Category Archives: Traffic Law

Notice, Right of Inquiry & Traffic Tickets

Traffic Ticket = Notice [courtesy Google Images]

Traffic Ticket = Notice
[courtesy Google Images]

Last Thanksgiving Day, a friend of mine was issued a traffic ticket for disregarding an “official traffic control device” on the access road alongside of a highway that was being repaired.  The venue of the offense was Hill County, Texas—about 70 miles south of my friend’s home at Dallas.  He was assessed $150 for the offense.

The fine wasn’t large, but he nevertheless wanted to fight the ticket asked if I could help.

I told him to send me a photo copy of the ticket he received and I’d see if I could devise some questions to pose to the person or entity that issued the ticket.  It was my hope that the “ticket” (being a Notice) would create the recipient’s “right of inquiry” (right to ask questions about the Notice) and the sender’s correlative duty to answer his questions.   It was my hope that if such questions were sufficiently insightful, they might slow or stop prosecution.  (For more insight into the strategy of posing questions, see the articles posted under the category “Notice” on this blog.)

I told my friend that I believed it was important that such questions be drafted and mailed to the gov-co as soon as possible.

Read the rest of this entry »


Posted by on January 20, 2014 in Notice, Traffic Law


Tags: , , , ,

Emergency Lights

Emegency (?) Lights [courtesy Google Images]

Emegency (?) Lights
[courtesy Google Images]

A friend of mine is a student of traffic law.  He sent me an email complaining that the Constitution and common law seem to be suspended in the context of a traffic stop.  He was especially concerned by the fact that the police can stop drivers along the roads and highways and essentially arrest us without a warrant.

I replied with a notion that I’ve never researched and which could be completely mistaken–but which has been rattling around in the back of my brain for most of a decade:

The usual traffic stop starts with the flashing of emergency lights.

I suspect the traffic ticket and possible arrest are based on the alleged existence of an “emergency“.

If the existence of an “emergency” were effectively denied, could there be a lawful traffic stop or traffic ticket?

Read the rest of this entry »


Posted by on November 9, 2013 in Police State, Traffic Law, Tyranny


Tags: , , ,

Notice & Right of Inquiry in re: Income Tax and Traffic Tickets

Right of Inquiry [courtesy Google Images]

Right of Inquiry
[courtesy Google Images]

The Cornell University Law School defines “procedural due process” as follows:


“Principle required by the Constitution that when the state or federal government acts in such a way that denies a citizen of a life, liberty, or property interest, the person must first be given notice and the opportunity to be heard.”

Thus, procedural due process consists of two elements:

1) Notice; and

2) Opportunity to be heard.

The “opportunity to be heard” is typically a hearing where you will be found guilty about 98% of the time.  Therefore, most reasonable people don’t want the “opportunity to be heard” because it is typically an “opportunity to be sentenced”.

I believe that “opportunity” can be avoided by controlling the notice.  I.e., unless you consent to receive only an incomplete notice, the gov-co can’t take you to the “opportunity to be heard [sentenced]” until they’ve give you full and complete notice.

Strangely, my research implies that the notice recipient, rather than the notice sender, controls the express content of every notice.  Whenever you receive a notice, you control whether or not that notice is sufficient to allow the sender to take you to the “opportunity to be heard [sentenced]”.

Read the rest of this entry »


Posted by on September 7, 2013 in Income Tax, IRS, Notice, Questions, Signature, Traffic Law


Tags: , , ,

Florida Shortened Yellow Lights to Gain Revenue

Red light camera system at the Springfield, Oh...

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.

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: ,

Admiralty Law Reconsidered

Voiture amphibie / Amphibious car

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.

Read the rest of this entry »


Posted by on January 15, 2013 in Admiralty, Traffic Law


Tags: ,

What’s a “Person” in an HOV Lane?

A high-occupancy vehicle lane on Ontario Highw...

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”?

Read the rest of this entry »


Posted by on January 6, 2013 in Traffic Law, Upper-case name


Tags: , , , ,

Driving in Commerce

A motor officer writes a traffic ticket for a ...

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”.

Read the rest of this entry »


Posted by on September 10, 2012 in "The State" vs. "this state", Commerce, Traffic Law


Tags: , , , ,