Local man fights system - Lamar Ledger

Full story: Lamar Ledger 91
For Randy Garriss it was much more than just a traffic ticket, it was an affront to the state's constitution. Full Story
First Prev
of 5
Next Last
respector of law

Boulder, CO

#1 Jan 7, 2010
Garris has a point. If the state courts are going to uphold the law, they can't write it. The legislature is created to write the law, the courts to uphold it. Without the common structure of the constitution, there is no law. The courts must cease to operate outside the laws by which the courts are held.

This is the reason that I have for many years, recommended that any judge who comes up for a vote be voted OUT. If they receive term limits by a vote of the people, they'll realize they are part of the judicial system and not above the law (or the constitution) they've sworn to uphold.

Vote NO on ANY Judges this year at the polls.
Oris

Westcliffe, CO

#2 Jan 8, 2010
I agree!!!!!!!11

Since: Jan 10

Lamar

#4 Jan 9, 2010
respector of law wrote:
Garris has a point. If the state courts are going to uphold the law, they can't write it. The legislature is created to write the law, the courts to uphold it.
Thank you "Respector" for your input. I would like to point out however that that the Courts really aren't writing the law in this case. Here's what happened. In the early 1980's the Court system was becoming overloaded with minor traffic offenses which were at the time considered criminal traffic offenses. The District Attorney's Association contacted the legislature and requested that something be done to alleviate their caseload. The legislature determined that if certain offenses were re-classified as infractions, or non-criminal civil offenses that this would allow the Courts to process these cases more expediently, and without having to afford to the accused party the constitutionally required due process protections that normally attach to all other criminal proceedings. To accomplish this task the legislature began with the decriminalization and re-classification of many offenses. Next the legislature passed a statute vesting the Supreme Court with authority to promulgate court rules that would be utilized in the prosecution of these offenses. The Supreme Court developed these rules in accordance with their constitutional authority to establish rules and the statute passed by the legislature. These rules are known as the Colorado Rules of Traffic Infractions.

Now here is where the problem occurs. The Colorado Constitution at Article II, Section 8, after first dealing with the issue of process related to felony cases, then states, "In all other cases, offenses shall be prosecuted criminally by indictment or information."

It is clear from this that the Constitution limits the prosecution of all offenses to criminal prosecutions. So.... how does one criminally prosecute a non-criminal civil traffic infraction?

This novel infraction process has allowed the arm of the state via the judiciary and the executive to herd millions through the court system and collect billions in revenue by lowering the standards of due process guaranteed by our Constitution.

Of course, when the legislators engaged in this reclassification they did so in violation of the oath that each of them had taken support the Constitution of the state of Colorado. Is there anything new about the fact that those in government often violate their sworn duty?

Well here is a prime example of a billion dollar revenue generating enterprise built upon constitutional violations. Is it fair to say that it is extremely more likely than not that persons in the judiciary schooled in the law were aware of this brave new departure from the restraints of the Constitution?

Isn't it the duty of the judiciary to act as a check against unconstitutional exercises of legislative power? But in this instance the court system stood to gain relief from the case overload, so is it fair to surmise that this little conflict of interest has caused the judiciary to look the other way.

I conclude that is the case because no judge has yet addressed my issue. Anyone who will honestly review the filings in this case will discover that the Courts have sidestepped my constitutional objection completely. Is it too much to ask that this question be addressed head on?

So if the state desires to prosecute people for de-criminalized civil offenses then it remains necessary to amend the Constitution. The people have spoken at present that prosecutions are to be conducted criminally and that is the only jurisdiction that exists constitutionally. What the courts have engaged in is ultra vires activity. Ultra vires just means outside the scope of their vested authority.

