Plaincloths officer stopped me for not checking

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?

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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 !

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

Public Roads ??

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.

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.

I think people get confused with unlawful search of vehicle with stopping a vehicle, because we can be stopped just to see if our documents (driving) are legit. Otherwise, I think that the R.I.D.E. program would be illegal.

If I were pulled over and was puzzled as to why, I'd ask the question too. I think it is common courtesy, common sense, and professional to give a reason. Every time I have been pulled over (not often!!!) I have been greeted professionally, given a reason, and spoken to regarding it. My paperwork was always checked. If I were treated unprofessionally and in a manner which did not speak well of that police service (like a smart ass comment such as "Because I can" coupled with disrespectful and condescending treatment) I would probably take note of the officer's badge and report them.

It does NOT help other officers who are trying to do their jobs and keep society safe if one of their own decides to be ego driven, unprofessional, and discourteous. I know that I would not be rude to an officer out of respect for the job they do, the danger they put themselves in, and because that's not the type of person I want to portray myself as, and I have the right as a citizen to be concerned if attitude gets in the way of professional and effective policing. It's nothing short of bullying considering the authority given to their position. Also, having loved ones in or retired from service, I do not appreciate others representing them in a negative light. Their job is hard enough.

Marquisse,

Thank you for well written post!

HB

Marquisse

You dont seem to understand that being constantly stopped for no reason (and I can assure you some people get stopped weekly ) is interfering with our rights and freedoms.

The reason your 'paperwork' is checked repeatedly is to hopefully find you without a document so that a fine can be issued. They have computers in their cruisers which tell them who owns the car and if it has a valid sticker. So do they really need to see your registration ????

Also have you ever tried calling the police to a genuine emergency ?

The typical responses are:

Sorry ma'am I dont have enough cars...

Sorry ma'am I dont have enough manpower

Sorry ma'am but I can't get anyone out to you for another hour or maybe two.

Looking after public safety is what the police USED to be for. No it is a business. Apparently when they arrest someone the Sgt asks the arresting officer for his paystub/payroll number...... Pretty much sums it up now doesn't it !

Coolchick,

Our rights and freedoms with respect to the Charter are not being infringed upon by being stopped and our paperwork checked, and I refer you to Section 1 of the Charter to back up this assertion. Further, Section 8 and 9 guarantees that we have the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure and arbitrary detention/imprisonment. Nowhere does it say that we have a right to not be stopped while exercising our driving privilege. It also does not fall under section 12, unless one has a creative lawyer that can prove in a constitutional challenge that being pulled over equals cruel and unusual punishment (and a drunk justice).

However, if you are asserting that your rights are being violated contrary to Section 15, then you have the right to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to "obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances" (the latter part of the quote referring to Section 1 as the benchmark of appropriateness in a free and democratic society, and assuming that you satisfy the burden of proof (three step test)).

I've been driving for 18 years and I've been stopped 3 times and about 3 times for R.I.D.E. I don't know what your reference to "repeatedly" is in terms of actual frequency, but 6 times in almost two decades isn't even a blip on my radar. To be honest, I find your application of our constitutional rights peculiar, and to be frank, do not appreciate your condescending remark assuming (incorrectly) my level of knowledge concerning our constitutional rights as citizens. I'm all for debate and the exchanging of ideas, provided that it is conducted in a mutually respectful manner. I sincerely hope that we can accomplish from this point forward.

Marquisse wrote:

Coolchick,

Our rights and freedoms with respect to the Charter are not being infringed upon by being stopped and our paperwork checked,

Actually when people get stopped several times a month it is an infringement......

and I refer you to Section 1 of the Charter to back up this assertion. Further, Section 8 and 9 guarantees that we have the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure and arbitrary detention/imprisonment.

Nowhere does it say that we have a right to not be stopped while exercising our driving privilege.

Driving as a driver is a job in commerce.... people in general who travel from point A to point B are not acting in commerce....therefore not a Driver. Travelling is a RIGHT not a privilidge.

It also does not fall under section 12, unless one has a creative lawyer that can prove in a constitutional challenge that being pulled over equals cruel and unusual punishment (and a drunk justice).

I find your acceptance of such detainment quite abhorrent.... your quoting that something does NOT fall under something is assinine in itself.

However, if you are asserting that your rights are being violated contrary to Section 15, then you have the right to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to "obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances"

A court of remedy would be a common law court and not a commercial court that bases itself on Maritime Law !!!!! We are on dry land my friend.... not at sea !!! We do not need to enter the dock or consent to anything... least of all consent to being a name on a piece of paper !!!

Therefore a competent JURISDICTION would be only a common law court..... point me to one... !!!!!

(the latter part of the quote referring to Section 1 as the benchmark of appropriateness in a free and democratic society, and assuming that you satisfy the burden of proof (three step test)).

We are not in a free and democratic society.... havent you noticed ? Do you feel free? Surveillance cameras at every turn... mandatory vaccinations.... guilty until proven innocent ??? doesnt sound very FREE to me....

