Hi all! Jurisdiction not applicable in a NON Court of Record

[zude]

Hi all,

Wish I would've found the forum sooner. Long story, short:

A "City X" police officer pulls me over in "City B," (Texas) and writes a citation for speeding, 71 in 55. Funny thing is, it was in rush hour traffic in a two lane Hwy, and I'm 100% sure I wasn't speeding...we were crawling.

Studied the forums, showed up to plea, and spoke with the prosecutor. I used the "I'm not familiar with this whole court thing, is it okay to ask some questions about what's going on?"

I then brought up the valid cause of action and corpus delecti, and asked on what grounds do they have a right to do this?

He cut me off and stated, "You're talking about jurisdiction...that won't work here, because we're not a court of record."

He beat me. I didn't know where to go from there. I told him I was a radio expert in the military, and if he wanted to go to trial, then I wasn't scared; I can prove the radar faults during propagation and transmit.

He asked for my military ID, and left to go "talk" to the judge. I have no idea what was said.

He came back, gave me my ID, and said, "go to the window...we're going to trial."

Can I still question the judge before the proceeding? and what can I file to a NON court of record?? and even if I beat the crap out of the cop for not knowing his radar, AND the judge says "guilty," there's no record for an appeal?

Ideas?

Thanks in advanced,

[NonEntity]

Can yoo spell kangaroo?

(Here's hoping someone else can come back with something more helpful...)

- NonE

P.S. As to the "court of record" thing, it seems to me this is a perfect reason for you to bring a recording device, another (hidden) recording device, a friend or seven with recording devices, and finally, a friend who is all dressed up and presents himself, as Marc advises, as a reporter for the No State Project doing an investigative series on judicial misconduct. :bootyshake:

[zude]

K-A-N-G-A (lyin dirty thieves) ROOOOOOOOOO!

That's what I thought! (Thanks, None)

I've been issued my plea, trail date set for December 13th. Scripts and Motions already ordered.

Not scared, but this small town municipal has history of being dirty.

Bring out the recording devices!

[zude]

I guess I'm out of luck:

"It is a matter of right that one may demand to be tried in a court of
record. By sheer definition, that means that the court must proceed
according to the common law (not the statutory law). The only way that
a court can suspend that right is by the prior agreement of the
parties. For tactical reasons the state prefers to proceed according to
statutory law rather than common law. The only way it can do that is to
obtain the prior agreement from the parties. That is the primary (and
hidden) purpose of the arraignment procedure. During arraignment the
court offers three choices for pleading (guilty, not guilty, nolo
contendre). But all three choices lead to the same jurisdiction, namely
a statutory jurisdiction, not a common law jurisdiction. That is to
say, the question to be decided is whether or not the statute was
violated, not whether the common law was violated."

This is why it's important to have your script and points ready, before the arraignment.

Gonna make an open records request. The officer pulled me over out of his city. Surely he doesn't have jurisdiction in another city.

- zude

[Marc Stevens]

zude Wrote:I then brought up the valid cause of action and corpus delecti, and asked on what grounds do they have a right to do this?

He cut me off and stated, "You're talking about jurisdiction...that won't work here, because we're not a court of record."

He beat me. I didn't know where to go from there. I told him I was a radio expert in the military, and if he wanted to go to trial, then I wasn't scared; I can prove the radar faults during propagation and transmit.

Why take an attorney's word for it? You should have asked him some questions, such as "Why?". Ask him if the court is one of limited jurisdiction or unlimited. Always challenge them, ask questions, have him suport his BS. You could even have said, "So I can file a complaint against you and you can't get it thrown out for a lack of jurisdiction?

I'd still file the motion to dismiss for a lack of standing/subject matter jurisdiction.

[WorBlux]

Gosh what do you know, a lawyer lying. Who would of thunk it.

As marc mentioned the nest question that came to my mind was unlimited or limited jurisdiction. Is the complaint required to be consistent with the Constitution ...

[Nomos]

If you lose, you can appeal to the County level which would require a Trial de novo (new trial, i.e. starting all over), in which case you would then have a record. THEN the same issues can be raised only that time WITH a record.

