Category Archives: Uncategorized

Site Restructuring

Due to the amount of research and format for this site, I’ve decided to dedicate this blog for comments and general posts. Most of the lengthy and research-oriented content has been published at http://www.marcmkkoy.net

You may notice some content overlap due to  time constraints on design as well as search engine considerations. You can still reach this blog from the .net site, but please make a note of the change and thank you for your interest.

A look at what constitutes "speeding"

An interesting look at what constitutes “speeding”, be it posted limit or reasonable and prudent. Original post is here.Speeding in Traffic (Florida)Prudent or Posted?

 

The Florida statute providing the penalty for speeding is at section 316.183 (FS). Subsection (1) directs that everyone shall drive at “reasonable and prudent” under the conditions. Subsection (3) directs school buses (not even the drivers of them, but the buses!) shall not exceed the posted speed limit. Subsection (4) is directed at every driver, for him to adhere to the requirements of subsection (1), being “reasonable and prudent.” At subsection (6) all drivers are directed to obey the speed limits signs in a work zone area.

So, school buses (!) are to obey the posted speed limits at all times. Drivers in general need only be “reasonable and prudent” except when in a work zone area where the posted speed limits also apply.

Looking at the cross reference for the FAC, it shows that 316.183 is implemented only by FAC 6-3.017; this section deals with school buses, and it implements specifically 316.183(3). The other subsections of 316.183 (FS) therefore are not implemented (barring a mistake in the online version in the FAC(section 6 is a 15MB PDF file)).

What is reasonable and prudent? It depends on road, weather, and other conditions. But travelling faster than the posted speed limit is not reckless per se; see the following Attorney General opinion, which is reproduced here as it is found on page 351 of the Biennial Report of the Attorney General for 1950:

May 10, 1950–050-236

MOTOR VEHICLES–SPEED LAWS–RECKLESS DRIVING–CHAPTER 317, FLORIDA STATUTES APPLICABLE

QUESTION: Does the operation of a motor vehicle at a rate of speed greater than the rate prescribed by Section 317.22, Florida Statutes, constitute reckless driving per se?

To: Honorable John D. Justice, County Judge, Sarasota County, Sarasota, Florida:
. . . . .

Your question is accordingly answered in the negative.

 

FS 317.22 of 1950 was similar to what FS 316.183 is today.

 


 

It appears that since the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, is an agency of the Executive Branch of government…

FS 20.24 Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.–There is created a Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.
(1) The head of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles is the Governor and Cabinet.
(2) The following divisions, and bureaus within the divisions, of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles are established:
(a) Division of the Florida Highway Patrol.
(b) Division of Driver Licenses.
(c) Division of Motor Vehicles.
1. Bureau of Motor Vehicle Inspection.

… the director of the DHSMV is responsible to comply with the rule adoption provisions of Chapter 120 (FS).

20.05 Heads of departments; powers and duties.–
(1) Each head of a department, except as otherwise provided by law, must:
* * *
(e) Subject to the requirements of chapter 120, exercise existing authority to adopt rules pursuant and limited to the powers, duties, and functions transferred to the department;

Rule making is required to implement to statute for the general public; see Rule Making.

As there are no rules bringing the general public within the operation of posted speed limits, it appears the general public (by this I mean those who hold driver’s licences but do not drive school buses) could argue (to a judge) that they have not been brought within the operation of the statute (FS 316.183) by an agency rule and therefore a (theoretical) speeding ticket charge should be dismissed. I don’t know if this argument will work as well if given for speeding in a “work zone area,” where one in theory endangered people working on or around the road. This is not legal advise – just a theory for some brave soul to try instead of paying a speeding fine.

 


 

.

 

 


 

 

FLORIDA STATUTES

316 STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL

316.183 Unlawful speed.— [implemented by FAC 6-3.017]

(1) No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. In every event, speed shall be controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle, or other conveyance or object on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care.

(2) On all streets or highways, the maximum speed limits for all vehicles must be 30 miles per hour in business or residence districts, and 55 miles per hour at any time at all other locations. However, with respect to a residence district, a county or municipality may set a maximum speed limit of 20 or 25 miles per hour on local streets and highways after an investigation determines that such a limit is reasonable. It is not necessary to conduct a separate investigation for each residence district. The minimum speed limit on all highways that comprise a part of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways and have not fewer than four lanes is 40 miles per hour.

(3) No school bus shall exceed the posted speed limits, not to exceed 55 miles per hour at any time.

(4) The driver of every vehicle shall, consistent with the requirements of subsection (1), drive at an appropriately reduced speed when:
(a) Approaching and crossing an intersection or railway grade crossing;
(b) Approaching and going around a curve;
(c) Approaching a hill crest;
(d) Traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway; and
(e) Any special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions.

(5) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

(6) No driver of a vehicle shall exceed the posted maximum speed limit in a work zone area.

(7) A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a moving violation as provided in chapter 318.

History.–s. 1, ch. 71-135; s. 1, ch. 76-159; s. 3, ch. 76-218; s. 3, ch. 76-286; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 6, ch. 87-161; s. 2, ch. 88-47; s. 5, ch. 88-91; s. 4, ch. 88-93; s. 21, ch. 90-227; s. 17, ch. 94-306; s. 20, ch. 96-350; s. 135, ch. 99-248.

 


 

316.185 Special hazards.–The fact that the speed of a vehicle is lower than the prescribed limits shall not relieve the driver from the duty to decrease speed when approaching and crossing an intersection, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, or when special hazards exist or may exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or other roadway conditions, and speed shall be decreased as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle, or other conveyance on or entering the street in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care. A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a moving violation as provided in chapter 318.

History.–s. 1, ch. 71-135; s. 136, ch. 99-248.

 


 

316.187 Establishment of state speed zones.— [implemented by FAC 14.15.012]

(1) Whenever the Department of Transportation determines, upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, that any speed is greater or less than is reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exist at any intersection or other place, or upon any part of a highway outside of a municipality or upon any state roads, connecting links or extensions thereof within a municipality, the Department of Transportation may determine and declare a reasonable and safe speed limit thereat which shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected at the intersection or other place or part of the highway.

(2)(a) The maximum allowable speed limit on limited access highways is 70 miles per hour.

(b) The maximum allowable speed limit on any other highway which is outside an urban area of 5,000 or more persons and which has at least four lanes divided by a median strip is 65 miles per hour.

(c) The Department of Transportation is authorized to set such maximum and minimum speed limits for travel over other roadways under its authority as it deems safe and advisable, not to exceed as a maximum limit 60 miles per hour.

(3) Violation of the speed limits established under this section must be cited as a moving violation, punishable as provided in chapter 318.

History.–s. 1, ch. 71-135; ss. 1, 18, ch. 76-31; s. 1, ch. 76-218; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 1, ch. 87-352; s. 9, ch. 93-164; s. 47, ch. 96-323; s. 21, ch. 96-350.

Note.–Former s. 316.181.

 


 

316.189 Establishment of municipal and county speed zones.— [implemented by FAC 6-3.017 & 14-15.012]

(1) MUNICIPAL SPEED.–The maximum speed within any municipality is 30 miles per hour. With respect to residence districts, a municipality may set a maximum speed limit of 20 or 25 miles per hour on local streets and highways after an investigation determines that such a limit is reasonable. It shall not be necessary to conduct a separate investigation for each residence district. A municipality may set speed zones altering the speed limit, both as to maximum, not to exceed 60 miles per hour, and minimum, after investigation determines such a change is reasonable and in conformity to criteria promulgated by the Department of Transportation, except that no changes shall be made on state highways or connecting links or extensions thereof, which shall be changed only by the Department of Transportation.

(2) SPEED ON COUNTY ROADS.–The maximum speed on any county-maintained road is:

(a) In any business or residence district, 30 miles per hour in the daytime or nighttime; provided that with respect to residence districts a county may set a maximum speed limit of 25 miles per hour after an investigation determines that such a limit is reasonable; and it shall not be necessary to conduct a separate investigation in each residence district.

(b) On any other part of a county road not a business or residence district, as set forth in s. 316.183.

However, the board of county commissioners may set speed zones altering such speeds, both as to maximum and minimum, after investigation determines such a change is reasonable and in conformity to criteria promulgated by the Department of Transportation, except that no such speed zone shall permit a speed of more than 60 miles per hour.

(3) POSTING OF SPEED LIMITS.–All speed zones shall be posted with clearly legible signs. No change in speeds from 30 miles per hour or from those established in s. 316.183 shall take effect until the zone is posted by the authority changing the speed pursuant to this section and s. 316.187. All signs which limit or establish speed limits, maximum and minimum, shall be so placed and so painted as to be plainly visible and legible in daylight or in darkness when illuminated by headlights.

(4) PENALTY.–Violation of the speed limits established under this section must be cited as a moving violation, punishable as provided in chapter 318.

History.–s. 1, ch. 71-135; ss. 1, 19, ch. 76-31; s. 2, ch. 76-218; s. 1, ch. 88-47; s. 22, ch. 90-227; s. 48, ch. 96-323; s. 22, ch. 96-350.

Note.–Former s. 316.182.

 


 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

CHAPTER 6-3 TRANSPORTATION
6-3.017 Responsibilities of School Districts for Student Transportation.

Each school district shall exercise specific powers and responsibilities, as follows:
(1) Responsibilities of Superintendent. It shall be the duty of the superintendent, acting as executive officer for the school board to exercise functions and to perform duties listed below:
(a) To recommend to the school board such policies, rules and regulations, plans and procedures as the superintendent shall deem desirable or necessary for provisions of satisfactory transportation facilities and equipment in the district, and as executive officer of the board, to administer the transportation service and to make sure that all policies and actions approved by the board are properly executed.
(b) To recommend to the school board for employment such assistants as are, in his or her judgement, necessary to supervise transportation operation and maintenance and to provide essential records, maps and studies of the service.
(c) To recommend in writing to the school board for employment qualified bus drivers, attendants and mechanics as may be necessary for efficient functioning of the service.
(d) To develop safety regulations and promote proper safety practices for all drivers.
(e) To prepare and recommend to the school board plans for purchase of or contract for safe school buses to transport students to and from school or school activities.
(f) To organize or approve an inspection, maintenance and repair service for publicly owned or contracted buses designed to ensure that the condition of each bus is maintained to meet or exceed accepted school bus industry and state standards, and which will be adequate to provide for quick and economical repair of any bus, and to make sure that this service functions efficiently.
(g) To propose garages at which buses shall be inspected, when arrangements for this service have not been made to use school board employed mechanics, and to see that inspections are systematically made at least once each month at garages approved by the board.
(h) To make periodic, objective surveys of school bus and garage equipment, routes, safety practices, repair and operating costs, and when unsatisfactory conditions are discovered, to recommend corrective measures to the school board.
(i) To recommend a medical examiner or medical examiners to give physical examinations to bus drivers and to ascertain and ensure that all examinations are carried out as required. A medical examiner shall be defined as a medical physician or physician assistant licensed pursuant to Chapter 458, Florida Statutes; an osteopathic physician or physician assistant pursuant to Chapter 459, Florida Statutes, a chiropractic physician licensed pursuant to Chapter 460, Florida Statutes; and an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner licensed pursuant to Chapter 464, Florida Statutes.
(2) The school district shall exercise additional specific powers and responsibilities, as follows:
(a) Enforcement of law and rules and formulation of policies.
(b) To make sure that State Board rules are known, understood and observed by all who have responsibility for student transportation.
(c) To assure that all transportation rules and statements of policy are in harmony with rules of the State Board and are fully observed.
(d) To assure that no state funds for transportation are used for transportation of students to schools which cannot qualify for recognition by the Department under the provisions of State Board rules.
(e) To adopt, after considering recommendations of the superintendent statements of policy in harmony with law and with rules of the State Board necessary for maintaining the requirements of adequate transportation. Such policies shall include at least the following responsibilities of the director or supervisor of transportation, the school principal or other designated staff and the bus driver for uniform school bus operating procedures:
1. Responsibilities of the director or supervisor of transportation:
a. To counsel with school bus drivers regarding safety and efficiency of service to schools and to make recommendations to them for improvement in service.
b. To confer with the superintendent or the superintendent’s designee regarding drivers and to recommend such personnel for employment.
c. To instruct school bus drivers in procedures to be followed in conducting school bus emergency evacuation drills and to confer with each school principal regarding scheduling, conducting and documenting school bus evacuation drills.
d. To counsel with bus drivers regarding driver responsibility and authority.
2. Responsibilities of the school principal or other designated school staff:
a. To assume responsibility under the direction of the superintendent for all student disciplinary cases which arise in connection with transportation.
b. To plan the program of the school so that transported students who arrive early or remain late will be under school supervision at all times.
c. To plan and assign places for students to get on and off school buses at the school, and to ensure the safety of the loading/unloading zone and to provide supervision of students.
d. To direct school bus emergency evacuation drills on each bus serving the school during the first six (6) weeks of each semester, and to maintain documentation for all students.
e. To provide instruction for all transported students in safe practices on and off the bus during the first six (6) weeks of the first semester of the school year.
f. To request authority in writing for transportation of students on field trips and activity trips, or other special trips, and to plan such trips in accordance with policies approved by the school board.
3. Responsibilities of the school bus driver:
a. To pass all required physical examinations and meet such requirements as may be prescribed by law or rules.
b. To be clean and neat in appearance, and to refrain from wearing shoes which are not securely held on the foot.
c. To refrain from use of tobacco while operating the bus, and to use no profane language in the presence of the students.
Drivers shall not use or be under the influence of alcohol, illicit drugs, or any substance which may impair the driver’s alertness or performance while on duty. Drivers shall not carry firearms while on school board property.
d. To prescribe, in cooperation with the principals, the seating arrangements of students on all buses.
e. To report needed changes in school bus transportation to the director or supervisor of transportation including bus loads, bus deficiencies, road hazards, routes and schedules.
f. To study and observe all laws and rules of the State Board and the school board relating to the service of transportation.
g. To attend and participate in conferences and training classes for school bus drivers and to be prepared at any time to pass successfully a reasonable examination concerning traffic laws, state and local transportation rules and driving skills.
h. To ascertain and ensure that transported students observe all rules prescribed by law and by the state and local board.
i. To maintain order and discipline, under the direction of the school principal, on the part of every passenger.
j. To permit a student to leave the bus only at their assigned stop, except upon written authorization of the school principal or other district designee.
k. To observe all procedures incorporated in the Florida Department of Education Basic School Bus Driver’s Curriculum, as incorporated by reference in Rule 6A-3.0141(4)(b), FAC.
l. To instruct transported students in safe riding practices.
m. To require all passengers to remain seated and to keep aisles and exits clear.
n. To participate in emergency evacuation drills at least once each school semester under the direction of the school principal or the principal’s designee.
o. To use the bus, if it is publicly owned, only to transport students to and from school, except upon specific direction of the superintendent or from the principal upon written authorization by the superintendent.
p. To prepare immediately after every accident involving the bus or a school bus passenger an accident report to be filed with the director or supervisor of transportation.
q. To ascertain and ensure that all persons are off the bus before filling fuel tank.
r. To drive always at a safe speed and never in excess of the legally posted speed limit in business or residential districts or fifty-five (55) miles per hour outside business or residential districts.
s. To cooperate with duly authorized school officials, mechanics and other personnel in the mechanical maintenance and repair of bus in overcoming hazards which threaten the safety or efficiency of service.
t. To inspect the bus at least daily prior to the beginning of the first daily trip or more often as required by the school district and to report any defect affecting safety or economy of operation immediately to authorized service personnel. The inspection shall include all items identified in the procedures related to the mandatory daily inspection in the Basic School Bus Driver Curriculum.
u. To keep the bus clean and neat at all times and not affix any stickers or other unauthorized items to the interior or exterior of buses.
v. To prepare reports, keep all records required, and otherwise assist school officials in mapping bus routes, planning schedules and in obtaining information for a continuous study of all phases of transportation service.
w. To wear a seat belt at all times when the bus is in operation.
x. To use roof-mounted white flashing strobe lights (if equipped) at a minimum, whenever headlights are required to be used due to reduced visibility conditions pursuant to Section 316.217(1)(b), Florida Statutes, except that insufficient light due only to the time of day or night shall not require use of the strobe light.
y. To report immediately to the director or supervisor of transportation, school principal or other designated officials:
