speeding tickets

[Kevin Shasteen]

Originally posted by Mikelly:

.., In America we do NOT teach people how to drive. We give them enough information to get into a car, start it, stop it, park it, and get out... Congrats, you passed, now go terrorize society and generate revenue for the commonwealth via fines..., I fail to understand how a country so advanced can impliment such poor standards for drivers education... Germany and Japan set the standards MUCH higher and we could learn a lot from their drivers testing requirements... Mike Kelly

How many times have I asked you guys not to get me goin on Speeding Tickets (hot under collar)

 

Welllll, I have been avoiding this thread up to now. Mike triggered a sore spot w/me. This "Implied" acceptance that we all have to have drivers licenses because w/out a DL the question arises, "How Would Anyone Ever Know How To Drive?"

 

Thousands of accidents ocurr every day in our Nation; and by people who have DL's. So, if the license itself implies that "We now KNOW how to drive" then why is it that so many people, with DL's still have accidents? Hmmm?

 

The reality of a DL is not so that "If you have a DL then you all of a sudden "magically" KNOW how to drive. The purpose of a DL is to generate revenue and to impose/regulate the benefit of Policing Authorities upon those who fall within that jurisdiction.

 

If you merely exercise your God Given Right to Travel, which our Nation enjoyed the first Century of the History of this country, then the Rogue Militant Cops (who ruin the reputation of the few "GOOD POLICE OFFICERS") will "Forcefully" grind you into the ground; is this right(?), of course not.

 

So, we all comply and get a DL. This subjects us to their Commercial Jurisdiction. Now, our DL is only a license to operate within the "Written Rules of Law" (Written Statutes & Codes) which should not to be confused with "The Law" (Natural Law). Your license, which only allows you to operate within the confines of the "Rule of Law"

is violated when you exceed the limits of the "Rule of Law". Because we have entered that jurisdiction-and exceeded the "Limits" of the "Rule of Law", we are then subject to their reprimand, AKA: Fines/Penalties.

 

Even tho we are in their jurisdiction-it is a perverted jurisdiction, and because we are "FREE AMERICANS" they still must obtain our "Consent" to act against us. This is why they demand our "Signature" on citations or somewhere in the punishment stage. Some jurisdictions dont even ask for your signature on citations any more-but you will be signing your signature somewhere along in the process: They must have your consent.

 

This consent is either implied (Verbal) or it is specific (Written). Either way-if and when this contract is offered; if you dont reject it verbally or in written form-then the principles of "Latches & Keys" will bring you within their jurisdiction..sounds like an above board honorable system to me(?)...not!

 

If you dont like what the "Rogue Revenue Raising Militant Cop" is shoving down your throat; then when they ask for you ID, Proof of Insurance & Registration-then you can simply say:

 

"Sure officer-I'ld be glad to show you....after you show me your....(Always be polite),

 

1) Bonding Card &

2) Bond #.

 

He asks, why do you need that?

 

You reply, Because not only do you "Think" you need to ID me-But I also need to ID you!

 

Besides; I need to know who you are for my Lawsuit...he says what lawsuit...you say the lawsuit against you & this city when you violate my liberties.

 

Smaller towns will be "Self Insured", I had one officer actually admit this to me once. If officer admits they dont bond their officers; Then your can verbally say, "Oh good-that will make my lawsuit against you much easier".

 

Now is a good time to remind the officer that when he does violate your liberties-that not only has he subjected his city to a lawsuit but that he, the officer, can be sued in his personal capacity (violation of rights are very serious-even tho the Rogue Militant Cops are not taught this).

 

Dont claim "Constitutional Rights" the constitution does not grant you Rights-rather the Constitution is a list of restrictions placed on the Public Offitials if and when they come in contact with us (the inhabitants); Police Officers are Public Officials. You are born with rights-rights cant be given to you by man; man can only give you benefits of which their jurisdictions can regulate.

 

Be forewarned: City Hall doesnt like being called on the carpet! Dont argue with a Rogue/Militant Cop w/a gun on his hip! Why should you argue with anyone who is threatening when they have a gun on their hip-their behavior is inapropriate....and on the other hand, free exercise of free will doesnt come easy.

 

If you come across a Rogue Militant Revenue Raising Cop you have to ask a few questions (preparing your suit-forcing "One Bullet Barnie" into tipping his hand).

 

1) Ask the cop what will he do if you dont sign the citation....Cop Threatenting Response follows (any threat voids any contract-as a contract has to be entered into "willfully-knowingly & intentionally").

 

2) Ask the cop if there is a law that mandates you sign the ticket....Cop Threateneing Response follows (possible bluff-also possibly a Rogue Militant Revenue Raising Cop about to cross the line....be aware of which personality is confronting you).

 

3) Ask if he has a signed written complaint against you...Cop Threatening Response follows that will probably include, No I dont but the "People of (City or State)" does

 

4) Then you ask, Officer, are you the "People of (City or State)"?...Cop Threatening Response follows that should include a "No" as an answer

 

Cop Threat follows, more squad cars are called (Show of Force-implied to flex their muscles...OH KNOW I MUST REALLY BE IN TROUBLE NOW)...it is all theatrics to get your consent.

 

If it gets too threatening...then simply Sign your name with TDC (Threat Duress Coersion) in front of and behind your name***

 

3) Cop counters with Threatening Response & includes: "That isnt your name"!

 

4) You respond by asking the Rogue Militant Cop, "Are you an Attorney?"...Cop Threatening Resopnse that includes "No" will follow

 

5) Then ask the cop, "Do you have a license to practice law?"...Cop Threatening Response follows that includes a "NO" will follow

 

6) Then you can ask him, "If you are not an atty and dont have a license to practice law-WHERE DO YOU GET OFF MAKING LEGAL DETERMINATIONS IN LAW?"

