You’ve heard of greasing the skids?
A bill introduced in the Texas legislature would do just that – giving cops credit card readers, as an adjunct to their radar detectors. Instead of just, license, registration and proof of insurance, please – it’ll be: License, registration, proof of insurance… and Visa or Mastercard, please.
And no, I am not making it up.
The bill is HB 121 and you can read all about it here. It was introduced about a month ago by a – you guessed it – “conservative” Republican. You can always count on “conservative” Republicans to bed down with law enforcement – and rape due process.
Especially if there’s a buck to be made.
His name is Allen Fletcher and his official webs site (see here) is well-stocked with photos of the beefy (aren’t they always?) “conservatives” (what are they seeking to conserve, anyhow?) bellying up to other like-minded members of the heimatsicherheitsdeinst such as Governor Rick Perry (who among other things has urged sending “the troops” to Mexico to fight a cross-border war on “drugs”).
Anyway.
This flag pin-festooned, yellow be-ribboned Fletcher dude wants to make it easier for the state to commit highway robbery – literally. If HB 121 becomes law, motorists held up at gunpoint by a cop for having transgressed this or that traffic law (e.g., “speeding”) will be informed by Officer 82nd Airborne of “… the possibility of making an immediate payment of the fine and related court costs by use of a credit or debit card,” with Officer 82nd Airborne accepting the extorted filthy lucre “on behalf of the court.”
Technically, the victim may decline to stand and deliver – and the snout-nosed law n’ order “conservatives” pushing this latest but of creeping police state-ism solemnly swear on all the flags they can find that it’s merely a way to “expedite collections” and “free up jail space to be able to hold more criminal offenders.”
But when you are facing an armed, buzz-cut, mirrored sunglasses and probably itchy-triggered agent of the state on the side of a desolate highway, knowing the state has empowered him to do almost anything he wishes to you (just say the magic words… officer safety) and this man asks whether you’d be interested in just settling this right here and being allowed to proceed on your way… what do you suppose the answer most people give will be?
Duress is a concept as foreign to “conservative” Republicans as using your own money to “help” others is to liberal Democrats.
This pay-up and shut-up business is not a new thing, incidentally. Nor is it peculiar to Texas. A number of states have circumvented due process (especially that inconvenient business about innocent until proven guilty) by procedural sleight of hand. You are only entitled to due process in criminal procedures (though even here, that protection has been gutted) and by making traffic offenses merely civil-administrative, they can end-run the need to prove anything before demanding payment. It is enough to merely issue you a dun letter – automatically – prompted by an equally automated red light camera (or speed camera). Of course, if you fail to pay, they’ll pursue you with the frothing fervor of Hellhounds on your trail, siccing debt collectors on you, destroying your credit rating and also rescinding your driving privileges (a loathsome term that ought to get the blood of freedom-loving people up, but Americans in the main love freedom in the same way North Koreans do; which is to say, they reverence their government and its freedom to do – well, anything it likes).
So, Texas is just following the trend – and cutting out some of the red tape. Give Fletcher credit for being direct, at least.
In a way, it’s perhaps not such a bad development. It might even be worth supporting… if they’d agree to cut out the insufferable kabuki opera that we’re forced to play out whenever we have the bad luck to be the one that didn’t get away today. No more “Do you know why I pulled you over?” No more “I’m very sorry, officer … I had no idea how fast I was going.”
Just: Give me $150.
No lecture. No “points”… no paperwork. Just give it up – and be done with it.
Will that be Visa? Or Mastercard?
If you value independent media, please support independent media. We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer to avoid PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: EPautos stickers are free to those who sign up for a $5 monthly recurring donation to support EPautos, or for a one-time donation of $10 or more. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
Reminds me so much of how things work regarding traffic fines(usually about 200 Euros) in Spain. There they carry actual credit card machines and say “Visa(pronounced Bisa), American Express no problemo “.
Denise Reynolds – Philly Revenue Collections Manager http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Tax-Boss.jpg regarding Nathan Lerner’s $280,000 tax bill: “We try to make it really high.”
