By alton parker on Sep 20, 2008

I cant belive no one will answer my coments

By Marc on Sep 9, 2008

For proof that these laws are passed purely as a revenue (and poverty) generating tool, one has to look no further than the BMV’s own website. I in no way advocate drinking and driving, and fully agree that it should be illegal. However, these are not fines for DUI, they are merely the reinstatement fee for getting back your license (is the 3-6 month license suspension not supposed to be the punishment itself?).

DUI Conviction Date before 03/14/89
$75.00

DUI Conviction Date after 03/13/89
$100.00

DUI Conviction Date on/after 07/25/90
$125.00

DUI Arrest Date on/after 07/01/93
$250.00

DUI Arrest Date on/after 10/01/97
$280.00

DUI Arrest Date on/after 9/16/98
$405.00

DUI Arrest Date on/after 11/03/00
$425.00

Apparently, the price of punching your info into the computer has increased quite a bit since 1989. In addition to this “reinstatement fee”, you still have to buy a license, about another $25.00. If you are unfortunate enough to receive an “Administrative License Suspension”, and your judge did not waive it, add a second $425 to your total. These fees are all in addition to the fine (up to $1000), court costs, probation, and DUI school (about $300). While a strong disincentive to drink and drive, this setup obviously places a much more severe hardship on poor and working class individuals and creates a situation where it is more difficult for one to keep a job. These figures are just for a first offense.

By Alton Parker on Sep 9, 2008

Look at your trafic code and you will find that all trafic laws are for commerical cars and trucks not for we the people.Traffic Stop LAWFUL Notice
Affidavit for Truth

Dear Police Officer, Code Enforcement Officer, Government Agent, Sheriff, Law Enforcement Officer, or Peace Officer, please, take notice of the Affidavit below, before you ‘Presume Contract Jurisdiction’ and attempt to Engage this Common Law Private Sovereign American into Statutory Law, ie: Public Policy Enforcement.
The ‘Sovereign American Traveler’ honorably and passively, presenting this knowledge to you, is doing so in an attempt to protect you from yourself.
I have a great deal of respect for the ‘Public Service’ you are committed to, and understand how difficult it is to seek out and prosecute criminals. However, this Document is presented at a ‘traffic stop’, and therefore is a mandatory part of the Official Record of any ensuing action, and MUST be introduced as prima facie Discovery Evidence in said action.
It will be noted that willful suppression of ‘Evidence’ is a ‘Felony’. Any cause for action will result in a lawsuit under USC Title 18, Title 28, and Title 42, 1983.
This “NOTICE” has been submitted upon DEMAND of a ‘DRIVERS LICENSE,’ ‘Registration,’ ‘Proof of Insurance,’ or ANY other State issued Privilege, Permit or License (of which, NONE of these Statutes, this Sovereign American Traveler is Liable, or Contracted to).
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled: ‘The unalienable “RIGHT” to travel is a part of the liberty of which the American Citizen cannot be deprived without due process of the law under the 5th Amendment’ See: Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
Please, be informed that this Traveler is a “Secured Party” First Class Private Sovereign American, and NOT a Second Class Public ‘Federal US citizen’, and, as such, has served your Administrative Agency, ‘Lawful Public Notice’ of his ‘Secured Party Status’ in the Community.
This ‘Certified Lawful Notice’ of his ‘UCC-1 Filing’, was recorded with the BURNET COUNTY RECORDER at FEE NUMBER 0852006307, as amended.
As a ‘Private Sovereign American’, inhabiting Burnet, Texas state, this Sovereign American, has Constitutional protection.
The most important Constitutional Right being, the Fifth Amendment Right: “To Remain Silent” (Miranda Warning).
Do not take offense, or be insulted because I choose to ‘Plead the Fifth’, ie: Remain Silent, and NOT be compelled to co-operate with your ‘verbal interrogation’.
“The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer Official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings.” LEFKOWITZ v. TURLEY, 94 S. CT. 316, 414 U.S. 70 (1973)
Due to this Sovereign American’s past naivety with Statutory Law, this Traveler has since learned, that one cannot listen oneself into trouble. This Traveler now realizes it is a Public Official’s Intent, to lure one into a Verbal, then Written CONTRACT. .Therefore, this Traveler must inform you of his Rights, and not help you to coerce him into some Statute of which he is NOT Liable to.
This Traveler does not willfully choose to Consent to your “Offer To Contract”, nor to be ‘compelled’ To Incriminate himself by answering ANY questions and thereby Entering into ANY sort of Verbal Agreement.
Unless you have a Warrant for this Sovereign American’s Arrest, ie: a ‘Valid Sworn Claim of Liability’, or have seen this Sovereign American Commit a Felony, you have NO Probable Cause to detain him, as he has the “Right to Free Travel”.
If you are Arresting this ‘Secured Party’Sovereign American Without A Warrant, you must IMMEDIATELY take him before a Judicial Officer of competent jurisdiction, to determine whether the Arrest was lawful, or if there was ‘Probable Cause’ for the Arrest, or you will be held Personally Liable, and Acountable, for False Arrest (Kidnapping) and Sued in your Official Capacity. The arrest shall not be based upon hearsay, unless supported by a Warrant accompanied by a Bona Fide Affidavit. Said ‘Warrant’ and ‘Affidavit’ must be based upon first-hand knowledge of the Affiant who has a Claim against him, charging him with a Felony or other infamous crime. This Secured Party’ Sovereign American must be allowed the right to face his accuser.

