+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 30

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    Traffic court uses one witness, paid by the government, to give them opportunity to decide on your guilt.

    A traffic violation, whether we call it a "violation" or "infraction', is actually a violation of criminal law.

    But the 5th amendment tells us that the accused, in any criminal case, cannot be forced to give testimony against himself, and the 6th amendment says in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy...an impartial jury.

    When you appear in traffic court, you are asked whether you plead guilty or decide to fight the charges.

    If you fight, the testimony of the officer who ticketed you will be given, which means that the entire proceedings is biased.

    The plaintiff, or accuser works for the government, the prosecution works for the government, and the judge is sworn to uphold the laws of the government.

    But if the accused cannot be made to testify against himself, this means that the court must presume innocence until proven guilty, while at the same time, it pays a government employee to presume guilt!

    In effect, the court is saying, "We know we are to presume you innocent, and we know we can't make you testify, but we have provided for a witness to presume you guilty so that you will be guilty".

    Of course, if you had murdered, raped, or molested someone, the government would bend over backwards to protect your rights.

    But, when the government itself is the accuser, it says nothing about your rights against it, even though Jefferson wrote that we have rights that no government can touch.

    The common law, on which the Constitution is based, says that the defendant has the right of "due process" of law, which was defined by Justice Joseph Story as a legal procedure of indictment and presentment.

    IOW, you must be indicted before prosecuted. If you kill someone, you are indicted by a Grand Jury, but if you are not wearing a seat belt, you are indicted by a process called "information".

    IOW, the officer who ticketed you provides information to the court that you committed a crime. If you accept that, you will pay a fine, but you may unwittingly provide the "information" that will convict you if you swear an oath and decide to fight the charge.

    If you take the witness stand and swear an oath, you have just legally waived your rights under the 5th and 6th amendments, though you can appeal the verdict, which will most assuredly be guilty, since you gave the court permission to find you guilty.

    The founding fathers of the US detested indictment by information, since England used it convict people who had harmed no one. Te 6th amendment was intended as a protection against indictment by information.

    And, if you happen to be religious and believe in Jefferson's statement that we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights, simply read Deuteronomy 19:15, which tells us that no person can be convicted of ANY crime with less than two witnesses.

    Traffic court routinely convicts us on the word of one witness, and pays him for that purpose. What a scam!

    Since the only justification for the judge's power in traffic court is a uniformed man with a gun, all defendants should be allowed to carry their own gun into court to keep things honest.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,562

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by doojie View Post
    Traffic court uses one witness, paid by the government, to give them opportunity to decide on your guilt.

    A traffic violation, whether we call it a "violation" or "infraction', is actually a violation of criminal law.

    But the 5th amendment tells us that the accused, in any criminal case, cannot be forced to give testimony against himself, and the 6th amendment says in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy...an impartial jury.

    When you appear in traffic court, you are asked whether you plead guilty or decide to fight the charges.

    If you fight, the testimony of the officer who ticketed you will be given, which means that the entire proceedings is biased.

    The plaintiff, or accuser works for the government, the prosecution works for the government, and the judge is sworn to uphold the laws of the government.

    But if the accused cannot be made to testify against himself, this means that the court must presume innocence until proven guilty, while at the same time, it pays a government employee to presume guilt!

    In effect, the court is saying, "We know we are to presume you innocent, and we know we can't make you testify, but we have provided for a witness to presume you guilty so that you will be guilty".

    Of course, if you had murdered, raped, or molested someone, the government would bend over backwards to protect your rights.

    But, when the government itself is the accuser, it says nothing about your rights against it, even though Jefferson wrote that we have rights that no government can touch.

    The common law, on which the Constitution is based, says that the defendant has the right of "due process" of law, which was defined by Justice Joseph Story as a legal procedure of indictment and presentment.

    IOW, you must be indicted before prosecuted. If you kill someone, you are indicted by a Grand Jury, but if you are not wearing a seat belt, you are indicted by a process called "information".

    IOW, the officer who ticketed you provides information to the court that you committed a crime. If you accept that, you will pay a fine, but you may unwittingly provide the "information" that will convict you if you swear an oath and decide to fight the charge.

    If you take the witness stand and swear an oath, you have just legally waived your rights under the 5th and 6th amendments, though you can appeal the verdict, which will most assuredly be guilty, since you gave the court permission to find you guilty.

    The founding fathers of the US detested indictment by information, since England used it convict people who had harmed no one. Te 6th amendment was intended as a protection against indictment by information.

    And, if you happen to be religious and believe in Jefferson's statement that we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights, simply read Deuteronomy 19:15, which tells us that no person can be convicted of ANY crime with less than two witnesses.

    Traffic court routinely convicts us on the word of one witness, and pays him for that purpose. What a scam!

    Since the only justification for the judge's power in traffic court is a uniformed man with a gun, all defendants should be allowed to carry their own gun into court to keep things honest.
    Sorry you got a ticket man. How fast were you going? Feel better after venting a little?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by cirussell View Post
    Sorry you got a ticket man. How fast were you going? Feel better after venting a little?
    My conclusions are correct. prove them wrong.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    7,767

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    it is the position of the state that driving is a priviledge, not a right. you have to pass a test before you drive. the test makes sure you are informed that you must stop, yeild and maintain your speed as the rules require, or your driving priviledge will be revoked. people make mistakes. if its your first mistake and minor, you are given the opportunity, to pay a fine and/or attend driver training. you don't have to pay or do anything. you just will no longer have a license.

    the police officer is just sitting in his car, reading the output from the radar, just doing his job, which is usually whatever his boss tells him to do. in some places, this job is being automated so speeding cars get a ticket right from the machine. either way, you local legislators make the laws and set the fines for offenses high enough to make most people drive carefully to avoid the fines.

    you have already agreed to obey traffic regulations or pay the fines when you got your license. you still have the right to contest whatever you feel is not fair to you. it is you that summons the officer to court and forces him to testify about why he gave you a ticket that you claim is not valid. you could have just mailed in your fine or dropped it off with the clerk.

    you also have the right to remain silent, be confronted by witnesses against you. if the police officer can't come to court that day, your case will be dismissed. if he is in court you are quite free to argue you case to the judge, present evidence and witnesses.

    the police officer isn't being paid to testify against you. he could be out writing tickets on that same road, except that you have summoned him to court by challenging the ticket he wrote you. it is you that have claimed he is wrong and dragged him before a judge. this is why it is you that needs to have something to say in your own defense.

    he only needs to say that he is doing what the government employs him to do, which is improve safety on the highway.

    i think sealbelt laws are wrong. this is an argument to make with my local legislator, not the police, or the judge.

    they say, requiring seatbelt use avoids injury. i have my own way, "slow down, pay attention, don't hit anything."

    works for me.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    27,212

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    seatbelts save lives!? and besides, they also reduce injuries and the associated costs AND raise profits for insurers!? seems we humans have a PROBLEM with RESTRAINT!? of any kind!? just let us live or die and go our way!? our OWN unrestrained way!? that IS the solution to UNhappiness is it not!? and unhappiness is the ONLY problem there is!? everything ELSE is just details!? :freak3: :spin2: :
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    923

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    Mumbles is correct. Driving is a privilege. You agree to the terms of driving and promise to obey the "Rules of the Road" when you receive your license. This includes all you have listed in your whining rant, and more. It is not subject to the constitutional rights, as due process does not apply to infractions. An infraction is not subject to any criminal conviction or sentence. You cannot be sentenced to incarceration for any infraction. Fines or other privilege related penalties apply to violations of the rules you have agreed to. You are not entitled to trial by jury. It is not a crime. If, for any reason, you do become jailed in regards to an infraction, it is either your choice, or due to your conduct. You are not subject to incarceration due to the infraction itself. A judge, elected or otherwise sitting, is not required to hear an infraction contest. Any impartial magistrate, judge, magistrate or judge pro tem, or constable may sit the bench, hear the case, and determine responsibility. It isn't a "judgment", as referred to with higher violations (actual crimes).

