arguably dangerous! Is a speed limit unsafe and dangerous before the non-compliance of motorists? Compliance will fix a multitude of problems that NMA members and the NMA s percieve as injustices. A speed limit in itself can not be defined as unsafe. A speed limit only becomes unsafe through non-compliance of motorists. If an entity has the authority to set speed limits and those speed limits conform to the rules and regulations that govern the number to appear on the sign, size of the sign height it is posted at and many other governing regulation. Then the motorist is obliged to percieve the posting as correctly posted by the authority who posted it. It is also a police officers duty to percieve the same sign as being correctly posted it it appears to conform to the rules and regulations governing such posting. So exactly when does a posted limit become illegal? I can’t believe all you seemingly intelligent people buy into this conspiracy crap. The simple motorist passing through a speed zone cannot without a variety of scientific data determine that the number on a speed limit sign is incorrect and thereby must consider it as lawfully posted and comply to it. It is never unsafe to comply with a speed limit unless it has been incorrectly derrived and non compliance is greater than 85%.

I’m in my mid-thirties now, born and raised here in the good ole “DS of A”, (divided states of America). And when I was 19, I was accused of breaking a law that, in my view, shouldn’t even exist, which cost me several rights normally afforded by the US Constitution. Not including the affect it’s had on my lively hood. So in many ways, I don’t even really feel like a citizen. And while I accept the responsibility for that 1 action, I still struggle with it almost daily. Did I mention the employment factor? I was young, dumb, and short-sighted.
(for the record, i did not jeopardize myself or anyone else in anyway)

Back to my point. Throughout my life I’ve always felt compelled to hold our public officials “accountable” for everything they do while supposedly “serving the people”, and have tried to instill this in anyone I meet. (mostly unsuccessful) And the traffic laws are a perfect example of over the top legislation that is designed with the sole purpose of “controlling” the populace. Like others have pointed out here, the manner in which fines/punishments continually & exponentially increase year to year is absolutely CRIMINAL!!

So here’s what I want to know.
1. Where exactly does ALL THIS MONEY go?
2. Why isn’t there a itemized list/spreadsheet available generated every year for the public?

I mean….I know I’m not a mathematician, but common sense tells me that when a traffic penalty increases 150% or more in the course of a few years, and that city/county/state is STILL under-funded/broke……something’s wrong. Yes, I understand that inflation, expenses, etc also rise…..but even if you account for those factors….the numbers still don’t add up. Look at the state of the financial sector right now. WTF? If the average corporation was run this way, management would be OUT THE DOOR! No questions asked.

We have the highest documented incarceration rate in the world. (5% of the world’s population and 23.6% of the world’s prison population) And even more people on probation/parole. Which in my mind should mean that we NEVER have a deficit.
(i realize that $ doesn’t blanket the nation, however..everything’s RELATIVE)
Lest we forget that there now exists “for-profit” prisons now.
I’m not advocating prisoner rights or anything like that here….just observing and questioning these things.

DUI Conviction Date before 03/14/89
$75.00

DUI Conviction Date after 03/13/89
$100.00

DUI Conviction Date on/after 07/25/90
$125.00

DUI Arrest Date on/after 07/01/93
$250.00

DUI Arrest Date on/after 10/01/97
$280.00

DUI Arrest Date on/after 9/16/98
$405.00

DUI Arrest Date on/after 11/03/00
$425.00

Apparently, the price of punching your info into the computer has increased quite a bit since 1989. In addition to this “reinstatement fee”, you still have to buy a license, about another $25.00. If you are unfortunate enough to receive an “Administrative License Suspension”, and your judge did not waive it, add a second $425 to your total. These fees are all in addition to the fine (up to $1000), court costs, probation, and DUI school (about $300). While a strong disincentive to drink and drive, this setup obviously places a much more severe hardship on poor and working class individuals and creates a situation where it is more difficult for one to keep a job. These figures are just for a first offense.

