Monday, July 29, 2013

Speeding, are you law abiding or am I? Ill bet your not!

  I have friends tell me "Why are you so crazy about a speeding ticket?" I say because it is something that we can fight! It is a violation of man’s most basic right to travel, ACCORDING TO OUR OWN COURTS! People will then attempt to discredit me by saying "Without speed limits or laws it would be chaos!" MY answer is thats a pretty far stretch to make such an assumption and further discredits your alleged trust in your fellow man when you just told me that you believe men are inherently good?"


The issue here is not what your opinion is, for most people, they have no concept of law or the principles of freedom or American history so their opinions in accordance with fact, should be discredited if it conflicts with the facts. We should be asking, "What are the facts" What does the law ay and what is the intent of law and how does it  coexist with the preservation of freedom without violating it, most people have no clue!


This post is for those that believe I am out of my mind that I am crazy for stating that being busted for speeding makes doesn’t me a criminal even when I can prove within our own statutes I haven’t broken the law! So all of you that think (opinions) that I am nuts, justify your position with facts as I have or realize your thoughts are inaccurate. You are entitled to your opinions however, but in accordance with law, you also have the right to enslave yourself in a system that wants to control you, I don’t have to subject myself to it, lawfully! Do you understand the authority of the Supreme Court?


Most believe that they are supreme in authority even though our laws and history would prove that as inaccurate but to support your point, here is what  the supreme court has stated! So with just this evidence provided, if I speak in accordance with such cases and defend them because they maximize the freedom of the people, am I unlawful or are those that violate such cases the ones that are? If your government believes it can ignore these cases, then aren’t they in fact unlawful? (Clarification:  I do not believe the Supreme Court is the ultimate power, I believe their knowledge of our history and the intent of our Founders written documents and the intent behind them has been abandoned while they still remain in power which makes them no different than the king we left 237 years ago. The ignorance of the people only perpetuates the problem)

t - q=Pinkerton+v+Verberg&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&prmd=ivnsb&ei=ho9ITqDTGM2tgQfwrsG5Bg&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=f6623b2f76b8b870&biw=1440&bih=769 

Arguing that Speed Limits Are Unconstitutional

1. Unconstitutional enactments are not laws. "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176; 2 LE 60 (1803). "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 491;86 S Ct 1602; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966). "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; creates no office. It is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton v Shelby County, Tennessee, 118 US 425, 442;6 S Ct 1121; 30 L Ed 178 (1886).

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no election." West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319 US 624, 638; 63 S Ct 1178; 87 L Ed 1628 (1943). Compare Romer v Evans, 517 US 620; 116 S Ct 1620; 134 L Ed 2d 855 (1996).

Unconstitutional enactments are treated as though they had never existed. For example, in one state alone, here are examples: Bonnett vVallier, 136 Wis 193, 200; 116 NW 885, 887 (1908); State ex rel Ballard vGoodland, 159 Wis 393, 395; 150 NW 488, 489 (1915); State ex rel Kleist vDonald, 164 Wis 545, 552-553; 160 NW 1067, 1070 (1917); State ex rel Martin v Zimmerman, 233 Wis 16, 21; 288 NW 454, 457 (1939); State ex rel Commissioners of Public Lands vAnderson, 56 Wis 2d 666, 672; 203 NW2d 84, 87 (1973); and Butzlaffer vVan Der Geest & Sons, Inc, Wis, 115 Wis 2d 539; 340 NW2d 742, 744-745 (1983).

Judges must obey and enforce the constitution and laws themselves, e.g., Matter of Hague, 412 Mich 532; 315 NW2d 524 (1982). Jurors have power to see that they do. State of Georgia v Brailsford, 3 US (Dall) 1, 4; 1 L Ed 483, 484 (1794); United StatesBattiste, 24 Fed Cas 1042, 1043 (CCD Mass, 1835); Commonwealth vAnthes, 71 Mass (5 Gray) 185, 208 (1855); United States v Spock, 416 F2d 165, 181 (CA 1, 1969); andUnited States v Johnson, 718 F2d 1317, 1322 (CA 5, 1983), etc.

2. Speed limits violate the constitutional "right to travel." One of Americans' basic "Bill of Rights" rights is “the basic constitutional right to travel,” upheld in cases such as Crandall v Nevada, 73 US 35; 18 L Ed 745 (1868), Pinkerton v Verberg, 78 Mich 573; 44 NW 579 (1889), and once again reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in so many words, "right to travel," in Dunn vBlumstein, 405 US 330; 92 S Ct 995; 31 L Ed 2d 274 (1974). This Constitutional "right to travel" has been used to strike down a number of politician-invented laws. The whole idea of the "Bill of Rights" is to forbid politicians to even vote on taking away our therein-protected rights, including the "right to travel."

Americans' "freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution," Williams vFears, 179 US 270, 274; 21 S Ct 128; 45 L Ed 186 (1900); Twining v New Jersey, 211 US 78, 97; 29 S Ct 14; 53 L Ed 97 (1908); and United States vGuest, 383 US 745; 86 S Ct 1170; 16 L Ed 2d 239 (1968), a case involving criminally prosecuting people for obstructing the right (obstruction is a federal crime pursuant to federal criminal law 18 USC § 241).

