TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote:I disagree about establishing a victim as a key to any crime. The Code of Criminal Procedure clearly states that Texas is the victim in EVERY crime. Note Article 1.23 that states that the offense is "against the peace and dignity of the state". There are many crimes without a "victim" other than the state, such as resisting arrest or bail jumping.

As for the right to travel, I have long been convinced that this exists and means that driving is a right not a privilege. This does not mean that traffic laws are invalid though. It could mean that laws requiring a license to drive or a vehicle registration are unconstitutional but laws such as speeding or running a red light would be allowed. Continuing your analogy to the Second Amendment it means that guns are all legal to own, but you cannot shoot them when and where you want. The use may be reasonable restricted. I am not aware of any court in recent years that has agreed with me on the license laws. But in anotehr thread I did note that Texas did not require a DL until the mid 1930's and seem to work out just fine.

I am not sure what some of the other cases would have to do with this point though. And I think we are drifting too far from the OP's points and questions, so we should let this sub-thread drop and stay on topic a little better.

But even when the crime is "against the peace and dignity of the state" ... factually what is a state. Basically what it comes down to is understanding States are not States, they are corporations. Which is part of the reason the Republic of Texas guys are around. And if you don't know what the implications mean of all States being Corporations.

On what you said to the Right to Travel.
This gets really nit picky... but Traffic Laws can not be applied to traveling.

Basically the word driving is implied with commerce, and the States have the right to regulate commerce on the roads. This is established in Shapiro v. Thompson , 394 U.S. 618 (1969) as well.
So when a individual Travels via Automobile he is not in commerce and cannot be regulated via Traffic Laws, He/She would be responsible for damages or other typical scenarios on the roads so its a good idea to follow the laws established for congress.

But an Application for a license means you are requesting permission from the State to receive gains by means of transportation. This is the importance of understanding what terms mean LEGALLY and every day common terms. And they typically establish things like License and give you the common definition. But legally the thought of regulating people through means of Requesting Permission to Travel via roads, goes against the very core beliefs of our constitution. And more relevant to this forum, Concealed Carry License.

People call me crazy or say chaos would ensue if Traffic laws didn't exist... but frankly I am a hardcore constitutionalist and Government has no right to tell me what to do with me and my belongings as long as I do not injure someone else.

srothstein wrote:

GeekDad wrote:but Corpus Delicti does play in traffic tickets

I think you may have a misunderstanding of the corpus delicti rule and what is necessary to prove a crime. Corpus delicit means the body of the crime or the body of evidence. It is a term of art used in criminal cases to mean the elements of the offense that must be proven. Every offense is composed of several elements that must be proven. Some of the elements normally include jurisdiction and culpable mental state and the specific parts of each crime.

For example, to prove a murder was committed, the state must prove jurisdiction (that some part of the offense occurred in Texas, noting that finding the location of the body is included as a part of the offense), that the deceased was an individual (as an individual is defined in the law), that the deceased was killed, that the actor (proper Texas term for suspect) killed the deceased, and one of several conditions on the killing (that it was intentional or knowing - culpable mental state, that the actor intended to commit serious bodily injury and committed an act dangerous to life that did kill, or that the actor was committing or attempting to commit another felony and while doing so or fleeing after doing so committed an act dangerous to life that did kill).

Now, taking the illustrated case, you do have an injury involved - the death. but there is no legal requirement for an injury to have a crime committed. For example, there is a whole chapter in the penal code on gambling. Section 47.02 says you commit an offense if you simply place a bet on a political nomination or appointment. Now, this is true even if the gambling is honest and not rigged. Where is there an injury in this offense?

Similarly, there may not be an injury in a traffic offense, but it is still an offense. Traffic offenses also do not require a culpable mental state, differing them from most other crimes. This is a theory of criminal responsibility known as strict liability. I bring this up only to show that the general rule of criminal theory may not apply to traffic law.