[1] Misconduct on the part of any student while on bus or under the driver’s immediate supervision,
[2] Complaints requiring attention of school authorities,
[3] Any hazards arising which would offer either an actual or a potential threat to the safety of students in the driver’s care,
[4] Causes for failure to maintain school bus time schedule, and
[5] Overloaded conditions on the bus which exceed the rated capacity of the bus.
z. To maintain as far as practicable by patient and considerate treatment of parents a feeling of security in the safety of students transported.
(3) Transportation personnel.
(a) To employ such assistants as may be recommended by the superintendent and as are necessary in the judgment of the board to supervise operation and maintenance of school buses and to provide records and maps for a continuous study of transportation routes and needs within the district.
(b) To employ or contract only for services of school bus drivers who meet the requirements of Rule 6A-3.0141, FAC., and who possess a valid Medical Examiner’s Certificate.
(c) To officially maintain, after considering recommendations of the superintendent, an approved, current list of properly licensed physicians or medical facilities staffed by licensed physicians other than members of the school board or superintendent, eligible to examine all school bus drivers and driver applicants, in accordance with Form ESE 479, Physical Examination for School Bus Drivers and Medical Examiners Certificate, and School Bus Driver Physical Standards: Medical Regulatory Criteria for Physical Examinations, as adopted by reference in Rule 6A-3.0151, FAC.
(4) Transported students.
(a) To consider, and as nearly as possible to provide for, the transit, safety, and comfort of each student who will be transported to and from school.
(b) To approve, after considering recommendations of the superintendent, policies relating to and governing the conduct of transported students during the time they are riding on the school bus, and during the time spent on the school grounds awaiting the opening of school or in the afternoon hours waiting for the school bus.
(c) To suspend for a period exceeding ten (10) days, upon recommendation of the superintendent, any student who willfully and persistently violates school board policies.
(5) Purchases, lease and use of school buses.
(a) To provide, by purchase or contract, safe, comfortable and adequate transportation facilities and school buses which meet minimum standards of law and State Board rules.
(b) To purchase transportation equipment in accordance with all provisions of law and State Board rules.
(c) To assure that contracts entered into by school boards for operation of school buses are in accordance with law and rules of the State Board.
(d) To adopt policies governing the use of publicly owned and contracted school buses for transportation of students to school and school activities, and to ascertain and ensure that buses and bus bodies are used only after policies have been adopted and upon written instructions signed by the superintendent or designee. Such district policies shall include the provision that any equipment carried in a school bus which could shift on impact or sudden stop shall be securely fastened and shall not block any aisle or exit at any time.
(6) Routes and schedules.
(a) To designate school bus routes, following consideration of data and recommendations presented by the superintendent, to provide for students eligible for transportation when transportation by school bus is economical and practicable.
(b) To propose minimum distances from school centers within which no bus stops will be scheduled except for students with special transportation needs; to propose minimum distances from transportation routes as residence zones within which students must arrange to meet the bus at regularly scheduled stops; and to plan and arrange routes, schedules, and student capacities in accordance with policies adopted by the school board.
(c) To plan routes, so far as practicable, so that no elementary student shall be on a bus more than fifty (50) minutes or secondary school student more than one (1) hour during the morning or evening, and so that no more than an hour and one-half will elapse between the time the student boards the bus and the time school begins, or the time school closes and the student leaves the bus in the afternoon, and to arrange proposed routes which, insofar as possible, are free from major hazards.
(d) To assure that county and city officials are advised of hazards on bus routes and hazards involving students walking to and from school.
(7) School bus operating principles. To assure that all buses are operated in accordance with municipal, county and state traffic requirements and that every precaution is taken to assure the safety of students.
(8) Inspection and maintenance of school buses.
(a) To provide, after considering recommendations of the superintendent, adequate storage, maintenance and inspection procedures for all buses owned by the school board, and to assure that all contract buses in use in the district are properly inspected and maintained in accordance with law and rules of the State Board.
(b) The inspection shall be conducted in accordance with procedures and include all items listed in the State of Florida School Bus Safety Inspection Manual, 2000 Edition which is hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this rule. This document may be obtained from the Bureau of Career Development, Department of Education, 325 West Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399, at a cost not to exceed actual production and distribution cost.
(c) Inspection of buses shall be scheduled and required every twenty (20) school days. Any bus that is removed from service or deadlined so as to disrupt the safety inspection schedule shall be inspected prior to being returned to service. All deficiencies discovered during the safety inspection shall be noted on the inspection form. Follow-up repairs of all safety related items shall be made before the bus is returned to service and shall be documented.
(d) School bus inspections shall be conducted by technicians certified as school bus inspectors in accordance with the State of Florida School Bus Safety Inspection Manual, 2000 Edition. The requirement that inspections be performed by a certified school bus inspector may be waived for a period not to exceed six (6) months when an emergency condition exists, upon written notification to the Commissioner by the district superintendent. This paragraph shall become effective January 1, 2001.
(e) No person shall knowingly render inoperative or reduce compliance of any school bus equipment required to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable at the time of manufacture.
(9) Transportation records, reports and accounting.
(a) To ascertain and ensure that all prescribed records are kept and reports made which are required by law, rules or the Commissioner.
(b) To assure that all records and reports prescribed by the Commissioner are properly completed and are furnished on the dates due to those designated to receive them.
1. To file with the Deputy Commissioner for Planning, Budgeting and Management after each accident in which a school bus or a transported student is involved or in which total damages to property exceeds five hundred (500) dollars a report on Form ESE 256, School Bus Accident Report Form which is hereby incorporated by reference in this rule to become effective April 1996. This form may be obtained from the Administrator of School Transportation Management Section or Information Services and Accountability, Division of Planning, Budgeting and Management, Department of Education, The Florida Education Center, Tallahassee, Florida 32399.
2. To file with the Deputy Commissioner for Planning, Budgeting and Management, Form ESE 422, Hazardous Walking Conditions Report for K-6 Living Within 2 Miles of Assigned School which is hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this rule to become effective April 1996. This form may be obtained from the Administrator of School Transportation Management Section or Information Services and Accountability, Division of Planning, Budgeting and Management, Department of Education, The Florida Education Center, Tallahassee, Florida 32399.
(c) Keep a current file of all approved physical examination forms for bus drivers, each showing the date of examination.
(d) To maintain records of inspection of each school bus in accordance with requirements of Subsection (8) of this rule.
(e) To prepare maps of routes and attendance zones and conduct and carry on such studies of transportation as shall enable the superintendent to measure progress and recommend improvements in the transportation service.
(f) To prescribe and maintain, upon recommendation of the superintendent, such additional records, reports, accounts and accounting procedures as may be necessary to provide complete information regarding the transportation service.
(10) Inter-agency relationships. To cooperate with municipal, county, state, and federal agencies to promote the safety of the transportation service through correction of remediable road hazards.
(11) Transportation by other means than school buses including passenger cars as defined by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 49 C.F.R., Part 571, and which meet all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
(a) To share the expense, in unusual cases involving a small number of students living in isolated areas, or requiring specialized transportation services, of operating a vehicle of the type commonly called a passenger car or other conveyance for transporting eight (8) students or less to a public school:
1. Agreements to share the cost of operating such conveyance shall be set forth in the minutes of the board including the amount, mileage to bus route or school, names of students and school attended.
2. The board shall not expend funds to share in the expense of operating such vehicle to provide transportation to students whose houses are within a reasonable walking distance of the assigned school or bus routes.
3. Vehicles of the type commonly called passenger cars need not meet the requirements for specifications of school buses.
(b) To make such other arrangements, after considering recommendation of the superintendent, for the transportation of isolated, physically disabled or other students with special transportation needs as may be compatible with an adequate educational opportunity for such students and an economical administration of the service.
(c) To provide for transportation of students in vehicles owned or operated by a school board, other than school buses, when necessary or practical. Such transportation shall be provided in a passenger car or in a multipurpose passenger vehicle, as defined in 49 C.F.R., Part 571. Such multipurpose passenger vehicle shall meet all of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in 49 C.F.R., Part 571 applicable to passenger cars on the date of manufacture, except that window tinting, if equipped, shall meet requirements applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles.