Asked where the specific amount due on a jeopardy assessment comes from, Reynolds said her manager “really just makes them up.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12/15/we-try-to-make-it-really-high-philadelphia-tax-boss-admits-to-making-up-a-mans-280k-tax-bill-judge-rules-he-has-to-pay-anyway/
Getting rid of police and hiring private protection will be far superior and far safer than tolerating out of control police. Paid security provides services for CUSTOMERS, instead of issuing commands to SLAVES.
Any protection group or security enterprise organized hierarchically can still be faithful to the tenets of anarchy if the larger society of which it is a part is anarchic, and its members submit to the group’s hierarchy voluntarily.
That’s the main point. Anarchy does not necessarily mean an absence of LEADERSHIP, it means very specifically an absence of RULERSHIP. It is a critical distinction: the former admits voluntarysm, the latter only coercion and force.
Participating voluntarily in an organization which operates optimally under a leader directing a chain of obedience/command is fully compatible with an anarchic community.
The crucial element underlying it all is recognizing the deadly role of coercive AUTHORITARIANISM in human relations, since that is all “rulership” amounts to..
True leadership transcends that bit of toxic poison. It exists on a level where association with it is voluntary, and where “authority” is more akin to “authorship” which etymologically speaking, it what authority is truly meant to be.
Derrick J Tries Some Marc Stevens Questions At Arraignment for a $5 parking ticket in Keene, NH.
http://freekeene.com/2014/11/14/derrick-j-tries-some-marc-stevens-questions-at-arraignment/
“I don’t represent anyone.” says the costumed creep. I’m just some guy. A regular person like anyone else. The only factual difference between a judge like me and a mundane like you is I dress up like a wizard in harry potter. And that I threaten people with caging and totally bankrupting theft in order to extort money from them when they voluntarily consent and admit they owe my masters the tribute of fines.
Another Bogus Traffic Ticket Kicked Out – Marc Stevens
This is very unusual; as I mention in the video I’ve never seen this before. Usually a trial by declaration is another form of pleading guilty.
But Al’s wife prevailed. Al got a demur template from me and mailed it to the court. The demur challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the complaint. Because the complaint contains no facts or allegations the constitution and code apply, there is no jurisdiction and there are not enough facts to set forth an offense.
Al did not say there was a response from the cop or prosecutor. Even if they responded, it would not have been with any facts the constitution and code applied and there was jurisdiction. What is comes down to is the argument the laws apply and there is jurisdiction has no factual support. Here the judge did the right thing, though sustaining the demur was more appropriate.
Congrats to Al and his wife, and thanks for providing me with the documentary proof.
No Justice. No Taxes. I Can’t Breathe With All These Chains.
The Chicago Tribune released a study on the “controversial” and unpopular red light program in Chicago today.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/redlight/chi-red-light-camera-study-analysis-gfx-20141219-htmlstory.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/redlight/
Loads of corruption, Chicago style………
Hello, Police?
Today I Become An OUTLAW! – Gavin Seim
Larken Rose wins Glenn Beck’s Person of the Year 2014 Facebook Poll
Need to find the author of this article – it’s UberClover!
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/autoinsurance/10-things-that-arent-illegal-but-should-be/ss-BBgQCsv?ocid=HPCDHP#image=1
And the fact it’s on a “money” site? (Even MSN?)
Warning, have barf bags ready, the stupid is strong here…
Penny Gusner @AskPennyAuto Dec 16
10 things that aren’t illegal — but perhaps should be. http://bit.ly/1wCk6l7
Tor Münkov
@TorMnkov
@AskPennyAuto @LibertarianCarG
Is this satire, or are you actually advocating these things be made illegal?
Any thoughts on what normalization of trade with Cuba might mean for autos in the US.
Not sure if MSM articles contain actual thoughts, george; but here’s a piece from the Detroit Free Press:
Cuba to remain a tough market for automakers
Everyone has been told that the CONstitution and law automatically apply to everyone. everyone feels it applies, everyone believes it applies, everyone assumes and presumes it applies. HOWEVER;
hearsay, feelings, beliefs, assumptions and presumptions aren’t proof of a damn thing.