 

You have just called his bluff...all citations that dont include a [Real Flesh & Blood Claimant] is an "INJURIOUS CLAIM" and its purpose is raise revenue for city hall...so they can refine their revenue raising machines in order to make their revenue raising machines more efficient in stealing from you what they dont have a right to.

 

Now after saying all that-if we "The Free Americans" dont regulate ourselves-then Government must step in to protect the welfare of the greater whole.

 

Where oh Where do we draw the line?

 

The line is drawn with jurisdictions; if and when you harm someone-then government has the "Authority" to hammer you with the full force of the law. But, if and when city hall (police officers, thought police, any public official-whomever) comes against you when there isnt a "Tangible-Flesh and Blood Claimant" injured party-then they must obtain your consent..either implied or written to which you must either rebuke or accept. If you dont rebuke/reject it then you have conceded. The dollar amount is moot, the written code/rule/regulation is moot. All that matters is "Jurisdiction".

 

But hey, dont get me goin on tickets: it kind've gets me a little hot under the collar. Mad Dog-Aarrr Aaarrrr!

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)

[QWKDTSN]

Very cool read...

 

What does signing TDC before and after your name do?

[Pop N Wood]

Can't we all just get along?

 

A little off base on Japan. Japan makes licensees hard to get simply because they want to limit the number of people driving. Don't try and attach any altruistic motives. I have heard (but don't know for sure) it is common for Japanese tourist to get a license in Hawaii because having an international license makes it easier to get one back in Japan.

 

Besides, if you’re not racing and driving like they teach you in driver's training, then what difference does it make if you know what an apex is?

[Mikelly]

Well, although I agree with Kevin on most things, and I'm sure this would work for someone who is A: Savey enough not to push the officer to far, B: Confidently Sell themselves as Knowing MORE about the law and legal implications, C: Has the revenue to back up the claims IF an attourney were needed, I just don't see someone who is already emotionally charged over getting pulled keeping it together enough to remember HALF the things posted in that above list.

 

Bottom line is what should WE call excessive revenue generation and what is absolutely needed for the safety of the greater number of society. Speed traps, if placed in a dangerous area are absolutely nessecary if a rash of bad accidents happens regularly at a specified location. However, Cops hiding behind blind curves, over back sides of hills, or down in low spots in the medium on interstates, that is pure revenue generation.

 

Now, here is where I GET hot under the collar. Four weeks ago a horrible accident occured on a back road near my house at 1AM. The car, a 1 month old Subaru WRX (I think) was loaded with 5 teens. Three girls (Ages 15, 16 & 17), two of which were in the back seat, and two guys (Ages 18-19). The car left the pavement at well over 80mph, not leaving so much as a skidmark, striking a tree, ripping the engine out of the car and the front clip off the car, and ejecting one of the passengers out of the car and into a tree where she was found hangin upside down - DEAD, before running into a Jersey wall a home owner had placed in their front yard for fear that such an incident would happen and a vehicle would hit their home. After striking the wall, the car finally came to rest in the street on its side. Only the 16 year old girl survived. I had seen the owner of the car two weekends before at a local car hang out and he was bragging to his friends that he could get from one point to another in a VERY short amount of time. Being familiar with the route and locations, I commented to my little brother that the kid would be dead in a month. Unfortunately I was right, and this case, along with MANY others, is being used by legal eagles in the region to stiffen the fines for excessive speeding. After the incident (I don't call it an accident, that boy killed himself and his friends..) kids came out of the wood work to say how that guy was always driving wrecklessly and they all expected this to happen, just not with so many people in the car... To add to the tragedy, the young man in question was a new father, as his girlfriend had given birth to a new son 6 weeks prior to the incident.

 

Getting popped doing 10-15mph over on the interstate is one thing. Getting popped on a rural back road, or in a sub-division doing 15-20 over is another all together. I know, I know, I'm a hypocrit for saying that, because we all know that I speed. However, something has to be done. There are way too many kids out there wanting to re-ennact the fast and the furious. Too much bravado pumping out into the streets every time these kids are getting behind the wheel... Education is the key. Kids are gonna speed. I did, and I bet most of you did. We need to make our kids safer drivers, and give them the training they NEED to survive pulling a right rear wheel out of a ditch without over-correcting... We have to, if we are to stop the killings of teens on our hiways.

 

RX7Man, NONE of this has been directed at you, so please don't read into these posts, these are just my thoughts in general!

 

Mike Kelly

[Kevin Shasteen]

Originally posted by Nion:

..., What does signing TDC before and after your name do?

Before answering that its important that anyone who ever comes into contact with any public official/code enforcer of any kind, that for known or unknown reasons, has implied that they are going to "Cite" you for whatever; it is imperative that you dont "GET EMOTIONAL".

 

As Mike illuded to; 1)Knowing your Natural Rights (Not Constitutional Benefits) -vs- 2) Standing up for your "Free Will" to exercise your Natural Rights -vs- 3) Knowing how to keep the Public Officials at bay.....are three horses of a different color.

 

I agree w/Mike on the dangers of our mentality that most of our society has accepted; and that that it is okay to drive recklessly. As I said in my first post, if we dont regulate ourselves-then public opinion will demand that someone does....and unfortunately that means the Public Officials.

 

We have a Natural Right to exercise our "Free Will", AKA: I have a right to swing my fist-but I DONT have a right to hit someones nose! My right to swing my fist ends at the beginning of someone's nose. When my right to exercise my free will interfere's with someone else's free will-then I have crossed the line.

 

Also, keep in mind that you can not operate in the "Rule of Law" and then bounce back into "Natural Law" at will; you either are in the "Rule of Law" via contract (written or implied) or you are in "Natural Law". AND, Natural Law is brutal when you violate someone else's right to exercise their free will whereas the "Rule of Law" is much much more "Forgiving".

 

The bottom line still falls into "Jurisdicion" and "Being Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof". The act is moot, the dollar amount is moot, the emotion involved is moot....all that matters is the "Existing Jurisdiction" and are you or are you not "Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof".

