Pulled over

[Ixion]

Labeling (attack the messenger not the message!), is a common tactic by those who are unable to argue with reason!!

At cop school do they have a specfic class on 'dumbing down to provide blind obedience', or is it general condition of acceptance into cop school?



Apart from the theat of violence, just what makes you THINK that you have greater rights over this turf than any other patched gang, or individual for that matter? Do you equate violence with meaning rights?

WTF. What ARE you on about. You said "It is all a matter of jurisdiction". Everyone who lives in NZ (and visitors for that matter) is subject to HM's jurisdiction - exercised through the police , who hold her warrant to do so. Which is what I said. Where on earth do you get threats of violence, or patched gang memebrs out of this? Try some dried frog pills, mate, they work a treat for the Bursar when he has similar problems.

[roogazza]

Well thats where you could be wrong. According to the interpretations, detention means arrest. What you are never told is you are being detained. Just make your first question, before they say anything "why am I being detained" You will be told your not being detained, in which case you say, in that case Im off have a good day, at which time you will very possibly be told if you go you will be done for resisting arrest. How can you be done for resisting arrest if you have not been told your are under arrest? Ignorrance of the law is no excuse. If you do not know being detained is arrest thats your tough nuts.

By all means if you are keen on becoming a lawyer or a Policeman do so, but from reading "your" interpretations you have some study to do !
Spudchucker has answered all your questions, even I understood !
Speeding is an offence not a crime and detained is detained !
If you have been arrested you will be told ! then if you resist you will be done for that too, easy peesy...... G.

[civil]

Everyone who lives in NZ (and visitors for that matter) is subject to HM's jurisdiction - exercised through the police , who hold her warrant to do so.

Really!! Do you have any evidence to support this presumption about jurisdiction you have been told, and obviously now believe? Or would you just prefer to get Spudchucka to inflict violence on those who do not accept the presumption you hold on to!!

I'd rather not take a pill, as I prefer to keep a clear head to actually think for myself about what is going on, not just accept what I am told.

[Lou Girardin]

Really!! Do you have any evidence to support this presumption about jurisdiction you have been told, and obviously now believe? Or would you just prefer to get Spudchucka to inflict violence on those who do not accept the presumption you hold on to!!

I'd rather not take a pill, as I prefer to keep a clear head to actually think for myself about what is going on, not just accept what I am told.

You're quite right. It is all an imperialist plot to subvert the true constitution of Aotearoa - Tinorangitiratanga.
Right on Brother!

[Psalm42]

Thanks for answering some of my questions spudchucka, I do appreciate it, and I thank you for your patients with me to this point.

A defended speeding ticket is heard in the district court, usually before two JP's. We all know that. The point you are trying desperately to make is that because a speeding ticket is heard before the district court, under the criminal jurisdiction, that alone must make speeding a crime.

I'm only using it as an example for a couple of things actually. One of Presumption, and the other what the result is of asking a simple question.

I do take note you still have not given a simple answer to the " What is the nature of the jurisdiction a cop is under when he/she makes a traffic stop for a speeding ticket 20ks over the limit. Civil or Criminal?

Your answer being.

The cop is exercising a power bestowed upon him under section 114 of the Land Transport Act 1998. The driver of a motor vehicle must comply with the requirements of that section.

Incase anyone has missed it, this is not a jurisdiction, it is a piece of legislation. And I'm not arguing whether or not it exists, I'm asking under what jurisdictional authority is it enforced.

It would appear from my point of view that it is you who is desperately trying to avoid answering that question.

My next point was:
If a peace officer or law enforcement officer is applying legislation, surely he/she would know those things that make up what is needed to understand that legislation.
The most important would have to be what jurisdiction.

Your answer was "No"!

What is the most important thing that a cop must understand if its not what jurisdictional authority he/she's authority is based from, I am genuinely interested to know.


To the point as you ask. Presumption...

Crimes act.
5 Application of Act
(1) This Act applies to all offences for which the offender may be proceeded against and tried in New Zealand.
(2) This Act applies to all acts done or omitted in New Zealand.

Offence means any act or omission for which any one can be punished under this Act or under any other enactment, whether on conviction on indictment or on summary conviction:

So let me get this straight. If I argue a speeding ticket in district court, and loose (which you no doubt are certain of), I would not be convicted and I would not be expected to pay as punishment?

traffic offence includes—
(a) any offence against the Land Transport Act 1998, the Transport Act 1962, the Transport Act 1949, the Motor Vehicles Act 1924, the Motor Regulation Act 1908, or against any regulation, rule, or bylaw made under any of those Acts; and


Regardless of what I believe, this appears to lead to the presumption that speeding is under criminal jurisdiction. I'm not saying its true I'm just pointing out what the facts point to.

