Archive for the ‘Legal Commentary’ Category

An arti­cle by Wal­ter Kenas­ton who delves into the ques­tion I have, is the dri­ver license fed­eral in nature? The orig­i­nal piece is  here. Is the Dri­ver License now strictly Fed­eral? by Wal­ter Kenas­ton  “The Florida State Rail­road and Pub­lic Util­i­ties Com­mis­sion does not have power to fix intrastate rates to be charged by com­mon carriers […]

Share

This is a piece I found dur­ing my research that is fairly detailed and pri­mar­ily deals with Florida traf­fic law. How­ever, since I believe the appli­ca­tion of all traf­fic law is fed­eral in nature, I felt it rel­e­vant to include this page as part of my research. The orig­i­nal site is here, but due to host­ing pack­ages expir­ing or research wan­ing, I wanted to cap­ture and repost.

Share

except that until July 1, 1970, sec­tions 502, 506, 507, and
508 of title 23, United States Code, as added by this Act, shall be applic­a­ble to a State only to
the extent that such State is, able under its laws to com­ply with such sec­tions. Except as oth­er­wise
pro­vided in sub­sec­tion (b) of this sec­tion, after July 1, 1970, such sec­tions shall be com­pletely
applic­a­ble to all States. Sec­tion 133 of title 23, United States Code,
shall not apply to any State if sec­tions 502, 505, 506, 507, and 508 of title 23, United States
Code, are applic­a­ble in that State, and effec­tive July 1, 1970, such sec­tion 133 is repealed.
”(b) In the case of any State (1) which is required to amend its con­sti­tu­tion to com­ply with
sec­tions 502, 505, 506, 507, and 508 of title 23, United States Code, and (2) which can­not sub­mit
the required con­sti­tu­tional amend­ment for rat­i­fi­ca­tion prior to July 1, 1970, the date of July 1,
1970, con­tained in sub­sec­tion (a) of this sec­tion shall be extended to July 1, 1972.”

Share

Police work is often lion­ized by jurists and schol­ars who claim to employ “tex­tu­al­ist” and “orig­i­nal­ist” meth­ods of con­sti­tu­tional inter­pre­ta­tion. Yet pro­fes­sional police were unknown to the United States in 1789, and first appeared in Amer­ica almost a half-century after the Constitution’s rat­i­fi­ca­tion. The Framers con­tem­plated law enforce­ment as the duty of mostly pri­vate cit­i­zens, along with a few con­sta­bles and sher­iffs who could be called upon when nec­es­sary. This arti­cle mar­shals exten­sive his­tor­i­cal and legal evi­dence to show that mod­ern polic­ing is in many ways incon­sis­tent with the orig­i­nal intent of America’s found­ing doc­u­ments. The author argues that the growth of mod­ern polic­ing has sub­stan­tially empow­ered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhor­rent to their fore­most principles.

Share

The term “nat­ural per­son” or “nat­ural per­sons,” used in the Bank­ing Act (ch. 16 1/2 , ¶101 et seq.), extends to and applies to “bod­ies politic” and “cor­po­rate.” Fidelity Inv. Assn. v. Emmer­son, 1924, 235 Ill.App. 518, reversed on other grounds 318 Ill. 548, 149 N.E. 530.

Share

(e) The fore­go­ing pro­vi­sions do not relieve the dri­ver of an autho­rized emer­gency vehi­cle from the duty of dri­ving with due regard for the safety of all per­sons, nor do such pro­vi­sions pro­tect the dri­ver from the con­se­quences of his reck­less dis­re­gard for the safety of others.

Share

On June 25, 2011, I received an Order from Judge Babka which was entered on June 20, 2011, in response to my Mem­o­ran­dum and essen­tially dis­miss­ing the case. Foot­note 7 In his Order, Babka does not address any of the issues pre­sented aside from the hold­ing in Lindquist as being a case from 1937, which he said was still good law, and attempt­ing to dis­tin­guish that hold­ing with one from Peo­ple Ex Rel. Daley v. Moran, 94Ill. 2d 41, 445N.E. 2d, 67, Ill. Dec 790. Foot­note 8 I con­tend that the Daley case is not on point for pur­poses of my argu­ment. I do aver, in my Mem­o­ran­dum, that the State’s Attor­ney has sole dis­cre­tion in whether to pros­e­cute, but pros­e­cu­tion and arrest are two dif­fer­ent matters.

