Skip to main content

I recently received a ticket just for not wearing my seat belt, and i need help to understand how this is constitutional.

Big Rapids, MI |

i have read the US Constitution and cant see how i have done anything wrong
as i have not infringed on anyone else's rights directly or indirectly according
to the 14th amendment. and now i have had my licence suspended.
and after being notified that my drivers licence was suspended. i have re read the US Constitution and from my understanding by them suspending my licence, they have infringed
on my 1st amendment rights regarding, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and my right to assemble, and my right to heathcare. as i have no other method to travel to do such things without being able to drive to such places
also it is infringing on my 4th amendment right as i have done nothing to suspect anything criminal for them to pull me over, and seatbelt law clearly states its not criminal

and as i understand the 4th requires a oficer of the law to take a oath or affirmation, in witch they all state that they will fully will protect and serve the people and the United States Constitution . woulden't this Constitute them breaking their oath or affirmation. as it would presume they know the rights of the people and the rights given to all of us in the Constitution .

+ Read More

Attorney answers 4

Posted

The state has the right to require you to wear a seat belt, this is not a violation of the constitution. This type of law falls under the state's police powers and does not infringe on any one individuals rights. Nor is this a violation of your 1st amendment right. Moreover, having a license is a privilege not a right, and thus if you accumulate too many tickets or are convicted of certain crimes you can and will have your license suspended. Sorry, but this is the world we live in.

Joshua Duane Jones

Joshua Duane Jones

Posted

"infringe on anyone's individual rights"* sorry for the typo

Asker

Posted

ok if this is as such then explain to me this can or cant this apply according to my question Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579. as i have also found that a seat belt is considered a medical device as well wouldent that also violate my right for how i choose to except or deny medical treatment. isnt my car my property and shouldnt i have the right to use my property in any way i choose as long as it doesnt infringe on anyone elses rights. im looking to you all for real help and i will take my case to the highest courts if i have to. another thing i should also mention that i have also read is the international bill of rights that the united states has ratified what also grant me my natural human rights. what is also considered a high crime to violate peoples human rights give that a look as well. i will even take it to the united nations if i have to to get proper justice. plain and simple i ask how am i infringing on your rights just by not wearing a seat belt. and i have not caused any harm with my self or my property. only in the event of a crash should that ever apply. even so if the crash is not my fault and i am the victim of someone else's infringment for crashing in to me by accedent or other wise. they would be the party at fault. in addition the reason they enacted the click it or ticket program is to help sabelize the economy based off the bill that the partys that lobbyed congress for. we should teach people how to be safe, and not take their rights away in the name of safety. this remindes me of a famous quote fro one of our founding fathers with that same thing in mind. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" Benjamin Franklin I personally hold my rights to be sacred and believe the same for others. and i will be willing to die in protecting them. just as our fore fathers before us have. if a law passed tomarrow that fined people for not smiling at one another would you fight to uphold that law of fight for our god given rights that no man can give or take from us. this is no different then what we are facing here with the click it or ticket law what denys ones rights for monatary gain. and you are telling me your in support of that. our money in the usa is a debt note not tangable currency like gold. when we barrow money from the world our country gets issued fiat bills "aka paper" that will have no value if no other country desides to exchange it. and we have to pay back for the fiat papers with gold. with this in mind and what is real truth if you research it as well. what justice is being done by denying people the right to choose for them self within their own property. im in need of a real lawer like that of another great one and one of our founding fathers John Adams. who regardless of popular opinion stood up to defend innocent english soldiers for their life when they was phisicly taunted by a mob of americans when they was just standing in formation in front of their fort in them days. another great founding father who stood up for what was right regardless of the odds agenst them.

Posted

The other attorney is correct. Nevertheless, you continue to challenge his answer in such a manner that indicates that you have an extremely flawed understanding of constitutional law and its application. Therefore, I doubt that there is anything I can say to you to persuade you that you are incorrect. Plus, it would take a great deal of time to explain why your analysis and application is wrong on the numerous points of law you raise. Don't you think if seat belt laws were unconstitutional they would have already been challenged by now?

You may challenge your suspension on constitutional grounds, but you will not be successful and there is no attorney out there that would make such a legally frivolous and unsupportable argument. In fact if an attorney were to advance the arguments that you make in your question and your comment to Mr. Jones that attorney would probably be sanctioned for making a claim or defense without legal merit. Perhaps you should consider taking a class on constitutional law. Some law schools may let you take a class for no credit and no grade without being enrolled.

