with the nest to the bird. As with government to the people.
Judges don't wear black robes for nothing.
Pumpkin
Creditor In Commerce
 
Posts: 1606
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 8:49 pm
Has thanked: 51 time
Have thanks: 107 time

 

Re: Advocate-witness rule in Traffic court

Postby Shoonra » Sat May 20, 2017 9:49 pm

Before you ride that hobby horse I suggest you first read up the rules of the traffic court. Most likely the traffic court has its own rules, one of which provides that the law enforcement officer who wrote the traffic ticket serves as the complaining witness and, if necessary, also as prosecutor. It's a sort of messy situation because cops are not necessarily trained for courtroom tactics, and it sort of hints that the judge will (more or less unconsciously) supply something to fill the vacuum. Very bluntly, motorists seldom win in traffic court - with or without lawyers - and I doubt the odds are very different in those courts where there is not a regular prosecuting attorney.
/ Shoonra
"Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft."
First Samuel 15:23
User avatar
Shoonra
Statist
 
Posts: 5063
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:14 am
Location: suburban Maryland
Has thanked: 20 time
Have thanks: 207 time

Re: Advocate-witness rule in Traffic court

Postby Nunya_Bizness » Sat May 20, 2017 10:09 pm

Pumpkin wrote: It simply is missing a prosecutor, and plaintiff.

The 'does anyone here have a claim against me, or know of someone who has a claim against me' should suffice. Or a demand of ratification of commencement may be in order.

Yes this seemed to work out very well for Sam Davis. NOT! :nono:
Apistevist
noun
- a person (not a legal person)who does not use faith to know things, especially in the religious sense
The burden of proof lies(Prevarication) on religion.
Theism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that god(s) exists." -Nunya_Biziness
Definition of God = The total sum of human ignorance.
If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of it’s existence, otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.
*Faith* The excuse people give for believing something without good reason.>> *Faith, The grownup word for pretend.
Not a person
http://bindingthefirm.myfastforum.org/d ... b3c912fb94
User avatar
Nunya_Bizness
Freeman
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:53 pm
Has thanked: 126 time
Have thanks: 49 time

Re: Advocate-witness rule in Traffic court

Postby country_hick » Sat May 20, 2017 10:59 pm

Shoonra wrote:Before you ride that hobby horse I suggest you first read up the rules of the traffic court. Most likely the traffic court has its own rules, one of which provides that the law enforcement officer who wrote the traffic ticket serves as the complaining witness and, if necessary, also as prosecutor. It's a sort of messy situation because cops are not necessarily trained for courtroom tactics, and it sort of hints that the judge will (more or less unconsciously) supply something to fill the vacuum. Very bluntly, motorists seldom win in traffic court - with or without lawyers - and I doubt the odds are very different in those courts where there is not a regular prosecuting attorney.

I am well aware that the officer acts as both prosecutor and necessary witness in Maine traffic Court. That fact is irrelevant. If that unfortunate setup violates the advocate-witness rule as declared by the US Supreme Court why would that violative procedure withstand legal scrutiny?

I bet the deputy has no clue what the statutes and elements required to prove the charge are. I was shocked at the amount of pertinent statutes required to be proven to obtain a proper conviction for any traffic charge..
There is a reason that LEO has a new meaning: Legally Entitled to Oppress. Thanks to Bob Livingston for this one.

Williams v. United States, 341 US 97 - Supreme Court 1951
It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 US 54 - Supreme Court 1795
Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied
User avatar
country_hick
Freeman
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 46 time

Re: Advocate-witness rule in Traffic court

Postby Pumpkin » Sun May 21, 2017 8:08 am

Shoonra wrote:Before you ride that hobby horse I suggest you first read up the rules of the traffic court. Most likely the traffic court has its own rules, one of which provides that the law enforcement officer who wrote the traffic ticket serves as the complaining witness and, if necessary, also as prosecutor. It's a sort of messy situation because cops are not necessarily trained for courtroom tactics, and it sort of hints that the judge will (more or less unconsciously) supply something to fill the vacuum. Very bluntly, motorists seldom win in traffic court - with or without lawyers - and I doubt the odds are very different in those courts where there is not a regular prosecuting attorney.


Court is court. The rules of court apply to court. A complaining party must make a claim. Without that there is no case. Why do you think the state won't file theft charges without the owners signature? Shoonra, you may think your god can make a crime out of anything, but it cannot. Really? A court without a plaintiff or prosecutor? Do realize how dumb that sounds?
The created serves the Creator. As with man to God. As with the nest to the bird. As with government to the people.
Judges don't wear black robes for nothing.
Pumpkin
Creditor In Commerce
 
Posts: 1606
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 8:49 pm
Has thanked: 51 time
Have thanks: 107 time

Previous

Return to Court

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

suspicion-preferred