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

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Request for Help: Denton County Traffic

Expand Messages
  • dave
    Yes!! Bear is EXACTLY correct. Very well done. The courts almost bend over backwards to encourage questioning of evidence and grant the accused a lot of leeway
    Message 1 of 26 , Apr 21, 2009

      Yes!!

      Bear is EXACTLY correct. Very well done.

       

      The courts almost bend over backwards to encourage questioning of evidence and grant the accused a lot of leeway in that area. Why you ask? Answer…in my opinion: (1) To obscure the fact of statutory written law not really being applicable to everyday people. (2) To grant appearance that they are fair.

       

       

       

       

       

      From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Brian
      Sent: Tuesday, April

       




      If the ticket said 1995 for example and your wife was driving a 1997 car, then you could truthfully say that she was not driving the vehicle identified on the ticket. It's not a terribly strong argument but you never know.

      Brian

      Moderator/Bear: In trial you could use the error to break down the officers credibility. On the above example, lay the registration in front of him and ask, "On the day you wrote the ticket, is this the registration you saw?" Officer, "Yes it is." You, "Does that registration state what year the car is?" Officer, "Yes it does." You, "What year does it say the car is?" Officer, "1997." Now lay the copy of the ticket in front of him, "Is this a copy of the ticket you wrote that day?" Officer, "Yes it is." You, "Does the ticket state what year the car is?" Officer, "Yes it does." You, "What year does the ticket say the car is?" Officer, "1995." You, "How do you explain that discrepancy?" Officer, "I made a mistake." You, "How often does that happen?" Officer, "I don't know." You, "Is it possible there are any other mistakes on this ticket?" Officer, "???????" You, "Would it be safe to say based on this mistake that you were not at your sharpest that day?" Officer, "Oh no, I was very sharp on everything but the year."

      Closing argument: Judge, based on the mistake made on the year plainly described on the registration that the officer admits is the one he saw, I contend that I have cast some doubt on the officers observation skills sufficient to create a reasonable doubt on whether or not the officer really did observe me speeding that day. I believe that you are going to have to find for acquittal on this one.

    • Ruby
      Hi Paul! If anone would be kind enough to help me search the Texas Code on this type of law / code, this law may be of help to you if we have it s equivelent
      Message 2 of 26 , Apr 21, 2009
        Hi Paul!
         
        If anone would be kind enough to help me search the Texas Code on this type of law / code, this law may be of help to you if we have it's equivelent in Texas?  
        Previously I spent more than a day trying to find something similar to this, and couldn't find it..... Because they try and hide it;.... Don't want you to be able to find it.... but then again, I'm probably legal illiterate!!!!  Help? I'd think this would be helpful to a lot of us....
        Jennifer

        ----- Original Message -----
        Speeding Ticket Served w/o consent...

        what state do you live in? maybe you can find similar code for your state; 

        Washington Law at 46.61.470 REQUIRES a minimum 1/4 MILE measured distance of ALL ELECTRICAL & MECHANICAL OR OTHER RADAR or LASER SPEED MEASURING DEVICES that are CAPABLE of measuring or recording the speed of vehicles to be admissible in court.

         

        I demand this court dismiss this speeding ticket because the officer did not have me in his or her sights for the required minimum of 1/4 mile and/or used a electrical, mechanical, radar, laser or other speed measuring device that is capable of measuring the elapsed time during which I traveled between the entrance and exit of a particular section or distance on any public highway which RCW 46.61.470 provides "shall not be closer than one-fourth mile."

        RCW 46.61.470 clearly reads:

        "RCW 46.61.470 Speed traps defined, certain types permitted – Measured courses, speed measuring devices, timing from aircraft. (1) No evidence as to the speed of any vehicle operated upon a public highway by any person arrested for violation of any of the laws of this state regarding speed or of any orders, rules, or regulations of any city or town or other political subdivision relating thereto shall be admitted in evidence in any court at a subsequent trial of such person in case such evidence relates to or is based upon the maintenance or use of a speed trap except as provided in subsection (2) of this section. A "speed trap," within the meaning of this section, is a particular section of or distance on any public highway, the length of which has been or is measured off or otherwise designated or determined, and the limits of which are within the vision of any officer or officers who calculate the speed of a vehicle passing through such speed trap by using the lapsed time during which such vehicle travels between the entrance and exit of such speed trap.

        (2) Evidence shall be admissible against any person arrested or issued a notice of a traffic infraction for violation of any of the laws of this state or of any orders, rules, or regulations of any city or town or other political subdivision regarding speed if the same is determined by a particular section of or distance on a public highway, the length of which has been accurately measured off or otherwise designated or determined and either: (a) The limits of which are controlled by a mechanical, electrical, or other device capable of measuring or recording the speed of a vehicle passing within such limits; or (b) a timing device is operated from an aircraft, which timing device when used to measure the elapsed time of a vehicle passing over such a particular section of or distance upon a public highway indicates the speed of a vehicle.

        (3) The exceptions of subsection (2) of this section are limited to devices or observations with a maximum error of not to exceed five percent using the lapsed time during which such vehicle travels between such limits, and such limits shall not be closer than one-fourth mile."http://apps. leg.wa.gov/ RCW/default. aspx?cite= 46.48.120http: //apps.leg. wa.gov/RCW/ default.aspx? cite=46.48. 120

        In anticipation that the prosecutor or judge will argue that the ____________ _________ device is capable of instantaneously and continuously and accurately measuring my speed, and somehow or therefore this new device is not subject to the ONE-QUARTER MILE MINIMUM provided at subsection (3) of RCW 46.61.470, I object and argue that subsection (3) of RCW 46.61.470 clearly states the ONLY EXCEPTIONS are the following:

        "The exceptions of subsection (2) of this section are limited to devices or observations with a maximum error of not to exceed five percent using the lapsed time during which such vehicle travels between such limits, AND SUCH LIMITS SHALL NOT BE CLOSER THAN ONE-FOURTH MILE."

        It is undisputed that ALL current and new ELECTRONIC, RADAR & LASER SPEED MEASURING DEVICES are in fact CAPABLE of measuring or recording the speed of a vehicle passing through such speed trap by using the lapsed time during which such vehicle travels between the entrance and exit of such speed traps, THEREFORE, ALL NEW ELECTRONIC, RADAR & LASER SPEED MEASURING DEVICES are in fact subject to the "1/4 MILE RULE," which is mandatory pursuant to "subsection (3) of RCW 46.61.470."

        Until the WASHINGTON LEGISLATURE amends RCW 46.61.470 and/or until it enacts a NEW STATUTE that would purport to allow ALL NEW ELECTRONIC, RADAR & LASER SPEED MEASURING DEVICES and their RESULTS to be "ADMISSIBLE IN COURT," the use of any NEW ELECTRONIC, RADAR or LASER SPEED MEASURING DEVICE is in fact and law "INADMISSIBLE IN COURT" and is without "authority of law," as REQUIRED by article 1, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution.


        From: guario29 guario29@yahoo. com
         Speeding Ticket Served w/o consent...

        I was recently pulled over for speeding in unfamiliar territory. The officer served me w/o asking if I new why I was being stopped.  I did not have everything written down in the car or memorized to know what to say or do so I did not withhold my license.  I guess that was my consent.  Later he served me and then tried to ask what I had on my speedometer to which I said I did not know. I had earlier learned about the 1/4 mile distance they are legally bound to so I asked what instrument did he use to detect the speed to which he said a laser 3... something.  My mistake was that I did not say that I did not consent for the record and remind him that I this was not a business vehicle which therefore means I do not require a license, etc.  I have one other speeding ticket which can mess with insurance if this one goes through so I do not want to accept for walue.  Thought I would conditionally accept with proof of my signature of consent (since he did not have me sign anything) so I don't think there could be an instrument. The other that I would only show as a representative to court (5 hours away from home) and ask the court to then point out the accused.  Since I would not give them the idea that I am the fiction, they would have to point me out w/o asking.  They could not do this or I would accept their dishonor for value. The court is already a court of record.  Any other advice? 
        Thanks in advance, 
        Guario

        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 7:36 PM
        Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Request for Help: Denton County Traffic

        Texas, Denton County.
        My wife got a ticket for speeding in Denton County, TX. 18 MPH over posted limit.
        The Texas State legislature passed a bill for the posting of speed signs in 1951. It has a limited application as described in the Title of the Acts and the body of the law. As far as I know it is the only piece of legislation that controlls the posting of speed signs. [See Attachment] This statute was later codified in the TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE AT 201.904 [See Attachment]. Notice that the second paragraph is deleted in the CODE. However to argue this issue, you must have them charge you with specifically violating the posted speed limit as there are about 13 different CODE sections that regulate speed in the TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE. If you let the cat out of the bag to soon, they can change the charges to some other section.

