See other Resistance Articles
Title: I Reject Your B.S. ''law''.
Source:
.
URL Source: http://,
Published: Jul 6, 2008
Author: ,
Post Date: 2008-07-06 20:26:05 by Artisan
Ping List: *California list* Subscribe to *California list*
Keywords: None
Views: 405
Comments: 18
The other day my wife called me on my cell and I answered it, only to find a cop with lights and siren (for effect?) behind me within a minute. he asked if I knew why he had stopped me. I replied "You didn't like my bumper stickers?" I half-jokingly remarked that he was christening me on the first day of the 'law'. He assured me that I was by far not the first one to have been ticketed, and said that most people told him they had forgotten about the law or hadn't had time to buy their 'head sets'. He asked if I had forgotten about the law, or if I hadn't seen the numerous signs advising motorists about the effective July 1st date. I told him that I had not forgotten about the law, that I have no intention of ever buying an electronic device to attach to my head or ears, and that government has no valid authority to dictate how, when , or who i talk to. I told him I reject the law as tyrannical. We had an amicable conversation. He said he thought it was a great law, because of all the motorists he'd encountered in accidents who told him they'd been talking on their cell phone. He issued me a ticket, but not before I demanded the county seat. Amazingly, he did not even know what the county seat was, and I told him to call his watch commander who could instruct him. I guess no one had ever requested the county seat from him, which I found odd because the county seat court address is typed right on the front of the ticket below the local court address, which he no doubt usually checks. Officer Genius is now going to have to drive 30+ miles to the county seat in downtown Los Angeles, but not before the D.A. foolishly ignores my subpoena of evidence , which will get the whole case tossed out on appeal regardless of what the first kangaroo court decides. Government slugs are notoriously stupid. You CAN beat them. It just takes a bit of effort. These laws are unconstitutional, (not that that has ever stopped the 'selected' criminals before,) and if I do not win on these grounds, as is my primary preference, I will win by drowining them in their own procedural paperwork. There is an excellent treatise on the unconstitutionality of cell phone laws HERE, which was filed in a case out of New york a few years ago. I have beaten 6 tickets in court and will beat this one. They're not getting a dime off of me. 
He said, no, that he had been heading southbound and saw me goung northbound talking on my cellphone.
F-CK THEM AND THEIR BULLSH!T TYRANNICAL LAWS. My servant government has NO AUTHORITY to dictate how, when, or to whom I speak. And to my lovely wife, feel free to call me any time, I'll be sure to answer. ;-)
Subscribe to *California list*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 5.
#2. To: Artisan (#0)
Artisan: As the police officer pointed out, he had encountered too many motorists who were involved in accidents while talking on their cell phone. Other police officers have made the same comment in just about every state in the Union. The issue here involves public safety, which is a legitimate concern for any state government. When a particular activity, such as using a cell phone in a moving vehicle, contributes to accidents, the state has every right, duty and obligation to eliminate that activity. Just as you have a right to read, you nevertheless do not retain that right when you are operating a motor vehicle. Any activity that distracts a motor-vehicle operator's attention deserves to be made illegal if for no other reason than to prevent accidents -- and their subsequent maiming and deaths. Golly, guy, the issue is about public safety, not your convenience. RO
I don't buy that argument. It's about the money. The various government entities want the revenue and take no responsibility for the injuries caused between drivers. The notion of preventing accidents is and should be the responsibilty of the individual. The State issues "licenses" to many persons that shouldn't receive them simply because they can't drive, especially new arrivals from foreign countries. This too is related to revenue. On the other hand, those "applying" for a license and having it granted to them have in essence agreed to obey the bullshit laws as part of the "deal". The concept of preventative policing should end at removing a real threat such as a drunk driver that is swerving or blatantly disrupting the flow of traffic, otherwise it's the same as Bush's preemptive wars. There truly is no crime unless there's a victim. These days cops are monitoring computer screens, talking on radios and doing a variety of tasks that impair their ability to drive. They should be removed from the road. Seat belt laws are revenue producers and allegedly give cops some probable cause to stop otherwise innocent people that they use to illegally search vehicles. RO, it's time that each individual be held liable for the damage caused by their own irresponsibility, otherwise we end up with a dictatorial nanny state. Of course there are thumb-suckers that need mommy to protect them 24/7 and it's usually this sort that whine for more police intervention. Good luck with the ticket Artisan ! I canceled my license about 20 years ago. F_ck em ! Texas has implemented a "surcharge" system wherein they charge additional funds over the course of several years after one receives a citation for certain violations such as no insurance, dui, etc. [They send an annual charge/bill after conviction for the violation and in addition to the fines already paid]. A new innovation in fleecing the rubes ! The threat behind these "surcharges" is taking ones "license". No surcharge has ever been sent to me. (I wouldn't pay it anyway, but not having a license reduces their capacity to charge it).
Remember when these were passed how the worms swore up and down that they'd NEVER be utilized as a reason for the traffic stop its self???
#7. To: Axenolith (#5)
I certainly do remember !
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestHe (the police officer)said he thought it was a great law, because of all the motorists he'd encountered in accidents who told him they'd been talking on their cell phone.
#3. To: ReallyOrnery, Artisan (#2)
Golly, guy, the issue is about public safety, not your convenience.
#5. To: noone222 (#3)
Seat belt laws are revenue producers and allegedly give cops some probable cause to stop otherwise innocent people that they use to illegally search vehicles.
Replies to Comment # 5. the worms swore up and down that they'd NEVER be utilized as a reason for the traffic stop its self???
End Trace Mode for Comment # 5.