Jump to content
Mr. D

Traffic Violation

20 posts in this topic

Oregon's policy on photo radar citations "...officer will cause notification of citation delivered." Plainly stated, they mail it USPS. I'll skip my legal argument and just say I don't except mail from government agencies without service. So having no knowledge of an alledged traffic violation & no notice of trial, a judicial decision was made, finding me guilty. I believe I can prove deprivation of due process. Where and how do I do that. Do I file a civil action against the State? District court? Appellate court?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks i am hoping you're right and i'm mistaken in thinking motions were limited to cases currently before the court, (undecided). I've tried to research court procedure in Oregon but being a violation it's not civil and it's not really criminal. What I've found has all been for untried cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you but that does not answer my question. Nor is applicable as I was not in a residential area and the photo was taken by an unmanned permanent camera. You may choose to believe what you wish but the evidence says it is totally about generating money.  Thing is a citation requires a summons of notice delivered (not caused to be) by the issueing officer, which is a violation of separation of powers. I could go on but I'm not seeking debate or propaganda. I posted a query hoping for an answer. That's all. To answer your question. From my insurance company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few observations:

 

On 11/17/2018 at 9:30 PM, Mr. D said:

Oregon's policy on photo radar citations "...officer will cause notification of citation delivered." Plainly stated, they mail it USPS.

It looks like you may be citing ORS 153.054, which requires that, subject to some exceptions, "an enforcement officer issuing a violation citation shall cause the summons to be delivered to the person cited." But one of the exceptions is a citation based on photo radar. ORS 810.439.  And that statute pretty much only requires that they mail the citation to the registered owner of the vehicle.

 

On 11/17/2018 at 9:30 PM, Mr. D said:

I'll skip my legal argument and just say I don't except mail from government agencies without service.

This is probably not a good defense. 

The state has an obligation at trial to prove that the item was in fact mailed, but in general as a matter of law, as long as the mail was addressed correctly and not returned by the post office, the law presumes receipt.  Sometimes referred to as the 'mailbox rule.'  Some legal research would be necessary to confirm that Oregon uses the mailbox rule, but it is a pretty safe assumption that it does.

 

On 11/17/2018 at 9:30 PM, Mr. D said:

a judicial decision was made, finding me guilty. I believe I can prove deprivation of due process. Where and how do I do that.

If the trial is over and you were found guilty, and you believe the trial and the resulting verdict were improper because of lack of due process, the main way for you to try to obtain relief would be to file an appeal.  The time to file a notice of appeal and start the appeals process is typically short -- 30 days from the date of entry of the judgment.

You may also have access to other kinds of post-judgment relief - Oregon has a petition for post-conviction relief (which would be filed and pursued in the same court that handled the trial), but I don't know if that's available for your kind of issue.  And, once all state remedies have been exhausted, I suppose you could file a habeas case in federal court.

NOTE: if the judgment was the result of a default judgment as described in the statute, you can file a motion for relief from default judgment and argue that one of the statutory bases for granting relief from a default judgment applies.

Consulting with an experienced Oregon criminal defense lawyer to get some guidance would be a very good idea.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an answer. Thank you. One step further. Citation: An order of summons.... Adams v. Citizens Bank; The act by which a person is so summoned or cited. Blacks Fourth.    Summons: The act by which a defendant is notified by a competent officer...Bouvier 1856  Am I wrong in that is evedence (fact) not arguable? Government doesn't have the power to change definitions. Do they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a statute is enacted for a particular purpose (like photo cops) it overrules everything else UNTIL a court of law says it doesn't.

 

You are free to seek to set aside your fine with your spurious arguments. You will lose. Then you can appeal that decision to as many court levels as you want and see if a high court will strike down the statute.

 

Hope you have a barrelful of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how using a law dictionary to define and case law as precedent is arguing. But you are probably right. Unfortunately I don't see another course of action to get my day in court. So I can present something like this. Colville v. Bennett, 293, NYS 2d, 685. Thanks for responding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Middle part, thank you! I just saw your post and you've answered my question and then some. Appreciated. May I ask; Is there a law that says i have to accept a USPS uncertified letter? And would not Return to Sender return the letter. Not trying to be difficult just trying to get myself out of this mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. D said:

Is there a law that says i have to accept a USPS uncertified letter?

There is no law of which I am aware that requires a person to accept a letter delivered by the USPS, whether or not the letter was sent certified.

However, as you've learned, there certainly can be adverse consequences to people who do not timely respond to or otherwise deal with matters that are sent to them via US mail. 

 

1 hour ago, Mr. D said:

And would not Return to Sender return the letter.

If the letter was properly addressed and carried sufficient postage to reach that address, then simply writing 'return to sender' on it and having it go back as a consequence would probably not be enough, by itself, to overcome the mailbox rule presumption; additional evidence would be required. 

