Judge: Constitution "not relevant" - 3/3

[TheProverbialHater]

I'm going to say this one last time. The judge is completely correct. The constitution does not apply in this case. Why? You have a contract with DMV/DOT/State when you "APPLIED". Look up the word "APPLY" in the Black's Law it means to beg. So you threw away your Constitutional rights to travel for the "privilege" of operating a motor vehicle. The judge is enforcing a CONTRACT and contracts supersede the Constitution.

Due Diligence people, this a a utter fail.

[helobelow]

There is no Plantiff...Thats grea... got him there! If there is no Plantiff, there can be no case! LMAO!

[Dunford00]

so whats the update??

im gonna try this,

?1 What is the requirement to for a person to represent another *“person” in a court of law? The judge will likely say;they must be an attorney holding a valid state BAR card.

?2 who the prosecutor is in this case? The judge will likely say that the police officer is the prosecutor

?3 Will this court please have this officer/prosecutor present his valid BAR card.

the judge starts to stammer and you say;I move for dismissal for lack of lawful prosecution

[darthspeaks]

Having a driver's license is a violation of the Constitution already. But that part of our freedom of anonymity is already lost.

[InnerBlueSkys]

Impressive my friend!

[JEHERETIC]

HAHAHAHA AM I GONNA BE ISSUED QUASI FINES? HAHAHA LOVE IT!!

[helobelow]

@JEHERETIC yeah that was great...LOL!

[Dougster]

@JEHERETIC

I want to pay quasi-taxes then!

[canadastreetmedia]

no victim ?

[LonestarDeTimberland]

He's not really taking "serious risks" after all this is a traffic 'court'. This is the best place for us to defend ourselves. We can show them for what they are, a cash generating corporation and clog up the system. They already impounded his car, even before getting to the testimony/evidence phase. So he's already lost, the best he can get is to recoup some of the damages. Giving in would only cost him more money, and clear the way for the next victims.

[WaldosComputer]

The "Quasi-fines" line killed me! This guy has guts!

[zonsb]

The State is the plaintiff. The judge is paid by the State. The judge has a conflict of interest and should recuse himself. One in a thousand that will ever happen. Learn how with two question you can get a judge to impeach the cop on the witness stand. Read Marc Stevens book: Adventures in Legal Land. Watch the videos on his channel: MarcStevens3

70% of the time a motion to dismiss causes the cop to not be present for the scheduled trial. Case dismissed.

[Chunkylover712]

Quasi crimes are unconstitutional

[duhbunk]

HAHAHAH magistrates are the best a "quasi-crime"

[HSOUIXZ]

Due to the ease which the offense can be proven only select offenses are of this type. Absolute liability offenses must be clearly labeled as such in the Criminal Code or criminal legislation.

Bottom line the defendant isn't a lawyer. His defense is absurd.

He was driving WITHOUT A SEAT BELT...and he WAS speeding...and he got caught. he should have paid his fine and moved on.

I think the court should have billed him for wasting their time.

[HSOUIXZ]

An absolute liability offense is a type of criminal offense that does not require any fault elements to be proved in order to establish guilt. The prosecution only needs to show that the accused performed the prohibited act. As such, absolute liability offenses do not allow for a defense of mistake of fact.

[tjohn1986]

@HSOUIXZ Lol. There is no quasi-criminal offense. All criminal offenses carry a PUNISHMENT. And in all cases valid cause of action and corpus delicti have to be proven. And he was driving without a seat belt (only endangering himself) and "speeding" (in control of his vehicle). You have no idea what you're talking about

Should have billed him for practicing his rights? Sheep like you will follow any rule because someone in "authority" said so, never questioning why its a rule in the first place

[HSOUIXZ]

@tjohn1986

Saying it often doesn't make it any more right than the first time it was said. Read Black's Law...the answer is there. It's what I posted...deal with it...and ending your post with name calling doesn't give you anymore legal edge than you had when you began your argument.

[tjohn1986]

@HSOUIXZ Lmao. Find me quasi criminal offenses in the United States Criminal Code

[HSOUIXZ]

Regulatory offenses or quasi-criminal offenses are a class of crime in which the standard for proving culpability has been lowered so a mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") element is not required. Such offenses are used to deter potential offenders from dangerous behavior rather than to impose punishment for moral wrong-doing.

[alecboi84]

@spiderzer0 exactly right my friend...the system would flip on its head if that happened...people need to turn of "Jersey SHore" & start waking the hell up...

great job Chrono,big balls

[akmrmike]

Way to stand up the judge, asking him to take the stand. Very nice!

[youarecretorcreating]

Then as such the statutes do not apply to anyone who is not an employee or public servant or servant of any kind and as such I hereby move that the charges be dismiss for lack of cause. Also, he could give judicial notice that the court nor the judge has jurisdiction since he is not a public servant or servant of any kind. also when the attorney says "believe me" he should respond, why? Then pursue a line of questioning as to the cop prosecutor and Judge being paid for being there, collusion,

[youarecretorcreating]

not to be rude an five thumbs up for holding his ground as much as he did, However, the lawyer in a robe, plainly told him that he was being charged with a statute.. that is the time to ask "do you have evidence that I am an employee of the state? What evidence do you have that I am a public servant? Do you have any evidence that i am a servant of any kind? Good then as such is there anyone here who has any evidence that I am a servant, public servant or employee of the state.

[WellnessWateronline]

SO, WHAT'S THE UPDATE???????????

[firefox8192]

the prosecutor and judge are gangsters and thugs.

[myhardpipe]

somebody tell chronos he is in a quasi-judicial administrative court.....to make the constitution relevant in such a thing, he must have the court take JUDICIAL NOTICE of the CONSTITUTION and the COMMON LAW...it's in the fucking rules of evidence man and rock the fuck on!!!

[sniper71267]

Good job I did this too this summer. If everyone does it they will stop this scam and get a new way to tax the people and hopefully it will be a more honest way. Though I agree with most traffic laws there are some that are totally unconstitutional and a scam to make money. The courts will no longer collect a dollar from me in fines and I will only accept jail time or a suspended license which will lead to jail time. People need to find their balls and stand the fuck up for what they believe in.

[TheCaptainSlappy]

"Quasi-Fines"! HAHAHA! They are NOT 'diabolical'. Peeps...if you know the LAW, the law don't break you. Also, they are absolutely LEGAL and LAWFUL...IF they do it right. They don't do it right, and haven't for well over 100 years. AND if you AGREE to them. Guess who keeps agreeing. Jurisdiction is your friend.......not your enemy. You got it too!

[swu880]

dude stop ur annoyin ridley introductions & whistling- its so annoying & its disturbing the important dialogue in the background

[harnessmusic]

what happened!? it's got me on the edge of my seat!

[InfoWarriorMaverick]

5:57.... LOL!

[Macedon51]

Chrono is asking all the right questions in exposing the tickets scam. But Chrono failed to ask the "judge" at the end whom does he (the "judge") work for. The "judge" works for the state of New Jersey -- the plaintiff -- which constitutes a clear conflict of interest.

MAKE SURE YOU WATCH MARK STEVENS' CLIP AS WELL.

[nnonix]

If he keeps asking bs questions they'll never get to any "legal conclusion".

[jaffijaffer]

what is that drum music at the end

[thegreatfish]

I completely understand the court's frustration. It took this guy more than 30 minutes to get to his rather simple point that every crime requires harm to a person or damage to property. The only problem is this is incorrect. If he would have just said this from the beginning, the court could have politely explained the error in his argument, and the defendant could have finally accepted his punishment.

[thegreatfish]

His understanding of the corpus delecti is incorrect. When the court says "loss or injury", they only mean that the crime has occurred. The reason they said loss or injury is because the crime they were discussing was arson, for which there must be loss of injury for the crime to occur. Generally, corpus delecti is used when a person confesses to a murder. Even though a person may confess to a murder, we cannot charge them with murder without evidence that a murder has actually occurred.

[xchronox187]

@thegreatfish

You have no idea what you're talking about. Look at the case Law, it says "required in ALL criminal cases" ...

It's my contention that "quasi" criminal cases, fall under the purview of ALL criminal cases. When they are speaking of the corpus delecti doctrine, they are speaking generally not specially.

[Rayven10]

@thegreatfish All criminal cases require evidence of a crime having been committed. That is the nature of the "corpus delecti" defense - no evidence of a crime, no jurisdiction, no case.

When the guy asked if the case was criminal or civil, the judge should have answered. Since he didn't answer a legal question, whatever outcome the court decides can be appealed easily. Defendants have the right to know the basic parts of their trials.

And it was a valid question.

[thegreatfish]

@Rayven10

That's actually the definition I gave. I go into more detail under the comments for part 2 of the video. Also, the defendant knows this is a criminal charge. The judge goes into great detail about this in an earlier video. Even if the judge did not answer, the decision cannot be appealed easily. Typically, an error will not be a cause for overturning a case unless the defendant can show it affected the outcome. In this case it would not.

[Macedon51]

Rayven10, please do not feed the troll ("thegreatfish").

[SouthernKudzu]

Good for this young man to make these people work for their money. It's funny to hear the frustration in their voices. Their upset cause it's not going to be an easy money day for them. I have recieved many traffic tickets and always just pay the fine. Sometimes I go to court to try and reduce the fine. I've never tried to fight because of the time invovled to do so, so I truly thank this young man for taking the time that so many of us are unwilling to do.

[Macedon51]

@SouthernKudzu

ALL traffic tickets are a scam! That's why they are dancing around the basic issues such as: who is the plaintiff, is there standing (no standing), was there valid cause of action (no), is the case criminal or civil, and whom does the "judge" represent (the state i.e., the plaintiff).

If the cop does not know what a valid cause of action is, he is incompetent to testify and is impeached, game over.

WATCH MARK STEVENS "BEATING CIVIL TRAFFIC TICKETS" CLIPS.

[thegreatfish]

@Macedon51

Who is the plaintiff? The city or state, acting on behalf of the citizens of that state.

Is there standing? Yes, the citizens of the state are the ones who are harmed by the violation.

Was there a cause of action? Clearly. The cause of action is stated in the statute.

Is the case criminal or civil? The case is criminal.

Does that satisfy you?

[Macedon51]

@thegreatfish

Cunt:

1. There are no "states" and that's why the other cunt wearing black robes is not able to offer proof of the existence of a plaintiff.

2. There was no injured party or fraud. Therefore, no violation of law.

3 There is no valid cause of action. If there were, the cunt in black robes would allow the cunt in uniform to answer what are the elements of cause of action (if he knows).

Stupid cunt.

[thegreatfish]

@Macedon51

1. There are actually 50 in the U.S.

2. Fraud and physical injury are not the only two things you can be charged for.

3. I'm not sure if you really understand what a cause of action is. I believe in this case he's contesting a ticket for driving without proof of insurance. The elements would be fairly simple. The elements are met if the defendant was (A) driving, and (B) not carrying proof of insurance.

It appears you have several misunderstandings about how the law operates.

[Rayven10]

@thegreatfish :

1) Agreed, but the states aren't really sovereign states anymore, which is how it was supposed to be set up.

2) No, but the prosecution must have standing to bring suit. To have standing, there must be an actual or imminent injury of some sort, a causal relationship to the injury, and redress. A traffic case doesn't meet injury requirements.

3) A cause of action without standing is invalid.

[thegreatfish]

@Rayven10 Your definition of standing only applies to civil law, not criminal law. I think this is a mistake that most people are making. The prosecution doesn't need standing to prosecute an individual in the same way one person needs standing to sue another. If they did, they could never prosecute anyone, unless the defendant specifically caused injury to the prosecutor.

[JEHERETIC]

@Rayven10 Or violation of a contractual agreement.

[dkallah]

@thegreatfish

However, what is the loss and/or injuy? All elements of qualifying this as a crime were not established and therefore substantiated as No existence of a crime.

[thegreatfish]

@dkallah Actually, crimes do not require loss or injury. As stated previously, loss or injury is required for standing in civil proceedings, not criminal proceedings. Loss or injury will only be required for a crime if the statute specifically states loss or injury is required. In this case we're dealing with failure to present proof of insurance. I guarantee you the statute makes no mention of a loss or harm requirement. Therefore, no loss or injury required to sustain the charge.

[dkallah]

@thegreatfish

What you're saying implies that what I said only applies to civil. But what I heard him say was that this was considered criminal. To either case, he still was establishing that there was no injured party. If it was criminal, you are saying the statue would have to make mention of it? Doesn't sound right.

Can you clarify a little.

[thegreatfish]

@dkallah Certainly. Civil law revolves around the idea of remedy. The law will require a person to compensate you for an injury they caused you. Obviously, before you can recover, an injury or loss must be sustained. However, criminal law revolves around the idea of punishment for moral wrongs. If a person engages in an act considered immoral by society, they can be punished. An injury is not required. Examples would include most drug crimes, or any incomplete offense, like attempted robbery.

[Luigi84289]

@thegreatfish We have forgotten what it is to be free. Think about it 150 years ago no one needed a license to ride a horse. Pointless crap is just another way for them to keep stealing our money.

[thegreatfish]

@Luigi84289 Yeah, but 150 years ago people could be owned as property, so I'm not sure the argument is compelling. Regardless, I'm not really here to defend the law, I was only clearing up some confusion about what the law actually is.

[jeremyseyes]

@thegreatfish attempted robbery is an iINJURIY!!!

[thegreatfish]

@jeremyseyes Is it? Imagine an unarmed man walks into a bank with the intention to rob it. He walks up to the teller and hands him a note that says "Give me all the money in the vault." The note makes no verbal threats. The Teller says, "No.", hands back the note, and the attempted robber leaves. No money is missing, there's no damage to the property, and no one was hurt or frightened. Where is the loss/injury?

[jeremyseyes]

@thegreatfish there is no loss or injury...because there's no CRIME in that example...

[thegreatfish]

@jeremyseyes Actually you'd probably be arrested for attempted robbery.

[jeremyseyes]

@dkallahit sounds like @thegreatfish is mixing up STATUTE and CIVIL and CRIMINAL proceedings (LAW) ...THE STATUTE may not talk about a loss or injury...BUT THE LAW REQUIRES it! STATUTES do not SUPERSEDE LAW......STATUTES, CODES, ETC ARE not LAW...

[jeremyseyes]

@thegreatfish But it sounds like to me that you are mixing up STATUTE and CIVIL and CRIMINAL proceedings (LAW) ...THE STATUTE may not talk about a loss or injury...BUT THE LAW REQUIRES it! STATUTES do not SUPERSEDE LAW......STATUTES, CODES, ETC ARE not LAW...

[thegreatfish]

@jeremyseyes Actually, statutes do supersede common law, but it's irrelevant. The real issue here is not the difference between statute and common law because loss/injury is required under both, but only in Civil Law. Under Criminal Law, neither requires it. Sorry.

[jeremyseyes]

@thegreatfish Statutes Do not Supesede common law Ok .. if it's not required in criminal law..Please show me where it says its not and please show me WHAT is "required" then. and for the sake of argument...ALL crimes are COMMERCIAL now...so if it's COMMERCIAL that means that it's civil then right... and for the record.

last line of UCC 1-103.6 states:

Anderson Uniform Commercial Code Lawyers’ Cooperative Publishing Co.

The Code cannot be read to preclude a COMMON LAW section.

[thegreatfish]

@jeremyseyes You've hit a couple topics here.

First, Standing is a rule that comes from the federal rules for civil procedure, and any state's rules for civil procedure. Rules for civil procedure are only meant to apply to civil cases. Since standing is a civil rule, it will only apply to civil cases, not criminal cases.

Second, the UCC is not law. It's a suggestion for what the law should be. It's up to the states to decide if they want to adopt it as law and which parts they want to adopt.

[TheCaptainSlappy]

@thegreatfish Incorrect. Statutes are called "statutes" because they are NOT "Law". However, they most definitely ARE "legal". Not to mention Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 says "All States REPUBLIC", not "all states democratic statute". Article 6, Paragraph 2 "supreme law of the land" can ONLY be done if my state is....a Republic. Not a democracy. Not a statute. By your explanation, the common law is not constitutional, and statutory law can OVERRIDE both. That's a clear VIOLATION of the law.

[thegreatfish]

@TheCaptainSlappy You're misinterpreting. The legislative branch has the power to create laws, these laws are often known as statutes. Where there is no statute for an issue, the issue is ruled by common law, which is essentially whatever the courts have decided the law should be. The constitution doesn't matter here because he's arguing against state law, not federal law. Even if it did matter, if you elect representatives, you live in a Republic.

[TheCaptainSlappy]

@thegreatfish Negatory. The legislative branch of the FEDERAL government is a Democracy, and has power to create statute at will AS LONG as it conforms to the Constitution, and the Republic States AND Common Law. Where the Common Law does not cover an issue, the Common Law STILL covers the issue (it covers all, including contracts). Common Law is practice and usage from time immemorial, NOT JUDGE MADE law (statute).

[thegreatfish]

@TheCaptainSlappy No where in the constitution does it say common law prevails when there's a conflict. Second, common law is not timeless. If you actually bothered to study common law, you'd see that it changes frequently over time. Your example of Contracts is perfect. Many of the defenses currently used against contract formation are recent developments in the history of common law. Guess who created these common laws? It was a judge.