DISCLAIMER: This answer is provided as general information, which may not be appropriate for the specific facts of your particular situation. No attorney-client relationship has been established based on this limited communication. You are advised to consult with an attorney in your jurisdiction before taking any action or inaction that may affect your legal rights. www.hecklerlawoffice.com

Posted

Reviewing both your posting and subsequent commentary, I think you are absolutely correct. The state CANNOT make you wear a seatbelt in your own car on your own land. Once you venture out on the public highway, however, you have to follow the law or pay the consequences. If you do not go to court, the ticket will default. If you do not pay, a bench warrant will issue. If you are found, you will be arrested. You can then bond out or sit in jail. In Hillsdale you might even be charged with absconding, but who knows what the custom is in Bay City. Then, you will likely face "pay or jail" and you can either pay or sit in jail. Your license might be suspended. Of course, the state cannot force you to have a license to drive on your own land. Just on the public highway. You have no right to health care, at least until ObamaCare kicks in when you will have to take exactly the health care you are prescribed. There is no religion as to seat belts. As to freedom of speech, you can criticize seat belts all you want. As to 4th Amendment, you do not undergo an illegal search. What you fail to understand is that you have absolutely no power whatsoever to avoid paying for your civil infractiion Resistance is futile. But, you do have the right not to pay the ticket, and the state has the power to lock you in a cell for not paying.

I do take Constitutional cases like these on a paid basis. My fee is 15,000 one ounce gold coins (Maple Leaf, US Gold, Krugerand), paid up front.

We do not have a client/attorney relationship until you make an appointment, we discuss your case face to face, I accept a retainer, and we explictly agree to enter into representation.

Posted

You are misguided. You maintain the general right to assemble, speak, practice your religion and even bear children. These are FUNDAMENTAL rights under the Constitution, but driving was not listed as one of those very important rights because everyone rode horses. If the matter is not a Fundamental right, the State merely needs to establish a rational basis for the law to pass muster under the US Constitution. Mandating seat belts so that government employees do not have to clean you up off the street would probably pass that test.

Your inability to drive is a privilege rather than a right. They did not have to give it to you, they do not have to let you keep it, and you cannot make them give it back as long as they give you due process on both ends. The Constitution, despite popular belief, does not empower you to do whatever you want. It merely restricts the Government from infringing upon your enumerated rights without good cause.

Attorneys are very competitive. Choose the Best Answer so we know who helped you the most.

Barry Franklin Poulson

Barry Franklin Poulson

Posted

Well said.

Asker

Posted

if i am so miss guided in the relevance of my rights, then how is it under common law in witch our nation uses. that the supreme courts of our nation has time and time agian clearly stated to travel is a common and natural right regardless of the mode of transportation and it is not a privilege, the privilege to travel is for that of corporations and anyone who uses the public highways for profitable gain. now i will not go on and on about this and just ask one simple thing cause the information that i have uncovered is my source and findings for my argument regarding my rights. and that source is from http://www.landrights.com/Travel.htm#a1 if im wrong in my findings and that no information is found to be correct from my source i will willfully admit im wrong. but it is to my understanding and of natural rights that i have this right to travel without being infringed on how i use my property to travel. i implore you all who read this comment to read the link i provided and refute the evidence that i believe to be true with out any misguided notions. http://www.landrights.com/Travel.htm#a1 an added note. if i indeed dont have a right to travel or use my own property for transport how is a person like my self going to have access to the necessary amenities when i have a disability that limits my ability to travel by foot and transport the things i need to servive. i dont have people to rely on and dont have access to public transportation.

Barry Franklin Poulson

Barry Franklin Poulson

Posted

You can walk wherever you want. Cite please the cases (case, page, and line#) to your claim of "regardless of the mode of transportation." You do also have the right to ride in a car, albeit wth a seat belt in place. In this era of viruses, I will not be clicking through any suspect sites, but you do have the right to travel, but not to violate the seatbelt law. So, if you can cite the SCOTUS case that gives you this right, I will read the case and will be prepared to change my view.,

Asker

Posted

ok berry i think i may have found some information that will help my case and it is the term corpus delicti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_delicti im sure you may know this term but could you shed any light on this one for me.

Asker

Posted

All corpus delicti requires at a minimum: 1) The occurrence of the specific injury; and 2) some criminal agency as the source of the injury. that sounds substantial as all i have have done is just not wear a seat belt and was ticketed for just that.