Dear Police Officer, Code Enforcement Officer, Government Agent, Sheriff, Law Enforcement Officer, or Peace Officer, please, take notice of the Affidavit below, before you ‘Presume Contract Jurisdiction’ and attempt to Engage this Common Law Private Sovereign American into Statutory Law, ie: Public Policy Enforcement.
The ‘Sovereign American Traveler’ honorably and passively, presenting this knowledge to you, is doing so in an attempt to protect you from yourself.
I have a great deal of respect for the ‘Public Service’ you are committed to, and understand how difficult it is to seek out and prosecute criminals. However, this Document is presented at a ‘traffic stop’, and therefore is a mandatory part of the Official Record of any ensuing action, and MUST be introduced as prima facie Discovery Evidence in said action.
It will be noted that willful suppression of ‘Evidence’ is a ‘Felony’. Any cause for action will result in a lawsuit under USC Title 18, Title 28, and Title 42, 1983.
This “NOTICE” has been submitted upon DEMAND of a ‘DRIVERS LICENSE,’ ‘Registration,’ ‘Proof of Insurance,’ or ANY other State issued Privilege, Permit or License (of which, NONE of these Statutes, this Sovereign American Traveler is Liable, or Contracted to).
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled: ‘The unalienable “RIGHT” to travel is a part of the liberty of which the American Citizen cannot be deprived without due process of the law under the 5th Amendment’ See: Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
Please, be informed that this Traveler is a “Secured Party” First Class Private Sovereign American, and NOT a Second Class Public ‘Federal US citizen’, and, as such, has served your Administrative Agency, ‘Lawful Public Notice’ of his ‘Secured Party Status’ in the Community.
This ‘Certified Lawful Notice’ of his ‘UCC-1 Filing’, was recorded with the BURNET COUNTY RECORDER at FEE NUMBER 0852006307, as amended.
As a ‘Private Sovereign American’, inhabiting Burnet, Texas state, this Sovereign American, has Constitutional protection.
The most important Constitutional Right being, the Fifth Amendment Right: “To Remain Silent” (Miranda Warning).
Do not take offense, or be insulted because I choose to ‘Plead the Fifth’, ie: Remain Silent, and NOT be compelled to co-operate with your ‘verbal interrogation’.
“The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer Official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings.” LEFKOWITZ v. TURLEY, 94 S. CT. 316, 414 U.S. 70 (1973)
Due to this Sovereign American’s past naivety with Statutory Law, this Traveler has since learned, that one cannot listen oneself into trouble. This Traveler now realizes it is a Public Official’s Intent, to lure one into a Verbal, then Written CONTRACT. .Therefore, this Traveler must inform you of his Rights, and not help you to coerce him into some Statute of which he is NOT Liable to.
This Traveler does not willfully choose to Consent to your “Offer To Contract”, nor to be ‘compelled’ To Incriminate himself by answering ANY questions and thereby Entering into ANY sort of Verbal Agreement.
Unless you have a Warrant for this Sovereign American’s Arrest, ie: a ‘Valid Sworn Claim of Liability’, or have seen this Sovereign American Commit a Felony, you have NO Probable Cause to detain him, as he has the “Right to Free Travel”.
If you are Arresting this ‘Secured Party’Sovereign American Without A Warrant, you must IMMEDIATELY take him before a Judicial Officer of competent jurisdiction, to determine whether the Arrest was lawful, or if there was ‘Probable Cause’ for the Arrest, or you will be held Personally Liable, and Acountable, for False Arrest (Kidnapping) and Sued in your Official Capacity. The arrest shall not be based upon hearsay, unless supported by a Warrant accompanied by a Bona Fide Affidavit. Said ‘Warrant’ and ‘Affidavit’ must be based upon first-hand knowledge of the Affiant who has a Claim against him, charging him with a Felony or other infamous crime. This Secured Party’ Sovereign American must be allowed the right to face his accuser.