 

THINK ABOUT IT! IF THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ACT AGAINST YOU-THEN WHY DO THEY NEED YOUR SIGNATURE? IF THEY DIDNT NEED YOUR AUTHORITY-THEN THEY WOULDNT NEED YOUR SIGNATURE! They MUST have your permission to act against you! In America-YOU ARE THE KING & THEY ARE THE PEASANT-THEREFORE THEY (THE PEASANT) NEEDS PERMISSION TO ACT AGAINST YOU (THE KING). It really is that simple.

 

To answer the previous question about [TDC], TDC as said before is an abbreviation for

 

1) Threat

2) Duress

3) Coercion

 

For ANY CONTRACT to be Valid, the underlying elements of a "Valid" contract are determined if both parties (no third parties)in reference to an "Injurious Claim" have

 

1) Willfully

2) Knowingly

3) Intentionally

 

Entered into that contract. In an Injurious Claim-all individuals (Judges, Police Officers, Attorneys, Clerk of the Court-Anybody) is a "Third Party" that did not have "FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE" to the contract. Third Parties DO NOT REPRESENT YOU and they CAN NOT REPRESENT YOU unless you "ALLOW" them to "Represent You"; dont allow them to represent you-it is your Soverignty and Wellfare that is at stake.

 

If one party is "Pressured" in any way (Shotgun Wedding) to enter into said contract...then said contract is null and void at its enception.

 

What is the Overzealous Rogue Revenue Generating Militant Cop (Good Police Officers not included) doing when they exhibit bad behavior?

 

1) They are "Threatening" you to enter into their contract by demanding you sign the citation

2) This threatening behavior puts you under "Duress"

3) And it is the threat which puts you under duress that "Coerces" you into signing the citation/contract.

 

Thus the "TDC" is implied that you were not exercising your "Free Will" to say "NO" to the officer's offer when you were forced to sign said citation/contract/offer.

 

In order to use "TDC" you have to allow the officer to threaten you; this is why you first ask the officer when he presents the offer to you for signing: "What will you do if I dont sign it"? Once he threatens to arrest you-then he has just crossed the line and removed your right to exercise your free will (shotgun wedding).

 

If the officer gets mift and says, "Oh I see-your challenging my authority" just respond that "No I am not challenging your authority, I am challengine your [application] of your authority."

 

You gotta know your rights and you gotta know that standing up for your rights can at times be scary; usually if you are from a small town-these tactics can play out w/out repercussion; most small/small towns will be "Self Insured"...but in a larger city things can be quite different; money and the love of someone else's money can at times put us under pressure from City Hall to conform...this is where they have crossed the line.

 

BUT, in the same breath, if you violate someone's right to free will...then you have crossed the line.

 

When I began realizing the importance of "Jurisdiction" and being or not being "Subject to the Jurisdicton Thereof" I truly began seeing things in a whole new light. It appears everything we do is perverted into a "Jurisdiction of Commerce/Law Merchant" and thus puts us in a position of being "Regulated": Follow the Money, he who has the money may not have the right-but quite often they do have the might.

 

Having a perception of "Freedom" -vs- "Exercising that Freedom" are two distinct issues...it is dangerous at times to exercise your free will-it means you are not a "Team Player" to those who wish to "Regulate" your "Free Will" and you must be brought into conformity.

 

So like Mike said, dont argue rights if you dont understand them in the first place-it will only get you in hot do-do. Always keep a cool head-this is business; and business should be conducted in an orderly fashion.

 

It is a personal decision each individual must make; dont go off half cocked w/out first knowing what you are doing & what kind've scenario you have placed yourself in.

 

But like I said earlier, dont get me goin on speeding tickets

 

For anyone out there wondering-I have only done this once; where I did not argue with the officer-but the next day wrote a letter to the Officer, The Clerk and The Residing Judge-and sent the citation back; In the letter I advised them I did not accept their offer & rejected their offer..(you should also right this on the Citation itself, "I reject your offer to Contract") and do so within 72 hours. I never got a phone call from the Judge, never saw any squad cars in my yard-I have been pulled over since then-and have not had any citations since; this was 8 years ago.

 

Depending on how militant your local police dept has become-your results may vary; the bottem line still deals with Jurisdiction-and being subject to that jurisdiction thereof....and the trump card will be to what extent your police dept wants to make an example of you & how far they want to violate your liberties in making an example out of you....the war stories we've seen and heard do exist.

 

It is always a personal choice to stand up for what is right -vs- what is wrong.

 

I am disgusted at lies, deception and anyone who perverts what this Country was Founded on "I Hate It".

 

Sorry admin-I didnt want this to be a speech, or political statement-It is just so hard to know that thousands are effected everyday by "City Hall" and their tesspasses against our Liberties.

 

Thanks for the avenue to share and at times "Vent"

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)

[Guest Anonymous]

i think Mike has brought up a very good point with the crash with all the people involved. I do drive quickly in rural areas although springfield va doesnt really have many but I have never lost control or pushed it too far, a little common sense comes into play at times. But you dont have the right to endanger other peoples live with your actions. For example if you see another car slow down, if theres blind turn slow down and if you have passengers just dont drive fast to begin with because i for one dont know if i could live having killed or maimed one of my freinds.

[Pop N Wood]

So like Mike said, dont argue rights if you dont understand them in the first place

Sounds like good advice.. don't ya think?

 

You do, of course, realize that all you are doing by signing the ticket is acknowledging that you will either pay the ticket or show up in court to contest it. It is really a very simple process. You either sign the ticket so you can't later argue you never got it, or you go to a police station to post a dollar bond guarenteeing your appearance. The cop didn't set up this system, we the "Kings" did. So why give the poor cop a hard time?

 

All of your theatrics amounted to nothing more than simply not paying the ticket. And I am sure there is more than one person on this board who will tell you the cops don't stake out your house simply because you failed to pay one ticket. You will get away with it for a while, maybe forever if a clerk loses the record, but eventually you will get stopped for something unrealated and then you will REALLY have something to rant about.

