Jump to content

Filing a complaint against a LEO?


Islandgal
 Share

The last post in this topic was posted 4409 days ago. 

 

We strongly encourage you to start a new post instead of replying to this one.

Recommended Posts

Judge Judy was all over the defendant saying are you kidding me, you are arguing over the color of the car, it was YOU driving! She said what do you do for a living and the guy, who was at this point embarrassed, weakly said I'm a school psychologist. And the court lightly laughed.

 

 

some People will use any kind of a hot mess of an excuse thinking it will help them avoid a ticket. What most people don't realize is that by refusing to sign the ticket, they are causing themselves more problems than if they'd just sign it and go on about their way. The signature itself does not imply guilt or innocence. It's just saying you agree to show up in court and answer the charges. You can still fight the ticket if you want to.

 

:lol:

You should always sign the ticket but on top of your signature write. UCC - 1-308 (without prejudice)

Using the uniform commerical code 1-308 without prejudice, perserves your rights. Most people aren't aware of this tactic.

Most LEO are not aware of this tactic. This is a good topic for a latter debate. Very interesting subject matter.

 

AS for anyone that is watching Judge Judy and her kankgoroo court. (1) get a life. (2) Nothing on her show is true Caselaw.ITS A TV SHOW.

 

all the best

acesfull

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That makes no sense, since traffic tickets are a criminal issue, and the UCC deals with civil contracts.

 

Already printed on the ticket above the signature it says "Signing here is not an admission of guilt." All you are admitting is that an officer pulled you over and gave you a ticket.

Edited by mk_378
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes no sense, since traffic tickets are a criminal issue, and the UCC deals with civil contracts.

 

Already printed on the ticket above the signature it says "Signing here is not an admission of guilt." All you are admitting is that an officer pulled you over and gave you a ticket.

By signing the ticket you are creating a contract, a contract to do business with the issuing police agency and court. Like I said must folks aren't aware of what they create by signing there name. The old UCC code was ucc-1-207

This is good topic for another tread. I don't want to hijack OP tread.

 

Take care

 

acesfull

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes no sense, since traffic tickets are a criminal issue, and the UCC deals with civil contracts.

 

Already printed on the ticket above the signature it says "Signing here is not an admission of guilt." All you are admitting is that an officer pulled you over and gave you a ticket.

A couple issues. Traffic tickets are not criminal issue in NJ. They are Motor Vehicle Violations. Depending on the violation, you may be charged with a criminal offense. (2) Google UCC 1-308 without prejudice.

 

acesfull

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judge Judy was all over the defendant saying are you kidding me, you are arguing over the color of the car, it was YOU driving! She said what do you do for a living and the guy, who was at this point embarrassed, weakly said I'm a school psychologist. And the court lightly laughed.

 

 

some People will use any kind of a hot mess of an excuse thinking it will help them avoid a ticket. What most people don't realize is that by refusing to sign the ticket, they are causing themselves more problems than if they'd just sign it and go on about their way. The signature itself does not imply guilt or innocence. It's just saying you agree to show up in court and answer the charges. You can still fight the ticket if you want to.

 

:lol:

You should always sign the ticket but on top of your signature write. UCC - 1-308 (without prejudice)

Using the uniform commerical code 1-308 without prejudice, perserves your rights. Most people aren't aware of this tactic.

Most LEO are not aware of this tactic. This is a good topic for a latter debate. Very interesting subject matter.

 

AS for anyone that is watching Judge Judy and her kankgoroo court. (1) get a life. (2) Nothing on her show is true Caselaw.ITS A TV SHOW.

all the best

acesfull

 

Oh, wow, I didn't know it was a TV SHOW, thanks so much for pointing that out. And as for telling me (because let's be clear you pretty much did) to get a life, bug off. I'm sure all your viewing choices are all intellectually upstanding. <_<

 

But I do appreciate your uniform commercial code information, and will put that in my memory bank for if I ever get a ticket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should always sign the ticket but on top of your signature write. UCC - 1-308 (without prejudice)

Using the uniform commerical code 1-308 without prejudice, perserves your rights. Most people aren't aware of this tactic.

Most LEO are not aware of this tactic. This is a good topic for a latter debate. Very interesting subject matter.

 

AS for anyone that is watching Judge Judy and her kankgoroo court. (1) get a life. (2) Nothing on her show is true Caselaw.ITS A TV SHOW.

