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: 403
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
#1. To: Artisan (#0)
i admire your tireless fightin' spirit. enjoyed your sweet video to your "lady" too. say hello to her for me.
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).
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces. De La Boétie
Unfortunately, his personal observations apparently aren't borne out by statistical evidence. From what I've heard, the only discernable spike in accident rates while utilizing phones is during crappy weather. Additionally, the law does not prohibit you from dialing, which is the most distracting portion of the call transaction. I'm willing to bet we'll see a large spike in accidents directly related to the law due to the sudden increase in people pulling off to the side of the freeway to take or initiate calls and then getting back into traffic.
Government blows and that which governs least blows least...
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???
Government blows and that which governs least blows least...
Do these guys forget they receive calls while on patrol which require him/her to answer the call, write down the address and do the mental exercise necessary to plot the quickest directions to the address, while trying to recall if that address was a habitual problem, or something new. Somehow this all gets done w/o causing a distracted driver (the cop)
I certainly do remember !
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces. De La Boétie
ha ha, that's great! sometime i'd like to hear the details about how that has worked out on a day to day basis. in CA if you dont have a license they steal your car on the spot, which is outrageous. although there may be some defenses to that, i've never dealt with it. Thanks for the good reply. The main problem here seems to be people's horrifically incorrect assumption that govt cares for them and seeks to 'keep them safe'. this is the fundamental bullshit lie that, if we dont show the error, people will keep buying all these BS 'laws'.
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." 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 LOL! What have we become?? ;-)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Thanks! I hadn't heard that song in years. Great for cranking up while driving down the coast.
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." Inshallah, brother, say it loud. Freedom and liberty are no excuse. It's about safety.
We are DEVO!
I would like more info on this "county seat". How about a link or more info from your mind. I drive without a license for about 10 years now. No dui or anything. Just didn't have insurance for a month and they automatically caneled my licnese 10 years or so ago. So any info you have could be useful in case I get pulled over again. I have beat them about 4 times and lost about 5 times. Thanks. And I like rebels like you.
I drive while talking on my cellphone. I will continue to do so. I noticed that everyone but the dead people were breathing while driving. I wonder if that was the cause. ;)
Hi, thanks. The county seat involves change of venue and my particular experience is of course in california, although i would assume that every state has a similar measure in place. here is the extent of the info: www.helpigotaticket.com /prevent/venue.html basically if you live or work closer to the county seat, you request it before signing the ticket and the cop has to put it down. I had a friend tell me that a cop got very angry when he asked for the county seat. he asked my friend why he wanted it, etc. My friend replied by telling the cop that he worked closer to the county seat. personally i have never had a cop ask me why i wanted it, and if they did ask, i would ask them why they are asking me that question. Frankly its none of their damn fucking business why i DEMAND my LEGAL RIGHT to the county seat, . so anyway, its none of their bsuiness where you live or work as far as i am concerned. so anyway what this does is simply make it inconcvenient on the revenue pig to travel further the day of court. they often will not bother, hence, it will be dismissed. this is merely a tactic of pre-emptive measure,. if they show up the defendant would have to fight the merit of the charge,. the cop who got so mad at my friend, by the way, did not show up to that county seat. ;-) One personal example i had, my wife and i were in palm springs and i got stopped and accused of speeding. I requested the county seat which in that case was in the city of riverside, since palm springs is located in riverside county. the cop probably usually has the defendant go to a local palm springs courthouse. he did not drive to riverside for court. dismissed. my wife joked 'but honey you ARE guilty!' I replied, of course dear, we're in the middle of fucking nowhere on the 10 freeway where everyone goes 90MPH. but this is MURIKA, and they must PROVE me guilty! I have fun with this traffic stuff. govt is stupid.
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." Women who talk on cellphones while driving SUVs should be shot. Barring that, women should not be allowed to drive. I will settle for that.
It is impossible to decutify me.
In olde times we settled for keeping women pregnant and barefooted. That way you knew where they were and keeping out of trouble.
are you familiar with eric WhoRU? he has a great show, nightly on wtprn. here is a sample. free archives available on the site wtprn.com
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist."
#2. To: Artisan (#0)
He (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.
#4. To: ReallyOrnery, Artisan (#2)
As the police officer pointed out, he had encountered too many motorists who were involved in accidents while talking on their cell phone.
#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.
#6. To: Artisan (#0)
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.
#7. To: Axenolith (#5)
the worms swore up and down that they'd NEVER be utilized as a reason for the traffic stop its self???
#8. To: noone222 (#3)
Good luck with the ticket Artisan ! I canceled my license about 20 years ago. F_ck em !
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#9. To: ReallyOrnery (#2)
Artisan:
#10. To: christine (#1)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#11. To: ReallyOrnery (#2)
the state has every right, duty and obligation to eliminate that activity
#12. To: Rotara (#9)
What have we become?? ;-)
#13. To: Artisan (#0)
#14. To: ReallyOrnery (#2)
#15. To: Old Friend (#13)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#16. To: Artisan (#0)
#17. To: Turtle (#16)
#18. To: Old Friend (#14)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest