Anyone here from Bedford, VA?.. need legal help!

[farmerpsv]

Orb,
just sued a person on a real estate matter, they used an attorney that i was very impressed with... a very nice and competent lawyer. name was Henry C. Devening out of lynchburg 434-847-1292. mention that Paul Valentine recommended him, he'll probably get a good laugh.
good luck
paul

 

[Libertine]

tracdoc:

<font color="blue">You should be running one of those speeding ticket defense websites! </font>

Thanks, but no thanks - I have far bigger fish to fry. I realize that some may not like it, but there IS a thing called the law that these shakedown artists have to at least pretend to go by it. You have to learn the rules and procedures they are supposed to go by and use them, while, at the same time being polite, courteous, etc. such that you don't piss them off too much. Otherwise these thugs will do anything to you.

They're capable of anything. I recall about 30 years ago I was living in a town and they set up roadblocks outside the town and stopped everyone to see if they lived there. Seems you had to pay them money (buy a sticker) to drive your car in town if you were a resident. Anyway, when I politely asked the officer why he wanted to know (my address on the drivers license was a PO box) he explained it was to find out if he was going to arrest me for not having a sticker. I politely declined taking the fifth (after all, the founding fathers gave us ALL the right not to incriminate ourselves - doesn't anybody care about the constitution anymore??). That pissed him off and he wrote the ticket anyway without any knowledge I was guilty of anything.

Fast forward to court date (and after I studied the actual ordinance) the City attorney had gotten all sorts of evidence together as to where I lived, the officer testified against me and so forth. On cross, the officer testified that he had arrested me when he stopped me. Well, turns out their own ordinance required them to give a three day notice of not having an auto sticker BEFORE they arrested you. When I pointed this out, the city attorney asked for an immediate adjournment, they lit the smoking lamp (this was before the anti-smoking nazis had gained so much power) and the clerk brings in their rule book so the city attorney and judge can READ THEIR OWN RULES! The judge stammers around for a bit, thinks on it awhile and then rules that I had not been arrested (flat in the face of the officer's testimony), finds me guilty. When I told them I planned to appeal they set a $500 bond (the fine was only $50!!!).

A couple days later a couple cops come in my apartment WITH GUNS DRAWN (there was not a hint of resistence) and haul me down to jail for not buying a sticker from them giving me permission to live in my own place! A few days after that, my place was broken into and stuff taken (surprisingly not a readily visible gun though). I went to the mayor (who owned a bank among other things) and asked him if he would call the cops off. He said ok but it would be best if I moved out of town. So a few months later I sublet my place and left town. Never did buy those stickers. By the way, I knew someone who lived in that town who, like a good little citizen, had notified the police three years in a row when he went on vacation. Three times his place was broken into when he got back. The fourth year he DIDN'T notify them, and, guess what, his place was not broken into. All just coincidence or course.

Now the point is not that every cop is a thug, obviously not, although many are. Many more shift back and forth, sometimes actually helping people, catching REAL criminals, protecting life and property, etc., and at other times stealing, if not directly, then indirectly through make believe laws (like speed laws). There are REAL natural law speed limits which, if you violate them, you risk punishment by REALITY, by nature not by some thug with a gun who simply wants to steal your money. Then there are make believe, man made laws. You have NO moral obligation to obey a make believe law. If a cop was chasing a real, natural law criminal (say someone who just robbed someone) I would risk my life to help the cop. But if the cop was trying to rip someone off by means of a make believe law I wouldn't lift a finger to help the cop.

Those who think exersizing your rights, expecting the courts and police to OBEY THEIR OWN RULES amounts to "shenanigans" have no respect for the constitution, no respect for the very concept of law itself and no respect for the freedom that those things provide. This country is great not because everyone acts like sheep and does whatever they're told, but just the opposite. You have a right to think and act for yourself and do whatever you want so long as you do not harm anyone else. That's what freedom is, gentlemen. And whether you're fighting, using their own rules, a corrupt system of make believe laws designed as a means of extortion and shake down, or, whether you're fighting using guns an Adolph ****** (or a Sodomy Hussein) you are helping to keep this county free. It's too bad that there are so many who have no respect for freedom and the constitution.