 

all the best

acesfull

 

LOL :rofl::rofl:

 

Oh I needed a good laugh this morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, while were on it because this is happening more and more, officer that are hurt while trying to help a person has the right to sue that person and are starting to see record numbers of it.

 

Yes, I remember. http://creditboards....howtopic=290733

 

Pathetic if you ask me.

 

 

That thread is what came to mind for me too.

 

ETA: Wasn't the lawsuit dismissed or dropped and she was fired?

 

Yes she was. http://articles.orla...lice-department

 

I can't believe she was so dumb as to file suit without department approval. (when it entails something that occurred while on duty or while working in the capacity of the job)

This is the rule of many police departments. I know it was that way at the JSO.

 

You also can't pen articles (where your name and department affiliation are mentioned) without authorization of the PIO. (she didn't do that, I'm just throwing it out there for general reference to show how strict some rules are). Well, I take that back...a person can write and publish anything they want, but if they don't have authorization and it places the department in a bad light, they are subject to disciplinary action. It isn't a Freedom of Speech thing. If you are an employee, you are presumed to be speaking for or on the behalf of the department. That is what is so funny about newspapers that say that such and such officer didn't return our call, or "declined comment" ....those news outlets know good and darn well that the officer isn't allowed to comment....yet of course the newspaper doesn't give that little tidbit of info. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, while were on it because this is happening more and more, officer that are hurt while trying to help a person has the right to sue that person and are starting to see record numbers of it.

 

Yes, I remember. http://creditboards....howtopic=290733

 

Pathetic if you ask me.

 

 

That thread is what came to mind for me too.

 

ETA: Wasn't the lawsuit dismissed or dropped and she was fired?

 

Yes she was. http://articles.orla...lice-department

 

I can't believe she was so dumb as to file suit without department approval. (when it entails something that occurred while on duty or while working in the capacity of the job)

This is the rule of many police departments. I know it was that way at the JSO.

 

You also can't pen articles (where your name and department affiliation are mentioned) without authorization of the PIO. (she didn't do that, I'm just throwing it out there for general reference to show how strict some rules are). Well, I take that back...a person can write and publish anything they want, but if they don't have authorization and it places the department in a bad light, they are subject to disciplinary action. It isn't a Freedom of Speech thing. If you are an employee, you are presumed to be speaking for or on the behalf of the department. That is what is so funny about newspapers that say that such and such officer didn't return our call, or "declined comment" ....those news outlets know good and darn well that the officer isn't allowed to comment....yet of course the newspaper doesn't give that little tidbit of info. :rolleyes:

Re-reading that thread just ticked me off all over again. /shudder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'd raise holy Hell..but it probably wouldn't do a whole lot because they tend to protect their own. That's usually why they get so angry...they know what they're doing is wonky but hate to get caught by someone who knows what they can and can not do. When I had my little incident, I just got the dude's name and badge number and forwarded it to my uncle, I knew he'd take care of it. But I wouldn't put much faith in their internal BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'd raise holy Hell..but it probably wouldn't do a whole lot because they tend to protect their own. That's usually why they get so angry...they know what they're doing is wonky but hate to get caught by someone who knows what they can and can not do. When I had my little incident, I just got the dude's name and badge number and forwarded it to my uncle, I knew he'd take care of it. But I wouldn't put much faith in their internal BS.

 

Internal does not protect their own. Well, at least not at the JSO. Most cops I knew hated IA. I have even heard some call them traitors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes no sense, since traffic tickets are a criminal issue, and the UCC deals with civil contracts.

 

Already printed on the ticket above the signature it says "Signing here is not an admission of guilt." All you are admitting is that an officer pulled you over and gave you a ticket.

A couple issues. Traffic tickets are not criminal issue in NJ. They are Motor Vehicle Violations. Depending on the violation, you may be charged with a criminal offense. (2) Google UCC 1-308 without prejudice.

 

acesfull

 

Aces is right, surprises me that so few people on Creditboards know nothing about being a Creditor in Commerce

 

Tickets aren't criminal. By definition in the Maxims of Law, a "crime" HAS to have a victim.

 

And police officers are just revenue generators for the city, county, state, and the U.S. which are all corporations, (yes, articles of corp. are actually filed for all of them)

 

When you get a ticket the "revenue generator" is asking you to engage in Commerce and you are agreeing with your signature.