If you deny this ‘Secured Party’ Sovereign American that right, it will be a violation of The Sixth Amendment, and if you act unreasonably in your investigation or use excessive force, it will be a violation of The Fourth Amendment. This ‘Constitutional Rightful Demand’ must be met prior to booking. If you do not comply with this ‘Rightful Demand’ You Will Be Sued.
Please, also be informed that under the Rules of the “Uniform Commercial Code”, this First Class Sovereign American is NOT engaged in ANY COMMERCIAL Activity (STATUTORY LAW) where MOTOR VEHICLE Licensing is mandatory. This ‘First Class Sovereign American’ is a “Free-Born and Natural Sovereign American”, “riding a motor bike” or “traveling for pleasure in an Automobile”, and this “Conveyance” form of “Locomotion”, is his “Private Property’’ for private use, only.
This ‘First Class Sovereign American’ is NOT “DRIVING OR OPERATING A Public Property ‘MOTOR VEHICLE”, therefore NOT Engaged in the ‘Activity of Commerce’,and therefore NOT Liable, under the “MOTOR VEHICLE STATUTORY LAW”, Or subject to your Jurisdiction.
If a ‘Public Official’ ‘Assumes Jurisdiction’ and insists in his/her pursuit in engaging a ‘Private Sovereign American’ without a “Viable Sworn Claim of Liability”, ie: ‘Affidavit’ or a ‘Warrant’ , s/he is “trespassing” and is therefore no longer ‘immume to prosecution’, and will be ‘held personally accountable’, in his/her ‘Private Capacity’ for acting outside of his/her ‘Official Capacity’ and will therefore be ‘charged’ with a ‘Hostile Act of Official Aggression’, in an Article 3 Court.
(The Supreme Court has held that the courts are open twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, three hundred sixty five days a year.)
Where a Secured Party’ Sovereign American is detained, without a Warrant and without having committed a crime (traffic infractions are not crimes), the detention is a false arrest and false imprisonment.
Damages awarded; TREAEVANT v. CITY OF TAMPA, 241F2D.336 (11TH CIR.1984) Motorist illegally held for 23 minutes in a traffic charge was awarded $25,000 in damages. The above case sets the foundation for $75,000 dollars per hour, or $1,800,000 dollars per day.
The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever this might tend to subject to criminal responsibility on him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is a party defendant.” MC CARTHY v. ARNDSTEIN, 266 U.S. 34, 40, 45 S.CT. 16, 17, 69 L.ED. 158 (1924)
Please, BE FOREWARNED, IF you choose to Commit these FELONIES yourself, by DEMANDING one Surrender one’s DRIVERS LICENSE and/or REGISTRATION Without one’s Willful Consent, and you persist with: .1) Armed Assault (physically threaten one), 2) Extortion (Enter one into Contract, by Writing a Complaint, or Levying Fines without one’s permission), and 3) Identify Theft(one’s NAME is one’s private property, and you may not take this ‘Secured Party’ American Citizen’s property or wrongfully convert any of one’s property, such as this Sovereign American’s personal photograph or fingerprints without Written Authority which is granted only after an adversary proceeding which complies completely with The Fifth Amendment due process rights, concluded with a signed order by a Judicial Officer of competent jurisdiction ordering the taking of said property), or 4) Kidnapping (Arrest without a Warrant) You will Be Held Personally Accountable, Liable, and Sued for Damages; BOTH under your OFFICIAL and Individual Capacities, for your “Hostile Act of Official Aggression”.
If a ‘Public Official’ wishes to communicate with this ‘Secured Party’, s/he can do so, through correspondence by mail, to the address of:
Coolidge Dee; house of Gerdes
Non-Domestic mail
C/O 1103 Lawndale Avenue
Victoria, republic of Texas
Let this ‘Notice’ serve as a mandatory part of the ‘Official Record’ of any ensuing action, and therefore Must be introduced as prima facie evidence in said action. It will be noted that willful suppression of evidence is a felony. Any cause for action will result in a lawsuit under USC Title 18, Title 28, and Title 42, 1983.
“…there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves.” MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 86 S. CT. 1602, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Hale v. Henkel the united States supreme Court which speaking on the “Law of the Land.” The opinion of the court stated:
“The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors, to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property.