[TheCaptainSlappy]

@thegreatfish Easy- The "state of" cannot EVER override the Constitution, as it applies to ALL courts ALL the time, and to ALL officers of them, INCLUDING states (by that I mean democratic statutory corporations). The republic states didn't have these problems, obviously. If I vote DEMOCRATICALLY in a DEMOCRATIC STATE, I am NOT in a Republic. If I DELEGATE (not "elect") by REPUBLIC VOTE in a REPUBLIC state...they do what I say, not vice versa.

[thegreatfish]

@TheCaptainSlappy Read the 10th amendment. All powers not vested in the federal government belong to the states. If there's no conflicting federal law, the state law is supreme and the government can't do anything about it. Here, he's arguing against a state traffic ticket. There's no reason why the constitution would be an issue here, unless he was going to try to claim the law was unconstitutional, but he doesn't.

[libertarianjury]

Wow. This guy knows his stuff! Check out Marc Stevens' videos. "Beating Civil Traffic Tickets" and also check out his book "Adventures in Legal Land" --you can learn everything this guy uses in that book. Awesome!

[Stink808]

I personally am glad that we have traffic laws and officers and courts available to enforce them. The highways are dangerous and the last thing we really need are people speeding through school zones etc. I also think more people should contest their tickets as well to help limit the amount of frivilous ones being issued.

[deathmarch5]

Problem is that common law comes from common sense. So ask your selves if someone is doing 40 in a school zone but school is in and children are inside learning how does that endanger children? or at 2am? It does not but at 2;40 to at least dinner time lets be sensible about where children are and when they will be about. Okay Criminals will do crimes regardless of police or tickets. with 80 thousand statutes on the books in America even the most acute lawyer or police will involuntary break em.

[harryogre]

did p00lboy change his name to fczwartek ?

Na, as wrong as fczwartek is, he doesn't seem like he's 12 pretending to be 15.

Nevermind.

This is not the post you're looking for.

Move along.

[DominationSupreme]

Judges and cops can't stand being told by a normal civilian exactly what the law is, and that they're not following it. The good thing is, in this piece of shit country, those cockbag judges and cops can get away with it! Hooray U.S.A.! Land of the Free*.

*Only kind of.

[ValueFreedom]

Awesome... Way to stand up and challenge them. Though, they don't like when ya try and fxck with their cash cow... Most people already know (as "they" are obviously aware) that it cost less just to pay the damn ticket than it cost to take a day off of work to go fight the thing. They know it, and that's why they just keep pumping them out, cus most people will not challenge them. But, on principle, thank goodness, some will. 5 Stars

[FreedomCanada2010]

civil disobedience is risky in your country. they have a bill proposed by Mccain that will allow them to do anything they want when it comes to getting arrested

the usa is fucked

[SSILENTNATION]

Still blathering on like the lunatic you are.

[spiderzer0]

It's risky at an individual level sure, but this one case over a minor speeding ticket took up around a half hour of the courts time and is scheduled for a continuance. Imagine how choked the court system would be if everyone actually demanded due process.

Hardly worth writing up speeding tickets and other minor infractions when the court can only hear 10 cases a day. Also, think of the officers who would have to come in and testify all the time.

Choke them with their own paper work.

[RidleyReport]

there is a milder option that has a similar effect. Once I just negotiated for community service over a ticket, and although my primary goal was to avoid funding questionable activity it did have the unplanned side effect of eating up two or three man hours on the part of court - related officials.

Mark edge says the courts are the weak link rather than the jails.

[xxDogsoldierxx]

@spiderzer0 Yes exactly.Think of how great that would be.Then we could actually fight back and be treated as individuals(not subjects) with unalienable rights the way it was meant to be.

[swu880]

@spiderzer0

Not a bad idea. the only problem is that courts are a diabolical unjust & unfair & as u can tell very impartial arena ruled by wolves & lawyers. The state sponsors both the judge & the prosecutor & the judge acts like a king! We are the ones who grant THOSE BASTARDS any power at all- they ought be serving us & bowing down for us. Yet we end up on the short end of the stick- always gettin fined & imprisoned for non-crimes or "quasi-crimes" as the lawyer has so stated

[alecboi84]

@spiderzer0 exactly right my friend...the system would flip on its head if that happened...people need to turn of "Jersey SHore" & start waking the hell up...

