So can they steal my car at anytime if I refuse to pay the fine?

[quincy]

… Seems like a third world country or communism at best

I think making comments like the one above tends to harm your arguments more than help them. You are using false comparisons.

You have options. I just don’t see the ones you are outlining as effective means to accomplish your goal of repealing bad laws.

Good luck with whatever you decide to do, though.

 

[Taxing Matters]

I really wanted to take this to federal court.

In general, the way one would do that is to appeal the matter as far as you can go in the state courts, and then appeal the decision of the final court in the state that could hear your case, i.e. the state court of appeals or the state supreme court if it agrees to take the case. If the supreme court declines to hear it, then you'd appeal the court of appeals decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Bear in mind that the only issues the federal courts will hear in that appeal are arguments that the U.S. constitution or some federal statute was violated by the state in what it did. You pay filing fees at each stage of the process. Even if you win, you aren't guaranteed to get all of those fees refunded to you.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Seems like a third world country or communism at best

If you use that kind of statement in court it will tarnish your reputation making it all that much harder to win. The U.S. is neither a third world country nor a communist state. Not even close. Note that not all third world nations are dictatorships.

By the way, the original definition of that phrase referred to any nation not aligned with either the U.S. or the Soviet Union. Most people today, though, take the phrase to mean a country that is impoverished. Neither phrase tells you anything about the political and legal system of that country. The U.S. certainly doesn't meet either of those criteria.

Communism is a system of economics in which there is no private property rights and all property is held by the government for the supposed benefit of the people. The U.S. is nowhere close to that. Even some countries calling themselves communist nations don't meet that definition.

A law is not invalid because you strongly disagree with it. I think I'm pretty safe in saying that every competent adult in this country disagrees with at least one law. The nature of a democratic system means the majority decides what the law is. While those opposed may not like a particular law, they still must follow it until a state or federal court says that the law is not constitutional. If you want to be the one to make that fight, be prepared to spend a lot of money pursuing it. Otherwise, wait and see what the courts decide on the various challenges to photo tickets that are already ongoing.

In my state, the courts have said taking the photos of the violations don't violate either the federal or state constitution. But it decided that under the state constitution those photo tickets do not provide sufficent due process. The state courts relied on the state constitution rather than the federal constitution because the state supreme court of the state is the final arbiter of state law matters. What that ruling means in practical terms is that before the state can take action against the driver it must provide due process by serving the summons to appear personally on the driver. Speeding and red light tickets given by a cop who witnessed the violation and personally handed the ticket to the driver are a summons in my state and meet that criteria. Photo tickets (whether red light or speeding or whatever) are not properly served summons in my state. That has somewhat cooled the desire of municipalities to use photo enforcement systems because the cost to do that often exceeds the fine the driver would pay in fines.

 

[ridefree]

But judges let people off that shot someone. While a person with a car gets booted. The legal system is messed up. Some say it's taxation without representation

If you use that kind of statement in court it will tarnish your reputation making it all that much harder to win. The U.S. is neither a third world country nor a communist state. Not even close. Note that not all third world nations are dictatorships.

By the way, the original definition of that phrase referred to any nation not aligned with either the U.S. or the Soviet Union. Most people today, though, take the phrase to mean a country that is impoverished. Neither phrase tells you anything about the political and legal system of that country. The U.S. certainly doesn't meet either of those criteria.

Communism is a system of economics in which there is no private property rights and all property is held by the government for the supposed benefit of the people. The U.S. is nowhere close to that. Even some countries calling themselves communist nations don't meet that definition.

A law is not invalid because you strongly disagree with it. I think I'm pretty safe in saying that every competent adult in this country disagrees with at least one law. The nature of a democratic system means the majority decides what the law is. While those opposed may not like a particular law, they still must follow it until a state or federal court says that the law is not constitutional. If you want to be the one to make that fight, be prepared to spend a lot of money pursuing it. Otherwise, wait and see what the courts decide on the various challenges to photo tickets that are already ongoing.

In my state, the courts have said taking the photos of the violations don't violate either the federal or state constitution. But it decided that under the state constitution those photo tickets do not provide sufficent due process. The state courts relied on the state constitution rather than the federal constitution because the state supreme court of the state is the final arbiter of state law matters. What that ruling means in practical terms is that before the state can take action against the driver it must provide due process by serving the summons to appear personally on the driver. Speeding and red light tickets given by a cop who witnessed the violation and personally handed the ticket to the driver are a summons in my state and meet that criteria. Photo tickets (whether red light or speeding or whatever) are not properly served summons in my state. That has somewhat cooled the desire of municipalities to use photo enforcement systems because the cost to do that often exceeds the fine the driver would pay in fines.