Will we, as a people, continue to allow government to ignore the mandates of the Constitution? It is past time that the people hold government responsible to their limitations.
yathinkso

Westcliffe, CO

#5 Jan 10, 2010
blah blah blah
true

Westcliffe, CO

#6 Jan 10, 2010
He is one of those non law-abiding citizens, I forget the term that it is!
chetfomage58

Helena, MT

#7 Jan 10, 2010
What a wacko
true

Westcliffe, CO

#8 Jan 11, 2010
Seriously people! I know who this person is, I have had many encounters with him, like all Lamar citizens! He is a wacko! He disrespects authority, he doesn't feel that he has to live by the rules, he is a widow and his poor wife was worked to the bone before she passed away. He is a nut case-just find him and talk to him!

Since: Jan 10

Lamar

#9 Jan 11, 2010
Well "True" has surely let his/her real biases, personal opinions and prejudices surface. Incapable of engaging this issue at a basic level of civil discussion, "True" lets go with the personal attack filled with ridicule. Now I ask you who is the wacko? Surely if "True" was intelligent enough to engage in a logical discourse with one which he or she has determined to be a wacko, then he would engage me here, in a logical manner on the constitutional violation that I am bringing to light. But such is not "True's" modus operandi (does "True) have another agenda at heart?). For whatever reason "True" must resort to an attempt to prejudice the readers of this thread in order to marginalize the issue in discussion. Maybe "True" is really the "wacko".

One thing is for sure, "True" readily hides behind an internet name so as not to reveal his/her real name. Now using another name online is not in and of itself a problem, unless one hides behind that non-identifier in order to spew personal attacks rather than civilly discuss an issue.

If "True" feels that I am a "wacko" then let us reason together in the public forum (without slinging mud) on the issue that I am complaining about and allow the People to determine whose position is illogical and ultimately wacko. It is doubtful that "True" has ever engaged in this sort of dialogue, but I am patiently waiting. Although I am willing to speak with anyone face to face anywhere, it really is not necessary for anyone to "find" me as "True" suggests in order to talk to me. I will engage in public discourse right here with anyone who is civil enough to reason. So what about it "True"? Are you prepared to make an "on-point argument against my position on the issue the article is written about?
not a sheep

Adrian, TX

#10 Jan 11, 2010
I know Mr. Garris. Not real well, but I would not consider him 'wacko'. He is standing up for himself against government in a pretty complicated matter. What's wrong with that?

I'm sure there were some who thought the founding fathers were wacko as well. I for one and glad they risked all, including ridicule, to stand up for what was right.
to each his own

Westcliffe, CO

#11 Jan 11, 2010
True is entitled to his or her opinion too. Obviously this person has had interaction with Randy and has formed an opinion of their own, why is that a bad thing?

We all are supposed to be law-abiding citizens that should follow what is set-forth. Plain and simple.
orangejulius

Springfield, CO

#12 Jan 11, 2010
I may agree that Mr. Garris has made a mountain out of a mole hill; however, the courts and the legislature should abide by the laws they've sworn to uphold. Holding the powers that be to their oaths is not the same as being a scofflaw.

Since: Jan 10

Lamar

#13 Jan 11, 2010
to each his own wrote:
True is entitled to his or her opinion too. Obviously this person has had interaction with Randy and has formed an opinion of their own, why is that a bad thing?
Forming an holding an opinion based upon past interaction is not in and of itself a bad thing. Whether that past opinion is relevant to the issue under discussion is what matters. If a past opinion is allowed to bias and prejudice an inquiry into an issue by presenting biases, opinions and prejudices that are wholly separate from, and irrelevant to, the issue under discussion, then those prejudices are a bad thing. The reason is that rather than logically discuss the issue in the article, attention is diverted away from the central issue that should be under public discussion. Post's like that of "True's" are off topic, incendiary, prejudicial, and fail to address the issue that has been brought to the public's attention by the news article.