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by dm1906 View Post
    Mumbles is correct. Driving is a privilege. You agree to the terms of driving and promise to obey the "Rules of the Road" when you receive your license. This includes all you have listed in your whining rant, and more. It is not subject to the constitutional rights, as due process does not apply to infractions. An infraction is not subject to any criminal conviction or sentence. You cannot be sentenced to incarceration for any infraction. Fines or other privilege related penalties apply to violations of the rules you have agreed to. You are not entitled to trial by jury. It is not a crime. If, for any reason, you do become jailed in regards to an infraction, it is either your choice, or due to your conduct. You are not subject to incarceration due to the infraction itself. A judge, elected or otherwise sitting, is not required to hear an infraction contest. Any impartial magistrate, judge, magistrate or judge pro tem, or constable may sit the bench, hear the case, and determine responsibility. It isn't a "judgment", as referred to with higher violations (actual crimes).
    Very well stated, but incorrect. An infraction is a violation of criminal law, and the 5th Amendment guarantees the right against self incrimination in all criminal cases. The 6th Amendment also states that the accused shall ENJOY an unbiased Jury in all criminal prosecutions. To say that I'm prosecuting the cop because he gave me a ticket is ridiculous. He is paid by the government to ticket me and then act as a witness against me, and I can go a long way back into law to show that this is incorrect.

    As for the argument that I'm hauling the policeman to the court and challenging him, I would have no need if he hadn't invaded my privacy in an act which would harm no one but me.

    The assumption that driving is a privilege is absurd. How does one make a living without driving? Personally, if I could make a living and not have to drive, I would never touch the damn car or truck again. But it's necessary to my financial survival, which makes it a necessity, and therefore a right to take care of my family. It is an extension of the right of self preservation.

    To simply say, "It's only an infraction and not an actual crime" is to fudge with the law itself, and there is no authority whatever to do so.

    As we see in the 5th Amendment, the reference is to any criminal case. In the 6th, it is to all criminal prosecutions.

    In the 14th Amendment, we see that no state shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.

    To take a "de facto" concept of law as extension from a "de jure" law based on immediate necessity is a violation of plain statements in the Constitution.
    Last edited by doojie; 06-21-2009 at 04:51 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Gazza. View Post
    Does the same apply when a kid who's wearing a seatbelt slams head-on into your car at 60mph. He lives, you die in the front seat of his car!

    Does that work for you too?
    You seem to ignore several factors here, or you don;t explain them clearly. Was the "kid" driving the car? Was he driving recklessly?

    If so, then it wasn't about seat belts. It was about a way of driving that was a threat to others.

    The seat belt law, of itself, can only be considered protection of an individual from himself.

    That means, when you walk into court, the only one who can bring charges for damage against you is you. You are the only one who is threatened in this matter, and the law says you can't be made to testify against yourself in any criminal case.

    Therefore, the government, acting to protect you from you, assumes that it is you by paying an officer to find you guilty of a crime that can only be against you.

    But that's a lawsuit in civil court, not a criminal violation.

    While crime is defined as a law against the state, applying to all individual citizens equally(Maimonides made that assertion of "due process" centuries before it appeared in English law), there is actually no crime committed, since no one but you can be harmed.

    So, who is bringing charges on your behalf? The state. Who does the policeman work for? The state. Who does the prosecutor work for? The state. Who is the judge sworn to uphold? The state.

    That's bias, clear and simple, since it must presume you guilty, and as rightly claimed above, no crime has been committed.

    Wrongful de facto interpretation of de jure law.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    923

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by doojie View Post
    Very well stated, but incorrect. An infraction is a violation of criminal law, and the 5th Amendment guarantees the right against self incrimination in all criminal cases. The 6th Amendment also states that the accused shall ENJOY an unbiased Jury in all criminal prosecutions. To say that I'm prosecuting the cop because he gave me a ticket is ridiculous. He is paid by the government to ticket me and then act as a witness against me, and I can go a long way back into law to show that this is incorrect.

    As for the argument that I'm hauling the policeman to the court and challenging him, I would have no need if he hadn't invaded my privacy in an act which would harm no one but me.

