Defending Yourself in Traffic Court

One of the nastiest places a man can find himself is going to court.  The system is rigged against the defendant, and most people would rather pay the fine and go home to continue with their lives.  However, if a man is motivated, he can, at least, limit the damage and possibly win his case with just a little extra effort.  I had a traffic ticket and with my experience after being steamrolled in federal court years earlier, I decided to shift the burden of proof and I said very little.

The first hearing in most courts is called the arraignment.  This is where the damage can be limited by simply asking questions.  The judge will call your name and then read the “charges.” Some courts will swear in the parties at the beginning of the hearing.  Do not swear any oaths and do not affirm. This is the first step in effective damage control.  You don’t have to give any reason why you won’t swear an oath but you can say that you have moral objections to oath-taking.  You don’t have to explain it any further.

The big question will most likely be: “Do you understand the charges?”  Your answer should always be “no.”  The judge will then ask you what don’t you understand?  Your next response should be: “What facts do you have that show that the vehicle code applies to me?”  The judge will probably get annoyed with you but he will not answer the question.  Remember, the burden of proof is always on the accuser and it is extremely important for them to prove your guilt before you pay any fine.  Without the facts, there is not an essential element of any crime or infraction.  This question put the burden of proof on the accuser and they won’t answer the question.  The judge may come back with another question at which point the defendant should insist on a factual answer to the first question.  Remember, the man is in a sleazy legal environment.  They want the defendant to answer questions and not the other-way-around.  The one who controls the process is the one who asks the questions.  It is important that the defendant stays on point with the facts question.

If the prosecutor starts making statements about the defendant then the defendant should always say the following:  Objection, prosecutor’s statement is not relevant because there are no facts in evidence that show the vehicle code applies to me.  Every time the prosecutor makes another statement, do the same thing.  A hired attorney will never do this.

Now the judge or the prosecutor may answer by calling your question an argument.  The question and the argument are two separate things.  They might make the claim that your question is as an argument.  It is important to simply state that the first question wasn’t answered and that you can’t move forward until the element of this crime is proven in court.  They must produce facts that the vehicle code applies and they will not do it. In my case, at the arraignment, the judge entered a plea of not guilty and it proceeded to a trial date. She refused to tell me the facts that the vehicle code applies to me.   When I showed up in the courtroom on the trial date 30 days later my name was called, and the judge proceeded to tell me that she had called the cop and asked him not to appear.  Once the cop doesn’t show up, then the case is usually dropped.  She dropped the case and the whole thing was over.  The only thing I actually said was at the arraignment: “What facts do you have that show that the vehicle code applies to me?”  

Why can’t they answer the question?   I think the better question would be: Why won’t they answer the question?  I believe that the reason is because the STATE, State, or state is an artificial entity with no authority within the natural law.  Man-made laws are in subordination to the natural law.  The government really doesn’t have any moral authority.  Also, the other reason is if they did answer the question it would open them up to disclose the true nature of the court system.  I don’t want to get into all that now, but the courts are extremely corrupted.  The judges wear black robes for a good reason; they are evil. The black robe is the warning that something very evil is going to take place.  Also, most nouns have been redefined to mean one thing but to look like something else.  So perhaps the “court” doesn’t want to incur any liability by making a bunch of false statements.

The judge will always pressure the defendant to get an attorney.  This will usually be a waste of money and will be ineffective.  You want to get in and out with a minimum of damage.  Just say something like “no thanks” when asked if the defendant wants an attorney.  Remember, the courts will tell you that the burden of proof is on the accuser, and in the case of a traffic ticket, the burden of proof is on the STATE, State, or state and the cop who issued the ticket.

Now, if it goes further and there’s actually a trial, then there’s more to learn.  The only question you need to ask the cop is the same thing: “What facts do you have that show that the vehicle code applies to me?”  The prosecutor will usually object because it calls for a “legal conclusion.”  The response to this should be: Didn’t the cop make a legal conclusion when he wrote the ticket?  Then if the judge allows the prosecutor’s objection to stand then say “exception.”  That’s a polite way of telling the judge he’s full of it.  But make sure you object to everything except for a dismissal of the case.

I wouldn’t argue the merits of the case so that will save a lot of time.  Because if the vehicle code’s applicability is in question, the merits of the case is a moot point.

But remember, never, ever, never, never, answer in the affirmative to the question: “Do you understand?”  Say no, and then ask: “What facts do you have that show that the vehicle code applies to me?”  Don’t freak out if the judge starts to scream and act like a toddler who is missing his pacifier.  That’s an act to frighten the defendant to do what the devil in the black robe demands.  Stick to your questions right to the end.  Make them prove everything.  If they won’t or can’t answer the facts question, then they have no case.  At that point demand a dismissal or a termination of the case.  The reason is because the major element of the crime or infraction has not been proven and the prosecutor has no case. 

In my case, I almost got physically ill going into court.  It felt like the Temple of Doom.  I wanted to get it done—quickly.  This is the easiest way I’ve found and I always got more traction when I shifted the burden of proof and then stayed with it.  Most of my experience has been with felonies which are much more difficult to handle than traffic tickets.  But the traffic ticket experience will prepare people to defend themselves in the event that they pick up a serious case.

Disclaimer:  I am not an attorney nor do I recommend that people use them.  Attorneys are overpriced and overvalued.  I think it is better for people to learn how to defend themselves, making sure that the burden of proof is always put on the prosecutor.

Walter Allen Thompson has a new book called Natural Law: The True Supreme Law of the Land