Specific Authority 232.25, 232.26, 234.01, 234.02, 234.051, 234.061 FS. Law Implemented 230.23(8), 230.33(10), 234.01, 234.02, 234.021, 234.051, 234.061, 316.183(3), 316.189 FS. History”œAmended 9-4-64, 3-25-66, 1-17-72, Revised 7-20-74, Repromulgated 12-5-74, Amended 11-24-76, 10-1-81, Formerly 6A-3.17, Amended 9-30-87, 6-26-89, 11-15-94, 8-28-95, 4-18-96, Formerly 6-3.017, Amended 6-11-00.

 


 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

CHAPTER 14-15 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE

14-15.012 Manual on Speed Zoning for Highways, Roads, and Streets in Florida.

This manual, entitled Speed Zoning for Highways, Roads, and Streets in Florida, FDOT Manual Number 750-010-002, 1997 edition, is hereby incorporated by this rule and made a part of the rules of the Department of Transportation. Copies of this document are available from the Department of Transportation, Maps and Publications Sales, 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 12, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450, at no more than cost pursuant to s. 119.07(1)(a), Florida Statutes.

Specific Authority 316.006(1), 316.189, 344.044(2) FS. Law Implemented 316.187, 316.189 FS. History”œNew 5-25-80, Formerly 14-15.12, Amended 8-23-89, 10-14-97.

 

Tagged , ,

You wanted to be a citizen – So why complain?

The Informer
YOU WANTED TO BE A CITIZEN – SO WHY COMPLAIN?

The use of the word citizen in law, showing how a citizen is the subject of government and not the other way around as preached by patriots for centuries without understanding what the law says about citizen. I do not need to elaborate how you are a slave to the system that you yourself did you in when wanting to be a citizen of anything, whether a town, city, county, state or United States . Note the key word Allegiance . This is why there are very few Christians left in America . I would venture out of 300 million, maybe 10,000 really exist. You are not one of them if you are a citizen of any one I mentioned four sentences back. You forsook the Lord when you left His citizenship, Eph 2:19 and clung to Mammon giving Mammon allegiance. You can give only one and that’s why he said he cannot help you if you left Him and clung to Mammon. Now you can see why everyone loses when attacking Mammon in Mammon’s courts. You are an insurgent, as I wrote in the War Powers acts if you, as a citizen thereof, complain of taxes, ad infinitum as a “member of the community” who has given allegiance freely and voluntarily when claiming “my Constitution… yada, yada, yada, …and the government protects my rights and so on.

Really? When you took back the allegiance owed to the Lord who gave you all those natural rights and transferred it to Mammon and got only privileges that they call rights of the subject (citizen),what did you expect, a better life? Read on to see what you have done to yourself, voluntarily. So the question begs, did the government force you to Leave the Lord and cling to them? You got what all citizens want, someone to tell them what to do and repeatedly rob them over and over and incarcerate them in droves. Did the Lord ever keep prisons; make you register your means of travel and charge you a license; ever charge property tax on the land he gave freely to everyone; to be forced chemicals in medical situations, to get a license to marry; to build a house? How about the term UNDER IT’S CONSTITUTION? Did the Lord have but 10 commandments compared to all the laws the citizen has to abide by as a member of Mammon’s community as a citizen? Did the Lord ever give out passports like Mammon does? How about birth certificates that put you in commerce? See how you are looked upon in Black’s fourth Ed, Law dictionary in legal terms, when the Lord only dealt in words. Civil rights are not natural law rights by any means. And, lastly; To the Lord, are you a MAN He created, or a person that mammon created? Do all statutes made by mammon address the Creation of the Lord, namely MAN or do they only apply to the fiction called person? Find any statute that uses a man instead of person, the artificial character they say you operate as? I put no comments in this but only highlight words and phrases so you can see how bad a hand you dealt yourself. Did the ”government” hold a gun to your head and say you owe me allegiance and I will shoot you if you don’t become a citizen member of our corporation and deny the Lord Almighty? Then who do you have to blame?

CITIZEN. A member of a free city or ‘jural society, (civitas,) possessing all the rights and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties . “Citizens” are members of community inspired to common goal, who, in associated relations, submit themselves to rules of conduct for the promotion of general welfare and conservation of individual as well as collective rights. In re McIntosh, D. C.Wash., 12 F. Supp. 177.

The term appears to have been used in the Roman government to designate a person who had the freedom of the city, and the right to exercise all political and civil privileges of the government. There was also, at Rome, a partial citizenship, including civil, but not political rights.

Complete citizenship embraced both. Thomason v. State, 15 Ind. 451; 17 L.Q.Rev. 270; 1
SeL Essays in Anglo-Amer. L.H. 578.

A member of a nation or body politic of the sovereign state or political society who owes
allegiance, Luria v. U. S. , 34 S.Ct. 10, 19, 231 U.S. 9, 58 L.Ed. 101; U. S. v. Polzin, D.C.Md., 48 F.Supp. 476, 479.

A member of the civil state entitled to all its privileges. Coeley, Const.Lim. 77. One of the sovereign people. A constituent member of the sovereignty synonymous with the people. Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 404, 15 L.Ed. 691.

In American Law

One who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States , or of a particular state, is a member of the political community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights. Amy v. Smith, 1 Litt: ( Ky. ) 331; Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.

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 . Amend. XIV, Const.U.S.; Nyman v. Erickson, 100 Wash. 149, 170 P. 546, 547.

The term may include or apply to an elector qualified to vote in an election, Belmont v. Town of Gulfport , 97 Fla. 688, 122 So. 10; children of alien parents born in United States, Von Schwerdtner v. Piper, D.C.Md., 23 F.2d 862, 863; U. S. v. Minoru Yasui, D.C.Or., 48 F.Supp. 40, 54; children of American citizens born outside United States, Hoaland v. Attorney General of United States, D.C.Md., 42 F.Supp. 13, 22; Indians’, United States v. Hester, C.C.A. OkL, 137 F.2d 145, 147; State v. McAlhaney, 220 N.C. 387, 17 S.E.2d 352. 354; national banks, American Surety Co. v. Bank of California, C.C.A.Dr., 133 F.2d 160, 162; Ezzell v. First Nat. Banks, 218 Ala. 462,.119 So. 2, 3; negros and whites, United States v. Ellis, D.C.S.C., 43 F.Supp. 321,324; nonresident who has qualified as administratrix of estate of deceased resident, Williams’ Code Tenn. § 8236. Hunt v. Noll, C.C.A.Tenn., 112 F.2d 288,289; persons entitled to privileges and immunities conferred upon same terms upon which they are conferred upon other citizens, Austin v. ‘United States, D.C.IlL, 40 li’.SuPp. 777, 778.

The terms “citizen” and “citizenship” are distinguishable from “resident” or ”’inhabitant.” Jeffcott v. Donovan, C.C.A. Ariz., 135 F.2d 213, 214; and from “domicile,” Wheeler v. Burgess, 263 Ky. 693, 93 S. W.2d 351, 354; First Carolinas Joint Stock, Land Bank of Columbia v. New York Title & Mortgage Co., D.C. S.C., 59 F.2d 350, 351. The words “citizen” and “citizenship,” however, usually Include the idea of domicile, Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Petrowsky, C.C.A. N.Y. , 250 F. 554, 557; citizen inhabitant and resident often synonymous, Jonesboro Trust Co. v. Nutt, 118 Ark. 368, 176 S.W. 322, 324; Edgewater Realty Co. v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co., D.C.Md., 49 F. Supp. 807, 809; and citizenship and domicile are often synonymous. Messick v. Southern Pa. Bus Co., D.C. Pa. ; 59 F. Supp. 799, 800.

