Traffic Stop Is an Arrest

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

so an attorner is an officer of the court, which in most if not all cases is a private/municipal corporation and most attorners are members of the BAR, which i believe is also a private corporation/organisation.

So we have an officer of one corporation and a member of another corporate organisation has loyalties and allegiances to them and wouldnt do anything to harm either of those entities, himself or his relationship with them..

dont look at the man behind the curtain..


Thom

Ah, more nonsense from the peanut gallery.

First of all, there is no such thing as an "attorner." Go to dictionary.com and see if you get any definitions.

Presumably you mean attorney. The idea that courts are "private/municipal corporations" is laughable. Courts are part of the government. Remember...three branches of government...executive, legislative, and judicial, aka courts.

And a state bar (NEVER an all caps word, because it's not an abbreviation for three different words) organization is an administrative arm of the state supreme court, so there you have the judicial branch once again.

Two strikes already. One more swing and a miss and "yer out!"

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Ah, more nonsense from the peanut gallery.

First of all, there is no such thing as an "attorner." Go to dictionary.com and see if you get any definitions.

Presumably you mean attorney. The idea that courts are "private/municipal corporations" is laughable. Courts are part of the government. Remember...three branches of government...executive, legislative, and judicial, aka courts.

And a state bar (NEVER an all caps word, because it's not an abbreviation for three different words) organization is an administrative arm of the state supreme court, so there you have the judicial branch once again.

Two strikes already. One more swing and a miss and "yer out!"

You predicate your post(s) with an unsubstantiated insulting degrading claim, as well as an insulting, derogatory, degrading reference.

This is rhetorical artifice, and is putting the cart before the horse.

That is a tactical practice designed to cover the lack of substance that will follow, by attempting to pre-establish a presumption that the one you are addressing is actually that which you are, as predicate, and, totally without substatiation, addresing that one as.

When falacious logical ad hominem attack predicates a statement, as tactical rhetorical artifice, it renders anything following suspect, at best, and generally irrelevant.

It is a cowardly practice.


What is UNITED STATES an "abbreviation" for?

What is PUBLIC, JOHN Q an "abbreviation" for.

NEVER?

As in NEVER, EVER?

That NEVER?



NEVER????



"ILLINOIS STATE BAR ASSOCIATION"

"ILLINOIS BAR JOURNAL"

Those are examples of "NEVER an all caps word?"

Go to dictionary.com and see if you get any definitions for "never."

There is an old saying, "Never say never."

Why do you proffer the presumption that Constitutional republican judicial Power is "aka courts?"

Please substantively prove your claim concerning judicial Power:

"judicial, aka courts."

Please substantively prove your claim that the the term "judicial" is "also known as" "courts."

This is your claim, is it not?

Isn't "court" just a location where affairs are administered?

COURT

The hall, chamber, or place where justice is administered.

Noah Webster
An American Dictionary of the American Language 1828 First Edition Facsimile Edition

[ThomPaine]

Getting back on track with the original premise - Traffic Stop is an Arrest - I found the following in the Georgia Motor Vehicle Code, Title 40 of the state code:

Lexis Nexis returned 45 matches for the word 'arrest'. A cursory examination of this title does not reveal any procedures, terms, limits or conditions under which one may be arrested or detained. I also searched for the words 'detain' 'traffic stop' 'roadside' and a few others and received no matches.

Since I have not done a lot of research on this topic, it will take some time to get through codes and cites.

If one is not being arrested in the traditonal sense (handcuffed and headed to the station) is one free to leave the road side stop without consequence? Upon what conditions if any may one leave?

Can one be detained lawfully for questioning, presentation of identification, etc at the behest of the LEO and what are the limits on time, reason, etc.

I am sure that the peanut gallery will chime in with their comments, but I am interested to see what is defined and explained in the code and how that can be used. Since a freeman travelling in a private car is not subject to the motorvehicle code, I am interested in this to
reign in the po-po and make my position known.

Semantics and details not resolved roadside can be handled in a hall of just-us as a last resort.

Thom

[mrg]

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

Since a freeman travelling in a private car is not subject to the motorvehicle code, I am interested in this to
reign in the po-po and make my position known.

Thom

So what is a "freeman?"

What is NOT a "freeman?"

Is a presumption that one is NOT a "freeman" until the presumption is adequately overcome (however one does that), the mark of a Constitutional republican form of government?

Maybe this might answer some of your questions:


freeman travelling

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

Since a freeman travelling in a private car is not subject to the motorvehicle code, I am interested in this to
reign in the po-po and make my position known.
Thom

Hahaha, thinking like that is asking for trouble. You're dead wrong. Read the following case. ALL OF IT.

255 Ga. 406, 339 S.E.2d 227

Supreme Court of Georgia

LEBRUN v. THE STATE.

42886

CLARKE, Justice

Appellant, Marcel Lebrun, was convicted in the State Court of Cobb County for the offenses of driving without a license, driving without a tag and operating a motor vehicle while wearing a device which impairs hearing. He appeals to this court contending that the law requiring a license to drive is unconstitutional. We find his conviction to be valid and affirm.

Lebrun was stopped by Cobb County police officers who observed him driving with headphones and without a valid license tag. After being stopped and asked for his license, Lebrun informed the officer he was traveling as a matter of right. When a check revealed that Lebrun had an expired license, no tag or insurance he was placed under arrest.