This is exactly the manner in which the Courts and the District Attorney has handled this issue. They both engaged in sidestepping the issue I was pointing out as unconstitutional by ignoring it and talking about something else in their paperwork and the Court's Orders. We the People should be able expect that our issues are addressed by those in positions of trust. "each to his own" continues.....
to each his own wrote:
We all are supposed to be law-abiding citizens that should follow what is set-forth. Plain and simple.
Being a law abiding citizen also requires the people to hold those public servants who have sworn to uphold the Constitution to the requirements of their oath. Where the legislature passes an unconstitutional law, or reclassifies offenses in an unconstitutonal manner, "IT IS THE RIGHT, IT IS THE DUTY," of the people to resist such usurpations and hold their public servants to the limitatons set forth in the Constitution. Those who do not believe this should read the Declaration of Independence of 1776. An unconstitutional law imposes no duty, and confers no authority.

Which is worst.... which is more egregious.....the violation of minor unconstitutional traffic infractions or the violation of ones sworn oath to the very Constitution upon which all governmental authority rests?

The freedoms and liberties of the people of this state and nation are slowly being eroded as we are forced down a slippery slope of incremental and constant legislative control. We are suppose to be a free nation, of the people, for the people, and by the people. We put Constitutions in place to restrain the power of government, but if someone doesn't rise and hold government to the principles of the Constitution (the Peoples Law) those in government will usurp their authority and ultimately ignore our Supreme Law. We witness abuse of power in government on a regular basis.

Anyone who is truly interested in the real facts around my case and the legalities of this issue should obtain the paperwork filed in this matter. I am listed in the local phone directory if you need assistance in this regard. But why waste time attacking one another with pointless and prejudicial opinions when the underlying issue is what we should be discussing.
465there

Westcliffe, CO

#14 Jan 11, 2010
WOW! Someone stands and says 'Hey I have some fact to bring up. Will you be able to show me what and why." Is that wrong? NO WAY. I'm keeping my eye and ear on this one.

Since: Jan 10

Lamar

#15 Jan 11, 2010
I would first like to thank "not a sheep" for the kind words shared above.

Secondly, has anybody besides me noticed that the "Judge It" statistics are missing from several of the posts. Some of them had reached into the hundreds of positive feedback. One was nearly a thousand early this morning.

What is happening here? Does anybody know?
ywoods

Lamar, CO

#16 Jan 11, 2010
I would like to commend Mr. Garriss for standing up for what he believes, and I agree with his point.

Since: Jan 10

Westcliffe, CO

#18 Jan 12, 2010
When is government going to follow the law of the Colorado Constitution? I realize this is a huge issue and see why a county judge does not want to address the issue. If there would be a ruling on this case in favor of Mr. Garriss it would expose the fraud in the whole traffic system in Colorado. Many state expenditures are funded by traffic courts.

If everyone reading this would go to their county clerk or call them, you can request a disclosure of what your court brings in
from revenue from the traffic court. This can be done through the Colorado Open Records Act. The results are going to be astounding. Take a stand and go and sit in a traffic infraction proceeding one day at your local court. I plan to do it in my county, lets post it here for the world to see. I think these facts would be very interesting.
logger

Missoula, MT

#19 Jan 12, 2010
I understand that a lot of people are taken back when they are confronted by Randy, but if you take the time with an open mind you will realize that he makes a lot of sense.

Since: Jan 10

Lamar

#20 Jan 13, 2010
where is the law wrote:
If there would be a ruling on this case in favor of Mr. Garriss it would expose the fraud in the whole traffic system in Colorado. Many state expenditures are funded by traffic courts.
The conflict of interest present here should be apparent to everyone. Talk to the average person, or even to someone with an IQ of 75, and they readily understand that traffic tickets are primarily about the collection of revenue. This can be seen by the common and cynical expression of people directed at the court system that "Its all about money". Sad huh? The purpose of the Court system is to administer justice; why has it's purpose been converted into a mechanism to collect revenue on an unprecedented scale? Anybody hear ching, ching, ching besides me?