A corporation is a citizen of state under whose laws it is created and a nonresident of every other state. Jackson Securities & Investment Co. v. State, 241 Ala. 288, 2 So.2d 760, 764. It is not a citizen within meaning of federal constitution declaring citizens of each state entitled to privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states or within Fourteenth Amendment prohibiting states from abridging privileges and immunities of citizens of United States, J. D. L. Corporation v. Bruckman, 11 N.Y. S.2d 741, 746, 171 Misc. 3; but see In re Thermiodyne Radio Corporation, D.C. De L, 26 F.2d 713,714; nor within statute authorizing citizens of United States to prosecute appeal to Circuit Court of Appeals without prepaying costs or giving security, Atlantic S. S. Corporation v. Kelley, C.C.A. Fla., 79 F.2d 339, 340; nor within statute authorizing permission to citizens to sue in forma pauperis, Quittner v. Motion Picture Producers & Distributors of America, C.C.A.2,70 F.2d 331, 332; nor within statute requiring suit in district wherein either plaintiff or defendant resides, Standard Stoker Co. v. Lower, D.C. Md., 46 F.2nd. 678, 684; Sutherland v. U. S., C.C.A. Neb., 74 F.2d 89, 2.

Insurance companies, Incorporated under state law. are “citizens of this state” within statute requiring foreign Insurance companies to file bonds for payment of their obligations to such citizens. Republic Ins. Co. v. Cunningham , Tex. Civ. App.. 62 S.W.2d 339, 343. The term “citizen” will not be construed to include a corporation, unless the general purpose and import of the statutory or constitutional provision seems to require it. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. State, 120 Ark. 182, 179 S.W. 342, 343, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 873; Jennings v. Idaho Ry., Light & Power Co., 26 Idaho, 703, 146 P. 101, 102, L.R.A.1915D, 115, Ann. Cas. 1916E, 359.

Neither a corporation nor a partnership is a citizen of the United States entitled to Immunity from service of summons by substituted service, Western Mut. Fire Ins. CO. V. Lamson Bros. & Co., D.C. Iowa , 42 F. Supp. 1007, 1012.

Fillipinos are not citizens of United States, De Cano v. State, 7 Wash.2d 613, 110 P.2d 627, 631; People v. Cordero, 50 Ca L App.2d 146, 122 P.2d 648, 649: but see holding that Filipinos are within provision of Neutrality Act defining “citizen” as including any individual owing allegiance to the United States. Suspine v. Compania Transatlantica Centroamericana, S. A., D.C.N.Y., 37 F.Supp. 268, 271.

A state cannot be a citizen. Query v. 206 Cases of Assorted Liquor, D.C.S.C., 49 F.Supp. 693, 695.

But a state and the federal government each has citizens of its own, and the same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a state.

The government of the United States can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction . All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the states. U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L. Ed. 588.

With reference to the jurisdiction and power of federal courts and removal of actions a citizen of the District of Columbia is not a “citizen of a state”, Neild v. District of Columbia, 110 F.2d ‘246, 249, 71 App. D.C. 306; Glaeser v. Acacia Mut. Life Ass’n, D. C. Cat, 55 F. Supp. ‘925, 926; a corporation is a citizen of the state where it is organized, and a foreign corporation does not become a citizen of another state where it is authorized to carry on business, Van Buren v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., D. C. Mass. , 42 F. Supp. 279, 280; a municipal subdivision, such as county, city, town, 01’ school district, is a citizen, Siegel v. City of Detroit, Department of Street Railways, D.C. Mich., 52F.Supp. 669; Pettibone v. Cook County, Minn., C.C.A. Minn., 120 F.2d 850, 852; a national. bank is a citizen of state where it has its principal place of business, American Surety Co. of New York v. Bank of California, D.C. Or., 44 F. Supp. 81, 83; Atwood v. National Bank of Lima, C.C.A. Ohio , 115 F.2d 861, 862; a state. Is not a citizen, Board of Health of Township of Hillside v. Mundet Cork Corporation, 126 N.J. Eq. 100, 8

A.2d 105, 106, 107; State of North Dakota v. National Milling & Cereal Co., C.C.A. N.D., 114 F.2d 777, 779; State Highway Commission of Wyoming v. Utah Const. Co., (Wyo.) 49 S. Ct. 104, 106, 278 U.S. 194, 73 L. Ed. 262; a turnpike commission is a citizen, Hunkin.-Conkey Const. Co. v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, .D.C. Pa., 34 F. Supp. 26, 28; an association is not a citizen, Rife v. Lumber Underwriters, C.C.A. Tenn., 204 F. 32, 35; Village Mills Co. v. Houston Oil Co. of Texas, Tex. Civ. App., 186 S. W. 785, 788; domicile. and citizen are synonymous in federal courts, Earley v. Hershey Transit Co., D.C. Pa., 55 F. Supp. 981, 982; inhabitant, resident and citizen are synonymous, Standard Stoker Co. v. Lower, D.C.Md., 46 F.2d 678, 683.

In English Law

An inhabitant of a city. 1 Rolle, 138. The representative of a city, in parliament. 1 Bl.Comm. 174.

The word “subject” is used to designate an inhabitant of the country, or one amenable to the laws of the nation.

CITIZENSHIP. (q. v.).

CITY.

The status of being a citizen Bit

In England

An incorporated town or borough which is or has been the See of a bishop. Co.Litt. 108; 1 Bl. Camm. 114; Cowell; 1 Steph.Comm. 115. State v. Green, 126 N.C. 1032, 35 S.K 462.

There is said, however, to be no necessary connection between a city and a see. Oxford Dict., citing Freeman. A large town incorporated with certain privileges. The’ inhabitants of a city. The citizens. Worcester.

In America

A municipal corporation; Streat v. Vermilya, 268 Mich. 1, 255 N.W. 604, 606; also’the territory within the corporate limits. Municipal Power Transmission Co. v. City of Lyndon , 127 Kan. 59, 272 P.158, 160.

A large town or municipal corporation, State v. Haynes, 175 Ark. 645. 300 S.W. 380, 382; a political entity or subdivision for governmental purposes, Nolan v. Jones, 215 Ky. 238, 284

S.W. 1054, 1056; a public institution for self-government, Loeb v. City of. Jacksonville , 101 Fla. 429, 134 So. 205, 207; a’ public corporation for public purposes, Chase v. Inhabitants of Town of Litchfield, 134 Me. 122, 182 A. 921, 924.

A state agency for carrying on local government. Hudson Motor Car Co. v.’Clty of Detroit, 282 Mich. 69, 275 N. W. 770, 773, 113 A.L.R. 1472; a voluntary association or corporation.

State ex reI. McQueen v. Brandon, 244 Ala. 62, 12 So.2d 319, 322; Leviton v. Board of Education of City of Chicago , 374 Ill. 594, 30 N.E.2d 497, 500.

The fundamental distinction between town and city organization is that in the former all the qualified inhabitants meet together to deliberate and vote as individuals, each in his own right, while in the latter all municipal functions are performed by deputies; the one being direct, the other representative. In re Opinion of the Justices, 229 Mass. 601, 119 N.E. 778, 781.

The word “city,” however, is often used to include an incorporated town. Noble v. State, 112 Tex.Cr.R. 676, 18 S. W.2d 619, 620; and to ‘include villages, People v. City of Chicago , 349 Ill. 304, 182 N.E. 419, 431. It has also been held that, under statutes, the term includes all municipal corporations and corporate authorities, such as a board of park commissioners; People v. Kesner, 321 Ill. 230, 151 N. E. 481, 483; but that it does not include a village; Village of Depue v. Banschbach, 273 Ill. 574, 113 N.E. 156, 159.