That's actually a good loophole.

Hope this helps.

[zude]

Brilliant. Thanks.

Man, I really feel foolish. I should know better than to trust anything that has to do with government.

Really appreciate the input!

I'll be sticking around to keep you updated. Is it okay if I send copies of the motions by way of certified mail to the judge, prosecutor, and officer? I contacted the court clerk and they said they don't do that there. ???

I asked to speak with her supervisor, and she had no idea what I was talking about. She told me to go to city hall for that. What the hack is going on? More lies?

On a side note, I do have a fewfriends that are more than willing to record the trial.

[Nomos]

Glad it helped.

I don't think it showed you believed what you were told, or else you wouldn't have raised questions. So no worries.

By the rules of court and civil/criminal procedure, all parties to the action would be required to receive copies of whatever papers or pleadings are filed with the court.

You will find the procedural requirements in the rules of court and (in your case) criminal procedures (in civil actions - rules of civil procedure).

Those should always be your point of reference for procedural requirements.

But, in direct answer to your question, yes you can serve motion papers by certified mail, although unnecessary, unless you suspect there may be some skullduggery and wish to cover your six (which is always a preferable rather than leaving it to chance).

I have never had any experiences with executive and judicial actors denying service (knock on wood), however, anything is possible.

[indio]

A court "not of record" doesn't mean they don't keep a record of the proceeding.

[Nomos]

indio Wrote:A court "not of record" doesn't mean they don't keep a record of the proceeding.

No it doesn't, but it does mean there is no transcript of the proceedings, which is necessary for a proper review.

[zude]

WorBlux Wrote:As marc mentioned the nest question that came to my mind was unlimited or limited jurisdiction. Is the complaint required to be consistent with the Constitution ...

But no organization has unlimited jurisdiction, right?

Nomos Wrote:No it doesn't, but it does mean there is no transcript of the proceedings, which is necessary for a proper review.

Isn't that necessary for an appeal?

Update:

Received open records request (since they don't do "Motion for Discovery"):

[justify]All requested information pertains to date, xx month xxxx, Officer Joe, ID # 1234 in reference to citation number 123456
1. FCC Public Safety Radio Service License, or other Radar License, authorizing the "City Name" Police Employees the use of Radar by the FCC.
2. Unit Logs
3. Patrol Car Unit Number operated by Officer Joe on xx month xxxx
4. Radar Documentation
Make, Model, Serial Number, Options, and Age of Radar
The Manufacturer’s Certificate of Calibration
Operator Manual and Specifications
Calibration Log Sheets, including Dates, Due, and Lab
5. Tuning Fork Documentation
Specifications including Band, Speed, Resonance, and Resonance Tolerance
Calibration Log Sheets including Dates, Due, and Lab
6. Officer Joe's Training and Qualifications
Certificate proving Competency
Training Material
Officer Training Records
7. Any "City Name" Law Enforcement Policies Pertaining to Radar Use.
8. All of Officer Joe's, ID # 1234, notes and logs pertaining to Citation Number 253221.[/justify]

Mailed motions, certified, to Prosecutor, Judge, and Officer.

Now, I'm also VERY familiar with physics and math, and I'm very confident that I could humiliate the officer, if they deny the motions and wish to proceed.

Stay tuned,

-zude

[Nomos]

zude Wrote:

WorBlux Wrote:As marc mentioned the nest question that came to my mind was unlimited or limited jurisdiction. Is the complaint required to be consistent with the Constitution ...

But no organization has unlimited jurisdiction, right?

-zude

Without intending to step on WorBlux's toes, the statement with respect to unlimited or limited jurisdiction is a matter of context. Meaning, the court systems are set up in an order of what conditions must be met before the matter can be heard or entertained "legally." Example, in unlimited jurisdiction, the court can hear any matter that comes before it within the "legal" jurisdiction that it has been assigned, and usually is for any matter over 25,000.00.

