Common Law

...because I got "flashed" recently making a right on red. That was about a month ago but I haven't received anything yet. I should add that this was in Suffolk County, NY and there has been some discussion about what constitutes a stop at "right on red". There has been talk of new signage at the RLC intersections.

Could you expand a bit on what your thinking is re: "Common Law"? Thanks

Law was intended to protect injured parties. From biblical times if a person or their possessions were damaged the party causing the damage had to make the injured whole. If I travel as is allowed in the United States Constitution as a matter of right not the priviledge that the states maintains and I travel at more than the posted speed who have I injured? No one! Yet the State, County or city believes that they have been injured. But it is not possible to injure a corporation they are an entity that I can't cut, cause to bleed, send to the hospital or kill. In Washington State and many other states around the county a common law default process is being used to fight those tickets. We have had success with speeding, not wearing seat belts not going around round a bouts in residential neighborhoods and a host of other traffic citations. Google to find a host of documents that are being used. I have personally prepared my own documents and won on numerous occasions.

When fighting a violation, was the traffic cam malfunctioning, or is the question just about beating the system i.e. finding a loophole or making it not cost-effective for the system to collect on the penalty?

I have seen many people who fight the cams and actually win. There are many that flash and the person has not even gone through the intersection.

Your description of Common Law is a little off the mark, Lizardlips. It is possible to injure someone without causing physical injure. Monetary loss, loss of freedom and loss of reputation are just three examples. So it is possible to injure a corporation without cutting, causing to bleed or killing it.

The definition of "Common Law" is "A legal system which has developed over a period of time from old customs and court decisions, rather than laws made in congress." So how do you use common law to make yourself exempt from traffic laws?

Also, can you quote the passage in our constitution that guarantees you the right of unimpeded travel?

In Nassau it takes about sixty days to get a notice. My brother-in-law ran one in May and got a notice in July.

I did Google and did not find any articles in local newspapers where a common law defense was successful. Lot's of articles claiming it was (and send us &79 etc. to find out how).

Can you point to any local newspaper articles in your municipality. If such a defense is working, surely the papers have picked it up and are reporting it.

Without a long. drawn out search.. it seems that the Supreme Court has affirmed the right to interstate travel, albeit there are specific criteria.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0383...

Last paragraph of the syllabus.

Regardless, I suspect that arguments against the OP's position could be a- you are not impeded since you are free to walk. b- it's the method of travel that has restrictions and is considered to be a 'priviledge'. and last but not least c- the violation was performed intrastate

I don't necessarily doubt that the OP may have won several cases, but I would expect if this became enough of an annoyance to someone the decision might be appealed by the powers that be.

I like the thought though. Goes directly to my Libertarian core.

Is that any thing like common sense?

Common sense is NEVER used in law!!

hehehe

1. LMAO you said [ It is possible to injure someone]
I agree, not some thing. The constitution says WE THE PEOPLE not WE THE CORPORATIONS. Corporation do not have rights they have priveleges granted by the state that created them. They were created to limit liability for personal actions. "Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial person. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this that no government as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc., can concern itself with anything other that corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them." Penhallow vs. Doane's Administrator, 3 US 54, 1 L.Ed.57, 3 Dall. 54 (1795)

I would agree with your assessment that theoretically a corporation could be an injured, however based on this case do not see how that injury could come from a real live flesh a blood individual. There fore that it must come from another corporation.
2. Right to travel in the odinary conveyance of the day. Paraphrased from the following brief that contains the legal cite. http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml
3. Actually common law is base on the Bible. And can be simplified into 2 rules. 1. Injure no one. 2. honor your word (contracts)
4. The governments sole duty to protect and maintain individual right. Any law that does not do that is null and void.

4. Go study this stuff for your self starting at lawfulpath.com and 1215.org there are many sites. google common law, right to travel etc.

(sorry but i dont have the time to instruct you.)

1.check here for right to travel in the ordinary conveyance of the day http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml

2. If you like libertarian princple go here
http://www.republicforarizona.org/

But what has any of that got to do with Red Light Cameras or Speed Cameras? The subject of common law was brought up by Lizardlips who claimed that it could be used to defeat tickets generated by cameras.

Lizardlips also claimed that a corporation could not be harmed since it can't be cut or caused to bleed. I said that physical damage wasn't the only way to harm someone and went on to describe some of them.

You said that a corporation wasn't a person and you are correct. But a corporation is treated as a person by law in the USofA. They have some of the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as a person. They can buy, sell and own property in their own right. They can enter into contracts, earn income from their activities and pay taxes. Sound like a person to me. One thing they can't do is get married but they can merge which is almost the same thing. hehe

But neither you, bestrealestateguy, or lizardlips has explained how to use common law to get a camera generated ticked thrown out.

I believe my first question was , has anyone had any success defeating redlight camera tickets. I have used documents from Lewis Ewing and Ticketslayers to beat all of my tickets.

Indeed, you have made this comment before. I previously asked if the newspapers in your municipality had picked up this fact and reported it.

Could you provide more details, please? It sounds like you used "documents" in some way. Was that in a court hearing? Or, did you just send in some documents and have heard nothing back?

We would be very interested in more details.

My thought is if you are getting that many tickets you need to change your driving habits

Lets not get snarky here, I would be most interested from an intellectual perspective how this all plays out.

Perhaps, only about 1 every year or so. I think it is more important to fight against the money making governments. In my state traffic violations are covered under the RCW's Revised Codes of Washington State. In 1960 the Washington state Supreme Court ruled that the RCW's are not LAW merely codes. I have no problem having laws that protect citizens. I object to these codes being passed off as laws on an unsuspecting public. If I drive with a cracked windshield and am cited by an officer and have to pay a 60 dollar ticket, please tell me who I injured, what damages did I do to the city or state. How does 60 dollars make them whole? The right to travel on the highways and byways of this nation as a right not a privledge. The several states have taken my right and have converted it to a privledge. I find that to be an injustice. So when cited I always contest, file for discovery, provide an affidavit of truth, and file several motions to dismiss on several grounds and have always left court having my infraction thrown out. I must admit most times it is cheaper to just pay the fine. I have knowledge that if you over pay your fine by five dollarsm the jurisdiction will send a refund check for the overpayment. If you shred the check and never cash it the court is unable to close out the case and the infraction does not hit your traffic record. Just saying.

@lizardlips: Spending your time fighting tickets that you feel are unlawful is something I have no problem with, but your entire justification is flawed because you believe driving is a right, which it is not. Driving has always been a privilege, not a right. To drive requires permission from the state in the form of a driver's license. The license requirement alone is enough to prove that driving is a privilege, especially since every state in the country requires a driver's license. But, let's take it to the extreme here. If driving were a right, then a ten year-old kid could get behind a wheel without a license and legally drive himself to the toy store, because the state could not impose restrictions on who could drive a car or else be flagged for discrimination on the basis of age.

TL;DR version: Go ahead and fight tickets, but don't say driving is a right, when it's clearly a privilege.

As an ex-LEO, I would think it is very possible to win a red light camera citation. I know if I ever received one, I would fight it.

Agree that driving is a privilege, not a right. But your example of a ten year old driver does not make your point. Rights can be and are age restricted. For example, while voting is a fundamental right, you still can not vote until you reach the age of 18.

I would be inclined to argue that the right to vote can be rescinded since ex-convicts for certain crimes lose that right, thus making the right to vote a privelige. But while I pointed that out, I'm really not going to argue it since I agree my example is a very poor attempt at reductio ad absurdium.

Seems to me that too many people use "Rights" from the Constitution as absolute - even God granted.

