Even if you win your case it won't end the traffic ticket scam. What will, and is fatal to the prosecution is “lack of subject matter jurisdiction” of the court because according to the “doctrine of primary jurisdiction” the BMV as the complaining agency has primary jurisdiction therefore it is required by law (Indiana Rules and Procedure Act) to conduct a hearing before proceeding into a judical court. Proper objection to the skipping of the required BMV hearing is by Trial Rule 12b(1) and can be done pre trial.

“A party’s failure to exhaust its administrative remedies creates a jurisdictional defect and makes a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction appropriate.” Matonovich, 691 N.E.2d at 1328-29.

In the case of traffic tickets the government has failed to exhaust its' administrative remedies by skipping the agency hearing as required by law. Subject matter jurisidciton can be raised anytime before, during or after trial and is fatal to prosecution. If you want we can discuss this further here or privately but imo you are putting the horse before the cart.

Even if you win your case it won't end the traffic ticket scam. What will, and is fatal to the prosecution is “lack of subject matter jurisdiction” of the court because according to the “doctrine of primary jurisdiction” the BMV as the complaining agency has primary jurisdiction therefore it is required by law (Indiana Rules and Procedure Act) to conduct a hearing before proceeding into a judical court. Proper objection to the skipping of the required BMV hearing is by Trial Rule 12b(1) and can be done pre trial.

“A party’s failure to exhaust its administrative remedies creates a jurisdictional defect and makes a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction appropriate.” Matonovich, 691 N.E.2d at 1328-29.

In the case of traffic tickets the government has failed to exhaust its' administrative remedies by skipping the agency hearing as required by law. Subject matter jurisidciton can be raised anytime before, during or after trial and is fatal to prosecution. If you want we can discuss this further here or privately but imo you are putting the horse before the cart.

What you have raised is nothing short is laughable. 24 hours a day? Never clear a court? What legal precedence does any of that hold?

I can tell you one thing that “All courts shall be open” does not mean, and that's how Traffic Court currently operates.

BTW Abdul, you misquoted the Indiana Constitution.

The problem with your argument is that “the courts shall be open” is subject to interpretation.

Does that mean the courts have to be open 24 hours a day? Can a judge never clear a courtroom when it becomes disorderly?

What if there are two many people in the room?

Plenty of questions and Paul's lawsuit falls short on answers.

No wonder you've never won an election. You haven't even read the Indiana Constitution.

Yes, it's an inhumane and unfair practice to keep citizens in a courtroom for hours on end and not letting them leave (unless they want a default judgement against them) and LEOs get a call to come up when their case is ready, coming and going at their pleasure.

No one is asking for special treatment, but the judiciary should not be giving favoritism to the executive branch. Again, picking up a constitution and reading that might help.

Again, showing your ignorance. The deputy at Traffic Court announces that anyone not there as part of the case may be fined and arrested. Arriving early, on time, or alte won't matter because you won't get in.

So why don't you post under your real name?

Anyone who wants to see the court proceedings may arrive early and wait in line for a premier seat inside. Anyone who wants a transcript of the court proceedings may purchase it upon proper motion. You see, Matthew, the court is open and all actions are public record that the public may access.