Verdict: "Guilty" of driving with an expired license.
Sept 29, 1999
Yesterday morning I "attended" traffic court and
gave about 15 minutes of
entertainment for the other people waiting
their turn. While the final outcome was a double verdict of
guilty (speeding being the other "offense"), there were a
number of rather peculiar things that took place.
First was the hearing, where I was supposed to enter a plea.
Before entering a plea one must understand the charges, so I
asked what happens if, upon conviction, the fine is not paid,
which in Maryland means a suspension of operating privileges,
something the state was arguing I was already lacking. The
judge obviously did not know the answer but fluffed one up
anyway, saying something like it would affect my "ability" to
drive in Maryland. My point in raising this question was to
establish a lack of jurisdiction. If upon conviction, I
cannot be punished or fined without consent, then the court
has no authority over me.
He also said the court was a civil -and not a criminal-
court. This is odd, as people do not normally enter a
guilty/not guilty plea at a civil court proceeding anywhere
else in the western hemisphere.
He then railroaded me right into the trial itself, entering
in a "not guilty" plea on my behalf (which I expected would
happen, and protested on the record).
The police officer lied twice in his testimony*,
which took me
by surprise. I can disprove one of the disinformations since
I recorded the entire traffic stop. (Keeping a portable tape
player can be very valuable for those of us prone to unusual
police encounters). I wasn't mentally prepared to have to
challenge him, and the accuracy of my transcript of the
recording was not as accurate as I would prefer to submit as
evidence, so it was not submitted. Not expecting the officer
to lie, I didn't think the transcript had much court value
anyway. How naive of me.
The judge interrupted my continued questioning of the police
officer by making and sustaining his own objection (in almost
those exact words). So much for an impartial jurist, not to
mention any appearance of proper Judicial procedure.
With little fanfare, and without questioning the conflicting
testimony, the judge found me guilty of both counts, but
offered probation before judgement, which would prevent
points from accruing on my "expired license". Of course I
refused, as it would prevent me from appealing this farce of
a trial, and I was not in the mood or mind to accept any
benefits, bribes, or plea-bargains from the court anyway.
All considered, even though I brought out evidence of severe
problems in the proceedings, venue, and testimony, I believe
I didn't handle the trial nearly as well as I could have. In
this situation, I had the means to take that courtroom
over and basically impeach both the police officer's testimony
as well as the judge's procedures, but I wasn't aggressive enough,
and expected the judge to be at least somewhat impartial. I've
read several accounts of patriots that have won traffic court
cases, and while the arguments & strategies vary, the common
element is almost always firmness and sometimes aggressiveness
in the courtroom. Judges, I'm now convinced, are usually more
interested in not being embarrassed in front of a bunch of people
& superiors than properly executing their offices. They will
often take the path of least resistance, whether that be to
convict, dismiss, or acquit.
After the trial, I went to the records section of the court
house and acquired a certified copy of that judge's oath of
office. The latest revelations sweeping the legal arm of the
patriot movement, in case you haven't heard, is that in a
surprising number of states/counties, the oaths of public
officials, as recorded in public records do not match the
oath required under the appropriate state constitution.
Carroll County, Maryland is not an exception, and I now have
in my possession evidence that the judge presiding in my
trial was, in fact, not a judge according to the requirements
set down in the Maryland Constitution. Whether this matters
at all to people within the system remains to be seen, however.
(It's very easy to check this in your home state. Just go
to the local court house and ask around for the court clerk.
Explain what your looking for. The staff are usually trained
to be very helpful, and they were with me. Oaths of office
for public officials are public information, so you have a
right to access them. Sometimes officials must be bonded, and
in some regions, officials are deficient there too).
I have many options. I could appeal, but it honestly may
not be worth it, especially if it means having to pay the
fine. I've got 4 witnesses (thanks to them for attending) to
the trial who are willing to sign affidavits relating to
what transpired, in the event the official transcript should
vary. Honestly, the thought of appealing would give more
credit to the mockery than I'm inclined to give at the moment.
Even with all I've been through, all the letters back & forth
to Pennsylvania trying to get a license, and even the traffic
stop itself on the 4th of July, until yesterday, I, myself
never really had any reason to be angry. I've heard through
the internet of infringements of people's rights, corrupt cops,
judges and mock trials taking place, but until yesterday, it
had never come to MY front door. As one that has always had
a natural inclination to follow the rules and respect authority,
even to the point of earning a Top Secret Security Clearance
from the federal government during my time in the army, I
was deeply offended by what I witnessed.
Reflecting on the events of the day, A particular episode of
a childhood favorite TV show came to mind. Captain Kirk and
crew of the Starship Enterprise were transported to the OK
Corral of the old west, doomed to reenact the famous deadly
gunfight. The only thing that saved them was Spock's discovery
that the town, people, and everything in it were not real, but
an illusion, including the bullets, which in the end passed
harmlessly through the intrepid crew.
What better analogy to compare the events of yesterday, where
a man who was not a judge convened an unlawful civil trial to
hear criminal charges and relied upon the testimony of a
lying police officer to convict me of damaging no one and
fining me $185 which no one can force me to pay?
I could appeal, but maybe it's easier to just to have Scotty
beam me up.
Neil McIver
September 29, 1999
*The officer testified that he was stationary at the time
he claims to have found me speeding. I distinctly remember
that he was traveling the opposite direction in his car,
and I made a verbal note of that on my tape recorder. It
was my intention to question the accuracy of a moving
radar unit in guaging the speed of another moving object.
I also intended to question how the radar unit accounts
for the speed of the police car, and the accuracy of whatever
method it uses to account for it.
But since claimed he was "stationary", those questions are
all moot.
The officer also denied he demanded a license & registration
from me, saying he only requested it from me. I have the
evidence on tape that he did, in fact, demand that
information from me. (It was my hope to move to dismiss
the charges on 5th Amendment grounds, having been compelled
by an man with a gun to be a witness against myself, but
that might not have been proper anyway since the judge
said it was a civil court, and the 5th amendment clause
regarding self incrimination is only applicable in criminal
cases).
Return to Life without Numbers
Return to My Right to "Drive"