The man stickin it to me!

So the way I left it with the Justice Court (which is such an oxymoron), I figured I would never hear from them again since it is not really my job to actively pursue my innocence. I guess in today's world, however, it is.

I never agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the court (although I did appear at the arraignment and the trial, which, I suppose, could be technically construed as submission to their jurisdiction). Instead, I appeared and asked the judge what exactly I was being summoned there for. I specifically asked if it was a criminal or civil action being brought against me. He reluctantly agreed it was a civil action, although he tried to tell me it was something of a hybrid between the two. (By the way, the judges name is James Shartel of the Beaverton Justice Court in Washington County Oregon, in case you were wondering). I did not make a plea. I told the judge that I did not believe the court had subject matter jurisdiction since there was no individual alleging that I had violated their rights. I was therefor not subject to having a civil action being brought against me. Judge Shartel summarily dismissed my objection out of hand. So, I asked him for some sort of finding of fact and conclusion of law to back up his decision and validate subject matter jurisdiction in the case (which the Oregon code of civil procedure says the court must comply with when requested by the defendant). He simply refused. Then he entered a not guilty plea for me and scheduled a date for trial. I could not believe how completely belligerent this man was being! 

I guess the Justice Court technically did have a judgment against me (even if it was obtained fraudulently and is completely without merit and void according to any common law standard of legal procedure), so they decided to act on that judgment. I got a letter in the mail from the court wherein I was notified that the court was sending a notice to the DMV to suspend my license because I never paid their fine. For a brief moment I was tempted to let them go ahead and do that. I would be more than happy to travel around in my automobile without a driver's license, however, my job requires me to occasionally travel and, when I do, I usually have to rent a car. Since every rental car company requires a driver's license to be able to rent a car I guess I could not really do that.

As soon as I got the letter, I went to the court and asked the clerk how this was happening when it was a clear violation of my rights! They said I would have to ask the judge and that I could see him when his current case adjourned. So 40 minutes later (after witnessing another very sad miscarriage of justice where an elderly couple was being dragged into court because they have several dogs that bark. They were responding to 8 counts of violating a noise ordinance.) When I finally got to speak to the judge, he looked over my file and he said I never perfected my appeal. Of course I did not perfect my appeal! That would have cost me over $300 and is completely non-refundable! My simple question was, "Why should I have to pay to pursue my innocence, when it is obvious to any thinking person that I did not receive due process in my case?" He then said that he was sorry, but he could not do anything. Then, I asked him if he would consider a motion to vacate the decision against me (which is basically asking the judge to reverse his previous decision due to the judgment being made in error.) He said if I gave him a good reason, he would certainly consider it. So I paid the fine to get them to stop the suspension of my license (to keep from incurring another $75 in non-refundable DMV fees to re-instate a suspended license)

I have since sent in the motion to vacate listing the reasons I feel the case was not legitimate (1. The officer lied or was incompetent. 2. My request for a finding of fact and conclusion of law was completely ignored. and 3. Conflict of interest existed since the judge admitted he represented the same party as the one bringing the action against me.)

Now I am waiting to hear a response from the court, however, I fully expect that the motion to vacate will be denied, considering the judge's previously belligerent behavior and complete disrespect of the law. What a racket! I guess the lesson I have learned from all of this is that the next time I appear in court I really have to drill the officer and get him to look like a complete idiot when I question him because apparently the judge needs a lot more elaboration to realize the officer is either lying or is incompetent. I would also make a request for discovery of evidence from the officer prior to the case and see if they do not respond. If they did not respond then I could move for the case to be dismissed for lack of compliance to a request for discovery. However, if my experience is any indication, it appears that the court will do whatever it wants as long as the outcome is a guilty verdict with a fine collected. This makes me very sad that this is what things have come to. Individual rights be damned. We are in the era of government taking and claiming rights for itself to be able to confiscate our money at the whim of the officers sworn to uphold the law (which now includes the right of the government to take your money without any real due process). That's my rant. I guess as I continue to live, I continue to learn.

Stickin it to the man!

Recently my mind has been extremely occupied by strategizing and preparing to respond to a speeding ticket I got last month. I thought my approach was perfect. I sent a couple of extremely well researched legal motions to the court asking for some legal confirmation of the validity of the case against me (ie. subject matter jurisdiction if you want to look it up). I know people think I am so crazy for getting so worked up (and spending so much time) over a $190 ticket that eventually got reduced to $143. But, at this point, principle is purely the motivating force for my actions. You see, I have been questioning the legitimacy of criminal/civil prosecutions that do not follow the guidelines the U.S. Constitution sets forth for due process in this country. 

There are actually a few issues I have right now; 1. State and local governments have created a dubious category of crime known as a violation. This "crime" technically does not meet the requirements for due process that traditional criminal prosecutions/accusations do. This is essentially a way for local governments to earn additional revenue without having to spend money on incarceration or jury trials or any of that other stuff that due process requires. The fine is also seen as a punitive deterrent that discourages the behavior in the future. On the face of it, it seems like it could be a win-win situation. In other words, if I get pulled over for speeding (or any other "violation" for that matter) no crime has technically been committed, however, the state or local government can assess me with a fine that helps their revenue a little bit and acts as a deterrent so I don't decide to speed again in the future. (Personal interjection of opinion: We really are just sheep because we respond so well to this psychological manipulation of behavior by authority figures, generally speaking.) The local government can require me to appear in a court of no record (where nothing is recorded - I even asked the judge for permission to record the proceeding. He quickly said no. I should have recorded it anyway). In addition, they can find me guilty without the accuser having to produce any evidence whatsoever. They can ignore any legal argument (that would normally be valid in a court of record) that you might come up with that should cause the case to be completely thrown out. These are just some of the issues I have with this new category of "crime". They do not follow normal legal procedures that act to ensure objectivity and protect people from unlawful breaches by the government. 