AMERICAN MARXISM BEWILDERS RUSSIANS

AMERICAN CAPITALISM GONE WITH A WHIMPER
By Stanislav Mishin, from Russia’s Pravda http://www.Pravda.ru

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism
is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in D.C. that directly affects their lives. They care more for their “right” to choke down a McDonald’s burger or a Burger King burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our “democracy”. Pride blinds the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different “branches and denominations” were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the “winning” side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the “winning” side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America’s short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Weimar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look like little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison.

Yes, the Americans have beaten our own thieves in the shear volumes. These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters. Should we congratulate them?

Then came Barack Obama’s command that GM’s (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of “pure” free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise that the American president has followed this up with a “bold” move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too.

Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK’s Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, and so let our “wise” Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper — but a “freeman” whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set “fair” maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world how free he really is. The world will only snicker. –Stanislav Mishin

The article has been reprinted with the kind permission from the author and originally appeared on his blog, Mat Rodina in Russia’s Pravda newspaper.

California Appellate Court Confirms Fragility of Red Light Camera Cases – You Have to Fight to Win

California Appellate Court Slams Sacramento Red Light Camera Program
Appellate court rules Sacramento County, California red light camera
program does not produce sufficient evidence to convict drivers.
A decision issued last month by the Appellate Division of the
Superior Court in Sacramento County, California would invalidate
at least eighty percent of red light camera tickets in Sacramento
if drivers were to bring their case to court and contest their
citations. A three judge panel found the photo system did not
generate evidence sufficient to convict local motorist David Graham,
38, of running a red light.
"Sometimes you can fight city hall," said Graham. "Now those bozos
will have to give me back every penny of the $371 they bilked me
for the ticket."
On March 2, 2008, Graham’s 1995 Oldsmobile was photographed by a
red light camera at the intersection of Power Inn Road and Folsom
Boulevard. However, unlike most newer programs in California, the
angle of the red light camera photographs in Sacramento County do not
actually show the signal light in the photograph itself. Instead,
a data box superimposed on the citation photo shows the letter "R"
which indicates that the signal was red, according to Affiliated
Computer Services (ACS), the for-profit company that operates the
program. That was not sufficient evidence for the appellate court.
"Without photographs showing appellant committing the violation,
the system must be proven reliable beyond a reasonable doubt in
order for the people to meet their burden of proof," Presiding
Judge Maryanne G. Gilliard wrote.
The police employee who testified in Graham’s case, Officer Holt,
said that he had examined logs that showed an ACS technician
had maintained the camera properly and that there were no
malfunctions. Graham used the California Rules of Evidence to
challenge this claim as hearsay.
"We have no way of knowing what the technician did to reach these
conclusions, because that technician is not in court, and Officer
Holt admits to having no direct, personal knowledge of what the
technician did," Graham wrote in his brief to the court.
The court noted that the first photograph on Graham’s citation
showed his Oldsmobile behind the limit line with cross traffic
facing a red — not a green — light.
"Given the evidence adduced at appellant’s trial, this panel finds
that a rational trier of fact could not reasonably find, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that the light controlling appellant’s entry into
the intersection was red when he first crossed the limit line,"
Judge concluded "Therefore, we find that substantial evidence does
not support appellant’s conviction. The conviction is reversed with
directions to dismiss the complaint."
Graham is now asking the court to publish his case so that it will
have precedential value. California courts have protected red light
camera programs in the past by holding similar decisions unpublished
to prevent mass refunds from programs operating in ways that violate
California law.
A copy of the decision is available in a 150k PDF file at the source
link below.
Source: California v. Graham (California Superior Court, Appellate
Division, 2/20/2009)
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2715.asp

California Appellate Court Confirms Fragility of Red Light Camera Cases ~~~‚~"œ You Have to Fight to Win

California Appellate Court Slams Sacramento Red Light Camera Program
Appellate court rules Sacramento County, California red light camera
program does not produce sufficient evidence to convict drivers.
A decision issued last month by the Appellate Division of the
Superior Court in Sacramento County, California would invalidate
at least eighty percent of red light camera tickets in Sacramento
if drivers were to bring their case to court and contest their
citations. A three judge panel found the photo system did not
generate evidence sufficient to convict local motorist David Graham,
38, of running a red light.
"Sometimes you can fight city hall," said Graham. "Now those bozos
will have to give me back every penny of the $371 they bilked me
for the ticket."
On March 2, 2008, Graham’s 1995 Oldsmobile was photographed by a
red light camera at the intersection of Power Inn Road and Folsom
Boulevard. However, unlike most newer programs in California, the
angle of the red light camera photographs in Sacramento County do not
actually show the signal light in the photograph itself. Instead,
a data box superimposed on the citation photo shows the letter "R"
which indicates that the signal was red, according to Affiliated
Computer Services (ACS), the for-profit company that operates the
program. That was not sufficient evidence for the appellate court.
"Without photographs showing appellant committing the violation,
the system must be proven reliable beyond a reasonable doubt in
order for the people to meet their burden of proof," Presiding
Judge Maryanne G. Gilliard wrote.
The police employee who testified in Graham’s case, Officer Holt,
said that he had examined logs that showed an ACS technician
had maintained the camera properly and that there were no
malfunctions. Graham used the California Rules of Evidence to
challenge this claim as hearsay.
"We have no way of knowing what the technician did to reach these
conclusions, because that technician is not in court, and Officer
Holt admits to having no direct, personal knowledge of what the
technician did," Graham wrote in his brief to the court.
The court noted that the first photograph on Graham’s citation
showed his Oldsmobile behind the limit line with cross traffic
facing a red — not a green — light.
"Given the evidence adduced at appellant’s trial, this panel finds
that a rational trier of fact could not reasonably find, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that the light controlling appellant’s entry into
the intersection was red when he first crossed the limit line,"
Judge concluded "Therefore, we find that substantial evidence does
not support appellant’s conviction. The conviction is reversed with
directions to dismiss the complaint."
Graham is now asking the court to publish his case so that it will
have precedential value. California courts have protected red light
camera programs in the past by holding similar decisions unpublished
to prevent mass refunds from programs operating in ways that violate
California law.
A copy of the decision is available in a 150k PDF file at the source
link below.
Source: California v. Graham (California Superior Court, Appellate
Division, 2/20/2009)
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2715.asp

The Abolishment of Local Government

FEDERAL REGIONALISM
The Abolishment of Local Government

Credit for this information is given to http://www.barefootsworld.net/regional.html

Centralization of power must be stopped because centralized power in the federal government, and the resulting loss of States’ rights, is the one thing necessary for the success of a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, PARAGRAPH 1:

“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of two or more States.; or parts of States without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as the Congress.”

President Nixon, on March 27, 1969, through the Government Reorganization Act divided the United States into 10 Regions. To further implement this Regional Governance over the U.S.A., President Nixon signed Executive Order 11647 and entered it in the Federal Register February 12, 1972. (Vol .37, No.30) Through the authority vested in him as President of the United States, President Nixon established a Federal Regional Council for each of the 10 standard regions. It stated that, the President shall designate one member of each Council as Chairman of the Council and such Chairman shall serve at the pleasure of the President. The fact that State borders have been destroyed to create 10 REGIONS instead of 50 Union States is something your government doesn’t want you to know.

There is no constitutional jurisdiction for the federal government to legislate for a municipal government in a Union State. The usurpation of state jurisdiction can only be achieved by conspiracy and fraud on the part of our duly elected public servants. It stands to reason that if there is no constitutional jurisdiction for the federal government to legislate for a municipal government in a Union state, there is also no jurisdiction for a federal bureaucracy to legislate for a municipal government in a Union state. As example: the EPA, the DEA, the IRS and the FBI, etc., have no Constitutional authority to legislate in a Union State. These are agencies of the Federal government, having jurisdiction only on federal territory. This is something your government doesn’t want you to know.