 

I guess anyone looking to follow your advice will have to ask themselve what they hope to accomplish by copping such an attitude. I rather doubt it will intimidate the system into letting you go. But it does seem like an excellent way to invite additional tickets or even a Rodney King size can of Whoop Ass. And even if you write Top Dead Center on the ticket, I can't imagine there are many judges that would humor such an argument for long.

 

Besides, I really don't follow your logic viewing speeding tickets as a perversion of your "Natural Rights". If you don't want a ticket, don't speed.

[Z-Gad]

Kevin and Mike, this has been a most inciteful thread. I do not forsee myself following suite should I find myself in that situation, however it has given me something to think about and a new perspective of what a "citation" actually is.

This forum never ceases to amaze me

[Mikelly]

Jim, Over the last 20 years I've attended some very worthwhile courses on driving, thanks to the federal government and my former life. I also paid out of pocket to learn how to drive faster. Every time I get in a car or on a motorcycle I hit my marks, watch for braking distance judged on speed, the vehicles ability to stop and driving conditions. I've been doing this since my first track day back when I was a teenager... I am of the firm belief that if we teach kids how to drive safer at speed, and also teach them how to threashold brake, panic stop, and control skids, I bet we could save many many more lives MUCH sooner. Also, although I agree with the comments about Japan in general, when getting a license to operate a motorcycle you must graduate from class size to class size... You can't just go out, plunk down $10000 and buy a literclass sportbike and learn on it... You have to start out in the 100cc class... and then gradually you move up when you pass skills tests based on your abilities... In Europe it is as difficult, and they are MUCH more skills oriented...

 

I agree with regards to the other comments, although I understand where Kevin is coming from... You have the right to contest ANY ticket in court, and I have been quite successfull at getting out of several. However, When I'm dead busted for doing something wrong, I generally pay the fine and shut the hell up... Guilty as charged...

Mike

[denny411]

I agree with Mike. About Japan for motorcycle licence, I think it is a great idea requiring riders to work there way up. I knew a 17 yr old kid when I was younger, who was killed riding a zx10 at well over 100mph, but this goes back to the parents responsibility as well. What parent in there right mind would buy a 16 yr old kid a bike like that . When I was learning to drive, my Mom took me out to a large parking lot in all types of conditions(wet, dry, snow,ice) to learn how to recover from a slide. We also spent alot of time in heavy traffic, learning to anticipate other drivers stupidity. All of the tickets that I`ve had in the past were for speeding or driving under suspension, and all tickets were recieved after 10pm. I`m not saying that I don`t speed during the day,it`s just that I usually drive faster at night or early in the morning when traffic is light.

Bottom line is, It`s the parents job to teach the kids to be safe and responsible, and it`s the states job to punish them if they`re not.

[Kevin Shasteen]

Originally posted by Jim Powers:

 

1).., You do, of course, realize that all you are doing by signing the ticket is acknowledging that you will either pay the ticket or show up in court to contest it. It is really a very simple process. You either sign the ticket so you can't later argue you never got it, or you go to a police station to post a dollar bond guarenteeing your appearance...,

 

2)..., You will get away with it for a while..., eventually you will get stopped for something unrealated and then you will REALLY have something to rant about.

 

3)..., I guess anyone looking to follow your advice will have to ask themselve what they hope to accomplish...,

 

4)..., I rather doubt it will intimidate the system into letting you go. But it does seem like an excellent way to invite additional tickets or even a Rodney King size can of Whoop Ass...,

 

5)..., And even if you write [Top Dead Center] on the ticket, I can't imagine there are many judges that would humor such an argument for long...,

 

6)..., Besides, I really don't follow your logic viewing speeding tickets as a perversion of your "Natural Rights". If you don't want a ticket, don't speed.

Jim,

 

Starting with #6 and working backwards

 

#6) If you understood history and the formation as well as the demise of any "GREAT" Nation, you will find they always start out as a "Republic"....somewhere along the line their "Nation" desides to grant "Licensure"...what follows is a constant decline in "Greatness"; WHY? Because the natural order of "Licensure" is "Greed" by the very few who have been granted the "Authority" to "License". Greed is never happy with the status quo-It Always Wants More! Therefore it must TAKE MORE.

 

If you wish to understand the "Perversion" of Natural Rights by way of the "Rule of Law" then you need to do an in depth research on the principles of Feudalism-both Voluntary and Involuntary Servitude, Lex Regis (the law of the King) -vs- Common Law (Natural Law, Jus Civile (Civil Law) and Jus Gentium (The Law Merchant).

 

If you choose to follow up on those four aspects you will find that the Common Law (Natural Law) places "UNMOST" importance on life, liberty and property of humans as their most precious hereditaments. Whereby Lex Regis only cares about the "Written Sentance" on a "Piece of Paper" somewhere called a "Code/Rule/Regulation (Licensure). It's sole purpose is to "Weild" the authority that rests in "One Man or a few"...it is Democracy at its worse.

 

"Democracy" is where the wolves have a discussion with the sheep on what they, the wolves, are going to have for dinner! If the wolves out number the sheep-then the wolves win; if the wolves are out numbered by the sheep-then the wolves go by the "Might Makes Right" syndrome (Your Rodney King comment would fit in here nicely: Comply or we will beat you up-for which after we beat you up we will be eating you for dinner).

 

Jus Civile (Civil Law) secures the personal liberties of the citizens-a new slant on Natural Law.

 

Whereby Jus Gentium is the Law of the Merchant (Contract Law-the very law our citations are written upon). There must be a contract for our servants (Public Officials) to act against us (The king).

 

***Research those issues & you will have a strong idea of how our Nation has been perverted****

 

#5) TDC, if you read my posts doesnt mean "Top Dead Center"...good one-I chuckled at that. It means "Threat-Duress-Coercion"...go read both my posts for its explanation.

