ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Riding > The perfect line and other riding myths
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-22-2013, 10:21 PM   #181
jfman
Beastly Adventurer
 
jfman's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: Montreal, Canada
Oddometer: 1,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by ttpete View Post
I didn't know that Quebec used the Napoleonic code. That's equivalent to having to prove that you're innocent instead of having the state try to prove you're guilty. No wonder the rest of the country hates the frogs. They all resent the fuck out of having to learn patois "french" in school.
Civil law dates back to the Romans, and IIRC common law is when they merged all the different regions of England during feudalism and is used only in the old colonies (that includes the US). You might want to read a book before you post bs info. No wonder the rest of the world praises the Yanks for being smart and make good swift judgement calls on other nations because they know and understand them so well.

''I thought they was all Muslims?'' ;)
__________________
Tent space is where you make it

2012 Versys 1000
Tour of the American West 2013
Alaska 2014: Hotel Budget Zero

jfman screwed with this post 10-22-2013 at 10:36 PM
jfman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 10:33 PM   #182
jfman
Beastly Adventurer
 
jfman's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: Montreal, Canada
Oddometer: 1,002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Roman law

The sixth century Digest of Justinian (22.3.2) provides, as a general rule of evidence: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat[1]—"Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies".[2] It is there attributed to the second and third century jurist Paul. When this rule is applied to criminal process (whether or not that was done in Roman law itself), it places the burden of proof upon the accuser, which has the corollary that the accused is presumed to be innocent.
Common law

In sources from common law jurisdictions, the expression appears in an extended version, in its original form and then in a shortened form (and in each case the translation provided varies). As extended, it is: Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit—"The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof."[3] As found in its original form, it is (as above): Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat—"The proof lies upon the one who affirms, not the one who denies." [4][5] Then, shortened from the original, it is: Ei incumbit probatio qui—"the onus of proving a fact rests upon the man who".[6]
Civil law

The maxim or its equivalent has been adopted by many civil law systems, including Brazil,[7] France,[8] Italy,[9][10] Philippines,[11] Poland,[12] Romania[13] and Spain.[14]
__________________
Tent space is where you make it

2012 Versys 1000
Tour of the American West 2013
Alaska 2014: Hotel Budget Zero
jfman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2013, 01:23 AM   #183
Wraith Rider
Beastly Adventurer
 
Wraith Rider's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Location: Germany
Oddometer: 1,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earth Rider View Post
Well, if there were no laws against speeding would you change your driving habits?
No. Why should I? I'm on a motorcycle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pecha72 View Post
What you might not like so much on a bike, is “might is right”, means that you always give way to heavier vehicles, and as the motorcycle is relatively lightweight, you give way to almost all other road users. except maybe pedestrians, and bicyclists. Can get tiring after a while.
So you don't like motorcycling at all?
__________________
"Why not stay in disguise all the time? You know, look like everyone else."
"Because we shouldn't have to."
Wraith Rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2013, 01:34 AM   #184
xymotic
Beastly Adventurer
 
xymotic's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Location: Federal Way, WA
Oddometer: 8,367
I agree 'in principle' but boy oh boy it seems like it would be a tough sell to a Judge.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Sean
Oh for ***k's sake Aaron. Please link us to my fascist, racist or homophobic posts.
"Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either."
Albert Einstein


Baja trip to the tip
6:10 to Yuma
trials and tribulations in the Mojave
Baja Blitz Yard sale
View Current Location via Spot Tracker
xymotic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2013, 03:46 AM   #185
xy500
Loser
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Location: Australia, WA
Oddometer: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by windmill View Post
Wheelies and triple digit speeds don't happen by mistake, motorcycles are a bad choice for those who lack self control.
Uhhhhh... speak for yourself
__________________
Experience is wasted on the old
xy500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2013, 06:55 AM   #186
MotoTex
Miles of Smiles
 
MotoTex's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Tool Shed
Oddometer: 1,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by xymotic View Post
I agree 'in principle' but boy oh boy it seems like it would be a tough sell to a Judge.
In my experiences the judge played a very small role. The prosecutor was the person my dealings were primarily with, though this was in the presence of the judge, court reporter, tape recorder, etc.

