The Person vs Human Being Thread (split from the Deerfoot Speeding Cam thread)

[Tower]

These things are such crap. We live in a Common Law Jurisdiction in Canada. These "fines" are bills and if you look at the Bill of Exchange Act - Two parties MUST agree to a bill. This is for any ticket given. Speed traps - if you get pulled over. Ask for 3 pieces of ID from the police (They need this to be in uniform) and as you get the ticket tell them that you understand this is a transaction under the bill of exchange and DO NOT sign. Accept it and take the original copy. This is your right.

[DESS]

Originally Posted by Tower

These things are such crap. We live in a Common Law Jurisdiction in Canada. These "fines" are bills and if you look at the Bill of Exchange Act - Two parties MUST agree to a bill. This is for any ticket given. Speed traps - if you get pulled over. Ask for 3 pieces of ID from the police (They need this to be in uniform) and as you get the ticket tell them that you understand this is a transaction under the bill of exchange and DO NOT sign. Accept it and take the original copy. This is your right.

Yes of course it's your right to be a complete ###### to a cop, but I doubt you'll be doing yourself any favours.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Tower

These things are such crap. We live in a Common Law Jurisdiction in Canada. These "fines" are bills and if you look at the Bill of Exchange Act - Two parties MUST agree to a bill. This is for any ticket given. Speed traps - if you get pulled over. Ask for 3 pieces of ID from the police (They need this to be in uniform) and as you get the ticket tell them that you understand this is a transaction under the bill of exchange and DO NOT sign. Accept it and take the original copy. This is your right.

Okay, I'm gonna have to say that this reasoning sounds dubious at best for a few reasons (all as I understand them, but I believe pretty accurate):

1) The most common form of a Bill of Exchange is a cheque.
The point of a bill of exchange is that the person giving it out is agreeing to pay, not the other way around. A traffic ticket is more like an invoice.

2) What what you're describing is more akin to a contractual agreement and one of the important requirements to be a binding contract is that it cannot be for illegal activity. So paying a "Bill" for speeding isn't valid.
However paying a FINE for speeding is totally legit, as that is not a contractual agreement, it is a sentance for an offence.

3) I've never had to sign a traffic ticket in my life.

4) As Dess said (no I'm not taking his side), being a dick to an officer is no way to get out of ticket.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by DESS

Yes of course it's your right to be a complete ###### to a cop, but I doubt you'll be doing yourself any favours.

The Police Officer has to go out of his way to give you the original. And if you are polite and educate them you are doing them a favor.

Maxim Law - Let him who wishes to be deceived be deceived. o if you are comfortable being scared of Police then that's fine. I like thinking of them like firemen.

He must first find out if you are a "Person" operating a Motor Vehicle. That is why you are asked for your Drivers License. You are not a Driver until you give it to him. You are a traveler and a Human Being. A "Person" is not a Human Being in legal language and he is assuming you are a "Person" without evidence. But unlike a traveler on public roads (Roads Human Beings own not civil servants) you do not need to present a DL or ID. He does and it is three pieces. His badge, business card, and Police ID.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Tower

The Police Officer has to go out of his way to give you the original. And if you are polite and educate them you are doing them a favor.

Maxim Law - Let him who wishes to be deceived be deceived. o if you are comfortable being scared of Police then that's fine. I like thinking of them like firemen.

He must first find out if you are a "Person" operating a Motor Vehicle. That is why you are asked for your Drivers License. You are not a Driver until you give it to him. You are a traveler and a Human Being. A "Person" is not a Human Being in legal language and he is assuming you are a "Person" without evidence. But unlike a traveler on public roads (Roads Human Beings own not civil servants) you do not need to present a DL or ID. He does and it is three pieces. His badge, business card, and Police ID.

I really don't mean to be a bother, but I've had a really long and tiring day and am having a lot of difficulty understanding just what this means? Can you re-post it dumbed-down a little?

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Okay, I'm gonna have to say that this reasoning sounds dubious at best for a few reasons (all as I understand them, but I believe pretty accurate):

1) The most common form of a Bill of Exchange is a cheque.
The point of a bill of exchange is that the person giving it out is agreeing to pay, not the other way around. A traffic ticket is more like an invoice.

2) What what you're describing is more akin to a contractual agreement and one of the important requirements to be a binding contract is that it cannot be for illegal activity. So paying a "Bill" for speeding isn't valid.
However paying a FINE for speeding is totally legit, as that is not a contractual agreement, it is a sentance for an offence.

3) I've never had to sign a traffic ticket in my life.

4) As Dess said (no I'm not taking his side), being a dick to an officer is no way to get out of ticket.

I fine is an attempt at a bill. If you ever receive a Remittance for such fine that is also a form of currency. Agree that is is money by writing on it "I agree this is money" it and you have paid for the bill/ticket. This also means that in fact the city is being paid twice if you send your own money with the Remittance.

Remittance - Funds sent from one to another usually in payment for items purchased, services rendered, or value received.
- A transfer of funds for the purpose of paying a bill.

As far as a ticket being a contractual agreement. You are right. It's not, but it set up to be one. It is not, because of the Common Law Jurisdiction and there is no consent between two Persons in this transaction.

Illegal activity? Do you mean criminal offense? Of course these fines are not criminal.

Invoice definition (Business Dictonary) - Non-negotiable commercial instrument issued by a seller to a buyer. Also called a bill of sale or contract of sale, it identifies the both trading parties and lists, describes, and quantifies the items sold, shows the date of shipment and mode of transport, prices and discounts (if any), and delivery and payment terms. In certain cases (especially when it is signed by the seller or seller's agent), it serves as a demand for payment and becomes a document of title when paid in full. Types of invoice include commercial invoice, consular invoice, customs invoice, and pro forma invoice.

As for signing a traffic ticket or any fine that is not in Alberta. However NEVER sign for something. It automatically puts you in dishonor and is the first step in having to appear in court.

bill of exchange 16. (1) A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay, on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person or to bearer.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I really don't mean to be a bother, but I've had a really long and tiring day and am having a lot of difficulty understanding just what this means? Can you re-post it dumbed-down a little?

LOL sure. When I first started learning the first step was to de-program. And I needed to read some things over and over. But I'm at work for a bit more. I'll be back.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Tower

LOL sure. When I first started learning the first step was to de-program. And I needed to read some things over and over. But I'm at work for a bit more. I'll be back.

According to Black’s Law dictionary, ‘a human being is not a person because he is a human being, but because rights and duties have been ascribed to him. Specifically, the person is the legal subject or substance of which rights and duties are attributes. But not every human being is a person, as was the case in Old England when there were slaves’.


A human being has certain inalienable human rights. Your person has certain inalienable civil rights. Believe it or not, you are not the one paying taxes, your person is. Its not you that votes, your person does. You don’t get a ticket, your person does.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Tower

LOL sure. When I first started learning the first step was to de-program. And I needed to read some things over and over. But I'm at work for a bit more. I'll be back.

Learning what? That you can write something on a traffic ticket and it becomes money? Sounds like good legal advice.

Speaking of which, I always keep a bottle of belladona root suspension with me because cops are not allowed to arrest you if you put a drop behind each ear and then travel to the prime material plane.

Anyone else have any legal tidbits they want to share with the group?

[Traditional_Ale]

^Nice work with the Prime Material Plane usage...lol...anyway, his signature does disavow him of legal advice.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Learning what? That you can write something on a traffic ticket and it becomes money? Sounds like good legal advice.

Speaking of which, I always keep a bottle of belladona root suspension with me because cops are not allowed to arrest you if you put a drop behind each ear and then travel to the prime material plane.

Anyone else have any legal tidbits they want to share with the group?