Demeaning the authority of elected officials and replacement of these officials by appointed Federal “administrators” is a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to representative government posed by Federal Regional Government. Outlawed by the Supreme Court decision of January 13, 1982 (Case #80-1350, “Community Communications Co, Inc v City of Boulder, CO) the ten regional capitols were dismantled by President Reagan’s Executive Order #12407 on February 22, 1983.

However, grant making agencies of the ten Federal Regions remain in place assuring continuity of control over all Americans and their elected representatives by the central government.

Federal grants to state government are the fuel which make the Regional engines “go.” The individual Union States are blackmailed, through the withholding of federal funds, if federal legislation is not enacted into State law, thereby opening the door to a power base for the silent revolution of Federal Regionalism.

There is a clear pattern of uniformity in all laws passed. On the state level, all fifty legislatures appear to become simultaneously concerned about solving a particular problem in an identical fashion. On the local level, the same thing happens in thousands of City Halls and County Seats. This strange coincidence is never publicized by the press, thereby it is rarely questioned by the public. Unknown to most of the public, all our laws are written by the Uniform Commission on State Law, also known as the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. (ACIR)

FATAL STEPS

PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATIONS 2039 and 2040 March 6, 1933, March 9, 1933
Declaration of National Emergency and Declaration of War against the American People by the Government of the United States.

WAR POWERS ACT . . . March 9, 1933

TITLE 12 USC. Section 95(a) and 95(b)
This Act states that “During time of war or during any period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise investigate, regulate, prohibit, under such rules and regulationas as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as drfined by the President and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currancy, by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

FEDERAL REGISTER ACT . . . July 26, 1935
The Federal Register Act enabled the president to create unlimited bureaucracies and empower them with the force of law. All that was needed to implement bureaucratic regulations into law was to enter or publish those regulations in the Federal Register, by-passing all constitutional oversight.

THE BUCK ACT . . . October 9, 1940
Congress in 1940 passed the “Buck Act” 4 U.S.C.S. 104-113. By clever legal maneuvers from 1935 to 1940, the feds entirely circumvented the U.S. Constitution. In Section 110(e), this Act allowed any department of the federal government to create a “Federal Area” for imposition of the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, the imposition of this tax is at 4 U.S.C.S. section 111, and the rest of the taxing law is in Title 26, The Internal Revenue Code. The Social Security Board had already created an overlay of a “Federal Area.”

As a result, the Federal Government created Federal “States” which are exactly like the Sovereign States, occupy the same territory and boundaries, but whose names are capitalized versions of the Sovereign States. (Remember that Proper Names and Proper Nouns in the English language have only the first letter Capitalized.) For example, the Federal “State” of ILLINOIS is overlaid upon the Sovereign State of Illinois. Further, it is designated by the Federal abbreviation of “IL”, instead of the Sovereign State abbreviation of “Ill.” So too is Arizona designated “AZ” instead of the lawful abbreviation of “Ariz.”, “CA” instead of “Calif.”, etc. If you use a two-letter CAPITALIZED abbreviation, you are declaring that the location is under the jurisdiction of the “federal” government instead of the powers of the “Sovereign” state.

As a result of creating these “shadow” States, the Federal government assumes that every area is a “Federal Area,” and that the Citizens therein are “Federal” citizens.

PUBLIC LAW 79-404 entitled “Administrative Procedures Act of 1946.”
This act set up the procedure yielding lawmaking authority to agencies in the executive sector of government (federal bureaucracies), and provided that administrative rules and regulations be printed in the Federal Register giving these regulations the force of law.

TITLE 3 USC Section 301, October 31, 1951: General authorization to delegate functions; publication of delegations.
This law authorized the President of the United States to designate and empower the head of any department or agency in the executive branch, or any official thereof who is required to be appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform without approval, ratification, or other action by the President (1) any function which is vested in the President by law, or (2) any function which such officer is required or authorized by law to perform only with or subject to the approval, ratification, or other action of the President:
Provided, That nothing contained in the act relieved the President of his responsibility in office for the acts of any such head or other official designated by him to perform such functions. Such designation and authorization would be in writing, and published in the Federal Register
.

PUBLIC LAW 86-380 and its amendment 89-733, 1959 under the Eisenhower Administration, created the Advisory Council On Intergovernmental Relations. (ACIR) This commission consists of 26 individuals, of which 14 are appointees representing groups such as the Council of State Governments, The League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the Governors Conference . . . all proponents and strong lobbyists for Federal grant programs that are subordinating local governments to Regional governing bodies.

PUBLIC LAW 89-136 entitled “Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965”.
This act is the basis for the manner in which the 10 Federal regions are to be governed by a “Multi-State Regional Commission”. It also states that the Secretary of Commerce has the power to “acquire in any lawful manner, any property (real or personal) whenever deemed necessary.”

PUBLIC LAW 89-754. The Model Cities Act of 1966.
Section 204 of this act requires that a broad spectra of public facilities type projects which seek federal assistance must be brought under the aegis of area wide Regional comprehensive planning agencies, the clearing house system.

PUBLIC LAW 90-577 1968, 90th Congress, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ACT

“To achieve the fullest cooperation and coordination of activities among the levels of government . . . to establish coordinated intergovernmental policy and administration . . . to provide for the acquisition, use, and disposition of land within urban areas by Federal agencies.”

PUBLIC LAW 90-577 destroyed the separation of powers which is the principle of the U.S. Constitution. By its Title IV the U.S. Congress purported to yield legislative power to the president. He, in turn, allegedly transferred that law making power to his appointed directors in the grant making agencies of the Federal Regions per section 403 of the Bill. Out of that arrangement has grown the A-95 regional clearing house review system, designed by the Office of Management and Budget. The resulting Federal Region-Sub State control system straps regional governance (control by regulation) as a way of life over all America.

The separation of powers principle of the U.S. Constitution is destroyed by Title IV of this Regional Law in which Congress yields Legislative Power to the U.S. President. Through this act, the President was empowered to yield that lawmaking power to his appointees. (Section 403) From that arrangement has grown the controversial A-95 REGIONAL CLEARING HOUSE review system designed by the executive OMB (Office of Budget and Management). This system binds Regionalism over all of America by non-laws (administrative rules and regulations) which are not backed by LAW.

Congress thus legislated a system of government that is not permitted by our U.S. Constitution.

March 27, 1969, President Richard M. Nixon announced that he had divided the United States into eight (subsequently ten) Federal Regions. The President, by his act, set in motion a series of events which, unless reversed will dissolve sovereign state governments, disenfranchise the electorate, and merge the American pioneer spirit in an amorphous “world citizenship”. The American people have been moved into the orbit of a financial/industrial cabal who control their corporate world state through the United Nations, the U.S. Congress, and other front organizations.

The fatal steps which transformed the Republic into a dictatorship of the financial elite are set out in the following Congressional statutes, executive orders, and proclamations which trace a seditious conspiracy of interlocking subversion in government departments during the period October 16, 1968 to 20 October, 1972.

27 March, 1969
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON RESTRUCTURING OF GOVERNMENT SERVICE SYSTEMS, The White House

Quoting the Reorganization Act, signed the same day, as his authority, President Nixon divided the United States into eight (later ten) Federal Regions or provinces, each with a new provincial capitol. Coordination and control of the ten Federal Regions would be administered from Washington. Formation of such “super states” is, of course, a violation of paragraph 1, section 3, Article IV, United States Constitution.

Objective: To transfer political power from the respective sovereign State government to appointed Federal agencies, whose controllers are the directors of the corporate world state.

30 October, 1969
EXECUTIVE ORDER #11490, “Assigning Emergency Preparedness Functions to Federal Departments and Agencies,”. . . The Federal Register

E.O. 11490 consolidated executive orders of previous administrations into one omnibus directive, and provided for implementation of its powers “by an order or directive issued by the President in any national emergency type of situation.”

E.O. 11490 authorizes the Office of Emergency Planning to put all controls into effect “in times of economic or financial crisis.”

