Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: traffic ticket questions

Expand Messages
  • John H.
    Florida Law requires a laser and radar device to be calibrated once EVERY SIX MONTHS! One thing that we fail to forget is the fact that the calibration is only
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 13, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Florida Law requires a laser and radar device to be calibrated once
      EVERY SIX MONTHS! One thing that we fail to forget is the fact that
      the calibration is only a guarantee that the device was properly
      calibrated at the time it was calibrated! What about when it was
      actually being used to tag your vehicle? Was the calibration accurate
      at that time? They have NO WAY of knowing this. Raise that point.
      Florida now REQUIRES all officers to show up in court WITH his
      credentialing and the calibration records of the device. Ask the
      officer if the measurements shown on those records indicate the
      condition of the device at the time your vehicle was tagged or are the
      readings only that of after the device was calibrated. ALSO, if the
      judge states that the officer does not have to prove that, or anything
      else you request, OBJECT BOLDLY AND DEMAND DISMISSAL. The judge has
      just shown partiality and by law he is REQUIRED to at the very least,
      to dismiss himself from the case and provide you with a different
      "impartial" judge. AT LEAST that is the law. The judge will probably
      tell you to go fly a kite but at least you have grounds for an appeal.
      Take a friend to record, in writing, the best he can, the case. Many
      states do not provide recorders for traffic violations. The judge is
      free to roam wherever he wants. 'Maybe' advise him that you have a
      recorder present. That may help to keep a leash on him. I learned the
      hard way after being encouraged that in Osceola Cty., Fl. the judges
      were fair and honest!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT A JOKE. I had the officer
      on several points and failures to provide evidence requested and the
      judge came to his rescue every time. The officer even admitted that the
      calibration on the device could have been off when he tagged my car
      but the judge jumped in and said "but the officer already provided you
      with the calibration certificate," that was evidence enough! YES, it
      was my failure in not objecting boldly and demanding that the judge
      show impartiality. I LOST MY OWN CASE because I was not prepared
      emotionally to deal with one of the most corrupt judges in Osceola
      Cty., FL. I had just got done watching him beat up on a traffic
      violation attorney and I considered myself dead meat before I even
      started. One other thing I would suggest trying is this. Supposedly
      the only evidence the prosecution has is the testimony of the officer.
      The ticket itself is not considered evidence of the violation. Unless
      the officer has a photo of the laser reading with your car in the
      background then there is no other evidence. Even that is questionable
      if YOU were not in the photo and also since that reading could have
      been from another vehicle. Anyway, write up an affidavit, stating that
      you were not going the speed the officer says you were. (I AM NOT
      ADVOCATING LYING). HAVE IT NOTARIZED. It is my understanding that in
      any court of law a signed affidavit, being an Exhibit, is to be
      considered as HARD evidence compared to verbal testimony. This I did
      not think of until after my case. Another issue is the fact that at
      the bottom of every citation you are threatened with a greater charge
      if you do not sign the ticket!!! (((Think about it. You will be
      charged with a "CRIMINAL" MISDEMEANOR if you do not sign your name on
      a piece of paper for an alleged "CIVIL" INFRACTION))) THIS IS
      BLACKMAIL, you signed under duress, and since the only evidence is the
      signature that the officer has that it was you that he cited, aside
      from his testimony, then demand that the citation be thrown out since
      the signature was acquired by illegal threat! That is where the
      affidavit should come into play! YES, this is theory in traffic court
      but in contractual law, a signature obtained by force is invalid and
      so is the obligation.  _,___
    • BOB GREGORY
      *Title 26 of the Code has not been enacted into positive law, but it is
      Message 2 of 7 , Oct 13, 2008
      • 0 Attachment


        Title 26 of the Code has not been enacted into positive law, but it is prima facie evidence of the law and is considered to be the law unless the statutes on which it is based are shown to be different, in which case the statutes govern.  See 1 USC 112.  I am not trying to say you are wrong about the differences in Titles 26 and 27, but you will end up with egg on your face if you make the argument about positive law unless you can show that the statutes say something different from the code sections in question.  Although the DOJ and the judges argue and rule differently, the key is regulations as required by 44 USC 1505, 1507 and 5 USC 552, 553.  See also Chrysler Corp. v. Brown.  The Parallel Table of Rules and Authorities is a handy quick reference for determining which code sections have been implemented by substantive regulations, but it is not complete or authoritative.  The rules for regulations given in 1 CFR provide the information needed to determine whether or not a regulation is substantive.  In 26 CFR, the only substantive regulations relating to 26 USC Subtitle A are found in 26 CFR Part 1.  Parts 301 and 601 of 26 CFR contain NO substantive regulations.  Do some reading in the beginning of 26 CFR Part 601.  Also read 26 CFR 601.7.

         

         
         


        SWa2890468@... wrote:
        Bill, I received a similar order from the 5th Circuit court of Appeals.  I will be back in the Federal District Court on the 22nd of this month. I am suing a Revenue officer and all concerned.  Be careful because there is collusion between the Judges and the Department of Justice (DOJ) Attorneys. I think that there is even collusion in the Courts of Appeal.  They don't rule properly either. Move the Court to have the DOJ Attorney
        prove authority under IRC 7401.  This can't be done because the Authority is not in Title 26 Subtitle A(income taxes); also Title 26 has never been  passed into positive law and IT IS NOT LEGAL "EVIDENCE OF THE LAWS ....OF THE UNITED STATES" and therefore cannot have general applicability to the public.
        The authority is in Title 27 part 70 Alcohol, tobacco and firearms and the authority under one Title cannot be used to enforce codes under another Title. Until the authority can be proven the court and on the record, the court is not to proceed beyond that point.
         
