Get a ticket for not wearing your seat belt. Hint: The best way to do this is to provoke Officer Friendly by driving around the Town of O*****o in beautiful downtown Wayne County.
Take your ticket (and your subsection 7 compliance) to the Town Court, The (Dis)Honorable R******d P**. H******s presiding.
Attend court on the appointed day. Accept your “guilty” verdict, even though it was based on rogue law.
File a complaint with the proper agencies based upon said rogue law. They won’t even consider your complaint but it will result in a conversation or two with a bald-headed attorney at the Office of the Prosecutor, who will admit to several procedural violations, including but not limited to ex parte discussions between the judge and a certain tree-trunk-legged prosecutor, post-trial editing of the transcript, and other such nonsense.
File an appeal and win your case. Then, wait for the jury duty demand to arrive and attend on the appointed day, when you will disclose to the judge the prior contact you had with said bald-headed attorney (who will pretend he doesn’t recognize you but will nonetheless turn beet-red to the very top of his shiny bald head the moment he sees you).
Watch the defense attorney convulse in laughter when you, the defense attorney, the bald-headed attorney, and the judge all conclude that *someone* was absent from law school the day they taught seat belt law (note, however, that none of this will amuse the judge, who will accuse you of something akin to a hate crime).
Once you are rejected, go home and Google the case for more details. You are allowed to giggle when you discover that the bald-headed attorney deemed you unable to render a fair and impartial verdict based on the facts of a case that had already been tried but was being tried again because the appeals court judge had thrown out the guilty verdict (since “the People failed to present any testimony at the [earlier] hearing concerning…what evidence established that [the] defendant was potentially involved in the crimes”).
Laugh out loud when you read that, on appeal, the People had attempted to excuse their failure to do so on the basis of “hearsay,” “[d]espite the fact that, ‘[a]s a general rule, hearsay is admissible at a suppression hearing (People v Edwards, 95 NY2d 486, 491; see CPL 710.60 ; United States v Raddatz, 447 US 667, 679, reh denied 448 US 916; People v Brink, 31 AD3d 1139, 1140, lv denied 7 NY3d 865). What this means is that the People (via their bald-headed attorney) were barred from using that evidence at this new trial, even though it included the defendant’s confession and stuff found in his car linking him/her to the crime, and this new case would therefore have to rely entirely on circumstantial evidence and maybe even “hearsay.”
Await the jury’s decision while spending your $40 earned thereby from the taxpayers of this state on complete junk while you contemplate the sobering fact that this trial will ultimately cost the taxpayers a whole lot more.
BONUS FOR EXTRA POINTS: Wait several weeks and then strike up a conversation with another rejected juror while waiting in line at a local fast-food restaurant. Note, you are permitted to laugh uncontrollably when you discover thereby that the defendant was pronounced not guilty by a jury (selected in part by the bald-headed attorney for the People) whose combined IQ was evidently far less than any one of us who were deemed “unable to render a fair and impartial verdict based on the facts.”