I've been driving for 18 years and I've been stopped 3 times and about 3 times for R.I.D.E. I don't know what your reference to "repeatedly" is in terms of actual frequency, but 6 times in almost two decades isn't even a blip on my radar.

Lucky you.... but I can assure you many people get stopped frequently..... and as a cab driver once told me...they like to pull over certain cars...usually flashy ones or the other end of the spectrum as in a beater. So your blipping radar is not a good example.,..

To be honest, I find your application of our constitutional rights peculiar, and to be frank, do not appreciate your condescending remark assuming (incorrectly) my level of knowledge concerning our constitutional rights as citizens.

Are you a citizen or a human being that is the question? I do not appreciate your view that I have a peculiar take on our rights.... so i guess we are even. You may know your rights as a CONSENTING citizen...but obviously know nothing of rights in Common Law and as human beings. Feel free to live in the confines of commerce...but many are now freeing themself of those chains.... Freedom is at stake.

I'm all for debate and the exchanging of ideas, provided that it is conducted in a mutually respectful manner. I sincerely hope that we can accomplish from this point forward.

I am quite respectful ... and I would like you to be also... and remember that not everyone will agree with you and that others may have something that could educate you further. I see where you are coming from and I actually see many people liking the confines of Commercial law..... But personally I prefer Natural Law......the Law that precededs government and is irrefutable and superior to Commercial Law (which incidentally is for businesses and corporations...which I am not )

Cool chick, your bait and switch is clever. However, come back with case law and statute to back up this assinine take on the law that you have, and show all of us just how wrong we are.

I have no interest in statute law and will refuse to consent to any of them....

Common Law re: No harm, No Loss and No Injury is all that I consider to be Law.... the rest is a commercial machine that is acting fraudulently for revenue....

This may help you a bit Marquisse... \\Even gives a few case laws for your perusal....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL70LQPHiQA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcVnzaUd ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz4bfPc4 ... re=related

Contrary to common belief "the man" really isn't out to get you

I am sure 'the man' isn't !!!!!

Snide comments that attempt to thwart the matter are futile in all honesty. Facts are facts, more and more people will gradually realise it.....

I watched the videos.

You assault someone contrary to law, you will be charged under the Criminal Code of Canada. You cause injury, and you can be sued in civil court.

Your dog attacks someone on the street, and you will be subject to the Dog Owners' Liability Act.

You pollute, and you will be charged according to the POA.

Your operate your vehicle while impaired, and you will be charged under the Criminal Code of Canada.

You work and pay taxes, according to the Income Tax Act.

You operate your vehicle on provincial highways, and you have consented to be subject to the HTA.

You are born or become a Canadian Citizen, and you are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

You have failed to provide case law and statute to back up your claim. Your argument is false, and you know it. You cannot prove it, and insisting on it just makes you look unstable. So please get some legal education because if you try to assert that you are above and beyond the law of the land, you will find yourself involuntarily committed.

You are free to disengage from these laws. So forfeit your license, your job, your dog. Don't pollute, and don't drive. You are free to jog across Canada as we have the right to be mobile within our country. But this freedom does NOT include a right to operate a vehicle - even if you drive for a living. You do not have the right to punch someone else in the nose and expect not to be held accountable by law.

These are social contracts that are implied. That is what legislation is. There are plenty of psychopaths and anti-social people out there who would like to excuse themselves from the laws of our society. This would leave them free to drive drunk and kill families sharing the road with them. This would allow drug dealers to shoot through walls and kill a sleeping child on the other side. Of course you'd say that this is not why you wish to not be subjected to our laws - but it would still hold you unaccountable if you did. That is unacceptable to us as a collective.

In the end, our laws protect the freedom of ALL. It protects you from me and me from you. It legislates common sense because sense isn't so common. If you are so opposed to rules, then write or visit with your MP and take the appropriate channels. Make sure you remove your aluminum hat, first.

I'm done here. G'day

Marquisse....

You assault someone contrary to law, you will be charged under the Criminal Code of Canada. You cause injury, and you can be sued in civil court. Harm Loss or Injury = Crime = Common Law (as I said)

Your dog attacks someone on the street, and you will be subject to the Dog Owners' Liability Act. Harm, Loss or Injury =Common law (if owner incites dog to cause harm) = Crime = Common Law (as I said )

You pollute, and you will be charged according to the POA.

If the pollution causes harm loss or injury this = Crime= Common Law... ( Governments should be held accountable for poluuting our drinking water with FLUORIDE as this is pollution causeing harm which falls under Common Law)

Your operate your vehicle while impaired, and you will be charged under the Criminal Code of Canada.

If you cause harm loss or injury while driving impaired then you have commited a crime which falls under Common Law.

You work and pay taxes, according to the Income Tax Act.

Actually their is NO LAW that requires anyone to pay taxes. The government knows this !!!