If you deny this ‘Secured Party’ Sovereign American that right, it will be a violation of The Sixth Amendment, and if you act unreasonably in your investigation or use excessive force, it will be a violation of The Fourth Amendment. This ‘Constitutional Rightful Demand’ must be met prior to booking. If you do not comply with this ‘Rightful Demand’ You Will Be Sued.
Please, also be informed that under the Rules of the “Uniform Commercial Code”, this First Class Sovereign American is NOT engaged in ANY COMMERCIAL Activity (STATUTORY LAW) where MOTOR VEHICLE Licensing is mandatory. This ‘First Class Sovereign American’ is a “Free-Born and Natural Sovereign American”, “riding a motor bike” or “traveling for pleasure in an Automobile”, and this “Conveyance” form of “Locomotion”, is his “Private Property’’ for private use, only.
This ‘First Class Sovereign American’ is NOT “DRIVING OR OPERATING A Public Property ‘MOTOR VEHICLE”, therefore NOT Engaged in the ‘Activity of Commerce’,and therefore NOT Liable, under the “MOTOR VEHICLE STATUTORY LAW”, Or subject to your Jurisdiction.
If a ‘Public Official’ ‘Assumes Jurisdiction’ and insists in his/her pursuit in engaging a ‘Private Sovereign American’ without a “Viable Sworn Claim of Liability”, ie: ‘Affidavit’ or a ‘Warrant’ , s/he is “trespassing” and is therefore no longer ‘immume to prosecution’, and will be ‘held personally accountable’, in his/her ‘Private Capacity’ for acting outside of his/her ‘Official Capacity’ and will therefore be ‘charged’ with a ‘Hostile Act of Official Aggression’, in an Article 3 Court.
(The Supreme Court has held that the courts are open twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, three hundred sixty five days a year.)
Where a Secured Party’ Sovereign American is detained, without a Warrant and without having committed a crime (traffic infractions are not crimes), the detention is a false arrest and false imprisonment.
Damages awarded; TREAEVANT v. CITY OF TAMPA, 241F2D.336 (11TH CIR.1984) Motorist illegally held for 23 minutes in a traffic charge was awarded $25,000 in damages. The above case sets the foundation for $75,000 dollars per hour, or $1,800,000 dollars per day.
The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever this might tend to subject to criminal responsibility on him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is a party defendant.” MC CARTHY v. ARNDSTEIN, 266 U.S. 34, 40, 45 S.CT. 16, 17, 69 L.ED. 158 (1924)
Please, BE FOREWARNED, IF you choose to Commit these FELONIES yourself, by DEMANDING one Surrender one’s DRIVERS LICENSE and/or REGISTRATION Without one’s Willful Consent, and you persist with: .1) Armed Assault (physically threaten one), 2) Extortion (Enter one into Contract, by Writing a Complaint, or Levying Fines without one’s permission), and 3) Identify Theft(one’s NAME is one’s private property, and you may not take this ‘Secured Party’ American Citizen’s property or wrongfully convert any of one’s property, such as this Sovereign American’s personal photograph or fingerprints without Written Authority which is granted only after an adversary proceeding which complies completely with The Fifth Amendment due process rights, concluded with a signed order by a Judicial Officer of competent jurisdiction ordering the taking of said property), or 4) Kidnapping (Arrest without a Warrant) You will Be Held Personally Accountable, Liable, and Sued for Damages; BOTH under your OFFICIAL and Individual Capacities, for your “Hostile Act of Official Aggression”.
If a ‘Public Official’ wishes to communicate with this ‘Secured Party’, s/he can do so, through correspondence by mail, to the address of:
Coolidge Dee; house of Gerdes
Non-Domestic mail
C/O 1103 Lawndale Avenue
Victoria, republic of Texas
Let this ‘Notice’ serve as a mandatory part of the ‘Official Record’ of any ensuing action, and therefore Must be introduced as prima facie evidence in said action. It will be noted that willful suppression of evidence is a felony. Any cause for action will result in a lawsuit under USC Title 18, Title 28, and Title 42, 1983.
“…there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves.” MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 86 S. CT. 1602, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Hale v. Henkel the united States supreme Court which speaking on the “Law of the Land.” The opinion of the court stated:
“The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors, to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property.

“His rights are such as existed by the Law of the Land (Common Law) long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.

“He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”

