After 6 months I'm still fighting in Missouri

[wormsintherain]

I got a ticket for "failure to stop at stop sign" back in Sept. 2009.  I'm about to have my third trial since getting the ticket, which is my appeal trial from municipal court.  My defense for the ticket is lack of jurisdiction.  At my first trial the judge acted as if he didn't know what I was talking about regarding jurisdiction and I also challenged them on the fact that the officer only wrote the ending section for the ordinance violation and I couldn't find the actual code because of this.  The judge actually said to just dismiss the case but the prosecutor jumped up and got mad, then they started being the criminals that they truly are.  Long story short the judge had the officer issue me a new ticket at trial, correcting his mistake from the first one.  The prosecutor keeps arguing that it's a summons and says he don't have to file anything because of that.  He even told me at the second trial that he had to do some research because of me and found a supreme court case, so I asked him does he have the case or what case is it and he says to me that's not his responsibility.  Aint that something, it aint his responsibility to prove his case but I know he didn't have nothing. 

My defense is based on the prosecutor not filing "an information" as he's required to do by Missouri law.  Under Missouri law the ticket isn't a complaint but a violation notice/citation.  The prosecutor's information he files is suppose to be supported by the violation notice and can be filed based on his own information and belief.  The law is referring to information in two instances.  One being the what the prosecutor files and the other being information in a general sense.  Now on the ticket it has a place for the prosecutor to sign based on "his information and belief" and he did sign it.  They haven't even addressed the issue of the filing of an information because he's been to be busy trying to tell me it's a summons and he don't have to file anything.  Under former Missouri law I think the ticket was recognized as being a summons but not anymore.  This could explain the reason why when he and the judge were looking at some code book during my first trial and decided it was a summons but they wouldn't let me see it.  Mo. law used to consider the ticket a complaint and it had to be verified and a prosecutor had to file an information.  From my research I found that there was a section labeled as "an information" for the prosecutor and as long as he signed it the court considered it to be both.  But if he didn't sign it the information was considered not filed and the court had no jurisdiction.  Ok that's the old law and now the prosecutor does not have to sign the information.  Because Mo law is vague I filed a motion to dismiss explaining this to the judge Friday.  For the law to allow the information not to be signed and it says it has to be supported by a violation notice, is telling me that there is something separate he has to file which is the information.  Because when they took away the requirement of it being signed, that took away my way of knowing an information was filed unless there's another document supporting the ticket and I can distinguish which is which.  If he aint got to sign it and if the ticket wasn't signed then the prosecutor could simply lie and say yeah I filed an information, that's if the ticket and his information were to be one in the same.  That's the basic of my defense and like I said Mo law doesn't say anywhere that the ticket is to be the violation notice and an information.  If anyone has any info to help me out I'm all ears. 

[spielz]

post law which tells  what a complaint is.
You were found guilty then appealed?
when the judge said let's dismiss the case, what objection did the the prosecutor have?

[wormsintherain]

post law which tells  what a complaint is.
You were found guilty then appealed?
when the judge said let's dismiss the case, what objection did the the prosecutor have?

In Missouri the citation isn't considered a complaint but a violation notice.  Here's the link to the court rules for a violation notice.
http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/ClerkHandbooksP2RulesOnly.nsf/c0c6ffa99df4993f86256ba50057dcb8/cb5591f47d6157f086256ca6005212ee?OpenDocument

Court rules for an information start at rule 37.34 and MO statute 479.09 and 545.270.
http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/ClerkHandbooksP2RulesOnly.nsf/c0c6ffa99df4993f86256ba50057dcb8/223c4021aea5e15186256ca6005212ef?OpenDocument
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C400-499/4790000090.HTM
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5450000270.HTM

Yeah I was found guilty in municipal court and I appealed.

I guess because he keeps arguing the citation is a summons.  That's been his whole game and like I said the judge had the officer write another citation to correct his mistake on the first one.  They scrambled to go get books and I waited and that's when the judge started helping them and said to hell with me.  The officer basically got legal advice from the judge because the judge told him I was gonna argue the technicality of the law and even gave him an example.  The prosecutor found what book they were looking for, then he and the judge were looking through the book found whatever they were looking at and he says "see it's a summons".  I asked the judge could I see what they were looking at and of course he wouldn't let me see it.  Now under old Missouri law I believe it was actually considered a summons but under the new law it doesn't mention anything like that and just because it's a summons would not mean the prosecutor doesn't have to file an information.

[spielz]

This sounds like what could have happened. Officer's testimony went on the record with no objection.
Jurisdiction was settled and no plan b. 

1. They need something to do file discover on officers notes, statements, and diagrams.
2. Officer view obstructed. Line was back a little so U Stopped at line and pulled up and proceed
ed
3. Statement from witness.
4. Officer did not prove charge, provided only a statement and this has been decided in case.............

[wormsintherain]

This sounds like what could have happened. Officer's testimony went on the record with no objection.
Jurisdiction was settled and no plan b. 

1. They need something to do file discover on officers notes, statements, and diagrams.
2. Officer view obstructed. Line was back a little so U Stopped at line and pulled up and proceed
ed
3. Statement from witness.
4. Officer did not prove charge, provided only a statement and this has been decided in case.............

I objected to the court proceeding without proving jurisdiction and the officer's testimony.  The court wasn't a court of record so objecting didn't really matter.  I filed my motion to dismiss last friday.  I was found guilty only on the officer's testimony and I know in Cali that's not enough and I may have found something for Missouri I can use that' similar.  In MO they try you under criminal code but only require the proof to be that of a civil matter.  Criminal or civil I've been thinking about challenging them on the fact that there's no loss, injury or harm.  Missouri does have the corpus delicti rule for crimes and the laws say there must be a victim claiming injury or loss for any crime.  They straight gangsta in MO and somebody else I spoke to told me they always attack the clerk or court and file a counterclaim.   

[spielz]

ok. They always move on when you challenge jurisdiction. They force you to play ball.