        The ticket information was filled out incorrectly in the area of vehicle identification, stating the the incorrect year of the Truck.
        Defects in charging instruments are dealt with in the TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
        "Art. 45.019. Requisites Of Complaint
        (a) A complaint is sufficient, without regard to its form, if it substantially satisfies the following requisites:
             (1) it must be in writing;
             (2) it must commence "In the name and by the authority of the State of Texas";
             (3) it must state the name of the accused, if known, or if unknown, must include a reasonably definite description of the accused;
             (4) it must show that the accused has committed an offense against the law of this state, or state that the affiant has good reason to believe and does believe that the accused has committed an offense against the law of this state;
             (5) it must state the date the offense was committed as definitely as the affiant is able to provide;
             (6) it must bear the signature or mark of the affiant;  and
             (7) it must conclude with the words "Against the peace and dignity of the State" and, if the offense charged is an offense only under a municipal ordinance, it may also conclude with the words "Contrary to the said ordinance".
        (b) A complaint filed in justice court must allege that the offense was committed in the county in which the complaint is made.
        (c) A complaint filed in municipal court must allege that the offense was committed in the territorial limits of the municipality in which the complaint is made.
        (d) A complaint may be sworn to before any officer authorized to administer oaths.
        (e) A complaint in municipal court may be sworn to before:
             (1) the municipal judge;
             (2) the clerk of the court or a deputy clerk;
             (3) the city secretary;  or
             (4) the city attorney or a deputy city attorney.
        (f)
        If the defendant does not object to a defect, error, or irregularity of form or substance in a charging instrument before the date on which the trial on the merits commences, the defendant waives and forfeits the right to object to the defect, error, or irregularity.  Nothing in this article prohibits a trial court from requiring that an objection to a charging instrument be made at an earlier time." (Emph. Added)

        Said complaint is required to be presented prior to "any proceeding" in the prosecution of the alleged complaint

        TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
        "Art. 45.018. Complaint
        a) For purposes of this chapter, a complaint is a sworn allegation charging the accused with the commission of an offense.
        b) A defendant is entitled to notice of a complaint against the defendant
        not later than the day before the date of any proceeding in the prosecution of the defendant under the complaint.
        The defendant may waive the right to notice granted by this subsection."


        My experience is with Australian traffic law, primarily state of Victoria. Of which if a traffic ticket is not completely filled in correctly it is dismissed out of court.
        There is a difference between a citation and a complaint

        TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
        Art. 14.06. MUST TAKE OFFENDER BEFORE MAGISTRATE. 
        (b) A peace officer who is charging a person, including a child, with committing an offense that is a Class C misdemeanor, other than an offense under Section 49.02, Penal Code, may, instead of taking the person before a magistrate,
        issue a citation to the person thatcontains written notice of the time and place the person must appear before a magistrate, the name and address of the person charged, and the offense charged.

        TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
        Art. 15.17. DUTIES OF ARRESTING OFFICER AND MAGISTRATE.
        (g)  If a person charged with an offense punishable as a misdemeanor appears before a magistrate
        in compliance with a citation issued underArticle 14.06(b) or (c), the magistrate shall perform the duties imposed by this article in the same manner as if the person had been arrested and brought before the magistrate by a peace officer.  After the magistrate performs the duties imposed by this article, the magistrate except for good cause shown may release the person on personal bond.  If a person who was issued a citation under Article14.06(c) fails to appear as required by that citation, the magistrate before which the person is required to appear shall issue a warrant fort he arrest of the accused.
        I have been unable to get much sense out of the Denton County Sheriff Dept., even after inquiring as an ex-Ministry of Police Services Officer. They informed me that it did not matter if the ticket was filled out incorrectly, the offense was committed.

        I would not expect any assistance from the Denton County Sheriff Dept. This is a revenue scheme for the county and once a citation is issued, your remedy is found with the magistrate.

        I informed the Deputy that there should be some law or requirement for accuracy on a complaint docket/ticket. He replied no.
        You must object to the defects of the complaint (or the absence of a complaint, which without a complaint there is no jurisdiction to proceed to trial) as prescribed in the CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE and every violation of due process.

        You might want to raise the issue in deposition as to the reliability of the observations of the officer regarding the radar speed he alleges when he cannot even copy correctly the plain information from the registration document for the automobile that declares the correct year of manufacture.

        Does anyone have an insight or grounds for dismissal on this issue? 

        Thanks Paul

        A new discovery for me was found in the rules for an EXAMINATION HEARING. This is the statutory language for what is commonly known in other jurisdictions as a probable cause hearing.

        TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
        Art. 16.17. DECISION OF JUDGE.  After the examining trial has been had,the judge shall make an order committing the defendant to the jail of the proper county, discharging him or admitting him to bail, as the law and facts of the case may require.
        Failure of the judge to make or enter an order within 48 hours after the examining trial has been completed operates as a finding of no probable cause and the accused shall be discharged.

        I have developed a procedure that stops the magistrate from moving forward, but have in the past found it difficult to get an order to discharge from some magistrates. Now according to this statute (the TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE are statutes passed by the legislature not rules of court) the failure of the judge to make a ruling is an automatic dismissal. I don't need a judge's ruling, I only need to acquire a certified copy of all the documents filed (or the absence thereof) in the case to proved that there was not ruling made within 48 hours. It is customary for the magistrates that I have stood before just to put the traffic citation in the file and nothing else, then wait for you to come to the arraignment hearing or trial.

        Fundamentally the rules of English common law are operative in the US except where changed by statute. You were right in assuming a defect in the citation is grounds for dismissal, but technically your remedy is according to the TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

      • Pro Se
        The judge will simply say Harmless Error & side with the cop! Moderator/Bear: In the example, you may be correct. I won an acquittal on a speeding ticket on
        Message 3 of 26 , Apr 21, 2009
          The judge will simply say
          Harmless Error & side with the cop!

          Moderator/Bear: In the example, you may be correct. I won an acquittal on a speeding ticket on almost exactly the same issue and the same line of questioning. Come to think of it, I won an expired plate case on a similar line of questioning. In that case, the judge found me guilty. After several post conviction review motions I prevailed.

          There is abatement and bar. An abatement issue is one that can be corrected. A bar issue is one that cannot; usually bar centers around subject matter jurisdiction. A mistake on the ticket is an abatement issue; two kinds of abatement issues technical and substantive. Technical issues may be corrected when they do not affect the ability to put on a defense. Substantive issues may also be corrected but when they affect the ability to put on a defense the defendant is entitled to continuance. Continuance can be great if you are up against statutory speedy trial. This has to with letting the "cat out of the bag" as mentioned by member email41. For these reasons I do not favor discussing the mistake until trial. It also makes the prosecutor look bad because he didn't notice the error.

          --- On Tue, 4/21/09, Brian <mrliberty1776@...> wrote:
          From: Brian <mrliberty1776@...>
          Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Request for Help: Denton County Traffic
          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 8:40 PM

















          If the ticket said 1995 for example and your wife was driving a 1997 car, then you could truthfully say that she was not driving the vehicle identified on the ticket. It's not a terribly strong argument but you never know.



          Brian



          Moderator/Bear: In trial you could use the error to break down the officers credibility. On the above example, lay the registration in front of him and ask, "On the day you wrote the ticket, is this the registration you saw?" Officer, "Yes it is." You, "Does that registration state what year the car is?" Officer, "Yes it does." You, "What year does it say the car is?" Officer, "1997." Now lay the copy of the ticket in front of him, "Is this a copy of the ticket you wrote that day?" Officer, "Yes it is." You, "Does the ticket state what year the car is?" Officer, "Yes it does." You, "What year does the ticket say the car is?" Officer, "1995." You, "How do you explain that discrepancy? " Officer, "I made a mistake." You, "How often does that happen?" Officer, "I don't know." You, "Is it possible there are any other mistakes on this ticket?" Officer, "???????" You, "Would it be safe to say based on this mistake that you were not at your sharpest that day?"
          Officer, "Oh no, I was very sharp on everything but the year."



          Closing argument: Judge, based on the mistake made on the year plainly described on the registration that the officer admits is the one he saw, I contend that I have cast some doubt on the officers observation skills sufficient to create a reasonable doubt on whether or not the officer really did observe me speeding that day. I believe that you are going to have to find for acquittal on this one.
        • The Handyman
          Defending in their court with a technicality will be a lesson in futility. Whether it was a 1995 or 1997 car will be considered harmless error . Better to
          Message 4 of 26 , Apr 21, 2009
            
            Defending in their court with a technicality will be a lesson in futility.  Whether it was a 1995 or 1997 car will be considered "harmless error".  Better to challenge the setting of the court, their oath, the inability of the prosecutor's to produce a license to practice law and inability to pay any fine pursuant to:  
             

            Tate v Short (1971) 28 L Ed 2d 130. 401 US 395, 91 S Ct 668. Indigents may not be ordered to serve time if they cannot pay the fine. See Lockhart, Constitutional Law, 5th Edition, 1980, page 1474. 

             

            Williams v Illinois (1970) 26 L Ed 2d 586, 399 US 235, 90 S Ct 2018. Indigent cannot be ordered to “work off” a fine if the imprisonment will extend the imprisonment beyond the maximum sentence. In the instant case, the maximum sentence is zero; Defendant Loser's ticket was for an infraction.
             