The Supreme Court in Guest says of the "right to travel" that "Its explicit recognition as one of the federal rights protected by what is now 18 USC § 241 goes back at least as far as 1904. United States v Moore, 129 F 630, 633 [Circ Ct ND Ala , 1904]. We reaffirm it now." The earliest known case working towards developing the concept was Smith v Turner, 48 US 283 (1849)

The "liberty" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment extends beyond freedom from bodily restraint and includes a much wider range of human activity, including but not limited to the opportunity to make a wide range of personal decisions concerning one's life, family, and private pursuits. SeeMeyer v Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399; 43 SCt 625, 626; 67 L Ed 1043 (1923), and Roe v Wade, 410 US 113, 152-153; 93 S Ct 705, 726-727; 35 L Ed 2d 147 (1973). One of these life, family, private pursuits is obviously driving.

3. "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." Constitution, Article I § 9). A purported law must tell the citizenry IN ADVANCE, what act is contemplated. The decision cannot be retroactive. Advance notice is required. That principle is involved in the early history of speed laws.

                After automobiles first became prevalent, early speed limits were general. They merely banned any speed that would endanger life, limb or property of any person.

                Courts repeatedly struck down such general laws as unconstitutional as there is no such thing as a motor vehicle speed incapable of endangering life, limb, or property! Empire L Ins Co v Allen, 141 Ga 413; 81 SE 120 (1914); Ladd vState, 115 Tex Crim 355; 27 SW2d 1098 (1930); People v Gaebel, 2 Misc 2d 458; 153 NYS2d 102 (1956);People v Horowitz, 4 Misc 2d 632; 158 NYS2d 166 motion gr 3 NY2d 789; 164 NYS2d 41; 143 NE2d 796 (1956);People v Firth, 3 NY2d 472; 168 NYS2d 949; 146 NE2d 682 (1957);People v Price, 16 Misc 2d 71; 1698 NYS2d 200 (1957); and Armondi vJohnson, 16 App Div 2d 712; 226 NYS2d 714 (1962).

               The courts made the right decision. Otherwise, all driving is illegal!! The American economy would collapse.

4. Vague speed limits are likewise unconstitutional. Banning driving without having the vehicle under control or without speed at a reasonable and proper rate is unconstitutional for vagueness, depriving people of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.State v Lantz, 90 W Va 738; 111 SE 766; 26 ALR 894 (1922). Such vague words create an unconstitutional dragnet, enabling police and jurors' retroactive ad hoc decisions. Hayes vState, 11 Ga App 371; 75 SE 523 (1912); Carter v State, 12 Ga App 430; 78 SE 205 (1913); Howard vState, 151 Ga 845; 108 SE 513 (1921);Ex parte Slaughter, 92 Tex Crim 212; 243 SW 478; 26 ALR 891 (1922); Ex parte Carrigan, 92 Tex 309; 244 SW 604 (1922); Phillips v State, 60 Ga App 622; 4 SE2d 698 (1939); andState v Campbell, 196 A2d 131 (RI, 1963).

The flaw in such vague laws is that they have no standard or criteria by which to determine lawfulness in advance Ladd v State, 115 Tex Crim 355; 27 SW2d 1098 (1930).

               Vague laws with numbers that cannot be known in advance have long been struck down, for example, a law controlling future prices. Obviously manufacturers and sellers are not gifted with magical future-casting abilities and cannot "know" future prices. Int'l Harvester Co of America v Com of Kentucky, 234 US 216; 34 S Ct 853; 58 L Ed 1284 (1914). The Court said about the mandated numbers,

"To compel [people] to guess, on peril of indictment, what the community would have given for them [here, what the speed should be] if the continually changing conditions were other than they are, to an uncertain extent; to divine prophetically what the reaction of only partially determinate facts would be upon the imaginations and desires of purchasers [here, other drivers], is to exact gifts that mankind does not possess."

               The same concept protects drivers from vague speed laws, where speed limits, especially at speed traps, suddenly change without notice. For example, in the writer's own area, there is a 45 mph sign, followed a few feet later, by a 35 mph sign!

               Don't feel that the old precedents cited here rejecting the general safety law, the so-called basic speed limit, drive safely, are just that, old. No, the concept of striking down the general vague rules is still alive and well and being used. That concept was used as recently as inState of Montana v Stanko Case No. 97-486, 1998 MT 321 (23 Dec 1998) (case details); State of Montana vStanko, Case No. 98-049, 1998 MT 324N (24 Dec 1998) (finding the "basic law" unconstitutional); andState of Montana v Leuchtman, Case No. 97-134. 1998 MT 325N (30 Dec 1998) (giving the benefit of theStanko decisions to the next litigant on the same issue). Note that the officer did not even pretend to be following the law's criteria on factors such as vehicle condition. This is an obvious violation of one's oath of office, to respect the constitution and laws, not flout them.





No comments: