But... It worked on YouTube!!!

[South Texan]

It just happened again. A defendant tried to argue his way out of a traffic ticket by using something he saw a guy try on YouTube and filing a rambling motion of sorts he found on some web page that had nothing to do with the facts of the allegations or even the laws that apply to his charges.

It was not pretty, and he was not successful.

Seriously, people. If you think you have stumbled upon some brilliant point that is going to mesmerize and dumbfound a judge or prosecutor simply because someone on a website is preaching the theory, guess again. If those theories held any weight, attorneys would have been arguing and winning with them by now. The judge also has access to those videos and theories as easily as you do. You are not going to get the reaction a surprised judge may have expressed in a video shot several years ago.

Screaming your protest at me or a clerk is not going to intimidate us into dismissing your ticket over the judge either.

Storming out stating you won because you announced the charges were dismissed even though the judge told you your argument failed (seriously happened) only results in a warrant for your arrest.

There are very legitimate defenses you can argue or raise to traffic violations. You can challenge the officer’s testimony, the equipment used, the road conditions, etc. Trying some end run theory and ignoring the charge is not going to end well for you, but it will give us a lot of fuel for laughter later.

(Out of respect for anyone here who might hold to the theory this guy tried to argue, I have not stated what it was or my opinion of its merit.)

[mjr]

Well...

There was the guy who used physics to get out of a ticket...

http://www.physicscentral.com/buzz/b...35810518469535

Problem is, things like that generally only work once.

[South Texan]

Hey, the officer’s perception is a factor in whether the officer actually saw a violation.

That was a legit defense in my book.

[Rosco the Iroc]

Storming out stating you won because you announced the charges were dismissed even though the judge told you your argument failed (seriously happened) only results in a warrant for your arrest.

really? Really?

[raudf]

I guess since the "Dazzle them with Wit," failed, it was time for him to try "Baffle 'em with bullshit" defense.

[LadyofArc]

It just happened again. A defendant tried to argue his way out of a traffic ticket by using something he saw a guy try on YouTube and filing a rambling motion of sorts he found on some web page that had nothing to do with the facts of the allegations or even the laws that apply to his charges.

He wasn't part of the sovereign citizen movement was he? (Or their variants?)

Those guys are fruit loops. There's a judge in Canada who, after having a guy try to use the arguments in a family court case, dedicated nearly 200 pages on the subject (this formed part of the judgement too ). The guy who did try and use it did eventually come back and do things properly.

[Deserted]

Back in the 70s my parents successfully got out of a ticket by demonstrating to the judge that the car in question was physically incapable of performing the maneuver the officer claimed.

[Arcus]

No question about it, that guy was a sovereign citizen. Too bad that he found out that when in court, their silly version of the law doesn't stand up. Oh and if he stormed out before the judge after saying he won, under their way of thinking, he lost anyway.

He was a fool to do that in court. The moment someone starts trying to use the sovereign citizen defense, their name is passed to the FBI and Homeland Security. Sovereign citizens are listed as a domestic terrorist organization

[LadyofArc]

No question about it, that guy was a sovereign citizen. Too bad that he found out that when in court, their silly version of the law doesn't stand up. Oh and if he stormed out before the judge after saying he won, under their way of thinking, he lost anyway.

He was a fool to do that in court. The moment someone starts trying to use the sovereign citizen defense, their name is passed to the FBI and Homeland Security. Sovereign citizens are listed as a domestic terrorist organization

Not sure if this happens in Australia (that is, their details getting passed on to ASIO [our homeland security]), but this is the judgement I mentioned earlier. The judge showed a shitload of patience for the guy at least.

[RealUnimportant]

In the absence of a better moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants...

Shots fired. I shall save this for a train journey or similar, it looks like excellent reading!

[sstabeler]

Well...

There was the guy who used physics to get out of a ticket...

http://www.physicscentral.com/buzz/b...35810518469535

Problem is, things like that generally only work once.

Actually, the basic strategy there is that the officer was legitimately mistaken about what the officer saw. Basically, what the guy claimed was that due to a car blocking the officer's view of the actual stop sign, what the officer legitimately thought- and almost always would be- was someone blowing through the stop sign was actually someone slamming on the brakes to make the stop, then quickly accelerating. He also proved his car was capable of such deceleration. As such, there was reasonable doubt about what had actually happened, so he beat the ticket. That's perfectly legitimate.

[LadyofArc]

Shots fired. I shall save this for a train journey or similar, it looks like excellent reading!

Yup. The judge takes great delight in snarking about this and the sheer stupidity of the lengths people will go to in order to avoid arrest/jail. That said, he does save his scorn for the people who perpetuate the myths themselves (that is, those who make money off of the con or similarly stand to benefit in some way from perpetuating said con) and shows quite a bit of patience for the guy the judgement was originally about, noting that if the guy came back and opted to do things correctly, he'd be willing to actually give him a chance. (Which he actually did about five years later)

I should note that the original case was in fact a divorce proceeding, centred over property. Malcolm Roberts (one of our senators here in Australia) tried to pull the same crap a few years ago (sovereign citizen that is) and tried to use it to avoid being booted out of Parliament for various reasons. He failed and the media found it hilarious

[greek_jester]

I've just looked up sovereign citizens. How the frilly heck do they expect that to fly? If you live in a country and use its resources then you are subject to its laws and taxes. Period. If you don't want to be subject to them, then you have to find somewhere else to live. What numpties!

[LadyofArc]

I've just looked up sovereign citizens. How the frilly heck do they expect that to fly? If you live in a country and use its resources then you are subject to its laws and taxes. Period. If you don't want to be subject to them, then you have to find somewhere else to live. What numpties!

I suggest you have a read of the document I linked earlier - it's actually quite a compelling read.

[Minflick]

"Frilly heck" Giggle. I have a new phrase!

And yeah, sovereign citizens are a stupefying wonderment to me that I just do not understand.