             But everything is worth a try.  You may even consider the following.  The regulation of traffic is an administrative function. Every State has an agency tasked with the enforcement of traffic regulations. This agency will be subject to the State's Administrative Procedures Act, which will ordinarily include a provision for "contested cases". This provision will require that an agency determination be in writing. Such a determination may then be brought to a judicial court for "review". A judicial court has no other function in traffic. Without this written agency determination (it never exists), a judicial court lacks what is called "Subject Matter Jurisdiction". This is analogous to a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "12(b)(6)" motion to dismiss for "failure to state a claim" for which the court may grant relief. There is NOTHING for the court to adjudicate without a written determination to review.  Not only that, but most States will have a single or a few specific courts identified as those to review such administrative matters.  "Traffic Court" is not one of them. I wish you well.
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Brian
            Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 7:40 PM
            Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Request for Help: Denton County Traffic

            If the ticket said 1995 for example and your wife was driving a 1997 car, then you could truthfully say that she was not driving the vehicle identified on the ticket. It's not a terribly strong argument but you never know.

            Messages in this topic (2) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

            .

          • Moisha Pippik
            You also need to read the part about what type of vehicles this speed limit applies to.  Motor vehicles in the business of transporting passengers for for
            Message 5 of 26 , Apr 21, 2009
              You also need to read the part about what type of vehicles this speed limit applies to.  Motor vehicles in the business of transporting passengers for for compensation or hire would be difficult without a cheufer license, wouldn't it?  This is something most people overlook.
               
              One other thing to support the above.  I just requested and received an abstract of driving record.  I can tell you, over the years I have gotten about 20 speeding tickets, and paid the fines.  However, the abstract of driving record, direclty from DPS, does not show one speeding ticket since the license was issued in 1984.  Strange?  No, it's because their is no speeding ticket known to the State of Texas for a non-licensed passenger vehicle.  But our trusted servants will be more than agreeable to accept gifts of payment for a non-law speeding ticket.
               
              What you need to first do is establish the facts. An affidavit of your status as a non-commercial, non-chaufer motor vehicle, not for hire.  File the paperwork in the court, and send a copy to the DA's office. 
               
              Also, request from the DA the specifc law and how it applies to you, a non-commercial, non-cheufer motor vehicle.  If they want to play hardball, and you have the time, request a jury trial, and at the same time, state that you will appeal any decision rendered, because you will not give them the right to make any decisions without an enacted law on the books. 
               
              Just my 3 cents.
               
              Moisha
              --- On Tue, 4/21/09, Email41@... <Email41@...> wrote:


              From: Email41@... <Email41@...>
              Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Request for Help: Denton County Traffic
              To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 7:36 PM








              Texas, Denton County.


              My wife got a ticket for speeding in Denton County, TX. 18 MPH over posted limit.
            • Frog Farmer
              There are so many good points coming out of this discussion. I hope Paul is charting their use in a timeline so as not to put carts before horses, even though
              Message 6 of 26 , Apr 23, 2009
                There are so many good points coming out of this discussion. I hope
                Paul is charting their use in a timeline so as not to put carts before
                horses, even though both are necessary. I'm going to go through all the
                messages about it and comment on the points that I think need noting and
                my comments will follow a quote from the original message and [will be
                in square brackets].

                > My experience is with Australian traffic law, primarily state of
                > Victoria. Of which if a traffic ticket is not completely filled in
                > correctly it is dismissed out of court.

                [Seems right since both countries are based upon English common law.
                Americans don't tend to object, or even think about the ramifications of
                the blank forms they are requested to sign to use to waive their
                rights.]

                > I have been unable to get much sense out of the Denton County Sheriff
                > Dept., even after inquiring as an ex-Ministry of Police Services
                > Officer. They informed me that it did not matter if the ticket was
                > filled out incorrectly, the offense was committed.

                [Was it now? How do we know? Did the accused sign it?]

                > I informed the Deputy that there should be some law or requirement for
                > accuracy on a complaint docket/ticket. He replied no.

                [Right, a deputy cannot give legal advice or speak for an entity and the
                answer is "no", and we really want all their complaints and citations
                against us to be totally inaccurate, void and disqualifiable using the
                other provisions of law meant for that purpose. We don't want to sign
                (or accept, ratify, permit, etc.) anything that could be used against us
                (like traffic tickets).]

                > Does anyone have an insight or grounds for dismissal on this issue?

                [I guess that has been answered in full! It really is nice to see such
                a good understanding of American law on the internet! I don't have time
                to take all the good points that have been contributed thus far and put
                them in proper chronological order of use, but anyone with a personal
                stake should definitely do so on paper (or hard drive).]

                > Moderator/Bear: In trial you could use the error to
                > break down the officers credibility.

                [Better yet, at the "IMOC" (Initial Moment Of Confrontation), if the
                "officer" was issued a demand to take the person to a magistrate
                immediately, much time could be saved (even though the pizza on the back
                seat might get cold) because most states require that the complaint be
                laid before the magistrate at that time, for example:

                California Penal Code
                40306. (a) Whenever a person is arrested for a misdemeanor or an
                infraction and is taken before a magistrate, the arresting officer
                shall file with the magistrate a complaint stating the offense with
                which the person is charged.

                ["Whenever" means that time, then, not later. The man is not an
                "officer" and I can prove it, but that aside, odds are, he does not have
                a "statement" (here called "a complaint stating the offense". This is
                why I carry an English grammar with me, to prove what a statement is.
                The "judge" is not permitted to assist the accuser in formulating his
                statement, otherwise he too would have to recuse himself. I'm going to
                disqualify them both anyway, but the point is, they couldn't do it right
                even if they were for real, but if I let them get away with a fake, they
                would try. Most people let them get away with fake (not necessarily
                false) statements because they too are unable to read or write their own
                language (per the public schooling plan).]

                (b) The person taken before a magistrate shall be entitled to at
                least five days continuance of his case in which to plead and prepare
                for trial and the person shall not be required to plead or be tried
                within the five days unless he waives such time in writing or in open
                court.

                [Notice that this particular "continuance" is NOT the same as one
                somebody would ASK for. If you ASK for a continuance, you are waiving
                the jurisdiction issue. If they HAVE to give it to you, because they
                screwed up, that is their problem and is NOT a waiver by you.]

                (c) The person taken before a magistrate shall thereupon be
                released from custody upon his own recognizance or upon such bail as
                the magistrate may fix.

                [To set bail properly there has to be a probable cause hearing, also
                called examination hearing. The time for this is right then when you
                are brought immediately to the magistrate. If you are ready as I am
                here in northern California, you'll have your certified copies of oaths
                that are on file. If you got your "judge" and "cop" to admit that these
                are the oaths they filed, and they were the wrong ones and that there
                were no others filed, then you have proven that they are not the
                officers they thought they were. End of game. I have never gotten that
                far because I explain it before they get the chance to take me.]

                > On the above
                > example, lay the registration in front of him and
                > ask, "On the day you wrote the ticket, is this the
                > registration you saw?" Officer, "Yes it is." You, "Does that
                registration state what year the car is?" Officer, "Yes it does." You,
                "What year does it say the car is?" Officer, "1997." Now lay the copy of
                the ticket in front of him, "Is this a copy of the ticket you wrote that
                day?" Officer, "Yes it is." You, "Does the ticket state what year the
                car is?" Officer, "Yes it does." You, "What year does the ticket say the
                car is?" Officer, "1995." You, "How do you explain that discrepancy?"
                Officer, "I made a mistake." You, "How often does that happen?" Officer,
                "I don't know." You, "Is it possible there are any other mistakes on
                this ticket?" Officer, "???????" You, "Would it be safe to say based on
                this mistake that you were not at your sharpest that day?" Officer, "Oh
                no, I was very sharp on everything but the year."

                Closing argument: Judge, based on the mistake made on the year plainly
                described on the registration that the officer admits is the one he saw,
                I contend that I have cast some doubt on the officers observation skills
                sufficient to create a reasonable doubt on whether or not the officer
                really did observe me speeding that day. I believe that you are going to
                have to find for acquittal on this one.

                [You use the same type of questioning when you ask about their oaths.
                Do they see the right one in the Constitution? Are they aware of the
                consequences of failure to take the required oath? Did anyone force
                them to take the wrong oath? Is this the first time they discovered
                they took the wrong oath? If so, how credible are they again? Do they
                realize that continuing to act officially, now that they have been
                notified, is a further crime against you (impersonating an officer in an
                attempt to procure extortion money)? Etc. Etc. Etc.]

                [Email41@... cites Texas codes the way I see them here in
                California. It is amazing that more people aren't a little more
                familiar with the processes that can be used to put them away. When you
                read the codes of your particular state, you can see how hard it is to
                really convict a free man who doesn't waive his rights upon request. So
                many lines of statute have to be followed by them TO THE LETTER, or
                waived by you!]

                (f) If the defendant does not object to a defect, error, or irregularity
                of form or substance in a charging instrument before the date on which
                the trial on the merits commences, the defendant waives and forfeits the
                right to object to the defect, error, or irregularity.

                [Notice that word "substance"! This is where most people waive their
                rights and "blow" their cases. You have a charging instrument, but it
                fails in substance. If you fail to object, you waive the objection
                forever. This is why I am so cantankerous and irascible - I object to
                everything! It's a habit. If instead I was programmed to comply and be
                more interested in keeping people's emotions calm, I might inadvertently
                forget and waive another right that could come back to haunt me later.
                This law is everywhere in some form or other. It is ancient common law.]

