Traffic tickets..when will we say enough to this revenue collection scam?

reply to post by InvisibleObserver


Like I said, just another scheme and revenue system for the state. Nothing on the ticket revenue uses?

Yep, the entire system is a scam, in the form of and under the guise of a legal court system.



The Government and its system of laws were originally created to protect its citizens against injury and/or loss of property.

Say your Dog goes to the neighbors farm and kills a bunch of his sheep.

Then , the law would intervene and deem your dog, as your property and subsequent responsibility in keeping on your property, making you responsible for the loss of the neighbors sheep.

Technically, a traffic violation doesn't infringe on anyone's rights as far as injury and/or loss of property are concerned.

Ok, I know, the pundits will reply with " but Its the Law !".

Alright, we DO understand that but taking a step back....

And, back to the constitution and the Bill of Rights, the 6th and 7th amendments and our right to a fair trial.

Under the traffic court system, you cannot receive a fair trial if the Prosecution/Plaintiff and the Judge both work for the same party, called the State !

It is commonly called conflict of interest. Which prevents you from receiving a fair and just trial.


This the scam of the entire system. They want you to pay the fine, as IrishChic did and move on.
And NOT look at the scam of the system it actually is....


Sorry IrishChic, but at 2mph over, you should've talked your way out of that one.

Which is step one if you haven't had a ticket in a while.

Talk, Talk, Cry, Talk, Beg, And Talk More !~

Before he starts writing that ticket, because once he dates it , you are DONE !

And he has another ticket written towards his (invisible) ticket quota.

Check out Marc Stevens on YouTube,
He has some very valuable insight on the law.

Live Free or Die

reply to post by InvisibleObserver


Well, technically you're right. It's not in the constitution. Why is up for debate, because U.S. Case law has, time and time again, upheld that it is in fact a right.

As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

www.usconstitution.net...

So, it's more of a gray area than you have established. Also see www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

Back on topic though, the best way I have found to beat traffic tickets, is to simply drive under the radar. I don't speed, I don't make illegal turns, I don't forget to signal, I check my stop/turn/tail lights frequently, fix broken windshields, etc. etc. etc.

Why speed (the guy you just flew around is going to end up right behind you at the next traffic light)? why not just put on your seat belt? Why not yield when you're supposed to?

No traffic law is difficult to follow. They are there to ensure everyone's driving by the same rules. In nearly all traffic accidents, one or more traffic laws were violated. Someone's speeding, someone failed to yield the right of way, someone didn't signal, someone was drunk, someone was tail-gating, someone made a left across two lanes of traffic, someone ran a stop sign or red light... All needless.

It's not hard to follow the rules, and it doesn't hurt either.

reply to post by Now_Then


That sound you hear is my point whooshing straight over your head and heading out into a low earth orbit. But thank you for the two paragraph explanation of how a car has an interior.

Jeebus I thought I would be the only one. Are you saying we should just be allowed to speed as we want OP without fear of reprisal?

Ever been to Chicago? Well ANY major city. They drive like nut jobs here; speeding and weaving with no signals. Yeah I think those fools SHOULD be fined big.

Yes I agree a 2 mph over ticket is excessive but you're darn rght I wanna see speeders ticketed. It's dangerous when in traffic.

If you wanna do 150 on the open road all alone where the only person who could get hurt is you...no problem. Do it in my city and I am praying a copy tags you

-Kyo

In all fairness though, if you break the law, you kind of took that risk, no?

Free people are routinely pulled over in the name of "public safety" and robbed of their earnings. If they choose to fight the ticket, how can they expect to receive a fair hearing/trial when the police department, the prosecutors office, and the court in which they must fight all stand to realize financial gains from the fines imposed on them? Even if they are victorious, they still get hit with court "fees" which in my area add up to $140.

I got a ticket (for over $300, for speeding in a school zone), fought it in court (where my street comes out, there is NO notice you're in an active school zone), and didn't have to pay a dime (no court fee). Just as I was walking up to the bench to plead my case, the officer took one glance at my board of photos of the area, knew he'd be embarrassed, and told the judge he's dismissing the charge! Woo hoo! Score one for the little guy!

Personally, I think it needs to be unconstitutional to pay a court fee if you win the case...that's something the losing party should pony up.

reply to post by KILL_DOGG


Indeed, tort law does not need a clear victim.

But traffic tickets are a misdemeanor and are tried in criminal court. Therefore, they use Criminal Law, which MUST have a victim.

True, but often in tort law, the responsibility is split.
I see no reason the court fees couldn't be split by the same percentages of fault.

Originally posted by InvisibleObserver
reply to post by ntech

 

Wheres your source for that info?

You are saying the Nation wide Click it or ticket campaign which police set up check points and look for people not wearing their seat belt to ticket is unconstitutional?

I am saying that yes. The problem is you have a constitutional right to noninterference from the states when interstate commerce is concerned. An immunity so to speak.

Using the Iowa seatbelt law for example it dictates that the only device to be used is a seatbelt and states that only the car manufacturer can supply the seatbelt. Totally unconstitutional wording.

You have a civil right to free choice when it comes to commerce. The states have no authority when it comes to dictating the use of a product.