 

As far as a judge "Humoring" my position..."I'M NOT INTERESTED IN DIALOUGUE WITH A THIRD PARTY". Where there is no "Flesh and Blood" Claimant (Injurious Claim) then there is no "Accusor"; only third parties with third hand information. If there is no first hand knowledge...which comes from "Party A or Party B", and "Party B (The claimant) isnt flesh and blood to begin with...then all claims are "Heresay" and not admissable in court. In an "Injurious Claim" both the Judge, the D.A, any code enforcer....they are all third parties (definately better know your rights before taking a stand)...as its not "Vogue" to be right in America anymore. Besides, unless a contract exists with you and the other party (Party B, AKA: First Hand Knowledge)...then you are the Judge-no one else...remember its America-you are suppose to be free and be able to exercise your free will(?)! There can be no rule making in our "Right to Contract".

 

#4) Jim, your statement in #4 is the "Perversion" of which I'm speaking....how can you have a "Free" society if everyone is "Made" to conform at gun point or from fear of getting "Beaten" up...you have just successfully answered you own question; might doesnt make right-it makes Tyranny. If you cant operate in "Free Will" then you dont have "Freedom"...it is dangerous not to speak out when "Free Will" is removed-from any Nation; not just America.

 

#3) That cant be more true; everyone must make a decision for what they believes, as it is your perception that defines your truth....better make sure your truth doesnt get "Perverted" otherwise, we as a Nation will have Millions of individuals whose "Perception" is "perverted"; and then no one knows the difference between right and wrong.

 

#2) Back when I rejected my ticket; I didnt know then what I know now. All I did know, at that time, is that I was not speeding when I got my ticket. The officer didnt care about my "Thoughts"...hmmm-sounds like a free society to me-NOT. When I rejected my ticket I didnt even no what I was doing; I had no clue that their offer was merely an offer to contract. I only knew I was not going to play their game...I was Mad-I wanst going to show up-I wasnt going to be their chump.

 

I have since then been pulled over once or twice for rediculous things like a blinker not working-and what not....no warrants were announced by the "Presiding Officer", no arrests ensued from my being pulled over..and my rejecting their offer was 8 or 9 years ago. Will the results of anyone else who attempts this vary(?)-depends on the corruption of your city...some are definately worse than others. But I would ask you why are some areas worse than others? Because we have failed to say [NO] to the inappropriate behavior-and that you "Officer" are Wrong for trying to tell me that the middle line I may have crossed over has made me a criminal. I am a Human Being & I Deserve to be TREATED WITH DIGNITY"!!!

 

#1) In the "signing" of your citation you are "Granting" the servants their authority to act against you; you have just given them Jurisdiction over you, of which they previously didnt have-unless a contract existed...still they are the third party to the contract and not the first party. If they were the "Ultamate Law" then they "The Ultimate Law would not need your permission to act against you.

 

The speeding ticket isnt about right or wrong-its about "Taxation without Representation". It is the very key that triggered the "Boston Tea Party".

 

The American Colonists were not upset about being subject to the Brits. In fact it is a known fact the colonists "Welcomed" the "Benefits" of the king. The welcomed those "Benefits" up to the moment the King forced "The Tea Tax" upon them-this was the equivalent to "Involuntary Servitude". If you read the "Constitution: the document that restricts the authority of Public Officials" then you would find that no laws can be passed that allow Involuntary Servitude."

 

This is why they must have your signature-that "Involuntary Servitude", with your signature, now becomes "Voluntary Servitude"; you have just agreed to "Willingly-Knowingly-Intentionally" agree to a contract.

 

Yes I have a DL, yes I have Insurance, yes I obey the "Rule of Law" up to the point that it tesspasses against me. As you say; If I'm guilty then I'm guilty....but then no one has defined the word "Guilty". Guilty of what? Who defines if and when your are "Guilty"?

 

It is the Jurisdiction you are operating in and "Being Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof" that [DEFINES] the "Value" of the word "GUILTY": not the dollar amount and not the act...but Jurisdiction and Subject Matter Jurisdiction alone. Not only must there be Jurisdiction over the "Person" but also over the "Act".

 

If you wish to know how the "Rule of Law" is a perversion of the "Natural Law" then keep you eyes on the political forum....specifically the "Dept. of Homeland Security". Once this gets passed-we are going to see tresspasses like never before....I hope I'm wrong-but I dont think I am.

 

Anyone remember Ross Perot's statement when he was running for President. He said three times in one of his debates, "Governement isnt protecting you...ITS COMING [AFTER] YOU! These thoughts arent mine; I simply read a lot and am able to regurgitate what I have read and seen with my eyes.

 

I agree that the police officers are in between a rock and a hard place-they want to "Protect & Serve" then they find out they are essentially "Revenue Agents" and there is a shift in their thinking...this is troublesome not only to them...but to me; where or where is that line going to be drawn?

 

The line is drawn in the exercies of "Free Will" or the removal of "Free Will".

 

Dialogue with the officers; ask questions-who said we cant ask questions-just always be polite.

 

Conversation is good confrontation is bad Conversation is good confrontation is bad

 

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)

[Pop N Wood]

I guess I have always had a problem of letting logic get in the way of rhetoric.

[Kevin Shasteen]

Dont we all Jim, dont we all. I would ask you a better question; where is your "Value" for your choice of words you used when you said "Logic" -vs- "Rhetoric"?. Is the value you place on those words based in "Fact" or is it based in "Feeling"?

 

If you "Feel" your choice of words are based on fact then I would challenge you to "Show Me" in a legal arena...where your points of issues are found....I'm guessing by your previous arguments that you wont find them...feelings, in a legal arena, are moot-and only get us in trouble. Incrimental Complacency has no place in a Nation that wishes to retain its greatness. The legislature of the State & Fed's go to great lengths to put "Definitions" not only on the words they use but on the "Limits" of their "Limited Authority". Definate lines are drawn in the sand of what they can or can not do.