What factual, first hand, irrefutable evidence can anyone offer that proves that their CONstitution and laws apply to the private person simply because they are physically in what we commonly refer to as a state.
Keeping in mind that slavery and involuntary servitude is illegal. Further, no private person is a party to their CONstitution nor is any private person a signatory to their CONstitution, nor has any private person sworn an oath to be bound by or to obey the CONstitution and laws.
Your proof MUST be factual and first hand, you shall not resort to conjecture, sophistry, fraud, lies, scenarios or what if’s.
Good luck!
That’s right Desert. When legislature tries to connect people to their laws, it defines the word “person”, which can also be a corporation.
There’s no legal definition of “Man” or “Woman” – just “person”. That’s how they get you, by calling you a person.
I’m a flesh and blood Man. I reside within this body, which is my only address. I’m a spiritual being – not a person, therefore, not a corporation either.
Now, what are you?
Exactly desertspeaks! It’s nice to see I’m not the only person here who also listens to Marc Stevens’ work ;).
@ c_dub, i’ve posted this message over a thousand times in numerous forums,. I’ve only ever three people respond “with bs scenarios and what if’s” never once has anyone been able to produce any factual first hand evidence..
Prior to finding marc stevens, i was researching how we became chattel/slaves to the state.. through my searching, I found marc, it was like a light bulb went off,.. his argument is short and concise and completely devastating.. No one can answer it because there isn’t an answer! NONE OF IT APPLIES TO US!
Precisely! There are no facts proving the constitution and code apply to any of us. They don’t exist. It’s all assumed.
That’s why bureaucrats, politicians, and the like (i.e. psychopaths) can never answer that question. Some maybe naive, others know damn well there are no facts proving any of this b.s. applies to anyone. They then deflect and go off on tangents because they know they’re cooked.
It’s funny they respond with “bs scenarios and what ifs”. Because that’s exactly what statists usually whip out as their arguments! I.e. hypotheticals.
That question strikes directly at the root. It’s not some hypothetical or what if. It is merely a question. One that they can never truly answer.
c_dub, You’ll appreciate this,.. there is an attorney who loves the law, he posts everywhere “spamming for clients” When i pose the question to him,.. it’s as though my post is invisible to him.. he answers all other posts/questions, but avoids my posts like the plague!
Hmm i wonder why!?!
lol, I’m shocked desert {sarcasm}
Folks need to remember that lawyers (whether they be for the so-called defense or persecution,oops prosecution) are all on the same team.
People on Marc’s skype chat and forums have tried to get lawyers to use his line of reasoning and questioning. They won’t even entertain the idea, let alone use it, because it breaks down the whole facade that is our “justice” system (although it’s pretty much the same everywhere, just varying degrees of injustice and tyranny).
Hi c_dub250,
Yup.
I’ve heard about/read about these tactics for years and while I agree with the principles underlying them, I suspect that they’re useless in the real world because the system will simply dismiss you out of hand as a crank, asserting that the law is basically whatever they claim it is.
The idea Eric, is not always to go straight for the legal jugular.
Pack the court room with as many personal witnesses as possible and provide as many elements of reasonable doubt into your case as possible, then the judge can find an easy way out to dismiss your case instead of setting precedent, which none like to do of course.
The moment they see the large entourage filling the court after they call you and, you then ask if these proceedings are being recorded an that you’ll be requiring a transcript, they’ll be on notice to pay careful attention to the law as it must be.
If the judge or prosecutor misbehaves, such as ignoring valid legal evidence or correct procedure, then call them on it:
“Objection your Honour! For the record and with all due respect, I object to your / the prosecutions flagrant disregard for such important evidence. That Act has not been repealed and is still in full legal force.”
You must stand your ground and prove you’re not a child and dependent on the State for everything, or they’ll railroad you with whatever they want.
Hi Eric,
Marc’s site is littered with documented visual proof of tickets getting tossed (quite a few lately too…more and more all the time). They may be only traffic tickets but they still count.
No it’s not a guaranteed way that a ticket will get dismissed. It’s the principle of it. And that is all he advocates. It’s people standing up to these parasites in “Legal land”and not letting the black-dressed psycho and persecution railroad them.
