+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 17 to 30 of 30

  1. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by mumbles View Post
    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?
    Could say the same thing about cigarettes. I'm sure far more is spent on cigarettes than is spent on pot.

  2. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    7,767

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    you will be pleased to know that i pay near $6 a pack for ciggies made by machine for a few cents. the cost is taxes added by local, state and federal government to defray healthcare costs that the government might have to pay and has paid in the past for poor people that can't pay their own hospital bill after smoking themselves to death.

    the cost is also meant as a deterent to teenagers to prevent their becoming addicted, as presumably, they can't afford to buy something so expensive. this means they have to smoke more pot and less tobacco, i guess.

  3. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    Count yourself lucky. Cigarettes are almost double that here, though I quit smoking some time ago so they may have risen even more.

  4. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    7,767

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    i just smoke so the chics will think i am rich.

  5. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by dm1906 View Post
    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.
    The Constitution is not about requirements. It is about rights, privileges, and immunities, and if you look at the definition of all three terms as they have evolved in Supreme Court history, you will see that there is no difference.


    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.
    But you forget the very important statement in the declaration of Independence, which says that the pursuit of happiness cannot be taken away from a person, nor can that person's privileges or immunities be infringed by any state(14th amendment).

    If I need to get to the hospital, or simply pursue happiness, so long as I harm no other, that is an inalienable right(or privilege, take your pick) which no state can violate.



    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).
    Precisely. They can be waived, which brings us to a little right that applies to elected officials. I ran for state office a while back, and I was given this little "committee to elect" form. I found that this form was said to be a requirement, yet I could find no law listed by my state that required it.

    The reason is, the state cannot make such a law, because that form gives the state permission to inquire into your personal affairs without your permission, which is a violation of the 4th amendment. If you sign it, you are said to have legally waived your rights. But in legally waiving your rights, you no longer have the immunities of citizenship, and are no longer protected as a citizen, which means, to all intents and purposes, you are not a citizen.

    If you look up the definition of "fraud", you will see that it includes any misrepresentation of law by which a person is told he must do something, even though the law protects him from it, and since our Constitution was supposedly designed to protect us from the law itself, then the legislature of each state commits fraud by telling us to sign a "committee to elect" form with no law to give them authority. That is a clear case of fraud, which means that, since the majority of state candidates sign such a form, the legislature is illegal by Constitutional law.

    You cannot be forced to give up any of these rights. You cannot be forced to accept a driver license.
    And yet, you can't drive without one, therefore violating the privileges and immunities which states aren;t allowed to do under the 14th amendment.

    If you don't like the rules of driving, or traffic court, don't drive. That simple.
    I'm sure the British were quick to tell us that in 1776, regarding illegal warrants and high taxation, and in regard to trials by information without juries, but it seems the colonists "whined' that they had a right to these things.

    And, who said anything about seatbelts? You? Mumbles? Not me. That's an issue to be taken with your legislature.
    I said something about seat belts, and used it as an example. And, it;s not a matter to be taken up with the legislature, since the legislature is Constitutionally elected by fraud.

    And, even if it's not, you will notice in both the declaration of Independence and the Constitution that the rights and privileges of citizens exist on two levels:
    1.Inalenable right of any person, given by his creator, not to be touched by law
    2. Right of people collectively to alter or abolish laws that violate perceived rights.

    This same structure exists within the Constitution in the 5th and 14th Amendments.

    No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

    If we trace "due process" to its origins, we see that the founders equated it with "law of the land", as provided by Lord Chief Justice Edward Coke of England, who greatly influenced our Constitution.

    Due process and Law of the land were interchangeable terms that represented ancient laws not to be violated by any legislative act, and those are determined in the "due process' clause of our Constitution.

    We can take the due process clause according to its Jewish origins as stated by Maimonides, which says that as long as the law applies equally, it is rightful, or we can take the definition as applied by jefferson, who was a president and did write the document that legitimized the Constitution, that every person has inalienable right against the law.

    If we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, then we only need to turn to Deuteronomy 19:15 which states speciffically, according to a law recognized by our founders as God's law, that one witness cannot rise up against any person for ANY violation. Two or three witnesses are required, which means that traffic court regularly violates the inalienable rights of citizens. One witness is not even allowed testimony according to God's law, as sworn to each time we take the witness stand, which means that the judge, who has most likely sworn to obey the law, as well as the prosecutor and cop, stand in direct violation of the law on which the swore an oath.

    Deuteronomy says that when this happens, the accuser is to pay the fine he would have imposed on the accused. That's an inalienable right as stated clearly by one who is recognized by millions as our creator.


    And, if you look at the preamble to any state Constitution, you will see this allegiance to God in each of them.

    "Due process", therefore, means the recognition of the rights of every citizen or person as granted inalienable by our creator.


    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.
    A nice bit of rationalization, but the 14th amendment prohibits contracts between citizens and states that abridge pre-existing privileges and immunities. The "crack" used by law is that,m since it is not a crime, it can be regulated y the states. But slavery was not mentioned in the Constitution, yet we had the fugitive slave law that never mentioned slaves. The same principle applied. Since it was not mentioned in the Constitution, it was therefore legal in the states.

    Yet Lincoln clearly stated in his Gettysburg address that the Declaration of Independence was the basis for our new nation, and it stated equality and rights of all.(If you don't believe this, simply subtract "four score and seven years" from 1863, when Lincoln gave the speech).

    The 14th amendment, therefore, guaranteed that no state could violate privileges or immunities of all citizens, and no contract could be legally entered with any state that violated or abridged those privileges and immunities.

    To back that up, we have the 9th Amendment, which says that all rights and privileges are not named in the Constitution, and other rights are retained by the people(including Deuteronomy 19:15 in due process).

    Then there is the 10th amendment telling us that powers not given to the federal government remains within the rights of the states or the people.

    Add that to the 14th amendment, which says even the states cannot abridge existing privileges and immunities, and there is no power of contract by any state to abridge my right or privilege to travel in a car as long as I harm no other.

    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".
    I am not the state. I am one of the people who ordained the state, which makes me superior to the state, with rights to be respected by the state.

    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.
    I gave them no such permission, nor does the Constitution, as I have shown.

    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.
    If it is a civil matter, it would be covered by civil laws as in the 7th amendment, also guaranteeing trial by jury.

    It is the other drivers on the road requiring you to follow the rules, or pay a fine.
    Then the other drivers violate my rights, since no state can make or enforce any law abridging my privileges.

    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.
    And no law, except the law of a gun, prohibits me from doing so.

  6. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    923

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by piran View Post
    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.
    Um.....No.

  7. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    18

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by doojie View Post
    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.
    WRONG!

    If you don't wear your seatbelt, and are involved in a head-on collision, you can easily go flying through both windshields, and injure the passenger or driver of the other vehicle.

    So, yes, violation of seat belt laws does impact others.

  8. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by EddieFox View Post
    WRONG!

    If you don't wear your seatbelt, and are involved in a head-on collision, you can easily go flying through both windshields, and injure the passenger or driver of the other vehicle.

    So, yes, violation of seat belt laws does impact others.
    First, the law was not established to punish someone for what MIGHT happen. It was established to punish that which HAS happened.

    Besides, not waring a seat belt in no way caused the head-on collision. The collision was caused by someone, violating a traffic rule that caused the accident to occur, and it was that person who has committed the crime, or the infraction.

    If traffic court truly represents the people, why can't it even bring one person forward to testify under oath that s/he was actually harmed by the action?

    There is no law in the Constitution regarding an action that is not somehow considered under the heading of crime, which means, by the 10th Amendment and the 14th Amendment, that all rights of the individual are to be protected and cannot be infringed. Since there is no mention of an "infraction" in which no one can claim damage, the government has acted in its own interest, and the judge has violated the Constitution by judging in his own interest. let's see what the "Father" of the Constitution, James Madison, has to say:

    "No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgement, and not improbably, corrupt his integrity.("Federalist" #10)

    Now, we can look at Hamilton;s statement:

    "No man ought certainly to be a judge in his own cause, or in any cause, in respect to which he has the least inter4est or bias....It would be natural, that the judges, as men, should feel a strong predilection to the claims of their own government."

    That is precisely why the 6th Amendment was added, even though Jury trial was already in the main body of the Constitution.

    A defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty in all cases, and the government cannot pay someone to presume guilt. We have an ancient example of such a man. He was called Judas.

  9. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Gazza. View Post
    I would have thought that driving at 60 in a 50 zone is being reckless.

    The accident, itself, may not have been about wearing seatbelts, but if the severity of the injuries by not wearing them is affected, then it becomes a contributing factor.

    To suggest that the seatbelt law is to protect someone from themselves is naive in the extreme because it can also protect people from irresponsible road users...of which there are plenty.



    .

    Again, the cause of the injury is not because of seat belts, but because of one or the other who broke a traffic law and caused the damage. While seat belts may minimize damage, the person who caused the accident is the culprit, and should be punished accordingly. The one not wearing the seat belt has harmed no one, and committed no crime.

  10. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    :shoutingg:priivilege: the legal definition;
    A special and exclusive legal advantage, allowance, permission or right such as a benefit, exemption, power or immunity.

    non-residents of states have privilege where driver's license and laws concerning driver's license are concerned.:judges:
    Last edited by kip; 11-27-2011 at 06:02 AM.

  11. #27

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    I don't think I agree with the "driving isn't a right, it's a privilege" statement as it's generally used. It implies that "You don't have the right to be here unless we (authority) say you can be" kind of a thing.
    I don't see how that makes any sense in fairness or logic. Do I have the right to operate my blender in the kitchen? Yes, I do. Do I have the right to operate a chainsaw in my back yard? How about my Dad's old tractor out in the back 40 acres? Yep - I sure do! I have the right to operate anything I choose.
    Now - do I have the right to use a public roadway, bought and paid for by all of us (the public)? Yes, I do have that right! I can walk down that roadway with my head held high, waving at passer byes just as I can walk into any public building we bought and paid for!
    Regardless of the regulations that are needed to assure a cognitive same-use logic to prevent accidents, I submit that we all, in fact, have the right to drive down our roads!

  12. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    15,510

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    Well said. Very well stated all around.

  13. 01-13-2012, 03:43 PM


  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    3

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    In my opinion, everyone should know all the laws, when he or she is driving, especially these speeding rules. Have you heard that speeding fines changed some months ago? You may get more information there or search other sites on the Internet. New speeding fines are understood to be on the horizon as a result of campaigners’ efforts and the resultant shift in government policy.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    21,809

    Re: Traffic Court Unconstitutional

    Ignorance of the law doesn't excuse your infraction.

    Originally Posted by nomaxim
    Sorry there ''ohein56', but it appears that 'Joecool44' does not have the position that you envision on this topic.

    'Joecool44' has, as a matter of routine, refuted most of your accusations
    Quote Originally Posted by Jax74 View Post
    Some people have the ability to think critically, some do not. ohein obviously doesn't.

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, 08:44 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: 02-23-2007, 12:26 AM

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
  •