JEH

 

[Bird]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Then there are make believe, man made laws. You have NO moral obligation to obey a make believe law. )</font>

If your reading and/or studying led you to understand the difference between natural laws and man made laws, then I assume you also know that without some man made laws, we'd have chaos or anarchy, unless you're a hermit, of course, with no contact with other humans. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif So I think there is some moral obligation to obey man made laws.

You've obviously had some bad experiences that have turned you against police officers in general and I won't try to change that. Yes, there have been bad cops and bad judges and bad legislative officials, but have there never been any bad individuals in your profession? Not all are bad, but I understand your point of view. In fact, one of my grandfathers practically disowned me when I became a cop because he knew how crooked some were in Oklahoma many years ago and he, as you, concluded they were all crooks, so if I was joining them, I must be, too. Of course, I told him I didn't think they were all crooked, but I was going to find out. Well, I found a great bunch of guys with occasional really bad ones, and as with the majority of officers, I helped send some of the bad ones packing and some even to prison.

Now you can blame the "thugs" for enforcing the law, but you're obviously intelligent enough to know that the police didn't make those laws. During my career, I met police officers from literally around the world. When I attended the Northwestern Traffic Institute, I had classmates from 5 foreign countries as well as 26 of our state police agencies and 31 other municipal police departments. When I attended the FBI National Academy, we had several foreign officers there, also. And when I was Commander of the Communications Division in Dallas, I had visitors from almost every country in the world, outside the iron curtain, because we were one of the first to have a Computer Aided Dispatch system that many came to study and try to copy. And most people probably don't realize it, but most police officers do not like writing traffic citations.

There will always be laws we don't agree with, but the police are expected to honor the oath they took and enforce those laws anyway. The obvious problem is that the laws I disagree with and the ones you disagree with may not be the same ones. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Those who think exersizing your rights, expecting the courts and police to OBEY THEIR OWN RULES amounts to "shenanigans" have no respect for the constitution, no respect for the very concept of law itself and no respect for the freedom that those things provide. )</font>

Oh, I definitely believe in exercising your rights and expecting the courts and police to obey the rules, but some of your suggestions demonstrate an obvious lack of knowledge of law. I certainly have no objection to Orb trying them, but at least some of them will cost him in the long run. If he thinks it's worth it, go for it. But, yes, some of them are definitely "shenanigans" as defined in the dictionary which I won't quote here since you can look it up for yourself. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[TWINKLE_TOES]

Taking responsibility for ones actions is far from lack of respect for the constitution or the concept of law. It is a strong component of both.

 

[Libertine]

Bird:

<font color="blue">You've obviously had some bad experiences that have turned you against police officers in general and I won't try to change that. </font>

If I gave the impression that I am <font color="blue">against police officers in general</font> I am sorry - that is NOT the case. In fact, I probably have more sympathy for their situation than you might realize. There are all kinds of crazies out there they have to deal with; cops get drawn into all kinds of difficult situations (just consider domestic dispute calls for example!). They risk their lives in some situations. When a police officer is defending life and property they are acting to UPHOLD a civilized world. But when they are acting to take away people's lives (or, in the case of a traffic ticket, a tiny portion of a life) when those people have not themselves harmed anyone, then the cop becomes a thug. So my attitude is dependent on the facts of a particular situation. Further, most police that I have had any personal contact with are decent enough people, in a difficult job. The problem is they are pushed and pulled by forces around them.

Look, Bird, this thread was started by a guy who was charged with "reckless driving" because he was going 85 in a 55 mph zone. Was he harning anyone? Well, I wasn't there, but from his post apparently not. I can easily envision a situation where driving 55 in a 55 zone would, depending on weather conditions, traffic, road, etc. in fact be "reckless driving". I can also envision where driving 85 would be perfectly prudent and safe (depending on the vehicle, conditions, etc.). If Orb was driving so as not to harm or endanger anyone else then he SHOULD NOT have had part of his life taken away from him. I simply pointed out a few ways he (or others) can use the rules (the legal system's rules) to protect themselves/counter attack. Of course, I am not engaged in the business of giving legal advice. But I do know something whereof I speak.

Establishing if a particular law is valid (legitimate) is not a matter of opinion, but fairly easy to factually determine. Has the violator of the "law" harmed someone else? If they have, I say to the cop go get them - I'll help you if I can. If they have not, I say to the cop, stop, you're the "criminal" (or thug if you prefer). You know as well as I that the vast majority of traffic tickets are written as a revenue raising measure, not because the driver did anything wrong. No policeman HAS to write a ticket, and, SHOULD NOT so long as the motorist is simply driving along, minding his own business and not harming anyone else.

As far as responsibility goes, who is the more responsible; the person who thinks and judges for himself what is right and wrong and lives by what is right, or, the person who let's other people decide such serious matters? My values are individual freedom and individual property rights - very simple, whenever someone supports my values they are acting as my friend (and the friend of all civilized people), whenever someone tramples on my values they are acting as my enemy (and the enemy of civilization itself). Police included.

<font color="blue">some of your suggestions demonstrate an obvious lack of knowledge of law. </font>

Oh, really?

<font color="blue">some of them will cost him in the long run. </font>

Obviously. Fighting for your rights against an organized conspiracy operating a shake down racket under color of law is always risky. They won't like it. When you turn over a rock, the things crawling around under it don't like being exposed to the light of day. Actually, if you read the last line of my original post, my suggestion was to pay the $2. Orb is up against people who play with guns and his only hope is to use their own rules against them. The first thing he has to do is read the statute he is accused of violating. Of course, that will only make them mad because it will show them up for what they're doing. People seldom like hearing truth. Unless Orb wants to join in the fight, his best course is to go down there, act contrite, pay the $2 and do whatever they want. Roll over and play dead. That's his best course. At least it's his safest course.

JEH

 

[wroughtn_harv]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( You know as well as I that the vast majority of traffic tickets are written as a revenue raising measure)</font>

I doubt that.

Speed limits are not the doing of cops just to raise money. They're there because experience and common interests have decided that for the common good speed needs to be regulated.

But I do believe that using speeding tickets as a revenue source is a good thing. If we need to raise money why put the burden on law abiding members when we can put it on those who insist upon violating laws designed for the common good?

BTW the older I get the better those speed limits look and the more sense they make. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

(I don't usually read Libertine's posts. But I knew this would be in there on this subject and couldn't resist, pet topic of mine.)

 

[Libertine]

Bird:

<font color="blue">difference between natural laws and man made laws, then I assume you also know that without some man made laws, we'd have chaos or anarchy, </font>

This is hardly the place to go into a discussion of the philosophy of law, but, the only legitimate purpose of man made laws is to codify natural law formally so that those unable to figure it out for themselves (ie. the ignorant, uneducated, uncivilized) can understand it more easily. Further, to codify the common law (as opposed to legislated law) for the same reasons.

JEH

 

[Golfgar4]

This thread is beginning to turn in a direction that I think most would prefer it didn't go, so I'm closing it.

 

[MikePA]

<font color="blue"> I can easily envision a situation where driving 55 in a 55 zone would, depending on weather conditions, traffic, road, etc. in fact be "reckless driving". I can also envision where driving 85 would be perfectly prudent and safe (depending on the vehicle, conditions, etc.). </font>
IOW, there should be no maximum speed limits, only situational speed limits based upon the vehicle, road conditions, skill of the driver, etc. that could only be determined by the driver a priori or the accident investigation team post mortem.

<font color="blue">...whenever someone supports my values they are acting as my friend (and the friend of all civilized people), whenever someone tramples on my values they are acting as my enemy (and the enemy of civilization itself). </font>
Ergo, your values define the values of all civilized people and civilization itself? Sounds like you don't want everybody to be <font color="blue">"the person who thinks and judges for himself what is right and wrong and lives by what is right" </font> because if they disagree with your values then they are not only your enemy but the enemy of all civilization.