Discuss Detroit » Archives - Beginning January 2007 » Driver responsibility fee « Previous Next »
Driver responsibility fee - 1Mckrackin119 02-22-07  12:38 pm
  ClosedNew threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.        

Top of pageBottom of page

Gannon
Member
Username: Gannon

Post Number: 8268
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2007 - 12:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It is bad enough that the cop is allowed to be judge and jury based upon your past record!


The police officer should take each and every encounter for face value. If they catch someone doing something wrong, THEN they should be able to check someone's record. NOT A MOMENT BEFORE THEN.

EVEN then, they always have the call to NOT pursue prosecution of every thing they see, they are the point of decision of justice.

WHEN an officer has an individuals complete record revealed in front of them, it puts THEM in the place of the judge.


THAT data should never be out of the hands of those wise enough to use it properly.


There is a gulf of difference between someone who wears a badge on the front lines every day and one who wears a robe sitting on the line between mercy and judgement.


Big difference how they are hired and fired, and who they are responsible TO for their actions.



PROBABLE CAUSE is MORE applicable because the plate IS in public view...you don't get it. What reason did the cop have for perusing this car's plate...and how/why did he assume the driver was responsible for whatever was marked on the plate record?!

The plate record is for the vehicle...not the owner, since it is not an absolute certainty that they will be the operator.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 4727
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2007 - 7:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

if what was explained to me by one of my cop buddies is true, there is no discretion.

If your plate is run up on the computer in the cop car and something turns up amiss, the cop must take action on it.

Gone are the days when a cop could avoid the paperwork and court time by ignoring the driver's suspension or revocation of a driver's license and let the driver go with a warning.

I also was caught in the system for driving on a suspended license (prior ticket, no proof of insurance that I blew off rather than spend a day at 36th District). That was a Friday, my notice of suspension arrived the following Monday.

Needless to say after he ran my record, I discovered nothing sensual about handcuffs or spending a day in a cell eating a bologna sandwich on stale white bread with crappy coffee.

Fines and fees made me understand I needed to open the envelope and tuck that proof of insurance in my wallet IMMEDIATELY UPON RECEIPT rather than toss the unopened envelope on my desk.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2355
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2007 - 9:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

So, my last twenty-five years loss of nearly a dozen of more days per year from extreme arthritis in the CORE of my spine from my bottom to my top is my payment for believing an insurance company had MY best interests in their collective corporate capitalist mind.


Ouch! Gannon, you got hosed.
quote:

More fuel for the fire (or not) Was stopped for driving with a suspended license (long story, didn't know it was suspended...honestly).


Okay - I have to ask: how in the world could you get your license suspended and not know about it?
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 4730
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2007 - 9:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

See my post just prior to yours as one example.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2356
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2007 - 10:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

My question, though, was: how can you get your license suspended and not know it about it?

In your example, you knew you got a ticket. You knew you had a court date. You knew, or reasonably should have known, that your failure to appear would result in your license being suspended.

And you got a notice in the mail informing you that your license was suspended.

So, how does one get their license suspended and not know about it?
Top of pageBottom of page

Gannon
Member
Username: Gannon

Post Number: 8274
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2007 - 11:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Suspension of disbelief?


Oh wait, that's something completely different.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 4731
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2007 - 11:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Fnemecek
Note the chronology I specified. I was stopped and arrested on Friday. The notification of my suspension arrived in the mail the following Monday.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gannon
Member
Username: Gannon

Post Number: 8277
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2007 - 11:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What we're asking, Jams, is how could you possibly NOT know the future?
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 2116
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2007 - 11:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Spare us please........ if you get a ticket and don't take care of the matter either by paying it or contesting it in court you are in default and your license will be suspended. It is as simple as that. A notice informing you that a default judgment has been entered is sent to your address of record i.e. the address the sec of state has. There is absolutely no excuse for not knowing your license has been suspended.

And please Gannon don't give me shit about how harsh and unforgiving I am.This is just simple shit_ no court anywhere is going to buy any excuse regarding not knowing one's license suspension.

Courts use to be more forgiving if a license was suspended for default.But anyone caught driving on a suspended for too many points or alcohol related suspension aint gonna see any sympathy.

