|
|
|
Dear all:
I was on the 695 freeway in baltimore beltway. It was a clear night
the conditions were perfect. Visibility great and traffice was
moderately light with people easily doing 70 miles next to me.
I was in fast lane. NO cars were in front of me and I was doing 74
mph and got pulled over. Posted speed was 55 mph, but I think the
flow of traffic easily warrants 74 mph.
Dont you guys think that 74 is pretty slow for a speeding ticket?
any advice on how to fight it? Should I go for the flow of traffic
defense? How should I go about it?
any advice is apreciated. Thx in advance.
sincerley, loving person
|
| |
| |
Your only chance is if the cop doesn't show up for court. I heard the best way
to make that happen is to schedule the hearing on the officer's day off. To
find out which days he is off, call his precinct everyday and ask if he's in.
Also, choosing a court far from his precinct might work too.
....................
I do not killfile nor use do-not-call lists.
|
| |
| |
Dear all:
I was on the 695 freeway in baltimore beltway. It was a clear night
the conditions were perfect. Visibility great and traffice was
moderately light with people easily doing 70 miles next to me.
I was in fast lane. NO cars were in front of me and I was doing 74
mph and got pulled over. Posted speed was 55 mph, but I think the
flow of traffic easily warrants 74 mph.
Dont you guys think that 74 is pretty slow for a speeding ticket?
any advice on how to fight it? Should I go for the flow of traffic
defense? How should I go about it?
any advice is apreciated. Thx in advance.
sincerley, loving person
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Guess what dude? That speed limit sign means what it says don't it?
Hey, why don't you just forget about them traffic lights and stop signs too?
Just mash down on the pedal and forget about any one else.
Damn Whiner, I hope they revoke your frickin license.
If it's a CDL, you'll get 6 points on your license automatically.
"Well gee your honor, I was just goin as fast as any one else was. Why me?"
"We just love to see your lovely cute face so much. Pay the bailiff,
smartass."
I do hope you get "Judge Judy".
|
| |
| |
On 16 Dec 2003 19:29:19 -0800, LovingPerson <saylo1234@aol.com> wrote:
Dear all:
I was on the 695 freeway in baltimore beltway. It was a clear night
the conditions were perfect. Visibility great and traffice was
moderately light with people easily doing 70 miles next to me.
I was in fast lane. NO cars were in front of me and I was doing 74
mph and got pulled over. Posted speed was 55 mph, but I think the
flow of traffic easily warrants 74 mph.
Dont you guys think that 74 is pretty slow for a speeding ticket?
Troll.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
You should try driving in NSW, Australia. You guys really don't know how
good you've got it. Our police will book you for anything more than 5 km
over the limit and the max speed limit is usually 100 km (60 mph). We also
have speed cameras EVERYWHERE. They are prolific revenue raisers.
On 16 Dec 2003 19:29:19 -0800, LovingPerson <saylo1234@aol.com> wrote:
Troll.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
On 16 Dec 2003 19:29:19 -0800, saylo1234@aol.com (LovingPerson) wrote:
I was in fast lane. NO cars were in front of me and I was doing 74
mph and got pulled over. Posted speed was 55 mph, but I think the
flow of traffic easily warrants 74 mph.
Dont you guys think that 74 is pretty slow for a speeding ticket?
You're joking, right?
**Dan Evans
**I post information, not advice.
|
| |
| |
Dan Evans <dan@evans-legal.com> wrote in message news:<k541uv4k82kk9ug0tjg160gq2reqg8gugn@4ax.com>...
On 16 Dec 2003 19:29:19 -0800, saylo1234@aol.com (LovingPerson) wrote:
You're joking, right?
**Dan Evans
**I post information, not advice.
wow. didn't realize that my post would set off some many negative
reactions. I guess I made a bad impression here. But, no. I am not
a troll. It really happened to me.
I guess I am used to the CHP in CA. Their jobs are to keep the
traffic flowing. The California Highway Patrol's stated mission is to
keep the flow on the freeway going at a safe speed. Therefore, it
would be nearly impossible to get a 74 mph ticket when the traffic is
light.
Truth be said, I feel very slapped in the face by the folks here. It
was not the warmest reception. I guess I came in here with a
different expectation of what is the norm. I guess in other parts of
the country such as Maryland, the goals are not really related to
keeping the flow going. It is more or less a rigid parameter for
busting people or not.
It hurt my sensibilities to have been received so rudely here. But I
must maybe also admit that is was because I came in with a different
set of presumptions than folks of other areas of the nation.