Or another argument in relation to my question Why do you not have your rights read to you, Would be this:

This is usually found in a "Dictionary". Oxford seems to be the most widely used version, I'd recommend obtaining a copy.

A dictionary is suffice to get a definition if its not in the act. Excellent. Here in the bill of rights you will see two words not so defined.
Detain and offence, so heres my dictionary says:

Detain: to restrain or delay; to hold in custody (I think most will agree being stopped on the road side by a cop is a Delay)

Offence: a violation as of custom or law. (I think most will agree breaching section 114 of LTA1998 is a violation of law).

Bill of Rights.
23 Rights of persons arrested or detained

(4) Everyone who is—
(a) Arrested; or
(b) Detained under any enactment—
for any offence or suspected offence shall have the right to refrain from making any statement and to be informed of that right.

Now I know someone is going to come back with some reason, that holding someone on the side of the road under 114 is not delaying them and not an offence as per the BORA.
I set this out as per Spudchuckers instructions, if its not defined in the act the ordinary dictionary meaning apply.


But if you want to say the definition of "offence" from the BORA comes from another act, it goes with the logical conclusion that since that section of BORA is reference to Arrest, that the crimes act definition would apply. And that is: offence means any act or omission for which any one can be punished under this Act or under any other enactment,

What did you think before you gained this allmighty knowledge? That it would be heard in the public bar of the local boozer?

No, that it would be held under the common law equity jurisdiction of the court. Where your "Innocent until proven guilty" would reign, not what it has turned out to be, guilty till you prove your self innocent.

Jeepers, all this time and I never knew what legislation applies when I pull over a motorist. I must have missed that class at the cop college, perhaps the doughnuts were extra crispy in the canteen that day and I stayed behind for thirds.

Hey, good on ya for being a clever dick and scoring a few points. I really don't see where you are trying to go with this though. Its like stating the obvious and expecting people to go WOW like you've discovered the cure for cancer.

And in closing, since it appears you have a good sense of humor Spudchuka, I will follow your lead with the whole sarcasm motif.

WHAT, You guys had a whole day of learning how to understand the complexed application of legislation at your 3 month stint at donut eating school? I'm truly shocked, I thought it would have only been an hour long course, interpretation of legislation being so simple and all.

Regards.

[Psalm42]

You're quite right. It is all an imperialist plot to subvert the true constitution of Aotearoa - Tinorangitiratanga.
Right on Brother!

Wow, and I thought I was stiring by asking jurisdictional questions, didnt even think of going to the constitution....... Have you been to Australia to read the NZ constitution???????http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/im...ilies/rofl.gif

[spudchucka]

Labeling (attack the messenger not the message!), is a common tactic by those who are unable to argue with reason!!

Jeepers, that was trump card you played there,. I bet nobody has ever seen that before on a forum.

The label fits you so get used to it.

[spudchucka]

Psalm42.

I got through about half of what you wrote but I can't be stuffed reading anymore of your post. Your arguements just go around and around the same issue and quite frankly it is just a waste of my time to read it all.

Section 114 prescribes a "power" upon police to stop vehicles. The act "requires" the driver to remained stopped. They are not "detained" until either "arrested" or "required to accompany" for breath screening tests. At which point they will be cautioned and read their rights.

[Neo 1]

I got through about half of what you wrote but I can't be stuffed reading anymore of your post. Your arguements just go around and around the same issue and quite frankly it is just a waste of my time to read it all.


Section 114 prescribes a "power" upon police to stop vehicles. The act "requires" the driver to remained stopped. They are not "detained" until either "arrested" or "required to accompany" for breath screening tests. At which point they will be cautioned and read their rights.
__________________
Whats your QID?

Is this a civil or criminal matter?
civil as betwen citizens or criminal as between the citizen and the "state".
If civil is it under the jurisdiction known as Common law [ which requires an injured party "living" not a legal fiction eg "the State" or a CONTRACT,
;or Equity which does not need a contract as such or even a living party eg a Trust either implied; or constructive,; or

Is it Admiralty, for which there would have to be a valid international maritime contract or commercial agreement.

There are ONLY 3 jurisdictions, and, they all stem from the Royal Law; hence the badge/mark on the top of a police hat; and that is why police have to remove their hat /authority in court, as they would be in posession of the court room and not the "judge"

I got pulled over on a 114 and when I asked the officer in what capacity he was acting he would not give a straight answer.
But then I have chosen to know the law
When was the last time you were in New Zealand or should I say in your gas tank [which of course sounds ridiculous]
I am on the earth at a place commonly known as New Zealand not in it.

Law is all about words and the deadly use thereof. Don't use your words loosly.lNow back to the beginning..
Problems are:
1. he's not a traffic cop
2. he had no radar to check my speed with
3. I never agreed with him on speed as when he asked a second time he disputed my claim of 70ish but told me that the ticket would be for 20 over.
4. Its nothing to do with my speed if he chose to gun it to catch me.....he might have waited 30 seconds before taking chase. I which case he would have had to do 100+ to catch up.

Will this stand up and will he be able to send me a ticket?
Although he wasn't too bad of a guy........for once.
i
Was he wearing a uniform? which is the Hat with badge ; or Badge?
What documentation did he provide to show that his speedo had been certified and when?
Never traverse/ argue the facts as there are none; its his opinion.
If you want to beat the ticket ; you can.
The proviso is that you have to know what to do and be prepared to learn
Its not hard to extend a court case for at least a year before it is heard.

[spudchucka]

Whats your QID?

None of your business.

Other than this your post was next to impossible to make sense of. It looks as if it is just a cut and paste from various other posts within the thread.

If you are going to quote others and then comment try to use the quote function, (bottom right side of the post you want to quote from). Otherwise its just a garbled mess like your first post.

[civil]

Another common tactic by those who are unable to argue with reason, is to try and dismiss the argument. Now where have we seen that occur lately?, thats right I remember where;

I can't be stuffed reading anymore of your post. Your arguements just go around and around the same issue and quite frankly it is just a waste of my time to read it all.

By the way Spudchucka, all because every one around you seems to be doing it, does not make an action valid. Even if you are getting paid for it!!

As it seems to be common trait amongst the bully boys in blue, it does make me think that lack of reason must be an entry criteria to that club. Resorting to violence is a much simpler way to force your will upon others. Never mind about little things like Jurisdiction, as that is just way too hard to understand, except for those who go looking for it!

[Neo 1]

None of your business.

Other than this your post was next to impossible to make sense of. It looks as if it is just a cut and paste from various other posts within the thread.

If you are going to quote others and then comment try to use the quote function, (bottom right side of the post you want to quote from). Otherwise its just a garbled mess like your first post.

You seem to understand the term QID

And yet you have great difficulty in being plain about the jurisdiction that is being applied at a sec.114 "traffic" stop; or for that matter any "police" action.

And what does Halsburys' laws of England say about "penal" statutes..
that they are to be strictly construed.

Perhaps you should ask a judge or even the High Court Registrar, they will tell you off the record the jurisdiction that is being applied.

Perhaps if a few people back in 1938 had asked the relevant questions before exerting the force. Are you going to follow a piece of paper with words written on it; without cheching if it is Lawful as opposed to "legal" [ given that it was legal in the Germany of '38 to discriminate and exterminate.

[KLOWN]

Bollocks??? He follows you for a distance of approx 250 metres or more at whatever speed you are doing, or at a constant speed while you pull away...certified speedo is viewed and the speed the patrol is doing is what you get done for. If you think he is going to stop you for no reason and just come up with a number well....dream on.

Here's where dreams become reality: One night after work i went for a fun drive in my mini when i saw the red and blue flashing lights in my rear view so i pulled over. The cop got out and was pissed off, big time, apparently he had spent the last ten minutes trying to catch up to me ( i was going pretty fast, even for a mini ) and he said to me "I'm gonna make up some tickets because i couldn't get u on the radar and i'm gonna try and break the $1000 mark. Also if you try and take it to court I reckon I could make a real good case for dangerous driving" ended being $1200 and there was nothing i could do cause i don't have a good driving record and i didn't want the more serious charge of dangerous driving.

[Psalm42]

Here's where dreams become reality: One night after work i went for a fun drive in my mini when i saw the red and blue flashing lights in my rear view so i pulled over. The cop got out and was pissed off, big time, apparently he had spent the last ten minutes trying to catch up to me ( i was going pretty fast, even for a mini ) and he said to me "I'm gonna make up some tickets because i couldn't get u on the radar and i'm gonna try and break the $1000 mark. Also if you try and take it to court I reckon I could make a real good case for dangerous driving" ended being $1200 and there was nothing i could do cause i don't have a good driving record and i didn't want the more serious charge of dangerous driving.

For future reference KLOWN, carry a dictorphone, or mp3 that records with you, if you want to go all the way have one that is charged from the cig ligther.
Wait till the cop starts to threaten you, then tell him "oh, am I meant to inform you this conversation is being recorded?"
Then watch for the big atitude change...Works a treat with IRD too. They are so much more helpful when they know they wont be able to pull the memory problems in court. Like being able to remember exactly what words they used to enform you what law your breaking but having no recall of the words used insulting you, or threatening you, or that they even did insult or threaten. Pulling out a recording at court realy helps their memory.
Or as another on this site has pointed out, at a status hearing. That way it never makes it to real court it gets dismissed before that.

[Lou Girardin]

There are cellphones that record too. Hee Hee.