This is not directed at anyone specifically. My personal experience is what informs this.........I learned the hard and costly way.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mckrackin
Member
Username: Mckrackin

Post Number: 8
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Friday, February 09, 2007 - 4:16 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It's been a couple days, I did take a second to peruse Fnemeck's michigan constitution link. I had a hard time finding fees associated with breaking laws, but did find this little gem:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/ documents/2007-2008/billintrod uced/House/htm/2007-HIB-4006.h tm

For those to lazy to look, it is the bill introduced on 1/22/2007 to repeal this law.

Apparently I'm not alone in finding this law ridiculous. You know what's more ridiculous? comparing a library book late fee to DRFs. Before you go linking the state constitution you may want to actually read it yourself.

" All these are efforts by Legislature to levy additional punishments against those who break the law"
Did bother to read any of the 1910, none of them have to so with punishments for breaking the law, they are merely mentions of the word fee. Are you this full of shit on everything?

CL,
I have not meant at any time to imply any court has ruled the DRA illegal, only that they easily could. the following is a quote from the outline of the US legal system found at: http://usinfo.state.gov/produc ts/pubs/legalotln/criminal.htm

"Sentencing is the court's formal pronouncement of judgment upon the defendant at which time the punishment or penalty is set forth.

At the federal level and in most states, sentences are imposed by the judge only."

Now that being said, in this instance, it is not technically a sentence, or associated fine, it is a fee. My argument is that it is not a fee at all, it could be called such if it were: A fee associated with a service, an administrative fee to cover cost associated with infraction, which by the definition of the bill, it is also not. Or it was written into a contract upon granting initial drivers license(like getting a library card, clearly states terms).

On that note, we go back to the heart of the matter, why does this law exist? It has been proven that it is not preventative. Are you guys really for the government creating suspicious "fees" to make up for their lack of ability in balancing the budget? If you don't think this is the reason for the creation of this, give me a different argument and back it up with some real facts(number of times the word fee comes up in a search does not count).
Top of pageBottom of page

Gotdetroit
Member
Username: Gotdetroit

Post Number: 36
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Friday, February 09, 2007 - 8:30 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Fnemecek - sorry, forgot about this thread. My story is like Jamms. Only different. I got a ticket for no proof of insurance too. I had insurance. Forgot about taking that to a court to prove it. Short story: Was in the process of getting divorced and moving from Kazoo to Detroit at the time. The letters went to my ex-wife’s new home (our old home). I never got any of the notices, and I didn't think to look for them. Because, like I said, I forgot about the whole affair.

I'm at fault there. No doubt about that. Dumbass on my part. The associated fees on the other hand ($1,000), coupled with further suspension of my license for one month (even after I paid the old ticket, new ticket, etc., etc), not so much. A tad out of line in my opinion.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 4733
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, February 09, 2007 - 8:45 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The question asked:
quote:

So, how does one get their license suspended and not know about it?



I simply responded to the question with a specific example of how it may happen. Nothing to be confrontational about.

Stuff happens!
Top of pageBottom of page

Romeoplank
Member
Username: Romeoplank

Post Number: 1
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Friday, February 09, 2007 - 11:00 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Here are my problems with this "law." I think they're pretty reasonable.

1. If they want to scare us into driving more safely by increasing the fines, they should probably tell us BEFORE they fine us. I'm not too big on being made into an example. If anyone told me ahead of time that driving on an expired license would cost me in excess of $400, I probably would have been more likely to take a day off work to get down to the Sec of State's office and renew. I couldn't renew by mail because I just moved back to this godforsaken winter wasteland from California (my first mistake).

2. When you call to ask how to contest, they inform you that you can only contest the fine in court. But wait... I already went to court, and paid a fine. No one told me about this additional fine until I had already been to court and paid the normal fine. So, what am I supposed to do? -Call the Court and ask them to re-open my "expired license" case? No chance.

3. The court imposed fine for the expired license is $110. The additional, "driver's responsibility fine" is almost 3 times that amount! That seems a bit unreasonable, and certainly disproportionate.

