plaincloths officer stopped me for not checking

Unread post by: **Reflections** on

Unread post by: Reflections on
Fri Jul 24, 2009 2:39 pm

La Squish wrote:"I pulled you over because your signal was flashing too fast and I wanted to make sure you didn't have a blown signal bulb" would be sufficient, no? Few extra words = happy JP?

I mean to say, officers don't need a BS excuse, why make it up?

http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com

Unread post by: **Squishy** on

Unread post by: Squishy on
Fri Jul 24, 2009 3:02 pm

True. Although I don't think many people even know that a valid reason is not needed (I didn't until I just read it on this site) and the officer chose to give a simple reason to avoid conflict.

Unread post by: **CoolChick** on

Unread post by: CoolChick on
Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:45 pm

Remember the HTA is an ACT not LAW.... it is a legislation that carries the enforcement of law only with OUR CONSENT.

Unread post by: **Radar Identified** on

Unread post by: Radar Identified on
Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:51 am

Are you currently in Ontario? If so, you have consented to being governed by the Highway Traffic Act, among other laws. If you don't want to be subject to the HTA, you can withdraw your "consent" by leaving the province.

Can you please explain where you got the idea that an act is not a law?

Last edited by Radar Identified on Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Unread post by: **admin** on

Unread post by: admin on
Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:55 am

CoolChick wrote:Remember the HTA is an ACT not LAW.... it is a legislation that carries the enforcement of law only with OUR CONSENT.

An Act is the Law. It DEFINES the Law.

The Highway Traffic Act (HTA) is an Ontario law which regulates the licensing of vehicles, classification of traffic offenses, administration of loads, classification of vehicles and other transport related issues. First introduced in 1990s, there have been amendments due to changes to driving conditions and new transportation trends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Tr ... Ontario%29

Visit us at: Ontario Ticket OR OHTA OR Ontario Traffic Act OR Highway Traffic Act

Unread post by: **Squishy** on

Unread post by: Squishy on
Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:14 am

I think the majority of our laws are "Acts of Parliament" (are they still called that at the provincial level?).

I should withdraw my consent to the BNA/Canada Act. That Union Jack sure is sexy.

Unread post by: **CoolChick** on

Unread post by: CoolChick on
Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:15 am

A government can only rule with the consent of the people. If a human being removes that consent... the government has no power over that individual unless he/she commits an offence under common law.

Laws that precedes government are irrefutable laws and remain till this day. Acts are legislations brought in by elected governments and are supposed to be based on the pregovernment laws (laws that maintain our human rights ie./ right to travel, right to free speech, right to not be harmed or injured etc etc....) Any Act that does not uphold those rights is essentially fraudulent (no further comment on this, please do homework)

Acts also require our consent in order to be effective. Like a contract...you need to sign your consent at every step of the procedure...if you do not, you are not consenting....it is as simple as that. If a person is arrested, they have to sign to be released. It may be a release with a condition that again needs a promise to appear (signed)....if you are bailed they need a signature from the individual who is bailing you out. These signatures are consents. Pre government laws do not need signatures for you to be arrested because you have broken a law that has caused someone to be harmed in some way or have caused loss to someone.... these crimes are not neccessarily under the frayed umbrella of an Act.

I agree Squishy, the Union Jack is quite sexy isn't it !!! But even UK is bound by Common Law.... look up Magna Carta !

Unread post by: **Squishy** on

Unread post by: Squishy on
Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:39 pm

I doubt you are able to withdraw consent as an individual. You may do so as a majority of society, by electing/pressuring goverment that will repeal the unpopular laws. Even a small minority can bring about changes now, with teh interwebs and cable TV, but the individual is still relatively powerless.

You can't tell the officer that you do not agree with the HTA and therefore withdraw your consent to be governed by such, and expect him to go "Oh darn, I guess you're free to go then."

Unread post by: **CoolChick** on

Unread post by: CoolChick on
Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:38 pm

Actually Squishy we can as individuals withdraw our consent to be governed... people are actually doing it. That does not mean that they are unlawful...on the contrary, they are bound by pre government law and should they commit a crime under that law will be dealt with in a court of common law.

Actually... why dont you test your theory... deregister your vehicle, relinquish your drivers licence and see what they can charge you with !!!!

If you do not have a licence and car is not registered how can you be bound by an Act that you have not consented to be a part of ?

You are simply using your RIGHT to travel as determined in pre government law, which if you remember cannot be refuted.

Unread post by: **Radar Identified** on

Unread post by: Radar Identified on
Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:14 pm

CoolChick wrote:Actually... why dont you test your theory... deregister your vehicle, relinquish your drivers licence and see what they can charge you with !!

They'll charge you with:
- Drive without a licence
- No registration on the vehicle
- No insurance

Car will be seized and you're looking at thousands in fines and possible jail time. And they'll get a conviction. Canada is not some libertarian la-la land. No one can decide that they won't follow the laws without facing consequences. We're all bound by the laws, and no court will rule that individuals can simply decide which ones they can follow and which ones they won't.

By the way, "pre government law" was before the existence of motor vehicles. Saying someone has the "right" to drive would be saying that a blind person could operate a motor vehicle, because rights are guaranteed to everyone, not just select individuals on the basis of wealth or status or ability. That is why driving is a privilege. The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada (which was re-patriated in 1982), and it DOES NOT guarantee a right to drive.

Unread post by: **CoolChick** on

Unread post by: CoolChick on
Sun Jul 26, 2009 8:31 pm

Respectfully....I don't agree.... we shall have to agree to differ !

If a car isn't registered it would be theft to seize it !

Why would you pay a fine for not registering something you have paid for ? By registering something you are handing it over to a new owner. An owner that can impound it whenever they feel they want to. Do we really need to have a piece of paper to say the car is ours ? Wouldn't a bill of sale suffice ? I know it does for my household items and any motor lawnmower.

Unread post by: **Radar Identified** on

Unread post by: Radar Identified on
Mon Jul 27, 2009 7:08 am

Difference is use of public roads and paying for the maintenance, snow clearing, upkeep, policing and provision of emergency services to them. If it is not a registered vehicle, it cannot be driven on a public road - see my lengthy post under "obstruct plate." You can bike and walk for free, but driving a car is more or less pay-for-use.

Unread post by: **CoolChick** on

Unread post by: CoolChick on
Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:09 am

Public Roads ??

Last edited by CoolChick on Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

Unread post by: **CoolChick** on

Unread post by: CoolChick on
Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:10 am

Public Roads ??

This planet was here long before governments and before people. Because we were born on this planet we are sovereign. Therefore this planet is sovereign territory.

Unread post by: **ponyboyt** on

Unread post by: ponyboyt on
Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:15 pm

Reflections wrote:
La Squish wrote:"I pulled you over because your signal was flashing too fast and I wanted to make sure you didn't have a blown signal bulb" would be sufficient, no? Few extra words = happy JP?
I mean to say, officers don't need a BS excuse, why make it up?

hmm thinking back... before my speeding ticket, and before my niagara incedent... the 3 times i was pulled over before that, i asked why i was stopped. I got 2 answers:

1: "Because thats what we do"

2: "because we can"

because we can was said on two different occasions by 2 different people. Hasnt it been said that somewhere in the world you have a twin? these 2 should hook up.

plaincloths officer stopped me for not checking

Moderator

Moderator

Posting Awards

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Who is online

Help us, Help You!

Please support free websites by turning off your Ad blocker.

Thank you!

This website is made possible with supported advertising.

Help us, help you!

Disable your ad blocker for this site.