I hope to have constructive conversations on this matter.
Anyone who is kind and patient (please bear with me because I am new
to Maryland) please comment and advice.
What about traffic school in Maryland? Are those good enough to keep
points off the insurance records?
sincerely, Signed: a person who inadverdantly pissed off a lot of
people here on this forum without really intending to.
|
| |
| |
Your only chance is if the cop doesn't show up for court. I heard the best
way
to make that happen is to schedule the hearing on the officer's day off.
To
find out which days he is off, call his precinct everyday and ask if he's
in.
Also, choosing a court far from his precinct might work too.
...................
I do not killfile nor use do-not-call lists.
In Georgia I do not sign a waiver of my Right to a jury Trial.
Chances are better than 50/50 that for a simple speeding
violation they will not call you back for the jury trial.
Robert Miller
member of www.norfed.org
"If the American people ever allow the banks to control
issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then
by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up
around them will deprive the people of all property
until their children will wake up homeless on the
continent their fathers occupied."
--Thomas Jefferson
|
| |
| |
Dear all:
I was on the 695 freeway in baltimore beltway. It was a clear night
the conditions were perfect. Visibility great and traffice was
moderately light with people easily doing 70 miles next to me.
I was in fast lane. NO cars were in front of me and I was doing 74
mph and got pulled over. Posted speed was 55 mph, but I think the
flow of traffic easily warrants 74 mph.
Dont you guys think that 74 is pretty slow for a speeding ticket?
any advice on how to fight it? Should I go for the flow of traffic
defense? How should I go about it?
any advice is apreciated. Thx in advance.
sincerley, loving person
1st problem: Your automobile is the property of the State.
This happened when you registered your automobile as a
motor Vehicle. It goes on the books as an asset of the State.
You do have a power of Attorney to sale your automobile.
The State has absolute authority to tell you how to operate
it's property. Do a google search on "Liberty to Travel"
for some interesting discussions on this topic.
Robert Miller
member of www.norfed.org
March 10, 1933: By the continued use of paper money the
United States had to be declared bankrupt, which was proven
by the bankruptcy procedures that were followed in President
Roosevelt's Executive Orders. President Roosevelt declared
the United States bankrupt by Presidential Executive Order,
6073 and the subsequent Executive Orders, 6102, 6111 and
6260. [these documents are still publicly attainable in any
federal depository library]
|
| |
| |
Robert Miller wrote:
way
To
in.
In Georgia I do not sign a waiver of my Right to a jury Trial.
Chances are better than 50/50 that for a simple speeding
violation they will not call you back for the jury trial.
Costs more to get a trial going than the amount of the fine.
You never sign any waivers of your rights.
|
| |
| |
LovingPerson wrote:
wow. didn't realize that my post would set off some many negative
reactions. I guess I made a bad impression here. But, no. I am not
a troll. It really happened to me.
I guess I am used to the CHP in CA. Their jobs are to keep the
traffic flowing. The California Highway Patrol's stated mission is to
keep the flow on the freeway going at a safe speed. Therefore, it
would be nearly impossible to get a 74 mph ticket when the traffic is
light.
Truth be said, I feel very slapped in the face by the folks here. It
was not the warmest reception. I guess I came in here with a
different expectation of what is the norm. I guess in other parts of
the country such as Maryland, the goals are not really related to
keeping the flow going. It is more or less a rigid parameter for
busting people or not.
It hurt my sensibilities to have been received so rudely here. But I
must maybe also admit that is was because I came in with a different
set of presumptions than folks of other areas of the nation.
I hope to have constructive conversations on this matter.
Anyone who is kind and patient (please bear with me because I am new
to Maryland) please comment and advice.
What about traffic school in Maryland? Are those good enough to keep
points off the insurance records?
sincerely, Signed: a person who inadverdantly pissed off a lot of
people here on this forum without really intending to.
Maryland state troopers are notoriously known for pulling any one over for
barely exceeding the limit.
Pa troopers, when the speed limit was 55, would pull you over for 57 or 58.
While in New Jersey, cops won't bother unless you're doin at least 90.
In Wisconsin, on I-94 between the state line and Racine, 1 mph over? You get
busted.
Ohio will bust you for 10 over and if you're in a truck, 5 over.
Various states will allow certain limits at certain times, but as long as
you're not being an ass about how you're doing it, they won't bother you.
My rule is, let the other guy find out where the cop is.
|
| |
| |
Robert Miller wrote:
1st problem: Your automobile is the property of the State.