George Ellis Corson IV

George Ellis Corson IV

Posted

Corpus Delicti aka "the body of the crime" is a concept that means all elements of a crime must be proven. In your case, a "motor vehicle" must be "operated" without a "seat belt" "properly in place." The officer's testimony, combined with your clear confession, satisfies all elements. You are not arguing innocence; you are arguing that the law is unconstitutional as to you. You are wrong. Your irrelevant reference to corpus delicti would require you to prove that you did not fall within the statute, because you were not "operating" a "motor vehicle" or your seat belt was "properly placed." If you want to make an Appeal, that is where you should dedicate your substantial time and resources.

Asker

Posted

how does that imply a injury in any part of corpus delicti i looked up the meaning of injury and it states some a form of harm or loss

Asker

Posted

i fail to see how it has caused any loss or harm to the state the public or anyone. and i also like to thank you all for your patience with me. im just trying to understand all the rights i have regarding all this.

Asker

Posted

as far as the constitution goes im in titled to all forms of due process of law as i now understand to be the most important thing here. and that should be the right of every man.

Asker

Posted

sorry for so many comments here is the source its a video regarding what im talking about and it even addresses seat belt tickets all i ask is you all could scrutinise it so i can understand all this better. its not that long and it has a lot of information that i may have trouble getting across that well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw2Bj51TyLY&feature=related

Barry Franklin Poulson

Barry Franklin Poulson

Posted

While I am not going to click through a URL, in this issue the victim is the public. You do not have to wear a seatbelt. You can stay right there at home and never wear one. Yiou can walk about anywhere, or take public transportation. What you CANNOT do is drive or ride in a car without properly wearing a seatbelt. The state is sovereign, and you are not. The state pass laws under its police powers. Police powers include laws for the health and safety of the people. So, if you drive or ride in a car on the public streets, you can either wear a seatbelt or pay a fine if you are ticketed for not following the law.

Asker

Posted

well for one thing as i am aware of now that makes full sence to me is that of standing of the case. Standing - Standing requires the claimant to demonstrate a particularized injury distinct from that suffered by the general public—there must be an actual grievance, not a hypothetical or generalized grievance. Glover v. Union Pac. R.R., 187 S.W.3d 201, 209 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2006, pet. denied); see Brown v. Todd, 53 S.W. 3d 297, 302 (Tex.2001); see also In re H.C.S., 219 S.W.3d 33, 34 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2006, no pet.).

Asker

Posted

Opponents of a strict standing test complain that plaintiffs never get a chance to prove their case in court. They believe that justice should not be denied by the application of judicially created doctrines such as standing.

Asker

Posted

STANDING The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id. In deciding whether xxx has standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in xxx's declaration and other affidavits in support of his assertion of standing. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1974) (Warth). see also Warth, 422 U.S. at 501 (when addressing motion to dismiss for lack of standing, both district court and court of appeals must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing). Standing is founded "in concern about the proper--and properly limited--role of the courts in a democratic society. " Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he "is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury." Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that "federal courts reserve their judicial power for `concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.' " Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq. Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief "must show a very significant possibility' of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit." Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).

Asker

Posted

Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992). i have recived by the state a Indefinite suspension of my driving privilege as it claims and loss of money to pay the fine or to reinstate my driving privilege. so i have suffered a direct personal loss Indefinite suspension .

Asker

Posted

Standing requires the claimant to demonstrate a particularized injury distinct from that suffered by the general public

Asker

Posted

i also understand that a Complaint/ticket is not synonymous with a cause of action what gives all this even more validity

Asker

Posted

this is also where my 14th amendment rights come in of the equal protection under the laws All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Barry Franklin Poulson

Barry Franklin Poulson

Posted

Just throwing about a collection of disjoint components does not create a legal argument any more than piling car parts in the NAPA parking lots builds a Honda. We have been over all of this. You received a ticket. Fight it (ie, show that a. you were not driving or b. you were wearing a seatbelt) or pay it or see just how far the criminal justice system will go to bring you to heel.

Asker

Posted

I don’t have time to sight the case law but the US Supreme Court as ruled you have the right to your personal healthcare standard and so if the state is forcing you to ware a device that could (not always will) save your life in a vehicle that you purchased it is unconstitutional because they are making (according to there “it saves lives campaign”) a healthcare decision for you, now the naysayers will say you don’t have to drive on public roads, really well if it truly is “we the people” then it is fractionally your road much like owning stock!. More over the reason it has not bee challenged is the law has no teeth and don’t even go against your car insurance. Now the reason we have the law is the national transportation and safety administration treating the cut off federal highway funds which is extortion of your states laws. Yes it’s a privilege but it is a right to have the privilege same as fair housing. Its just a matter of putting together the right argument as a matter of law such as health care ;-)

Asker

Posted

Benjamin Franklin: "They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.".

