I have court for a speeding ticket tomorrow. I’m going to make them earn their money at least. Everyone ought to take their tickets to trial. If they did, the courts would get clogged up, and they wouldn’t be able to handle the cases. Even if they could, they would no longer be profitable.

My wife just told me that she thinks I should just pay the ticket. However we have to keep in mind that it is important to our system that we are innocent until proven guilty. We have a right to a fair trial, and men have shed their blood for these rights. These rights are based on the Christian worldview, and it is important that we exercise our rights, which don’t come from men, but from God. I didn’t start this…a man with the power to blow my brains out, pulled me over. He started it.

Here’s a few things I’ve learned from this ticket, in addition to what I’ve learned previously. I’m also going to provide the questions and notes I’ve compiled in hopes that it might save you time.

1. They tell you that if you pay the ticket within a couple weeks (or whatever), you get a deal. The deal they offer as a plea bargain to everyone if you show up to plead guilty or not guilty is better than their initial offer.
2. When you show up to plead guilty or not guilty, I’d guess that is their break even point. They have to get you to pay the ticket or take the deal there to break even. If you plead not guilty, they will lose money.
3. Read the state laws on traffic tickets. I went to that first hearing, and asked the clerk if she’s a referee. She said she wasn’t, so I filed a motion to dismiss. The judge said that she agreed and rescheduled my first hearing to be in front of her. They called me and left a message, and they mailed me a notice. I showed up, but I think if I hadn’t shown up, they would have either had to drop the case or properly serve me. So I think I screwed up by showing up to that hearing voluntarily without proper service.
4. So my November 30th ticket is scheduled for trial on May 24. I think that postponing as long as possible also increases the chance that the cop retires/dies/moves, which would mean you are not guilty.

Here are my notes I’m taking tomorrow. I’m hoping to rake this guy over the coals as much as possible. The first portion is taken from a trial I saw where a lawyer did this to a state patrolman, and the judge dismissed the case. The second portion is based on Marc Stevens thoughts. The third part is taken from this article. 

1. Has the state rested its case?
2. He never identified me as the driver. I ask that the case be dismissed.

——————————————

3. This law that I’m charged under, is it your belief that it applies to everyone in the state of Colorado?
4. What is your logical, legal reason for that belief?
5. So the law says that the law applies? Do you see that that is circular reasoning, and isn’t a valid answer?

———————————————

6. Can you describe your training in using this radar/lidar?
7. How is the device calibrated?
8. If radar:

When did you use the tuning forks?

How did you use the tuning forks?

Was this done with the operator’s manual for the device?

How are the tuning forks calibrated? State of Florida v. Allweiss

(1980) says that using the radar manufacturer’s tuning forks is tantamount to having the device test itself.

Did you have the heat on? Was the car running?

9. If lidar:

Did the operator have adequate training and experience?

Is the training documented?

Has the lidar been tested according to the procedures recommended by the manufacturer?

Was the unit tested against a known speed?

Does the unit include a technician certification?

What is the date of that certification (must be within 3 years according to State of Hawaii v Abiye Assay and NHTSA standards)?

Do you have the operator’s manual with you?

Was the heat on? Was the car running?

10. Have you had any disciplinary actions taken against you?

 

 

 

State of Connecticut v. Tomanelli (1966)

In the case, which is the same year as the Honeycutt case, the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled that “outside influences may affect the accuracy of the recording by a police radar set sufficient to raise a doubt as to the reliability of the speed recorded.”

The court also stated that tuning forks must be proved to be accurate to be accepted as valid tests of a radar unit. In order to establish the accuracy of the radar unit the operator must testify to the following:

1. That he made tuning fork tests before and after the defendant’s speed was recorded.
2. That the tests were made by activating 40, 60 and 80 mph tuning forks and by observing that the unit responded correctly in each case.

State of Minnesota v. Gerdes (1971)

The Supreme Court of Minnesota ruled that where the only means of testing the accuracy of a radar unit is an internal mechanism within the unit, and there is no other evidence of the motorist’s speed other than the radar reading, the conviction cannot be sustained.

The court also established the following conditions for proving the accuracy of the radar unit:

1. The officer must have adequate training and experience in the operation of the radar unit.
2. The officer must testify as to how the unit was set up and the conditions the unit was operated under.
3. it must be proven that the unit was operated with a minimum possibility of distortion from external interference.
4. The unit has to be tested with an external source, such as a tuning fork or an actual test run with another vehicle with an accurately calibrated speedometer.

People of New York v. Perlman (1977)

The Suffolk County District Court ruled that the radar device was not proved to be accurate since no external test had been performed before or after the arrest. This case is significant since it established the criteria of testing before and after a citation is issued.

Possible Speech

It’s clear to me that my simple question of jurisdiction won’t be answered, because it can’t be answered. It’s clear to me that your only basis for jurisdiction is the fact that I’m within range of your gun, and you and your comrades having proven your willingness to use it. We have a system devoid of any rational or logical basis for proving jurisdiction. It is based on the blind faith antichrist religion of statism and threats of violence. It is a system of might makes right. I consider this process to be unjust. I will write a check today if I’m found guilty, not because I feel it is the right thing to do, but under protest and due to the continued threats against me if I don’t. I wasn’t hurting anyone that day. No victim of my alleged crime has come forward. I’m innocent of the charges against me and I have an excellent driving record. There is no reason why we should have men with a gun on their hip harassing non-criminal Americans for supposedly violating arbitrary speed guidelines. The only valid basis for morality and justice is found in the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord, but that has long since been found to be unconstitutional, and what we’re left with is the arbitrary definition of justice provided by legislators gathering in Denver, a good percentage of which I wouldn’t trust to babysit my kids. I think you should be ashamed of yourself and you should repent of operating under this antichrist religious system.