Pulled over

[spudchucka]

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;

Whatever Civil or psalm or neo, whoever you are.

The arguement is dismissed by Temese V Police (1992) 9 CRNZ 425 (CA).

The court of appeal considering the relationship between section 23 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act and the power confered in section 66 of the Transport Act 1962, (the predecessor of section 114 Land Transport Act 1998), to stop a vehicle and require the driver to remain stopped.

The court held that a person asked questions under section 66, (now section 114) to establish identity is not detained for the purposes of the NZ Bill of Rights Act. They are not entitled to consult a lawyer without delay while an enforcement officer is making preliminary enquiries under that section.

Therefore ther is no point in reading or responding to the same pointless dribble.

The most important knowledge for a cop to possess is a clear understanding of their statutory powers and how to correctly and lawfully apply them. The question of jurisdiction or what authority a cop is acting under is fundamental and a moot point in realtion to what was originally being discussed.

[spudchucka]

without cheching if it is Lawful as opposed to "legal" [ given .

For some strange reason your spelling seems to lack clarity, much like that of Mr Psalm42. Naughty troller.

[Indoo]

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;!

Or they can make three accounts and spam the thread with the same ridiculous drivel.

[Psalm42]

The most important knowledge for a cop to possess is a clear understanding of their statutory powers and how to correctly and lawfully apply them. The question of jurisdiction or what authority a cop is acting under is fundamental and a moot point in realtion to what was originally being discussed.

As for what was orignaly being discussed, take note the cop was not taking information to establish his ID, until after he accused him of speeding (a FUNDIMENTAL jurisdiction issue you still havent answered) and gathering information on what speed he was doing.

Turns out guy who was in the right hand lane was a finger print cop who chases me and pulls me over.
He asks me what I was doing and I tell him about 70 or so, he then tells me I was doing way more than that and he had to do 100+ to catch me......so he takes my details and tells me a ticket will be in the post for 20 over the limit (as thats what I said).

And as around and around this goes until a simple question is answered. And a question that you clearly must know the answer to as it is "The most important knowledge for a cop to possess is a clear understanding of their statutory powers and how to correctly and lawfully apply them. The question of jurisdiction or what authority a cop is acting under is fundamental"

Which one is it, only need a one word answer. Civil or Criminal.

Once he got the guys details, the guy could go? He had established ID, he had what 114 said he could ask for, asking what speed helped him ID him better how?

So once you got ID, then you caution people?

[Psalm42]

For some strange reason your spelling seems to lack clarity, much like that of Mr Psalm42. Naughty troller.

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

Wow, you made a spelling mistake spud. Does that make you me?
Or since you where on this forum well before me, does it make me you?

Nah Im just a bit silly by having asked simple question... Sorry to have used you to show how a cop won't answer a question if he thinks hes smart enough to know where its going. But god help anyone that wont answer his questions on the side of the road if they think they know where his questions are going.

And if everyone that makes a spelling mistake is me, do I get their wages?

[marty]

reality is civil/neo/psalm dude, spud is the only one who can be fucked arguing with you. no-one else can. plenty of people on here know just as much as spud, if not more. they just can't be bothered with pointless trolling. there is LOADS of case law that can be trolled up to counter each operson's argument, and quite frankly, most of the time, the defendant is beating a very lonely and narrow path. no-one on here has to justify their actions to you - leave it for the road, where i'm sure your 1 year delay will be looked upon favourably by someone.

[Neo 1]

reality is civil/neo/psalm dude, spud is the only one who can be fucked arguing with you. no-one else can. plenty of people on here know just as much as spud, if not more. they just can't be bothered with pointless trolling. there is LOADS of case law that can be trolled up to counter each operson's argument, and quite frankly, most of the time, the defendant is beating a very lonely and narrow path. no-one on here has to justify their actions to you - leave it for the road, where i'm sure your 1 year delay will be looked upon favourably by someone.

Yes yes Case law; and under what jurisdiction?

Common law

Equity

Admiralty

There is only three.

Knowledge is the perspective between right and wrong

Ignorance is the lack of knowledge

Stupidity is having the knowledge and acting in ignorance.

If we are [spud] going to be picky as to language / spelling /writing

Why do cops have such a problem with writing you name correctly as to the rules of english grammar; or could it be, because of the legal fiction being forced upon the man/woman biker, you have no lawful claim of action other than the presumptions that abound in the courts of [in]justice.

[Indoo]

Did Mikey introduce you to this site?

[marty]

it is none of the 3 that you have quoted, but you know that.

[Ixion]

Equity ceased to be a separate juridicial branch , in the Empire, since the Judicature Act 1873. You're 130 years out of date, or being listening to too many yanks. They still treat equity as a separate branch of law . We don't. Best to make sure you're getting your law from the right bush, eh

[Neo 1]

Equity ceased to be a separate juridicial branch , in the Empire, since the Judicature Act 1873. You're 130 years out of date, or being listening to too many yanks. They still treat equity as a separate branch of law . We don't. Best to make sure you're getting your law from the right bush, eh

Yes 1873 is when they amalgamated common and equity;
and by doing so they removed legal title from you and replaced it with beneficial title:

Motor vehicle cert of registration:[in yellow entitled] IMPORTANT INFORMATION this certificate shows that ownership has been transferred into your name and does NOT CONSTITUTE legal ownership.

I do have a copy of Roscoe's Admiralty Practice, 3rd edition 1903

"A Treatise on the Admiralty jurisdiction and practice of the High Court of Justice and of the vice-admiralty courts and the cinque ports & c.
And contained within is the judicature Act 1873
ejusdem generis would you not agree.

1983 Admiralty Act. No action in admiralty can derrogate from any common law principle . I believe its section 7

Hence sect 20 Crimes Act 1961 Common law justifications.

To be ignorant and free are two things that can never be.

You can also trace benifical ownership as opposed to legal ownership:

Examples are Land act 1948, sec. 70-80 pg. 680-685
in particular 74 (1)...for his own USE and BENEFIT..

which is then reitterated in the Resource Management Act 1991
"An Act to restate the law relating to the USE of land, air, and water.

And in the Public Finance 1989 No.44
" An Act to amend the law governing the USE of public financial resources..."

Do you have LEGAL OWNERSHIP of your bike? No
House? No
Children? No
Land? No
New Zealand New Freeland or my favortite New Slaveland

Law is the USE of words to deadly effect.

Do you have permission[licence] from the legal owner of "your" bike to USE it for your benefit?

Hence theft of motor vehicle in the Crimes Act 1961 is under the heading of "crimes resembling theft"...they call it conversion.

Come on spud, own up the jurisdiction is...ADMIRALTY

I prefer to read their books not play in the "bush" as you refer to it.
Halsbury's anyone?

[civil]

Come on spud, own up the jurisdiction is...ADMIRALTY

What!!! Is that why the courts insist on addressing people with the term Mr (insert surname), or its gender equlivant. As it is a prefix to a designation of ADMIRALTY office or title.
That way what they are saying is "Mr ....., (you are the lowest ranking person in this ADMIRALTY Jurisdiction)", and then if I do not challenge that presumption then by my (in)action, I agree to the jurisdiction. And here I thought the Judge was just being nice to me

[marty]

you know what they say about talking to yourself...

[spudchucka]

So once you got ID, then you caution people?

No. The act requires the driver to remain stopped as long as necessary for the cop to carry out any of the provisions of the act.

Caution would be appropriate when the cop decides to arrest the person or to detain them for breath alcohol procedure.

Your jurisdiction arguement is pointless.

[Psalm42]

Yes yes Case law; and under what jurisdiction?

Common law

Equity

Admiralty

There is only three.

(you are the lowest ranking person in this ADMIRALTY Jurisdiction)

What crap, there are only 2 jurisdictions, civil or criminal, unless your in the military.

Look at what the guy put up the post said, the cop started questioning him about the alledged speeding before he got the ID details, Spud says he has the right to stop him for under 114 which is for the ID purpose and he has provide the case law to show that.

I can see from what Spud said there a cop can hold you to ID you. After that I am guessing he has to caution you. That makes sence to me, every time I get pulled up they always seem to go for the acusation first, "Any reason you were speeding" can't answer yes or no, both are admisions of guilt. Then they ask for the ID. You hang your self.

Can anyone answer the jurisdiction question, Civil or Criminal, for a speeding offence. And not from anyone who thinks were in the military, incase you missed it Im refering to Civil and Neo1.