Can I use "Wisconsin versus Hanson and Minnesota versus Gerdes." in FL court?

[mccann022]

Hi, I just got a ticket for going 16 over when I was driving 9 over. I was wondering if I could use state supreme court cases from other states?

"During those cases the Judge determined that calibration checking with a tuning fork should be performed within a reasonable time after the citation is issued. In two other cases; Connecticut versus Tomanelli, and New York versus Struck, it was ruled that a calibration by tuning fork should be performed immediately before and after a citation is issued. All four of these case have shown that tuning at the start and at the end of the shift is not acceptable, although this is the norm"

[url=http://www.jesbeard.com/s6.htm]Speeding Tickets -- Your Rights[/url]

[azlawstudent]

You're perfectly welcome to bring it up. However, a Wisconsin case is by no means binding upon a Florida court. Whether or not the case is persuasive would depend upon the similarity between the Wisconsin statutes and case law cited in the case, and similar statutes and case law in Florida.

I recommend trying to find some Florida cases on point at your county's law library. Chances are, the same issues have appeared before Florida appellate courts before, and their rulings will have much more weight in your case.

[Maestro64]

FL has very little case law on traffic cases....

Yes you can present you case and back it up with case laws from other states, especially when state have similar laws. But most judges are not willing to listen unless you can explain why it applies to his state. It is not an easy task that is for sure.

[FlyingRon]

Unless you have a soft judge or your going to push the case to the FL appellate courts, you're probably not going to succeed. Radar gun calibration is a pretty standard issue in traffic court, and the judges have already got their idea as to what is required and aren't likely to be swayed by a couple of out of state decisions.

But sure, bring it up. Then you have the basis for your appeal...perhaps you can get your name in the Florida decision that changes the procedures there.

[mccann022]

I found a different way to deal with the ticket.

Prove they don't have subject matter jurisdiction because a "plaintiff must allege personal injury" Allen V. Wright,468 US 737, 751.

Officer must file valid cause of action in case, a ticket is not a valid cause of action, thus they do not have any standing, thus the court does not have "subject matter jurisdiction

Raymes V. Byrd says "Standing is a necessary component of subject matter jurisdiction."

[url]http://freedom-school.com/marc-stevens/marc-stevens-beating-civil-traffic-tickets.pdf[/url]

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by mccann022

I found a different way to deal with the ticket.

Prove they don't have subject matter jurisdiction because a "plaintiff must allege personal injury" Allen V. Wright,468 US 737, 751.

Officer must file valid cause of action in case, a ticket is not a valid cause of action, thus they do not have any standing, thus the court does not have "subject matter jurisdiction

Raymes V. Byrd says "Standing is a necessary component of subject matter jurisdiction."

[url]http://freedom-school.com/marc-stevens/marc-stevens-beating-civil-traffic-tickets.pdf[/url]

Be prepared for raucous laughter in the courtroom.

[FlyingRon]

I'm not sure what that assertion derived from Allen means to you or traffic tickets or what point Marc Stevens is trying to make bringing it up. Have you read that decision? Do you think the you can just pop up and say "Allen v. Stevens" and the judge is going to say, oh yes, charges dismissed?

Similarly with Raimes.

Allen says a bunch of African Americans can't get damages from the feds for the feds failure to enforce equal protection laws when they themselves weren't injured by the government's behavior.

Raimes discusses the constitutionality of the line item veto with respect to what the constitution says is the procedure for passing laws.

Neither has any relevence at all to this.

[mccann022]

Originally Posted by FlyingRon

I'm not sure what that assertion derived from Allen means to you or traffic tickets or what point Marc Stevens is trying to make bringing it up. Have you read that decision? Do you think the you can just pop up and say "Allen v. Stevens" and the judge is going to say, oh yes, charges dismissed?

Similarly with Raimes.

Allen says a bunch of African Americans can't get damages from the feds for the feds failure to enforce equal protection laws when they themselves weren't injured by the government's behavior.

Raimes discusses the constitutionality of the line item veto with respect to what the constitution says is the procedure for passing laws.

Neither has any relevence at all to this.

They have relevance in that they have to allege personal injury or damages in civil court for there to be standing. The supreme court ruled you have to have alleged personal injury or damages to have "standing" in the court, and without standing their is no "subject matter jurisdiction"


IN a recent court decision where someone sued Obama about him not being a natural born citizen, it was thrown out for subject matter jurisdiction. What I read it seemed there was no standing in the case because they could not prove Injury or harm on the behalf of the voters, thus there was no subject matter jurisdiction.

Read section B in the article where it talks about personal injury; to have standing under article 3 of the Constitution the plaintiff must show "Injury in fact". It sounds like for there to be standing the plaintiff has to allege personal injury or damage.

[url]http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/12/0.pdf[/url]

[mccann022]

It also makes it clear in their motion to dismiss that the Plaintiff "fails to allege any specific injury in fact to himself"

Article 3 requires "distinct and palpable injury"

It seems over and over again in civil court, you must have personal injury or damages to have standing and without standing the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.

[The Occultist]

Let me see if I understand what you're saying: there are no damages in traffic violations, so nobody can be held accountable for them? If that were indeed true, I wonder why the millions of actual lawyers out there never thought of this defense.

[mccann022]

Originally Posted by The Occultist

Let me see if I understand what you're saying: there are no damages in traffic violations, so nobody can be held accountable for them? If that were indeed true, I wonder why the millions of actual lawyers out there never thought of this defense.

Is it not true a plaintiff in civil court must allege personal Injury or damage? Just because something isn't thought of does not make it any less true. It comes down to one basic thing I'm trying to see, to have standing and a valid claim of action, do you have to allege personal damage or Injury?

So the first scientist who cures cancer will be wrong because millions before him couldn't do it? That is a flawed argument.

“The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984)

[Curt581]

Originally Posted by mccann022

Is it not true a plaintiff in civil court must allege personal Injury or damage? Just because something isn't thought of does not make it any less true. It comes down to one basic thing I'm trying to see, to have standing and a valid claim of action, do you have to allege personal damage or Injury?

So the first scientist who cures cancer will be wrong because millions before him couldn't do it? That is a flawed argument.

“The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984)

An absolute stroke of genius. There's no way this can lose.

Go with that. Post back with your results.

(After, of course, you get released from jail on the contempt charge)

[I_Got_Banned]

Originally Posted by mccann022

Is it not true a plaintiff in civil court must allege personal Injury or damage? Just because something isn't thought of does not make it any less true. It comes down to one basic thing I'm trying to see, to have standing and a valid claim of action, do you have to allege personal damage or Injury?

So the first scientist who cures cancer will be wrong because millions before him couldn't do it? That is a flawed argument.

“The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984)

Another davew_128...

Stick to your first idea... There's a slight chance you might have a pissed off Judge once you're done explaining this, that he might not even consider your citing out of state cases.

[mccann022]

Originally Posted by I_Got_Banned

Another davew_128...

Stick to your first idea... There's a slight chance you might have a pissed off Judge once you're done explaining this, that he might not even consider your citing out of state cases.

Thats a good point, in a court room if the first defense does not work can I offer up the next defense?

[The Occultist]

Originally Posted by mccann022

So the first scientist who cures cancer will be wrong because millions before him couldn't do it? That is a flawed argument.

Your argument is the one that is flawed. A cure for cancer would be a NEW process; the laws are the same as they have been for a long time. You're comparing apples and oranges. And don't you dare start your next post with, "I know it's not the same thing but it's sorta the same thing," as I'm getting quite sick of hearing that gem.