This happened when you registered your automobile as a
motor Vehicle. It goes on the books as an asset of the State.
You do have a power of Attorney to sale your automobile.
The State has absolute authority to tell you how to operate
it's property. Do a google search on "Liberty to Travel"
for some interesting discussions on this topic.
Bull#@($. You can buy a car for any purpose you want. You do not need to
register it unless you wish to drive it on public roads. The state does not
tell you how to operate your property. They merely have guidelines and when
those lines are crossed, you get penalized.
Where in sam hell did you come up with this cockamamy baloney?
|
| |
| |
Richard wrote:
Robert Miller wrote:
Bull#@($. You can buy a car for any purpose you want. You do not need to
register it unless you wish to drive it on public roads. The state does not
tell you how to operate your property. They merely have guidelines and when
those lines are crossed, you get penalized.
Richard's correct.
I'm mentioning it here because it happens so rarely.
|
| |
| |
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Guess what dude? That speed limit sign means what it says don't it?
Hey, why don't you just forget about them traffic lights and stop signs
too?
Just mash down on the pedal and forget about any one else.
Damn Whiner, I hope they revoke your frickin license.
If it's a CDL, you'll get 6 points on your license automatically.
"Well gee your honor, I was just goin as fast as any one else was. Why
me?"
"We just love to see your lovely cute face so much. Pay the bailiff,
smartass."
I do hope you get "Judge Judy".
We can have a system of laws that promote the theory of
limited liability or we can have laws that promote personal
responsibility.
You waive your right to travel when you apply for a
commercial license to Drive.
As for myself I did not waive my right to travel when I
applied for a drivers license, but I have a drivers license
merely to comply with the local ordinance.
Two questions on my Drivers License application.
"Are you a citizen of the United States?" I drew one line through
the word citizen and wrote "national" above the word citizen.
The next question, "Are you a resident of the State of Georgia?"
I crossed out resident with one line, and wrote "inhabitant"
Georgia State Constitution recognizes the status of an inhabitant.
Art. I Sec. II: "Inhabitants of the State of Georgia shall be
unmolested in person and property..."
Art. I. Sec. IV Citizens of the United States, resident in the State
of Georgia are hereby declared citizens of the State of Georgia,
and it shall be the duty of the general assembly to pass laws to
protect the rights, privileges, and immunities due to such
citizenship.
The Three United States
The standing 1945 Supreme Court definition of the term United States:
The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses.
[1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position
analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations.
[2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the
United States extends, or
[3] it may be the collective name of the states which are united by
and under the Constitution.
[Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]
I am a Citizen of the United States1 like you are a Citizen of China.
Here you have defined yourself as a National from a Nation with regard
to another Nation. It is perfectly OK to call yourself a "Citizen of
the United States1." This is what everybody thinks the tax statutes are
inferring. But notice the capital "C" in Citizen and where it is placed.
Please go back to basic English.
I am a United States2 citizen. Here you have defined yourself as a person
residing in the District of Columbia, one of its Territories, or Federal
enclaves (area within a Union State) or living abroad, which could be in
one of the States of the Union or a foreign country. Therefore you are
possessed by the entity United States2 (Congress) because citizen is
small case. Again go back to basic English. This is the "United States2"
the tax statutes are referring to. Unless stated otherwise, such as 26
USC 6103(b)(5).
I am a Citizen of these United States3. Here you have defined yourself as
a Citizen of all the 50 States united by and under the Constitution. You
are not possessed by the Congress (United States2). In this way you have a
national domicile, not a State or United States2 domicile and are not
subject to any instrumentality or subdivision of corporate governmental
entities.
From the "Law of Nations" a document used to help write the
U.S. Constitution.
73. Residents.
The word resident formerly related only to the
continuance of the minister's stay; and it is
frequent, in history, for ambassadors in ordinary
to be designated by the simple title of residents.
But, since the practice of employing different
orders of ministers has been generally established,
the name of residents has been confined to ministers
of a third order, to whose character general custom
has annexed a lesser degree of respectability. The
resident does not represent the prince's person in
his dignity, but only in his affairs. His
representation is in reality of the same nature as
that of the envoy: wherefore we often term him, as
well as the envoy, a minister of the second order,
- thus, distinguishing only two classes of public
ministers, the former consisting of ambassadors who
are invested with the representative character in
pre-eminence, the latter comprising all other
ministers who do not possess that exalted
character. This is the most necessary distinction,
and, indeed, the only essential one.
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and
transportation is not a mere privilege but a common and fundamental
right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be
deprived."
Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 NE 22,
66 ALR 834. Ligare v. Chicago, 139 Ill. 46, 28 NE 934. Boone v.
Clark, 214 SW 607; 25 AM JUR (1st) Highways, Sec. 163.
2. "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
transport his property thereon, either by a carriage. or automobile,
is not a mere privilege which a City may prohibit or permit at will,
but a common right which he has under the right to Life, Liberty and
the Pursuit of Happiness."
Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579.
3. "The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the citizen
cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth
Amendment."
Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, 125.
4. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can
be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436, 491.
5. "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be
converted into a crime."
Miller v. U.S. 230 F 2d 486, 489.
6. "Our system of government, based upon the individuality and
intelligence of the citizen
|
| |
| |
As for myself I did not waive my right to travel when I
applied for a drivers license, but I have a drivers license
merely to comply with the local ordinance.
Two questions on my Drivers License application.
"Are you a citizen of the United States?" I drew one line through
the word citizen and wrote "national" above the word citizen.
The next question, "Are you a resident of the State of Georgia?"
I crossed out resident with one line, and wrote "inhabitant"
Uh huh, and I bet you don't pay taxes either, because it's totally "voluntary."
....................
I do not killfile nor use do-not-call lists.
|
| |
| |
LovingPerson wrote:
Dear all:
I was on the 695 freeway in baltimore beltway. It was a clear night
the conditions were perfect. Visibility great and traffice was
moderately light with people easily doing 70 miles next to me.
I was in fast lane. NO cars were in front of me and I was doing 74
mph and got pulled over. Posted speed was 55 mph, but I think the
flow of traffic easily warrants 74 mph.
Dont you guys think that 74 is pretty slow for a speeding ticket?
any advice on how to fight it? Should I go for the flow of traffic
defense? How should I go about it?
any advice is apreciated. Thx in advance.
I don't know about Maryland, but in California, you
always risk a citation if you drive faster than the
maximum speed limit, and you will almost certainly lose
if you contest it.
The Maryland driver handbook,
http://www.mva.state.md.us/OnlineServ/DOCS/DL-002BMVAGuideBook.pdf,
doesn't indicate anything in quite as black-and-white
terms as California. I suggest you check it out.
|
| |
| |
As for myself I did not waive my right to travel when I
applied for a drivers license, but I have a drivers license
merely to comply with the local ordinance.
Two questions on my Drivers License application.
"Are you a citizen of the United States?" I drew one line through
the word citizen and wrote "national" above the word citizen.
The next question, "Are you a resident of the State of Georgia?"
I crossed out resident with one line, and wrote "inhabitant"
Uh huh, and I bet you don't pay taxes either, because it's totally
"voluntary."
It is my pleasure to obey any and all tax laws to the best of my
understanding.
Since you brought up the subject of taxes here is a good web page to read to
see some of the issues of income taxes. I assume these are the taxes you
are
reffering.
You know who Joe Banister is I assume:
Joe's representation of clients in IRS matters has helped to further expose
how the IRS gets away with their illicit practices. Joe has met face to face
with IRS agents all over the country in his capacity as a client
representative. Let's be clear - Joe is the first IRS Criminal Investigation
Special Agent ever to blow the whistle against the IRS in this manner. The
IRS has always been able to foster the myth that only anti-government
whackos believe the IRS is acting illicitly. Having a former IRS special
agent confront current IRS agents with evidence of illicit activity causes
current IRS agents to take a second look at agency policies and procedures -
something the IRS can not afford to let happen. So, the agency is now trying
to lock Joe out - permanently!
www.freedomabovefortune.com
Robert Miller
member of the National Assoc. for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act, and
the Internal Revenue Code. www.norfed.org
Bringing America back to value $1 at a time!
|
| |
| |
too?
me?"
We can have a system of laws that promote the theory of
limited liability or we can have laws that promote personal
responsibility.
You waive your right to travel when you apply for a
commercial license to Drive.
No I did not. My CDL allows me to drive a commercial vehicle where your
standard operator's license does not.
I can drive a truck in all 50 states, canada and mexico.
As for myself I did not waive my right to travel when I
applied for a drivers license, but I have a drivers license
merely to comply with the local ordinance.
Two questions on my Drivers License application.
"Are you a citizen of the United States?" I drew one line through
the word citizen and wrote "national" above the word citizen.
The next question, "Are you a resident of the State of Georgia?"
I crossed out resident with one line, and wrote "inhabitant"
An "inhabitant" is a person who happens to be within the borders.
If you are in florida, but "reside" in georgia, you are an "ihabitant" of
florida.