[tjohn1986]

@spiderzer0 You got it. Now that school is out, I go around speeding to get tickets hehehe. Nothing better than making the prosecutor and the judge look like idiots at their own game. I might video tape and post the next one.

[klaptongroovemaster]

"Quasi crimes" ... "Am I going to be given 'Quasi-Fines?' "

ROFL

[deathmarch5]

No plaintiff then why am I being asked to be a defendant. I move for the case to be dismissed.

[deathmarch5]

Dude just ask the Judge who or what dose the judge work for? the state so the logical conclusion to ask is can I get a fair trial?

[fczwartek]

I can drive like a tard (lib-tard that is) on the roads, potentially putting other people's lives at risk, cuz the constitution doesn't specifically say that I can't.

I might kill you or your wife or you kid, but hey! there's nothing you can do about that until I actually do kill them!

Forget the fact that about 120 people are killed in car wrecks every day...that's irrelevant!

Dead people are not going to tread on MY rights!!!

[truthadvocate]

@fczwartek,

Have you ever exceeded the speed limit? Yes. Were you trying to kill people when you did? No.

The man is defending his property from an extortion racket, & you defend the extortion racket.

If the government gave a damn about safety, they wouldn't have imposed CAFE standards that made cars more lethal. They wouldn't impose a coercive monopoly on transportation. The government has killed millions. This man has hurt nobody.

[fczwartek]

You can kill someone without "intent", it's called being reckless. Reckless drivers should be taken off the road. Period.

CAFE standards don't make cars more lethal. That's a ridiculous joke. Did you get that little nugget of disinformation from the Heritage foundation? Drug addict Limbaugh?

There are significantly fewer fatalities now than there were 15 years ago....and less smog.

So according to your logic drunk driving is ok....as long as no one gets hurt?

[deathmarch5]

Did you know where and why the worlds first Drivers license was issued??? In Austria the man use to terrorize slower moving horse and cariages so when the people complained to the town police they issued him a privelege to drive called a license. I agree jackasses need to have there rites removed if they are terrorizing people. But the fact is with licenses 120 people an hour still die. So why kick a dead horse. Why ticket people for doing the same things police do all day long? I see them as

[deathmarch5]

Road terrorists. Its like this I am traveling with the same flow of traffic in NJ like this guy going about 70 m/hr like everyone else on the trunpike and a STATE POLICE comes riding my bumper like 10 feet behind me so I move out and he passes me going about 100 MPH WTF??? who gave him that authority to tail gate me harrass me and then break the speed limit with out going to an emergency?!!

[MutantBamHammer]

I would have slammed on the brakes. Fuck that asshole up.

[unclesamsbastardson]

how do you know where he was going?

[truthadvocate]

CAFE standards do make cars more dangerous. To meet gas mileage quotas, manufacturers are forced to make lighter cars. And the lighter your car is, the more likely you are to get crushed in a collision. It's called physics.

I don't support reckless driving. I'm not arguing with you there. How do you know driving 40 miles an hour was reckless? Are you familiar with the stretch of road he was on? Are you familiar with the weather conditions? Do you know if anyone was in danger? No you don't.

[fczwartek]

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) the safety ratings of a car are determined more by its engineering design than its mass.

Some small cars are actually safer than SUVs.

And then there's also the fact that there are fewer car accident fatalities every year, even though there are more cars on the road, and more light weight cars on the road,

Your theory that CAFE standards makes cars more dangerous just doesn't add up.

[truthadvocate]

@fczwartek,

I don't dispute those claims. Design may affect safety more than mass does. That does not disprove that mass affects safety.

2003 NHTSA study found when a vehicle is reduced by 100 lbs. the estimated fatality rate increases as much as 5.63% for light cars, 4.70% for heavier cars and 3.06% for light trucks. A 1989 Harvard Brookings study found CAFE had resulted in a 500 lb ave weight reduction.

Less fatalities could be caused by a number of variables including advances in technology

[fczwartek]

Cars are demonstrably safer than they were 15, 20, 30, 40+ years ago, and the emission of smog forming particulates has decreased. Win/win.

Yes, if a hummer crashes into a toyota yaris.... well, it's going to be ugly for the yaris.

More reason to get absurd, overweight, irresponsible, irrational, unconscionable, disgusting, despicable, detestable vehicles like hummers off the roads.

A person's "right" to be an asshole is not absolute..... especially on the highway.