This law is a lame attempt at generating income for the state. Whatever team threw it together certainly didn't look at the big picture. I also suspect some due-process, and potentially 5th amendment violations at play here. -It's not exactly double jeopardy, but there are hints of it. It's just not right. It's unwarranted, unfair, and poorly applied to a random sampling of "offenders" who clearly shouldn't be grouped together; those who drove on an expired license, those who drove without proof of insurance and those who DROVE DRUNK? -For lack of a better expression, "I MEAN, COME ON!"
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2357
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Friday, February 09, 2007 - 5:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Before you go linking the state constitution you may want to actually read it yourself.


I have read it. Every word of it, in fact.

And, if I may be so bold, before arguing that a certain law is unconstitutional; you might want to read the Constitution and cite which portion of it you allege is being violated.
quote:

On that note, we go back to the heart of the matter, why does this law exist?


To punish those who violate the law.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mckrackin
Member
Username: Mckrackin

Post Number: 9
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Friday, February 09, 2007 - 8:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"I have read it. Every word of it, in fact.

And, if I may be so bold, before arguing that a certain law is unconstitutional; you might want to read the Constitution and cite which portion of it you allege is being violated.
"
Since you are so well versed in the state constitution you probably know that in the list of responsibilities for the secretary of state, nowhere does it say criminal fines. You are yet to produce a single fact, yet I have documented everything I have said with exact quotes from government sites. Don't bother responding, you are clearly grasping at straws, and are in the minority here, the only person agreeing with any aspect of your arguments things drunk driving is on parallel with child molestation.

Good day.
Top of pageBottom of page

Yvette248
Member
Username: Yvette248

Post Number: 428
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Friday, February 09, 2007 - 9:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Maybe the part of the Constitution that says:

No one should be punished twice for the same offense (court fees, fines, then the DRF on top of it - not just for one year but two).

The part of the punishment fitting the crime (read paragraph against excessive fines).

This "law" is NOT about punishing motorists, it is about money.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2358
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Friday, February 09, 2007 - 11:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Since you are so well versed in the state constitution you probably know that in the list of responsibilities for the secretary of state, nowhere does it say criminal fines.


Yes, I have read the Constitution. The only part where it describes the duties of the Secretary of State is in Article V, Section 3 where it says that the Secretary shall be the head of the Department of State and in Article V, Section 21 where it outlines the Secretary's term of office.

As for the SoS administering fines, that is prescribed as a matter of statue - just like all of the other fines. More over, the authorizing statue was enacted in full accordance with Article IV of the Constitution.

Where is your constitutional argument?
quote:

You are yet to produce a single fact, yet I have documented everything I have said with exact quotes from government sites.


I'm sorry you don't consider the Constitution to be a "fact".
quote:

Maybe the part of the Constitution that says:

No one should be punished twice for the same offense (court fees, fines, then the DRF on top of it - not just for one year but two).


The problem with that is there isn't such a part of the Constitution.

Article I, Section 15 prohibits someone from being placed in jeopardy more than once for the same offense. The problem though is that has always been interpreted to mean that someone can't be tried twice for the same offense.

For the State to levy a two-part punishment (such as a fine + DRF or jail + probation) is indeed constitutional.
quote:

The part of the punishment fitting the crime (read paragraph against excessive fines).


The problem there is: what constitutes "excessive"?
Top of pageBottom of page

Mckrackin
Member
Username: Mckrackin

Post Number: 10
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 8:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Michigan code of laws defines the roles of the secretary of state(per the link you referred), giving them authority to hand out civil fines, defined as fines that cover an administrative cost, not punitive. The same MCL has sentencing guidelines for judges, not the secretary of state, why? Oh yeah, because sentencing is done by the judicial branh of the government, per federal documentation which I link previously. I do, apologize for the unconstitutional statement, the correct statement should read illegal. Even you insist on calling this measure punitive, which is, as I have said all along with multiple documentation to back up my statement, not the role of the secretary of state. Further more, the DRA is in the process of being repealed as we speak(no such luck for the sorry saps that already got nailed by this.)
Top of pageBottom of page

Mckrackin
Member
Username: Mckrackin

Post Number: 11
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 8:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Also, I never agreed to the double jeopardy defense, but now that you mention it...

"nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb"

Allowing two branches of the government to apply a sentence is very easily within those guidelines.

But wait there's more, there are several state and federal laws disallowing sentences above what is stated within the state law, since the DRA is above and beyond the state prescribed sentence for DUIs as well as DWLS it also violates this law, feel free to look it all up, it's all within the site you referenced.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2370
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 3:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Michigan code of laws defines the roles of the secretary of state(per the link you referred), giving them authority to hand out civil fines, defined as fines that cover an administrative cost, not punitive.


First off, congrats on reading the law and the constitution. It's your first step towards learning the basics. If you continue to read them, you will eventually learn more and will able to start making some halfway intelligent arguments on the forum.

The Secretary of State's authority to collect the DRF comes from Public Act 52 of 2004 (being MCL 257.732a). The Legislature passed PA 52. The Governor signed it into law.

Full text is at http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ntvwg045iqxomjj4owvyh145))/ mileg.aspx?page=getobject&obje ctname=mcl-257-732a&queryid=16 801277


You may disagree with it, but it is the law. Arguing the Secretary of State doesn't have the legal authority to collect the DRF is just plain ignorant.
quote:

The same MCL has sentencing guidelines for judges, not the secretary of state, why? Oh yeah, because sentencing is done by the judicial branh of the government, per federal documentation which I link previously.


The U.S. Constitution only prescribes what the federal government can or cannot do. If you want to look at the limits of the state or local governments, you need to look at the state constitution.

The DRF complies fully with the mandates of Michigan's Constitution. It was, after all, drafted and passed by a couple hundred lawyers.
quote:

Even you insist on calling this measure punitive, which is, as I have said all along with multiple documentation to back up my statement, not the role of the secretary of state.


The role of the Secretary of State is one that is prescribed by law. When the Michigan Legislature passed PA 52 of 2004, they made collecting the DRF a part of the Secretary of State's job.
quote:

Also, I never agreed to the double jeopardy defense, but now that you mention it...

"nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb"

Allowing two branches of the government to apply a sentence is very easily within those guidelines.


First, you're quoting from the U.S. Constitution, which is only relevant in federal cases. The relevant section of the Michigan Constitution is Article I, Section 15:
quote:

Sec. 15. No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy.


The phrase "in jeopardy" has always been interpreted (at both the state and federal level) as having to establish a defendant's guilt or innocence. That isn't what happens with the DRF.

When a defendant goes before a court, his or her guilt or innocence is determined through a trial. If the defendant is found guilty, a punish is levied against him or her. This punishment under the terms of MCL 257.732a includes the DRF, which the Secretary of State is then responsible for collecting.
quote:

But wait there's more, there are several state and federal laws disallowing sentences above what is stated within the state law...


The DRF is a part of the sentence prescribed by state law. How can the state law itself be "above what is stated with the state law"?
Top of pageBottom of page

Yvette248
Member
Username: Yvette248

Post Number: 441
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 7:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

#1. The state constitution does not trump the federal constitution.
#2. Everyone agrees that the fine is excessive, even the legislators who won't rescind the law because of money.

Since you are a fan of reading, I would suggest you go back and read the news article that has everyone agreeing with my point of view: the law is ridiculous, excessive, and should be repealed.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2373
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 1:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

#1. The state constitution does not trump the federal constitution.


I never said that it did. I said the U.S. Constitution dictates what the federal government can and cannot do; while the state constitution does the same for the state government. This arrangement was codified in the 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and was further solidified in number decisions by the Supreme Court.

You may have noticed that none of the judges, even the ones who went to Lansing to argue in favor of repealing the DRF, have argued that it is unconstitutional.

There are those who feel that it is bad public policy and they are entitled to their opinion. However, that does not change the constitution itself nor does it make the DRF unconstitutional.
quote:

#2. Everyone agrees that the fine is excessive, even the legislators who won't rescind the law because of money.


Not everyone agrees the DRF is excessive. If everyone agreed then either PA 52 of 2004 would have been repealed already or, at minimum, there would be more than 1 person in the Legislature who has signed on a sponsor of the HB 4006.
quote:

Since you are a fan of reading, I would suggest you go back and read the news article that has everyone agreeing with my point of view: the law is ridiculous, excessive, and should be repealed.


