Consumer reviews and reports on scam companies, bad products and services
Arizona Justice Courts Justice Courts scam Millions without Jurisdiction in Arizona Yarnell, Arizona
15th of Nov, 2011 by User746366
Arizona Justice Courts scam Millions; Without Jurisdiction Most of you readers have received a traffic ticket, or know someone who has. Most drivers receiving tickets dutifully report to justice or municipal court and pay a fine. Now, suppose there was a law which plainly states that courts have no legal authority to extract fines and fees for traffic tickets. There is. Arizona Revised Statutes at 28-332 places “primary and exclusive jurisdiction” over the motor vehicle code with the Arizona Department of Transportation. An agency within the executive branch of government. The Administrative Procedures Act; codified at ARS Title 41, explains how contested matters are to be handled within the various agencies. Under ARS 41-1061 it shows that traffic tickets are to be handled by the agency first. Then the
aggrieved party can appeal for court intervention. Then and only then does the court gain subject matter jurisdiction over traffic tickets. This is called “exhaustion of administrative remedies.” In the recent past adjudication of traffic tickets, issued for infractions of Title 28, migrated over to the courts and today tickets are a routinely heard at justice and municipal courts without the enabling legislation. Justice courts are called “courts of limited jurisdiction.” They have only that jurisdiction which is foisted upon them by the state's legislature. No where in state law is a statute which places jurisdiction for traffic tickets at justice courts. Yet, justice courts in Yavapai County extract over six million dollars annually from unsuspecting motorist, without any
jurisdiction whatsoever. Arizona Revised Statutes were promulgated in 1957. Perhaps then it made sense to have ADOT adjudicate accused infractions of the motor vehicle code. As the population increased it became burdensome for ADOT to hear all those
thousands of tickets written throughout the state.. Somewhere along the line ADOT allowed justice courts to usurp the authority of ADOT. It is easier to extract fines in court with a big brawny deputy scowling in the corner People were intimidated so they paid up without too much fuss. Under the law, the way it is supposed to happen, as per ARS 41-1061, the officer is supposed to turn in a
copy of the ticket to ADOT. ADOT should then send the accused a notice of hearing at the offices of ADOT. When one is able to defend his ticket in the warm confines of a paneled office with glass walls and a mahogany table, one is less intimidated. Some even win their cases, unlike at justice courts. One local Justice of the Peace stated in a
recent interview: “ninety-five percent of money taken in at justice court is from traffic fines.” Over two years ago this writer received a ticket alleging infractions of Title 28; the motor vehicle code. This writer filed a motion to dismiss at justice court claiming the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Naturally, the un-elected justice of the peace; appointed by the Board of Supervisors, denied the motion to dismiss stating the courts have concurrent jurisdiction. When asked to cite the law upon which she based her ruling she declined. Then this writer appealed this unfounded decision to the Superior Court at Prescott. There the Superior Court declined to rule on the matter of jurisdiction residing in the justice courts. Then this writer appealed the justice court ruling to Division 1 of the Arizona Court of Appeals. The court of appeals declined to rule on jurisdiction residing at the
justice courts. From this series of events, the justice of the peace stated in a court order that “Superior Court and the Appeals Court affirmatively ruled that justice courts have jurisdiction over the motor vehicle code.” When asked to show where this was written in the appellate court's decision the justice of the peace stated: 'we'll just have to agree to disagree.” However; in a pleading offered by the state, the state stipulated that no courts have ruled on the placement of jurisdiction at justice court except the justice court. A raft of U. S. Supreme Court decisions declare that a court cannot
rule on its own jurisdiction. If they do it is merely an allegation. Another raft of Supreme Court Decisions state that jurisdiction is the first order of business. nce jurisdiction is challenged the case cannot move forward until the party claiming jurisdiction is able to “demonstrate in an incontrovertible manner” that it has jurisdiction. Throughout the past two years of litigation the state has not demonstrated whereby the courts gain jurisdiction over the motor vehicle code in Arizona.

Post your Comment

Complaint Details

Get new code


Recently Updated Reports

1075 days ago by thestoryofdianegerrish
goldendoodle world - goldendoodle world lake ridge kennels Vulgar,...
I just came across this page a few minutes ago. I am Sandra Johnson and although this page was...
1300 days ago by freeinfofraud - Unable to withdraw funds
Bitky be Aware! Unable to withdraw money! Bitky idoes not allow you to withdraw your funds, do...
1304 days ago by ned l.
Bi Polar Bullies - Bi Polar Bullies Kennel Karen Wolfe BUYERS BEWERE OF THIS...
thank you for bringing this to my name is Karen Wolfe, i'm the owner of...
1305 days ago by ned l.
ServiceMagic ServiceMagic scams and cheats contractors...
Jason - I'm sorry to hear about your experiences with your leads recently. The leads that...

User Registration

Already a member? Log in now.
E-mail address
Get new code

User Registration

A confirmation email was sent to "".
To confirm your account, please click the link in the message.

If you don't see the email in your Inbox, please check your Spam box.

User Login

Not a member of Register now.
E-mail address
Forgot your password?
E-mail address
Loading, please wait...
Your password has been sent to the specified email address. Log in