1. Lebrun contends that the license requirement, OCGA § 40-5-20, infringes his right of locomotion as a common law freeman exercising his right to travel on public ways. We have stated that the right to travel by operating a motor vehicle on the roads of this state is a "qualified right" which a citizen exercises by obtaining a license from the state. Johnston v. State, 236 Ga. 370 (223 SE2d 808) (1976). Under the police power and for the protection of the public, it is constitutionally permissible for the state to impose reasonable conditions to qualify for a license. Dennis v. State, 226 Ga. 341 (175 SE2d 17) (1970). Appellant does not allege or show any unreasonable conditions, but argues that to require any license is too hard of a burden for a freeman to bear. We disagree and find no constitutional violation in the fact that the state requires a license to drive.

2. We also find no error in the trial court's denial of Lebrun's motion for counsel not a member of the State Bar of Georgia. Indigency was not an issue. The trial court informed Lebrun at a pre-trial hearing that he could hire any member of the Georgia bar and that
the court would allow an appearance by the member of a bar of another state pro hac vice. While an accused has a right to representation by an attorney and to represent himself, there is no right to be represented by a non-lawyer third party and we hold there was no error in the denial of Lebrun's motion.

3. We also reject appellant's claim that his conviction was invalid because the arresting officers did not advise him of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (86 SC 1602, 16 LE2d 694) (1966). When a violator is placed in custody or under arrest at a traffic stop the protection of Miranda arises; however, roadside questioning at a routine stop does not constitute such a custodial situation. Berkemer v. McCarty, ___ U. S. ___ (104 SC 3138, 82 LE2d 317) (1984). Any statements made by Lebrun were made in response to routine roadside questioning. After his arrest no statement was taken. There was no error.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur

DECIDED February 12, 1986

Driving without a license, etc.; constitutional question. Cobb State Court. Before Judge McDuff.

Marcel Lebrun, pro se.

Bruce D. Hornbuckle, for appellee.

[ezrhythm]

This thread is so long that I may have missed if these were posted. I know they are just decisions and not law but it is what we have to deal with out there.

The Terry and the Hiibel Decision;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Hahaha

We are here to discover and discuss remedy.
If you are going to laugh/mock etc. you shall be considered an enemy to us here.

We look forward to your contributions working toward us all being (more) sui juris.

ALSO, the case you posted is in regarding to "traveling by operating a motor vehicle". Since "operating" and "motor vehicle" are contained in the decision, it doesn't pertain to what we are interested in.

[mrg]

We also find no error in the trial court's denial of Lebrun's motion for counsel not a member of the State Bar of Georgia.

Indigency was not an issue. The trial court informed Lebrun at a pre-trial hearing that he could hire any member of the Georgia bar and that the court would allow an appearance by the member of a bar of another state pro hac vice.

While an accused has a right to representation by an attorney and to represent himself, there is no right to be represented by a non-lawyer third party and we hold there was no error in the denial of Lebrun's motion.

Was the writer of this opinion a "member of the Georgia bar?"

Please show precisely where in "...this Constitution for the United States of America" this exception (an accused has a right to representation by an attorney) to or modification of:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

I missed the parts of the Constitution that mentioned the terms "lawyer," attorney, or BAR ASSOCIATION.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Where are they?


When the BAR is dismantled and outlawed we may have our Constitutional republican forms of government, as "guarnateed" by "...this Constitution for the United States of America.

I see no difference between the Tory Loyalist BAR and the "Mafia" except that the "Mafia" is more honest and less powerful.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

We are here to discover and discuss remedy.
If you are going to laugh/mock etc. you shall be considered an enemy to us here.

We look forward to your contributions working toward us all being (more) sui juris.

ALSO, the case you posted is in regarding to "traveling by operating a motor vehicle". Since "operating" and "motor vehicle" are contained in the decision, it doesn't pertain to what we are interested in.

My boy, part of learning is being willing to accept that things might not be the way you wish them to be.

Thom asserted that the motor vehicle code does not apply to a "freeman." I posted a case from the Supreme Court of Georgia, the state wherein we both reside, that proves that assertion to be false.

And don't bother quibbling over "drive" vs. "operate", or "automobile" vs. "motor vehicle." From Ga. Code 40-1-1, Motor Vehicles and Traffic: Definitions:

(14) "Driver" means every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.

(75) "Vehicle" means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

(33) "Motor vehicle" means every vehicle which is self-propelled other than an electric personal assistive mobility device (EPAMD).

(38) "Operator" means any person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle.

(43) "Person" means every natural person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, or trust.

I think that pretty much covers it.

If you want to learn the law, you need to read it. Read the Constitutions (national and that of your state), the statutes passed by Congress and your state legislature, and the reported decisions of the federal and state appellate courts. Where applicable, you may also need to refer to regulations promulgated by a government agency pursuant to a grant of authority by Congress or a state legislature.

That's where you'll find the law. What some person asserts on the internet is not the law. That's why I give cites...anyone who wants can check the statutes and cases I refer to for themselves. I don't expect anyone to take my word for it. Nor should you take anyone else's.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

If you want to learn the law, you need to read it. Read the Constitutions (national and that of your state), the statutes passed by Congress and your state legislature, and the reported decisions of the federal and state appellate courts. Where applicable, you may also need to refer to regulations promulgated by a government agency pursuant to a grant of authority by Congress or a state legislature.

That's where you'll find the law. What some person asserts on the internet is not the law.

I would add, while reading the law keep in mind the legislative intent, the purpose, for adopting that law. Keep the actual purpose of the law in mind instead of trying to play word games to invent loopholes. Examples: Income tax laws were intended to make as many people as possible sustain the govt in a manner appropriate to their prosperity; traffic laws were intended to limit motor traffic on the public roads to vehicles that had been inspected and proven roadworthy and to drivers who had similarly been inspected and proven roadworthy.