Yes, everyone who was quoted in the article you posted agrees that the DRF is excessive. The fact that there isn't anyone in said article who disagrees with you does not mean that the DRF is excessive.

Here is an article where everyone quoted agrees that the Earth is flat: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ fe-scidi.htm

Here is an entire web site devoted to people who think that NASA faked the Apollo missions: http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/c osmicapollo.html

Does the lack of dissent make either of these things true?
Top of pageBottom of page

Mckrackin
Member
Username: Mckrackin

Post Number: 16
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 4:23 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So many falsehoods in your last two posts I don't even know where to start:

-"You may disagree with it, but it is the law. Arguing the Secretary of State doesn't have the legal authority to collect the DRF is just plain ignorant. "

Of course they have the authority to collect it, just not to assess it. Apparently comprehension is a major problem for you.

Shall we move on to defining double jeopardy:
"[T]he Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989).

Please note: multiple punishments for the same offense, please shut up now, strength is knowing whento admit you are wrong.

As to your 9th amendment comment, did you think nobody would know what it is? It has nothing to do with state and federal laws, it states that the constitution can not take away peoples existing rights. You obviously seem to be of the belief that if you throw out quotes from a legal site it makes them relevant, you son't seem to understand any of this, I feel bad for you.

On to excessive fines, by definition are above those set by the legislature for breaking said law, the DRA is not part of michigans drunk driving laws. End of story, again, you are wrong.

As to your belief that federal constitution defines what the federal government can do, I really do feel bad for you here, the federal defines rights at a federal level, it does not mean they can be superceded by state laws, quite the opposite, unless you are talking pre-constituion. Did you even attend high school? I quite honestly have never seen such a blatant disregard for understanding of the way our government works. I appreciate you think you are backed by facts, but, sadly for you, linking something which in many cases you have not read, and in even more failed to comprehend does not back your argument, it just makes you sound stupid, which I think most people here agree on.

Good night.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mckrackin
Member
Username: Mckrackin

Post Number: 17
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 4:23 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Fnemecek's greatest hits volume 1: The voice of the Rationale

"Double jeopardy is when you are put on trial twice for the same offense. This is a two part punishment. It's constitutional."


"I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but the drivers responsiblity fee is the punishment for drunk driving and other wrong-doings. How can you separate the crime from the punishment? "


"Why in the world would you want to repeal this law? The only fault I can find with is that it is way too lenient."


"Thanks, Gannon. I would be lying if I said that my recent experiences have absolutely no bearing on my opinions.

I endeavor, however, to be rationale. "


"Tell me what insurance company (if any) Mr. Harris is insured by - or at least how you would go about filing a claim without that information - and then we can talk about which one of us is "blinded by emotion". "


"You got me. I'm part of a giant conspiracy. Every insurance agent and insurance company operating in Michigan is in on it. The police are, too.

That's why if you check with any of them, they'll all tell you the same story."


"Sorry, but no. There is nothing in Michigan's Constitution to prohibit the executive branch from administering fines, provided they have been duly prescribed by law."


"A quick search of Michigan's Compiled Laws for the key word "fee" turns up 1,910 hits. All these are efforts by Legislature to levy additional punishments against those who break the law. The DRF is simply a continuation of this power. "


"
Top of pageBottom of page

Mckrackin
Member
Username: Mckrackin

Post Number: 18
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 4:47 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

For arguments sake, since there is only one person here any longer arguing the other side of this issue. Ask yourself these questions:

What is the DRF? Is it a punitive fine, civil fine, or a fee(as stated in the name "drivers responsibility fee")? Despite the label of fee, does it fit the definition of such?

Then ask yourself this question, what is this law meant to do? Punish criminals? Make roads safer? reimbursement for expense related to said offense? Is it succeeding in any of these arenas?

Answer these question, I quite honestly can see no reason for any support of this law by anyone but vengeful hate mongers, or a governor in dire need of assistance in balancing her budget(which it is, by the way, not offering much help in, only 40% of the fees assessed have been collected)


As to the matter of fnemecek, you really have nothing to offer this conversation short of displaying the ignorance of any who blindly support this law without knowing what goal it is meant to achieve. You change your mind on what that goal is on a regular basis, mostly it just sounds like you want vengeance for some wrong that nobody know or cares about.
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 2157
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 7:31 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A simple question Mckrakin_ are you a lawyer?
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2374
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 6:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Okay - I don't think Mckrackin will ever admit that he's wrong. He'll just go on inventing what he needs to in order to justify his position.

