Speed limits are set far too low. Not only are they too low, they were set when vehicles were less safe and lacked the majority of safety devices we take for granted today (i.e. seat belts, electronic stability control, far better suspension and control, etc). Here are some statistics for those police that keep calling this a safety concern:

The last time speed limits were raised, “Statewide fatality rates decreased 3-5%” across the country (1). So there is absolutely NO corresponding logic between minor amounts of speeding and safety. Do not believe me though, actually look this up yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit).

While you are at it, look up the federal study which states EXACTLY the same thing, only which goes further to indicate why:
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html

So officially, for the record, posted speed limits, particularly on our freeways are set far too low. So low in fact, they just passed a law to raise it in this state:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3039.asp

What I find interesting in VA is that they are quick to pull over drivers for going 10 miles over the speed limit, but they REFUSE to pull over someone when they arent using their blinker.

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/cliffkule/2010/0520.html

Written by Marc Stevens Tuesday, 28 August 2007 10:42

If you’re unfortunate to have gotten a traffic ticket, keep the following tips in mind, your chances of getting it kicked out are much greater:

1. Do not be argumentative.
2. Don’t bring your own opinion or arguments to convince the judge.
3. Stick to the facts.
4. Repeat I am not an attorney I don’t understand.
5. Don’t object and press a particular point more than twice.
6. Stay on point.
7. Only accept responsive answers to questions.
8. Ask questions
9. Get judge and, or the prosecutor to commit to positions.
10. Use those positions/arguments against the judge or prosecutor.
1. Traffic courts are scams run by people only interested in taking money. They are not in place to administer justice. Being argumentative only ensures you will be separated from your money. Going in thinking justice is being administered is to start off on the wrong foot. Any traffic court judge interested in administering justice would throw out the majority of traffic tickets within minutes of them being filed by the police and mail an apology to each defendant for their time wasted on the traffic stop.

2. Traffic court judges don’t care what we think, except of course what we think is the easiest and fastest way to pay the court fine. We are considered guilty the moment the cop decides to write the ticket. Traffic court is about making it look good and the judge is always going to be perceived as correct and you wrong. After all, he’s judge. But, we can get the judge to contradict himself. If an argument or opinion is used, it should always be the judge’s.

3. Sticking to the facts is the fastest and most effective way to demonstrate there is no case. Just asking a couple of questions is usually enough to have the only witness against you declared incompetent which requires his testimony, including the ticket, to be stricken. Keep in mind that impeaching the only witness does not mean a judge will strike the testimony and throw the ticket out.

4. All non-lawyers are legally incapable of defending themselves and it is unfair to put someone on trial who does not understand the nature and cause of the proceedings against them. The more the judge explains about what is going on, the more can be used to make him contradict himself and prove there is no case.

5. This is related to number one. If I keep pressing a point the judge is only going to get angry and judges are notorious for having anger management problems. Remember, traffic court judges do not care. One thing they care about is making the robbery look good. Don’t help him make it look good.

6. Lawyers, with and without those flowing black robes, are masters of diversion. Never forget their goal is not getting to the truth and administering justice, it’s about getting the money you worked hard to earn. If they get you off-point, they win; your attention on real issues is gone and before you know it the proceeding is over.

7. Only accepting responsive answers keeps things on point and works to destroy the appearance of a case. Beware though, know in advance what is responsive to the question. Bureaucrats are very good at giving what may appear to be responsive answers; they may sound good, but they are not responsive. A good example is “Factually, what is the constitution?” and the bureaucrat answers with: “It’s the supreme law of the law.” It sounds impressive, but it’s not responsive to the question. A responsive answer is devastating to a bureaucrat’s case. I have several scripts available I have used in court successfully.

8. One tactic judges, lawyers and bureaucrats use to divert attention away from what they are doing is to accuse people of “arguing.” This is an attempt to make anyone in court look bad, as if we’re the problem and not the traffic court. By just asking questions, we can point out we not arguing, just asking questions. From experience, this is very embarrassing for the individual accusing me of arguing. Asking questions is also incredibly effective at demonstrating there is no case, provided of course, we stay on point and only accept responsive answers.

9. Traffic court judges do not care if you think they have violated the constitution or the law. But, because their main job is to make robbing people look good, traffic court judges do not like to contradict themselves. To do this, I ask questions to get the judge to commit to certain positions e.g., “Am I entitled to be informed of the nature and cause of the charges and proceedings?” and “Am I entitled to a fair hearing?” Because the very nature of traffic courts is unfair, it’s easy to get the judge to contradict himself.

10. The judge’s and prosecutor’s positions can always be used to get them to contradict themselves later. As with the first question above, after a few more questions the judge will say, “I’m not here to answer your questions.” I just have to then remind him he already told me I was entitled to be informed. Also, by asking just a couple of questions, I’ve had judges declare a witness competent, incompetent and then competent again in only a few minutes. By contradicting himself like that, all pretense of fairness is gone.

One of the most valuable pieces of information you can learn about traffic courts and bureaucrat attacks is this: A ticket/complaint is not synonymous with a case. Of course a traffic court judge will disagree with this, his object is not truth and justice, it’s taking money away from people.

Remember, just because a cop writes a ticket does not mean he has presented a case before a court. No court has the “legal” authority to proceed against someone unless a case is presented to it, this is just a short list of the “authorities” to prove it. However, traffic court judges are interested only in getting your money, so things like the “law” do not interest them. I discuss this in detail in my book Adventures in Legal Land, in several articles and on my radio show The No State Project. There are also archived radio shows I’ve appeared on here and a new video series here about beating traffic tickets .

Marc Stevens is an author, consultant and radio show host. He is an expert on the nature of the court system, his groundbreaking book Adventures in Legal Land rips the veil of legitimacy from the “state” and exposes it for what it is, a public relations scheme. Using their own words against them, Marc Stevens proves there is no state. You can listen to his radio show The No State Project live every Saturday on We the People Radio Network.

The AmeroConned Sheeple will just keep putting up with this cr@pola and baa with alacrity while asking their government masters for more.