Pulled over

[spudchucka]

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

You believe your own bullshit after a while?

Or you're just plain fucked in the head.

[spudchucka]

After that I am guessing he has to caution you.

Which is the problem with your entire input into this thread.

[Psalm42]

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

Yeah, often times it the only time you will have a simple question answered, and it makes people look at you funny

[Psalm42]

Which is the problem with your entire input into this thread.

Where as not being able/willing to answer a simple question would appear to be the problem with your input into the thread. Not knowing or being deceptive about a Fundimental element of your office.

The amount of times I have heard of guys being turned away from the cop shop because there ex didnt drop the kids off or similar and the cops answer has been " Thats a civil matter, you will have to take it up with the court"
So some cops do know the difference between civil and criminal jurisdictions and do not seem to be worried about devulging which one is appropriate for a given situation.

[Ixion]

..
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.

Sigh. Y'can lead a horse to water etc.

For the umpteenth time . When a cop stops you for speeding it is not an arrest.

"Civil" and "criminal" relate to the JUDICIAL powers of the crown. The courts. Until you are arrested, or a summons issued, the courts are not involved. The cop who stops you is doing so as an OFFICER OF THE CROWN.Not an officer of the court. (He can be that, too, but when he stops you, he isn't) .

It is the EXECUTIVE (not juridical) power of the Crown. You might as well ask, whether when you stop at a red light, it is a "civil" red light or a "criminal" red light. Red light, you gotta stop. Cop says stop, you gotta stop. No criminal or civil involved. S114 explicitly clarifies the cops power to stop, but he could do so anyway, under Royal prerogative - like the old City Watch.

And when the cop issues a TON he is *still* acting as an agent of the executive power of the Crown. In fact , what he is giving you the opportunity to do is to pay an amercement. Old name for an old thing revived. "Pay some money and we will not proceed against you in the law courts".

Which is why when you pay up on a TON, it isn't counted as giving you a criminal record. Becaue you haven't entered to judicial part of the process (Dept of Courts collect the fine, but that's just administrative convenience).

Don't stop, take off , don't pay TON - you get arrested (which means you are brought up before a court), or a summons issued (by the court) because THEN , and NOT BEFORE, you enter the criminal (judicial) system.

[Neo 1]

Sigh. Y'can lead a horse to water etc.

For the umpteenth time . When a cop stops you for speeding it is not an arrest.

"Civil" and "criminal" relate to the JUDICIAL powers of the crown. The courts. Until you are arrested, or a summons issued, the courts are not involved. The cop who stops you is doing so as an OFFICER OF THE CROWN.Not an officer of the court. (He can be that, too, but when he stops you, he isn't) .

It is the EXECUTIVE (not juridical) power of the Crown. You might as well ask, whether when you stop at a red light, it is a "civil" red light or a "criminal" red light. Red light, you gotta stop. Cop says stop, you gotta stop. No criminal or civil involved. S114 explicitly clarifies the cops power to stop, but he could do so anyway, under Royal prerogative - like the old City Watch.

And when the cop issues a TON he is *still* acting as an agent of the executive power of the Crown. In fact , what he is giving you the opportunity to do is to pay an amercement. Old name for an old thing revived. "Pay some money and we will not proceed against you in the law courts".

Which is why when you pay up on a TON, it isn't counted as giving you a criminal record. Becaue you haven't entered to judicial part of the process (Dept of Courts collect the fine, but that's just administrative convenience).

Don't stop, take off , don't pay TON - you get arrested (which means you are brought up before a court), or a summons issued (by the court) because THEN , and NOT BEFORE, you enter the criminal (judicial) system.

Are you saying that New Zealand is not independant?
Perhaps you should read Hlasburys laws of england in relation to "Rights i connection with Highways"

"A right for all Her Majesty's subjects at all seasons of the year to pass and repass without LET or HINDERANCE ex parte Lewis 1888 21 Q.B.D

What is the PROBABLE cause; haven't paid your tax, enough tax.




QUOTE=spudchucka]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.[/QUOTE]

Let me ge this straight ; disclosure of the nature and cause is irrelevant?

disclosure of the jurisdiction the plaintiff is claiming is irrelevant?

Which would obviously lead on to the irrelevancy of natural justice, due process,
right to be heard, common law disclosure, disclosure of all evidence for the case, not to be rushed to judgement ; if this is the case then don't it make brown shirts blue and the black robes quite fitting for the event.

I would have to agree with you spud; if the jurisdcition question is pointless, why even bother penalising a sinner of the almighty "statute".
Wouldn't summary execution be more efficient; or is it the revenue that is more important.
Nuremburg dealt with that excuse; I was obeying orders.

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

[Ixion]

Lewis(1888) was about people blocking Trafalger Square. It relates to not allowing people to block off the highway. Nothing to dfo with the right of a Constable to stop you.

No idea what you mean by "New Zealand is not independant" Doubt you have either. We are her Majesty's subjects (loyal ones I trust). Take a look at the back of a coin if you are unsure.

Let me ge this straight ; disclosure of the nature and cause is irrelevant?

disclosure of the jurisdiction the plaintiff is claiming is irrelevant?