Barry Franklin Poulson

Barry Franklin Poulson

Posted

Complete and utter nonsense. And, Obama won the health care tax argument, too, so be prepared to buy some, or pay the fail tax. The seat belt law is a traffic law. Three choices: buckle up, pay the fines, or drive only on your own land, not the public roads. The road is not fractional, it belongs entirely to the government. You are not the government. You are not even a law-abiding citizen, just a scoff-law trying to play with words you do not comprehend.

Asker

Posted

So I guess McDonald vs City Of Chicago 2010 is nonsense now that the 2nd amendment has been combined with the 14th amendment so cities and states can just throw there gun regulations in the trash... What planet do you live on anything can be challenged and there are already state courts, Washington in particular that agree with me LOL. So your response at best is horse sh!t ;-)… Now will anyone pony up the money to mount a defense not until these laws start costing tax payers a lot of money in increased insurance premiums… Also Mississippi had threat of losing 6 million in highway funds unless they passed primary seat belt laws, Florida 32 million a state that repealed there helmet laws in 2001….

Barry Franklin Poulson

Barry Franklin Poulson

Posted

YOU can pony up the money to defend your silly claim. Yes, the Feds require the states to enact traffic laws to get funding. Speed limits, alchohol, drinking age, and seat belts for those too simple to understand their use. And they also require health insurance. So, if you want to spend on your argument, hire a lawyer and spend. Just stay off the highway. You might hurt someone.

Asker

Posted

Silly ummm, I see attorneys lose in court every week to silly claims ;-), its not what the law says, its what the law means, and its not what the law means, its what the law was intended for, I could go on and on… Good day sir this year will be the end of big government Go Romney

Barry Franklin Poulson

Barry Franklin Poulson

Posted

The law means that you have to wear a seatbelt. Romney wears a seatbelt. Perhaps that is why he survived that tragic wreck in Europe. This law is intended for YOU, since everyone else seems to get it and wear their belt.

Asker

Posted

Lord man its freedom and I wear one when I choose to but Romney would agree its a choice... Before I do want I do now I was a cop and seen many people saved because they didn't have it own and always felt it was a bad law and would not enforce it. I would rather had been saving you from worse crimes. ;-)

Asker

Posted

I will be running for Judge in two years so we will see it it is constitutional...

Barry Franklin Poulson

Barry Franklin Poulson

Posted

Total nonsense. Highway studies show belts save lives. If used. You will never be a judge. It IS a choice, one you make when you choose to drive on the public highway.

Asker

Posted

You are correct Barry they do save lifes but its a choice and I only lost last time by 450 votes LOL... Yes ware them but a good Idea does not mean it should be the law and the 25 year judge I ran agaist is retireing...Ok Barry injoy your weekend

Barry Franklin Poulson

Barry Franklin Poulson

Posted

It is a choice, but it was never your choice, it is the people's choice. And, you cannot remove the cat, in some states cannot underlight with neon, cannot change the light colors, etc. All because the roads are not yours. You will never be a judge - you have not the ability.

Asker

Posted

Wow does your car tag say guily on it? I can tell you are a liberal with a big gov mentality.

Barry Franklin Poulson

Barry Franklin Poulson

Posted

I am a public defender, and very conservative in a conservative town. A law-abiding town, where you would be able to drive around on your own land as much as you want.

George Ellis Corson IV

George Ellis Corson IV

Posted

Friend, I stand by my initial statement that you are misguided. Living in society requires adhesion to a social contract. The group agrees to protect the individual, and the individual agrees to obey the rules. Without rules, you would drive without a seatbelt, Mr. Poulson would drive on the left side of the street, and I would steal your car. You cannot decide which laws to obey; the laws will be enforced. If you truly believe that seatbelts are unnecessary, then start a campaign to have them outlawed. If your state agrees that Michigan has too many people, and outlawing seatbelts will thin the herd, then you will be a Hero. Until then, you must obey the law until you can change the law. I suggest that you purchase a bicycle until you succeed, but do not forget your helmet. The sidewalk is actually harder than your skull.

Barry Franklin Poulson

Barry Franklin Poulson

Posted

Wait, wait. As a conservative I would NEVER drive on the left side of the road. I do not even make left turns. But, in high school, our class sold seat belt kits, and I installed on on my dad's 1963 Buick Special. The floor bolt attachments were already there.