In doing my research, I have discovered that courts that do not follow due process (jury trials, etc.) only have jurisdiction through sufficient pleadings. In other words, both parties agree to the jurisdiction of the court and agree that the court represents a fair place to settle the question of your guilt or innocence. In order to keep from being subject to the court's jurisdiction, you need to ask the court to offer some evidence that it represents a place you can receive due process according the U.S. Constitution, or you can submit to a new category of criminal-like prosecution where you essentially have no rights of due process whatsoever (except what the accusers decide is fair for your situation). If you do not agree to submit to this new category of criminal-like prosecution what are you to do? What can you do? Apparently, according to the accusers (local government law enforcement and authorities), you can not do anything but attempt to prove your innocence in a setting where you have no rights. 

In my case, they found me guilty in their court of no rights and now I am left with an alternative of having my case tried in a court where I will have some rights (court of record) that will cost double what the penalty is for just submitting to the first court's jurisdiction (verdict of guilty). I can refuse to accept that their court represents what I am entitled to receive and choose to not voluntarily submit to their form of due process and I can pay for it out of pocket - Double! Since I am a United State citizen and am protected by the Constitution, I should be able to object to what they are doing since it doesn't qualify as due process, so there is a standoff that is occurring. I am anxious to find out what their next move will be. I am currently in the middle of this standoff. I have notified them that I do not feel that their court had any jurisdiction in the question surrounding my circumstances.

The court found me guilty (where a court of record would have had to throw the case out due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction) where I repeatedly asked the court to justify its jurisdiction to validate it according to the rules of law. It did not and would not do that, so the court did not have any jurisdiction over the matter. Sufficient pleadings means that the accusing party represents that they have a valid case against you and you agree that the court the accusing party is using to settle the matter meets with your approval as a place you can get fined from (or get a fair hearing, haha!). But what happens if I don't agree to that. Apparently, they fine you anyway and you have to spend more money to get a fair trial in a court of record. The court gave me a letter after they found me guilty where they said I could either pay a fine of $143 or I could pay $307 to appeal the matter (but it's really not an appeal, it's a whole new trial - trial de novo. How ridiculous is that?!?)

2. What is a crime and how should it be enforced? To better understand crimes, we need to first have a better understanding of civil actions. The purpose of government (as it is setup in this country) is to protect and maintain individual rights. If you injure me directly or cost me money because of your negligence, I have the right to sue you. In other words, I should be able to ask the government to act as an intermediary in our dispute and not represent either side, but weigh the evidence we both present to objectively work things out between us. 

With criminal actions there really is no individual party that has been wronged, but rather, it is assumed that crimes represent actions that are generally discouraged or not approved by society at large. An example of this is murder. We all find the behavior of killing someone to be socially unacceptable, so instead of having to go and take the murderer to court to try and obtain justice we just have the government do it for us. This works because in society we value the rights of the dead to be represented to pursue justice for wrongs against society (the deceased in this case, along with everyone else that could potentially become a victim). We say there are some crimes that affect society so much that, in order to properly administer justice, we have the government step up for us and prosecute crimes against society. The penalties may be fines, jail time or even death where the people have decided that is acceptable. Whereas the only current penalties that can be assessed in civil cases is a monetary fine. So we discourage behavior by saying if you act against the laws we have established to provide peace and prosperity in our society we can punish you for it. 

What should be done if the people decide to prosecute for crimes where no one is actually hurt? Should we allow the punishment of actions that represent the breaking of the rules, but do not actually result in an injury to society? Should we be punishing people for 'potential' harm to society? Let's say, for example, I am on a road in the middle of nowhere, no cars can be seen for miles around and I decide to run a stop sign. I could see in all directions of the intersection for miles and there are no cars anywhere. Should I have to pay a fine for running that stop sign? Shouldn't I be credited with being able to make a decision based on the current traffic conditions and situation at that particular stop sign? Shouldn't I have the ability to do that? If not, how much should I have to pay for running that stop sign? Can I just pay in advance? Can I get a discount for pre-paying?

What if I am coming to a stop sign and I see a tree is in the act of falling right where I would have to stop, so I decide to take evasive maneuvers to avoid the falling tree. Should I get a fine in this situation? Maybe or maybe not. I don't have the answers to these questions, but the law does say that there needs to be a demonstrated injury to someone for an action to be classified as a crime. Unless, of course, we just ignore that and allow statists to do whatever they want and start calling anything they want criminal behavior. Where does it stop?

It seems to me that if the people want to punish crimes with the potential for society being injured we need to be awfully sure that those behaviors do actually result in the negative side affects being alleged before we can go ahead and punish those that engage in the behavior. I'll try to remember to follow up and fill everyone in on how my case turns out. Should be interesting.