JoeF

Publicus

Registered Users (C)
I hope you have no hard feelings about our debate today. :)
It was a good encounter. It's been long since I had a political and philosophical dialogue like that. It reminded me of my College years. :D

I hope that members won't misread the thread and think of us as being contentious, especially since the moderator closed it. It was nothing but a friendly discourse. At least that's how I feel. :)
 
Hey Joe. it's funny, I was watching the news, and they talked about a guy who spent two years fighting a traffic ticket. He finally lost in a Jury trial, but he is thinking about appealing and getting more people involved. Like you, he is a Libertarian. Why don't you give him a call? :D

Here is the story:

WOODSTOCK – Ken Prazak stood outside a McHenry County courtroom with his arms crossed and a huge smile across his face.

"It's a madhouse in there," he said of Judge Suzanne Mangiomele's traffic courtroom. "I bet a good minority of those people in there are for seat-belt violations. It's just crazy."

And it is exactly what he hopes to eliminate.

Prazak has filed two motions to dismiss a $25 seat-belt ticket on the grounds that the law is unconstitutional.

"I believe it is my constitutional and natural-law right for me to decide what is safe for me," he said.

One motion argues that the seat-belt requirement violates the Ninth Amendment, which allows someone to retain individual rights not circumscribed by the Constitution. Another motion was filed under the Fifth Amendment's due-process clause.

A motion to suppress evidence due to a lack of probable cause also was filed, Prazak's attorney Michael Noland said.

There are others opposed to seat-belt enforcement. The Washington Seat Belt Coalition, based in Lacey, Wash., is trying to overturn seat-belt laws. The organization's Web site – www.clickitstickit.com – tells how to challenge a ticket in court.

The site also lists articles, including a judge refusing to enforce a seat-belt law and troopers having to fill a seat belt quota.

Prazak conducted a fund-raiser to cover his attorney's fees for the case. Friends also have been making donations, he said.

He said he will take the case as far as he is financially capable.
 
JoeF said:
There are always people who have nothing better to do than to fight these things...
There is somebody here in my area who apparently got a ticket for running a red light, and he found out that the yellow phase was 0.7 seconds too short ;)
http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsdocsCostaMesaMain.html
Incidentally, this helped a buddy of mine who ran the exact red light shortly before they restarted enforcing it...
And as a result, they now have cameras at 5 or so traffic lights on that road, not just at one...

Anyway, with these motions re: 9th amendment, etc., that reminds me of the nutcases who claim that the income tax violates the constitution, like this guy: http://www.paynoincometax.com/
Note his address ;)
Irwin Schiff
C\O Las Vegas Detention Center
3200 Stewart Ave
Las Vegas, NV 89101

I like your red herring stance. :D It's my turn to use that term now. :D I thought the issue was seatbelts, how did we end up with taxation and representation? :confused: This has the word red herring written all over it. :D OK, I am kidding.

Here is a little lesson in History. I love History, especially American History. Man I wish they asked me harder questions during the interview. I was kind of insulted during the interview because of the History questions, but that's another story. Here is the lesson:

Tariffs, or customs duties, were the federal government's chief source of revenue until the American Civil War. During the war, Congress passed internal taxes, including the first federal income tax, to help cover war costs. A new Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was set up to collect the taxes.

The Civil War income tax ended in 1872. Congress attempted to pass a similar tax in 1894, but in 1895 the Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co ruled that general income taxes are unconstitutional because they are unapportioned direct taxes. To this day, the ruling has not been over-turned.

After the Supreme Court ruled general income taxes unconstitutional, President Taft proposed three new taxes to Congress. A graduated inheritance tax, another general income tax, and a new corporate tax. In the attempt to bypass the Supreme Court’s Pollack ruling, Taft also proposed the 16th Amendment with the intention of taxing profits made from commercial activity which was retified in 1913.

With the ratification of the 16th Amendment, Congress created the federal internal income tax and the Federal Reserve Bank to fight the inflation caused by paper currency. All income tax collections were forwarded to the Federal Reserve to pay the interest on its publicly circulated money. The withdrawal of currency from public circulation through the new tax and the new Federal Reserve stabilizes inflation.

So your dopey criminal is wrong in evading taxation, which of course he couldn't do since he got caught. Income taxes are legal and more importantly, CONSTITUTIONAL. Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. They pay for our public schools, libraries, community colleges, fire departments, and of course Policemen, so that they can write us more seatbelt tickets. :D

Good night. :)
 
Top