Perhaps a reading of the "Bill of Rights" would help all us understand that the constitution is, and has always been, a "living" document. To see why, consider the current calls for "Constitutional Amendments" (balanced budget, marriage).

Wikipedia says:
The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, which limit the power of the U.S. federal government. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property including freedoms of religion, speech, a free press, free assembly, and free association, as well as the right to keep and bear arms.

And goes on the say:
Originally, the Bill of Rights included legal protection for land-owning white men only,[3] excluding African Americans[4] and women.[5][6] It took additional Constitutional Amendments and numerous Supreme Court cases to extend the same rights to all U.S. citizens.

So "Rights" seem to be to be determined by the majority of the citizens. Ponder that thought for a moment.

Actually, I would say that "rights" are determined by the minority, since the politicians in Washington no longer serve us and our best interests. Point proven by them actively seeking to destroy the protections granted by the Constitution and its amendments and mostly succeeding due to the apathy of the average American. The average American is too engrossed with watching "Dancing With the Stars" and figures that the guy he elected will fix things, not realizing or caring that the guy he elected is looking out for only one person: himself.

You have the right to life and the right to liberty. Those are rights given you by our creator, sometime called natural rights. But you don't have the right to have food on your table or a warm bed to sleep in. You have the privilege of earning these things but you do not the right to have them. A lot of people don't understand the difference between a right and a privilege but trust me, there is a big difference. You do not have to earn a right, you are born with it. A privilege can be granted or earned but you are not born with it.

Our constitution is NOT a living document. Yes, it can be amended but the meaning of a phrase does not change with time. "Shall Not" means exactly the same thing today as it meant when the constitution was new. The process of amending our constitution is not an easy one and it was never intended to be easy. We need to think long and hard before we change it.

A wise man once said that if you think our constitution is a living document, I'd like to play poker with you using living rules.

I am also in Washington state. I just got a ticket for speeding that I am going to fight. I could use any info you have to help me. The cop was in a school zone which was 20, I was coming to the school zone and had not got there yet. He cited me for 32 in a 20, when I wasn't even in the 20 yet. I know the cop always wins, and I was just hoping he would not show up and it would get dismissed. If there is more that I can do I would like to know about it.

Be careful on contesting that ticket. You will need to know two things, exactly where you were when your speed was measured and exactly where the school zone boundary is. The 20 MPH speed limit sign isn't the boundary, it's often placed inside the area. The local public works agency responsible for maintaining the street can give you the exact coordinates for the school zone. You'll find the signs are close, but don't always mark the exact boundaries.

I take your point that "shall not" should mean exactly the same today as it did when our constitution was new.

However, as you know, the original document lacked
many of the "rights" we now take for granted. Even the Bill of Rights withheld rights from many. Let me restate what I quoted from Wikipedia above:

Originally, the Bill of Rights included legal protection for land-owning white men only,[3] excluding African Americans[4] and women.[5][6] It took additional Constitutional Amendments and numerous Supreme Court cases to extend the same rights to all U.S. citizens.

The Judiciary can have a tremendous impact on what words mean and whether those words apply universally, or can be limited.

I just don't run them...

jgermann, I have read the first 10 amendments and nowhere in any of them does it limit the rights to white landowners. Those limits were imposed by the courts and the several states, not the constitution. The constitution was originally thought to place limits only on the Federal government while allowing the states to do pretty much as they pleased. It was court decisions that broadened the reach of the document to include placing limits on the states as well. But the constitution itself is silent on states rights.

We could discuss this as well as other discriminations from now till the cows come home and not reach any agreement. This is interesting but really has no bearing on common law or the application of common law to defeating a traffic ticket. I'm done with this subject, I hope you all had a happy Thanksgiving and wish all a very Merry Christmas. Bye.

I guess we need understanding on the phrase “common law”. My recollection is that the term comes from the common law of England and, in the early history of the US, was considered to be the general law of the states until some specific statute was adopted.

In England, two different kind of courts evolved. In a court of law, a Judge would apply statutes. In cases where there were no applicable statutes, Judges would 'create' law, handing down a decision based on equity. This became England’s “Common Law.” “Common Law” came about to decide situations where no statute applied.

Wikipedia says: Common law (also known as case law or precedent) is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action.

Obviously, “Common Law” changes over time.

While we were trying to determine how “Common Law” applied to traffic tickets issued by Automated Traffic Enforcement, the concept of “rights” was raised. The contention was there were certain “rights” we in the US were granted by our Constitution.

I wrote:

I offered the Bill of Rights as an illustration that the “rights” most people quote were NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION at all but had to be added later.

Still, exception was taken to my characterization of our Constitution as a “living document”. So I responded to that complaint by repeating a quote I had earlier made from Wikipedia>
Originally, the Bill of Rights included legal protection for land-owning white men only, excluding African Americans and women. It took additional Constitutional Amendments and numerous Supreme Court cases to extend the same rights to all U.S. citizens.

I should have expanded my thinking because the fact that Wikipedia stated that the Bill of Rights applied to “land-owning white men” was misunderstood. The statement assumed that the reader knew that slavery was not abolished until the 13th Amendment and women did not get the right to vote until the 19th Amendment. Thus the Wikipedia writer correctly said that the first 10 Amendments did not apply to African Americans and women.

To debate with yourself whether or not to consider the Constitution a “living” document, consider the 18th Amendment (prohibition) which was repealed by the 21st amendment.

I'll always be astounded at the lengths people will go to, to justify when they commit a foul. Even more surprising is that as adults, it's possible to learn nothing from our wrong actions. When we're kids, it's much different, isn't it?

The thing about traffic cameras in general that I wonder about is that the camera takes a picture of the vehicle/plate. In many (most?) cases it's impossible to identify the driver. Innocent until proven guilty....there is no proof the registered owner was driving. And what about vehicles belonging to corporations? Seems it would get even muddier.

It has been converted to a privilege. A legal definition of license is The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act. So my state and yours requires a license to marry. That is a church issue but the state says without a license it is an illegal act.Your right to travel guaranteed in the constitution is now regulated by your state and requires a license. BTW when did your state begin regulating the right to travel and convert it to a privilege?
I just take issue with constitutional rights being converted to privileges that require a license, a fee, restrictions.
My court appearances to fight traffic tickets have never included red light or speed cameras. I am wondering if anyone has ever mounted a successful defense against the camera.

There is no infringement on your right to travel - there is no requirement to get a license simply to travel. You want to take a bus, a train, walk? Go right ahead, you don't need anything from the government to do that.

You do require a license for the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on a public highway.

Unless you want to take a flight, then you DO need a government issued document. I heard some train and bus lines also require it.

You don't need a license, you just need a government issued ID (free in most states).

Wait a minute. Church issue?

A Justice of the Peace can marry in most states and many provide them right in the City Hall. No church involved at all.

The main reason for a license in the 1900's was for health reasons. Too many kids being born with syphyllis, etc., the parents dying from it and the kid(s) then becoming wards of the state (expensive wards, at that). You've got to have a blood test before you can get a license (at least in VA & NC, you do).

Now, thanks to rampant Drug Abuse, there are even more diseases to check for.

John Natash 4 said in part..

I would like to amicably disagree with your thoughts as they pertain to the above "loophole" and beating the system.

There is NO such thing as a loophole.. legal or otherwise. If something is NOT written in a law, rule, or regulation.. it doesn't mean that it's a "loophole". It's just something that's nothing more than that specific aspect or situation not being mentioned.

As a example, ie: If I say you can't do (A), (B), and (C) and I don't mention (D).. and you do (D), does that mean (D) was a loophole? Of course not. It just happens to be that (D) wasn't either thought of (or covered) under (A), (B), or (C).

Nuvi1300WTGPS