Even if someone does get a ticket tossed, it’s not a “win” per se. This is all damage control at best. Even if you get a ticket tossed a person is still damaged just by the fact they’d had to deal with these people.
We say the magic words, we file the right papers in the right spot and they just say ‘by golly, we have to let this one go’?
These are clearly people who have the licenses and plates and all the rest. Traffic court is about dollars per hour for the government and of course the defense lawyers. I think any nonsense motion would succeed at some non-zero rate, it’s not worth their time, it slows the money machine down, they want to go to lunch/home, or whatever.
Fighting works sometimes just because one becomes a harder target. Works with criminals most of the time when they have other targets. Government is a little different but still we are talking about people who look for the easy targets. As I read through comments on the site you mentioned I see people getting the same that I’ve gotten about half the time, judges yelling at them.
I am not going after the view that these courts are scams, they clearly are. I just don’t think they roll over when magic words are uttered because they heard the magic words. I think if someone spends a lot of time and/or money on filing fees and possibly lawyers then they get to a point where they just dismiss it. Sometimes.
Brent,
You’re absolutely right with regards to them looking for easy targets. That certainly plays into tickets getting dropped. That’s why I always tell me people to at worst plead not guilty (one should never plead but that’s a different rant/post) and fight the thing all the way to trial. If everyone did that, hell even half the people did that, it would put a halt to these traffic courts almost instantly. No way in hell they could keep up. They, like the IRS, stay in business because of indoctrination and fear.
Marcs stuff has nothing to do with the ‘freeman’ stuff (which he rails against) which I think is what you were hinting at with regards to saying the “magic” words. And he would never advocate, ever, getting a lawyer or paying filing fees (fees which are against their own rules according to supreme court precedent…not that they care, they still require them at certain points in the game such as appeal which is where mine stalled out).
And if you’ve got a judge yelling at you, you’re doing it right ;). It just goes to show what immature children they are. If you get a contempt charge thrown you’re way, again, you’re doing it right.
Again, the question is, what are the facts the constitution and code apply just because I’m physically in XYZ? That can’t answer it because there is none. It’s all a sham, a charade.
They’re nothing more than another criminal gang. Yet we’re indoctrinated to believe it pretty much the second we come out of the womb. It takes a lot of work (time/effort/research/critical thought) to undue this nonsense that we’ve been taught is virtuous when it is anything but. Which, unfortunately, most people are not willing to do. The tptb play on human psychology very well, it is their greatest strength imo and the reason we’re in this mess.
Besides, in a lot of the documentation of the tickets getting tossed, they don’t throw it because of what the person did/said. They don’t want to give credit to that damning question or the person. They usually give some other b.s. reason as to why they dropped the ticket. Because if they did give it it’s due respect….well…the whole thing comes tumbling down very quickly. Gotta keep up the public relations of it all. If the sheeple find out that none of this applies and that the black-dressed psyscho’s edicts are just threats, game over for them in pretty short time. It is coming down, slowly but surely, but they’re gonna do everything they can to keep the game going as long as they can obviously.
With regards to having licenses and plates. Of course those things are not something you would see in a voluntary society. Myself, and I’m sure plenty here, don’t give credence to them. They shouldn’t exist. But considering the extremely violent nature of the costumed thugs, one must do what they can to keep them at bay. And not draw attention to themselves. Unfortunately ponying up the extortion fees every year is what we have to do in order to curb the violence that could be brought towards us if we didn’t. I don’t like it anymore than you do.
I just recently just got my license back after driving without for two years (I hesitated even going to get it reinstated but it was in my best interest to do so, to curb the threat of violence if I did ever get pulled over without it). Not something I would ever suggest to someone else. It was a risk I was willing to take and I came out of it unscathed (takes a lot of diligence and being on guard at all times in the vehicle…potentially very stressful). I did have plates obviously.
Now I would love to throw the plates away too. But I know the trouble I’d be in for if I did. Not in a “legal” sense (couldn’t care less about that) but from a “life” sense. It’s simply too dangerous for a person to do that with the nature of the police state being what it is. They could end your life on the side of the road.
