Florida Shortened Yellow Lights to Gain Revenue

Red light camera system (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Florida reduces the time on yellow lights by only a fraction of a second and gains $50 million in traffic light revenue.

Traffic light revenues are important because they’re ultimately based on the presumption that we can be charged for an offense that no one actually witnessed.  Yes, some cop may later “witness” the video tape, but that strikes me a kind of hearsay since the cop didn’t witness the actual event.  If the government is allowed to impose fines based on the “testimony” of machines and without eye-witnesses, it won’t be long before you’re issued a ticket for using too much toilet paper based on a computer that monitors your bathroom.

On the one hand, the use of machines (like computers and video recorders) to penalize offenses may be a good thing since such mechanical monitors may help reduce the incidence of offenses and crimes.  On the other hand, the use of machines like computers and video recorders to penalize offenses may be a bad thing since they allow government to grow more efficient and ever-larger without the cost of adding additional personnel.  Mechanical and electronic enforcement devices are conducive to a police state.

 

Admiralty Law Reconsidered

Amphibious car.  Admiralty Jurisdiction? (Photo credit: vincen-t)

In theory, admiralty law only applies to things “nautical” . . . at sea or in large bodies of water.

However, there’s a “wing” in the legal reform/patriot/sovereignty movement that contends that our government has brought admiralty law onto the land.  Under this contention, automobiles are deemed “vessels“; police cars are deemed “cruisers”; the streets are deemed to be “rivers of asphalt”; and court rooms are structured in such a way that if you pass through the gate at the “bar” and enter into the court “arena”, you’re deemed to have voluntarily entered into admiralty jurisdiction and exposed yourself to a law form that is harsh and, for most people, nearly incomprehensible.

 

What’s a “Person” in an HOV Lane?

A high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on highways are reserved for cars carrying at least two “persons”.

But what’s a “person”?

The Supreme Court has declared that there are both “natural persons” (men and women) and “artificial persons” like corporations.

California traffic law recognized both “natural” and “artificial” “persons”.

Here’s the story of a California man who was carrying his corporation’s charter in the passenger seat when he was stopped and ticketed for driving in the HOV lane with only one “person” in his car.  He’s defending himself by claiming that his corporation’s charter is (as per the Supreme Court) is also an artificial “person” and therefore he had two “persons” in the vehicle.

The case is going to court.  The driver doesn’t expect the police officer to appear and therefore the case will be dismissed.

Why?  Because the implications are explosive.  First, if corporation papers can be construed as a second “person,” the whole HOV lane scheme may be destroyed.  That’s interesting, perhaps amusing, but not profound.

But second, as the commentator in the following video implies, what about those who are ticketed for driving in the HOV lane without a passenger, but who are carrying a drivers license with an all upper case name on it like “ALFRED N ADASK”?  What if such drivers contended that their proper name were, say, “Alfred Adask” and therefore the name “ALFRED N ADASK” on their drivers license is a second and separate “person”?

 

Driving in Commerce

Driving As Commercial Activity.  Pay as you Go!   Photo © by Jeff Dean (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Anon4fun recently posted a comment on this blog involving the alleged “commercial” nature imputed by the courts to anyone who is driving an automobile.  According to Anon4fun,

“Re: Your comment of: Driving as a “commercial” activity.
“In the eyes/minds,etc., of ALL the courts I am aware of, a, or any “driver of a motor vehicle” IS engaging/participating,etc., in commercial activity. Every word/term used in the motor vehicle code is a commerce word/term,e.g “passenger.” We know that a passenger is a “paying customer.” I don’t think it is “just coincidental” that the Court in Gallagher v. Montplier, 52 ALR 744; 5 Am Jur. page 645,said,in pertinent part: “A traveler by automobile;” and not a “driver of a motor vehicle.”

“At Common Law there is no precise limit of speed. A traveler by automobile must adopt a reasonable speed.” Gallagher v. Montplier, 52 ALR 744; 5 Am Jur. page 645.”

Virtually anyone who’s studied traffic law has run into one or more court cases that appear to describe all “driving” as “commercial activity”.

 

Registered . . . Where?

Image via Wikipedia

I received the email below.  I haven’t verified the source or the relevant laws of “COLORADO” (“this state”).  More, even if the email’s allegations are true for “COLORADO,” that doesn’t mean that they would also be true for other administrative divisions (like “TEXAS” or “ILLINOIS”) of “this state”.

Nevertheless, this email has both the ring of truth and of brilliance.  The insight offered is so damn simple that, if true, every student of traffic laws should be embarrassed to have overlooked such an obvious truth for so long.

Apparently, the email’s subject (“James”) read the “COLORADO” laws concerning vehicle registration.  He realized that while “registration” of “motor vehicles” was required by state law, that law did not adequately define “motor vehicles” and did not specify where such “motor vehicles” must be “registered”.

 

Drivers License Argument

Image by Frank Hamm via Flickr

Here’s a 5,000 word document written by Brady Byrum.  The document is entitled “drivers license defense data”.

Take it all with salt. 

Brady is not a licensed attorney and this document is not intended to construed as legal advice.

This document is, however, a chain of evidence and logic that Brady believes may be sufficient to allow him to lawfully and/or legally travel on the right of way on “Texas” without a “Texas Drivers License”. 

 

Do Traffic Laws Apply “in this state” But Not within “The State”?

Image by JKleeman via Flickr

Glenn Fearn supplied the attached file.  The highlighting is his.  The file includes excerpts from Texas Traffic laws.

Glenn describes the file as as being useful “to prove that none of their [traffic] statutes apply to living souls.”

His focus is largely on the various definitions of “person” or “party” to show that the traffic laws apply to a number of entities–but that list of entities primarily includes legal fictions and does not including living men and women made in our Father YHWH Elohiym’s image (Genesis 1:26-28) and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights (“Declaration of Independence”).  Thus, the traffic laws do not appear to apply to “living souls”.