“His rights are such as existed by the Law of the Land (Common Law) long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.

“He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”

“…where the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is involved…the court has always construed its protection to ensure that an individual is not compelled to produce evidence which later may be used against him as an accused in a criminal action… The protection does not merely encompass evidence which may lead to criminal conviction, but includes information which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence that could lead to prosecution, as well as evidence which an individual reasonably believes could be used against him in a criminal prosecution.” HOFFMAN v. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S.CT.814, 95L.Ed. 1, 18 (1951)
“in KASTIGAR v. UNITED STATES, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S. CT. 1653, 32 L. Ed. 212(1972), we recently reaffirmed the principle that the privilege against self incrimination can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory. Id., at 444, 92 S. Ct. AT 1656; LEFKOWITZ v. TURLEY, 414 U.S. 70, 94 S. CT.316, 322, 38 L. Ed. 274 (1973).
“WE have recently noted that the privilege against self-incrimination — the essential mainstay of our adversary system—is founded in a complex of values… To maintain a fair state individual balance, to require the government to shoulder the entire load… to protect the inviolability of the human personality, our accusatory system of criminal justice demands that the government seeking to punish an Individual produce the evidence against him by its own independent labors, rather than by the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it from his own mouth… In sum, the privilege is fulfilled only when the person is guaranteed the right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will.”
Please also NOTE: the above, as stated by the Supreme Court, are rights and privileges as guaranteed by the Constitution, and anyone (including judges) who knowingly violates those rights may be civilly and criminally liable under several federal statutes. Please see: United States Code, Title 18 Section 241 (Conspiracy against Rights), and Section 242 (Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law); Title 42 Section 1983, 1985, 1986 (Civil Rights)
Any violation of My Rights or failure to Stop another from violating them, by a Public Servant Who has the Legal Duty and Power to Protect those rights, shall constitute a Crime.
IF YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE THESE WARNINGS it will show bad faith on your part, and prima facie evidence of your deliberate indifference to Constitutionally mandated rights. A copy of this instrument will be prima facie evidence of your bad faith. YOU Will Be Held Personally Accountable, Liable, and Sued for Damages; BOTH under your Official and Individual Capacities.
Remember, YOU Are “Doing Business As” A Public Servant, and as such, you are expected to treat me with due respect, as I respectfully thank you, for reading this NOTICE OF INTENT. .
Officer, I cannot and will not Offer you any information that may later be used against me in a Civil or Criminal proceeding. This includes producing documents that may or may not, be in my possession. If there is some important information that you wish to impart upon me, please do so in a respectful manner. I do hope you will have a good day.

