From: legal_reality
Subj: FW: Challenging a red-light ticket on constitutional and due process grounds just became more difficult
29 July A.D. 2014
Regarding format and original content of the note below, the first note in the thread is left as is. Individual (email) addresses and names are deleted. The word-wrap feature needed some extra attention to get it to activate.
The note sent to this author has been modified only slightly. It has also been placed here so as to introduce the content that follows.
The original note below talks about red-light camera jurisprudence in CALIFORNIA. The legislature has adjusted the law of evidence in that community to allow the photo-evidence. The "target" of that STATE's case lost, ultimately in that STATE's high court, and it's that ruling that prompts the email discussion.
Here's the basic question posed to this author:
Regarding format and original content of the note below, the first note in the thread is left as is. Individual (email) addresses and names are deleted. The word-wrap feature needed some extra attention to get it to activate.
The note sent to this author has been modified only slightly. It has also been placed here so as to introduce the content that follows.
The original note below talks about red-light camera jurisprudence in CALIFORNIA. The legislature has adjusted the law of evidence in that community to allow the photo-evidence. The "target" of that STATE's case lost, ultimately in that STATE's high court, and it's that ruling that prompts the email discussion.
Here's the basic question posed to this author:
'Does this mean we no longer have the right to "travel"
on the roads now? In Texas the posted speed signs as listed in the Texas
Transportation Code say the speed signs are for "Commercial"
vehicles? Or is this just another Law of the Sea since the constitution
no longer exists?'
As a place to start, there is no "right to travel" in "this state," a/k/a "United States." The original concept of "right to travel" may not have existed in any of the States, either, but there's no question that there's no "right to travel" in any of the STATEs, which are but "counties" within "this state." "Right to travel" has relevance, if any, in the "INTER-State" context. To make a long discussion short, there is no "INTER-State" anything, these days. There is only "INTRA-state." Everything that is practical and relevant to the analysis of the "transportation" setting occurs within "this state." Within any "state," it's long been our reality, even before the change in "choice of law" circa 1965, that the "right to travel" within a State hasn't really existed. It's always been an inter-State concept (and in inter-national concept). Intra-State (pre-1965) "right to travel" has never existed. Intra-STATE (starting circa 1965) "right to travel" has also never existed.
We distinguish "travel" from "transportation," just the same, because not all activity of getting from one place to another has a commercial component. So, while there's no "right to travel," there is also no way that any STATE (or the U.S. either) can/may compel anyone to engage in that commercial activity known as "transportation." Thus, those who are "tagged" by that system have somehow "volunteered" to being regulated under that system.
As for Law of the Sea, everything about "this state" is maritime in nature, for it is most certainly not based on the Common Law.
Regarding "constitutions," at the national level, of course, we do not now have and have never had a "constitution." That language has never been "admissible evidence of law." At the State level, Texas is one of two States that may actually have activated the democratic law-making procedures and produced a "constitution." However, even presuming that such happened, there's the conflict among the States, initiated by Northern Aggression, of course, which side Texas supported "lost," and then, of course, there's the change in choice of law circa 1965 that no Common Law system survived. So, at present, the only parts of any "constitution" that mean anything are those that have been recognized by the high courts of the relevant jurisdictions, and then it's the judicial opinion that has the legal authority, not any jot or tittle of anything called a "constitution."
Regarding Law of the Sea and maritime law, what is an issue for many is that where the term "law" shows up or comes to mind, the application of that idea is that where something is in print, it has authority for that reason alone, namely that it's in print. We can start that way with judicial opinions, but even those have their limits. Where we're talking about legislation, that was a pretty good rule of thumb for some types of legislation in the pre-1965 "place(s)." In the present "place," which is "this state," a/k/a "United States," if it's not printed in a penal code, and if it's not structural in nature, then it applies if and only if there's an agreement that it applies. So, where we "think" "Law of the Sea," where we "think" maritime "law," we'll benefit if we'll also "think" Monte Hall's, "Let's Make A Deal!" Said another way, laws of agreement apply only where there first exist an agreement. What constitutes an agreement is also determined by the principles about agreements, so we've got to have those principles in mind. But, again, just because a concept is printed here or there, by that fact of printing, alone, doesn't mean that it applies or carries any authority. It may very well carry authority, but if it does, it's because it's been agreed to.
As a practical matter, we can operate well by treating penal code language as operable and applicable by the sole reason that such language is in print under that title/label. However, by contrast, where we get to "transportation" codes, we're 100% into Monte Hall's, "Let's Make A Deal!" Even then, it takes a pretty foundational view of that system to avoid "consenting." It's designed as a trap, and it takes a substantial study of that system and its operational principles to see the traps and to avoid them. It's 100% possible to do; it just takes some work, and that work starts with some rather wicked paradigm shifts.
With that as the segue, and to address one of two key concepts of the "transportation" enforcement mechanism, while Due Process is always, always, always an issue that is worth analyzing and raising where appropriate, it's also one of the easiest concepts to waive. To guess, this author expects that every "transportation" system in "this state" is 100% designed around waiver of Due Process. It's a real "knock down, drag out" affair to compel any "transportation" enforcement system to recognize and apply Due Process. (For example, in most STATEs, the published procedures very deliberately skip over some extremely major procedural steps. Out of sight--out of mind. Very, very literally, nothing shy of risking one's Liberty, having an extremely solid foundation in "what must be," and otherwise appearing to be God's gift of asshole-ness, in the sense of stubborn-ness (not vulgar-ness or unruly-ness) is going to crack that aspect of the "transportation" enforcement mechanism.) It's just too expensive for the "transportation" enforcement systems to comply with Due Process. For that reason, waiving Due Process in that particular mechanism is as easy as falling off a wet log backwards.
That said, there are certain aspects of Due Process that cannot be waived, and to have in mind what the STATE has no discretion about and cannot depend on waiver to produce is to have in mind those aspects of Due Process that may make all the difference for the successful defense.
The second concept is the substantive nature of the "transportation" defense. Anyone going into a "transportation" matter as a "target" who expects that there's anything relevant beyond the issue of "transportation" will save one whale of a lot of time, "money," and energy by paying the fine and going home. The system deals with "small" amounts in controversy, and what that translates into in most people's minds is that it's fairly straightforward in its procedure and evidence and "law."
As it turns out, it's one of the more complicated systems designed. There's a reason for that, and that takes us into understanding the "money supply" management function, which has been discussed in other notes, and may be again in future notes, but to go down that path here is to distract from the basics posed by the red-light-camera scenario. It is sufficient to say that because the "transportation" enforcement system has a "banking" function, that system is designed to make sure that the banking function it serves is not easily upset. Think "income tax" to get a picture of why a system might be set up as complicated and enforced "brutally." The "income tax" is the poster-child system for "money management" in "this state," which is just to say that the "enforcers" are vicious, and "ugly," and over-bearing, and unreasonable, etc., all by design. The "income tax" "collection" mechanism serves a banking function that, in the opinion of the bankers, is sacro-sanct, and our "touching" those systems isn't ever going to be treated lightly, and that's why. In sum, the "transportation" defense isn't as straightforward a matter as would be nice, and the reason is that it serves a "banking" function. That means that it's designed to be confusing and to be enforced "without mercy" (in appearance), so as to keep as much of the curiosity as possible completely beyond the reach of the super-vast majority of those "targeted" by that system.
Probably because they see "law" (which we're not dealing with in the traditional sense of the concept) and because they don't see "banking function" (which understanding puts the entire mechanism into very crisp focus), what the very vast majority of "targets" in that system have yet to reflect upon is that "federal" means "federal," as in "by agreement." "Federal" is not a concept that describes a "level" of government. "Federal" does not mean "national." "Federal" is also not a substitute term for "constitutional." "Federal" means "federal," as in "by agreement."
The "transportation" enforcement mechanism is a "federal" mechanism. Those not in a position to talk to the "gotcha agreement" on which that system depends may still find a way to prevail, but they're as rare as those who prevail arguing that the "income tax" is "un-constitutional."
To study into the actual mechanism on which the "transportation" system depends is to know how to defend against any "transportation"-based claim. The "target" in that case in CALIFORNIA took the traditional "patriot" approach to things and, as usual, got handed his hat. (And, even with that CALIFORNIA legislation that addresses the admissibility of the camera's photos, it is still what it has always been and will always be -- no one can compel anyone into "transportation." Thus, those being tagged by that form of regulation have "volunteered" into being so regulated.) Once the mind makes/survives that paradigm shift out of the myth and lies on which we've all been raised and into the understanding that we're dealing with a "federal" system, which depends on a "federal" mechanism, i.e., Monte Hall's, "Let's Make A Deal!", then we're in a competent position to defend ourselves in such matters as "transportation" matters.