                Nothing in this article prohibits a trial court from requiring that an
                objection to a charging instrument be made at an earlier time." (Emph.
                Added)

                [Emph indeed! People hate having their time wasted. A lot of people
                fight their court cases like holding actions, taking the most time it
                can take. I started that way and it was the way I had to go. I won
                cases the "wrong way"; I made it cost too much to prosecute me. I
                embarrassed anyone I could in the opposite camp. It was war. Since
                then, I've learned more, become wiser and have a truce with the PTB
                (Powers That Be)(not lawful or legitimate either!). I can be taken out
                with a headshot anytime, generally between 9 and 11:30PM. The point of
                the above law is, if you knew it was a bad complaint, why did you appear
                to affirm its legitimacy by doing a, b, or c?] [d,e,f,g,h...]

                Said complaint is required to be presented prior to "any proceeding" in
                the prosecution of the alleged complaint

                TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
                "Art. 45.018. Complaint
                a) For purposes of this chapter, a complaint is a sworn allegation
                charging the accused with the commission of an offense.
                b) A defendant is entitled to notice of a complaint against the
                defendant not later than the day before the date of any proceeding in
                the prosecution of the defendant under the complaint.
                The defendant may waive the right to notice granted by this subsection."

                ["Any proceeding". You waive this right by accepting or signing a
                traffic ticket. You waive a probable cause hearing, bail setting
                hearing (after which you should decline paying bail as it waives the
                jurisdiction argument) and formal commitment to the jail on the part of
                the "judge" which would make great record making him responsible. This
                section also is the reason it is best to demand an "immediate"
                appearance before the magistrate. If at night, they will not want to do
                this. You must insist and keep insisting. You want to get that
                black-dressed paycheck anticipator up out of bed and make his adrenaline
                level and blood pressure rise. Most people will run away from this
                opportunity. I cannot achieve it at all because they know my intent. Do
                they know YOUR intent?] [I assume they know Bear's and treat him in a
                similar manner.]

                There is a difference between a citation and a complaint

                [There surely is! The first, they have to make and make it right. The
                second, you have to give blessing to, or it fails. If you waive the
                right of silence during "in-custody interrogation without counsel" to
                help complete the form; if you reach out your hand to take it; if you
                sign it; if you appear according to its terms, you waive jurisdiction
                arguments and give the court jurisdiction to decide the matter. If that
                result is not your intent, don't sign or accept any more tickets. Go
                see the wizard instead.]

                TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
                Art. 15.17. DUTIES OF ARRESTING OFFICER AND MAGISTRATE.
                (g) If a person charged with an offense punishable as a misdemeanor
                appears before a magistrate in compliance with a citation issued
                underArticle 14.06(b) or (c),

                [He waives jurisdiction.]

                Email41@... said: I would not expect any assistance from the Denton
                County Sheriff Dept. This is a revenue scheme for the county and once a
                citation is issued, your remedy is found with the magistrate.

                [As I said, I'm glad I'm not the only one starting with basics! The
                point about the revenue is correct. If they see that messing with you
                will result in less revenue, you are dropped like you are hot. This is
                why "the money issue" is one of my favorites. I love talking about
                money in court, and today after all this recent fraud would love to talk
                again if they'd just get me there, but they won't. People forget that
                if they are witnessed using frns or checks or account numbers in equity
                jurisdiction it is "more difficult" using the common law and the money
                issue without sounding like a lying hypocrite. The reason one might
                want to preserve the money issue is to avoid making any of those painful
                asset transfers!]

                Email41: You must object to the defects of the complaint (or the absence
                of a complaint, which without a complaint there is no jurisdiction to
                proceed to trial) as prescribed in the CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE and
                every violation of due process.

                [Yes, a VERY important point, as here, there IS usually NO complaint!
                Here, people are generally "compliant" in waiving their right to a
                "complaint". Many cannot tell the difference between the words, getting
                the "I" and "A" transposed in their writing. Did I mention, when you
                enter writing into the record, nobody has jurisdiction to say it means
                anything other than what you wrote? If you write "compliant" but meant
                "complaint", you failed to make good record. Misspelled words cannot be
                corrected for you by your opponents or the court. "Bad" and "bar" mean
                two different things. Take time to check spelling and you cannot rust
                spell-checkers. See? Rust?! Huh!? I meant Trust! Tough!]

                [The point where you must speak up about complaint issues is at the
                arraignment. Instead people are compliant. They waive the complaint
                more than not. They waive proper arraignments and permit scoundrels to
                play with them like they were toys. Why? Well, most times these
                "victims" have never read their local codes about these things. They
                must think you have to be a lawyer or something like that, maybe a judge
                to understand all the relevant things one has to know. I'd say codes
                are easy to read, but very boring and that is why people don't read
                them. It takes effort to read them. But the pages are really few that
                one uses regularly. And it only takes one "stopper" to "work".
                Everyone should know the laws that other people have to follow before
                getting to steal their life, liberty, or property, don't you all agree?]

                You might want to raise the issue in deposition as to the reliability of
                the observations of the officer regarding the radar speed he alleges
                when he cannot even copy correctly the plain information from the
                registration document for the automobile that declares the correct year
                of manufacture.

                [A lot of people never compose a list of deposition questions! I say,
                you aren't even serious until it is over 100 questions!]

                TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
                Art. 16.17. DECISION OF JUDGE. After the examining trial has been had,
                the judge shall make an order committing the defendant to the jail of
                the proper county, discharging him or admitting him to bail, as the law
                and facts of the case may require. Failure of the judge to make or enter
                an order within 48 hours after the examining trial has been completed
                operates as a finding of no probable cause and the accused shall be
                discharged.

                [I referred to the probable cause hearing above. If there is no probable
                cause to hold you, then why are you there? Some people make admissions
                and confessions giving the cops probable cause. Others do or say things
                in front of witnesses, even judges, that can give one probable cause.
                90% of convictions are the result of admissions and confessions. I just
                now Googled that to see if I could quickly support that with a link and
                got this quotation from the first entry:

                "false confessions and admissions account for 25% of wrongful
                convictions overturned by DNA testing, and young people are particularly
                susceptible)" Is that good enough? Probable cause hearings are great!
                You get to be the prosecutor and the cop is examined (if you control
                your court, otherwise, you may be scared by the wizard)! You are to
                tear his story about everything to shreds by making him lie and get
                caught. I'd start with his oath, after we get a real judge (almost
                never). Why do people waive this so often, yet complain later about
                getting convicted wrongfully?]

                I have developed a procedure that stops the magistrate from moving
                forward, but have in the past found it difficult to get an order to
                discharge from some magistrates.

                [It's not your job to convince the head kidnapper to have his henchmen
                release the hostage. If he gets it done too late, it won't be the
                hostage's fault!]

                Now according to this statute (the TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE are
                statutes passed by the legislature not rules of court) the failure of
                the judge to make a ruling is an automatic dismissal. I don't need a
                judge's ruling, I only need to acquire a certified copy of all the
                documents filed (or the absence thereof) in the case to proved that
                there was not ruling made within 48 hours. It is customary for the
                magistrates that I have stood before just to put the traffic citation in
                the file and nothing else, then wait for you to come to the arraignment
                hearing or trial.

                [There you go! It's really just common sense, therefore exceedingly
                uncommon today.]

                Fundamentally the rules of English common law are operative in the US
                except where changed by statute.

                [That's how it is here in California. Problem is, the corporados hate
                common law and promote equity jurisdiction, and the Rubes buy anything
                they're sold. Therefore, most cannot claim common law rights because
                they've already made record of their choice to enter equity
                jurisdiction over their own signatures.]

                You were right in assuming a defect in the citation is grounds for
                dismissal, but technically your remedy is according to the TEXAS CODE OF
                CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

                [The "infraction" process is where they get the gullible or lazy or
                ignorant or those who for whatever reason waive their rights to the full
                criminal procedures to trade away many of those rights in return for the
                promise of no jail time, only fines. Here, one who wants all his rights
                can still have them by demanding the full criminal process and having
                the infraction tried as a misdemeanor. Then they fight hard all the way
                never waiving any other rights. Do you know of anyone doing jail time
                for a crime classified as an infraction, put behind bars by a jury?
                There are probably some somewhere. I never saw any.]

                Moderator/Bear: There is abatement and bar. An abatement issue is one
                that can be corrected. A bar issue is one that cannot; usually bar
                centers around subject matter jurisdiction.

                [How's this for a bar issue: what if nobody can get past your
                disqualifications? They fly one in as a ringer and you catch that guy
                in a felony. What if you disqualify (for cause) all contestants for
                credibility as the impartial judge? How do they proceed then? They
                don't from what I've seen. Is there anyone else out there who has tried
                to disqualify every judge thrown against him, or am I the pioneer
                there?]

                The Handyman said:
                Defending in their court with a technicality will be a lesson in
                futility. Whether it was a 1995 or 1997 car will be considered
                "harmless error". Better to challenge the setting of the court, their
                oath, the inability of the prosecutor's to produce a license to practice
                law and inability to pay any fine pursuant to:
                Tate v Short (1971) 28 L Ed 2d 130. 401 US 395, 91 S Ct 668. Indigents
                may not be ordered to serve time if they cannot pay the fine. See
                Lockhart, Constitutional Law, 5th Edition, 1980, page 1474.

