You are still entering into a binding contract.
The contract has nothing to do with you being guilty though. All the contact says is that you will appear in court to face the accusation that you committed a crime.
The court system is the only institution that is able to make the conclusion that you committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt
Regardless of your guilt or innocence it entangles you into a contractual agreement that you do not willfully wish to enter into. If you do not you will usually be arrested in most jurisdictions. Any contract where you are forced to sign under duress is not valid, but in this case it has the full weight of contract law behind it in addition to any criminal penalties.
A ticket is merely a summons to appear in court, and your signature is merely your acknowledgment of receipt of the summons. In the event that you refuse to sign the ticket, you are correct that you would likely be arrested, however when you are brought before a magistrate you would likely be released on your own recognize after the magistrate can document that you have been served the summons to later appear in court to face the charge.
When you are summoned to appear in court you do not have a choice as to if you wish to appear or not, it is an order to appear.
You are describing to me what happens according to policy during a ticket. It is a fact signing a ticket is a BINDING CONTRACT with a corporation, regardless of how many thousands of other ways you can also describe it.
What exactly are you claiming that the contract is binding you do? From what I can tell a ticket is a summons for you to appear in court and your signature is your acknowledgment of you being served such summons. Can you give a different explanation as to what your signature means on a ticket?
-snip-
The Police Officer is instructed to explain that your signature is merely an acknowledgment that you received a copy of the CITATION but in actuality, your signature is notification to the Court and Judge that you have accepted or CONSENTED to this offer to CONTRACT, which also grants the Judge CONSENT; PERSONAM and SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction over you and the case!
-snip
So you are claiming that by signing a ticket you are acknowledging that the subject court has jurisdiction over the subject case? If this is the case then what is the downside to consenting to this? You should have the same rights if your case is heard in the 1st district or the 2nd district (for example), and in the event the court makes an incorrect ruling then you can appeal to a higher court which can correct any incorrect ruling.
The down side of this is you are not required to, and any contract that is forced and signed under duress is not legally enforceable. By signing the ticket you submit to jurisdiction as well as all of the terms written on the ticket. You are entering into a binding agreement regardless of what you think your rights are.
Okay, so the ticket is not legally enforceable. I don't think the police make mistakes regarding jurisdiction very often, and when they do, any mistake the court makes can be reversed via the appeals process. However I would say in the vast majority of cases, even if you did not provide consent to the court having jurisdiction, the court would find that they do have jurisdiction based on the facts of the case.
Also per your own argument, any contract entered into in duress is not enforceable, therefore any disadvantage you receive from consenting to jurisdiction could be reversed in the event that the court in fact does not have jurisdiction.
You are completely missing the point. You don't HAVE TO submit to ANYTHING to begin with. The legal system isn't just making mistakes, it is broken on a systematic level and you are clearly incapable of perceiving this reality. You have to know how to extract your rights by understanding the law. Just doing what they tell you to do is a recipe for your own servitude. The system is not there to serve you, it is here to consume you.