 

The bottom line is "What is the definition of a Crime" and, when should something be or not be "Licensed"?

 

The answer lies in jurisdiction for question one and if and when something is "Ordinary -vs- "Extra-ordinary" on question two.

 

It is [ordinary] for you and I to travel from point A to point B carrying out our mundane tasks everyday. It is "NOT" ordinary, rather it is "Extra-ordinary", for a "BUSINESS" to uproot a home, put in on the back of a truck-then haul it down the mainstreet or hwy during rush hour jeopardizing everyone around-slowing traffic causing possible harm to those around; THIS IS EXTRA ORDINARY...therefore-those who perform such Extra Ordinary tasks should be "Licensed" while those who are performing mundane "Ordinary" tasks-should not be licensed to perform those very same mundane tasks.

 

When Ordinary tasks are "Licensed" by force-then this is pure control and revenue raising.

 

Anyway-I tend to rant on this subject-that is why I tried to avoid it early on.

 

I enjoyed this thread nonetheless.

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)

[Lockjaw]

I am kind of liking this discussion because I was once pulled over and cited for something I did not do. According to the officer, I went thru a train crossing with the red light flashing.

 

Of course I did not, but right over the tracks, I had to stop behind two other cars, and due to the officers position, and foliage, I don't think he could see me, or know if I was over the tracks.

 

Anyway when he stopped me, he asked me if I had seen the train. I said once I had turned onto hwy whatever I had. He asked me if the lights were flashing, and I said no. He asked if I heard the horn, again I said no, and that I had the air on and my radio, and was on my way home from work and had no reason to be in a hurry.

 

Well you guessed it. He wrote me a ticket. When he brought it back, I asked him a question. I wanted to know what his policy was on stopping cars when there was more than one that allegedly crossed the tracks with the red light flashing, you know, like how had he handled situations like that in the past. His response was "You need to sign that ticket" . I said, "what if I don't want to sign that ticket, I did not do what you say I did". He said, you REALLY need to sign that ticket". I said what happens if I don't? He said then I will have to arrest you and it won't look good in court.

 

So I signed it, went to court and contested it, and the judge said he would take it "under advisement", which means you get a letter about two weeks later saying you are guilty and need to pay the fine.

 

The ticket when you sign it is an AGREEMENT that you will either pay it or come to court. Isn't that by its very nature a contract? Essentially, you are being forced to give goods(money) and/or services(community service) to the municipality, but you don't get any benefit for it. The officer is forcing you to contractually agree to pay the citation or show up under threat of arrest if you don't agree.

 

Here are some officer pet peeves too. "I am going to have to give you a ticket". He doesn't have to do anything. Why can't he simply say, " I want to give you a ticket" .

 

How about this one? "Its for your own safety". How does he know what is safe and unsafe for me?

 

I would also like to know why they can speed with impunity but I can't.

 

My personal opinion is this. If you have to lie to get out of a ticket, do it, do whatever you have to do to get out of it, because in court, that policeman is going to do whatever he can to make sure that ticket sticks so he won't look bad. I have yet to see a policeman ever admit in court that he may have made a mistake.

 

Also, the deal that tickets are for revenue recognition is right on. Why do you think they have photo radar and redlight camera's? How those can be constitutional is beyond me since you are supposed to have the right to cross examine your accuser. How can you cross examine a camera?

 

One other thought provoking question. If I get a ticket and fail to show up for court, they will issue a failure to appear warrant for me. Why don't they do that when the cop doesn't show up? Why is he not held in contempt, and why do they automatically rescehdule the hearing? Shuoldn't he have to pay a fee for wasting the courts time? I bet I would.

[blueovalz]

I've enjoyed this exercise, or dare I say, oratory on the "character" of the changes (or potential for) in our civil liberties in this country. It is only an opinion, but I hope we tread very carefully forward as JA and many others determine what my future and the future of my childrens "natural" rights will be.

[Pop N Wood]

I told myself I was going to stay out of this discussion but I have never been one to listen to my own advice.

 

You guys have the entirely wrong attitude toward cops. Most of them get pissy with people because they get tired of dealing with attitudes all day. I have gotten out of more than one ticket by simply being polite to the cop. I have gotten out of even more tickets by going to court and having the cop not show up. (I like it when they don't show, for god's sake don't start forcing them!) That is an automatic dismissal in both California and Maryland. I have even had judges throw out or reduce the fine after I have politely and rationaly explained the situation.

 

I truely don't understand your interpretation of signing a ticket. You cannot be arrested for not signing a ticket. What you can be arrested for is the traffic violation that led to the ticket in the first place. Think about it. When soembody is arrested for something serious, then they are immediately taken to a police station to be booked and held over for trial. There are all kinds of written procedures (some call them laws) that tell them whether the person can be released on a signature, must post bond or if they have to be jailed until they can go before a judge.

 

Traffic tickets are a special case. Since most traffic violations are minor and most REASONABLE people are going to take care of them, we have a system that allows people to sign the ticket thereby agreeing to deal with the ticket. Our society has granted this to each other as a CONVENIENCE and because it makes sense to do so. Signing the ticket is NOT a contract. It is mearly a piece of evidence that prevents you from later claiming you did not recieve the ticket.

 

Now if you feel this convenience is not a convenience but some sinister assault on you sense of self, then by all means, don't sign the ticket. Go to a police station and promise them money. If you don't want to promise them money than I would think you can choose to sit in jail until a judge can see you to try your case.

 

Now what you all must realize is the cop has no more say in any of this than you do. The cop did not set up the system. The cop is not even allowed interpret what he should or should not do. By law he must simply do what the laws tell him to do. Thus when you ask the cop "what will happen if I don't sign", he is not threatening you. He is simply informing you what the laws state. (BTW, for those of you who complain our licensing system is too lax, this tends to support this because anyone who has a license should already know this.) And whether he tells you this or not doesn't change the fact the "sign or bind" rules exist. Thus by your twisted logic a cop could never ticket anyone for any reason because of the Top Dead Center rule.

 

But the most rediculous aspect of this whole discussion is something all of you learned individuals should already know. Simply put, the cop is not capable of determining innocence or guilt. In our country that job is left to the judge (or a jury if you want one). All the cop does at the trial is present evidence. And what the cop saw or thinks he saw, like it or not, is evidence.

 

So if you truely have a hard on for our means of enforcing traffic laws, then don't be moron enough to argue it with some poor cop. He doesn't want to hear it. If you really think you are smart enough to have discovered a legal loop hole based on "natural rights" that invalidates our entire means of issuing tickets, then tell it to the judge.

[denny411]

I personaly don`t have a problem with requiring people to be "licenced" to drive. In fact I feel that at least 30% of the people on the road, should not be licenced at all. some people lack the basic skills and common sense it takes to operate a 3000lb battering ram at 60+ mph. Our licencing requirments are way too lenient. Just because someone has turned the "magical age of 16", does not mean that they should be allowed to operate a motor vehicle. It is a priviledge to drive and not a right. That priviledge should only be given to people responsible enough to handle it. When I was 16, I should not have been allowed to drive without an adult for at least a year, possibly two. By that time I would have been able to "respect the priviledge"

[Kevin Shasteen]

Originally posted by Jim Powers:

[QB]

 

.., You guys have the entirely wrong attitude toward cops..,

 

Its not about attitude-its about Jurisdiction and being subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof.

 

..., Most of them get pissy with people because they get tired of dealing with attitudes all day..,

 

Since when is asking an officer a question or two considered "Attitude"? Why is having a conversation "Attitude?

 

..., I have gotten out of more than one ticket by simply being polite to the cop...,

 

I have had family members that were cops and I have had friends that were cops, detectives and one church member that is a Judge; I enjoy having conversations with police officers, policing authorities and Judges. It is always eye opening. But still, it isnt about "Getting Out of a Ticket" its about not being "Subject To the Jurisdiction" to begin with.

 

.., You cannot be arrested for not signing a ticket..,

 

Try not signing a ticket someday & see what events follow.

 

.., Think about it. When soembody is arrested for something serious..,

 

You have not defined "Serious" so how can we think about it? What venue are we dealing with and who is the "Accusor"? Is the accusor a flesh and blood Accursor that we have "Harmed or Damaged" or is our Accusor a painted line in the road that we may have accidentally crossed over? Remeber I am speaking about the "Injurious Claim" where there is no "Flesh and Blood" claimant.

 

.., then they are immediately taken to a police station to be booked and held over for trial, must post bond or if they have to be jailed until they can go before a judge...,

 

If you can tell me the difference between a "Public Bond" -vs- a "No Cost Personal Recognozance Bond" then I will know that you know what you are talking about; till then-you are speaking from "Feelings" and "Feelings" are not what the Judicial System is based on. The Judicial System is based on Jurisdictions and being subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof.

 

.., Since most traffic violations...,

 

Please define Violation, who defines it; does someone just "Feel" that a violation has occurred or is there some "Rules" or "Laws" that must be followed in "Defining" when a Violation has occurred(?), sure sounds like we are dancing all around the "Jurisdiction" issue to me.

 

.., we have a system that allows people to sign the ticket thereby agreeing to deal with the ticket..,

 

What if I dont agree? If we are in a free system (after all it is America-and there is a presumption that Americans are FREE) then why cant I disagree without repercussion of bodily harm?

 

.., Signing the ticket is NOT a contract. It is mearly a piece of evidence that prevents you from later claiming you did not recieve the ticket..,

 

ANYTIME YOU SIGN YOUR NAME TO [ANYTHING] YOU HAVE JUST SIGNED A CONTRACT AND AGREED TO SOMETHING. If you are forced into signing that "Paper" at threat of force-that "Paper" with your signature on it is null and void.

 

.., Now if you feel this convenience is not a convenience but some sinister assault on you sense of self..,

 

It isnt about "Sinisteristic Assaults" it is about Jurisdiction. It is also not about being "Emotionally Unstable" and being "Hostile" it is what it is "Res Ipsa Loquitur"...it simply is what it is regardless of the spin someone wants to put on it.

 

..., Go to a police station and promise them money. If you don't want to promise them money than I would think you can choose to sit in jail until a judge can see you to try your case...,

 

I'm not promising anyone money & I'ld rather sit in a jail cell than agree to "Violating a Yellow Stripe in the road" or any other Injurious Claim.

 

..., Now what you all must realize is the cop has no more say in any of this than you do...,

 

This is exactly right on-the cop is a "Third Party" in an Injurious Claim and has no "First Hand Knowledge"; he is a glorified "Hall Monitor".

 

..., The cop did not set up the system. The cop is not even allowed interpret what he should or should not do. By law he must simply do what the laws tell him to do. Thus when you ask the cop "what will happen if I don't sign", he is not threatening you..,

 

I believe in Nazi Germany after the WWII when they were being tried-they kept saying "I was Just Following Orders". So the "Orders" are not what is important; what is important is "Protecting our Liberties"...but if you dont know what your liberties are then

 

a) how can you protect them?

how do you know when you have them?

c) how do you know when you've lossed them?

 

.., He is simply informing you what the laws state...,

 

Which of the two million laws of any one state are you referring....again we seem to keep going straight back to the "Jurisdiction Issue" and being Subjecto to the Jurisdction Thereof: funny how that keeps happening, isnt it?

 

 

.., Simply put, the cop is not capable of determining innocence or guilt..,

 

I agree, the cop can not make legal determinations in law...so why is he/she making legal determinations in law if and when they pull you over?

 

.., All the cop does at the trial is present evidence. And what the cop saw or thinks he saw, like it or not, is evidence...,

 

In an "Injurious Claim" the officer is a Third Party...and only "First & Second Parties" to a contract can make a claim on one another; therefore making the officer's "Evidence" [Third Hand Information].

 

.., So if you truely have a hard on for our meas of enforcing traffic laws..,

 

We still have not "Defined" the word "Law" here-so we still have no foundational baseline to gauge your statements.

 

..., then don't be moron enough to argue it with some poor cop..,

 

Then he shouldnt pull me over to tell me how "Offended" the "Center Stripe" was because I "Crossed over it by accident" and now will have to "Pay a $60 fine...that is the essence of "Double Speak"; giving more value to the "Center Line" than me (remember we are speaking about an Injurious Claim here).

 

.., If you really think you are smart enough to have discovered a legal loop hole...,

 

It isnt about Loop Holes; its about Jurisdiction & being Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof; funny how that keeps coming up. Go look it it up in your "State Constitutions" and the "Federal-United States Constitution.

 

.., based on "natural rights" that invalidates our entire means of issuing tickets, then tell it to the judge...,

 

That is my whole point-I dont have to tell it to the Judge. The Judge is not the claimant-the judge is suppose to be an unbias referee. If I dont want to go along with a "contract" from a fiction (a corporation-the local municipality's [Ordinance] then I wont contract with them and therefore wont appear in court.

 

If someone wants to come and arrest me "Against my Will, Over my Objections & Without my Permission".........THEN LET THEM.

 

I will sit in a jail cell if they think that violating my "Free Will" is "Right" then I guess 2+2=5 (Hello 1984) and Right is Wrong & Wrong is Right; Black is White and White and White is Black.

 

Next time an officer tells you they are going to write you a citation because you violated "Local Ordinace or Code XYZ-ask that officer....IS CODE LAW?

 

No, Law can only be passed by Legislature. Local Municipalities are not Legislatures....they are "Corporations" not legal forums. Corporations cant force anyone who is not a party to a "Pre-existing Contract" to which that corporation is also a party...this is why they must have your signature; they need your permission to contract with your.

 

Just how deep does this hole go Alice?

 

Still enjoying this thread; thought it was dead and voila-it's back.

 

I'm not telling anyone I am right-read and research for yourself. If you care about distinctions between right and wrong; dont take my word for something...who am I(?), I am nobody...research an issue on your own-come to your own conclusions.

 

When you do make a conclusion-dont base it on "Feelings"...base in on "Fact".

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)

[Guest Anonymous]

---

[Kevin Shasteen]

For starters I want Jim Powers to know I have nothing against him and DONT WANT HIM TO THINK I am personally attacking him.

 

Jim, If I have offended you then I apologize-that was not my intention. I truly enjoy these types of discussions and also truly think that it is "Wonderful" that we can agree to disagree-then walk away w/out hurt feelings.

 

As far as advice-its not a wise thing to go off half cocked; knowing a little truth but not the whole truth will get you in trouble.

 

I'm not an attorney so I cant legally give you advice. I can share information with you; but I cant legally give you advice.

 

If you wish to "Know what to do" then you really need to make a personal decision and that is:

 

"Do I Want To Understand Contracts, or Not?"

 

If you personally want to understand Contracts-then you personally need to "Research The Issue".

 

About your issue-the ticket for speeding; if you will go back to the "Enacting Law" that allows the officers to act; has its roots in "When someone is Harmed as a result from your "Speeding..or Racing". But you are not told that (Remember-Ignorance of the Law is no excuse).

 

So, the act (Speeding or Racing) is your "Accusor" while the officer recogonizing your act is merely the "Third Party Informer" for the "Non-Flesh and Blood Accusor...the fiction".

 

The problem as I have said in earlier posts-is that you may not have harmed someone this time-but what will happen the fifth time you race, or the tenth time you race...it will catch up to you (Hopefully it doesnt) but the odds are that you or that other guy will wreck and then someone else may be harmed.

 

This is the dilemma (the perversion of the law) in that the "Possibility" exists that an accident may happen so therefore in the eyes of the "System" it did happen (even tho the accident didnt happen) we are going to write you up.

 

Again its not about guilt; it is about Jurisdiction & being subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof because of a "Pre-existing Contract".

 

You dont have a contract with that local municipality....you have a contract with your state (State Drivers License).

 

So if you wish to learn about Contracts & Rejecting them-then you need to study up on Contracts...other wise you can get in a heap of trouble acting on a fraction of data.

 

If you want to reject the offer (Since you asked) you can write, in red ink (slanted from upper left corner down to the lower right corner);

 

1) That you are returning their "Offer to Contract and that their offer to contract is hereby Rejected per Regulation Z of the Truth in Lending Act.

 

2) This must be done within 72 hours of the time you received this citation

 

3) Anytime before the 72 hours you DONT have to give a cause of why you are rejecting the offer

 

4) Anytime after the 72 hours-you have to give an Affidavit and show cause

 

***CAVIAT EMPTOR (sp?): Acting without truly understanding "Contracts" can get you in trouble***

 

The Judges, Officers, Code-Enforcers; they have their tactics/schemes (Threat of Force) in enducing you back into their jurisdiction. If you dont understand contracts (Both Verbal and Written) then you should not attempt to do something you dont understand in the first place.

 

Freedom is about "Free Will". If and when an officer, regardless if it is a Marshal, Sheriff, City Police Officer...or a city Code Enforcer, it doesnt matter-they have a "Right" to contract with whom they wish.

 

But on the other end of the spectrum; Party B also has a "Right" not to contract w/whom they dont want to contract with.

 

This is why all constitutions; State or Federal uphold the individuals "Right to Contract".

 

All of us on this forum day in and day out are negotiating contracts; we are all putting forth our "Free Will" opinions on what we think. If someone disagrees with us (Refuses to Contract Verbally) then they walk away...this is free will.

 

To understand contracts-you have to understand that contracts are both written and verbal...always; if you dont wish to contract-then simply say no thank you and walk away (Providing we are Free and can still exercise our "Free Will?).

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)