Suing a Police Officer for Lying Under Oath

My question involves defamation in the state of: Rhode Island


I had recently decided to fight several no seat belt tickets.

Upon looking over all the paperwork. I noticed the ticket, was also the complaint. I started to investigate and discovered, that a complaint or cause of action, has to have specific elements, or it can be dismissed, upon motion by the defense for failure to state claim.

These elements in negligence are.
Duty
Breach
Proximate cause
Remedy

The ticket has 3, and is lacking Proximate cause.

In the law, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to a legally recognizable injury to be held the cause of that injury. ~~~From Wiki

So, I asked the officer.

Did you file a valid cause of action?

He didn't know the answer, the judge said you mean complaint, I said yes, cause of action or a complaint.

The officer said Yes.

I said what are the elements in your valid cause of action?

You can imagine the nonsense that erupted!!!

And get this...no one knew what the hell I was talking about..I HAD TO TELL THEM!!

So anyway, he babbled off, what he thought were the elements, total nonsense.

By saying he filled out a valid complaint or cause of action, and then not knowing what the heck it was,,is that not perjury?


Thanks
Rob

I'm not sure if you're serious or if your trolling... So I must ask: Proximate cause for what? You not wearing your seatbelt or the officer citing you as part of of his duty to enforce the laws?

Proximate cause is injury or loss as the result of an action

So in a complaint/Ticket of the action or neglect of not wearing a seat belt. What loss or injury was caused by me not wearing a seat belt. There was no loss or injury.


This is from Wikipedia

The points a plaintiff must prove to win a given type of case are called the "elements" of that cause of action. For example, for a claim of negligence, the elements are: the (existence of a) duty, breach (of that duty), proximate cause (by that breach), and damages. If a complaint does not allege facts sufficient to support every element of a claim, the court, upon motion by the opposing party, may dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

Perjury is not a cause of action for a civil suit in some states .. google scholar this and see... and he did not commit pejury anyway

Also, I think that once you plead not guilty to a ticket, you accept it as a valid complaint & wave any defects....check you state's practice rules -- you may be able to request a proper complaint to replace the ticket prior to pleading guilty/not guilty.

I dont see a case for you...if you want to play the game, you have to play it right...if you think the elements are not specified in the complaint then file a pre-trial motion to dismiss...

Are you hanging out with Dillon?

There's no need for them to show proximate cause. This isn't a civil action for breach of contract, it's an violation of the statute. Your defense was either to show that there is no proof of the violation, or possibly that some Constitutional liberty (like lack of cause for the stop) would preclude the subsequent evidence from being admissible.

I'm not surprised that there was much confusion in the court with you making those four incidents.
I've not seen where you've made any indication that the police was lying in his testimony.

Did you also tell the judge you got an honorary law degree from Wikipedia ?

Although for some reason, I have a feeling they knew.

Quote:

---

Quoting Robertd123066

---

Upon looking over all the paperwork. I noticed the ticket, was also the complaint. I started to investigate and discovered, that a complaint or cause of action, has to have specific elements, or it can be dismissed, upon motion by the defense for failure to state claim.

---

If you would have posted before court we could have told you your legal assumptions/conclusions are wrong.

PROBABLE CAUSE is needed to write a ticket/summons or arrest. Cause of Action, your terminology, is the basis of a civil complaint.

Assuming you are correct, which you are not, you do know, per the US SC, police officer's enjoy Qualified Immunity in the course and scope of employment.

That in and of itself is a hard burden to overcome to successfully sue an officer for violating your 4th AM rights, that is falsifying probable cause, as you want to claim, but used the wrong terminology.

There was also NO PC falsification.

FlyingRon, Are you a lawyer or just some guy? Because if you are the former, we are in Bigger trouble than I thought after this fiasco in court. Because, how can I read a few articles on Wiki, and get a grasp of how things are suppose to run, not how some one, by writing law, can change your natural rights. And nautural right go something like this. So if the Government decides being fat is not good for you, they can force diet you? Because some guy wrote a law? It's choice. and I have a choice to seat belt or not. That what is to be protected CHOICE.

If I as a person can not stop you and issue you a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt. Then anyone is Government can't. But, if I see a robery in progress, I can intervine as an individual, so Gov can also. Think about that for a second, and now, consider this, if the police, didnt have 15 officers ready to come take you to prison, for $85, and it was just some guy trying to get money from you,,would you pay?

According to the Judge, when I asked, is this Civil trial, he said yes, it is a civil matter. So, it is governed by the rules of civil procedure as far as I am concerened.

As far as constitutionality, there is one clause in the Declaration of Independence, that,,is LAW and actually limits the Government to one purpose and one purpose only,,

It is also said to be the best sentence ever written in the english language too BTW


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

So, this was signed by Congress, making it LAW.

So, by LAW, the government is limited to, protection of peoples rights, and the prosecution there of.

Unless you have a different D.O.I.?

So, I did not violate the right of anyone, and since the Government and the courts are LIMITED BY LAW to protecting rights, the court has no subject matter jurisdiction, because the courts are part of the Government.

Hey,,thats pretty funny Dave,,

Whats even more funny, is, I actually gave the judge the wiki page I had printed out. And he read it,,went hmm,,hmmm,,hmmm,,this is civil court procedure,,,oh but this is traffic court, it doesn't apply, of course contridicting himself from an earlier statement, saying "Traffic court is a Civil matter"

Unfortunately, Robert, you are presently the personification of "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing" - you have misunderstood what you have read and you clearly aren't interested in having anybody here explain to you the way things actually work. I thus suggest that you consult a lawyer who handles defamation or civil rights claims and get set straight in person.

You're still not making ANY sense... For starters, the officer did not write the law... He is merely enforcing it. So why not sue the court for convicting you of the seat belt violation? Better yet, sue the legislature who enacted the law. But even then, you'd be wasting your time and effort. (And NO, before you start down that road, seat belt laws are NOT unconstitutional).

And by the way, do you really think the government can't regulate what you eat? Welcome to 1839, the year that congress enacted laws making what we know today as the USDA (U.S. Dept of Agriculture), its separate division/governmental agency.