Colorado Rules for Trafic Infractions, Rule 1 states, "The referee shall ensure that evidence shall be offered and questioning shall be conducted in an orderly and expeditious manner and according to basic notions of fairness."
Now whose "notions of fairness" are we talking about? Those held by one who is paid by the same entitity that we are charged by? Hmmmmmmm?
And by what evidentiary standards are these "notions of fairness" to be applied? Well, the Rules for Traffic Infractions, Rule 11(c) states, "The Colorado Rules of Evidence do not apply to hearings under these rules." So then what body of rules are we going to use in establishing standards of evidence?

Without evidentiary standards we are left with "notions of fairness". Almost laughable huh? Except that such standards fail to meet the required constitutional process and are consequently in violation of the due process standard mandated by the citizens of this state in the state Constitution at Article II, Section 8, Clause 2.
You are told in one of these proceedings that you are presumed innocent and can be convicted only by evidence establishing proof beyond a reasonable doubt? However, without a body of Rules establishing evidentiary standards how can one determine if certain evidence rises to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt? I suppose we are left to rely upon the judges "notion of fairness", huh? We sorta knew that deep inside when we entered their Court didn't we?

Its sad that this sort of unconstitutional procedure has converted the Courts in an arbitrary ad hoc forum controlled by notions of fairness, which many people describe as a Kangaroo Court, dont you think? When and where will we ever get justice?
Laura Wilson

Colorado Springs, CO

#21 Jan 13, 2010
Randy Garriss is far above the majority (human excrement) that has mass and takes up space in this country. The 5% that engaged and won the original American Revolution has descendants that are living, preparing and making their own bullets in preparation of American Revolution II. For the 95% that will soon be crying and moaning because their offspring is extinguished, well, all I can say is that they should have shut off the Broncos game, Desperate Housewives, American Idol and Mainstream Media News (pulling the TV drug needle out of their veins)and gained a few I.Q. points by listening to people like Randy Garriss and the countless thousands of real Patriots that have tried everything to get the brain dead public to give a damn about the state and federal consitiutions and about getting the criminal element out of our governments. Hoo Ahh !
Laura Wilson

Colorado Springs, CO

#22 Jan 13, 2010
I would like to add that during the first week of December 2009, several people, including myself, sat for five days in an El Paso County District Court Room and observed a jury trial. The defendant was acquitted of six felony counts because the jury believed that the defendant's constitutional rights had been violated by a Magistrate, local Sheriff, and several El Paso County Employees. We all heard the Deputy District Attorney say in open court that the "Constitution is Irrelevant" (of course, the actual court transcript cannot be acquired for 90 days). We also heard a sheriff's deputy testify on the witness stand that he had taken his oath to defend and protect the constitutions (state and federal) but that he had never read either one. You may reach me at exposingcorrupgovt@gmail.com. My Dad is resting in a veteran's cemetery - and the Deputy District Attorney says the "Constitution is Irrelevant" - and the DA (Dan May)is now running for Governor for the State of Colorado. Randy Garriss should be the next Governor for Colorado! Any man or woman violating or backing up the violation of our constitutions is spitting in the faces of our forefathers, our veterans and our people and should be executed (shot)for treason and sedition. Especially Judges and Government paid people (DA's too). American Revolution II is coming soon to a street near you !

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Lamar Ledger Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Matthew S. "Biggie" Lyons - Lamar Ledger (Feb '10) Jul '14 Topanga Goebel 4
Herbert D. Reyher - Lamar Ledger (Nov '09) Jun '14 Theodore Wells 3
Four arrested on drug charges - Lamar Ledger (Jun '10) Dec '13 concerned 26
Women's Clinic move sidelined - Lamar Ledger (Dec '09) Sep '13 Alfred 5
PMC and High Plains at odds - Lamar Ledger (Sep '09) Sep '13 Jesus 20
Prowers Medical Group awarded VA contract - Lam... (May '11) Sep '13 Xander 3
Lamar Fire Chief pushes volunteers to disband a... (Sep '12) Sep '12 Worried 1
More from around the web