                [Problem here is the admissions and confessions easily obtained wherein
                the victim proclaims his income, wages, bank accounts, etc. Few will be
                able to demonstrate the necessary indigence, even though it is easy if
                one understands the money issues.]

                Williams v Illinois (1970) 26 L Ed 2d 586, 399 US 235, 90 S Ct 2018.
                Indigent cannot be ordered to "work off" a fine if the imprisonment will
                extend the imprisonment beyond the maximum sentence. In the instant
                case, the maximum sentence is zero; Defendant Loser's ticket was for an
                infraction.

                [They make sure it won't by offering the option of "volunteer work".
                There was one case in a distant place I didn't want to fight too hard,
                so when my initial efforts proved fruitless and they had tasted my
                medicine, we came to a truce and if I would do 8 hours of volunteer
                work, they would drop the "charges" (fakes, non-existant). I was in the
                mode of enjoying my presence in this far away city, and was curious
                about what my volunteer options would be, so after we all made friends,
                I went to the social worker's office to pick my 8 hours out of a huge
                binder of choices. It was fun, playing with the social worker who took
                it all so seriously. My 8 hours were spent pleasantly and surprisingly,
                very profitably. I left with more than I arrived with. I learned a
                lot. Better than paying any ticket, that's for sure.]

                But everything is worth a try. You may even consider the following.
                The regulation of traffic is an administrative function. Every State has
                an agency tasked with the enforcement of traffic regulations. This
                agency will be subject to the State's Administrative Procedures Act,
                which will ordinarily include a provision for "contested cases". This
                provision will require that an agency determination be in writing. Such
                a determination may then be brought to a judicial court for "review". A
                judicial court has no other function in traffic.

                [The way it works here in California is that when you appear in court it
                is assumed you know that you could have had administrative hearings to
                resolve all your rights issues, but you waived or lost them. Certain
                issues, like tow hearings, require your action within three days. But
                "tickets" give court dates far beyond those three days. This is how
                they get suckers to waive rights, when they fail to read that
                hard-to-read grey print on the back of our local yellow tickets. I stop
                lots of trouble just by threatening to demand a formal docketed
                administrative hearing on the record, with any agency that wants
                trouble. And if they take me up on it, I plan to devastate them
                (virtually, not physically.]

                Without this written agency determination (it never exists), a judicial
                court lacks what is called "Subject Matter Jurisdiction". This is
                analogous to a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "12(b)(6)" motion to
                dismiss for "failure to state a claim" for which the court may grant
                relief. There is NOTHING for the court to adjudicate without a written
                determination to review.

                [People co-create the "ticket" used as a complaint against them and then
                look to the judge for relief, most of the time. Behavior without overt
                speech can be interpreted by witnesses as submission to jurisdiction.
                Cameras and microphones capture acts of submission for the record. If
                people could learn to waive less, they'd win more.]

                [Moisha Pippik pointed out that the traffic laws only apply to vehicles
                in the business of transporting passengers for compensation or hire.
                That's the law regarding licenses here, but people can't read it too
                easily, so most miss that point. Our "drivers license" is a combination
                of the old chauffeur's license and commercial operators license. As
                soon as they combined those two (without changing anything other than
                the names of the two defined licenses), the people who didn't need
                either one the week before all assumed they needed one now. Fools.]

                Regards,

                FF
              • Founder@APeacefulSolution.org
                Hello tips, I am out of my house, right now, filing a couple of foundations in Panama, but one solution for this problem is to show that in the Texas traffic
                Message 7 of 26 , Apr 23, 2009
                  Hello tips,

                  I am out of my house, right now, filing a couple of foundations in
                  Panama, but one solution for this problem is to show that in the
                  Texas traffic code, speed signs are for COMMERCIAL traffic, only.
                  Until and unless the officer enters into evidence something that
                  shows that you and your vehicle are using the highways for
                  commercial purposes, he has failed in his burden of proof.

                  Sorry that I cannot give you the citation in the code, but
                  if someone has no contributed the citation by next week, I will be
                  able to find the code and post it.
                  Best regards,
                  Bernie Besherse mailto:founder@...
                • Randall Kelton
                  The citation will require that you appear on or before a date certain. That violates Texas Transportation Code 543.006 and is an act of misconduct under
                  Message 8 of 26 , Apr 23, 2009
                    The citation will require that you appear on or before a date certain.  That violates Texas Transportation Code 543.006 and is an act of misconduct under 543.008 rendering the officer subject to removal from office. 

                    The speed limits in Texas clearly apply to commercial vehicles. 

                    If you call into our show on Monday night, I will try to get Eddie Craig up.  He is the current traffic expert.  He can lead you through an effective defense. 

                    Randy
                    ruleoflawradio.com  8 to 10 monday and thursday central time and 8 to 12 friday. 

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: pauljbridges <pauljbridges@...>
                    To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Request for Help: Denton County Traffic
                    Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:15:57 -0000



                    Texas, Denton County.
                    My wife got a ticket for speeding in Denton County, TX. 18 MPH over posted limit.

                    The ticket information was filled out incorrectly in the area of vehicle identification, stating the the incorrect year of the Truck.

                    My experience is with Australian traffic law, primarily state of Victoria. Of which if a traffic ticket is not completely filled in correctly it is dismissed out of court.

                    I have been unable to get much sense out of the Denton County Sheriff Dept., even after inquiring as an ex-Ministry of Police Services Officer. They informed me that it did not matter if the ticket was filled out incorrectly, the offense was committed.
                    I informed the Deputy that there should be some law or requirement for accuracy on a complaint docket/ticket. He replied no.

                    Does anyone have an insight or grounds for dismissal on this issue?

                    Thanks Paul


                  • Randall Kelton
                    Officer cannot state that you are a commercial driver as it would call for a conclusion on the part of the officer and assume fact not in evidence. The
                    Message 9 of 26 , Apr 23, 2009
                      Officer cannot state that you are a commercial driver as it would call for a conclusion on the part of the officer and assume fact not in evidence.  The prosecution would have to present evidence proving commercial activity. 

                      Randy

                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: Founder@...
                      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Request for Help: Denton County Traffic
                      Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:49:17 -0700



                      Hello tips,

                      I am out of my house, right now, filing a couple of foundations in
                      Panama, but one solution for this problem is to show that in the
                      Texas traffic code, speed signs are for COMMERCIAL traffic, only.
                      Until and unless the officer enters into evidence something that
                      shows that you and your vehicle are using the highways for
                      commercial purposes, he has failed in his burden of proof.

                      Sorry that I cannot give you the citation in the code, but
                      if someone has no contributed the citation by next week, I will be
                      able to find the code and post it.
                      Best regards,
                      Bernie Besherse mailto:founder@...


                    • Al Arnold
                      Motor Vehicle, Vehicle, Operating, Driving, are all commercial terms and must be objected to because those terms of art call a conclusion of law from the
                      Message 10 of 26 , Apr 23, 2009

                        Motor Vehicle, Vehicle, Operating, Driving, are all commercial terms

                        and must be objected to because those "terms of art" call a conclusion of law

                        from the transportation code in most states that are waived if not objected to.

                        See attached for further explanation from a Special Demurrer used in State Court

                        in Georgia [GA] that might be helpful to all traffic cases involving license, tag and ins..

                         

                        http://webmail.earthlink.net/wam/msg.jsp?msgid=99&folder=hlt&isSeen=true&x=-1384753360


                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Randall Kelton
                        Sent: Apr 23, 2009 12:35 PM
                        To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Request for Help: Denton County Traffic



                        Officer cannot state that you are a commercial driver as it would call for a conclusion on the part of the officer and assume fact not in evidence.  The prosecution would have to present evidence proving commercial activity. 

                        Randy

                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: Founder@APeacefulSo lution.org
                        To: tips_and_tricks@ yahoogroups. com
                        Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Request for Help: Denton County Traffic
                        Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:49:17 -0700



                        Hello tips,

                        I am out of my house, right now, filing a couple of foundations in
                        Panama, but one solution for this problem is to show that in the
                        Texas traffic code, speed signs are for COMMERCIAL traffic, only.
                        Until and unless the officer enters into evidence something that
                        shows that you and your vehicle are using the highways for
                        commercial purposes, he has failed in his burden of proof.

                        Sorry that I cannot give you the citation in the code, but
                        if someone has no contributed the citation by next week, I will be
                        able to find the code and post it.
                        Best regards,
                        Bernie Besherse mailto:founder@apeacefulso lution.org


                      • Email41@aol.com
                        There is a place where the alleged officer can mark for commercial on the citation. There he makes a legal determination. Alleged Officers make legal
                        Message 11 of 26 , Apr 23, 2009
                          There is a place where the alleged officer can mark for commercial on the citation. There he makes a legal determination. Alleged Officers make legal determinations about status all the time. For those of you who don't prevail at the IMOC (Initial Moment Of Confrontation) this is a great opportunity to hammer the alleged officer in deposition or on cross-examination. I have used the confession of the alleged officer before declaring to the magistrate that the officer did not mark the citation as a commercial activity, therefore there is no evidence before the court to establish I was engaged in a commercial activity when I was accosted by the alleged officer.

