Judge: Constitution "not relevant" - 3/3

Sponsor: http://Alekese.com - If you remember the "Judge wigs out" story where a New Hampshire-bound activist takes on a New Jersey court... Here's part 3 of his second contentious traffic hearing.
Link to part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwJN3zFHF5c

Mainstream media article on Chrono's other exploits:
http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20100222/NEWS/100222067/-1/newsfront/S...

How you can buy an advert on the Ridley Report:
http://RidleyReport.com/Ad

new jersey liberty ron paul ridleyreport judge uniform commercial code moors prosecutor new hampshire police cops staters civil disobedience free state project court nh traffic ticket dave ridley report robert menard freemen liberty freeman sovereign sovereignty live free or die corporate fiction living soul ed brown elaine government nj confrontation defiance libertarian all caps conspiracy show me the law marc stevens stephens ian freeman have a seat case

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• new
• jersey
• ron
• paul
• moors
• judge
• police
• court
• free
• state
• project
• robern
• menard
• ed
• brown
• elaine
• hampshire
• corporate
• fiction

[JEHERETIC]

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

[WaldosComputer]

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

[TheProverbialHater]

@1775novten

When you fight a ticket some states allow a "trial". Others say you can fight the ticket or in other words have an "Arbitration". With you vs a judge and the cop if he is called in.

[TheProverbialHater]

@1775novten

Typo Unilateral and an adhesive contract.

[TheProverbialHater]

@1775novten

The driving contract is a unilateral one and implied. Like it's the unwriten rule that no one can talk about. DOT/DMV are agencies which are in charge of "driving". So when an AGENCY has a problem they handle it Administratively/Arbitration. So why is the "STATE" handling it? This is the facade. So you have to ask them questions that put them in a bind and force them to go against their own rules and values. Not so much what's in the LAW.

[TheProverbialHater]

@1775novten

I'm still studying this. I can't lie with that domestic violence instances.

[TheProverbialHater]

@1775novten

See if you have an Order of Protection it's more like violence is seen by the police and can be proven. Then it's pretty hard to convince people that a Order of Protection isn't needed. A restraining order is different though. This can be giving during a divorce and if one person complains fake or not DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION is not granted. Mostly the female gets above and beyond treatment.

[TheProverbialHater]

@1775novten

Now this has to do with THE CONSTITUTION. These Restraining orders, not so much of Order of Protection, but Restraining orders are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Order of Protection isn't unconstitutional in my opinion, but a RESTRAINING ORDER is. It violates due process and equal protection. Courts will violate all constitutional rights on this matter. Once it has to do with Preemptively protecting a "citizen" they will throw most procedure out the window.

[1775novten]

@TheProverbialHater Now what about States where the State will prosecute your for domestic violence even if the victim does not choose to press charges? In that case there would be no victim or harmed party present, but somehow they are still able to get convictions.

[TheProverbialHater]

@1775novten

That's the kicker when they send you into court they'll show you on the paper. In which case if it's criminal you have to ask them to present the accuser. You do have the right to face your accuser. If the accuser is "THE STATE" has the state been physically harmed? The Prosecutor wasn't injured so he has hearsay evidence and was not injured. If it's civil ask them to produce the contract where they suffered a "LOSS". That's why I said you answered your own ques.

[1775novten]

@TheProverbialHater But the driving contract is like any other contract you could ever enter. I could sign a contract with you right now and you would never have the power that the City has on exercising its contract. You couldn't seize my property or throw me a in a cage for violating our contract. You would have to prove damages, the city does not. It appears they are abusing their power on this "contract".

[TheProverbialHater]

@1775novten

The reason I said it's a contract and the judge is right is because you signed a piece of paper from the state that said that you will adhere to the rules of driving, a privilege. So what ends up happening when people start rambling about the constitution they don't understand that Treaties and CONTRACTS SUPERSEDE the constitution and the judge is honoring an agreement. Not upholding your constitutional rights. He's not obligated to do it.