“…where the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is involved…the court has always construed its protection to ensure that an individual is not compelled to produce evidence which later may be used against him as an accused in a criminal action… The protection does not merely encompass evidence which may lead to criminal conviction, but includes information which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence that could lead to prosecution, as well as evidence which an individual reasonably believes could be used against him in a criminal prosecution.” HOFFMAN v. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S.CT.814, 95L.Ed. 1, 18 (1951)
“in KASTIGAR v. UNITED STATES, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S. CT. 1653, 32 L. Ed. 212(1972), we recently reaffirmed the principle that the privilege against self incrimination can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory. Id., at 444, 92 S. Ct. AT 1656; LEFKOWITZ v. TURLEY, 414 U.S. 70, 94 S. CT.316, 322, 38 L. Ed. 274 (1973).
“WE have recently noted that the privilege against self-incrimination — the essential mainstay of our adversary system—is founded in a complex of values… To maintain a fair state individual balance, to require the government to shoulder the entire load… to protect the inviolability of the human personality, our accusatory system of criminal justice demands that the government seeking to punish an Individual produce the evidence against him by its own independent labors, rather than by the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it from his own mouth… In sum, the privilege is fulfilled only when the person is guaranteed the right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will.”
Please also NOTE: the above, as stated by the Supreme Court, are rights and privileges as guaranteed by the Constitution, and anyone (including judges) who knowingly violates those rights may be civilly and criminally liable under several federal statutes. Please see: United States Code, Title 18 Section 241 (Conspiracy against Rights), and Section 242 (Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law); Title 42 Section 1983, 1985, 1986 (Civil Rights)
Any violation of My Rights or failure to Stop another from violating them, by a Public Servant Who has the Legal Duty and Power to Protect those rights, shall constitute a Crime.
IF YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE THESE WARNINGS it will show bad faith on your part, and prima facie evidence of your deliberate indifference to Constitutionally mandated rights. A copy of this instrument will be prima facie evidence of your bad faith. YOU Will Be Held Personally Accountable, Liable, and Sued for Damages; BOTH under your Official and Individual Capacities.
Remember, YOU Are “Doing Business As” A Public Servant, and as such, you are expected to treat me with due respect, as I respectfully thank you, for reading this NOTICE OF INTENT. .
Officer, I cannot and will not Offer you any information that may later be used against me in a Civil or Criminal proceeding. This includes producing documents that may or may not, be in my possession. If there is some important information that you wish to impart upon me, please do so in a respectful manner. I do hope you will have a good day.

Respectfully submitted,

I missed your comment of the above date, but more than that I lost this article. I have used the Bill of Rights in Court to protest illicit practices citizens are unaware of. We both have used these in our search for justice within the judicial system. I can’t completely agree on some of the new spy technology, but the simplest invasions of civil liberties I agree with you on.

My letters to the states Attorney General, and the Assistant States Attorney General went unanswered for 43 days before I went to court over 56 in a 45 citation. I asked for no intervention but simply the foreknowledge that they threatened me with arrest if I did not sign their citation. My blogs give a detailed account of the dismissal, but my demand of dropping the charges was treated, in my opinion, as dismissed by the judge in a biased way.

My insurance agent told me before I went to court that even though charges are dismissed the citation is entered in actuarial figures for statistical purposes. These figures increase insurance premiums. What better way for law-enforcement and business to increase its financial portfolio.

JAMES YOUNG WRITES (ON 12/25/07):
“I have this weird idea that public policy, enumerated as laws, should actually accomplish what they were written to accomplish. If the proponents of a law cannot demonstrate that their law actually works, it must be revoked immediately. Thus, if the proponents of artificially low limits cannot show that those limits improve key safety rates (crash, injury and fatality), then the law is a failure and must be rescinded.” JOE, TODAY, CONCURRS BUT QUESTIONS THE POSSIBILITY OF REMOVING SUCH A LAW: “James Young on Dec 25, 2007, you have a great idea but it’ll be a cold day in Hell before we ever see such a innovative idea like that become reality.”

WHAT BOTH OF THESE EARNEST GENTLEMEN FAIL TO REALIZE IS THAT LAWS OF THIS TYPE, EVEN IF INEFFECTIVE VIS A VIS THEIR STATED GOALS, ARE STILL VERY EFFECTIVE WITH REGARD TO REVENUE GENERATION AND INORDINATE CONTROL OF THE POPULACE; THEIR UNSTATED GOALS.

SO, FOR A LEGISLATOR, PASSING INEFFECTIVE LAW, WHILE NOT CLASSIFIABLE AS A “WIN WIN” IS, INDEED, JUSTIFIABLE AS A “CAN’T LOSE”. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE TO PASSING INEFFECTIVE LAW. EVEN IF IT ACCOMPLISHES LITTLE OR NOTHING, IT STILL GENERATES REVENUE AND COERCES THE CITIZENRY!!! WHAT’S NOT TO LIKE ?!?!

THE ABOVE SAID, WHY WOULD ANY LEGISLATOR OR PUBLIC POLICY WONK GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT REMOVING AN INEFFECTIVE LAW OR NOT PASSING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE ??

THE NEXT TIME YOU HEAR THE PHRASE “WE’RE A NATION OF LAWS”, THINK ABOUT IT FOR A BIT AND CONSIDER IT IN THE CONTEXT DELINEATED ABOVE. HOPEFULLY, A LIGHT OR TWO WILL COME ON.

REGARDS ALL.

RICK GOLD