    The assumption that driving is a privilege is absurd. How does one make a living without driving? Personally, if I could make a living and not have to drive, I would never touch the damn car or truck again. But it's necessary to my financial survival, which makes it a necessity, and therefore a right to take care of my family. It is an extension of the right of self preservation.

    To simply say, "It's only an infraction and not an actual crime" is to fudge with the law itself, and there is no authority whatever to do so.

    As we see in the 5th Amendment, the reference is to any criminal case. In the 6th, it is to all criminal prosecutions.

    In the 14th Amendment, we see that no state shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.

    To take a "de facto" concept of law as extension from a "de jure" law based on immediate necessity is a violation of plain statements in the Constitution.
    You are correct, in part. You are not required to have a driver license to drive. You have a right to drive a car. You are, however, required to be licensed to drive on any thoroughfare maintained by the public for motor vehicle travel. This required, because the operation of a vehicle in public, in the presence of other vehicle operators in public, you must be responsible and obey the same rules as everyone else. Failure to do so will likely effect the health, welfare, and livelihood of other operators in public. Acceptance of the license is a contract, with the licensee promising to obey the rules of the road, or pay fines if they don't. If you are accused of an infraction, you are afforded an opportunity to face your accuser, present evidence, provide witnesses, and cross examine witnesses against you. This during a hearing, not a trial. You cannot be sentenced to incarceration or any punishment other than a monetary fine, for being an incompetent driver. An infraction is not a criminal act. Please define "criminal act", if you believe otherwise. You are not required, by any means, to "answer" for what you have been accused. You may pay your fine, never stepping foot in a courtroom, and not be feared of reprisal. An infraction is a violation of a rule, which you promised to obey. There is no "victim" to accuse you. Only witness(es) to account the event. Consult Webster for the definition of "infraction". An infraction, in short, is a "public offense". Meaning, all licensed drivers are entered into the same contract, and each agrees to operate a motor vehicle in a responsible manner, respecting the travels of others. By violating the rules, you have disrupted the travels of others, by placing others at risk of inconvenience, injury, death, or loss of property.

    The only "law" that applies, in this argument, is the basic requirement law. It varies from state to state, but all have the same basic requirement. You must be licensed (contracted) to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways, and the condition of the contract is to obey the rules of the road. Failure to do so is subject to fine.

    This is the law. Enforce the law, or change it. You, by proxy, have made these laws and rules. If you don't like them, elect representatives who will change the law and rules to what you believe is right. Or run for office and make the changes yourself. Good luck.

    If you take issue with the credibility or integrity of the traffic enforcers, you are free to change the laws that govern them, as well.

    Your argument seems to hinge on what is a crime and what is not. Try reading the Amendments to the US Constitution, and that of your state.

    In any case, you agree to these terms upon acceptance of your driver license. If you feel these are a violation of your Constitutional Rights, well, you waved them when you posed for the picture and signed your contract. Your alternative is to preserve these "rights", and not be a licensed driver. Simple as that. It's a choice, and no one has forced anything upon you.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    7,767

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    gazza. my plan also doesn't help if the sun explodes, but so far, it works pretty well driving around town where speed limit is usually less than 50 and there is a radar gun and cop posted on many streets. cops ask me why i don't always buckle up and i say because i am usually on a motorcycle.

    it is not consistant with "freedom" for the police to be stopping and correcting citizens that are not doing anything harmful to other people. if i feel sad will the cop follow me home and stay with me to make sure i don't harm myself? will he go bungee jumping and sky diving with me to make sure i am safe?
    Last edited by mumbles; 06-21-2009 at 07:23 PM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by dm1906 View Post
    Failure to do so will likely effect the health, welfare, and livelihood of other operators in public.

    Except for seat belt violations. An unfastened seat belt can in now way affect anyone but yourself. If you drive recklessly, or if your behavior should affect others, by all means, pass laws for protection.


    Acceptance of the license is a contract, with the licensee promising to obey the rules of the road, or pay fines if they don't.
    The Constitution is also a contract, prohibiting any contract that abridges privileges or immunities.


    If you are accused of an infraction, you are afforded an opportunity to face your accuser, present evidence, provide witnesses, and cross examine witnesses against you. This during a hearing, not a trial.
    A hearing, precisely. However, to say that it is not a crime simply because it has been declared an infraction is an abridgement of privileges and immunities, even assuming that driver's licenses are a privilege. Why?

    Because there is no provision made in the Constitution for anything not a crime, nor is there any provision made by which something may be declared an offense or violation except in criminal, civil, or admiralty law.

    In a hearing, with evidence presented against you, the assumption of a violation is created with evidence provided by 'information". This information is provided by an officer of the law, paid by the law, giving the defendant no opportunity for the presumption of innocence by the law.

    The basic principle of Due Process, as established by the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments, along with the 14th, allows immunity against procedures in regard to offenses and crime.

    The statement given in the Declaration of Independence is quite clear, we are given inalienable rights by our creator, and every state's Preamble recognizes the authority of God in some form.

    Quite simply, a defendant might point to Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15, showing that no prosecution for any offense at all can begin without at least two witnesses.

    The historical connection between Jewish law, right against self incrimination in all cases, immunity for all violations with no witnesses, can be established.

    Even trial by Jury can be traced to Jewish practices established in ancient England by Jews ho used six Christians and six Jewish jurors, leading to trial by jury as a right of the accused.


    You cannot be sentenced to incarceration or any punishment other than a monetary fine, for being an incompetent driver. An infraction is not a criminal act. Please define "criminal act", if you believe otherwise.
    Blackstone has defined a criminal act as any act against the state. In fact, any action ruled a violation by the state must fall into the category of criminal law, as it will not fit civil or admiralty law.

    You are not required, by any means, to "answer" for what you have been accused. You may pay your fine, never stepping foot in a courtroom, and not be feared of reprisal.

    While you are required to answer a writ advising you to appear in court or simply waive your rights, any attempt to ignore the writ and not accept guilt will land you in jail and you will face reprisal. That is not the presumption of innocence.

    If you do appear at court, you are not required to present testimony under oath, nor should the officer of the law be allowed to present such evidence, since that creates a biased courtroom.

    Adams, Jefferson, and the colonists detested such practices, and included the 6th Amendment precisely because it was conviction without trial by jury.

    An infraction is a violation of a rule, which you promised to obey. There is no "victim" to accuse you. Only witness(es) to account the event.
    Regardless of the idea of a victim or witness, the witness is paid by the same law that convicts, making the judicial process a violation of rights, privileges, and immunities.

    Consult Webster for the definition of "infraction". An infraction, in short, is a "public offense". Meaning, all licensed drivers are entered into the same contract, and each agrees to operate a motor vehicle in a responsible manner, respecting the travels of others.
    Even concluding that to be true, a seat belt violation in no way restricts the travel of others, nor does it threaten their security.


    The only "law" that applies, in this argument, is the basic requirement law. It varies from state to state, but all have the same basic requirement. You must be licensed (contracted) to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways, and the condition of the contract is to obey the rules of the road. Failure to do so is subject to fine.
    No law takes precedence over the Constitution, which plainly says no state shall make or enforce any law which abridges the privileges and immunities of citizens of the US. Claiming that one enters into contract of his/her own free will in the acquiring of a license is merely to play with words, since all of us are dependent on driving the highways in some form just to live.

    You will notice very specifically that "the pursuit of happiness" is listed as an inalienable right. Driving on the highways is described as a pursuit of happiness, since the very act of driving places you in the pursuit of something that brings fulfillment in some form. It is inalienable. Seat belt laws are a complete violation of that right, and other Constitutional arguments can be made.

    This is the law. Enforce the law, or change it.
    Law can say whatever it will, but rights against self incrimination, immunity against prosecution, rights against warrants, these are centuries old, and not to be violated by any law. This idea of "Due process" was established by Chief Justice Edward Coke of England before there was a US. These concepts have been connected to Magna Carta and can even be traced to the Bible, so they are inalienable and not touchable by any law. To say that one enters a contract that violates these inalienable rights is a violation by the state, not the individual.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    923

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    You are not required to drive. You choose your means and lifestyle. Many people work, provide for themselves and family, and do quite well, never having driven a car. You choose where you live, where you work, and how to get between them. Theoretically, you could live and work 20 miles apart. You aren't required to drive, or take advantage of any modern form of transportation. You could walk. Not practical, but you could, and are free to do so. If you need to go to the hospital, you can walk. If you can't walk, the hospital will send transportation for you (ambulance). Or, pay a doctor to drive to your home and care for you. If he rides up on a horse, or walks, he's on your side.