I always considered it odd how they scheduled my appearances when nobody else was in the courtroom. My first appearance was with the usual crowd in the traffic cattle call. They culled me out right away and asked if I would wait until they had processed the others. This gave me the feeling they knew from the get-go that I had them and they didn't want the other sheep there for shearing to get wind of this.

In the end it seemed to me that it was the prosecutor who made the decision to not pursue the case further. Though my official notice of this came to me in the mail, about a year and a half after the third appearance in court.

If the judge played an active role it wasn't while in my presence. He and the prosecutor may have discussed things after I had left.

This was the "no DL" case.

In the "Speeding" case I made one trip, submitted the affidavit to the clerk, was never invited back, and three years later received notice of dismissal in the mail.

In neither case were any details revealed to me regarding the specifics of why the cases were dismissed.

Maybe it was just my honest face.
__________________

This is The Internet. Confirm for yourself anything you may see while visiting this strange and uncertain land.

MotoTex is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2013, 07:46 AM   #187
freetors
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Location: Collinsville, OK
Oddometer: 858
MotoTex, this is really fascinating to read. I have heard of other people having similar conclusions about the law, specifically the "I'm not driving, I'm traveling" guy. I may have missed this, but did you say whether or not the posted speed limits apply to only those with a driver's license?

If you don't mind I would like to save all of your posts from this thread for future reference
freetors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2013, 08:30 AM   #188
MotoTex
Miles of Smiles
 
MotoTex's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Tool Shed
Oddometer: 1,600
I've seen a lot of the "patriot" arguments and I think they go over the top trying to figure out the reasoning for things. Always looking for conspiracies.

It all seems pretty simple to me, as I look at things from a perspective of whether I have entered into a contract, or not. I guess this is what you talk about when asking if having a license makes someone obligated to the speeding citations. I don't think so.

A couple of other affidavits I've placed in the record may have been as effective as the arguments spelled out so far, but whenever I've tried to share these the response is usually to label me a tin-hatter and not look at the information.

Here's one thing that I feel is significant. Do the due diligence to qualify everyone involved. The rules of court allow things to proceed even if they aren't kosher. Let me provide an example.

In most traffic cases the "injured party" is styled as "The State of ..."

I've seen the injury described as "against the peace and dignity of the state," whatever that might be.

Let's think about this. Who are the courts designed for? People, right? In law this is described as "persons" and includes "legal persons" which are corporations and associations, along with the flesh and blood variety.

Of these, which is "The State of ..." best paired with?

Probably not flesh and blood. So we strike that one right off. This leaves corporation or association. What are the defining characteristics of these? They are registered with the state.

Well, I don't think that the state can register itself with itself, so this leaves a curious quandary. If it is a corporation or association it would have to be registered at the federal level. If that were so the court case would have to be in federal court, wouldn't it?

Further investigation revealed that in court "a corporation may be presumed to exist even if it hasn't be registered with the state, unless this is denied" (paraphrased to the best of my memory).

This means that The State can be listed as the plaintiff by pretending to be a corporation or association. As long as nobody calls the bluff.

Another affidavit I had submitted in both cases denied the existence of "The State of ..." as a legal person.

When the prosecutor asked what I expected him to do to rebut this I told him to either bring in the flesh and blood person or produce a certified copy of the charter that formed the corporation or association and includes the names of the signatories who created it.

Nothing came of this. That affidavit was never rebutted. This could have been the key to the dismissal. There simply were not enough people showing up to the party to play the game. You have to have a judge, an accused and a plaintiff. If one is missing there is no case.

I believe that when "The State of ..." is shown as a party to the case that it is a sham from the get-go, and the rules of court allow this sham to proceed, unless it is denied.

As far as I can tell, "The State of ..." is a "Body Politic" and this is where I realized that when a traffic case goes to court you are playing the part of the accused and the accuser because the citizens of the state are also part of the body politic.

Some clever attorney as a congress critter introduced this into the statutes originally to smooth the court process. Then someone realized that this could be used to generate revenue by preying upon those ignorant of such shenanigans. Trusting folks who expect public servants to be looking out for them.

Eventually, it has become standard process and I suspect that many prosecutors may not even realize it, until someone like me comes along and points out the fly in the ointment. That's my theory. It is simply momentum based upon a flaw in the process. Others would go the full conspiracy ticket, but I just don't think that people are smart enough to design this purposefully this way.

Fun, fun, fun.

You can easily get very lost reading the statutes. "Keep It Simple Stupid" is a good guideline in these matters. Learn how to determine whether the basic foundation exists before going any further. Otherwise you might miss a remedy that the court is obliged by its rules to overlook if not brought to light.

These foundational aspects are what I've illustrated in regard to licensing and speeding. There are others I've found regarding registration ("this chapter applies to vehicles owned by the state, or, a political subdivision of the state"), but that's another story.
__________________

This is The Internet. Confirm for yourself anything you may see while visiting this strange and uncertain land.


MotoTex screwed with this post 10-23-2013 at 09:24 AM
MotoTex is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2013, 02:23 PM   #189
SgtDuster
Beastly Adventurer
 
SgtDuster's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Oddometer: 3,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotoTex View Post
In case you missed it, every chapter in the statutes regarding the speed limit signs on the road call it the "Prima Facie Speed Limit."
I don't even understand why I continue to argue since you clearly don't want to understand something that would change your mind but anyway...

Quote:
A common usage of the phrase is the concept of a "prima facie speed limit", which has been used in Australia and the United States. A prima facie speed limit is a default speed limit that applies when no other specific speed limit is posted, and which may be exceeded by a driver. However, if the driver is detected and cited by police for exceeding the limit, the onus of proof is on the driver to show that the speed at which the driver was travelling was safe under the circumstances.

Quote:
In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that – unless rebutted – would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.



What it means, is SIMPLE.

You don't like my use of the latin "de facto" so let's use another term.

You are AUTOMATICALLY guilty if a cop catch you doing over the speed limit. He don't have to bring it to court, you are AUTOMATICALLY guilty and cited. But if you think that you're not guilty according to the situation and conditions, the burden of proof is on YOU.

VS a "conventionnal" crime where "the proof lies upon him who affirms" to cite common law principle.


It doesn't mean that speed limits don't exist.


Damn you seem to enjoy listening to yourself.
__________________
2010 Buell Ulysses
1984 Suzuki GR650 "Tempter"
SgtDuster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2013, 02:31 PM   #190
SgtDuster
Beastly Adventurer
 
SgtDuster's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Oddometer: 3,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman View Post
Civil law dates back to the Romans, and IIRC common law is when they merged all the different regions of England during feudalism and is used only in the old colonies (that includes the US). You might want to read a book before you post bs info. No wonder the rest of the world praises the Yanks for being smart and make good swift judgement calls on other nations because they know and understand them so well.

''I thought they was all Muslims?'' ;)
It's not the first time this guy is arrogant and filled with biases against us Quebecers.


I don't know...maybe he's just an ass by nature or maybe he was dumped by a pretty girl from here and is now filled with hatred and bitterness against the whole "nation".
__________________
2010 Buell Ulysses
1984 Suzuki GR650 "Tempter"
SgtDuster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2013, 03:11 PM   #191
MotoTex
Miles of Smiles
 
MotoTex's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Tool Shed
Oddometer: 1,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtDuster View Post

You don't like my use of the latin "de facto" so let's use another term.

You are AUTOMATICALLY guilty if a cop catch you doing over the speed limit. He don't have to bring it to court, you are AUTOMATICALLY guilty and cited. But if you think that you're not guilty according to the situation and conditions, the burden of proof is on YOU.

VS a "conventionnal" crime where "the proof lies upon him who affirms" to cite common law principle.

Your use of de facto was spot on.

You just can't grasp that the term references the fact that it excludes what it references from law, not includes it.

De facto means, "this is how we do it, even though we understand that it isn't authorized by law."

Which is what I've been saying all along.