Respectfully submitted,

By Tracker on Aug 6, 2008

To Joe concerning 12/29/07:

I missed your comment of the above date, but more than that I lost this article. I have used the Bill of Rights in Court to protest illicit practices citizens are unaware of. We both have used these in our search for justice within the judicial system. I can’t completely agree on some of the new spy technology, but the simplest invasions of civil liberties I agree with you on.

My letters to the states Attorney General, and the Assistant States Attorney General went unanswered for 43 days before I went to court over 56 in a 45 citation. I asked for no intervention but simply the foreknowledge that they threatened me with arrest if I did not sign their citation. My blogs give a detailed account of the dismissal, but my demand of dropping the charges was treated, in my opinion, as dismissed by the judge in a biased way.

My insurance agent told me before I went to court that even though charges are dismissed the citation is entered in actuarial figures for statistical purposes. These figures increase insurance premiums. What better way for law-enforcement and business to increase its financial portfolio.

By RICK GOLD on Feb 3, 2008

FOLKS,

JAMES YOUNG WRITES (ON 12/25/07):
“I have this weird idea that public policy, enumerated as laws, should actually accomplish what they were written to accomplish. If the proponents of a law cannot demonstrate that their law actually works, it must be revoked immediately. Thus, if the proponents of artificially low limits cannot show that those limits improve key safety rates (crash, injury and fatality), then the law is a failure and must be rescinded.” JOE, TODAY, CONCURRS BUT QUESTIONS THE POSSIBILITY OF REMOVING SUCH A LAW: “James Young on Dec 25, 2007, you have a great idea but it’ll be a cold day in Hell before we ever see such a innovative idea like that become reality.”

WHAT BOTH OF THESE EARNEST GENTLEMEN FAIL TO REALIZE IS THAT LAWS OF THIS TYPE, EVEN IF INEFFECTIVE VIS A VIS THEIR STATED GOALS, ARE STILL VERY EFFECTIVE WITH REGARD TO REVENUE GENERATION AND INORDINATE CONTROL OF THE POPULACE; THEIR UNSTATED GOALS.

SO, FOR A LEGISLATOR, PASSING INEFFECTIVE LAW, WHILE NOT CLASSIFIABLE AS A “WIN WIN” IS, INDEED, JUSTIFIABLE AS A “CAN’T LOSE”. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE TO PASSING INEFFECTIVE LAW. EVEN IF IT ACCOMPLISHES LITTLE OR NOTHING, IT STILL GENERATES REVENUE AND COERCES THE CITIZENRY!!! WHAT’S NOT TO LIKE ?!?!

THE ABOVE SAID, WHY WOULD ANY LEGISLATOR OR PUBLIC POLICY WONK GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT REMOVING AN INEFFECTIVE LAW OR NOT PASSING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE ??

THE NEXT TIME YOU HEAR THE PHRASE “WE’RE A NATION OF LAWS”, THINK ABOUT IT FOR A BIT AND CONSIDER IT IN THE CONTEXT DELINEATED ABOVE. HOPEFULLY, A LIGHT OR TWO WILL COME ON.

REGARDS ALL.

