by Dave Tulis, TNTrafficTicket.us
(Oct. 5, 2021) — This Tulis family member, A******, an artist living overseas, has challenged Virginia’s highwayman racket and district court kangaroo justice system in a “Petition for protection of right to notice.” (Photo David Tulis)
Herein briefly the facts of the case: Appellant late in the night of Dec. 21, 2019, was traveling west through Marion County on U.S. Interstate 81 in a rental car. The posted speed is 70 mph. She testified she was traveling at 69, the trooper testified 50. She was glancing at her radio dial. Her movements within the lane are disputed. In the space given on the summons to “describe charge,” he wrote “reckless driving general,” citing “law section 46-2-852.” p. 1; he made no investigation.
ERRORS OF COURTS BELOW
The district and circuit courts failed to apply the law to the undisputed fact that the officer failed to give proper notice of the factual sufficiency of the essential elements “of the nature of the violation” of reckless driving required by the uniform summons statute at VA Code Ann. § 46.2-388. The accused is unlawfully denied her due process rights protected by the constitutions of the United States of America, Fifth Amendment, and of Virginia, article I, Section 8, where “in criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation.” The courts failed to take judicial notice of the statute and rules governing the due process and failed to dismiss the complaint in an error of law, reviewable de novo.
[The Tulis family in Soddy-Daisy, Tenn., is asking prayer about this petition. Yesterday, Oct. 4, 2021, the Virginia state trooper’s extortion victim, A****** Tulis, my daughter, filed a demand for reversal of denial order, a petition limited to 350 words seeking to overturn a denial order written by the court of appeals’ gatekeeper judge. That unnamed judge’s ruling says she errs in citing doings in the lower district court, and has no statement of facts or transcript that the judge says are essential to the main court toward reaching the issues in the case. She stumbles, in other words, over the rules. The Tulis family member is acting on her own, too poor for an attorney, and with my assistance only. She is making a true analysis of the evils of policing for profit in Virginia, I believe. We are asking a sovereign God that the labor of the trial and appeal process will serve the cause of liberty for Virginians and all travelers through that state, victimized by the thousands every year by a rapacious and lawless process. — David Tulis]
The district court denied appellant an evidentiary hearing so she could learn the “cause and nature of [the] accusation” per Article 1, section 8, of the constitution, and such denial is an error of law reviewable de novo or reviewed as an abuse of discretion.
The courts failed to take judicial notice of the statute and rules requiring due process of the complaint. Failure to dismiss a fatally flawed complaint is an error of law, reviewable de novo. The state’s witness did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to arrest appellant. The ambush testimony at trial of the trooper of 50 mph and the judge’s ambush testimony of appellant’s endangering of fictitious 120 mph felons were impossible to defend against, and reviewable as plain error.
The district court failed to require the prosecution to provide competent state witness testimony to factual sufficiency of admissible evidence to three of the four essential elements of the statutory crime. The failure of the courts to demand the prosecution meet the common law burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt, of every element of the crime, is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, Ninth Amendment, and the Virginia Constitution, Article I, section 17, whereby rights not enumerated are nonetheless retained and protected.
The failure to require admissible competent witness testimony to any admissible factual sufficiency of alleged ultimate facts is an error of law and an indiscretion reviewable de novo and as abuse of discretion.
The court’s reduction of penalty to “improper driving” is reviewable de novo under the Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the Virginia Constitution, Article I, section 17 whereby rights not enumerated are nonetheless retained and protected. The lower courts aided and abetted the prosecution in failing to meet the standard for burden of proof.
The courts abused discretion by introducing the reduced charge of “improper driving” without providing sufficient notice, which defect is built into the form that prohibited the defendant from receiving proper notice.
Read the rest here.
David Tulis hosts a talk show weekdays 1 to 3 p.m. on NoogaRadio 92.7 FM 95.3 FM HD4 (digital), covering local economy and free markets in Chattanooga and beyond. Nothing on this website should be construed as legal advice; all discussions about law and practices favoring a free people are opinion and educational; if you want legal advice consult a licensed attorney.