Hi folks!

Situation:I took some bad advice, tried to Refuse for Cause (R4C) traffic citations, did not use US Certified Mail (on bad advice), did not show up for hearing (on bad advice), and now Bench Warrant is out for me two years later.

Anyway, I don't care to try to win with R4C.

But IF I pay the Bond, I become the Surety, and I don't want to BE the Surety. I am the Beneficiary!

Ideas to fight this Citation (speeding) and Warrant (Failure to Appear):

-no personam jurisdiction
-no subject matter jurisdiction:
for example: I'm a man, the court, cop, and city are legal fictions; as such, I, a man, am not bound by the associations of men and their rules, unless I consent by written agreement, and knew I was doing so (ie, there is no written, enforceable contract, knowingly entered into by both parties)
or
-no corpus delecti/body of a crime; can't show any injury or damage to a legal fiction
or
-no fact witness...cop was not damaged or injured, no one was
or
-I was told a Driver's License is a privilege, but that Traveling is an unalienable Right; since I was traveling, not 'driving in commerce', I am subject (if I choose it) to common law, not Statutory Law. Is this true/verfiable in case law, etc?

I love this course, however it is I feel heavily weighted to Civil not Criminal matters. I really need to know which of these is likely to work in a Texas court, if properly built... before I ever turn myself in and file motions and pay a cash bond!

Anyone who has DONE these or ANY strategy, with success, to WIN a traffic + warrant situation, I'd like to learn from you!
Thank you!

Hello Scott,

Sorry for your unjust misfortune. If you read my various postings on the subject of traffic cases...there is remedy.
And you are correct on the several points that you've cited.

But there is a caveat. The main one being the establishment of your jurisdiction. When dealing with government, jurisdiction is key!

This forum is only to be used for discussing the course material.

So, if you want to continue your particular discussion, then you'll have to send me a Private message so that we may continue offline. I have won in all of my recent traffic confrontations...in and out of court. I even cited a case on a suspended Driver's License violation in the forum.

Unfortunately, I don't have experience with warrants/bonds.
But you may have inadvertently entered into a Contract.

Now a days, governments use Administrative Agencies as 3rd party intermediaries when dealing with the People.

And when you are invited to a "courtroom", you are NOT in an Article III Court. You are in an Article I Administrative Hearing.

There is no Constitutional basis for the creation of these Agencies. And what is the root wood for Agency?...AGENT
Check Black's Law for the definition of Agent, and you'll begin to understand the deception.

There might be a way to beat this...or at the very least buy you some addition time to put together a strategy to fight this. Dr. Grave's course teaches some very useful tools that have worked for me.

Best of Luck

Hi Jerome2,

I will read everything you've posted on traffic citations.

Thank you for the encouragement.

I will check in with you offline in the private message center.

Dr Graves work shows me why other litigants fight and lose. They say to much, get off topic, and don't MOVE the court to name a few things.

Talk to you soon, off line!

CommonLawWarrior

Hello Scott19,

It's been quite awhile since we chatted. How did your situation play out?

I wanted to update you on my situation for traveling through your State of Texas. I believe I finally solved the riddle for NOT being hit by traffic infractions/tickets.

Many people make the argument of there being no Corpus Delicti...or being charged for a victimless crime.

Last year, I told you while traveling in a rental car from Oklahoma to DFW airport I was pulled over. The cop said he pulled me over because I was driving too close to the car in front of me. But the truth was, I went pass a speed trap doing 85mph. I was trying to make up time because I was running late for my flight...that's no excuse...I know.

This was the 1st test of my premise that I needed to prove.
The end result was, I was let go with a verbal warning. Everyone I told this story to refused to believe me.

With my bad luck, I faced the same situation again a few weeks ago. But this time I have documented proof! On the way to DFW airport I was pulled over by a State Trooper for speeding this time. In the end, he wrote me a warning ticket with no fine...no points.

Within an hour I was pulled over again because I failed to see a speed reduction sign, and a State Trooper was waiting right there. I knew he was going to see my prior speeding warning when he ran my name. In the end he wrote me a 2nd warning ticket and said..."this will be your 2nd warning for today, drive safely".

I was cited for speeding, failing to display a Driver's License, and Driving in the Passing lane.

Two "warning" tickets? In less than an hour? No Points No Fine? And I also audio recorded the encounter. I may post on You Tube so people can decide for themselves.

It seems that my premise has been validated. I won't reveal it in this forum, because I'm not allowed to discuss anything outside of the course material. But it has to do with Jurisdictional boundaries, and your Standing.