RICK GOLD

By Joe on Feb 3, 2008

James Young on Dec 25, 2007, you have a great idea but it’ll be a cold day in Hell before we ever see such a innovative idea like that become reality. I’ve had this idea for a long time that if you can prove that a speed limit your citied for violating is set wrong then you should be able get your citation dismissed. Most smaller jurisdictions don’t even employ traffic engineers so local municipal speed limits end up being a political action instead of a scientific one. But if we ended up having reasonable speed limits everywhere because of all these court challenges, hows a municipality gonna make any money?? Once again, it all boils right back down to money.
I don’t know much about other states but the Municipal League, which represents most cities and towns in the state, is one of the more powerful lobby groups in the state of Oklahoma. Law Enforcement groups are another. Many times they work together because what’s good for one is often good for the other too. Anything that affects their pocketbook (coffers) is going to be meet with stiff, aggressive resistance in a state legislature. I don’t want anyone to be discouraged from trying. If enough drivers in a state reach critical mass it’s amazing how few it takes to get legislators attention. Remember, traffic laws are political in nature often founded on unscientific or emotional basis. It will take political solutions to undue the last couple decades of decay of driving freedoms.
And it ’s no longer enough for LEO’s and the like to lobby the state legislature. It’s not uncommon for retired or ex-law enforcement officials to run for public office….. and win. Last legislative session, a retired OHP lawmen single handedly got the Oklahoma speed trap law rescinded right under the noises of everybody. It just so happened that at the time, two or three of the municipalities he represented were under prohibition from the use of the law. Sure he was shrewed and used underhanded tactics but he accomplished his mission. Nothing that most traffic cops don’t do on a daily basis. What else would you expect?

By Joe on Feb 3, 2008

James Young, yicks I just now noticed your last post. Sorry I haven’t been on here the last few days. Been hecktic at work lately. I’ll see if I can give you a call one of these days if that’s OK with you. I work evenings in Tulsa.

By tracker on Jan 3, 2008

Mike,
In the case of backwater towns and state judicial codes the question to ask is how ethical are the judges or magistrates and how far are they willing to open their fiefdoms to public scrutiny? I had a witness and newspaper reports of several public investigations which the magistrate suppressed from those in line ahead of me for their hearings. Recently I was stopped coming over a hill on a two lane highway and was pulled for supposedly going 38 in a 30. A black SUV had just passed me and while I listened to the officer who was only going to give me a warning ticket I heard the woman in the SUV argue she did not know what the speed limit was. The other officer raised his voice and said, “Lady I clocked you at 58 in a 30″. The officer writing my ticket changed mine from 38 to no seat belt because it was a safety violation. My three grandchildren were all buckled up and we were discussing how the SUV had passed us going uphill and ignored the double no passing lines. I know I was going 30 and less because was right on my bumper for over a mile and my grandson is studying for his learners permit. The key word to your comment was Civil Infractions. Traffic regulations throughout the United States vary and most speed-trap towns are in violation of unknowing motorists civil rights. the fine for a seat belt is $25.00, but the local jurisdiction wanted all associated fees adding another $64.00 to the cost. I mailed the $25.00 twice, and missed my court date so they doubled the fine. Legal extortion!

By James Young on Dec 29, 2007

Joe, call me at 918-381-1604 tonight or tomorrow. That’s a Tulsa cell number but I’m actually in California, Pacific Time.

By RICK GOLD on Dec 29, 2007

to JOE:

ABSOLUTELY GREAT POST. THANKS !!