                          Officer cannot state that you are a commercial driver as it would call for a conclusion on the part of the officer and assume fact not in evidence.  The prosecution would have to present evidence proving commercial activity. 

                          Randy





                          **************
                          Big savings on Dell XPS Laptops and Desktops! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219799634x1201361008/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B214133440%3B36002254%3Bj)
                        • Frog Farmer
                          ... I got them mixed there, accidentally. The text that followed made it clear though, I think. On another point, I went back looking for a citation on the
                          Message 12 of 26 , Apr 23, 2009
                            I must be getting dyslexic...I made this error:
                            >
                            > There is a difference between a citation and a complaint
                            >
                            > [There surely is! The first, they have to make and make it right.
                            > The second, you have to give blessing to, or it fails.

                            I got them mixed there, accidentally. The text that followed made it
                            clear though, I think.

                            On another point, I went back looking for a citation on the percentage
                            of convictions coming from admissions and confessions and found this
                            page which had other good tips on it:

                            http://www.apfn.org/apfn/silent.htm

                            Regards,

                            FF
                          • Al Arnold
                            This is a repeat of an attempt to present a document currently before the STATE COURT in Georgia [GA] to the tips and tricks group for use and discussion.
                            Message 13 of 26 , Apr 23, 2009

                              This is a repeat of an attempt to present a document currently before the STATE COURT in Georgia [GA] to the "tips and tricks" group for use and discussion. Though somewhat lengthy (45 pages) it covers aspects of the scam from nature of the case (admiralty - Law of the Sea), venue ("this state"), to the ownership of an automobile (trust), and challenges jurisdiction at both subject matter and personal levels.  This is the game they play so very well on the well meanin traveler as it appears today.  It's another revenue trick on us.

                              From the transportation aspect it appears 'Motor Vehicle', 'Operator', and even 'Vehicle and Driving' are "term of art" in 'commercial transportation' that we freely incorporate into personal aspects of traveling as a right.  It is clear that if those terms are not objected to timely as calling for a conclusion of law on facts NOT in evidence, they will be considered waived for appeal purposes.  The following Special Demurrer may apply to your case and further education of many.   

                              This case was planned for appeal

                              Al

                              Please let me know if attachment does not atttach.

                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Email41@...
                              Sent: Apr 23, 2009 4:08 PM
                              To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Request for Help: Denton County Traffic



                              There is a place where the alleged officer can mark for commercial on the citation. There he makes a legal determination. Alleged Officers make legal determinations about status all the time. For those of you who don't prevail at the IMOC (Initial Moment Of Confrontation) this is a great opportunity to hammer the alleged officer in deposition or on cross-examination. I have used the confession of the alleged officer before declaring to the magistrate that the officer did not mark the citation as a commercial activity, therefore there is no evidence before the court to establish I was engaged in a commercial activity when I was accosted by the alleged officer.

                              Officer cannot state that you are a commercial driver as it would call for a conclusion on the part of the officer and assume fact not in evidence.  The prosecution would have to present evidence proving commercial activity. 

                              Randy





                              ************ **
                              Big savings on Dell XPS Laptops and Desktops! (http://pr.atwola. com/promoclk/ 100126575x121979 9634x1201361008/ aol?redir= http:%2F% 2Fad.doubleclick .net%2Fclk% 3B214133440% 3B36002254% 3Bj)

                            • Frog Farmer
                              ... I made another one! I put Penal Code where I should have put California Vehicle Code . There is probably a corresponding Penal Code provision...I ll
                              Message 14 of 26 , Apr 24, 2009
                                Frog Farmer wrote:
                                > I must be getting dyslexic...I made this error:

                                I made another one! I put Penal Code where I should have put
                                "California Vehicle Code". There is probably a corresponding Penal Code
                                provision...I'll look for it right now.... .... ....

                                4 minutes later ... it's amazing the things I learn just passing
                                through the codes... this isn't the one I was after (I just came up for
                                air when I got this) and I'll go back for that, but just to demonstrate
                                the sheer value of reading codes, which few ever do, I want to share
                                this with the others here who know my specialty. Look a tthis gold I
                                found!
                                California Penal Code
                                529. Every person who falsely personates another in either his
                                private or official capacity, and in such assumed character either:
                                1. Becomes bail or surety for any party in any proceeding
                                whatever, before any court or officer authorized to take such bail or
                                surety;
                                2. Verifies, publishes, acknowledges, or proves, in the name of
                                another person, any written instrument, with intent that the same may
                                be recorded, delivered, or used as true; or,
                                3. Does any other act whereby, if done by the person falsely
                                personated, he might, in any event, become liable to any suit or
                                prosecution, or to pay any sum of money, or to incur any charge,
                                forfeiture, or penalty, or whereby any benefit might accrue to the
                                party personating, or to any other person;
                                Is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars
                                ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county
                                jail not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
                                ---------

                                Hey guys! This was unknown to me until now, but as you can see, it fits
                                my plan exactly and now you and I know why I have no more problems.
                                Because that crime fits my movie of them! I'm almost crying for
                                happiness and joy right now! Okay, back to that other section I know
                                must be there because of law, but I don't know what section it is...I'll
                                be back... ... oh, gosh, here's another beauty I never really saw:

                                689. No person can be convicted of a public offense unless by
                                verdict of a jury, accepted and recorded by the court, by a finding
                                of the court in a case where a jury has been waived, or by a plea of
                                guilty.

                                That's another reason I say the only way to be convicted in California
                                is with your own cooperation. I'll disqualify all prospective jurors,
                                so my jury trial will be expensive. The court may never get properly
                                set for any official proceeding. I'll never waive a jury, or any other
                                right I'm aware of having. And I'll never plead guilty. Wow! Is code
                                reading fun?! Going back for that one that I theorize exists... ....

                                ....you guessed it, more gold I never knew existed (NO! I do not read
                                codes unless I have to either!! But when I do have to, I know it and do
                                it!) (I feel I owe it to the group because I made an error and told the
                                group it was the Penal code I was citing, when it was really the Vehicle
                                code that I had cited. I theorize, but have yet to prove, that asimialr
                                provision exists in both codes... Anyway, more gold for me, as I can
                                articulate the fact that impersonation is a crime and a public offense
                                that injures the victims thereof. You know that because I've been
                                saying it for years. Check this one:
                                California Penal Code
                                692. Lawful resistance to the commission of a public offense may be
                                made:
                                1. By the party about to be injured;
                                2. By other parties.

                                693. Resistance sufficient to prevent the offense may be made by
                                the party about to be injured:
                                1. To prevent an offense against his person, or his family, or
                                some member thereof.
                                2. To prevent an illegal attempt by force to take or injure
                                property in his lawful possession.

                                694. Any other person, in aid or defense of the person about to be
                                injured, may make resistance sufficient to prevent the offense.

                                That is why, the last time the goons arrived, I might have agreed they
                                were goons but not officers. So they never pretended to be once I said
                                that I didn't believe they were. And none rebutted my conclusion of
                                law. This explains a lot around here.... I'm still going to find the
                                one for you, or give up at the end of the whole code... hang in there a
                                minute (I've been looking now for over half an hour, but loving the gold
                                I'm finding and sharing with my friends here.
                                ....ten minutes later... I found these sections that coincide in the
                                timeline with appearing in the presence of the sleepy magistrate with
                                the impersonator and getting ready to watch for "the complaint to be
                                laid" as I related from the Vehicle code already. Is everyone
                                following? In the timeline (IMOC + X hrs.) the section of the Vehicle
                                code I incorrectly cited as the Penal code, where the officer takes the
                                arrested person to the magistrate per his demand, picks up here in the
                                Penal code:
                                California Penal Code
                                738. Before an information is filed there must be a preliminary
                                examination of the case against the defendant and an order holding
                                him to answer made under Section 872. The proceeding for a
                                preliminary examination must be commenced by written complaint, as
                                provided elsewhere in this code.

                                739. When a defendant has been examined and committed, as provided
                                in Section 872, it shall be the duty of the district attorney of the
                                county in which the offense is triable to file in the superior court
                                of that county within 15 days after the commitment, an information
                                against the defendant which may charge the defendant with either the
                                offense or offenses named in the order of commitment or any offense
                                or offenses shown by the evidence taken before the magistrate to have
                                been committed. The information shall be in the name of the people
                                of the State of California and subscribed by the district attorney.

                                740. Except as otherwise provided by law, all misdemeanors and
                                infractions must be prosecuted by written complaint under oath
                                subscribed by the complainant. Such complaint may be verified on
                                information and belief.
                                -----------

                                See, you waive the complaint if you help create a "citation". The words
                                to note here are: "Except as otherwise provided by law". These exact
                                weasel words are found in places where the law permits you to waive your
                                rights "as otherwise provided by law", for example, since you KNOW that
                                "all misdemeanors and infractions must be prosecuted by written
                                complaint under oath subscribed by the complainant", you have to have a
                                mighty good pizza to keep from getting cold and electing to waive these
                                rights and help to fill out via in-custody interrogation without counsel
                                and then accept a traffic ticket instead of forcing the "officer" to
                                take you immediately to the magistrate on duty (even at 1:15 AM!), WRITE
                                a "complaint" (Conforming to the RULES of ENGLISH) and swear under oath
                                it is true. Now what if you could prove that he failed to take the
                                first oath he was supposed to take in his official duties? Years ago.
                                And we are to believe he has the powers the real oath would have given
                                him over you or me? No way! But people do what they do for the reasons
                                they do them, so citations are signed, crimes are prosecuted as
                                infractions and revenue flows.