Takeover by government agencies includes: communications media; all electrical power, gas, petroleum fuels, and minerals; food resources and farms; all modes of transportation and control of highways, seaports, etc.; health, education, and welfare functions; airports and aircraft.

Provision is also made for the mobilization of civilians into work brigades under government supervision. The order directs the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons; permits the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, and grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in E.O. 11490, and to operate penal and correctional institutions.

29 December, 1970
PUBLIC LAW 91-596 — OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF 1970

PUBLIC LAW 91-596 known as the “Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970” was passed. This Act was necessary in order to gain control of private property “usage”. The Act specifically limited itself to private businesses and excluded State, County, Municipal, School District, and Conservation District governing bodies.

It set forth that its enabling legislation must provide that the above State government and its political subdivisions must also abide by the standards set forth in the Federal Act.

15 August, 1971 EXECUTIVE ORDER 311615, “Providing for Stabilization of Prices, Rents, Wages, and Salaries,” The Federal Register

E.O. 11615 designated the Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System as the director of a Cost of Living Council, with authority to request the Department of Justice to bring actions for injunctions “whenever it appears to the Council that any person has engaged, is engaged, or is about to engage in any acts or practices constituting a violation of any regulation or order issued pursuant to this Order.” (See EO 11490).

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board thus became czar over prices, rents, wages, and salaries, in addition to his control over money, interest rates, and the stock market, granted under the provisions of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

15 August, 1971
PROCLAMATION #4074, “Imposition of Supplemental Duty for Balance of Payments Purposes,” The President.

The principal objective of Proclamation 4074 was to “declare a national emergency” and so establish stand-by authority to implement any or all of the of the provisions of Executive Order #11490 at such time as the American people had been conditioned to accept dictatorship. The people are now being brainwashed to accept, in fact demand, full government control over their lives and property.

12 February, 1972
EXECUTIVE ORDER #11647, “Federal Regional Councils”, The Federal Register

E.O.#11647 established a Federal Regional Council for each of the ten standard Federal Regions” which Nixon effected by proclamation on March 27, 1969. The Office of Management and Budget was designed to be the control age
ncy.

By this order the ten provincial capitols were staffed by the directors of grant-making agencies: Department of Labor, Health, Education and Welfare, and Housing and Urban Development, the Secretarial Representatives of the Department of Transportation, and the directors of the regional offices of the Office of Economic Opportunity, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

The President of the United States subsequently appointed a commissar for each Federal Region.

18 October, 1972
PUBLIC LAW 92-500 — FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1972

PUBLIC LAW 92-500, which is known as the “Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972” was passed which set forth that States may assume pollution control enforcement on all businesses, land owners, and their equipment and land. This Act provides an effective “informer system” for citizens to squeal on their neighbors and/or employers. It also creates a body corporate to be known as the Environmental Financing Authority to have the power to acquire private property (real or personal) by whatever means and to also sell or lease said property. It also set forth that if the States desired to assume the enforcement duties of the federal government that it–the State–must enact enabling legislation which must be approved by the federal government.

20 October, 1972
PUBLIC LAW 95-512, 92nd Congress, H.R. 14370 — FEDERAL—STATE REVENUE SHARING

“To . . . authorize Federal collection of State individual income taxes, and for other purposes.” The primary function of P.L. 92-512 is to provide that, “after January 1, 1974, if two or more States request it of the U.S. government, and at the option of the individual States, all State taxes may be collected and administered by the federal government.” (The decision is irreversible.) It further provides a “ceiling and floor” for State Income Taxes, and states that no State may thereafter alter its tax structure without first obtaining permission of the federal government. It further provides for the manner in which State and local “boundary changes, and government reorganization” could be handled.

Under this Act, state and county governments will, in time, wither for lack of tax funds, representative government will die (although the trappings of a republican form of government may be retained to fool the people), and dictatorial control over people and property will be imposed upon once free Americans.

State Sponsored Terrorism, Kidnapping, and Child Abuse

Like a master of illusion, the bureaucratic jack-booted do-gooders in Texas have commandeered the media, your reason, and some 416 children under the pretense that they are saving the more nubile young ladies from the ravishing clutches of perverted older men. To justify this assault upon a private culture that considers itself outside the pestilential creature that is government, words such as “statutory rape, polygamy, and cult” have been capriciously tossed about. Television shows have sought the counsel of experts in human behavior, linguistics, and body language to impugn the outward appearance, mannerisms, inflections, and thoughts of the women. The only indictment borne from the witch hunt is they don’t appear “normal”; hardly a justification for invading a private society on unfound accusations and terrorizing children and parents.

Despite the personal feelings of any of you, or of an assemblage of criminals, otherwise known as a legislature, it is not within the purview of the state to inspect, question, assess, or approve the behavior of private people or their cultures. I am not defending the act of having sex with 14 year old girls, as the unfounded accusations assert, but then again I have not had sex with girls of such age. However, if it had not been for “underage” girls having had sex in the past I can assure you all that humanity would not have progressed to this day. Yet, one has to ask themselves what is the issue which makes that act objectionable? Is it our perception that a dirty-old-man is gratifying himself at the expense of an unknowing and exploited child? Is it that such a precious treasure should not be exposed to such a vile and immoral act as sex? Is it possibly because the government has not given its approval to such unconscionable behavior, such as it has with legalized murder through warfare, capital punishment, rendition, torture…. etc.? If government lowered the legal age of consent to 14 years there is nothing you or your indignant self-righteousness could do about it. It would be “legal”.

When an “older man” has relations with a “young girl”, where is the state? The state does not prevent the act from taking place despite the law which rests on the books. Yet, where are the parents when the state violates young women? We have government mandated vaccinations which expose children to things more immediate and injurious by way of the compounds in the vaccine than the possible harm arising from contracting the illness to begin with. I comment on one sadistic jurist named C. Phillip Nichols from Prince George’s County, Maryland. My commentary can be found on my blog at http://markmccoy.com/blogspot. It is not hard to find. The Justice Department visits regularly. Malfeasant Nichols threatened parents with jail time if they failed to inoculate their children, despite the parent’s objections to introducing pathogens and agents to their children’s bloodstream. Nichols’ behavior smacks of bio-terrorism and disregard for liberty and parental autonomy. Likewise, the gumma which are confiscating children in Texas are on par with Nichols, sans bio-terrorism. Who is there to save children and parents from the abuse of government?

Why does the state not raid the homes of parents who allow or assist in their children joining the military to be used for imperialistic or corporate aggression? Are parents who place their children before the canon’s mouth for glory and political mischief any less culpable for the resulting harm than those who permit a young woman to take an older husband? How many of these allegedly “abused” girls have died as a result of their “illicit” union compared to the number of children sent to their deaths by the contrived and fallacious wars created by government?

Look at it like this. If sex with children was a priority for government then they would have raided the Catholic Church and the priests possessing priapic adolescent proclivities. If the state were concerned with polygamy it would look at itself and the “spousal” relationships it keeps with despots, tyrants, and dictators abroad. As a matter of fact, worse than polygamy is bigamy wherein one has many marriages. Every licensed marriage is a three-party contract between the two parties and the state. Talk about a slut, to use a vulgar colloquialism. If government gave a damn about morality it would immediately crawl into a hole and proceed to pull kitty litter over itself in order to spare us the stench. If people really cared about liberty, tolerance, privacy, and justice they would train their sights on usurpers and tyrants who deem to act on behalf of the consenting governed.

I do not believe it is within the purview of anyone to judge any people, culture, society, or behavior when their reason has been corrupted and replaced with the arbitrary and violent conscience of absolute power. If we are about ridding the world of evil then let’s start where evil is readily identified, known, and abundant; in the halls and offices of people serving that presumed master, government.

The Writing is On the Wall

I just came across this and wanted to post it sans my thoughts.  I believe it speaks for itself witout too much of my commentary. All I can say is arm yourselves. The naysayers will live as wards of the state and ready to turn in any dissenters they  may discover in exchange for benefits until the pen closes on the sheep while they graze unaware and fat.