Re: Cop crossed out my "without prejudice"

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Two Cities on December 17, 1997 at 15:54:51:

In Reply to: Re: Cop crossed out my "without prejudice" posted by Common Right Group on December 17, 1997 at 06:11:51:

: : Some please help with this:

: : I recently received a citation for speeding (going 55 in a 45 at 6:30 in the morning, taking
: : a friend to hospital for surgery). When I signed my name with the words "without prejudice,
: : the officer crossed them out before handing me my copy. I asked why and he said I had no right
: : to add anything besides my signature to "his" citation. I said it was a legal document and as
: : such, I had a right to reserve my rights in writing. He said "it wasn't a legal document".
: : Anyway, an attorney has confirmed that according to the Code of Criminal Procedures under which
: : this falls, the officer was justified in his action because the UCC isn't applicable for this type
: : of legal matter. The problem I have is that this flies in the face of all I've read and heard
: : about use of the UCC for protection against signing under duress. I thought I may have a good
: : case against the officer when I get to court, but now I'm unsure. Someone wiser than I on this
: : issue please respond. Much thanks indeed. Please respond to

: Use of UCC is inappropriate in matters of criminal charges. An application for a driver's license IS a statement made by the applicant that prejudices the applicant's rights, and is antecedent to any disclaimers on a citation.
: However, use of "Without Prejudice" (not referencing the UCC) on a D/L and/or registration application is a condition on the terms of the contract that many States will not accept because it tells them that you are reserving the right to know and understand the exact nature and cause of any action brought against you under the terms of that license. It effectively nullifies the [hidden] purpose in issueing the license.
: The other point that seems relevant here is that the cop made a judicial determination that the manner of signing is NOT the man's regular form of signing documents. By what authority? Where did he get that judicial or quasi-judicial authority? We sort of think it isn't in his job description. In fact, his job description, notwithstndin a bunch of anciliary rhetoric, is an oath to uphold and defent the constitutions for the U.S.A. and the state.
: The cop is right that the NOTICE TO APPEAR (Traffic Citation) is not a legal document, in the strict sense of the word. It is an information form for use by a proper Magistrate, Grand Jury, or Public Prosecutor to use in deterrmining if charges should be brought against the "violator." The cop is merely the reporting agent for the presumed damaged party, not the one preferring the charges. That buck is passsed to one of the three named Supra. In fact, the whole game is a buck passing game.
: The cop passes the buck to the Magistrate, Grand Jury or Magistrate who becomes the accuser. In turn, the buck is passed to the trial bench or jury who becomes the accuser. Etc. The trial court completes the two-witness rule, after the Magistrate or..., if a conviction is made by those Plaintiff Parties sitting on the jury. (Made up of the people of the State of ...)
: C. Mark got a more long-winded version of this dissertation, but this much seems worthy of posting in the public forum, perchance to dissuade others from making the same errors of assumption. We notice another answer further down the list that is relevant. If one has license for the purpose of driving taxicabs or ???, what has that to do with his responsible and considerate, strictly private use of his peculiar possession and private property in the public (common) domain?

For what it is worth.
The local municipality(Municipality(MUNICIPALITY) runs this game through a series
of contracts. This can be seen by attending the council(Council(COUNCIL)) meetings,
where the parties to the contracts are sometimes giving performance reports.

The XXXX POLICE is under contract to XXXX. It is a separate corporation.
XXXX is the business arm of whatever municipality you are dealing with.
With the stacking of jurisdictions, it is doubtful in my mind, that XXXX
has any borders, except perhaps in a REGIONAL venue. In the local City Code
where I am, there is an entry about moving the charges to another court, within
the same city.

check for the bifurcation on Washington
jurisdictions. It's likely to be similar elsewhere. Travel the paths
of Washington State courts, vs. Washington courts.

city of XXXX holds court in XXXX Municipal Court, Washington jurisdiction
City of XXXX holds court in XXXX Court of Limited Jurisdiction, Washington State jurisdiction. Federal rules
CITY OF XXXX holds court in XXXX Corporate Tribunal, private contract law.

In Washington, where they have vehicle excise taxes they seem to be attached
in the following manner.

The right of possession is divested via the application for Certificate of Title. You are
now a beneficiary owner. The STATE owns the automobile, converted into a "motor vehicle",
rented back to you. The municipality then charges the STATE a fee for their operation
of commercial vehicles inside their limits. They take a substantial cut of the excise.

So you are 'caught' speeding, while being the operator of a commercial vehicle, governed by
contract between the STATE and the CITY. The STATE meanwhile conveniently licensed all it's
operators. The contract between the STATE and the CITY exists. Ask for it. In the CORPORATE
TRIBUNAL 'they' will know the exact of 'your' contract.

Subpoena the MAYOR, have her explain the nature of the way they do their business under oath,
and in front of a jury. That is, if one is available.

There are no laws impairing the obligation of contracts.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]