One of the problems many people have is in using public references that include otehr states. In some states, traffic offenses are all civil cases. In other states, traffic offenses are crimes. Texas is normally one of those states that makes traffic offenses a crime, but we have moved into a slightly confusing position where it may also be a civil offense. Now, running a red light is a criminal offense when a police officer sees you and a civil offense when you are caught by a camera.

Establishing the victim is key to any criminal case... your definitively right they Traffic cases are stupid when it comes to defining as criminal or civil.

If you don't buy the corpus delicti you should look into the following...

The Right to Travel...

Right To Travel.
1st Amendment right to travel.
5th Amendment to due process.

Marbury v. Madison , 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Any laws in clonflict are non-void.

Shapiro v. Thompson , 394 U.S. 618 (1969)
The right to traval is a secured liberty.

Marbury v. Madison , 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land any law in conflict null and void the law.

In this case the Right to Travel freely and unencumbered

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
No State can convert a secured liberty into a privilege.


Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262 (1963)
Law is Null and Void and can act with Impunity.


United States v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 (1973)
willful disobedience?
Held: The word "willfully" has the same meaning in §§ 7206(1) and 7207,
connoting the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty, and
the distinction between the statutes is found in the additional misconduct
that is essential to the violation of the felony provision; hence, the
District Court properly refused the requested lesser included offense
instruction based on respondent's erroneous contention that the word
"willfully" in the misdemeanor statute implied less scienter than the same
word in the felony statute. Pp. 412 U. S. 350-361.

You can not be charged with willful disobedience due to following the constitution and backing of surpreme court decisions.

16 am jurisprudence 2nd, section 97
It will be interpreted in my favor I am the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary for citizens protection of rights and properties.

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28 (1927)
Unlawful search and siesure, but states that they have to interprate in my favor the clearly
intended and expressly designated beneficiary for citizens protection of rights and
properties.

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886)
The court is to protect against any encroachment on a constitutional secured liberty

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

This could also apply to the second amendment... and I know of one other board member that knows about these law cause its in his sig.

speedsix wrote:...it's clear what you SAID...and that's what I responded to, quite different from what you claimed you said...or are now saying...
...I'm not "reading too much in to the Wiki link"...I'm merely reading what the link said that you posted to support what your post said, and telling you that it doesn't apply to Texas law...things are different here...and the whole Corpus Delecti argument doesn't work in the traffic area...the offense is against the State...the State is considered "the injured party" when we commit a "victimless" crime...
...the only reason it's important to me is that for someone to say a traffic offense is not a crime, and go on to say what the officer can and can't do and so on, as you did in the post that I replied to, sets someone up to get in a lot of trouble...because the whole argument there is simply not based on accurate facts...and I'm sure neither you nor I want that to happen...

Thank you... but Corpus Delicti does play in traffic tickets... like I said its applied to ANY criminal case.

and even if the State is the "Injured" Party... Factually what is a state. and what part is injured.

speedsix wrote:

GeekDad wrote:

speedsix wrote:

GeekDad wrote:

speedsix wrote:...even citing Wiki, which is not top shelf legal advice, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; disputes the "fact" that a traffic offense is not a crime...I hope any lawyer telling us that gives refunds...

I just sited wiki to give you a definition. How to actually defend your self in court is a whole other subject.

...the point I was making is that what you stated and used the "Wikilink" to back up is incorrect in Texas law...and even Wiki will tell you that...in Texas, a traffic offense is, in fact, a crime...

That's what I said... In most states a Traffic office is considered a "Infraction" but not in Texas, its considered a Class C Misdemeanor and by Texas Penal code that is a "Crime." That in turn validates my explanation of Corpus Delicti.
The Definition is, Corpus delicti requires at a minimum: 1) The occurrence of the specific injury; and 2) some criminal agency as the source of the injury.
For example:
Homicide - 1.) An individual has died; and 2.) By a criminal act.
Larceny - 1.) Property missing; and 2.) Because it was stolen

So if you committed a "crime" by "Speeding" their is no Corpus Delicti because their is no injury to anyone.