You operate your vehicle on provincial highways, and you have consented to be subject to the HTA.

Yes CORRECT if you have consented....... but what if you don't consent ?

You are born or become a Canadian Citizen, and you are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Becoming a Citizen does not mean you are 'subject' to the charter and you can by law remove consent to be governed.... government is by the CONSENT of the people (shame they dont tell everyone this)....

You have failed to provide case law and statute to back up your claim. Your argument is false, and you know it.

My argument is extremely factual and if you don't know it ...you should!!!

You cannot prove it, and insisting on it just makes you look unstable. Actually it is your own opinion that I look unstable..... Many many peoplle are researching and living by the facts i state right now....

So please get some legal education because if you try to assert that you are above and beyond the law of the land, you will find yourself involuntarily committed.

Really ??? so you think people who do not agree with you and being brainwashed by governments need certifying ??? Really now?

The Law of the Land is COMMON LAW my friend..... NOT COMMERCIAL Law which applies to businesses and Corporations.....

You are free to disengage from these laws. So forfeit your license, your job, your dog. Don't pollute, and don't drive. You are free to jog across Canada as we have the right to be mobile within our country. But this freedom does NOT include a right to operate a vehicle - even if you drive for a living. You do not have the right to punch someone else in the nose and expect not to be held accountable by law.

We do actually have rights which have been slowly hidden from us..... we can have a dog and unless we incite it to do harm have not broken the law. We cannot pollute if it causes harm. We can travel by whatever means we choose, so long as we do not cause harm loss or injury.

And of course we cannot assault people as that alsp falls under a Common Law crime....... so what is really your point ?

These are social contracts ((( hereby lies the crux of my argument my friend, SOCIAL CONTRACTS))) that are implied. That is what legislation is.

Yes social CONTRACTS are exactly what legislatiuon is and contracts are only enforcable BY CONSENT

There are plenty of psychopaths and anti-social people out there who would like to excuse themselves from the laws of our society. A lot of those you mention are controlling government right now and working in police forces ....your point ????

This would leave them free to drive drunk and kill families sharing the road with them. People do this even with a licence....so again how does a licence prevent this ?

This would allow drug dealers to shoot through walls and kill a sleeping child on the other side. Governments do this repeatedly i Iraq and Afghanistan and many other places... Are they excusable then ??? How does a statute prevent slaughter ?

Of course you'd say that this is not why you wish to not be subjected to our laws - but it would still hold you unaccountable if you did. That is unacceptable to us as a collective. Any harm loss or injury is unacceptable.... you miss the point entirely !

In the end, our laws protect the freedom of ALL.

Do they (the statutes you are referring to....which are not laws)?????

It protects you from me and me from you. HOW ?????

It legislates common sense because sense isn't so common.

I guess it must be contagious then... as governments don't seem to have any..... But really how can you legislate 'common sense'???? Either you have it or you don't, same with 'reasoning power'

If you are so opposed to rules, then write or visit with your MP and take the appropriate channels.

APPROPRIATE CHANNELS..???? Do you mean asking the people who are about to FORCE us to have vaccinations if they mind us having our RIGHTS back ?

Make sure you remove your aluminum hat, first. Well of course it might react with the aluminum that is in the forced vaccine and we couldn't possibly have that now could we...?

Keep those blinders on !!!!

You operate your vehicle on provincial highways, and you have consented to be subject to the HTA.

Yes CORRECT if you have consented....... but what if you don't consent ?

Your consent is your signature on your license.

A lot of those you mention are controlling government right now and working in police forces ....your point ????

I, personally, have no issues with any of the 5 police departments, who's roads I traverse everyday.

This would leave them free to drive drunk and kill families sharing the road with them. People do this even with a licence....so again how does a licence prevent this ?

Ask Mr. Bear, he'll tell you that there are an extremely disproportionate number of "charged" drunk drivers that are repeat offenders, license or no license they will continue to offend.

Any how, are you two done?

Reflections wrote:

You operate your vehicle on provincial highways, and you have consented to be subject to the HTA.

Yes CORRECT if you have consented....... but what if you don't consent ?

Your consent is your signature on your license.

So best not to have one then !!!!

A lot of those you mention are controlling government right now and working in police forces ....your point ????

I, personally, have no issues with any of the 5 police departments, who's roads I traverse everyday.

Thats good.... do they give you a break because you are an ex cop or have a friend whose one ?

This would leave them free to drive drunk and kill families sharing the road with them. People do this even with a licence....so again how does a licence prevent this ?

Ask Mr. Bear, he'll tell you that there are an extremely disproportionate number of "charged" drunk drivers that are repeat offenders, license or no license they will continue to offend.

Yes I am sure.... so the licence is of no real value then.... aside from revenue ???

Any how, are you two done?

I certainly hope so..... I hope Marquisse is googling the facts right now lol

Yep, Reflections, I'm done. I'm not into arguing facts with someone who doesn't know the meaning.