Which brings up another point. Don’t “fight” i.e. argue/question, them on the side of the road. A person should shut their mouth when pulled over and live to fight another day. You want to fight them when their guns aren’t in range.
I’m also considering making it a priority from here on out that if they do light me up and I’m within range of a big box store (or the like, something with a lot of people always present not to mention cameras), that is where I will pull over for them. I understand even that entails risk, but again, I have to look out for me, myself, and I first. And they’re less likely to commit their crimes with lots of eyes around. Although their is lots of evidence showing just the opposite too I guess.
I’ve argued with cops on the side of the road. I’ve been totally submissive to cops on the side of the road. I’ve been strictly business with cops on the side of the road. I’ve joked with and been friendly to cops on the side of the road.
The cop’s behavior and the situation dictates what I do. What I do is what will give me the best possible outcome I can bring about at that time.
More times than not I don’t even get a ticket. Of course a good number of the times I’ve been stopped I’ve been bicycling, and I am 100% no ticket there.
Speaking of scam courts… just came across this:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/12/man_cant_challenge_280k_tax_bi.html
The tax assessor makes up a number to force a person to appeal. Then the person flubs the appeal. Now the courts say that makes it so he owes $280,000, the made up tax amount.
Brent, you discount my statement out of hand without offering any factual first hand irrefutable proof that your precious laws apply to anyone..
Why is that??
One would think that you would offer proof, but instead you mock something you obviously don’t understand, with the same reply one gets from “police officers” who pretend to know the laws.. they too are completely devoid of any factual proof, other than the willingness to arrest someone based on hearsay that the laws are automatically applicable to everyone. When in fact no one has any proof.
If you doubt the above, then where is your proof it applies? Oh thats right, you don’t have any, you’re just a thread sniper who spews stupidity because that’s all you’ve got.
Desertspeaks, you clearly didn’t read what I wrote. Go read it. The whole thing. Don’t be lazy.
Hint: I agree the whole government is a scam. I disagree that saying the magic words or filing the right papers causes them to fold up shop and go away. They aren’t going to give up their way of life because you or I or a million other people figure out the scam. Now if 100 million people figure it out, then they might realize the pitchforks and torches are coming, but you or I doing just the right incantation or making the right legal argument? No. They just get angry and threaten in uncertain terms the use force at that point. I’ve experienced it first hand. Ever have a bailiff two inches from you to make their use of legal violence clear? I have.
BrentP, no special incantations or magic words,.. just facts.. it’s being used successfully although you’ve failed to show any due diligence.
You’ve seemingly determined that it can’t possibly work because, well you’ve convinced yourself it won’t. Defeatist attitude predetermines the outcome, so why even try..
Hi Desert,
It pains me to disagree with you (and side with Brent on this) because while I do agree with you in terms of the validity of the principles you’ve articulated (that is, on their rightness) I agree with Brent that in the real world, these strategies will not render you immune from being arrested, fined, caged.
Quite the opposite.
Even here, in my fairly rural country, were I to drive around without government permission (plates, license) it is a dead certainty I would be first fined, then arrested and caged, my vehicle impounded.
The only way to escape is to own nothing that you care about them taking and not mind spending time in jail, if need be, to demonstrated your contempt for their “law.”
But, the ugly reality is that “the law” is whatever those who control the government say it is. Written law can mean anything. And previously written law (e.g., the Constitution) is effectively a nullity in the face of “case law” – that is, the deliberate alteration of the previously written law’s plain meaning to a new (and often, contradictory) meaning.
Thus, the 4th Amendment’s plain language is currently inoperative, notwithstanding that the 4A is still – technically – “the law.”
And so on.
Desert, you still didn’t read what I wrote. Read it again. Sometimes != never.
This sounds suspiciously like the “fine payment” that Mexican policia would ask you for when they found a bag of ummm…. “oregano” in your pocket…
Or at least they used to… It’s been like 20 years since I was down there
The proposed bill only allows cops to take payments for outstanding warrants, not whatever ticket they’re issuing the driver right then and there.
.