However, for the benefit of anyone else who reads this, please allow me set a couple of things straight.
quote:

Of course they have the authority to collect it, just not to assess it.


The DRF is automatically assessed by the court, in accordance with PA 42 of 2004. It's then collected by the Secretary of State. The issue that annoys many judges is that they have no discretion in the matter.
quote:

Please note: multiple punishments for the same offense, please shut up now, strength is knowing whento admit you are wrong.


In U.S. v Halper, the court was referring to instances when the defendant serves the original punishment for a given offense and then is confronted with a second one. The DRF is an automatic part of the first punishment (equivalent to prison + probation).

Therefore, it's not a case of Double Jeopardy.
quote:

As to your belief that federal constitution defines what the federal government can do, I really do feel bad for you here, the federal defines rights at a federal level, it does not mean they can be superceded by state laws, quite the opposite, unless you are talking pre-constituion.


If you doubt me, I invite you to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the DRF.

Please let me know when and where the hearing is. I'd like to be there when the judge throws your case of out court.
quote:

Answer these question, I quite honestly can see no reason for any support of this law by anyone but vengeful hate mongers...


Vengeful hate mongers.

And people who have actually read the Constitution in its entirety.

Read both the state and federal constitutions. Then we can talk.
quote:

As to the matter of fnemecek, you really have nothing to offer this conversation...


Well, someone has to explain the Constitution to you.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2375
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 6:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I missed a few points. Here they are.
quote:

As to your 9th amendment comment, did you think nobody would know what it is? It has nothing to do with state and federal laws, it states that the constitution can not take away peoples existing rights.


My mistake. It is the 10th Amendment that delineates the powers between the federal and state governments.
quote:

On to excessive fines, by definition are above those set by the legislature for breaking said law, the DRA is not part of michigans drunk driving laws. End of story, again, you are wrong.


Wait a second. Are you really trying to argue that the law itself isn't a part of the law?

As it is, the DRF became a part of Michigan's drunk driving laws (or more specifically, the Motor Vehicle Code) when the Legislature passed it and the Governor signed it into law.
quote:

I quite honestly have never seen such a blatant disregard for understanding of the way our government works.


You know who else shares my "blatant disregard"? Every law school in the country. They make people read the Constitution, too.
quote:

I appreciate you think you are backed by facts, but, sadly for you, linking something which in many cases you have not read, and in even more failed to comprehend does not back your argument, it just makes you sound stupid, which I think most people here agree on.


I've provided links to the Constitution and to actual statue. I've read all of them. If you had done the same, you'd be able to make a much better argument.

As for what most people on the forum think, please do not presume that you're the spokesperson for them. If anyone else thinks that reading the Constitution and citing it in a discussion of a given law makes me "stupid", they are welcome to opine for themselves.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mckrackin
Member
Username: Mckrackin

Post Number: 19
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 1:11 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"A simple question Mckrakin_ are you a lawyer?"

Dropped out of law school.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mckrackin
Member
Username: Mckrackin

Post Number: 20
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 1:31 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Fnemecek,
you post things that don't say what you claim they say, you answer only to the statements you think you can back up. Through out this entire thread you have been proven wrong again and again. At the root of your argument, you still insist this is part of the sentence for drunk driving when it has been shown a dozen different times, it is not. That, is how they get around the legality of the issue, it is not a sentence, it is not a fine, and it is not a mandatory sentence handed out by a judge(the DRF comes much later than the actual court sentence I have witnessed it quite a few times.) I give up, go about being stupid, nobody really seems to care, and i certainly have better things to do with my time.

It's one thing to read the constitution, it's a whole different ball game to understand it. You obviously don't. Don't take offense to it, it's why people pay lawyers.


PS regarding your 10th commandment correction, just for the people that do not know:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."
Also does not imply that state governments do not abide by federal constitution, quite the opposite in fact. In laymans terms, it says anything not covered by the federal constitution is up to the states.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mckrackin
Member
Username: Mckrackin

Post Number: 21
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 1:48 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Just be because I am a little irritated:

For those of you that think any thing the blazing idiot, known by the moniker Fnemecek, has to say, faintly resembles the truth, I give you Michigan's Drunk Driving Law:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(lyozgwjq2kdzey3ue1wcvr55))/ mileg.aspx?page=getObject&obje ctname=mcl-257-625

Law's passed are accompanied with sentencing guideline, an excessive fine is anything beyond the maximum authorized within the law. Please peruse the law, do you see anything regarding a drivers responsibility fee? Of course you don't. Just shut the fuck up already, you have repeatedly tried to argue this is part of the sentence for drunk driving(of which the law is not even part of), just shut up, you are wrong, end of story. As to why it hasn't gone to court, easy, it's cheaper to pay it, and if you don't have the money to pay it, you certainly don't have the money to take it to court. Personally, I don't drink so i am not overly concerned, i just hate when stupid jackoffs go about quoting the law as if they have a clue, when in fact, they do not. Ask a lawyer, they will chuckle, and then say this, it is legal because it is said to be a fee(not a fine, by the way you are too stupid to even present this argument which is the only rational(or should I say rationale) one), but it really doesn't fit the definition of such. It's kind of like making people who go to jail pay for it, not really legal, but fighting it is likely to get you in more trouble. If you think there are no laws of questionable legality out there I truly feel for you.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mckrackin
Member
Username: Mckrackin

Post Number: 22
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 2:01 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

One more quickie after perusing the actual drivers responsibility law.

Fnemecek stated:
"The DRF is automatically assessed by the court"

Yet a DRF is "assessed" when one reaches seven points on their license, tell me oh enlightened one, does the court assess this as well, or are you saying they just assess the drunk driving offenses, fuck, I can't believe I'm even responding to such stupidity anymore, I can link several sites on brain surgery, guess what, it doesn't make me a fucking brain surgeon.
Top of pageBottom of page

Beavis1981
Member
Username: Beavis1981

Post Number: 209
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 2:34 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

mckrakin said=you think there are no laws of questionable legality out there I truly feel for you.

Don't be so naive people. There is a lot that goes on in the justice system behind the doors. Cops are not legally allowed to beat or use excessive force. But Ask anyone who has ever been to ocj about "elevator rides"
Top of pageBottom of page

Mckrackin
Member
Username: Mckrackin

Post Number: 23
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 2:35 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

One more quickie after perusing the actual drivers responsibility law.

Fnemecek stated:
"The DRF is automatically assessed by the court"

Yet a DRF is "assessed" when one reaches seven points on their license, tell me oh enlightened one, does the court assess this as well, or are you saying they just assess the drunk driving offenses, fuck, I can't believe I'm even responding to such stupidity anymore, I can link several sites on brain surgery, guess what, it doesn't make me a fucking brain surgeon.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2376
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 11:43 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There were a lot of things mentioned in the above posts. Almost all of them have been discussed repeatedly. Rather than going over them again, I'd like to focus on one comment.
quote:

PS regarding your 10th commandment correction, just for the people that do not know:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."
Also does not imply that state governments do not abide by federal constitution, quite the opposite in fact. In laymans terms, it says anything not covered by the federal constitution is up to the states.


On this Mckrackin and I are in complete agreement.

If something is not covered by the U.S. Constitution, it is up to the States.

The complete text of the U.S. Constitution is on-line at http://www.usconstitution.net/ const.html I invite everyone to take a close look at this document and ask themselves two questions:

* Where in the U.S. Constitution does it talk about how state courts should operate?
* Where in the U.S. Constitution does it talk about how the powers of a secretary of state?

The answer is that, for the most part, it doesn't. If you think I'm wrong, I invite you to cite the section of the U.S. Constitution that does either of those things.

Because the U.S. Constitution is silent on this issue, the controlling power for those questions is the Michigan Constitution, in accordance with the 10th Amendment.

The Michigan Constitution gives an extraordinary amount of leeway to the Legislature in determining how things are run in this state. The Legislature used said discretion to enact the DRF and to prescribe the manner in which it currently operates.