It seems that on your planet the cop is also the court.

Where I am, a "guilty" verdict is something that the cop doesn't get any say in.

Here, we have the "Innocent until proven guilty" method. Obviously this is something unfamiliar to you.

Now I can understand why you are so confused by all this.

Well, that and the whole reading comprehension/application of logic business that seems to be a hurdle for you as well.

As for this:
Quote:
A common usage of the phrase is the concept of a "prima facie speed limit", which has been used in Australia and the United States. A prima facie speed limit is a default speed limit that applies when no other specific speed limit is posted, and which may be exceeded by a driver. However, if the driver is detected and cited by police for exceeding the limit, the onus of proof is on the driver to show that the speed at which the driver was travelling was safe under the circumstances.
Of course the "onus" is on the driver to prove. That is what I've been telling you. This is precisely why the driver would have to submit the affidavit stating it was reasonable and prudent. This is evidence to trump the de facto prima facie evidence. This is proof. It is sworn testimony.

This is the way to place the onus back on the prosecution to then prove that the speed wasn't reasonable and prudent with some evidence a little more substantial than mere prima facie evidence.

I can't figure out how to possibly make this any more clear to you.

Are you part boomerang?
__________________

This is The Internet. Confirm for yourself anything you may see while visiting this strange and uncertain land.


MotoTex screwed with this post 10-23-2013 at 04:35 PM
MotoTex is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2013, 04:31 PM   #192
SgtDuster
Beastly Adventurer
 
SgtDuster's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Oddometer: 3,153
OK, I'm done with you.


Damn it's energy consuming to argue with someone with half the intelligence of the average Joe. Worst, with someone who tries to compensate his lack of intelligence with 5 miles long posts full of circular arguments.


SVP, criss moi une petite, toute petite, patience.
__________________
2010 Buell Ulysses
1984 Suzuki GR650 "Tempter"
SgtDuster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2013, 04:46 PM   #193
MotoTex
Miles of Smiles
 
MotoTex's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Tool Shed
Oddometer: 1,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtDuster View Post
Damn it's energy consuming to argue with someone with half the intelligence of the average Joe.
I know this feeling better than you. Believe me.

I've actually done the thing I describe. You haven't. Yet you argue with me that it isn't so. Yet I know from personal experience that it is.

Really, who is working with half the marbles here, the guy that has done it, twice, or the one who argues that it just can't be done?



Have a nice life. Thank you for playing. Pick up your consolation prize on the way out.
__________________

This is The Internet. Confirm for yourself anything you may see while visiting this strange and uncertain land.

MotoTex is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2013, 05:43 PM   #194
joexr
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: S.E.
Oddometer: 3,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by windmill View Post
Wheelies and triple digit speeds don't happen by mistake, motorcycles are a bad choice for those who lack self control.
Do you have self control or little abilty.
joexr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2013, 06:42 PM   #195
SgtDuster
Beastly Adventurer
 
SgtDuster's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Oddometer: 3,153
Quote:
Most states have absolute speed limits, meaning that a speed in excess of the limit is illegal per se.

However, some states have prima facie speed limits.

This allows motorists to defend against a speeding charge if it can be proven that the speed was in fact reasonable and prudent.

Speed limits in Texas, Utah, and Rhode Island are prima facie.

Some other states have a hybrid system: speed limits may be prima facie up to a certain speed or only on certain roads.

A successful prima facie defense is rare. Not only does the burden of proof rest upon the accused, a successful defense may involve expenses well in excess of the cost of a ticket, such as an expert witness. Furthermore, because prima facie defenses must be presented in a court, such a defense is difficult for out of town motorists.
Still, prima facie doesn't mean "no speed limits" like you said but like I said:

You are AUTOMATICALLY guilty if a cop catch you doing over the speed limit. He don't have to bring it to court, you are AUTOMATICALLY guilty and cited. But if you think that you're not guilty according to the situation and conditions, the burden of proof is on YOU.
__________________
2010 Buell Ulysses
1984 Suzuki GR650 "Tempter"
SgtDuster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 09:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014