Georgia State Constitution recognizes the status of an inhabitant.
Art. I Sec. II: "Inhabitants of the State of Georgia shall be
unmolested in person and property..."
Art. I. Sec. IV Citizens of the United States, resident in the State
of Georgia are hereby declared citizens of the State of Georgia,
and it shall be the duty of the general assembly to pass laws to
protect the rights, privileges, and immunities due to such
citizenship.
Notice the use of the two words, not just one.
A resdient of California visiting Georgia is an "inhabitant" of Georgia, but
not a resident of.
The Three United States
The standing 1945 Supreme Court definition of the term United States:
The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses.
[1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position
analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations.
[2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the
United States extends, or
[3] it may be the collective name of the states which are united by
and under the Constitution.
[Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]
I am a Citizen of the United States1 like you are a Citizen of China.
Here you have defined yourself as a National from a Nation with regard
to another Nation. It is perfectly OK to call yourself a "Citizen of
the United States1." This is what everybody thinks the tax statutes are
inferring. But notice the capital "C" in Citizen and where it is placed.
Please go back to basic English.
You are a "national" because that is the country you were born in. A chinese
national can also be an "inhabitant" and a "resident" of any state. e.g. an
Ambassador to the USA from China.
I am a United States2 citizen. Here you have defined yourself as a person
residing in the District of Columbia, one of its Territories, or Federal
enclaves (area within a Union State) or living abroad, which could be in
one of the States of the Union or a foreign country. Therefore you are
possessed by the entity United States2 (Congress) because citizen is
small case. Again go back to basic English. This is the "United States2"
the tax statutes are referring to. Unless stated otherwise, such as 26
USC 6103(b)(5).
You will always retain your "citizenship" regardless of where you happen to
be.
Even if you move to France and become a resident of France and die there,
you are still a USA citizen.
I am a Citizen of these United States3. Here you have defined yourself as
a Citizen of all the 50 States united by and under the Constitution. You
are not possessed by the Congress (United States2). In this way you have a
national domicile, not a State or United States2 domicile and are not
subject to any instrumentality or subdivision of corporate governmental
entities.
You are subject to the state laws in which you reside, or inhabit.
Violate a state law in Ohio, being a resident of Georgia, Ohio will punish
you, not Georgia.
Violate a federal law, it makes no difference in which state it is done.
From the "Law of Nations" a document used to help write the
U.S. Constitution.
73. Residents.
The word resident formerly related only to the
continuance of the minister's stay; and it is
frequent, in history, for ambassadors in ordinary
to be designated by the simple title of residents.
But, since the practice of employing different
orders of ministers has been generally established,
the name of residents has been confined to ministers
of a third order, to whose character general custom
has annexed a lesser degree of respectability. The
resident does not represent the prince's person in
his dignity, but only in his affairs. His
representation is in reality of the same nature as
that of the envoy: wherefore we often term him, as
well as the envoy, a minister of the second order,
- thus, distinguishing only two classes of public
ministers, the former consisting of ambassadors who
are invested with the representative character in
pre-eminence, the latt
|
| |
| |
I don't know about Maryland, but in California, you
always risk a citation if you drive faster than the
maximum speed limit, and you will almost certainly lose
if you contest it.
The Maryland driver handbook,
http://www.mva.state.md.us/OnlineServ/DOCS/DL-002BMVAGuideBook.pdf,
doesn't indicate anything in quite as black-and-white
terms as California. I suggest you check it out.
Hi: thnx for the constructive reply. I get a little miffed when
others just jump on me, calling me a troll when I have a legit
question. Maybe I didn't come across very well, but it still does not
warrant the strong reactions that I got. As far as I am concerned,
the people who responded strongly are just full of anger and
intolerance for open and level-headed discussion, so, F them. (F
stands for forget).
Anyways, you gave me a constructive reply and I appreciate that. I
personally am from CA. I went to traffic school when I was younger.
It was given by a judge who was very forth-coming about how to fight
tickets and such. He taught us that the stated mission of the CHP is
not to bust people. Rather their mission is to keep the traffic
flowing at a good pace that is still safe. Safe may easily mean
upwards of 70 or more. When traffic is light, it may even be 80 miles
an hour. I know that in CA, I have plenty of time driven safely at 80
mph and have never been pulled over.