 

Traffic violations are not "LAWS" they are "STATUTES" and.... a statute is a "RULE" of the corporation

 

I've had 2 traffic tickets dismissed because of conflict of interest

I asked the judges who they represented, Neither one would answer me because they represent the State which was also my accuser

Under Due Process of Law you can not be sentenced by your accuser, it's a conflict of interest

 

And if you don't think the courts are about the money, go spend a day in traffic court and add up the money... I did once

Came up to $41,000 they pulled in, it was a Tuesday though so it was a little slow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being found in possession of illegal drugs is a "crime" with severe penalties, yet there is no "victim". Has anyone successfully used such a defense there? Another example would be two consenting adults engaging in a contract of money for sex, i.e. prostitution.

 

In simple speeding cases, I suppose the officer is also the prosecutor. The judge does not necessarily agree with him every time. Here in Virginia the State brings an actual prosecutor into court for DUI cases. Again there is no victim when you DUI unless you were to actually hit someone.

 

The concept is that drunk driving, speeding, running stop lights, etc. are unnecessarily dangerous to others on the road, thus such action by drivers should be discouraged by having a penalty. Even illegal parking can obstruct the road or deny a parking space from someone else who needs to park there for a short (legal) time. It's not purely about money.

 

I really doubt that higher courts would consider the signing a document presented by a police officer under threat of arrest if you don't sign. to be an act of "commerce".

Edited by mk_378
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple things first off. Did the officer ask you to stop messing with the cell phone? I'm assuming you were having to fiddle with it to set it to record. What were you recording? Some states its againt the law to record a officer when they are doing their sworn duties.

 

People get butt hurt to often now days. The big bad officer was yelling at me. They were rude, etc. With me it goes like this. I will ask you to do something the first time, I will tell you to do it a second time if the first one doesn't work. Third time I will do it for you with force if I have to.

 

Doesn't matter what she was doing or recording or what state it was in. A badge doesn't give him the right to take her personal property.

Do you remember that Constitution you took an oath to protect? You should go back and read it.

If that doesn't help go look up the photographers bill of rights.

 

Wait, so you think just because you have a badge it gives you the right to FORCEFULLY make someone comply with what you want them to do?

Can you tell us all the specific "LAW" that gives you that right? (Actually it would be a Statue but there isn't one.)

Aren't you just people like everyone else?

 

The USSC has ruled WE ARE JUST PEOPLE LIKE EVERYONE ELSE and can sue for the same things even know we were on duty at the time.

 

 

This is why you don't see many departments with Protect & Serve on the the vehicles anymore. People think because they pay taxes they can treat officers how they want and when a officer responds to that the person gets mad and complains. That is what started the rapid lawsuits against people filing false claims.

 

The reason you don't see "To Protect & Serve" on the vehicles anymore is because that's not what LEO's do anymore... there's no money in that.

I know that many LEO's didn't sign up to be revenue generators but that is what the jurisdictions have turned them into.

I've talked to a lot officers that don't want to and never did want to write tickets all day but they say they have no choice.

 

What would happen if you didn't write 1 ticket for a month? (I've asked other LEO's, just curious as to you answer)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being found in possession of illegal drugs is a "crime" with severe penalties, yet there is no "victim". Has anyone successfully used such a defense there?

 

In simple speeding cases, I suppose the officer is also the prosecutor. The judge does not necessarily agree with him every time. Here in Virginia they bring an actual prosecutor into court for DUI cases. Again there is no victim when you DUI unless you were to actually hit someone.

 

The concept is that drunk driving, speeding, running stop lights, etc. are dangerous to others on the road, thus such action by drivers should be discouraged by having a penalty. Even illegal parking can obstruct the road or deny a parking space from someone else who needs to park there for a short (legal) time. It's not purely about money.

 

I really doubt that higher courts would consider the signing a document presented by a police officer under threat of arrest if you don't sign. to be an act of "commerce".

 

Everything you listed as a crime are all statutes

 

An "Implied Concept" does not mean it's a Law

Yes many people have had cases dismissed.