George Ellis Corson IV

George Ellis Corson IV

Posted

In Hillsdale, do you really represent residents against Felony Indecency charges for CLEARLY using Eggshell paint instead of Creme while repainting their homes? How do you sleep after you free such scofflaws from obvious anarchy? ;-)

Barry Franklin Poulson

Barry Franklin Poulson

Posted

Actually, I represented a flower shop owner who was charged with violating the sign ordnance for spelling out "Send Flowers" with their holiday lights. I maintained that is was a Christmas Miracle. Mrs. P maintained that it was a Chanukah miracle, and that the lights were only up for 9 days.

Asker

Posted

Geroge you nor me nor Barry can get in a car and drive down the street with out violating the law and/or the rules of the road so don't give me that self righteous crap!!!

Asker

Posted

Don't argue what the law is for your client argue what the law ota be LOL...

Barry Franklin Poulson

Barry Franklin Poulson

Posted

I try not to violate the traffic laws. But, over 40 years, I have paid 4 speeding tickets. But, the point is, I just paid them. After bargaining, it is true, but I paid. That's how civil infractions work.

George Ellis Corson IV

George Ellis Corson IV

Posted

I did not say to argue what the law SHOULD be; nobody cares what one man thinks. I said to mobilize public outrage and CHANGE the law if that is where your heart takes you.

Barry Franklin Poulson

Barry Franklin Poulson

Posted

Ah, well SHOULD be. Now that would take quite a while to write out, eh? Let's see...

Asker

Posted

You two are a hoot, have a good rest of your holliday...

Asker

Posted

wow i missed out on a lot sence the last time i was on hear and in the mean time i been learning even more on this subject. the truth in all the facts is that their is a lot of mis understanding about the difference between the real law and statutory law, the true law is and has always been under the same and simular depending on where your from with common law. in witch their is 3 basic easy for everyone to understand rules/law 1. cause no harm to another 2 do not steal or damage something that belongs to others, 3. respect your contracts. and they all have remedy, and all have to prove the facts of each case. good thing our founding fathers carryed over the common law system in our country. how ever they also allowd for legislative law what operates like rules for a corporation and admiralty law. Admiralty law is the law of the sea and commerce. statutory law is the laws/acts of legislation, that are to rule over commerce. and the seat belt statute can only be enforced if you are engaging in commerce. and in my case i was traveling and not making any profitable gain from such. so that rules me out for sure in that fact, and yes that is a fact if you actually read the law books on statute law. and i have saved some money up and got me one and a blacks law dictionary. how ever from my own ignorance of knowing before i appered before the magistrate who is a agent ruleing in admiralty law i made some mistakes in saying anything to them. seeing how what i should have done when i was pulled over is ask for the 3 forms of identification the police are required by law to present to you to prove they are a real officer of the law, and ack to see the warrent to seizure my vehicle and a police stop is a seizure look it up its a fact. and now that i also know about concent, and protest and derese i could have had a far better outcome. and learning that they are trying to force people with a service, a service i do not require or have asked for or ever asked them to preform or even have voted for. now i am working on setting up a affidavit with a fee schedule so next time they stop me just to ask me any thing i will never have to say anything to them except my real name and not my legal name and where the affidavit is recorded. i will be charging them for pulling me over in gold and if they place use any force another thing that they will have to pay for and if they do. also that any tickets that they ticket me i do not concent to and if they want to serve me any it will cost them the price of what they are trying to take from me and court cost and it will show that i am just a agent of the legal name that i was forced to have at birth with out my concent and i will require them to prove the contract. im not part of your law society and i do not concent to any of your statutes or have ever sworn any oath to such as lawers and judges and other law makers who are not conducting law under common law when dealing with me as its the only true law that i agree to have any real standing and real justice. i have so much more to share then just that, but thats a story for another time. i have been fortunate to get some real help in this matter and have had a trial with the help of a common law consultant. who was willing to work for free unless we win the case. over all we have proved to the jury the facts that i lacked the understanding of their statutory law and how that regardeing me when i travel what is natural rite of all men. and now we are going back to the court for a remedy for me from them for coercing me in to a judgement agenst my self from my lack of understanding their rules of their law society. All i have to say thank god their is real men who will help defend the inocent victims with the true law from them that are taking part in the extortion scheme that we all are being subjected to. and that is what really needs to be looked at not what people wear when driving. I like to also thank all of you who have helped me understand some things regarding my case. but i got proper justice and im still a free m

Asker

Posted

here is some usefull links to also check out in your study for everyone. http://archuletacountyguard.org/right-2-drive-1.html http://archuletacountyguard.org/affidavit-driving-updated.html http://rvbeypublications.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/rightsweb.pub.pdf

Barry Franklin Poulson

Barry Franklin Poulson

Posted

This is not a blog. Your question has been answered.