This was taught to me by a judge. So, screw the people who just think
it is so black and white and that I am guilty of traveling at an
unsafe speed. I come to the legal forum to get advice that is what I
am looking for. I certainly hope that the people who think taht I
should just roll over and accept the ticket without fighting it are
not defense lawyers. If any of those bad responses are from defense
lawyers, God help your clients. Trust me, you would not be serving
the interest of your clients. Please quit your profession and find a
better line of work. If you are a defense lawyer, you should provide
the best defense that you client deserves.
The kind of constructive advice are like along the lines of: How to
present the best case. How to dress and carry myself in court and
things like that. Please chime in and help me in these court
etiquettes.
Sincerely, Thank you in advance.
cheers and merry Chrismas
Signed: a fighter and a person who believes in innocence until proven
guilty.
P.s. I will be looking over the maryland code to see what the wording
is. Maybe I can make a case that i was traveling at a safe speed.
|
| |
| |
On 19 Dec 2003 11:55:42 -0800, LovingPerson <saylo1234@aol.com> wrote:
I don't know about Maryland, but in California, you
always risk a citation if you drive faster than the
maximum speed limit, and you will almost certainly lose
if you contest it.
The Maryland driver handbook,
http://www.mva.state.md.us/OnlineServ/DOCS/DL-002BMVAGuideBook.pdf,
doesn't indicate anything in quite as black-and-white
terms as California. I suggest you check it out.
Hi: thnx for the constructive reply. I get a little miffed when
others just jump on me, calling me a troll when I have a legit
question. Maybe I didn't come across very well, but it still does not
warrant the strong reactions that I got. As far as I am concerned,
People understand the issue with being ticketed for going slightly above
the speed limit. However you were complaining about being ticketed at 19
mph above the limit.
Im my jurisdiction a ticket for 15mph above the limit has fairly
serious potential consequences. So someone who thinks that they
doesn't even rate a ticket for going even faster seems like whining.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
Dear Isaac:
Thank you for the constructive pointer. I have to live and
learn. :-). This is because I came from CA and came over to Maryland
with a different mentality. It is not because I am thick headed and
stubborn. It is only because I have lived so long under CA rules,
often traveling over 80 and never having problems (because of the
stated mission of the CHP as I have mentioned multiple times in my
previous posts), that it didn't even occur to me to think differently.
Thank you for explaining it to me in terms I could understand.
sinerely, signed: a person who has to live and learn. Not a bad
person, just a person who lived with a different set of assumptions.
Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message news:<slrnbu71u2.9f.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>...
On 19 Dec 2003 11:55:42 -0800, LovingPerson <saylo1234@aol.com> wrote:
I don't know about Maryland, but in California, you
always risk a citation if you drive faster than the
maximum speed limit, and you will almost certainly lose
if you contest it.
The Maryland driver handbook,
http://www.mva.state.md.us/OnlineServ/DOCS/DL-002BMVAGuideBook.pdf,
doesn't indicate anything in quite as black-and-white
terms as California. I suggest you check it out.
People understand the issue with being ticketed for going slightly above
the speed limit. However you were complaining about being ticketed at 19
mph above the limit.
Im my jurisdiction a ticket for 15mph above the limit has fairly
serious potential consequences. So someone who thinks that they
doesn't even rate a ticket for going even faster seems like whining.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
Robert Miller wrote:
Bull#@($. You can buy a car for any purpose you want. You do not need to
register it unless you wish to drive it on public roads. The state does
not
tell you how to operate your property. They merely have guidelines and
when
those lines are crossed, you get penalized.
Where in sam hell did you come up with this cockamamy baloney?
Generally when a person buys a car, or a house for that matter. It's not
his car or house. It belongs to the Bank. The person who bought the
property is a trustee of the property. The trustee may sell the property
when he/she wishes, but while they are in possession of the property they
must follow certain regulations as the trustee.
Most people do not own motor vehicles. Motor vehicles are commercial
in nature. If you don't believe me look up the Federal definition of motor
vehicle and you will see it's for carrying cargo or passengers for hire.
The
States definition is much more broad and vague.
1. "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and
transportation is not a mere privilege but a common and fundamental
right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be
deprived."
Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 NE 22,
66 ALR 834. Ligare v. Chicago, 139 Ill. 46, 28 NE 934. Boone v.
Clark, 214 SW 607; 25 AM JUR (1st) Highways, Sec. 163.
2. "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
transport his property thereon, either by a carriage. or automobile,
is not a mere privilege which a City may prohibit or permit at will,
but a common right which he has under the right to Life, Liberty and
the Pursuit of Happiness."
Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579.
3. "The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the citizen
cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth
Amendment."
Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, 125.
4. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can
be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436, 491.