RICK GOLD

By Joe on Dec 29, 2007

You all make some pretty convincing arguments esp. Rick. I only wish you’d turn right around and email a copy to your state legislators. I know, I’ve heard the argument that is doesn’t do any good. If you can form a a group of even a small number of people collectively focusing you energy, you might be surprised what you can do. Most of the time you can find sympathetic congressmen. They don’t have to be from your district. The problem is finding and organizing those citizens. I am a long time member of the NMA formerly hoping to attract other Okies to fight abusive traffic control though the state legislature but the NMA will not release any names of members, which is understandable, but how is one going to go about this task unless you can contact citizens in your respective states? I’ve had my name and address circulated twice in the last 20 years and the response was luke warm at best. Most people were “too busy” to get involved. People (drivers) better wake up!
We may think we live in a high tech time in history but we continue to drive computer controlled vehicles at gravel road speeds with ever increasing congestion, surveillance, tolls, higher fuel prices and abusive law enforcement loaded with high tech tools to capture maximum revenue and cops operating with a attitude of damn the driving public. Isn’t it just lovely driving on our modern roadways now-a-days. The German people are historically known as some of the most conservative, disciplined people in the world and for them to have roadways with no speed limits should tell us something.
The combination of new laws driven by law enforcement and municipalities, the constant improvement and innovation of technology and the evolving extremist mentality of law enforcement willing to trample all over your rights as a driver, is only going to get worse. While I hate abusive traffic control tactics, it’s no longer just traffic tickets, it’s things like surveillance in the name of Homeland Security. Heard of the state trials of microchips embedded in a drivers license. Read; “States to Track Drivers Through Licenses” http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/front.asp?page=3 It might sound pretty innocent up front but if you actually talk to people who know the capability of this fledgling RFID technology you’ll understand the abusive possibilities. How long before these microchips go from your license to somewhere on your body permanently? How long before babies are laden with these at birth. Many of us already carry badges at work with RFID chips in them. Some companies are already requiring employee’s to have these chips embedded into their body and some states have legalized that use. Of course there will always be those who argue, “if your not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear from the govenment”. Yea right, hold that thought. A case in point, we already know how trustworthy, fair and friendly our justice system works with traffic controls issues. Seatbelts were only voluntary at one time, DUI limits were reasonable at one time…. just to name a few. Through slight changes in the language of the law we went from reasonable to abusive. Why is it that regardless of what your doing, when you see a cop, instead of feeling secure you keep a wary eye out on him/her. Why don’t you instead feel secure and protected? The theoretical way I was taught as a kid not to fear law enforcement and consider them as a friend versa the reality as a adult of 40 + years of driving has turned that idea on it’s head.
Make no mistake, your friendly governments’ ultimate goal is to know where you are ALL the time. And it’s all for your safety, of course. It may be just on a voluntary basis right now but it only takes a slight change in the law to make RFIDs mandatory for all, not just drivers. You drivers license makes that jump from simply a license proving your qualification to drive to part of a national identity system. And don’t expect your elected officials to be a check against unreasonable assaults on your civil liberties and privacy because they will bend over backwards to accommodate law enforcement. No politician wants the death wish of being labeled as easy on crime or terrorism. Rest assured, your rights take a back seat to law enforcement and homeland security. And if you think the courts are any protection, think again. Activist judges are far more likely to rule in favor of law enforcement and against your rights. If you don’t believe it look back at Supreme Courts rulings the past 20 years. Remember when you could not be pulled over except for firm probable cause. Now probable cause can be just about anything. Remember when the sobriety check points were supposed to be “minor” inconveniences, strictly for DUI checks only. Now they are used for anything the cops decide to use them for. Read; http://www.duiblog.com/2007/11/06/a-trial-of-generals/ If you do any reading at all, by now you should be painfully aware of all this.
I wish I could be more optimistic but unfortunately I’m not sure whether the American people are any longer willing or capable of recovering from this constant assault on our rights and privacy, such as the few we have left. Nothing short of a rebellion will bring our constitution back into force.
Some would call people like me alarmists. I don’t know how you can call someone such…. when the future is staring you right in the face! If things such as RFIDs not Big Brother…can someone please tell me what is????????

By Joe on Dec 28, 2007

Recommended reading; “Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution”. If you want to read a good blog by what seems to be a attorney specializing in DUI’s. It’ll open your eyes!! You thought you had rights until…. http://www.duiblog.com/2007/11/06/a-trial-of-generals/

By Mike on Dec 28, 2007

Sorry Grady , I meant to address that comment to Tracker.

By Mike on Dec 28, 2007

Grady, you wrote that you’re entitled to a jury trial. The U.S. supreme Court ruled about 20 years ago that is not the case. I’m unaware of what the state of Tennessee’s constitution says but the Supreme courts ruling involved a DUI case in the state of Wyoming where the maximum penalty at the time was 90 days. The Wyoming courts denied the defendent a jury trial. It went to the U.S. Supreme court which decided that any charge that did not carry a penalty of more than 180 days was a petty crime and the U.S. constitution did not gaurantee a jury trial for petty crimes. Most states consider traffic violations a civil infraction so the rules for a jury trial may be different but the federal courts have been nullifying the constitution for more than a century.

By grady on Dec 25, 2007

Where is a man of the character of Gen. Robert E. Lee?

By James Young on Dec 25, 2007

I have this weird idea that public policy, enumerated as laws, should actually accomplish what they were written to accomplish. If the proponents of a law cannot demonstrate that their law actually works, it must be revoked immediately. Thus, if the proponents of artificially low limits cannot show that those limits improve key safety rates (crash, injury and fatality), then the law is a failure and must be rescinded.

By tracker on Dec 20, 2007

Grady,
The most notorious speedtrap, in my opinion, in the state of Tennessee issued me a ticket for 56 in a 45 mph zone several years ago. It did not make the top three speedtraps in Tennessee lately, but it still is. It has been investigated by the local media and I took the newspaper articles with me to court. I also had in my possession copies of the Tennessee Code and the ethical considerations for lawyers and the judiciary. The magistrate and the convening court did not appreciate this. The ticket read “If you do not sign this ticket you will be physically arrested. The wording on the back was that that you were not admitting guilt. In order to traverse the hills and dales of this backwater town below 45 mph with a manual transmission I fortunately had a co-pilot who kept warning me when my speedometer hit 46 mph and almost breaking 50 mph when we sighted the officer as I was down-shifting to a lower gear after topping a hill and braking to slow down. My co-pilot watched as a 5 and a zero register 50, and a slash is midway point possibly indicating 45 mph between a 4 and a zero showing 40. Since I had no idea how fast I was going under 50 I questioned the officer who was apparently from another area because he did not recognize my first three digits on my home phone. The reason this township does not make the top three speedtraps is that it is on an isolated state scenic route where tourists are unaware of its local bullying tactics. I called my insurance agent and he informed me that even though the charges were dismissed at no cost, the ticket actuarial figures going to Nashville raise the insurance rates of highly ticketed areas. Memphis rates are the highest in Tennessee because they have more licensed drivers, registered and unregistered vehicles, and insured and uninsured drivers. These figures fan out to the outlying counties in Tennessee, Mississippi, and Arkansas. The judge asked me why I was seeking a dropping of the charges and I tried to inform him of what my agent had said. I told him the dismissal left paperwork within that township and I was not guilty. The officer was wrong and I wanted a jury trial unless the officer dropped the charges. Let me simply say it would be like accepting an apology. The officer refused. Without putting up money for fees and bond after the judge dismissed the case he agitatedly said it was not costing me anything. I appreciate the fact the Tennessee Code said I had more rights in the court of law than the lawyer did, and was responsible for my actions. The truth is I told the judge I lost the time it took to write to the states Attorney General and his associate, the cost of two stamps, the time to research the Bill of Rights, the time to come to court in which I was blessed because it was after my work hours, mileage using my vehicle, and missing my Tuesday night favorite television show. I was angry, but quite respectful in the way I addressed the magistrate. I carried only my drivers license and a twenty dollar bill to court in my wallet. The key to respect in the line of traffic law is “Do not be bullied, but maintain respect”. Sometimes the officer is simply doing his job. In court the judge, magistrate, whoever is in charge does not have the final word. The Fourth Amendment in the Bill Of Rights states that “any matter in litigation over twenty dollars you have a right to a trial by jury in the jurisdiction in which you are charged”. The Constitution has not been amended for the inflation of the American dollar since 1791.

By James Young on Dec 20, 2007

{IMHO, The biggest instigator for safe driving is not the state! Rather it is the insurance companies! They have the special interest groups lobbying the states and congress to impose stricter laws that prevent folks from getting hurt.}

The insurance companies do not instigate safe driving, despite all their claims, which are nothing more than advertising puffery. Insurance companies benefit from the difference between premiums collected and claims paid out. They don’t care if they have to pay out $1 million more in claims if they can raise premiums by $5 million by having surcharges for “violations” of laws prohibiting reasonable and perfectly safe behavior. Get caught going 55 mph in a 50 mph zone? That’ll be $370, thank you, and, of by the way, your insurance company just tacked on a $500 surcharge for 3 years.