Well some say all these rules and regulations and sanctions on oil and cars has to do with the UN Climate Change policies.. United Nations has pressured federal, state and local officials to eliminate oil and gas. Forcing the use of vehicles out of existence. And get everyone to walk, or ride a bicycle in their 15 minutes cities. And that government also hates their citizens. that's the Climate Alarmist's initiative. Looks like the Amish have been the smart ones all along.

 

[ridefree]

Well some say all these rules and regulations and sanctions on oil and cars has to do with the UN Climate Change policies.. United Nations has pressured federal, state and local officials to eliminate oil and gas. Forcing the use of vehicles out of existence. And get everyone to walk, or ride a bicycle in their 15 minutes cities. And that government also hates their citizens. that's the Climate Alarmist's initiative. Looks like the Amish have been the smart ones all along.

Actually taking of property ( 5th Amendment issue) like a vehicle was challenged in Indiana. He got his vehicle back. Indiana guy beat the feds. So should be the same with the states.

See: law.cornell.edu regarding 5th Amendment definition.


Civil Forfeiture is a bad policy by federal and local government to satisfy a statute or " law" and seems baseless and unconstitutional.




“It was an oppressive and abusive situation,” Obama said, noting that the report found that Ferguson used traffic citations as a “revenue generator.” Source: Politi
co com

 

[ridefree]

Common Law Handbook by National Liberty Alliance


ALL MEN DECIDE whether they want to

participate in the institutions of men or not. The

United States Supreme Court confirmed this

when they said: “…every man is independent

of all laws, except those prescribed by nature.

He is not bound by any institutions formed by

his fellowman without his consent.” (Cruden v.

Neale, 2 N.C. 338 May Term, 1796



Our U.S. Constitution only authorizes

“common law courts,” also known as “courts of

record.” A court of record removes the power

of the Judge to make a ruling; his role is that

of the “administrator” of the court. The final

decision maker is the “tribunal,” who is either

the “sovereign plaintiff ” or a “jury.” Remember,

the servant cannot rule over the master; can the

clay rule over the potter?


“…Every man is independent of all laws,

except those prescribed by nature. He is not

bound by any institutions formed by his fellow-

man without his consent.” (Cruden v. Neale)

Herein is Liberty: if “YOU” do not give the

court consent, they have no “JURISDICTION”

over “YOU”!


Under US Codes 42 and 18, when you are

detained—without your consent—for violating

a statute, you have just been kidnapped; and if

the Judge sets a bail, he just set a ransom; and

when the prosecutor confirms the charges, they

are all part of a conspiracy, and “YOU” can put

them in jail and sue them for damages. It’s all

about Consent and Jurisdiction.


THE REAL LAW


The common law is the real law, the Supreme

Law of the land; the code, rules, regulations,

policy and statutes are not the law.

Legislated statutes enforced upon the people

in the name of law is a fraud. It has no authority

and is without mercy. Justice without mercy is

Godless, and therefore repugnant to our United

States Constitution. Lawmakers were given

authority by the people to legislate codes, rules,

regulations, and statutes which are policies,

procedures, and “law” to control the behavior

of bureaucrats, elected and appointed officials,

municipalities and agencies, but were never

given authority to control the behavior of the

people—as we read in a US Supreme court

decision: “All laws, rules and practices which

are repugnant to the Constitution are null and

void.” (Marbury -v-Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch)

137, 174, 176, 1803)


Legislators simply do not have the author-

ity to rule make. “Where rights secured by the

Constitution are involved, there can be no rule

making or legislation which would abrogate

them.” (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491)


RIGHTS AND SOVEREIGNTY

Only people are sovereign and have rights.

Bureaucrats, in their capacity, are not sovereign

and have no rights. They have authority given

by the people and are subject to the statutes.

“The state cannot diminish rights of the people.”

(Hurtado v. People of the State of California, 110 U.S. 516)


“The assertion of federal rights [Bill of

Rights], when plainly and reasonably made,

is not to be defeated under the name of local

practice.” (Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24)

“Where rights secured by the Constitution

are involved, there can be no rule making

or legislation which would abrogate them.”

(Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491)


“There can be no sanction or penalty

imposed upon one because of this exercise of

constitutional rights.” (Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946)

 

[ridefree]

We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

Abraham Lincoln

 

[ridefree]

If you use that kind of statement in court it will tarnish your reputation making it all that much harder to win. The U.S. is neither a third world country nor a communist state. Not even close. Note that not all third world nations are dictatorships.

By the way, the original definition of that phrase referred to any nation not aligned with either the U.S. or the Soviet Union. Most people today, though, take the phrase to mean a country that is impoverished. Neither phrase tells you anything about the political and legal system of that country. The U.S. certainly doesn't meet either of those criteria.

Communism is a system of economics in which there is no private property rights and all property is held by the government for the supposed benefit of the people. The U.S. is nowhere close to that. Even some countries calling themselves communist nations don't meet that definition.

A law is not invalid because you strongly disagree with it. I think I'm pretty safe in saying that every competent adult in this country disagrees with at least one law. The nature of a democratic system means the majority decides what the law is. While those opposed may not like a particular law, they still must follow it until a state or federal court says that the law is not constitutional. If you want to be the one to make that fight, be prepared to spend a lot of money pursuing it. Otherwise, wait and see what the courts decide on the various challenges to photo tickets that are already ongoing.

In my state, the courts have said taking the photos of the violations don't violate either the federal or state constitution. But it decided that under the state constitution those photo tickets do not provide sufficent due process. The state courts relied on the state constitution rather than the federal constitution because the state supreme court of the state is the final arbiter of state law matters. What that ruling means in practical terms is that before the state can take action against the driver it must provide due process by serving the summons to appear personally on the driver. Speeding and red light tickets given by a cop who witnessed the violation and personally handed the ticket to the driver are a summons in my state and meet that criteria. Photo tickets (whether red light or speeding or whatever) are not properly served summons in my state. That has somewhat cooled the desire of municipalities to use photo enforcement systems because the cost to do that often exceeds the fine the driver would pay in fines.

That is good they cooled the statute in your state to use cameras. Someone told me from Arkansas that cameras are ruled unconstitutional due to the recent Texas ruling. You would think if one or more states had ruled it the law would be assumed the same in states not in accordance with the ruling.

 

[Just Blue]

Do yourself a favor: When/If you appear in court, do not spout that SovCit garbage.


You could...you know, pay your fine and avoid having your car booted/impounded.

And, as an aside, if one obeys the law then one doesn't end up with fines. Isn't it neat the way that works?

 

[ridefree]

Actually the federal government has some questionable aggressive actions towards people that love America, some were former cops that visited the capitol on January 6th to peacefully protest. But FBI agents and a few CIA were their as agent provocateurs and dressed up as protestors to arrest people at random.

Here are a few examples:

1. People that lawfully protested a rigged election are in prison. A grandma was in shackles never did anything wrong. Ashley Abbott was killed by a Capitol police officer and was unwarranted

2. Censorship of internet by foreign influence like the EU or United Nations

3. Liberal used to mean Liberty

4. People kneel instead of stand to the Pledge of Allegiance

5. Pedophilia is now promoted by federal and state and local governments. Allowing schools to prohibit parent's decisions and influence in school meetings and instead report them to the FBI; and some states allow pre K to learn about sex at a early age without their parents permission or consent. Some school staff has gone as far as pushing gender transitioning on their children. Or as one couple in Indiana experienced recently their kid being taken away from them after refusing the school to transition their kid.

6.There is a sitting current president majority of Americans agree is mentally unfit and too old to be in office.

7.Trump is being prosecuted and treated differently by the federal and state court system than his than his partisan hacks.

8. The United States is adopting CBDC by end of this year, or next year ( digital money) to replace paper money. This will also include ESG or social credit scores which China uses on it's citizens to control their behavior by punishing them by limiting what they buy or if they raised their voices about the government in anyway their funds would be cut off. Numerous banks had closed accounts of people that voted for Trump or gave to the Canadian truckers convoy .

 

[ridefree]

Do yourself a favor: When/If you appear in court, do not spout that SovCit garbage.


You could...you know, pay your fine and avoid having your car booted/impounded.

And, as an aside, if one obeys the law then one doesn't end up with fines. Isn't it neat the way that works?

It's stealing but whatever you think dude.

 

[ridefree]

It's not law it's garbage and

 

[ridefree]

Besides this law violated the DEI Diversity Inclusivity bull that the federal and states are pushing in jobs

 

[ridefree]

Anyways I've wrote the IRS and I hope they will soon again like before fine the city officials for their oppressive scam.