...no, what you SAID was:

" Sorry but no traffic stop is a crime. Look up the rulings and law for corpus delicti
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_delicti#_" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is my biggest problem with traffic stops, you are not committing a crime therefore cops have no authority to summon you to court or charge you with anything. If their is no injury their is no crime. And they are not infractions. Class C misdemeanor is considered a crime under Texas penal code. Their I just gave you a solid defense against any and all traffic tickets. But you can't win in local courts, judges dont care about the law they are suppose to up hold they are too busy getting funds added to their pensions per citation. Which also is a conflict of interest. "

...and THAT'S what I took issue with because it is wrong...in Texas, a traffic stop IS a crime...and all that in the second paragraph is not correct, either...you can't take definitions from Wiki or any other source and make them fit in Texas...our law is what it is...other states and Wiki don't control Texas....the "Corpus Delecti" theory doesn't fit here...Texas does it the Texas way...

What I was saying is simply this... through a Corpus Delicti argument as a defense, traffic stops are not proven crimes because their is no injury. Corpus Delicti is used in Texas... more commonly through for Murders and other similar charges... but it does have application to any Criminal Case. WHICH is why I said that traffic tickets are Class C Misdemeanors, which by definition in the Penal code is a "Crime." Again... the only reason I brought up the fact that other states is due to other states calling traffic violations "infractions" even through their is no Infraction code in their laws... that is a whole other conversation.

And the Wiki link was for the definition... wiki is not a solid source of information, and most colleges will not accept them as a valid source. I know this... so you are reading too much in to the wiki link.

Their are several rulings in Texas about corpus delicti, one of the most recent is a case involving Chrysler Corporation but I can not dig up the site I have used in the past for this info.

speedsix wrote:

GeekDad wrote:

speedsix wrote:...even citing Wiki, which is not top shelf legal advice, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; disputes the "fact" that a traffic offense is not a crime...I hope any lawyer telling us that gives refunds...

I just sited wiki to give you a definition. How to actually defend your self in court is a whole other subject.

...the point I was making is that what you stated and used the "Wikilink" to back up is incorrect in Texas law...and even Wiki will tell you that...in Texas, a traffic offense is, in fact, a crime...

That's what I said... In most states a Traffic office is considered a "Infraction" but not in Texas, its considered a Class C Misdemeanor and by Texas Penal code that is a "Crime." That in turn validates my explanation of Corpus Delicti.
The Definition is, Corpus delicti requires at a minimum: 1) The occurrence of the specific injury; and 2) some criminal agency as the source of the injury.
For example:
Homicide - 1.) An individual has died; and 2.) By a criminal act.
Larceny - 1.) Property missing; and 2.) Because it was stolen

So if you committed a "crime" by "Speeding" their is no Corpus Delicti because their is no injury to anyone.

speedsix wrote:...even citing Wiki, which is not top shelf legal advice, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; disputes the "fact" that a traffic offense is not a crime...I hope any lawyer telling us that gives refunds...

I just sited wiki to give you a definition. How to actually defend your self in court is a whole other subject.

bci21984 wrote:A citation is a summons to appear before a judge to answer for the crime you are charged with. The officer doesn't have to let you sign the citation. If you are stopped for expired registration you CAN be arrested to be taken before a magistrate. You dont have to have committed any other crimes or be guilty of anything else. Depending on the officer's mood and the way you convey your opinion of the inconvenience he is causing you could result in a greater inconvenience if he chooses to arrest you.

Sorry but no traffic stop is a crime. Look up the rulings and law for corpus delicti
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_delicti#_

That is my biggest problem with traffic stops, you are not committing a crime therefore cops have no authority to summon you to court or charge you with anything. If their is no injury their is no crime. And they are not infractions. Class C misdemeanor is considered a crime under Texas penal code. Their I just gave you a solid defense against any and all traffic tickets. But you can't win in local courts, judges dont care about the law they are suppose to up hold they are too busy getting funds added to their pensions per citation. Which also is a conflict of interest.

I respect cops and have 2 in my family. I just wish some men would stand up to this revenue generating system that harasses people. And not signing a summons is not a crime.