Prosecution being honest in a traffic case?

[Wolf]

So I managed to spend a whopping 40 minutes or so on the phone with the prosecutor in their traffic case today. My question was, "What evidence do you have that the Ohio motor vehicle codes and the Ohio Constitution apply to me?" We went back and forth. Apparently last week someone used Marc's logic tin the same court, but also dissed the judge and got his ass tossed in jail for four hours on a contempt charge as well as found guilty. According to Steve, the defendant also said that the constitution did not apply, and so on. He kind of seemed a little bit like one of those 'sovereign citizen' types. Anyhow.

Initially Steve said it applied because the Ohio made legislature about it. I told him I didn't want the opinion about it, but the factual evidence. He didn't understand. I told him the code can't possibly prove itself applies because that's circular logic. He said the factual evidence is that I was driving a motor vehicle in the State of Ohio and therefore the ORC applied.

I asked what factually was the State of Ohio, what was the factual difference between an automobile and a motor vehicle, and what factually was driving. Steve said there is no factual difference between a motor vehicle and a car because they're the same thing, said the same for driving being the same as behind the wheel in private capacity.

The State of Ohio... We went back and forth and finally said that the State of Ohio is the public and why does it matter if it is the body politic or the ground. He did admit that the body politic and not the ground, but also that they are combined together in that the body politic owns the ground (the public owns the ground). He said that this case is not a lawsuit. He was really riled up at that point, and I made sure I heard him correctly. "No, this is not a lawsuit against you. No one is suing you!"

He was really to tear into me, like I was stupid. He did say I was an intelligent person and that I know or should know what the State of Ohio is. Finally he said there is no victim in the case, that a victim is not required for this type of thing and neither is a verified criminal complaint, and he didn't have to prove applicability of the code. He also said that supreme court rulings for criminal cases (and all civil cases) involving harm, injury, or loss do not apply to this type of traffic case and the judge would throw any argument out based on them.

He also said at some point, I can't recall when exactly, that this is a violation of State of Ohio code similar to a tort. I asked why is it not a civil case and he said that it was because violations are criminal statute in Ohio.

When I told him that the judge said I'm presumed innocent of every element of the alleged crime and so why doesn't he have to prove I was within the State of Ohio, he said that the ORC applies to residents, non-residents, and illegal aliens that are in the State of Ohio and mentioned the borders. He said I'm presumed innocent of speeding, not anything else. I asked him how my geographic location makes the code apply to me. He didn't directly answer, just said he didn't understand the question.

Throughout the conversation I would have to say that we got sidetracked quite a lot, but every time I asked for the factual evidence that the code applies, he kept saying that the factual evidence was I was operating a motor vehicle within the State of Ohio and this fact was witnessed by the officer that gave me the ticket for failure to yield to public safety vehicle and 65 in 55.

Finally Steve said that I should take a civics class because he doesn't have the time to go over State of Ohio history with me. He did hang up. This conversation was quite a long one and we were getting no where.


I hope you got a chuckle out of it. And if you have any suggestions of potential amendments to my upcoming motion to dismiss, have at.

[eye2i2hear]

Wolf, first, thanks for taking both the time to challenge the mafia in your neighborhood, and for posting in detail here (with a hat-tip on overall grammar/spelling/construction)-- but just to be sure, Steve is the prosecutor/prosecuting attorney, correct?

One curious question i found swirling in my cranial state is along the lines of what aspect(s) of damage control are you shooting going for? (we won't say 'shooting' when there's The Gun in The Room involved, aye?)

Again, thanks (and nice work).

[NonEntity]

(03-29-2013 06:17 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  One curious question i found swirling in my cranial state...

Izzat the body polytic, or the ground?

- NonE

P.S. Mandatory thread related content to follow...

Congrats, Wolf, on your adventures in Legal Land. It sounds as if you had fun at least, so maybe that alone was worth the cost of the ticket if you have to pay it.

[Habenae Est Dominatus]

(03-29-2013 05:43 PM)Wolf Wrote:  {Snip a good read}

This post triggered a thought in my H-E-D. (In conjunction with my discussion with RS in that other subject thread.)

Asked of these tinhorn tyrants:

If, let's just say IF, arguendo, the law for some magic reason does not apply to me, Then could it be stated that whatever the words of the statute say, they are meaningless and void? Could it be stated that if the law does not apply then it does not matter what the words say?

If that is the case, then it is circular logic to say the statute applies because the statute (says it) applies.

As any five year old would say: Who made you the boss of me?

Where is your proof that it applies to me?

...

Just thinkin' through my fingers as I contemplate that other thread.

[NonEntity]

(03-29-2013 07:35 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 05:43 PM)Wolf Wrote:  {Snip a good read}

This post triggered a thought in my H-E-D. (In conjunction with my discussion with RS in that other subject thread.)

Asked of these tinhorn tyrants:

If, let's just say IF, arguendo, the law for some magic reason does not apply to me, Then could it be stated that whatever the words of the statute say, they are meaningless and void? Could it be stated that if the law does not apply then it does not matter what the words say?

If that is the case, then it is circular logic to say the statute applies because the statute (says it) applies.

As any five year old would say: Who made you the boss of me?

Where is your proof that it applies to me?

...

Just thinkin' through my fingers as I contemplate that other thread.

You didn't get along well with the nuns, did you?

- NonE

[Habenae Est Dominatus]

(03-29-2013 07:49 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 07:35 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  As any five year old would say: Who made you the boss of me?

Where is your proof that it applies to me?

...

Just thinkin' through my fingers as I contemplate that other thread.

You didn't get along well with the nuns, did you?

- NonE

Uh, I never experienced the penguins and their physical abuse wherein they beat the unquestioning fear of authority into those children that they are bigger and stronger than.

Although I have experienced the wretched excuses of human beings that have resulted from such beatings to teach unquestioning authority.

I don't get along with "authority" figures who claim I owe them obeisance because of their funny hats or important titles.

Who made them the boss of me?

[Bruce Sloane]

good post, Wolfie ....