    The Constitution is NOT a set of laws. The Constitution is a list of things the government cannot impose upon you. Any of these rights can be waved, at your choosing (a right in itself, also preserved by the Constitution). You cannot be forced to give up any of these rights. You cannot be forced to accept a driver license.

    If you don't like the rules of driving, or traffic court, don't drive. That simple.

    And, who said anything about seatbelts? You? Mumbles? Not me. That's an issue to be taken with your legislature. You know, those guys (and gals) you sent to your state capitol to make laws and rules on your behalf. If you were driving before the seatbelt laws went into effect, and are now unhappy with the new requirement, you are absolutely free to stop driving. You are not required to wear a seatbelt in a car. Only when that car is operated upon a public roadway.

    The traffic enforcers are paid by the state. The judge is paid for by the state. You are the state, or more properly, "the people". If you have an issue with the credibility or integrity of the enforcers, change the requirements governing their credibility and integrity. You (the people) have decided the rules will be enforced and processed upon violation, by these enforcers.

    And, a traffic infraction is, in effect, a civil matter. Your violation of a rule is your infringement upon other persons (who also have rights, BTW), by violating rules of the contract you entered by accepting a driver license. It is the other drivers on the road requiring you to follow the rules, or pay a fine.

    Still, it is the same at the end of the day. If you don't like the conditions associated with legal driving, don't drive. You are not required, in any way, to do so.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by mumbles View Post
    gazza. my plan also doesn't help if the sun explodes, but so far, it works pretty well driving around town where speed limit is usually less than 50 and there is a radar gun and cop posted on many streets. cops ask me why i don't always buckle up and i say because i am usually on a motorcycle.

    it is cot consistant with "freedom" for the police to be stopping and correcting citizens that are not doing anything harmful to other people. if i feel sad will the cop follow me home and stay with me to make sure i don't harm myself? will he go bungee jumping and sky diving with me to make sure i am safe?
    Funny that you don't extend this same argument to people who want to smoke dope in their own homes. In that case you're quite happy for the police to get involved and make sure you don't "harm" yourself.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    923

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by kazza View Post
    Funny that you don't extend this same argument to people who want to smoke dope in their own homes. In that case you're quite happy for the police to get involved and make sure you don't "harm" yourself.
    Yep. The good ol' double-standard-flim-flam.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    7,767

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    the police are coming in your house to make to stop smoking dope? haven't heard of that. i have heard of many deaths involving drug traffic, including the execution of entire police forces along the border with mexico.

    i smoke ciggies and occasionally pot if somebody offers. i drink socially. i am not any kind of nazi.

    its just obvious if pot or alcohol is the most important thing in your life you are and will remain a failure. the people i see that use the most are those that can least afford it, those we have to support thru our generous donations to the socialist welfare system.

    if people didn't spend anything for pot, wouldn't that be enough money to pay for healthcare for everybody? i think so. now, the choice is yours, pot or healthcare?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA/Menashe
    Posts
    1,582

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by dm1906 View Post
    Mumbles is correct. Driving is a privilege.
    Apparently Soetoro/Obama has his own "private law" that enables him to drive our country into the ground, failing to show his "drivers' license."

Similar Threads

  1. My first time in traffic court
    By Administrator in forum General Chat
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 04-07-2014, 03:45 AM
  2. My first time in traffic court
    By Administrator in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 01-15-2014, 07:44 PM
  3. The Law is unConstitutional!
    By doojie in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-13-2010, 08:56 AM
  4. Traffic Ultimatum or Traffic Voodoo
    By BilldaCowboy in forum Mail Order Scams
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-05-2010, 07:05 AM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-22-2007, 11:26 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •