With the unsigned plea of guilty the judge will commit three major fundamental fairness/due process violations at an arraignment (this does not mean a ticket will always get kicked). This is evidence of a violation of "due process" which allows for appeal. The behavior is the same regardless of state/political boundaries.
By intending on pleading guilty and asking for evidence that the prosecutor is supposed to have, we expose the system when the judge refuses to address the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction. All judges will lie, claiming jurisdiction is a trial issue instead of discussing the evidence (often entering a plea of not guilty on one's behalf without consent). The judge may do this when one refuses to enter a plea or one cannot be ascertained. An unsigned plea of guilty proves the judge is denying "due process".
The four errors committed are:
Lying that jurisdiction is a trial issue.
Lying that one refuses to enter a plea.
Lying/assuming jurisdiction, an essential element of a crime (applicability of the code), is already established on behalf of the prosecutor.
Lying that one is "innocent until proven guilty" but refusing to address a challenge to the subject-matter jurisdiction.
The judge will demand one takes their pretrial date and leave. It is best to object, point out the above lies by asking: "Please explain how one can assume the laws apply to me at the same time the court is supposed to presume innocence?" but expect a non-responsive answer or none at all (maybe a threat of contempt of court for asking questions).
One can then file a motion to disqualify the judge and vacate the plea using the four issues above. Remember, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Can one be presumed innocent if jurisdiction is already assumed? All elements (including jurisdiction) of a crime (civil or criminal) must be proven.