What is your point? Can you actually argue this or just try to make fun of it because you feel the need to try to belittle someone.

Disprove it instead of being a s**t

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

^Nice work with the Prime Material Plane usage...lol...anyway, his signature does disavow him of legal advice.

It keeps the lawyers happy. There are reasons it is there and a lawyer can tell you why.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Tower

What is your point? Can you actually argue this or just try to make fun of it because you feel the need to try to belittle someone.

Disprove it instead of being a s**t

I am simply offering advice for anyone who has the ability to travel between planes of existence on methods that they can use to avoid getting traffic tickets.

If you dislike my advice, why don't you disprove it?

I know you are thinking to yourself that traveling between planes of existence is more likely than being able to use a traffic ticket as legal tender, but lets not get into silly little details, shall we?

Your claims seem ridiculous and with the exception of the legal definition of a person, you have not included any sources or reasons that anyone should think you are actually being serious. If you have a source, some sort of legal precedent, or even a badly forged fortune cookie scroll that will back up your points I will gladly take a look at them. However until then...

If it looks like a duck...

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Rathji;1725600[B

]I am simply offering advice for anyone who has the ability to travel between planes of existence on methods that they can use to avoid getting traffic tickets.

If you dislike my advice, why don't you disprove it?[/b]

I know you are thinking to yourself that traveling between planes of existence is more likely than being able to use a traffic ticket as legal tender, but lets not get into silly little details, shall we?

Your claims seem ridiculous and with the exception of the legal definition of a person, you have not included any sources or reasons that anyone should think you are actually being serious. If you have a source, some sort of legal precedent, or even a badly forged fortune cookie scroll that will back up your points I will gladly take a look at them. However until then...

If it looks like a duck...

Did you not get enough love as a child? You are simply trying to poke fun ,yet again.

Law are only words. That is what people need to understand first. They are given power by the society that uses them. In this case it is the Law Society. If you notice there are also other definitions in my post such as the bill of exchange. Which clearly states what a bill/ticket is.

And you receive a Remittance in the mail from the city of Calgary after the ticket.

Lets put it to a test! Anyone here get a ticket and want to test this for the non believers even if you are not one of them?

However you are right. It does seem ridiculous at first but a Human Being needs to first understand what the words mean in the Law Society. This is why Lawyers go to school for 7yrs. Because they are learning a new language and need to understand how it applies to persons.

[Rathji]

I am poking fun at the idea that somehow the person opening the envelop at the other end is going to look at your writing on the Remittance and say, "Well that looks like cash to me, George. Lets to have coffee".

Since I have just realized where you are getting this 'information' I will leave you with this and be done with this conversation. Even Alex Jones thinks you are nuts here.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I am poking fun at the idea that somehow the person opening the envelop at the other end is going to look at your writing on the Remittance and say, "Well that looks like cash to me, George. Lets to have coffee".

Since I have just realized where you are getting this 'information' I will leave you with this and be done with this conversation. Even Alex Jones thinks you are nuts here.

Ha ha ha... No. But thanks for assuming.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Tower

Laws are only words.

"Only" words? Words let you communicate ideas, and ideas can save you or kill you, make people love or hate you, or even let you infect people's minds with the most ridiculous crap imaginable.

Your traffic ticket "theory" looks extremely similar to a bunch of "words" to me, and I don't think I'm mistaken in saying that the "words" of the law are going to trump the "words" of Tower if I was crazy to enough to try your theory out. What you aren't picking up on is that when there is disagreement between how you think the law applies, and how the government, lawyers and judges think it applies, you are going to lose and they aren't even going to be interested in debating.

This reminds me of those crazy guys in the States with their "income tax is illegal!" websites, which purportedly explain just why it's illegal using references to state's rights and other stuff that just DOESN'T MATTER because they just don't get that the government makes the laws, the courts interpret the laws, the lawyers argue the laws, and JoeBob Grindlesnatch's involvement in the process is obeying the law or facing the consequences.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by jammies

"Only" words? Words let you communicate ideas, and ideas can save you or kill you, make people love or hate you, or even let you infect people's minds with the most ridiculous crap imaginable.