                                ...sure hope I find that section... you've heard me say, "THERE WAS NO
                                CASE!" Check this:

                                804. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, for the purpose
                                of this chapter, prosecution for an offense is commenced when any of
                                the following occurs:
                                (a) An indictment or information is filed.
                                (b) A complaint is filed charging a misdemeanor or infraction.
                                (c) The defendant is arraigned on a complaint that charges the
                                defendant with a felony.
                                (d) An arrest warrant or bench warrant is issued, provided the
                                warrant names or describes the defendant with the same degree of
                                particularity required for an indictment, information, or complaint.

                                So, if any of those things never happen, and you can refrain from
                                allowing a mere citation to serve as a substitute, you might find that
                                you win without ever having a case really exist.

                                ...back in for more....

                                Here's the one providing that they be available at all hours day or
                                night:

                                810. (a) The presiding judge of the superior court in a county
                                shall, as often as is necessary, designate on a schedule not less
                                than one judge of the court to be reasonably available on call as a
                                magistrate for the setting of orders for discharge from actual
                                custody upon bail, the issuance of search warrants, and for such
                                other matters as may by the magistrate be deemed appropriate, at all
                                times when a court is not in session in the county.

                                You have to DEMAND. Not whine or give in.

                                It's now been an hour and ten minutes trying to correct my error! More
                                gold:

                                834. An arrest is taking a person into custody, in a case and in
                                the manner authorized by law. An arrest may be made by a peace
                                officer or by a private person.

                                834a. If a person has knowledge, or by the exercise of reasonable
                                care, should have knowledge, that he is being arrested by a peace
                                officer, it is the duty of such person to refrain from using force or
                                any weapon to resist such arrest.

                                However, if he has proof that he is being accosted by an impersonator,
                                LOOK OUT!

                                I found it!
                                California Penal Code
                                849. (a) When an arrest is made without a warrant by a peace
                                officer or private person, the person arrested, if not otherwise
                                released, shall, without unnecessary delay, be taken before the
                                nearest or most accessible magistrate in the county in which the
                                offense is triable, and a complaint stating the charge against the
                                arrested person shall be laid before such magistrate.

                                SO - we go and watch the illiterate impersonator try to write a
                                complaint without help from non-witnesses (we disqualify any attorney
                                attempting to interject himself as being out of compliance with Business
                                & Professions Code 6067. Then we call into question his oath of office,
                                and we hint that all people we meet in official capacities tonight will
                                be thusly investigated for proper paperwork, if they are not already
                                among our list of disqualified wrong-oath takers. Heads will be
                                rolling!
                              • Randall Kelton
                                Not on cross, on direct, object to testimony that officer observed you driving, calls for conclusion and assumes facts not in evidence. He may only testify to
                                Message 15 of 26 , Apr 25, 2009
                                  Not on cross, on direct, object to testimony that officer observed you driving, calls for conclusion and assumes facts not in evidence.  He may only testify to the facts, not to his concusions about the facts.

                                  randy

                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: Email41@...
                                  To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Request for Help: Denton County Traffic
                                  Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:08:35 EDT



                                  There is a place where the alleged officer can mark for commercial on the citation. There he makes a legal determination. Alleged Officers make legal determinations about status all the time. For those of you who don't prevail at the IMOC (Initial Moment Of Confrontation) this is a great opportunity to hammer the alleged officer in deposition or on cross-examination. I have used the confession of the alleged officer before declaring to the magistrate that the officer did not mark the citation as a commercial activity, therefore there is no evidence before the court to establish I was engaged in a commercial activity when I was accosted by the alleged officer.

                                  Officer cannot state that you are a commercial driver as it would call for a conclusion on the part of the officer and assume fact not in evidence.  The prosecution would have to present evidence proving commercial activity. 

                                  Randy





                                  **************
                                  Big savings on Dell XPS Laptops and Desktops! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219799634x1201361008/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B214133440%3B36002254%3Bj)

                                • nctrudeau
                                  Bernie Besherse wrote: . . . . . but one solution for this problem is to show that in the Texas traffic code, speed signs are for COMMERCIAL traffic, only. .
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Apr 27, 2009
                                    Bernie Besherse wrote:
                                    ". . . . . but one solution for this problem is to show that in the
                                    Texas traffic code, speed signs are for COMMERCIAL traffic, only. . . ."

                                    I asked Bernie to send me the code when he found it, which he did and he asked me to forward it on to the group. He sent me:

                                    TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE
                                    TITLE 6. ROADWAYS
                                    Chapter 201
                                    SUBCHAPTER K.
                                    ROAD AND HIGHWAY USE; SIGNS
                                    Sec. 201.904
                                    Speed signs.

                                    The department shall erect and maintain on the highways and roads of this state appropriate signs that show the maximum lawful speed for commercial motor vehicles, truck tractors, truck trailers, truck semitrailers, and motor vehicles engaged in business of transporting passengers for compensation or hire (buses).

                                    Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

                                    ********

                                    This section DOES state that "SIGNS" must be erected for "COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES", however, further research shows the above does not effect legal speed limits for non-commercial vehicles, nor does it require that the state even provide signs for non-commercial vehicles. Laws effecting legal speed limits for non-commercial vehicles are contained here:

                                    TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE
                                    TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
                                    SUBTITLE C. RULES OF THE ROAD
                                    CHAPTER 545. OPERATION AND MOVEMENT OF VEHICLES
                                    SUBCHAPTER H. SPEED RESTRICTIONS
                                    Sec. 545.352. PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS

                                    (a) A speed in excess of the limits established by Subsection (b) or under another provision of this subchapter is prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable and prudent and that the speed is unlawful.

                                    Text of subsec. (b) as amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 663, Sec. 2 and Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 739, Sec. 1


                                    (b) Unless a special hazard exists that requires a slower speed for compliance with Section 545.351(b), the following speeds are lawful:
                                    (1) 30 miles per hour in an urban district on a street other than an alley and 15 miles per hour in an alley;
                                    (2) 70 miles per hour in daytime and 65 miles per hour in nighttime if the vehicle is a passenger car, motorcycle, passenger car or light truck towing a trailer bearing a vessel, as defined by Section 31.003, Parks and Wildlife Code, that is less than 26 feet in length, passenger car or light truck towing a trailer or semitrailer used primarily to transport a motorcycle, or passenger car or light truck towing a trailer or semitrailer designed and used primarily to transport dogs or livestock, on a highway numbered by this state or the United States outside an urban district, including a farm-to-market or ranch-to-market road;
                                    (3) 60 miles per hour in daytime and 55 miles per hour in nighttime if the vehicle is a passenger car or motorcycle on a highway that is outside an urban district and not a highway numbered by this state or the United States;. . . . . .

                                    *****

                                    There are many more sub-sections to 545 effecting modification of speed limits, and further amendments, so if interested, one should check out the whole section for oneself.

                                    http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/tn.toc.htm

                                    Noel Trudeau
                                  • Bernie Besherse
                                    Shalom, all uh y’all!!! I had hoped not to have to enter this thread again, or have to take the time to further explain why the traffic signs in Texas
                                    Message 17 of 26 , May 4, 2009

                                      Shalom, all uh y’all!!!

                                      I had hoped not to have to enter this thread again, or have to take the time to further explain why the traffic signs in Texas don’t apply to private, non-commercial travelers, but such was not the case.  Here is a more complete explanation.


                                      Using Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th edition, page 1012-

                                        Looking up the definition of "passenger," you can see that it is someone who pays for passage, so a passenger vehicle is a commercial vehicle.


                                        Looking up the definition of "vehicle," you see that it is also something that is used in commerce.  Here are a handful of citations:

                                      “Motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property and cargo;... “Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit[.]” 18 U.S.C. 31 

                                      “A carriage is peculiarly a family or household article. It contributes in a large degree to the health, convenience, comfort, and welfare of the householder or of the family.” Arthur v Morgan, 113 U.S. 495, 500, 5 S.Ct.  241, 243 (S.D. NY 1884).

                                      “The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed.  825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.” Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907).  “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his “household goods[.]” U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235” 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94.

                                      “[I]t is a jury question whether... an automobile... is a motor vehicle[.]” United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983).


                                        Also, because “The essential elements of due process of law are notice and opportunity to be heard and to defend in orderly proceeding adapted to nature of case, …”  when there are no traffic speed signs for NON commercial traffic, how can a PRIVATE traveler be cited based on the COMMERCIAL sign?  See:  Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th edition, page 449, second column.  Therefore, another defense would be "violation of due process."


                                        My understanding of basic justice, man's law, and the law of the Almighty ONE is that the creature owes his servitude to his creator.  Corporations, being bloodless entities without a conscience that restricts their behavior in their quest for profits, and being created by man, need man's laws for controlling their activities.  Man and woman, on the other hand, do have a conscience, and are (or should be) presumed to care whether or not they damage the person or property of others, and are responsible to their Creator for their behavior.  If (when) the natural man or woman damages the person or property of another, then using due process of law, they can be held accountable here on this earth.  