But, yes, generally the Post Office is obliged to try to return to the sender letters that are marked with "Return to Sender."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mr. D said:

So I can present something like this. Colville v. Bennett, 293, NYS 2d, 685. Thanks for responding

 

That case does you absolutely no good. Your matter is in Oregon. The Colville case you cited is from a decision of a NY state Supreme Court that rested on NY law as it was at the time of that case, 50 years ago. A decision on NY law is worthless in a case in Oregon, and the fact that case is 50 years old means that it might not even be good in NY. Note, too, that in NY the supreme courts are the state trial courts, analogous to the circuit courts in Oregon. As a result, even in NY that case is not binding precedent.

 

You appear to not have a real good grasp of the law and legal procedure and it's leading you astray. When you lack a good foundation in the law finding stuff on the internet that sounds good to you may in fact be no good and might even work against you. can derail your challenge to what the state did, even if you might otherwise have a good claim. I suggest if you want to do it right, get a lawyer to represent you.

 

You asked the following on another thread and I'll put it here to keep everything together: "Is not the Department of Revenue (executive) being the collection agency for a (judicial) court a violation of separation of powers ?"

 

The answer to that is no. The doctrine of separation powers simply means that the federal and state constitutions divide up government power so that no single person or body has complete power. You have to look at the federal and state constitutions to see what powers are exclusively reserved to each branch of government. But there is no rule anywhere that says each branch has to be entirely separate from each other, and indeed there is no way that they can be.

 

The courts decide cases and controversies. The executive enforces the orders of the court. Thus, for example, when a federal court issues an order, it is the U.S. Marshals or some other federal executive agency that will enforce that order. The courts do not do that. It is the same with the state government. The court may enter an order imposing a fine. But the court itself does not collect that fine, some executive agency does that.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2018 at 6:30 PM, Mr. D said:

I don't except mail from government agencies without service.

 

I'm not sure what "without service" means in the context of this sentence.  I'm also not sure what you mean when you say you "don't except [sic] mail from government agencies" might mean.  Are you saying that you personally meet your mail carrier at your mailbox every day?  Otherwise, doesn't mail from government agencies go in your mailbox with all your other mail?

 

And, why would you do such an astonishingly foolish thing?

 

 

On 11/17/2018 at 6:30 PM, Mr. D said:

So having no knowledge of an alledged traffic violation & no notice of trial, a judicial decision was made, finding me guilty. I believe I can prove deprivation of due process.

 

How do you figure?  Your personal policy not to "except [sic] mail from government agencies" does not make for a deprivation of due process.

 

 

On 11/17/2018 at 6:30 PM, Mr. D said:

Where and how do I do that.

 

Presumably by appealing your conviction.

 

 

On 11/17/2018 at 6:30 PM, Mr. D said:

Do I file a civil action against the State? District court? Appellate court?

 

Uh...no.

 

 

16 hours ago, Mr. D said:

I was not in a residential area and the photo was taken by an unmanned permanent camera.

 

So what?

 

 

16 hours ago, Mr. D said:

Thing is a citation requires a summons of notice delivered (not caused to be) by the issueing officer, which is a violation of separation of powers.

 

Huh?

 

 

9 hours ago, Mr. D said:

Citation: An order of summons.... Adams v. Citizens Bank; The act by which a person is so summoned or cited. Blacks Fourth.    Summons: The act by which a defendant is notified by a competent officer...Bouvier 1856  Am I wrong in that is evedence (fact) not arguable? Government doesn't have the power to change definitions. Do they?

 

This isn't really coherent, but Black's Law Dictionary isn't a source of law, so yes, any government may enact definitional laws that differ from what's in Black's.

 

 

8 hours ago, Mr. D said:

Colville v. Bennett, 293, NYS 2d, 685

 

Case decisions from New York -- especially those issued by trial level courts -- are meaningless in Oregon.

 

 

7 hours ago, Mr. D said:

Is there a law that says i have to accept a USPS uncertified letter?

 

No, but refusing to accept such a letter may have consequences.

 

 

7 hours ago, Mr. D said:

And would not Return to Sender return the letter.

 

Probably, but that act won't be of any legal force or effect.  If the law requires that the citation be served by mailing it, then all that is required is placing it in the mail.  Some ridiculous personal policy of putting "return to sender" on any mail from a government agency isn't going to change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pg1067 thank for the input, good of you to include your personal opinion, just kidding. I believe I said I'd skip my legal argument, doubt you'd get it or agree. My query has been answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would I grant procuration to a lawyer when their first loyalty is to the court. Besides, I am mentally competent and I'm not a child. Don't know why you all are so hung up on that case. I said I'd "present something like..."  Tax Counsil; So your saying the only non federal case law applicable in Oregon are cases tried in Oregon? How is the age of a case relevant when our whole legal system is supposed to be based on the Magna Carta. I think you assume that I have  some obligation to specific performance  such as a person has. Government being fiction, being in the mind of man only lowers itself to that of a mere private corporation when it deals with monies and can demand no performance or assign obligation without contract. The separation of powers is meant to keep any one branch from becoming Omni powerful and/or from abusing it power, such as inflicting the will of the majority on to the individual (Tyranny). The three branches are meant to keep each other in check not work in collusion to further the bankers agenda of subverting and perverting our Republic of sovereign individuals into a Democracy of sovereign majority. Our debt based economy has turned our courts as well as our government into ones of Kangaroo.  The legislative branch can write stutes but can not enforce them that is why it is a conflict of separation of power for a judicial officer to both issue and serve. So my question stands. Is it not a violation of separation of powers for the executive branch ( department of revenue) to enforce a lawful matter of the judiciary branch by issueing, serving and enforcing a distraint warrant? Oh and "the practice of law is not to be licensed". But then maybe everything on the internet is a lie and I'm clueless. Jeez I just asked a question as to proceedure and with one exception I've gotten condescending hostility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2018 at 6:16 AM, Mr. D said:

Why would I grant procuration to a lawyer when their first loyalty is to the court.

 

A lawyer's first and only loyalty is to his/her client.

 

 

On 11/23/2018 at 6:16 AM, Mr. D said:

So your saying the only non federal case law applicable in Oregon are cases tried in Oregon?

 

As to matters of state law, the only cases binding on Oregon courts are those issued by the Oregon Supreme Court and its intermediate appellate courts.  Cases from other states may be accepted by Oregon courts as persuasive, but that's unlikely to happen in traffic cases.

 

 

On 11/23/2018 at 6:16 AM, Mr. D said:

How is the age of a case relevant when our whole legal system is supposed to be based on the Magna Carta.

 

Where did you get the idea that "our whole legal system is supposed to be based on the Magna Carta"?  That document has no legal significance whatsoever in the United States (and never did).

 

 

On 11/23/2018 at 6:16 AM, Mr. D said:

I think you assume that I have  some obligation to specific performance  such as a person has.

 

Specific performance of what?  And are you suggesting you're not a person?

 

The rest of your post makes very little sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all that have replied I thank you for your time. To those who addressed my question directly, my gratitude.  Please note, I did not post on this sight to debate, you are free to believe what you wish. There are sheeple and there are people.  Lawyers loyalty lie first with the Bar (court). Magna Carta; do some research before running  of mouth.     Person; no I am not. May I suggest the use of a law dictionary. Really people, take your blinders off, expand your horizons, research and question both info motive.  If you had my post would make sense. As I've said "my question has been answered".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mr. D said:

 Lawyers loyalty lie first with the Bar (court).

 

No. The lawyer's loyalty is to his or her client. The lawyer must follow the rules the state has for the practice of law and of course must follow the orders and rules of the court, but that is distinctly different from loyalty. The lawyer's loyalty is solely to the lawyer's client, and the lawyer's job is to zealously represent his client's interests within the bounds of the law, the rules of professional conduct, and court orders. 

 

3 hours ago, Mr. D said:

Magna Carta; do some research before running  of mouth. 

 

The Magna Carta is a fine document; many of the ideas for our government are derived from the principles expressed in it. But the Magna Carta is not law in the U.S. So citing the Magna Carta in a federal or state court will get you nowhere. You need to refer to the federal and state constitutions, statutes, agency regulations, court decisions, etc., for the law that applies.

 

3 hours ago, Mr. D said:

Really people, take your blinders off, expand your horizons, research and question both info motive. 

 

It's clear that you have not undertaken an independent research of the law, but rather have bought into theories found in certain books and web sites out there expounding theories that have no sound basis in the law and are roundly rejected every time someone has raised them in court. For example, I have seen individuals argue the idea that they not a "person" as defined in the law and thus are not subject to federal income tax. Every time that has been argued, the courts smack it down, sometimes imposing penalties for raising friviolous arguments. That is the kind of experience you are setting yourself up for if you go down that road. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2018 at 5:21 PM, Mr. D said:

do some research before running  of mouth.

 

Heed your own advice.

 

 

On 12/8/2018 at 5:21 PM, Mr. D said:

Please note, I did not post on this sight to debate

 

This is where you started to debate.

 

 

On 12/8/2018 at 5:21 PM, Mr. D said:

Lawyers loyalty lie first with the Bar (court).

 

Wrong.  "Do some research before running your mouth."  Cite any statute in any state or published case decision that supports your nonsense statement.

 

 

On 12/8/2018 at 5:21 PM, Mr. D said:

Magna Carta; do some research before running  of mouth.

 

Wow....that's quite the intelligent statement.  Unfortunately, it's completely pointless because it says nothing.  I love folks like you who say "do some research" but don't say what it is we're supposed to look at in order to do this research.

 

 

On 12/8/2018 at 5:21 PM, Mr. D said:

Person; no I am not.

 

So...you're what...a musk ox?  Panda?  Jackalope?

 

 

On 12/8/2018 at 5:21 PM, Mr. D said:

May I suggest the use of a law dictionary.

 

You certainly may.  I've used one countless times over the past 30 years.  I have a print copy less than 5 feet from where I'm typing this.  Is there something in particular you'd like me to look up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×