Your traffic ticket "theory" looks extremely similar to a bunch of "words" to me, and I don't think I'm mistaken in saying that the "words" of the law are going to trump the "words" of Tower if I was crazy to enough to try your theory out. What you aren't picking up on is that when there is disagreement between how you think the law applies, and how the government, lawyers and judges think it applies, you are going to lose and they aren't even going to be interested in debating.

This reminds me of those crazy guys in the States with their "income tax is illegal!" websites, which purportedly explain just why it's illegal using references to state's rights and other stuff that just DOESN'T MATTER because they just don't get that the government makes the laws, the courts interpret the laws, the lawyers argue the laws, and JoeBob Grindlesnatch's involvement in the process is obeying the law or facing the consequences.

This is my point about words. They are the law. They are used by the law society, and are you saying you do not have the capability to use these words developed by this society in which they have rule over. Only they have the capability? Grab a law book and start to uncover it. I invite you to look up these meanings that I have mentioned yourself and then tell me what power you have with these words. It is all about understanding. Is it crazy to understand what the law words mean and use them as such?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Tower

Is it crazy to understand what the law words mean and use them as such?

No, it's crazy to think that you understand them better than those who write them, argue them and arbitrate them.

Law IS its interpretation by those three classes - you can't impose your will upon such a consensual reality by acts of petty sabotage and gamesmanship. It will simply ignore you at best, and force you to conform at worst. In no formulation will it change to suit you unless you propose an alternative consensus with superior ideas and advantages, and avoiding paying traffic tickets - while certainly appealing - doesn't qualify as a cause compelling enough to rally society in favour of radical restructuring.

Although, if there was enough dissatisfaction with the present order, even something as seemingly trivial as an unfair speeding ticket might be the proximate cause of rebellion, but such a scenario seems unlikely to unfold, so I'd avoid the temptation of trying to spark a revolution by marching on City Hall waving your ticket in the air and calling for the people to join you in overthrowing the Man.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by jammies

No, it's crazy to think that you understand them better than those who write them, argue them and arbitrate them.

Law IS its interpretation by those three classes - you can't impose your will upon such a consensual reality by acts of petty sabotage and gamesmanship. It will simply ignore you at best, and force you to conform at worst. In no formulation will it change to suit you unless you propose an alternative consensus with superior ideas and advantages, and avoiding paying traffic tickets - while certainly appealing - doesn't qualify as a cause compelling enough to rally society in favour of radical restructuring.

Although, if there was enough dissatisfaction with the present order, even something as seemingly trivial as an unfair speeding ticket might be the proximate cause of rebellion, but such a scenario seems unlikely to unfold, so I'd avoid the temptation of trying to spark a revolution by marching on City Hall waving your ticket in the air and calling for the people to join you in overthrowing the Man.

Once you understand the Law and it's meanings you can impose your will. These are the fundamental points in a common law jurisdiction. They can not change the law to make one human bow down to them in court. The meanings or rules are not changed in the middle of the game. That is called fraud, and no matter who you are it is illegal. So no. I will not bow and nobody should have to bow. Are you not an equal to every human in Canada? And avoiding a traffic ticket? Is the ticket being presented to you lawfully being served? How do you know? Well it should start with a break down of a few simple points.

Person vs Human Being - look them up or read them earlier in the thread.

If you feel you are being treated fairly and justly great! Stick with your status quo. I will continue to educate and communicate with who ever will feel the same as me.

The great part of this is I will invite people out to watch court appearances if I am going. Or if I get a fine I will document everything I am doing.

I have already begun with my MP here in Calgary. This will be shown shortly and lawfully without malice aforethought, ill-will, vexation or frivolity.