        Sam 






      • JcP
        ILS ANNOUNCES MAJOR BREAKTHROUGH ON TITLE 18 ILS Services, Inc., a leading legal research firm headquartered in Austin, Texas, announced that it has been
        Message 3 of 7 , Oct 15, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          ILS ANNOUNCES MAJOR BREAKTHROUGH ON TITLE 18

          ILS Services, Inc., a leading legal research firm headquartered in Austin, Texas, announced that it has been advised that the first person has been released challenging the validity of Title 18.

          ILS was advised that a win was issued inWest Virginia for one prisoner.

          Further research by ILS has also uncovered another significant error in the criminal code. The federal Title 18 criminal code was codified in 1909, again in 1940, and again in 1948. In 1909 and 1940 the jurisdictional section for federal courts only authorized prosecution under Title 18 crimes, not under drug crimes or IRS crimes. The 1940 statute, 18 USC § 546, we never repealed or amended. That statute, which is still valid, only authorized prosecution for 1909 Title 18 crimes, nothing for Title 21 or Title 26. Furthermore, under the Fair Warning Doctrine, to prosecute someone under a prior statute, a person must be given warning under that statute. Therefore, no possible prosecution exists under Title 21, Title 26, or under any Title 18 charge other than those listed in the 1909 act, but prior notice is required.

          ILS intends to reopen cases by raising the additional error, which would deprive the court of jurisdiction over any criminal case.


        • JcP
          Any discussion of 26 USC, requires definitions of terms. 26 USC sec. 1 et seq., talks about income . If there is a question as to the definition of income ,
          Message 4 of 7 , Oct 15, 2008
          • 0 Attachment

            Any discussion of 26 USC, requires definitions of terms. 26 USC sec. 1 et seq., talks about "income". If there is a question as to the definition of "income", the discussion must settle that issue first. The Supremes ruled that even Congress cannot define the word "income", so that tells me the rest of us cannot define "income" either. In any discussion of the law as expressed by Title 26, there must be an authoritative source for the word "income". Congress cannot be that authoritative source as stated by the Supreme Court.

             

            STRATTON'S INDEPENDENCE, LTD. v. HOWBERT, 231U.S. 399, 417 (1913): The Stratton Court made two important points: property, by itself, was not federally taxable and that the income tax that was authorized was the corporate income tax, not imposed on the profits or gains of the corporations, but on the privilege of incorporation.

             

            Title 26 has not been enacted into positive law, nor will it ever be. That's fact! Now, can you answer 'why' in your mind? Hint: Art.1§8.17, Art.4§3.2, 5 USC 137 and 304 USC 64

             

            Title 26 has never been passed into positive law and IT IS NOT LEGAL "EVIDENCE OF THE LAWS ....OF THE UNITED STATES" and therefore cannot have general applicability to the public.

             

            26 USC 7806(b) says that Title 26 is not the law. In other words, "No inference, implication or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title..." N.B. "legislative construction" means "law."

             

                       Section 7806. Construction of Title.

             

                            (a) Cross references. The cross references in this title to other portions of the title, or other provisions of law, where the word "see" is used, are made only for convenience, and shall be given no legal effect.                

                          (b) Arrangement and classification. No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect. The preceding sentence also applies to the sidenotes and ancillary tables contained in the various prints of this Act before its enactment into law.

                       

            HISTORICAL REVIEW OF TITLE 26 AND STATUTES AT LARGE

             

            Statutes at Large are in the Public domain located here: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsl.html  

            The Internal Revenue Service relies on Sections 6201, 6321 and 6331 of Title 26 as the reference for legal evidence of authority of law to assess, lien and/or levy for the collection of alleged income taxes.

            The laws, which apply to the general public of the 50 Union States, are referred to as the Statutes at Large. These Statutes are clear as to the taxable activities and to those liable for these activities as shown by the Statutes at Large. There are numerous Federal Court decisions in affirmation. Cites below:

            “The official source to findUnited States law is the Statutes at Large and the United States Code is only prima facie evidence of such laws. Royer’s Inc. v. United States , 265 F2d 615, 59-1 (1959, CA3 Pa).”

            “Unless Congress affirmatively enacts title of United States Code into law, that title is only “prima facie” evidence of the law.” Preston v. Heckler, 734 F2d 1359,(1984,CA9Alaska ).

            “… that the Code establishes “prima facie” the laws of theUnited States , the very meaning of “prima facie” being that the Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent.” Stephen v. United States , 319U.S. 423 (1943); United States v. Welden, 377U.S. 95 (1964).

            “The Code establishes prima facie what the laws of United States are but to the extent that provisions of Code are inconsistent with Statutes at Large, The latter will prevail” Best Food, Inc. v. United States, 147 F Supp 749 (1956)

             

             

             

             




             

          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.