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
As a place to start, there is no "right to travel" in "this state," a/k/a "United States." The original concept of "right to travel" may not have existed in any of the States, either, but there's no question that there's no "right to travel" in any of the STATEs, which are but "counties" within "this state." "Right to travel" has relevance, if any, in the "INTER-State" context. To make a long discussion short, there is no "INTER-State" anything, these days. There is only "INTRA-state." Everything that is practical and relevant to the analysis of the "transportation" setting occurs within "this state." Within any "state," it's long been our reality, even before the change in "choice of law" circa 1965, that the "right to travel" within a State hasn't really existed. It's always been an inter-State concept (and in inter-national concept). Intra-State (pre-1965) "right to travel" has never existed. Intra-STATE (starting circa 1965) "right to travel" has also never existed.
We distinguish "travel" from "transportation," just the same, because not all activity of getting from one place to another has a commercial component. So, while there's no "right to travel," there is also no way that any STATE (or the U.S. either) can/may compel anyone to engage in that commercial activity known as "transportation." Thus, those who are "tagged" by that system have somehow "volunteered" to being regulated under that system.
As for Law of the Sea, everything about "this state" is maritime in nature, for it is most certainly not based on the Common Law.
Regarding "constitutions," at the national level, of course, we do not now have and have never had a "constitution." That language has never been "admissible evidence of law." At the State level, Texas is one of two States that may actually have activated the democratic law-making procedures and produced a "constitution." However, even presuming that such happened, there's the conflict among the States, initiated by Northern Aggression, of course, which side Texas supported "lost," and then, of course, there's the change in choice of law circa 1965 that no Common Law system survived. So, at present, the only parts of any "constitution" that mean anything are those that have been recognized by the high courts of the relevant jurisdictions, and then it's the judicial opinion that has the legal authority, not any jot or tittle of anything called a "constitution."
Regarding Law of the Sea and maritime law, what is an issue for many is that where the term "law" shows up or comes to mind, the application of that idea is that where something is in print, it has authority for that reason alone, namely that it's in print. We can start that way with judicial opinions, but even those have their limits. Where we're talking about legislation, that was a pretty good rule of thumb for some types of legislation in the pre-1965 "place(s)." In the present "place," which is "this state," a/k/a "United States," if it's not printed in a penal code, and if it's not structural in nature, then it applies if and only if there's an agreement that it applies. So, where we "think" "Law of the Sea," where we "think" maritime "law," we'll benefit if we'll also "think" Monte Hall's, "Let's Make A Deal!" Said another way, laws of agreement apply only where there first exist an agreement. What constitutes an agreement is also determined by the principles about agreements, so we've got to have those principles in mind. But, again, just because a concept is printed here or there, by that fact of printing, alone, doesn't mean that it applies or carries any authority. It may very well carry authority, but if it does, it's because it's been agreed to.
As a practical matter, we can operate well by treating penal code language as operable and applicable by the sole reason that such language is in print under that title/label. However, by contrast, where we get to "transportation" codes, we're 100% into Monte Hall's, "Let's Make A Deal!" Even then, it takes a pretty foundational view of that system to avoid "consenting." It's designed as a trap, and it takes a substantial study of that system and its operational principles to see the traps and to avoid them. It's 100% possible to do; it just takes some work, and that work starts with some rather wicked paradigm shifts.
With that as the segue, and to address one of two key concepts of the "transportation" enforcement mechanism, while Due Process is always, always, always an issue that is worth analyzing and raising where appropriate, it's also one of the easiest concepts to waive. To guess, this author expects that every "transportation" system in "this state" is 100% designed around waiver of Due Process. It's a real "knock down, drag out" affair to compel any "transportation" enforcement system to recognize and apply Due Process. (For example, in most STATEs, the published procedures very deliberately skip over some extremely major procedural steps. Out of sight--out of mind. Very, very literally, nothing shy of risking one's Liberty, having an extremely solid foundation in "what must be," and otherwise appearing to be God's gift of asshole-ness, in the sense of stubborn-ness (not vulgar-ness or unruly-ness) is going to crack that aspect of the "transportation" enforcement mechanism.) It's just too expensive for the "transportation" enforcement systems to comply with Due Process. For that reason, waiving Due Process in that particular mechanism is as easy as falling off a wet log backwards.
That said, there are certain aspects of Due Process that cannot be waived, and to have in mind what the STATE has no discretion about and cannot depend on waiver to produce is to have in mind those aspects of Due Process that may make all the difference for the successful defense.
The second concept is the substantive nature of the "transportation" defense. Anyone going into a "transportation" matter as a "target" who expects that there's anything relevant beyond the issue of "transportation" will save one whale of a lot of time, "money," and energy by paying the fine and going home. The system deals with "small" amounts in controversy, and what that translates into in most people's minds is that it's fairly straightforward in its procedure and evidence and "law."
As it turns out, it's one of the more complicated systems designed. There's a reason for that, and that takes us into understanding the "money supply" management function, which has been discussed in other notes, and may be again in future notes, but to go down that path here is to distract from the basics posed by the red-light-camera scenario. It is sufficient to say that because the "transportation" enforcement system has a "banking" function, that system is designed to make sure that the banking function it serves is not easily upset. Think "income tax" to get a picture of why a system might be set up as complicated and enforced "brutally." The "income tax" is the poster-child system for "money management" in "this state," which is just to say that the "enforcers" are vicious, and "ugly," and over-bearing, and unreasonable, etc., all by design. The "income tax" "collection" mechanism serves a banking function that, in the opinion of the bankers, is sacro-sanct, and our "touching" those systems isn't ever going to be treated lightly, and that's why. In sum, the "transportation" defense isn't as straightforward a matter as would be nice, and the reason is that it serves a "banking" function. That means that it's designed to be confusing and to be enforced "without mercy" (in appearance), so as to keep as much of the curiosity as possible completely beyond the reach of the super-vast majority of those "targeted" by that system.
Probably because they see "law" (which we're not dealing with in the traditional sense of the concept) and because they don't see "banking function" (which understanding puts the entire mechanism into very crisp focus), what the very vast majority of "targets" in that system have yet to reflect upon is that "federal" means "federal," as in "by agreement." "Federal" is not a concept that describes a "level" of government. "Federal" does not mean "national." "Federal" is also not a substitute term for "constitutional." "Federal" means "federal," as in "by agreement."
The "transportation" enforcement mechanism is a "federal" mechanism. Those not in a position to talk to the "gotcha agreement" on which that system depends may still find a way to prevail, but they're as rare as those who prevail arguing that the "income tax" is "un-constitutional."
To study into the actual mechanism on which the "transportation" system depends is to know how to defend against any "transportation"-based claim. The "target" in that case in CALIFORNIA took the traditional "patriot" approach to things and, as usual, got handed his hat. (And, even with that CALIFORNIA legislation that addresses the admissibility of the camera's photos, it is still what it has always been and will always be -- no one can compel anyone into "transportation." Thus, those being tagged by that form of regulation have "volunteered" into being so regulated.) Once the mind makes/survives that paradigm shift out of the myth and lies on which we've all been raised and into the understanding that we're dealing with a "federal" system, which depends on a "federal" mechanism, i.e., Monte Hall's, "Let's Make A Deal!", then we're in a competent position to defend ourselves in such matters as "transportation" matters.
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
-----Original Message-----
From: paycheck-piracy@mail-list.com [mailto:paycheck-piracy@mail-list.com] On Behalf Of Paycheck-Piracy-list-owner@mail-list.com
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 4:37 PM
Subject: Challenging a red-light ticket on constitutional and due process grounds just became more difficult
Paycheck Piracy does not accept any liability or responsibility for the information provided by others. It is your duty to verify the accuracy and the legality of any information accessed via the Internet.
Please note: This message was sent from an auto-notification system that cannot accept incoming e-mails. Please do not reply to this message.
Paycheck Piracy:
- Does not rent, sell, use or abuse the list of subscribers.
- Does not insert any ads nor pop-ups into your message.
- Does not send HTML email ('tracking' messages with different colors,
fancy fonts, or pictures).
- Does not track whether subscribers opened their email (requires HTML
email).
--------------
From: National Motorists Association
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 8:01 AM
Subject: NMA E-Newsletter #283: He Said, She Said, It Said?
NMA E-Newsletter
Issue #283
NMA E-Newsletter #283: He Said, She Said, It Said?
Challenging a red-light ticket on constitutional and due process grounds just became more difficult thanks to the California Supreme Court.
In a recent ruling (California v. Goldsmith) the court concluded that red-light camera evidence does not constitute hearsay, which is defined as second-hand evidence about a statement made by a person. The court also ruled that "evidence" compiled by ticket cameras "has the presumption of authenticity," This means that camera evidence is considered valid unless the driver can successfully show otherwise.
The decision stems from the case of Carmen Goldsmith, who was convicted of a red-light camera violation in Los Angeles Superior Court in 2009. The only witness against her was an Inglewood police officer who had not personally witnessed the incident. Instead, the officer offered standard testimony about the facts of the case, based on the visual record supplied by the red-light camera. Goldsmith objected, arguing that the officer's testimony amounted to hearsay, but the court disagreed.