The odd thing here is that I cannot find any records of anyone trying this defense before. So we'll see what happens when I try it out next month.

Recently the politicians in my states capital pushed for more traffic enforcement over the period of the next year. The post is stretched insanely thin and with the academies latest class smaller than ever before, it's not looking good. Try covering three sectors comprising of seven counties (Very very large mind you) with only four or five Troopers per-shift and that is if your lucky. City and County are worthless and frankly are Good-ol boys who couldn't make it in the State Police Academy or Military. The SP have to cover for the city/county anyways but now everyone is forced to work traffic enforcement rotations.

Yes some people deserve tickets and it's always going to be a judgment call issue. I'm not going to do a traffic stop if you are going five over the limit. 65 in a 55? I still don't care. Everyone drives fast these days. I'm from Florida and I drive like a Floridian. But riding bumpers, acting like your Lewis Hamilton, going twenty, thirty, fourty over the limit and various other violations is going to have me pulling you over. But at the same time I have the commander asking us why we haven't met our increased quota, I'm going to work my arse off to go above that quota. I don't want to lose my job.

The fundamental problem though is that in this case law enforcement is needed elsewhere. Do you know how many drug busts went on in our sectors in the past month? Fifteen. How many calls per shift? Considering state handles both city and county (Every department from each county) calls several times over, that's a lot of calls that we can't respond to. So what's happening is that everyone is tied up on the highway all shift long and maybe getting the occasional speeder who either doesn't care or didn't pay attention. Everyone knows that this is going on and I haven't seen the traffic move this slow anywhere in my life. It isn't worth it when you have every LEA doing the same thing because a politician in a expensive luxury car, who can get away with tickets mind you, thinks he's doing the world a huge difference.

We were told to up the operational tempo while being hurt with manpower problems and funds. We do that because it's our job and we are professionals. We were told to really really crackdown on drugs and we had great success in doing so. And we maintained that "winning" streak. But were supposed to ditch that to concentrate solely on speed interdiction? Were supposed to be able to handle literally every call, help hold the local officer's hand and dedicate all of our strained manpower to drive around pointlessly? F***** brilliant.

It would be different if the LEC had layers and layers of operational quality, resources and the manpower to cooperate fully and get results. Look at where the post is. It's in a huge county that is one of the largest in the United States. The Sherrif's Department maintains three deputies. Two of those are brass and one's a deputy. The city has a roster of three officers and two brass. And those guys are the exact opposite of what you want to be working with. If they had a full department with a full batch of officers and the TRAINING to do so, well then life would be better. But life isn't perfect.

Sector A, where I live actually, has a above-average Sherrif's Department but is lacking in manpower just like we are. They aren't as short staffed as say Sector C (Post) or any of the other departments but they still don't have enough guys. Actually one of their deputies literally smashed the record for most tickets and pulled in around 2000. Of course I have no freaking idea how he managed that in such a small jurisdictional sector but props to him. The city guys well I won't even talk about them. Worthless.

It is a blatant revenue scam and nobody has a choice. I know what you are thinking. Just give some slack on the roads, turn a blind eye and you can still meet that quota. You do realize that even the sheepdog has to be fed sometimes right? And it's not like law enforcement isn't supposed to do traffic stops, etc. But even working back to back to back shifts and cutting slack won't meet that bar and you get bitched at and eventually demoted / cut loose. But while all across the country officers, troopers and deputies are enforcing traffic / speed, drugs and more important threats are allowed to exist and people who really need our help are ignored because there simply isn't enough manpower.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by nastalgik]

[edit on 7-6-2010 by nastalgik]

[edit on 7-6-2010 by nastalgik]

I also live in Wisconsin, the seat belt fine is $10, so we don't have it as bad as some. The area that I live, the cops more or less use it as a tool to catch drunk drivers (I live in a bar town). They pull someone over under the guise of seat belt violation so that they can take a closer look at them.

I do find it amazing that some people will go through weeks of trouble trying to put the system on trial and wade through paperwork and books and legal fees when they could spend 2 seconds and simply slow down.

Sorry but these speeders are a danger on the highway and sometimes surface roads. They weave in and out with no signals because they are self important and their business is FAR more important than yours

Hey I have sped. I am no better just because I don't do it now. When I was a teen I drove like an idiot. I deserved each and every ticket I got.

Yes I agree with a couple things.

1. accidents can happen even below speed limits. You don't need to speed to kill someone or yourself

2. Yes ticketing a couple mph over is ridiculous

However...why speed and add to the possibility of an accident? Is it worth it to get to work 30 seconds earlier or look cool in your flash car?

-Kyo

The odd thing here is that I cannot find any records of anyone trying this defense before. So we'll see what happens when I try it out next month.

First, you'd have to prove your car is primarily used for interstate commerce.

i thinks the usa is copying us in the UK, like how our cops copy youres and youres ours, youre govt has realised parking tickets can bring in billions. If youre only jus noticing it getting bad in the USA its gonna get much worse, over here in the UK they put no parking lines and signs where parked vehicles cause no obstruction whatsoever, park there and cameras are on ya vehicle and youve got a ticket in ten minutes for not causing any obstruction whatsoever.

CORPUS DELECTI , use it as your weapon of choice