10-05-2007, 04:35 PM
|
 |
Practice Makes Perfect
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ohio tri state area
Posts: 313
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shoonra
Under the Implied Consent laws (which have been upheld by the US Supreme Court), a refusal to submit to a blood alcohol or sobriety test automatically suspends your license -- no subsequent appeal. Refusing to identify yourself or show the cop your DL can have other undesireable consequences.
|
Actually the State owns the DL . It's their property !
If it were my license they would need a search warrent !
Thanks
DH
__________________
__________________
Perhaps our earth is round to prevent our discovering a boundary condition restricting our own simulation limits.
We are all in violation of the law somewhere, so is your adversary. Romans 3:23
If you don't turn to Jesus and let him change the way you think, you will perish.
|
10-05-2007, 05:23 PM
|
|
Come and Get Some!
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 2,703
|
|
|
I'll accept that the DL belongs to the state. But whether it's theirs or yours, state law requires you to have the DL with you when you drive and to present it when asked by a policeman. Failures to comply with this are treated as criminal, not traffic, offenses.
|
10-09-2007, 06:19 PM
|
|
Practice Makes Perfect
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ohio tri state area
Posts: 313
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shoonra
Under the Implied Consent laws (which have been upheld by the US Supreme Court), a refusal to submit to a blood alcohol or sobriety test automatically suspends your license -- no subsequent appeal. Refusing to identify yourself or show the cop the DL can have other undesireable consequences.
|
Well the way to go with the implied consent issue, maybe Notice the State that I don't consent to any warrentless search and maybe just tell the officer at the time of apprehension of the Notice to the State.
Also these administrative DL statues apply only to the Legal Fiction not to Me !
Can any magistrate or prosecutor in traffic court when asked under penalty of perjury produce any Evidence of subject matter jurisdiction ?
Thanks for your research,
Dillon
__________________
__________________
Perhaps our earth is round to prevent our discovering a boundary condition restricting our own simulation limits.
We are all in violation of the law somewhere, so is your adversary. Romans 3:23
If you don't turn to Jesus and let him change the way you think, you will perish.
Last edited by Dillon Hunt : 10-09-2007 at 07:20 PM.
|
10-09-2007, 09:30 PM
|
|
Come and Get Some!
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 2,703
|
|
|
What used to be called Implied Consent is now pretty much Explicit Consent in all the states. I think all of them state very clearly in the applications for DL and renewals of DL the consequences of refusing a blood alcohol test. You'd consent to those terms when you sign your DL application. Your attempt to "revoke" that consent also serves to revoke your DL.
This "Legal Fiction" notion about DLs is silly. How can a fiction (or a corporation) be tested for blood alcohol?? The test is given to the human behind the steering wheel. Neither does a fiction take and pass a driving test or read the eye chart.
The state codes give the traffic court, the JP or whatever the appropriate tribunal is for that state, jurisdiction over alleged traffic offenses occuring within the geographical boundaries of the court's geographic jurisdiction.
Legislators do not write and pass traffic laws to amuse themselves. These laws have actual application; not in a fantasy involving "legal fictions" but in reality involving human beings. Living in denial of that fact will not lead to good results.
|
10-10-2007, 08:25 AM
|
|
Practice Makes Perfect
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ohio tri state area
Posts: 313
|
|
|
Just Notice the State before licensing or renewal that I don't consent (by applying or renewing of DL) to any warrentless searches per the 4th & 9th amendments which are the law of the land and supersedes any statues (public or private) of any State. That they must follow the Law and not exceed their delegated authority.
If they have probable cause get a warrent.
This "Legal Fiction" notion about DLs is silly. How can a fiction (or a corporation) be tested for blood alcohol??
Also note: Legal Persons apparently can Operate motor vehicles !!!!! (Silly, blood banks and hospitals could have their blood tested.) LOL
thanks DH
__________________
__________________
Perhaps our earth is round to prevent our discovering a boundary condition restricting our own simulation limits.
We are all in violation of the law somewhere, so is your adversary. Romans 3:23
If you don't turn to Jesus and let him change the way you think, you will perish.
Last edited by Dillon Hunt : 10-11-2007 at 03:48 PM.
|
10-10-2007, 06:44 PM
|
|
Practice Makes Perfect
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ohio tri state area
Posts: 313
|
|
|
The state codes give the traffic court, the JP or whatever the appropriate tribunal is for that state, jurisdiction over alleged traffic offenses occuring within the geographical boundaries of the court's geographic jurisdiction.
