Posted by Common Right Group on January 12, 1998 at 19:13:22:
In Reply to: Re: Cop crossed out my "without prejudice" posted by Derek Kyle on January 12, 1998 at 11:45:30:
: : : 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 email@example.com.
: : 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.
: : I wish to take issue with the above statement. The issuance of a 'traffic citation' is in reality a municiple warrant, [See Black's 5th or 6th] and therefore valid as a negotiable instrument. If it is not refused for cause or returned for fraud, demurred or abated, a plea of quilty is presumed and at the court appearance a payment is negotiated. You do not have a 'right' to trial as the DMV code is enforced by contract, that contract being the driver's licence. The traffic infraction is a contract breech in which a penalty is assessed. I would limit my argument [Of course not with the officer] to the issue of what constitutes a valid signature [Again reffer to any legal dictionary]. Or use the statement: threat, duress or coersion [TDC as some have used] in conjunction with your signature [which invalidates willfulness, (a requirement for a signature)]. However, I am convinced that the use of 'Without prejudice' is applicable since the citation is the negotiable instrument.
: I posted much earlier on this site a challenge for anyone to discuss the difference between the Right to Travel, and the Liberty of Movement. Any takers?
: Derek Kyle
OH MY! WHAT MR. KYLE SAYS ABOUT 'INFRACTIONS' IS GENERALLY CORRECT, BUT THEY ARE TREATED, IN CALIFORNIA, AS MISDEMEANORS, WHICH IS BASED UPON CRIMINAL TRESPASS UPON THE STATE'S ROADS AND HIGHWAYS WHEN DONE WITHOUT LICENSE.
GRANTED, THIS IS ANOTHER PERVERSION OF THE LAW BY THE "STATE OF ....., INC.," BUT THE CHALLENGE HERE IS TO OVERCOME THAT PERVERSION BY DEMANDING TO SEE THE LEGITIMATE TITLE TO THE LAND UPON WHICH THE ROAD IS BUILT AND TO THE ROAD ITSELF.
THIS FEEBLE RESPONSE IS FAR TO SIMPLISTIC TO FULLY ADDRESS THE LEGAL THEORY PROMULGATED ABOVE, BUT IT GIVES SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT. WE WON'T DEFEND OUR POSITION ON THE BASIS OF OUR EGO, THAT'S THE PRIDE THAT GOES BEFORE A FALL AND WE PREFER TO STAND.
WE'RE NOT SYING THAT USING THE U.C.C. REFERENCE WILL CAUSE PROBLEMS IN ALL CASES. IF MUNI JUDGES WERE REAL SMART, THEY'D BE IN SUPERIOR OR HIGHER COURT. HOWEVER, NOT ALL ARE IDIOTS EITHER. WHAT WE'VE LEARNED IS THAT THE U.C.C. REFERENCE IS UNNECESSARY AND MAY LEAD TO A REQUIREMENT TO SHOW HOW COMMERCE APPLIES TO A MISDEMEANOR CRIMINAL ACTION, OR MAY EVEN LEAD ONE TO BE SHUNTED OFF TO A SANITY EVALUATION AND HEARING AND BEING HELD IN JAIL UNTIL THAT HEARING TAKES PLACE.
THE MAIN ISSUE, REGARDLESS OF HOW ONE ATTEMPTS TO RESERVE RIGHTS, IS THAT ONE HAD BETTER KNOW THE RIGHTS HE IS ATTEMPTING TO RESERVE AND HOW TO ENFORCE THEM OR IT'S ALL FOR NAUGHT.
Post a Followup