[truthadvocate]

It's "unconscionable, disgusting, despicable & detestable" to impose your will onto the lives of others through the initiation of force & coercion. You don't get to decide what car I drive. As long as there is a single road system that's free for all & includes trucks, it makes perfect sense to purchase a large, safe vehicle that would be more effective at protecting one's life & family. You global warming fear mongering statists too eagerly give government power to abuse the freedoms of others.

[fczwartek]

Yeah, we wouldn't want to make the environment cleaner, the air more breathable, reduce the rate of cancers, reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy (and thus our need for endless war), make people healthier and happier.... not if that infringes on your "right" to be the asshole who drives a hummer.

I just can't bear the thought of you having to endure that kind of slavery and repression.

Prisoners in a Siberian gulag would not comprehend the magnitude of your torment.

[truthadvocate]

My family wouldn't be healthier & happier if they got crushed in a "Go Green" car.

"reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy (and thus our need for endless war)" 1. Trade makes wars less likely. 2. Zealots like you prevent us from accessing our own natural resources so don't talk to me about dependency on other countries. 3. Where do you think governments get the money to pay for these wars? From statists like you that give them the power to tax the hell out of every industry.

[fczwartek]

There are small efficient cars that are significantly safer than SUVs. Keep your family safe and "Go Green" at the same time.

When did trade ever stop or prevent a war? I'm not against trade (well, I am actually against "free" trade) but lets be realistic here- people have been trading and warring with each other since the dawn of civilization.

The gvmnt bankrolls its war machine and endless "freedom operations" by selling debt to China (a form of trading), not taxation (yet.)

[truthadvocate]

I'm specifically talking about free trade. You oppose it, yet I doubt you know what it means. Free trade is mutually voluntary exchanges between individuals without a coercive third party. If we allowed people to exchange voluntarily, every exchange would benefit both parties. Otherwise they wouldn't voluntarily make the exchange. A government loan from China is not free trade. It's the government forcing us to pay for its services & forcing debt on us & future generations. That's not voluntary.

[fczwartek]

"Free" trade is when several million Mexicans have their livelihoods destroyed when they are forced to "compete" with big (heavily subsidized) American agra-industries.

That forces them to come here to look for income.

which undermines the american worker...which is exactly what the elite titans of industry wanted in the 1st place.

"Free" trade...a euphemism for the arbitrage of labor, exploitation of the the 3rd world, destruction of american middle class and industrial economic base.

[truthadvocate]

We are using different definitions.

I define free trade to mean exactly what it says. "Free" as in freedom, "trade" as in trade. That's how I use it.

Others use it differently. For example a contract between governments that describes itself as a Free Trade Agreement is guaranteed to prevent freedom of trade. Free trade can be used as a euphemism. Most government intervention labels are.

Subsidies for U.S. farmers is an excellent example of government intervention & how it spreads suffering.

[VerifiedNews]

@fczwartek As an international seller, I can tell you exactly what free trade is. It's free trade for imports to the United States. No trade barriers to US Imports.

But every country in the world has huge trade barriers against us. I know. It's up to 40% extra to claim an item shipped FROM the united states and it doesn't matter where. They all tariff us to death.

THAT'S why all the production has left the US.

[fczwartek]

Other countries are right to protect their industries from foreign competition.

[unclesamsbastardson]

I don't always agree with you but this time you've said exactly what I was thinking.

[michaelhelmsjr]

Ummm... Did you seriously just "go there" ?

The constitution was founded in Common Law which says all of the things that the Constitution didn't need to say.

[fczwartek]

Good point......

So, since the magna carta doesn't specifically say that I can't drive my car like a jackass.....

[Peridolin]

If everyone spent as much of the court's time on traffic tickets as this man does, the system would grind to a most excellent halt.

[BagOfEyebrows]

beautiful, beautiful - :O) Good gosh, this is GREAT!

[Knowaymr]

Thanks Dave

[senses2000]

What a laugh!!!! HAAAA!!

[honeybees1]

This guy speaks like a lawyer spars with the judge smugles in a listening device and his batteries die?Thanks Ridely.

[phospheneca]

am i gonna be issued quasi-fines? looooollllll!

[MadSmokerBBQ]

@phospheneca Quasi-fines! hahahahahah

I'll take TWO please! Quasi this yer honor.

[senses2000]

Bravo to Chrono.  Somebody that is prepared and is doing something for the rights of the people.