Also don't forget that traffic courts are courts of LIMITTED JURISDICTION !!!!
Again I ask, Can any magistrate or prosecutor in traffic court when asked under penalty of perjury produce any Evidence of subject matter jurisdiction ?
Yes or No ?
DH
__________________
__________________
Perhaps our earth is round to prevent our discovering a boundary condition restricting our own simulation limits.
We are all in violation of the law somewhere, so is your adversary. Romans 3:23
If you don't turn to Jesus and let him change the way you think, you will perish.
Last edited by Dillon Hunt : 10-10-2007 at 06:57 PM.
|
10-11-2007, 01:42 PM
|
|
Come and Get Some!
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 2,703
|
|
|
The evidence would be that (1) it involved the public road (2) at a location within the court's geographic jurisdiction. The source of the evidence would be the traffic ticket and/or the traffic cop's testimony. If you can establish that it didn't involve a private road or that it occurred outside the court's geographic boundaries, good luck to you.
|
10-11-2007, 04:27 PM
|
|
Practice Makes Perfect
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ohio tri state area
Posts: 313
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shoonra
The evidence would be that (1) it involved the public road (2) at a location within the court's geographic jurisdiction. The source of the evidence would be the traffic ticket and/or the traffic cop's testimony. If you can establish that it didn't involve a private road or that it occurred outside the court's geographic boundaries, good luck to you.
|
1. All evidence must be sworn under penalty of perjury or it is inadmissible.
2. Public roads are not government-corporations roads.
3. Right to access my property over these roads and Right to Peacefully Assemble.
4. All roads are multi-jurisdictional.
5. The cop can't serve process aka the citation. (A Separation of Powers Violation, you know that !)
6. Who is the Accused ? The legal fiction or the human ? Maybe don't admit to being the Accused.
7. No evidence of corpus delicti if no damaged party.
8. No evidence of standing if no damaged party.
Thanks,
DH
__________________
__________________
Perhaps our earth is round to prevent our discovering a boundary condition restricting our own simulation limits.
We are all in violation of the law somewhere, so is your adversary. Romans 3:23
If you don't turn to Jesus and let him change the way you think, you will perish.
Last edited by Dillon Hunt : 10-11-2007 at 05:06 PM.
|
10-11-2007, 04:55 PM
|
|
Come and Get Some!
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 2,703
|
|
|
We've gone over these nits before, on other threads. The ticket is supposed to be attested to by the cop and/or the cop is under oath in traffic court. Public roads are not ownerless; they are governed by public law. That the roads may simultaneously be under a number of jurisdictions does not oust the traffic court of its own, statutory, jurisdiction of the same road. The human behind the wheel is the one who answers to the moving violation.
This last item might be different in a civil (or even criminal) action involving death or serious injury, if the person who was behind the wheel was unfit to drive, in which case the owner of the vehicle might be liable, in money or criminally, for negligent entrustment for allowing that person to drive the car.
|
10-11-2007, 05:35 PM
|
|
Practice Makes Perfect
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ohio tri state area
Posts: 313
|
|
|
We've gone over these nits before, on other threads. The ticket is supposed to be attested to by the cop and/or the cop is under oath in traffic court. Public roads are not ownerless; they are governed by public law. That the roads may simultaneously be under a number of jurisdictions does not oust the traffic court of its own, statutory, jurisdiction of the same road. The human behind the wheel is the one who answers to the moving violation.
You mean private statues not public laws. (state codes) Agency Regulations with Statues compose these codes.
Humans only answer when there is a damaged party.
Cop is under two Oaths, (#1) to uphold the Constitutions (state & federal) and (#2) to tell the Whole truth.
The People are tenants in common of the roads, certainly not the gov-corps.
Multi-jurisdiction does not oust the People.
There is no such Jurisdiction known as Statutory Jurisdiction ! Where can I find the court rules for Statutory Jurisdiction ?
DH
__________________
__________________
Perhaps our earth is round to prevent our discovering a boundary condition restricting our own simulation limits.
We are all in violation of the law somewhere, so is your adversary. Romans 3:23
If you don't turn to Jesus and let him change the way you think, you will perish.
Last edited by Dillon Hunt : 10-11-2007 at 05:50 PM.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:47 AM.
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.1 Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
|
|