You do know that the U.S. is a corporation right? Ref 28 US Code 3002

Well, as a U.S. CITIZEN you are essentially an employee of the U.S. Corporation

 

For this to make sense you'll have to research a little, you can start with

The Act of 1871 (this is when the united States of America became the corporation know as THE UNITED STATES)

Maxims of Law

Universal commercial Code

Legalease

Creditors in Commerce

Sovereign Citizen

Edited by Tate74
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Driving a car faster than the posted speed limit is as much against the law as having marijuana in your pocket. There is absolutely no distinction here, as they are both statutes properly enacted by the constitutional process.

 

Perhaps your argument is that the State often takes shortcuts in prosecuting the former, and that lack of proper procedure can be used as a defense. I contend that in traffic court, the police officer is the representative of the State, and the judge can therefore act as an impartial judge.

 

The issue of whether the defendant signed the ticket or not, or chose to write some magic words on the ticket before signing, is NEVER considered in the trial.

Edited by mk_378
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Driving a car faster than the posted speed limit is as much against the law as having marijuana in your pocket. There is absolutely no distinction here, as they are both statutes properly enacted by the constitutional process.

 

Perhaps your argument is that the State takes shortcuts in prosecuting the former. I contend that in traffic court, the police officer is the representative of the State, and the judge can therefore act as an impartial judge.

 

The issue of whether the defendant signed the ticket or not, or chase to write some other magic words on the ticket before signing, is NEVER considered in the trial.

 

That's not my argument at all, In two different traffic courts with two different judges my tickets were dismissed because of a conflict of interest, the accuser is the State (officer is a rep of the State) the judge is also a rep of the State and you can not be sentenced by your accuser

 

I know what you are saying, but I guess what I'm saying isn't making sense to you

It's way too much information for me to try and explain it any more than I already have.

I've researched this for a while now and it does take time to understand but it's kind of like taking the red pill in the matrix, if you do some research you'll see.

This country and its legal system isn't what you might think it is.

Edited by Tate74
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is the accuser in a murder case? The victim is dead, he's going to be a no-show at court for sure. Does that mean the case can get dismissed? Assuming there were no witnesses to the killing, everyone involved in accusing the defendant works for the State.

 

Seriously if this "red pill" stuff actually had a legal basis to get cases dismissed or acquitted, it would not be just the lore of "armchair constitutionalists" on the Internet. Every lawyer would use it in practice daily.

Edited by mk_378
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is the accuser in a murder case? The victim is dead, he's going to be a no-show at court for sure. Does that mean the case can get dismissed? Assuming there were no witnesses to the killing, everyone involved in accusing the defendant works for the State.

 

Seriously if this "red pill" stuff actually worked to get cases dismissed or acquitted, it would not be just the lore of "armchair constitutionalists" on the Internet. Every lawyer would use it in practice daily.

 

No, Murder is a crime hence the victim, you're are giving me a headache walking around in all these circles

You clearly don't understand or don't want to, either way doesn't matter to me.

It's worked for me and that's all I really care about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is the accuser in a murder case? The victim is dead, he's going to be a no-show at court for sure. Does that mean the case can get dismissed? Assuming there were no witnesses to the killing, everyone involved in accusing the defendant works for the State.

 

Seriously if this "red pill" stuff actually had a legal basis to get cases dismissed or acquitted, it would not be just the lore of "armchair constitutionalists" on the Internet. Every lawyer would use it in practice daily.

MK378

 

pick up a copy of Without Prejuidce UCC- 1-207 by william Dixon. Then your eyes will be open to the truth.

UCC 1-207 has been changed to UCC 1=308. Interesting reading.

 

acesfull

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
stat·ute   

[stach-oot, -oot] Show IPA

–noun

1.

Law .

a. an enactment made by a legislature and expressed in a formal document.

b. the document in which such an enactment is expressed.

2. International Law . an instrument annexed or subsidiary to an international agreement, as a treaty.

3. a permanent rule established by an organization, corporation, etc., to govern its internal affairs.

 

So you pick the least used definition of statute to base your claims on?

 

Oh and for real giggles, go read the reviews of the book by William Dixon. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I lost my mojo..I should have told the officer he had a nice butt, and maybe I'd just got a warning.. :mellow: Haven't had a ticket in over 10yrs, but going to let an attorney help with this..

 

 

LMAO..............ya shoulda offered to let him "pat you down".:angel:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last post in this topic was posted 4409 days ago. 

 

We strongly encourage you to start a new post instead of replying to this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share





  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      185286
    • Most Online
      2046

    Newest Member
    TB101
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines