You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] MaunaLoona 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago 

This is part of the scam they call "decriminalization". They made citations such as traffic tickets and the ones that the cop wrote a "civil infraction". This allows the court to lower the burden of proof from "beyond reasonable doubt" to "preponderance of evidence". The reasoning then goes that someone who has been accused of a crime has a motive to lie, while a police officer is an impartial truth teller. Since it's your word against the cop's, and the cop's word always wins, you're automatically guilty unless you have physical evidence to prove your innocence.


[–] crazy_eyes [S] 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

That makes a lot of sense and explains a lot of their actions. Are ordinance violations a civil matter? I don't believe that this was made clear at any point during the proceedings


[–] TerryB 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Admiralty court -- it is actually an administrative hearing. The mere accusation of the crime by the officer means you are guilty. Ever see that movie 'A Few Good Men'? Ever wonder why Jack went so crazy? The mere fact an officer made the claim means you are guilty in that system. Very shitty that they have brought this law of the sea over land to destroy our common law.