The following is from personal experience and is not to be considered to be legal advice. The author is NOT an attorney because he refused to sell his soul. If you need legal advice then that is your problem but don’t expect to get any here.
As anyone that reads this blog with regularity will know, I do not believe in plea bargains in traffic cases. If just 10% of the people that get tickets would fight them all the way to trial the system of Traffic Tax Collection, called law enforcement, would end.
I will start this story off with the happy ending.
But man O man did I learn a lot on the way to this victory.
So now here is the story of how we got there.
My friend was pulled over because, according to the Cop, they were looking for a Hispanic male on a domestic battery charge. The officer knew immediately, after just looking through the window on the driver’s side, that this older blue eyed nearly bald Swedish male was not Hispanic with dark hair and brown eyes. He even told him so. The driver also told the Cop he wasn’t this Hernandez guy.
After the Cop knew that the driver was NOT the suspect the officer then told the driver he needed to see his driver’s license (aka ID) car registration and proof of insurance? (So all of you patriots, stop and name at least two Nevada laws this law enforcement officer violated?)
The driver asked if it was mandatory and the officer told him it was. The driver handed the officer his PAPERS because if he did not he would have been arrested.
(If you can figure out what the Cop did wrong and even what crime he committed let me know. You have all the clues you need.)
The Cop then ran the license for warrants. None were found but it came up revoked. The officer then gave the driver a citation for a revoked license. There was never a claim or even a suggestion that any other traffic offense had been committed.
The driver went to an arraignment hearing. He told the judge he did not want to enter a plea at that time because it was important that he review his rights first. He did not demand his rights but only said that he was concerned and wanted his rights protected. The judge told him that his rights would be protected in this court. (He lied but that has to be expected of judges and prosecutors and Cops and government employees and elected officials and IRS agents and you get the picture.) Be prepared. And write down what they promise so you can SLAM them with their own lies when you file motions.
The judge set a pre-trial date for about 45 days away. We attended and the driver told the prosecution that he did not want any plea deal and wanted a trial. That is all they do at these pre-trial hearings. It is just another attempt to get the SUCKERS to plead guilty or nolo… The trial was set for about 90 days after the arraignment hearing and about 45 after the Pre-trial farce. Opps?
So we waited and filed a motion to dismiss under NRS 178.556 This statute is NOT the same as the U.S. Constitution 6th Amendment Speedy Trial. It stands alone. Here is essentially the best court ruling I could find on how it works:
Here, the delay exceeded the sixty-day rule by one month, and the State established that the purpose was to obtain DNA test results that were crucial to its case. NRS 178.556 provides that the district court may dismiss a complaint if the defendant is not brought to trial within sixty days of his arraignment. A dismissal is mandatory only if the State cannot show good cause for the delay. Anderson v. State, 86 Nev. 829, 834, 477 P.2d 595, 598 (1970). (Emphasis added)
Meegan v. State 968 P.2d 292, 294 (Nev.,1998) (reversed on other grounds)
Pretty easy to understand. If the 60 day rule is violated by, let’s say 30 days (like our case) and the State does not have a good reason and can prove it, like waiting on DNA evidence or an important witness that will be just a few days late because they were in a coma etc. then it is mandatory that the case be dismissed.
There is not one single section or subsection of this 60-day trial rule that states that the defendant has to demand a trial in 60 days. This is VERY different from the Federal 6th Amendment Speedy Trial rules. The Supreme Court was VERY clear in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, that the defendant MUST demand a Speedy Trial or the lose the right. There is not a single Nevada Supreme Court case that requires a defendant to demand a trial under NRS 178.556. It is essentially a burden on the prosecution and the court to Get-er Done! The statute its self does not make such a requirement. But some how that Municipal Court Judge and the City Attorney BOTH came to that same conclusion. There was no demand so you don’t get the right.
Can you even imagine such a belief on any other right you have? Statutory or God given? That you have to demanded it WITHOUT ANY WRITTEN NOTIFICATION that such a demand is required by law? And since the driver had not demanded a trial in 60-day the court decided that right had been voluntarily waived by the driver. What a CROCK OF….
How ridiculous. The driver’s right to a trial was not waived and he did not demand a trial. The right to cross-examine witnesses against him was not waived even though he did not demand it. His right to call witnesses in his behalf was not waived even though he did not demand it.
Let me be VERY clear: The law its self and Nevada Supreme Court rulings don’t require a defendant to request or demand a trial within 60-days. But because the United States Supreme Court ruled that if you want a FEDERAL 6TH AMENDMENT RIGHT that you have to demand it that somehow this NEVADA ONLY rule also applies to NRS 178.556. Why not apply the rules for the 2nd Amendment to Building Codes?
These government blacked robed MORONS HONESTLY cannot understand the difference between the federal Constitution 6th Amendment and a Nevada statute. What blatant ignorance! And this is not the first time I have seen this garbage thinking.
So what I learned here is that you must demand a speedy trial to get the federal right and you also have to demand such a trial to get a statutory trial within 60-days.
So how can a defendant do that without letting the Court or the prosecutor know that if they don’t set the trial for 60-days from the arraignment hearing that you are going to file a motion to dismiss? (Hey… You don’t let the other guy see your hand in a poker game…do you?)THIS IS WAR…Remember that. Papers and motions and tricks up your sleeve instead of guns and bombs.