Who supports all of these frivolous laws such as keeping speed limits below optimal levels, points for seatbelts, even points for not having insurance? Who supports RLCs and photoradar? Insurance company lobbyists, who pay perfectly good money to purchase the goodwill of legislators around the nation.

Those laws don’t make us safer but they make us more controllable by a state that cares not for our safety and well-being but for our quiet submission.

By Grady on Dec 20, 2007

IMHO, The biggest instigator for safe driving is not the state! Rather it is the insurance companies! They have the special interest groups lobbying the states and congress to impose stricter laws that prevent folks from getting hurt.

The state cares little about our health, welfare, and safety! What the state cares about is maintaining income! One way to maintain income is traffic violations and donations from special interest groups that lobby congress!

The bottom line is this: the less money paid out to hospitals and libel suits, the more fund remain in the coffers of the corporate gods.

By bill Leavitt on Dec 19, 2007

I have habitually contested biased and undeserved tickets. I write to my representatives, and occasionally refuse to sign tickets unless they are written correctly with the charge I am guilty of. I pay the fine, and accept the points if guilty. I find it hard to believe that some readers have answered don’t speed and you won’t get a ticket.What are they smoking that seems to separate them for reality? I would like to hear from other parts of Tennessee and learn what the NMA is pushing in legislation for stops like 2 to 3 mph over the limit, burned out lights and failure of an officer to issue a warning seven days to fix them. I was escorted to an Autozone in Florida while I replaced a burned out headlamp.
Failure to change an address on a drivers license when the county has changed your address over six times in the last 35 years and you have only moved across the street on your own property once costs $110.00 in Fayette County. If your
registration and license address do not match the officer will ask if all information is correct. Even if you haven’t moved, check the address. The city, county, state governments may have moved you and you did not even know it. I suggest all readers and members of NMA elaborate on these questions and write to their representatives from the local to the state levels. I did before joining NMA and live in the speedtrap capitol of Tennessee. NMA helps me verify my allegations of why traffic law-enforcement has gone from the ” Protect and Serve ” mode to the “Harass and Intimidate” mode. When courteous and law-abiding we do not have to accept one of the local quotas on tickets.

By Jim Perdiew on Dec 19, 2007

8 awesome questions we need to get posed in some actionable ways before the public. How can we get some traction with the public rather than with the crooks and charlatans who are elected to office? Referendums? Other ideas?

JP

By E. Meyers on Dec 19, 2007

THE PHEONIX CAN NOT RISE FROM THE ASHES UNTIL THERE ARE ASHES TO RISE FROM.

THE SOONER THE BETTER

By RICK GOLD on Dec 18, 2007

FOLKS,

WHAT IS BEING EXPOSED HERE IS THE IMMORAL NEXUS BETWEEN MONEY AND JUSTICE. THAT NEXUS SHOULD NEVER EXIST BUT WE CITIZENS HAVE CONTINUALLY ACQUIESCED SUCH THAT AN IMMORAL NEXUS HAS BECOME AN ACCEPTED “NORM”. AND OF COURSE THAT IMMORAL “NORM” IS NOT CONTESTABLE BECAUSE YEARS OF LEGAL PRECEDENT HAVE ESCONCHED THIS ABOMINATION IN OUR SYSTEMS, OUR PSYCHES, AND OUR SOCIETAL CONVENTIONS.

A TRULY PITIFUL STATE OF AFFAIRS WHICH, OF COURSE, OUR PERPETUALLY UNIMAGINATIVE AND LACKLUSTER POLITICIANS WILL NEVER DO ANYTHING TO CORRECT. EVEN THOUGH THIS SET OF CONDITIONS IS A DIRECT AFFRONT TO OUR PURPORTED LIBERTY; OR WHAT’S LEFT OF IT .

RICK GOLD