Share

I won­der what Jus­tice, Steven David, would do when faces with the specter of an unlaw­ful arrest; espe­cially on in which his very life is threat­ened by police.

Share
Defective Verified Complaint

This arti­cle will deal with Con­sti­tu­tional issues as well as statu­tory require­ments and appel­late court opin­ions on the sub­ject. I think you will find that if you have been charged with a traf­fic or mis­de­meanor offense, maybe even a felony, you have not been law­fully charged with an offense and have vol­un­tar­ily appeared to answer for non-existent charges.

Share

To be clear, The Yard Sale Per­mit has noth­ing to do with the “Busi­ness License Ordi­nance” as the gen­tle­man stated in his inquiry to the City, and the City was cor­rect in their response to the same ques­tion. The yard sale ordi­nance actu­ally comes under Busi­ness License and Reg­u­la­tion. What is com­monly referred to as the Busi­ness License Ordi­nance is the Busi­ness Reg­is­tra­tion Ordi­nance. The Busi­ness License Ordi­nance is what I refused to sub­mit to as work­ing out of my home. That story is here.

Share

There is much ado, par­tic­u­larly where I live in St. Clair County, about bud­get short­falls and the result­ing lay-offs of police. The media is com­ment­ing on pos­si­ble “safety” issues and res­i­dents express con­cern over lack of pro­tec­tion. In real­ity, there is no pro­tec­tion by police. That is not their job. If it were, then there would be some rem­edy at law for their fail­ing to pro­tect any­one. Peo­ple have made such a claim in the past and the courts have opined on the fal­la­cious belief that police are for anyone’s protection.

Share

He said, first of all, the mar­riage license is Sec­u­lar Con­tract between the par­ties and the State. The State is the prin­ci­pal party in that Sec­u­lar Con­tract. The hus­band and wife are sec­ondary or infe­rior par­ties. The Sec­u­lar Con­tract is a three– way con­tract between the State, as Prin­ci­pal, and the hus­band and wife as the other two legs of the Contract.

Share

Pos­sess­ing the Per­mit gives them addi­tional author­ity to vio­late many aspects of the 4th Amend­ment because you have essen­tially given them per­mis­sion when you applied for and received the per­mit. The best advice is, if you cher­ish your pri­vacy and 4th Amend­ment pro­tec­tion, is to not apply for the per­mit and stand your ground in court.

Share

As a mat­ter of course, crim­i­nal charges of any type either felony or mis­de­meanor are ini­ti­ated by the State’s Attor­ney or grand jury in our case man­age­ment sys­tem. Since the doc­u­ments you filed with my office were not filed by either entity, and because some record was required, those fil­ings were assigned case num­ber 10-MR-212.

Share

What do you do when you when you wish to have some­one charged with an offense but are reluc­tant to call the police, or have called the police and they refuse to act? Often times, the police will begin an inquiry or inves­ti­ga­tion into the per­son bring­ing the com­plaint as well. The more charges they can bring the bet­ter. So, in order to pro­tect your pri­vacy from the police you instead choose to bring charges on your own.

Share

Per­son means any nat­ural per­son; firm; joint ven­ture, includ­ing all par­tic­i­pants; part­ner­ship, includ­ing all part­ners; asso­ci­a­tion, social club, or fra­ter­nal orga­ni­za­tion, includ­ing all offi­cers and direc­tors; cor­po­ra­tion, includ­ing all offi­cers, direc­tors and sig­nif­i­cant stock­hold­ers; estate; trust; busi­ness trust; receiver; or any other group or com­bi­na­tion act­ing as a unit.”

Share

  The Sheppard-Towner Mater­nity Act was “for the pro­mo­tion, the wel­fare and hygiene of mater­nity and infancy and for other pur­poses,” It was passed with a vote of 63 to 7, and by the house with a vote of 279 to 39, and was finally signed by the pres­i­dent and became law on Nov. 23, […]

Share

Your Right of Defense Against Unlaw­ful Arrest These are not my words. These are the words uttered by the courts within the United States and other States. I am not advo­cat­ing vio­lence or pro­mot­ing the unjust tak­ing of life. As a mat­ter of fact, I am morally opposed to any tak­ing of life. How­ever, in the […]

Share