Scott19,

In addition, look up:

Texas Statutes
TRANSPORTATION CODE
TITLE 6 - ROADWAYS
SUBTITLE A - TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CHAPTER 201 - GENERAL PROVISIONS AND ADMINISTRATION
SUBCHAPTER K. ROAD AND HIGHWAY USE; SIGNS

This is the key paragraph...it's hard to find because it's buried deep in the text:

Sec. 201.904. SPEED SIGNS. The department shall erect and maintain on the highways and roads of this state appropriate signs that show the maximum lawful speed for commercial motor vehicles, truck tractors, truck trailers, truck semitrailers, and motor vehicles engaged in the business of transporting passengers for compensation or hire (buses).

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

As you can clearly see, the speed signs are meant for "commercial motor vehicles" only.

Remember the saying 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'.
The government is playing on the ignorance of the People. They are counting on the fact that you don't know the law, therefore you are not able to argue your case.

One of the power that the People gave government in the Constitution; is the Power to Regulate Commerce. I stated that before.

But they have fashioned a loophole to catch those who try to slip through. What is this loophole? Some of you may have already put 2 and 2 together, if you read my other commentary in the forum.

I presented the facts. Perform your own due diligence.
...then decide for yourself.

I was cited for speeding, failing to display a Driver's License, and Driving in the Passing lane.

This is confusing me. You were 'cited' or you were 'warned'. Which one was it? Or were you both 'cited' for speeding, FTDDL, and DitPL, AND ALSO 'warned' for speeding twice in one hour?

Please clarify.

Thanks.

Scott,

Sorry if this sound confusing to you. I was handled a "piece of paper" from two different Texas State Troopers. I guess different jurisdictions use different terms. Ticket, Citation, Complaint, Infraction. I'm not going to argue semantics.

On the 1st one the officer checked the box for WARNING.

And in the description section he codded the following:
1. Speeding Over Limit -TXTRC 545.351; 545.352- Warning Only- for an infraction of the traffic laws...
No Penalty will be assessed... This does not become a part of your driving record.

I hope that this clears up any confusion.

The 2nd officer (50min later) also check the box for WARNING.

In the description section he coded the following:
1 Speeding Over Limit-TXTRC 545.351; 545.352-
2. Fail To Display Driver License -TXTRC 521.025(A)-
3. Drive In Left Lane When Not Passing -TXTRC 544.011-
No Penalty will be assessed...This does not become part of your driving record.

I can't get any simpler than this. There were No Points, No Fines. The only other possible thing I can do is to make a copy and email to you until I get around to posting on You Tube. Then I can give people the link.

My premise for avoiding traffic tickets was put to the test three times. The last two of which I have evidence of my success.

Now...I'm really curious know how you dealt with your situation. We are all here to learn from the success and failures of others. Please share your story with us.
Thanks in advance.

In Full Disclosure:
I'm by no means an authority. I'm a student of Dr. Graves like everyone else here. I just have a few experiences in which I have won against a corrupt system. I'm willing to share with others, but use at your own risk. If you don't fully understand any information I share, it's best NOT to use it.

I could have written the OP almost verbatim.

Though it's been a couple years, I would greatly benefit from hearing some reflection on the FTA/bench warrant topic.

While this is by no means a treatise on Bench Warrants, I would Hazard to say that 99% of Bench Warrants can be cured by Appearing in Court!

They won't take you to jail, they won't even put you in handcuffs, they just wanted you to appear and now you have.

Depending on the Judge and the overall situation, if you present a valid reason for your failure to appear, which is what most bench warrants are issued for, you can have any fines or penalties waived.

If not, just pay the fine.

Arguing this nonsense, which I first looked into 30 years ago, is a waste of time. It is pure crap. You will not only look like an idiot, you will be one!

"...
-no personam jurisdiction
-no subject matter jurisdiction:
for example: I'm a man, the court, cop, and city are legal fictions; as such, I, a man, am not bound by the associations of men and their rules, unless I consent by written agreement, and knew I was doing so (ie, there is no written, enforceable contract, knowingly entered into by both parties)
-no corpus delecti/body of a crime; can't show any injury or damage to a legal fiction
-no fact witness...cop was not damaged or injured, no one was
-I was told a Driver's License is a privilege, but that Traveling is an unalienable Right; since I was traveling, not 'driving in commerce', I am subject (if I choose it) to common law, not Statutory Law. Is this true/verfiable in case law, etc?"

NO IT'S NOT TRUE. It's promoted by low IQ people with no education who think it makes them sound smart.

Read and apply Dr. Graves course and you can and will win any just case.