Posted on 01/02/2002 8:15:10 PM PST by Darth Sidious
I see your point. I dont know if contract rights have been interpreted that way. Unfortunately they end up being one way rights - like you have the right to submit to a breath test and if you break this contract provision we have the right to take your license no questions asked, even if you didnt touch a drop of booze.
Frankly, I'm considering not applying for a drivers license. Not only do they want me to submit my fingerprints in order to use the roads I have already paid for, they want me to subject myself to searches and siezures at their whim.
And those would be???
Go to court & plead your case as it happened.
Then, present the Judge a photograph of two twenties & a ten along with a big ol' racoon grin on your mug.
(~would've helped the *case* immensely had you been a 5'10" 125# B-BE babe wearing a *smart*, short dress as you flashed that smile; nevertheless...)
You'll find out real fast if the ol' Judge has a sense of humor & break-up the court's attendees.
...but, you're going to pay that fine; be it reduced or in full -- as they want that $$.
You've got to be kidding me? Fingerprints? I might be ok with one, like a thumb print but not a whole set. Maybe it makes no difference (my thinking). One may be as bad as the whole thing. What state is this? I am amazed.
|
|
That explains everything! |
Just about all of Amendments IV-VII.
The issue is about corruption of our constitutional rights. Having your license plate photographed in a red light intersection is not a crime, it is a civil penalty created by a the local city council without regard to due process.
Being deprived of due process is the real crime.
We live by laws, not by abstractions.
We live by abstractions. That's why we're allowed to have Common Law as well as have judges interpret laws. Laws in and of themselves are concrete and insoluable. The interpretation and application of them are less so. The law he broke was being in the intersection when the light turned red. Following the law he would then be fined. However the purpose of the law is to act as a gauge for what is allowable in society.
Breaking the law is a "crime" if you take it at face value but the purpose of the law behind stopping at red lights is to prevent accidents. Had he stayed he would have likely caused one. In this case staying with the law would cause damages that the law was designed to prevent.
It is arbitrariness in the enforcement of laws which may be unjust.
Yes, it is.
What I would do- I'd write about 100 page report for the section on the basis for appeal. I'd forget to sign it also, maybe even use your screen name, since it doesn't mean anything on that paper. I'd go to the appeal hearing with as many lawyers as I could find and waste many, many hours of their time. If your 100 page report is well written, you may tie them up for weeks. In the end, if they don't reverse the civil citation (most likely, since they don't get money if they reverse the citations), I'd simply not pay (I can afford to have a small mark on my credit report, since I don't need it). Make them earn their $50 or $100, even if it costs you more.
The main goal is to get it past their "administrative appeal" process and into the real courts on appeal. By having the 100 page report, you'll have plenty to appeal.
Good luck Darth, I really don't like those revenue enhancers masquerading as police these days. The last one who gave me a speeding ticket couldn't even tell East from West!
I hope the judge and the officer are driving in NJ, stop at a yellow and the car behind doesn't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.