So here is what I came up with.
Court: What is your plea?
Defendant: I am not a Nevada resident and so I am not as knowledgable about Nevada law as you are judge (hey… I ain’t under oath) and I don’t understand the charges against me (I am a moron in court…I don’t undersstand nuffin. They don’t need to know that I am baiting them) so I can’t make a plea at this time.
The Court. Okay…I will enter a plea for you of Not Guilty. (This happens EVERY TIME.)
Defendant: But judge. I don’t know my rights in Nevada yet.
Court: Your rights will be protected in this court.
Defendant: What about my right to a jury trial?
Court: There are no jury trials for traffic offenses in Nevada. (This is true, of course but that makes them believe that I don’t know all the rules. Silly Rabbit… Tricks are for…)
Defendant: Well see what I mean. I don’t know all of my rights in Nevada so I am gonna demanding all of my rights at all times and I waive none of my rights at any time.
Now you have made the demand for the trial within 60 days without telling them SPECIFICALLY that you demanded your right to a trial in 60 days. In Vegas they will set up a pre-trial hearing for about 45 days to 9 months depending on whether it is muni-court (city) or Justice court (county).
Then at the pre-trial hearing they will set up a trial date. Once again the date will be about 45 days to 9 months out.
NEVER agree to a court date. If you agree then you have waived your right to a trial within 60-days. When the court asks you if you agree with the trial date you say you are not sure of your rights and so you will have to object. LOOK CONFUSED if the court presses you. You are after all an idiot without a clue. You are NOT under oath at this time. SUCK’EM IN. Set your traps. This is a paperwork WAR. It is a poker game. There are bluffs and good hands and the judges don’t know the rules and neither do the prosecuting attorneys. They TAX COLLECTORS. Get that through your mind. You are doing nothing but trying to stop a tax that should NEVER be placed upon us under the color of law.
The Court will set the date anyway and probably tell you that if you don’t show up you will be arrested or some other black robe threat. You see YOU have to meet the dates but the Court and the Prosecution they only follow statutes that benefits the collection of taxes the traffic taxes that pay their salaries. It is ALL about money and has nothing to do with traffic safety. Get that through your head!
As soon as the 60 days pass you file your motion to dismiss on the on the 60 day violation. We gave the court a 17 page Motion and it was very technical. If you are not willing to take the time to EARN freedom then PLEASE just pay the fine and do the time and be a good little Taxpaying slave.
The judge even commented several times on what a good motion it was before he improperly ruled against it because the defendant had not demanded the trial, even though there is no law that makes such a demand a requirement. (Don’t expect these lower court judges to know anything about the law or even court rules. They are TAX COLLECTORS and they became lower court judges because they could not make money as attorneys. (This is not true in every case but most cases in which I have been personally involved with and that is quite a few. (6 for 6 wins in the last several years.)))
So back to court today. The court brings up the Motion to Dismiss and the City Attorney says he would liked to have opposed it in writing and was going to ask for an extension BUT he had talked to the Officer and the officer had informed him that he could not remember the illegal detention (my words) or even the Defendant because he made so many stops and it was so many months ago (about 6). I laughed when I heard this because one of the reasons the Supreme Court (in Wingo) said a speedy trial was important was because “memories fade.” They were right!
Just before this case came to trial there were two other traffic cases. In those the officer did not show up and the cases were dismissed. Make no mistake that such delays are costly to our tyrannical governments and these trials are about TAX COLLECTION not punishment or the safety of other people on the roads, so if it becomes expensive the judges move along. The Courts cannot have a 250 case costing 251. I understand that only one in ten Cops show up to court for the ticket. You have a 90% chance to win by just refusing to make a deal and going to trial. You see they just ticket you and expect you will get in line with the rest of the Sheeple and pay your “fair share” of slavery.
Don’t let them get away with that ever again if you cherish liberty at all.
Can you imagine if 10% of the people would demand a trial how much time this would cost the Cops that concentrate on Traffic Tax Collection? They would go broke. So they would have to stop Tax Collection and start working on being Peace Officers like they USED to be.
But a revoked license case is a 1,100 FRN case so they can work a little harder. The Cop in this case showed but he CLAIMS he could remember nothing about the crimes he committed against the Defendant (my words but…) Perhaps he DID understand that he had committed a misdemeanor and violated the TERRY STOP rules AND NRS 171.123. Perhaps he saw that this Defendant was WELL prepared and he was afraid to go under oath and cross-examination. Perhaps he was an average Cop (less than a 100 IQ (not joking)) and honestly could not remember. But because this Defendant went all the way to trial and did not waive his right to trial, the case against him that was based upon illegally obtained evidence and was proceeding in violation of the 60-days trial rule was dismissed.
Make no mistake. In man hours at even just 10 an hour it would have been less financially taxing to have paid the fine. But that would have been immoral and the Defendant would not have defended the Constitution and his grandchildren’s liberty but would have paid off tyrants working for the government for his own personal temporary convenience. (In other words he would have been like most Americans.)
“If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” — Samuel Adams, 1776
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to pay the fines instead of fighting back.
What will you do next time you get a traffic ticket?