Still, no way this is a good idea. Slippery slope and all.
breaux, access the blog Grits for Breakfast and you can read the entire sordid story about this. Yes, it will be for judge, jury and executioner plus robber. It’s so when you get a ticket you don’t have to be troubled by going to court, just pay and be on your way. Neato eh?
Fletcher is a former Houston police officer or an HPD deputy. I’m not sure. Your description fits this asshole to a “t” There are way too many of these lunkheads elected to the legislature. I don’t think that there will be much opposition to this as things are pretty hopeless. The only recourse citizens have is to push for even further relaxation of speed limit laws to make a pullover less likely. Our state speed limits range from 65 to 75 mph on most rural highways. We have about 500 miles at 80 mph and 41 miles at 85. For profit policing will make those numbers go higher.
I’m in Jefferson County, and our sherrif is itching for this to pass. He has instituted a “zero tolerance” policy on speeding…
.
In other news, the county PD has been strapped for cash for a couple years now. That, and we have a few activists pushing for jury trials on every ticket, every time, which eats up all the “revenue” the county mounties thought they were going to generate.
Hey Chris.
If the Sheriff of Jefferson County has a zero tolerance policy on speeding, ensure everyone makes a Citizen’s arrest when cops exceed the limit – for whatever reason. It can’t all be one way policy.
“exigent circumstances”
“officer safety”
Different rules for them, you know.
Zero tolerance means precisely that to one and all because they didn’t apply any specifics in their statement regarding us and them.
Exigent circumstances didn’t apply ab initio. If they want to argue their “preferential treatment” under oath they should come away embarrassed for good reason. Nobody should trust them again.
Further, police can’t make law as there must be a separation of powers between the police, judiciary and the executive. They have no power under any law to make their own rules and excuses. If they try, such things must be tried and proven.
Texas Chris, some counties tend to be worse, mainly those with interstate highways through them. I notice it every day since I travel I-20 a lot and both southern and norther adjoining counties. Everybody wants a piece of that cross nation revenue. The latest in a really bullshit way is Roscoe Tx. where they have extended the city limits way out to the west, all the way to Sweetwater on the east and far enough south to cover several miles of I-20. Now they have two of those black Tahoe pig cars they work hell out of it with and low and behold, what do you normally see stopped? Hell yes, big rigs, unarmed drivers simply trying to make a living and the best part, out of state registrations and licenses. It doesn’t get any better than that. I wish they could have chased me to Loraine last week and stopped me by swerving in front and stopping they way I’ve had some do. Hopefully, they’d have been too busy to notice that Northern Pacific doing 60 mph. I’ve seen those piggies up close and they’d never make an escape.
Next time 8, if the cops want to swerve in front and stop you, hook them for dangerous driving. Nobody is allowed to do this.
If they had probable cause for arrest, they must have yelled it at you and demanded you stop, otherwise they have no right, unless something on your rig or driving manner was dangerous – with supporting evidence.
This is exactly why I think police officers and ex-police officers (and any others associated with them) should not be allowed to “serve” (I used that term loosely) in any legislative body.
All former cops are doing is looking out for their buddies-in-blue (or black, green, brown, or whatever the hell color they are wearing). They are not “serving” the people they elected.
Now, of course, if I had everything my way, there would be no legislature to worry about….but, I’m getting ahead of myself. 🙂
This is also along the lines of why I believe all citizens should be armed – EXCEPT for the police.
Saw a good article on this recently, but cannot relocate it now to post.
Meh.
Agree with you 100% PTB, 100%. I’m far more comfortable with private citizens carrying firearms than I am the police. Great comment!
Indeed.
“Law Enforcer”. This term that they refer to themselves as says it all.
The only service cops render is the enforcement obedience. Obedience to the state. And like all enforcers, they are the King’s Men. The rest of us must play the role of the obedient subjects.
The American system of governance is nothing more than an evolved form of feudalism. While we now get to elect our kings (which is not as wonderful as it sounds), we still suffer the same consequences when we disobey them.
Hi JRO,
I think it’s time for honesty; let’s just call ’em Enforcers and be done with it.
eric, let’s just call them predators.