5. "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be
converted into a crime."
Miller v. U.S. 230 F 2d 486, 489.
I did register my automobile to in order to comply with the municipal
ordinance, but under reservation of Rights. My MVR application was
accepted by the County clerk. It could make for an interesting argument
someday.
Robert Miller
member of www.norfed.org
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny
individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."
Ayn Rand
|
| |
| |
Robert Miller wrote:
You know who Joe Banister is I assume:
Joe's representation of clients in IRS matters has helped to further expose
how the IRS gets away with their illicit practices. Joe has met face to face
with IRS agents all over the country in his capacity as a client
representative. Let's be clear - Joe is the first IRS Criminal Investigation
Special Agent
to be to subject to his own organization's jurisdiction.
(Sorry -- I couldn't resist. But it IS accurate.)
|
| |
| |
Robert Miller wrote:
Generally when a person buys a car, or a house for that matter. It's not
his car or house. It belongs to the Bank. The person who bought the
property is a trustee of the property. The trustee may sell the property
when he/she wishes, but while they are in possession of the property they
must follow certain regulations as the trustee.
I assume you're referring to the fiction that the "owner" of a property
subject to a loan is the lien-holder, rather than the nominal owner. This
is clearly incorrect -- as is the assertion that the trustee/owner can sell
the property without first paying off the loan or getting permission of
the lien-holder.
Furthermore, I've NEVER made payments on a car, so how can
you say that a bank "owns" any of MY cars.
Most people do not own motor vehicles. Motor vehicles are commercial
in nature.
False again. Your reference is probably to the definition of "motor
vehicle" for Interstate Commerce Commission - related laws.
|
| |
| |
Robert Miller wrote:
I assume you're referring to the fiction that the "owner" of a property
subject to a loan is the lien-holder, rather than the nominal owner. This
is clearly incorrect --
as is the assertion that the trustee/owner can sell
the property without first paying off the loan or getting permission of
the lien-holder.
The lien-holder must be paid, who would assume otherwise? If the lien-
holder requires insurance or has other stipulations they must be met before
or asap after the transaction is complete.
TRUSTEE, estates. A trustee is one to whom an estate has been conveyed in
trust. 2. The trust estate is not subject to the specialty or judgment
debts of the trustee, to the dower of his wife, or the curtesy of the
husband of a female trustee. 3. With respect to the duties of trustees,
it is held, in conformity to the old law of uses, that pernancy of the
profits, execution of estates, and defence of the land, are the three great
properties of a trust, so that the courts of chancery will compel trustees,
1. To permit the cestui que trust to receive the rents and profits of the
land. 2. To execute such conveyances, in accordance with the provisions of
the trust, as the cestui que trust shall direct. 3. To defend the title of
the land in any court of law or equity. Cruise, Dig. tit. 12, c. 4, s. 4.
4. It has been judiciously remarked by Mr. Justice Story, 2 Eq. Jur. Sec.
1267, that in a great variety of cases, it is not easy to say what the duty
of a trustee is; and that therefore, it often becomes indispensable for him,
before he acts, to seek, the aid and direction of a court of equity. Fonb.
Eq. book 2, c. 7, Sec. 2, and note c. Vide Vin. Ab. tit. Trusts, O, P, Q, R,
S, T; Bouv. Inst. Index, h.t.
Furthermore, I've NEVER made payments on a car, so how can
you say that a bank "owns" any of MY cars.
Did I accuse you of being most people?
Most people do not own motor vehicles. Motor vehicles are commercial
in nature.
False again. Your reference is probably to the definition of "motor
vehicle" for Interstate Commerce Commission - related laws.
In common law a person has a natural right to travel on the public right of
way,
but he does not have a right to conduct commerce on the publicly maintained
roads. Georgia issued Drivers Licenses hundreds of years before automobiles
were invented, for conducting commerce on the public road by horse and
wagon.
Robert Miller
member of www.norfed.org
March 10, 1933: By the continued use of paper money the
United States had to be declared bankrupt, which was proven
by the bankruptcy procedures that were followed in President
Roosevelt's Executive Orders. President Roosevelt declared
the United States bankrupt by Presidential Executive Order,
6073 and the subsequent Executive Orders, 6102, 6111 and
6260. [these documents are still publicly attainable in any
federal depository library]
|
| |
| |
Robert Miller wrote:
The lien-holder must be paid, who would assume otherwise? If the lien-
holder requires insurance or has other stipulations they must be met before
or asap after the transaction is complete.
TRUSTEE, estates. A trustee is one to whom an estate has been conveyed in
trust. 2. The trust estate is not subject to the specialty or judgment
debts of the trustee, to the dower of his wife, or the curtesy of the
husband of a female trustee. 3. With respect to the duties of trustees,
it is held, in conformity to the old law of uses, that pernancy of the
profits, execution of estates, and defence of the land, are the three great
properties of a trust, so that the courts of chancery will compel trustees,
1. To permit the cestui que trust to receive the rents and profits of the
land. 2. To execute such conveyances, in accordance with the provisions of
the trust, as the cestui que trust shall direct. 3. To defend the title of
the land in any court of law or equity. Cruise, Dig. tit. 12, c. 4, s. 4.
4. It has been judiciously remarked by Mr. Justice Story, 2 Eq. Jur. Sec.
1267, that in a great variety of cases, it is not easy to say what the duty
of a trustee is; and that therefore, it often becomes indispensable for him,
before he acts, to seek, the aid and direction of a court of equity. Fonb.
Eq. book 2, c. 7, Sec. 2, and note c. Vide Vin. Ab. tit. Trusts, O, P, Q, R,
S, T; Bouv. Inst. Index, h.t.
Imp. to decphr. abbr. or the whether the first set of numbers (2-3) is related
to the second set (1-4). Furthermore, this seems to involve an 18th century
definition of trustee, which may not apply to modern deeds of trust or
mortgage documents. (Note that a "mortgage" document is NOT the same
as a "deed of trust", but is a alternative document in those states that
use it.)
Most people do not own motor vehicles. Motor vehicles are commercial
in nature.
False again. Your reference is probably to the definition of "motor
vehicle" for Interstate Commerce Commission - related laws.
In common law a person has a natural right to travel on the public right of
way,
but he does not have a right to conduct commerce on the publicly maintained
roads.
Possibly false -- there being no "common law" jurisdictions (in regard
criminal offenses) left, I don't see the need to investigate the history
of common law. However, we can look to State definitions of
"motor vehicle" for the purpose of the State requirements for
a drivers' license, regardless of any (possibly) relevant Federal
definitions.
|
| |
| |
Robert Miller wrote:
Imp. to decphr. abbr. or the whether the first set of numbers (2-3) is
related
to the second set (1-4). Furthermore, this seems to involve an 18th
century
definition of trustee, which may not apply to modern deeds of trust or
mortgage documents. (Note that a "mortgage" document is NOT the same
as a "deed of trust", but is a alternative document in those states that
use it.)
Most people do not own motor vehicles. Motor vehicles are
commercial
in nature.
False again. Your reference is probably to the definition of "motor
vehicle" for Interstate Commerce Commission - related laws.
In common law a person has a natural right to travel on the public right
of
way,
but he does not have a right to conduct commerce on the publicly
maintained
roads.
Possibly false -- there being no "common law" jurisdictions (in regard
criminal offenses) left, I don't see the need to investigate the history
of common law. However, we can look to State definitions of
"motor vehicle" for the purpose of the State requirements for
a drivers' license, regardless of any (possibly) relevant Federal
definitions.
The Common Law was never repealed, but under a State of National
Emergency normal laws do not apply. The States are unlikely to declare
in open court that Statutory jurisdiction has anything to do with Admiralty
Maritime jurisdiction on land or a State of National Emergency.
Recommended reading:
Trading with the Enemies Act of Oct 1917
National Emergencies Act of 1933
Senate Report 97-549 to name a few.
Of coarse an open mind helps which counts out most lawyers who
profit by the system of laws they've helped create since 1812.
Robert Miller
member of www.norfed.org
A couple went on vacation to a fishing resort up north. The husband
liked to fish at the crack of dawn. The wife liked to read.
One morning the husband returned after several hours of fishing and
decided to take a short nap. Although she wasn't familiar with the lake,
the wife decided to take the boat out.
She rowed out a short distance, anchored, and returned to reading her
book. Along came the sheriff in his boat. He pulled up alongside her and
said, "Good morning, Ma'am. What are you doing?"
"Reading my book" she replies as she thinks to herself, "Isn't it
obvious?"
"You're in a restricted fishing area," he informed her.
"But officer, I'm not fishing. Can't you see that?"
"Yes, but you have all the equipment. I'll have to take you in and write
you up."
"If you do that, I'll have to charge you with rape," snapped the irate
woman.
"But, I haven't even touched you," groused the sheriff.
"Yes, that's true," she replied, "but you do have all the equipment."
|
| |
| |
ear all:
I sat dow | | |