The court used the California Evidence Code to define hearsay as "evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated." The court reasoned that since a "statement"
must be made by a person (according to the evidence code), and since a red-light camera is not a person, the evidence it provides does not constitute hearsay.
But the court wasn't finished. It went on to say that because the red-light camera evidence is not hearsay, the defendant's right to confront the witness presenting the evidence (as guaranteed by the 6th Amendment to the Constitution) does not apply "[b]ecause, unlike a person, a machine cannot be cross-examined."
Let's go through that again: "because, unlike a person, a machine cannot be cross-examined." Isn't that the problem in the first place? Shouldn't the fact that there is no live witness to the event be the real issue in this case? Apparently the California Supreme Court can't be bothered with such details. (It's worth noting that in a previous red-light camera case, the California Court of Appeal sided with the defendant who made arguments similar to Goldsmith's.)
The court can't take all the credit, however. The California Legislature laid the groundwork for this ruling in 2012 when it passed Senate Bill 1303 which states specifically that data from a red-light camera does not constitute hearsay. There is ample evidence to show this bill was written with help from Redflex lobbyists who inserted the hearsay language to specifically thwart Goldsmith, whose case was working through the lower courts at that time.
It's a slick plan, a template used over and over around the country:
Camera company lobbyists use their considerable resources to influence lawmakers who write legislation favorable to the camera companies. When legal challenges arise, courts, following the letter of the law, rule in favor of camera company interests. And motorists get the short end of the stick.
Please don't misunderstand. If you get a red-light camera ticket, fight it. Raise all of the constitutional/due process arguments you can. You may prevail. These people did.
But looking at the big picture, the NMA believes the most effective way to fight red-light cameras at the state or national level is to attack the revenue stream. Our push for longer yellow lights at camera-equipped intersections does just that. After Loma Linda, California, lengthened yellow-light times by one second, red-light running violations dropped 92 percent. The revenue dried up and the cameras soon went away. Some Florida communities are shutting down their camera programs after the Florida Department of Transportation mandated longer yellow-light times last year. The reason? They're no longer profitable.
The camera companies and their policymaker accomplices have the resources to fight lengthy court battles on multiple fronts, but they are still vulnerable where it counts: on the bottom line.
National Motorists Association
402 W 2nd St
Waunakee, Wisconsin
53597 USA
=============================================
A consortium of services for people and companies.
http://www.preferredservices.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a one-way announcement list. Only the list moderators are able to post a message.
To subscribe: <mailto:Paycheck-Piracy-on@mail-list.com>
To unsubscribe: <mailto:Paycheck-Piracy-off@mail-list.com>
To change your email address: <mailto:Paycheck-Piracy-change@mail-list.com> with your old address in the Subject: area To research the free archived files: http://archive.mail-list.com/paycheck-piracy
mail-list.com 1302 Waugh Dr. #438 Houston, Texas 77019 USA
2 comments:
The fact is, in this nation, and all it's "states", there is no due process, and no lawful court that is not corrupt beyond belief. The U.S. Gov't, Inc. has long ago declared war on the people of America and we find ourselves pretty much without recourse if the state decides to fine, penalize or otherwise punish us. There is no longer any oversight of police or judges. Most, if not all, law enforcement agencies have been militarized, and not only given a free hand, but encouraged to abuse, assault and murder the populace that they once claimed to "serve and protect." We are now a Third World nation.
WE the PEOPLE CAN SAVE AMERICA- will YOU help?? These folks have the best plan i've seen to do so PEACEFULLY & LAWFULLY... check it out; great law info there, also.
The "hidden fourth" branch of American government is discovered and being "resurrected" by we the people to save and restore America, but we wish YOUR participatory help, also! A momentous history-changing federal case has been filed in New York that could indeed be HOW we the people peacefully and lawfully TAKE BACK AMERICA to true justice and Constitutional common law. Learn how we each CAN choose to make a difference by participation in local CLGJs : www.NationalLibertyAlliance.org
VIRTUE is America's foundation!
COMMON LAW (GOD) is America's Heritage!
LIBERTY is America's inheritance! -------------------------------
Our Judicial has become "just-us"- NOT true justice anymore! We the people are each "united states" of BEing, not slaves to the system, as has been so successfully instilled within us (brainwashed). Just came from traffic COURT, our claimed common law jurisdiction & people again not respected, WRIT of ERROR forthcoming... :) freemom7
Post a Comment