                                      Does the commercial speed sign apply against the man who started this thread?  Probably.  Why?  Because the man most likely had a commercial vehicle plate on the car, and was licensed to drive the commercial vehicle.  Remember the definition of vehicle, above?  If the word “vehicle” is used in the applications for his auto or driver’s license, and the man SIGNED the applications, then he has waived the right to this defense, because of the legal presumption that one knows, understands, and concurs with the content of any instrument bearing their voluntary signature.


                                      I hope that this helps.

                                      May the study of the law of the Almighty ONE lead us into all Truth.

                                      Bernie Besherse



                                      ======================================

                                      "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, 

                                      they don't have to worry about answers."  Thomas Pynchon

                                      ======================================

                                    • Email41@aol.com
                                      In addition to the cases cited below, I found on the internet and verified several of them in my local law library cases in the UCC Reporter calling private
                                      Message 18 of 26 , May 4, 2009
                                        In addition to the cases cited below, I found on the internet and verified several of them in my local law library cases in the UCC Reporter calling private automobiles as household goods.

                                        "Under the UCC §9-109 there is a real distinction between goods purchased for personal use and those purchase for business use.  The two are mutually exclusive and the principal use to which the property is put should be considered as determinitive".
                                        James Talcott, Inc. v. Gee, 5 UCC rep. Serv. 1028, 266 cal.App.2d. 384, 72 Cal..Reptr. (1968).
                                                                           
                                        "The use to which an item is put rather than its physical characteristics determine whether it should be classified as 'consumer goods' under UCC §9-109(1) or 'equipment' under UCC §9-109(2)". 
                                        Grimes v. Massey Ferguson, Inc., 23 UCC Rep. Serv. 655, 355 So. 2d. 338 (Ala., 1978)

                                        "The classification of goods in UCC §9-109 are mutually exclusive". 
                                        McFadden v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 8 UCC Rep. Serv. 766, 260 Md. 601, 273, A.2d. 198 (1971)

                                        "The term 'household goods'..includes everything about the house that is usually held and enjoyed therewith and that tends to the comfort and accommodation of the household". 
                                        Lawwill v. Lawwill, 515 P.2d. 900, 903, 21 Ariz.App.75 , 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94.
                                                       
                                        "Automobile purchased for the purpose of transporting buyer to and from his place of employment was 'consumer goods' as defined in UCC §9-109". 
                                        Mallicoat v. Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp., 3 UCC Rep. Serv.  1035, 415 S.W.2d. 347 (Tenn.App., 1966)   

                                        " A carriage is peculiarly a family or household article.  It contributes in a large degree to the health, convenience, comfort and welfare of the householder or of the family". 
                                        Aurther v. Morgan., 113 U.S. 495, 500, 5 S.Ct. 241, 243 (S.D.Ny 1884)




                                        “A carriage is peculiarly a family or household article. It contributes in a large degree to the health, convenience, comfort, and welfare of the householder or of the family.” Arthur v Morgan, 113 U.S. 495, 500, 5 S.Ct.  241, 243 (S.D. NY 1884).

                                        “The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed.  825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.” Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907).  “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his “household goods[.]” U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235” 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94.

                                        “[I]t is a jury question whether... an automobile... is a motor vehicle[.]” United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983).






                                        **************
                                        A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322931x1201367171/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd=May5509AvgfooterNO115)
                                      • Email41@aol.com
                                        Attached is an interesting Memorandum regarding the automobile and its registrations requirements. It is geared toward California. ************** A Good Credit
                                        Message 19 of 26 , May 5, 2009
                                          Attached is an interesting Memorandum regarding the automobile and its registrations requirements. It is geared toward California.


                                          **************
                                          A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322931x1201367171/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd=May5509AvgfooterNO115)
                                        • Chico Rhasiatry
                                          I think the presence of a plate and a driver s license is prima facia evidence that can be rebutted. Remember, if you rebutt and cite the afformentioned facts,
                                          Message 20 of 26 , May 8, 2009
                                            I think the presence of a plate and a driver's license is prima facia evidence that can be rebutted. Remember, if you rebutt and cite the afformentioned facts, the prosecutor must prove that you were suppose to be getting paid. Also, the application for a driver's license is not actually an application; it is an affidavit. Can one use a vehical registered as commercial to travel when he/she is not working? Of course! No one can always be at work behind the wheel. Everyone behind the wheel is not a driver, but if he does not have a plate, he will be threatened with violence. Therefore, having a plate does not mean the one behind the wheel is a driver.

                                            Make sure your rebuttal precedes you in paper work before you make a special appearance or the truth will not be allowed to be heard.
                                            Remember, your peers will not have a clue.

                                            --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Bernie Besherse <Founder@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > Shalom, all uh y'all!!!
                                            > I had hoped not to have to enter this thread again, or have to take the time to further explain why the traffic signs in Texas don't apply to private, non-commercial travelers, but such was not the case. Here is a more complete explanation.
                                            >
                                          • jim
                                            Hey legalbear, Am I banned from posting? If yes, may I ask why? Jim Stiner ... From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com]
                                            Message 21 of 26 , May 8, 2009
                                            • jai mann
                                              A little trick that I ve been using to circumvent the issue of not having a plate (because you WILL stand out and get harassed) was to just have a custom front
                                              Message 22 of 26 , May 8, 2009
                                                A little trick that I've been using to circumvent the issue of not having a plate (because you WILL stand out and get harassed) was to just have a custom front and back made with the name of the dealer and the brand of the car (start observing these plates to come up with your own ideas which will blend in...). I live on an entirely different coast now but I haven't been pulled over yet. You stand out less because there are others who are driving with actual dealer plates on their car. My research indicates that I'm not "breaking" the law. I stand out less and I don't submit to the organized fraud/ theft that is the DMV. You'll get over the adrenaline rushes from seeing police after a number of encounters when you aren't punished by being targeted (although it could happen). Just keep your car in good shape, drive responsibly, and you're in the clear. I don't have to worry about all the bills associated with commerce related "privileges" (license, emissions, plates, tags,etc.).


                                                =) Freedom is a nice thing
                                                --- On Fri, 5/8/09, jim <jim118@...> wrote:
                                                From: jim <jim118@...>
                                                Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Request for Help: Denton County Traffic
                                                To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                                Date: Friday, May 8, 2009, 8:34 PM



                                                I think the presence of a plate and a driver's license is prima facia evidence that can be rebutted. Remember, if you rebutt and cite the afformentioned facts, the prosecutor must prove that you were suppose to be getting paid. Also, the application for a driver's license is not actually an application; it is an affidavit. Can one use a vehical registered as commercial to travel when he/she is not working? Of course! No one can always be at work behind the wheel. Everyone behind the wheel is not a driver, but if he does not have a plate, he will be threatened with violence. Therefore, having a plate does not mean the one behind the wheel is a driver.

                                                Make sure your rebuttal precedes you in paper work before you make a special appearance or the truth will not be allowed to be heard.
                                                Remember, your peers will not have a clue.

                                                --- In tips_and_tricks@ yahoogroups. com, Bernie Besherse <Founder@... > wrote:
                                                >
                                                > Shalom, all uh y'all!!!
                                                > I had hoped not to have to enter this thread again, or have to take the time to further explain why the traffic signs in Texas don't apply to private, non-commercial travelers, but such was not the case. Here is a more complete explanation.
                                                >




                                              • Frog Farmer
                                                ... That was a great idea. I made my own out of plexiglass and 3M colored marking tapes. It was designed to look like a real plate to anyone who didn t look
                                                Message 23 of 26 , May 10, 2009
                                                  jai mann wrote:
                                                  > A little trick that I've been using to circumvent the issue of not
                                                  > having a plate (because you WILL stand out and get harassed) was to
                                                  > just have a custom front and back made with the name of the dealer and
                                                  > the brand of the car (start observing these plates to come up with
                                                  > your own ideas which will blend in...). I live on an entirely
                                                  > different coast now but I haven't been pulled over yet. You stand out
                                                  > less because there are others who are driving with actual dealer
                                                  > plates on their car. My research indicates that I'm not "breaking" the
                                                  > law. I stand out less and I don't submit to the organized fraud/ theft
                                                  > that is the DMV. You'll get over the adrenaline rushes from seeing
                                                  > police after a number of encounters when you aren't punished by being
                                                  > targeted (although it could happen). Just keep your car in good shape,
                                                  > drive responsibly, and you're in the clear. I don't have to worry
                                                  > about all the bills associated with commerce related "privileges"
                                                  > (license, emissions, plates, tags,etc.).

                                                  That was a great idea. I made my own out of plexiglass and 3M colored
                                                  marking tapes. It was designed to look like a real plate to anyone who
                                                  didn't look at any of the details, then it was made to be a joke.
                                                  Instead of "California" it said "Constitution"; instead of Feb(ruary) it
                                                  had Fab(ulous). The big letters were FREE2B. It was so good it got
                                                  parking tickets made out to it and left on the windshield!

                                                  Regards,

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