Got a Moving Violation ? want to plead not guilty?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Thompson v Smith. 154 SE 579
"The Right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property their on, either by carriage or by 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."

Let us know how it turns out.
edit on 18-4-2011 by ISRAELdid911 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ISRAELdid911
 


Hold on, so the ticket I got for doing 200mph in a 55 zone is not legal?

Please clarify because I do like to drive fast!



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by AnteBellum
 


what you did was -- well stupid



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
So, according to this...

I could soup up a carriage to do 200 mph and pretty much be in the clear?!?!



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ISRAELdid911
 


So if I were to drive without a state issued Driver License; I would be legally safe as long as I did not violate any traffic codes?



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
That particular case, as a beginning, would only apply to what conditions are required to have a driver's license to drive on public roadways and under what conditions (namely is it commercial driving or is it non commercial) It would also be required with other case law citations that have appeared either before the SCOTUS or are widely used cases from other states in order to form a proper defense for driving without a license. The key thing boils down to which set of laws are being applied.

Speeding tickets, careless driving, reckless driving, etc. tend to be traffic regulations that fall under the scrutiny of public endangerment laws. So sorry, if you were driving 200 mph on a public road and got caught, I'd be surprised if you weren't also charged with reckless driving and public endangerment and did a year in jail.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ISRAELdid911
Thompson v Smith. 154 SE 579
"The Right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property their on, either by carriage or by 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."

Let us know how it turns out.
edit on 18-4-2011 by ISRAELdid911 because: (no reason given)

They actually used the phrase "their on" for "thereon"? Something fishy here. Can you provide a link?



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_CT2

Originally posted by ISRAELdid911
Thompson v Smith. 154 SE 579
"The Right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property their on, either by carriage or by 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."

Let us know how it turns out.
edit on 18-4-2011 by ISRAELdid911 because: (no reason given)

They actually used the phrase "their on" for "thereon"? Something fishy here. Can you provide a link?


That is kind of like using "your in" for "urine"

(Still working on my 200 mph carriage!)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyTHSeed
 


why are you asking me about the law. you know better than I.... what I posted was the LAW.
was is the optimal word. will again..? yea, sounds constitutional to me. what do you think>?



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
got another conspiracy --- FaceBook refuses to allow me to post this LAW. the keep removing it... ????
the law is the law whats so illegal about the Law >?

Thompson v Smith. 154 SE 579
"The Right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property their on, either by carriage or by 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."



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I would like for members who don't know why they do not need a driver permit, to travel... to go and have a look
here worldfreemansociety.org... www.abovetopsecret.com... .knowledge is power...
edit on 20-4-2011 by mkkkay because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by ISRAELdid911
 


I'm not sure I see the point. You can have any number of rights taken away, provided there's due process. Is this a local court or what? Maybe if we had a link for what you're quoting, it would help.

Can you provide a valid link for this citation, or is it all blogs and forums and such? As someone else has pointed out, the "their on" phrase makes it suspect as a legit, accurate source. I'm quite sure it should be "thereon".

Anyway, citation is good. Accompanied by link to source is significantly better. Link?


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


U.S. SUPREME COURT, is the source.
AKA LAW of the Land.

not sure if that was a typo on my part - I could not cut and past, site did not permit. anyway, its been debated back and forth here check it out...
Google Search
edit on 20-4-2011 by ISRAELdid911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by ISRAELdid911
 


So, no link for that actual ruling? Gonna make us dig for it? That's my point. Blog sites and forums. hardly what I'd call valid source material. If we're discussing the law, there really isn't much to discuss without seeing what it says at the source. I know, wacky sites aplenty have their own take on it. It tells me nothing more than a whole lot of people have opinions about it. Not much help.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
edit on 4/20/2011 by yeahright because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


what is the problem, if you want to visit their website you can. I prefer not to access Gov't sites if at all possible. they create lies which there is no defense... I perfer to do my own thing and hopefully, they will Not Tread On Me. as you see - our laws are individual Rights. and this is no class action. so you have to stand on your own to feet to be protected as a freeman. and yes, from time to time you have to fight tranny. such is life. or you can live in debt - and under our law that means you are indentured to the lender and all collateral is in jeparody.
or you can live without debt otherwise known as "Freedom is another word for nothing left to lose".
edit on 20-4-2011 by ISRAELdid911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by ISRAELdid911
 


The "problem" is, there's nothing to go on other than a random mishmash of sites you toss in from a Google search. You don't even know if you copied and pasted it correctly. You brought it in here, I'm asking what you have to go on as sources.

And you've answered. Nothing relevant.

Anyone choosing to accept what you've proffered as a basis for some discussion is free to do so. For me, without a valid source, there's nothing worthy of discussion. An unsourced snippet from what has to be a a much larger document isn't much to go on. At best, it's incomplete and likely out of context. We can't know without the source material. If you don't care enough to come up with that, then why should anyone else?

Don't answer that, it's rhetorical.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
HUH? look if you want to learn the LAW, then you need to learn about Jurisdictions. the Supreme Law of the Land is supppse to be the framework in which cases are tried. there must be a written law before it can be violated and charges produced.... otherwise - every cop would just park his car on the side of the road and hand out tickets to every vehicle that passes. he can do it.... is it legal... I dont know let LOOK AT THE LAW.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by ISRAELdid911
 


Gee this is so enlightening. So you learn about the law by accessing various blogs and forums then? Don't actually go to the government sites where the LAWS are posted and referenced because... "they create lies" and you'd rather "do (your) own thing?" That explains a lot.

Happy Freeman whatever. And in your words, "Let us know how it turns out."


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


well, this is on topic ... he said they dont lie.... here is proof they do.
www.cnn.com...


And that is my right "to be who I am"
edit on 20-4-2011 by ISRAELdid911 because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join