RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!!

RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

uwinceismile -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 11:02:00 AM)
oh i see, yes well i have folks who work for me. and they drive my vehichles. they all have good driving records etc. but 2 times in 2 yrs thay have run thru a light when they shouldnt of.... i started this thread with a light hearted laff.... sorry if u take every post u see as life an death my dear [&o] and i still dont think its right that i should be made to pay for others mistakes. i could bring up an example or two of how we trust others in our lives daily....but hell, common sense doesnt seem to play well with some folk :) best of luck,,and ill tell "bob" u said hello and were thinking of him

dragone -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 11:03:58 AM)
What's this supposed to mean, sorry, I don't understand.

Alumbrado -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 11:04:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stef quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Not quite accurate... a court proceeding where a person's liberty or property are subject to forfeit, triggers Constitutional protections. There is some exception for lesser traffic offenses under a certain dollar amount, but move up to DUI or other more serious traffic offenses, and you will have all of your rights, just as a criminal defendant. DUI and the like aren't traffic offenses, they're filed in criminal court where the constitutional protections kick in. In this case, they do not. ~stef In states where moving violations are part of the traffic code, they are in fact traffic offenses, and you will have your rights, such as the right to an attorney, etc. in court.

farglebargle -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 11:11:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Not quite accurate... a court proceeding where a person's liberty or property are subject to forfeit, triggers Constitutional protections. There is some exception for lesser traffic offenses under a certain dollar amount, but move up to DUI or other more serious traffic offenses, and you will have all of your rights, just as a criminal defendant. I disagree, and would suggest that you give up your Rights and agree to go by the Vehicle and Traffic Regulations when you sign your vehicle registration application. It does say exactly that on the form, NYS MV-82 http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/forms/mv82.pdf Section 7, "I also certify that appropriate insurance coverage is in effect, and that the vehicle will be operated in accordance with the Vehicle and Traffic Law."

dragone -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 11:12:51 AM)
Smiley, you have people who work for you...they use your vehicles, you are responsible for the use of that vehicle, they also are responsible as well, but if they commit an infraction, caught by the police, and are in the vehicle, they get the ticket, if they leave the vehicle, nowhere to be found, you are responsible for the vehicle and infraction, how would the ticketing officer know if it was you or the other guy. You are the registered owner. How simple could that not to comprehend. You can appeal if you feel the ticketing is unfair. Excerise your rights as a US citizen. What does 'rolf' mean, I've noticed that in a lot of your replies to me.

stef -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 11:15:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: uwinceismile oh i see, yes well i have folks who work for me. and they drive my vehichles. they all have good driving records etc. but 2 times in 2 yrs thay have run thru a light when they shouldnt of.... Sure, they have good records because they have a patsy to take the fall for them [:D] quote: i started this thread with a light hearted laff.... sorry if u take every post u see as life an death my dear [&o] Your driving record is hardly a life and death matter to anyone here, most of all me. quote: and i still dont think its right that i should be made to pay for others mistakes. shrug Then perhaps you should reconsider letting people use your vehicles if they're not willing to come forward like responsible adults and accept the consequenses for their actions. Good luck with those employees in the future. Let's just hope the next time they run a light they don't hit someone and leave you holding the bag for that too. ~stef

SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 11:19:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: uwinceismile oh i see, yes well i have folks who work for me. and they drive my vehichles. they all have good driving records etc. but 2 times in 2 yrs thay have run thru a light when they shouldnt of.... i started this thread with a light hearted laff.... sorry if u take every post u see as life an death my dear [&o] and i still dont think its right that i should be made to pay for others mistakes. i could bring up an example or two of how we trust others in our lives daily....but hell, common sense doesnt seem to play well with some folk :) best of luck,,and ill tell "bob" u said hello and were thinking of him the service tech got the ticket where i work.....they found out who drove that truck and gave the ticket for him.....and he is paying the $75........i cant imagine expecting the employer to pick up a ticket i got-no matter whos vehicle it was....

Alumbrado -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 11:32:38 AM)
quote: What does 'rolf' mean, I've noticed that in a lot of your replies to me. It is a variation on 'Milf'....[8D]

farglebargle -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 11:35:55 AM)
Rolf the Dog. Played piano in the house band for The Muppet Show, and before that he had a spot on the Jimmy Dean Show every week...

dragone -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 11:36:10 AM)
I direct you to my post #60.

uwinceismile -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 11:39:26 AM)
rolling on flor laughing =rofl

dragone -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 11:41:13 AM)
Okay, now I know who, or what Rolf is; but can you explain why he ends his posts to me, with 'rolf'. and that dumb' Lemonade is served in the back of the room' thing. I dunno, I'm missing something here. I mean, I went to the back of the room, and there was no one serving lemonade. LOL, LOL

beyourdog -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 11:41:41 AM)
you can buy the license plate covers that are to keep it clean-they are clear plastic,but they are raised slightly-well dead on can see fine, but the cameras cannot make the tag numbers out at all with these from being above-no matter how much they try to adjust the pic. :)

uwinceismile -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 11:42:33 AM)
i do appreciate all the wonderul advice on how to run my business :) dont know how ive done it without ur help over the last 22 yrs :)

mnottertail -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 11:43:53 AM)
If they suck, I probably need to get me one of those.

dragone -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 11:44:16 AM)
OKAY, what does MILF mean? somebody please, help me out here, doesn't anybody write words any more.

farglebargle -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 11:44:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: beyourdog you can buy the license plate covers that are to keep it clean-they are clear plastic,but they are raised slightly-well dead on can see fine, but the cameras cannot make the tag numbers out at all with these from being above-no matter how much they try to adjust the pic. :) How long until they stick an EZ-Pass reader on the traffic light?

uwinceismile -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 11:45:17 AM)
dragone, im sorry, its just that at times your post amuse me,so i sign off...rofl. :) its a good thing my friend

uwinceismile -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 11:46:53 AM)
milf=mother id like to f*** i didnt use that term, but thats what is stands for :)

SugarMyChurro -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 12:24:44 PM)
The following pieces of information will not gain you anything, so I present them purely for entertainment purposes only. The traffic infraction is a twisting of the law. The term arises from admiralty/maritime law and has no real place in U.S. common law tradition. "Infraction is a term in United States law; it is not a term commonly used in the United Kingdom or other countries following English common law." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infraction Offenses to which a natural person should be subject should fall under two categories: misdemeanor or felony. An infraction is neither fish nor fowl - it's outside the scope of laws to which a natural person should be subject. The problem with modern America is two-fold: we treat natural persons as if they were the members of ship crew without any common law rights and therefore subject to heavy regulation; and conversely we treat fictitious persons as if they had the rights of natural persons. So we have taken fundamental rights away from natural persons in some instances and in other instances given rights to juristic persons. Sounds pretty stupid to me, but how many of you can even comprehend what I just stated and its significance? I'm not being superior about this issue - the fact is that most people do not understand these issues whatever and the powers that be are counting on people not to understand them. The fault lies with two cases in the main: "Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Railroad_Co._v._Tompkins "Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad The first case states that there is no federal common law - which is pretty interesting as such would be the basis of our entire legal heritage. The second case opened the door to claims that juristic persons have the rights of natural persons - which is interesting because it's clearly a crock of shit intended to expand the legal playing field for corporations.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125