Hurrah. You got it. The cop can stop you. Cos he wants to. There is no "jurisdiction" (I've quoted the word because I don't think you understand what it actually emans) .Just like a red traffic light. Light says stop. you stop. Cop says stop. You stop

Simple.

Which would obviously lead on to the irrelevancy of natural justice, due process,
right to be heard, common law disclosure, disclosure of all evidence for the case, not to be rushed to judgement

Good luck peddling that in court.

[spudchucka]

Where as not being able/willing to answer a simple question would appear to be the problem with your input into the thread. Not knowing or being deceptive about a Fundimental element of your office.

The amount of times I have heard of guys being turned away from the cop shop because there ex didnt drop the kids off or similar and the cops answer has been " Thats a civil matter, you will have to take it up with the court"
So some cops do know the difference between civil and criminal jurisdictions and do not seem to be worried about devulging which one is appropriate for a given situation.

You're starting to sound really dense.

Custody disputes can be complicated. People turn up at the station expecting the cops to go around to their ex's house and get the kids back, even if they have a court order granting them custody the cops can't do anything unless there is a court warrant to enforce custody.

This is usually why they get turned away, (because they do not have a warrant). It has nothing to do with it being civil or criminal. If a warrant to enforce custody has been granted the police will enforce it. If a warrant is granted the children will be removed however that doesn't mean the person they are being removed from will face charges.

Read back through the thread and you will find a post where I said that a defended traffic ticket will be heard in the district court, (usually JP traffic court) clearly under the criminal jurisdiction. It is retarded to suggest in any way that it is or could be a civil matter. If you have a point hurry up and make it because you are becoming painfully repetative.

[spudchucka]

Sigh. Y'can lead a horse to water etc.

For the umpteenth time . When a cop stops you for speeding it is not an arrest.

"Civil" and "criminal" relate to the JUDICIAL powers of the crown. The courts. Until you are arrested, or a summons issued, the courts are not involved. The cop who stops you is doing so as an OFFICER OF THE CROWN.Not an officer of the court. (He can be that, too, but when he stops you, he isn't) .

It is the EXECUTIVE (not juridical) power of the Crown. You might as well ask, whether when you stop at a red light, it is a "civil" red light or a "criminal" red light. Red light, you gotta stop. Cop says stop, you gotta stop. No criminal or civil involved. S114 explicitly clarifies the cops power to stop, but he could do so anyway, under Royal prerogative - like the old City Watch.

And when the cop issues a TON he is *still* acting as an agent of the executive power of the Crown. In fact , what he is giving you the opportunity to do is to pay an amercement. Old name for an old thing revived. "Pay some money and we will not proceed against you in the law courts".

Which is why when you pay up on a TON, it isn't counted as giving you a criminal record. Becaue you haven't entered to judicial part of the process (Dept of Courts collect the fine, but that's just administrative convenience).

Don't stop, take off , don't pay TON - you get arrested (which means you are brought up before a court), or a summons issued (by the court) because THEN , and NOT BEFORE, you enter the criminal (judicial) system.

Just to clarify, a TON, (Traffic Offence Notice) is issued for serious traffic offences, ones where the alleged offender will be summonsed to court. An ION, (Infringement Offence Notice) is the much loved traffic ticket for speeding etc, minor stuff where an instant fine is applicable.

[scumdog]

Psalm, the length of your postings on this thread kinda shot you in the arse as far as getting my interest/sympathy or whatever, try and keep 'em short dude.
a.t.m. you have taken the title of Chief Windmill Jouster from another member of the site i.m.h.o.

[Lou Girardin]

Psalm, the length of your postings on this thread kinda shot you in the arse as far as getting my interest/sympathy or whatever, try and keep 'em short dude.
a.t.m. you have taken the title of Chief Windmill Jouster from another member of the site i.m.h.o.

i.m.h.o.

[Psalm42]

Psalm, the length of your postings on this thread kinda shot you in the arse as far as getting my interest/sympathy or whatever, try and keep 'em short dude.
a.t.m. you have taken the title of Chief Windmill Jouster from another member of the site i.m.h.o.

Thanks for the advise, will do. I havent been on a forum like this before, so just learning, no Idea what half the shorted stuff means, ie a t m, means where you get your cash from to me. TON meant 160 to me until Spud explained. You might like my next post after this one, it might come in handy next time you get stopped for a I.O.N.
Regards
And thanks again.

[M1CRO:Me]

Thanks for the advise, will do. I havent been on a forum like this before, so just learning, no Idea what half the shorted stuff means, ie a t m, means where you get your cash from to me. TON meant 160 to me until Spud explained. You might like my next post after this one, it might come in handy next time you get stopped for a I.O.N.
Regards
And thanks again.

atm = at the moment
imho = in my humble opinion

[marty]

it's typical of people who think they have something important to say, but they embelish it with extraneous rubbish, to draw the attention away from the real fact - that fact usually is - that they really have no idea or at the most only have a laymans understanding what they are talking about. polititians, lawyers, and the winners of survivor are masters at it. i'm surpised the subject of this thread isn't 'Once upon a time'

[The Stranger:Me]

It's at times like this I am reminded of the definition of stress.

The confusion created when your mind overrides the body's basic desire to choke shit out of some jerk who desperatley deserves it.