Now this is ONLY with respect to state courts, because the federal courts are ALL courts of limited jurisdiction but it doesn't mean the same as with state court limited jurisdiction (which only hear matters UNDER 25,000.00). For another example, a state court limited civil action cannot her a small claims court action, a state court unlimited civil action cannot hear limited civil actions.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction in that for ALL actions brought there must be either a diversity of citizenship or a federal question involved (meaning a question of law that is entirely within federal jurisdiction), and the matter must be over 75,000.00. Now these is not exhaustive, but the bare essentials as to how the courts say they have jurisdiction to "hear" a matter.

The reason for the federal distinction is because, as you should know, it is proclaimed that the states unionized in which certain powers were delegated to THE (not THESE) United States (in the District of Columbia), such as international affairs, the regulation of commerce, etc. etc., but the states remain sovereign in its own affairs, which is why you see other states with "legal medical" marijuana use "laws" and the feds crying that they will not recognize it. But they can only NOT recognize it on federal land.

zude Wrote:

Nomos Wrote:No it doesn't, but it does mean there is no transcript of the proceedings, which is necessary for a proper review.

Isn't that necessary for an appeal?

Yes, your correct, but that's what I meant by "necessary for a proper review." Courts of appeal are considered courts of "review" accept for matters in which they are, by the respective constitutions, granted original jurisdiction. Meaning matters can be brought straight to it as opposed to going to the lower courts (municipal or superior).

Hope this answers your questions. If I'm not clear point to where and I'll try and clarify.

[indio]

Nomos Wrote:

indio Wrote:A court "not of record" doesn't mean they don't keep a record of the proceeding.

No it doesn't, but it does mean there is no transcript of the proceedings, which is necessary for a proper review.

Courts not of record do keep records ..i.e. docket and minutes...
The following citation seems to contradict your view.

Quote:The mere fact that a permanent record Is kept does not, in modern law, stamp the character of the court; since many courts, as probate courts and others of limited or special Jurisdiction, are obliged to keep records and yet are held to be courts not of record. See Smith v. Rice, 11 Mass. 510; Smith v. Morrison, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 430; Scott v. Rushman, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 212; Thomas v. Robinson, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 268; Snyder v. Wise. 10 Pa. 158; Silver Lake Bank v. Harding, 5 Ohio, 545; Bancroft'v. Stanton, 7 Ala. 351; Kills v. White, 25 Ala. 540

[Nomos]

indio Wrote:Courts not of record do keep records ..i.e. docket and minutes...
The following citation seems to contradict your view.

Quote:The mere fact that a permanent record Is kept does not, in modern law, stamp the character of the court; since many courts, as probate courts and others of limited or special Jurisdiction, are obliged to keep records and yet are held to be courts not of record. See Smith v. Rice, 11 Mass. 510; Smith v. Morrison, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 430; Scott v. Rushman, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 212; Thomas v. Robinson, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 268; Snyder v. Wise. 10 Pa. 158; Silver Lake Bank v. Harding, 5 Ohio, 545; Bancroft'v. Stanton, 7 Ala. 351; Kills v. White, 25 Ala. 540

Indio, I said "there is no transcript." The court reporter does the transcribing of the proceeding which records EVERY word being said. This is also possible with an electronic recording of the proceeding that you would then go have transcribed by a certified court reporter. THAT is what the court of appeal needs in order to render a fully informed decision. The minutes are made by the clerk of the court or the judge in some cases. Minutes are short summaries of the events in which the plaintiff/defendant have no input. Which leave you at the mercy of the court's interpretation as opposed to what REALLY happened. If the reviewing court is unable to review the complete record which is contained in the transcripts, then according to the "standard of review" it must presume that the court made findings and arrived at the correct decision, and any conflicts that the appellant may have will be presumed to have been resolved at the trial level. Without the transcripts there's no way for the appellant to challenge any conflicts that the appellant feels the court ruled on in error.

So no it's not contradicting if you know what a minute and a docket is. Which by the way it [docket] is only a record of what was filed with the court. Neither docket or court minutes show every objection made, every question asked, and every ruling by the judge. As I stated earlier its a summary. A VERY BRIEF summary I might add. So what would YOU want to appeal with? A brief summary? Or the whole proceeding? Me personally, I would like to go in hot with guns blazing shown by a complete record of the proceeding.

Hope this clears things up.