Creating a two-part penalty for drunk driving, or any of the other matter addressed by the DRF, does not violate either the Michigan Constitution nor the U.S. Constitution.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mckrackin
Member
Username: Mckrackin

Post Number: 24
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 4:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You don't even understand the law, in your limited view, you think it is about drunk driving or part of the drunk driving law. I linked the drunk driving law previously. I'm done discussing it, you have nothing valid to add to the discussion. Incidentally two part punishments are illegal, this is a fee for using the roads of michigan, it is the only manner with which it can be presented legally, and is exactly how it is presented, ie. "bad driver tax".


As to any legitimate discussions, recognizing solid fact that show the DRA has had no effect on safety on michigan roads, what are people's thoughts on things that WOULD make it safe to operate a vehicle in Michigan?
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2378
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 10:44 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

You don't even understand the law, in your limited view, you think it is about drunk driving or part of the drunk driving law. I linked the drunk driving law previously. I'm done discussing it, you have nothing valid to add to the discussion.


Brilliant! Don't bother reading the Constitution. Just insult those who do read it.
quote:

Incidentally two part punishments are illegal...


Thankfully, no court in the United States has ever agreed with your opinion.
quote:

As to any legitimate discussions, recognizing solid fact that show the DRA has had no effect on safety on michigan roads...


Who said the DRF has had no effect on the safety of Michigan's roads?

The DRF was introduced in 2004. The total number of motor vehicle crashes in Michigan dropped in 2004 from its 2003 levels, even though the number of registered vehicles went up. We also saw a reduction in fatal crashes, traffic fatalities, traffic injuries and the number of alcholol/drug-related crashes and fatalities.

Those reductions continued even further in 2005. (Statistics for 2006 aren't available yet.)

Source: http://www.michigan.gov/docume nts/HistoryAtAGlance_82570_7.p df
Top of pageBottom of page

Mckrackin
Member
Username: Mckrackin

Post Number: 25
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 12:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Apparently your understanding of mathematics is as limited as your grasp of the law, the trend in lower accident numbers, fatalities, and drug/alcohol related accidents all started in 2000(as I stated in a previous post), three years prior to you beloved DRA. Being wrong this often must suck for you.

As to your implication that no one but you has read the constitution, I have read it, the US constitution, Michigan, California, Denver, and New York(I have lived in all four). You insult yourself by thinking you understand something you clearly don't. Don't feel bad, most people don't, it's why lawyers make so much money.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2379
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 3:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Whatever, Mckrackin.

You argue that the DRF is unconstitutional, but base your opinion on different definition of double jeopardy than what is used in every court in America and ignore Michigan's constitution in general.

You argue that the DRF has no impact on making the roads safer, but offer no evidence to support your conclusion.

Luckily, you are a distinct minority. That is why the DRF isn't going away any time soon.
Top of pageBottom of page

Wsugrad
Member
Username: Wsugrad

Post Number: 8
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 3:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks, you all just reminded me to put my new proof of insurance in my glove box! Whew!
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2380
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 4:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

LOL! Glad to be of service.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mckrackin
Member
Username: Mckrackin

Post Number: 27
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 5:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"You argue that the DRF is unconstitutional, but base your opinion on different definition of double jeopardy than what is used in every court in America and ignore Michigan's constitution in general. "

Ah you're comprehension of my posts is similar to your comprehension of the law. I responded with the following awhile back "I do, apologize for the unconstitutional statement, the correct statement should read illegal."

Here's some blurbs from Wikipedia's definition of the 5th amendment that I'm sure your familiar with:

"Generally, individuals may be tried only once for a particular offense under the double jeopardy clause. Originally, the protection against double jeopardy did not extend to prosecutions in state courts. In Benton v. Maryland 395 U.S. 784, (1969), the Supreme Court "incorporated" the clause under the Fourteenth Amendment, meaning that state courts were now required to honor the protections of the Fifth Amendment in state criminal proceedings as well."

"The defendant may not be punished twice for the same offense. In certain circumstances, however, a sentence may be increased. It has been held that sentences do not have the same "finality" as acquittals, and may therefore be reviewed by the courts. Sentence increases may not, however, be made once the defendant has already begun serving his term of imprisonment"

What's Next? Oh yeah that I offered no proof the DRF does not make roads safer, well for starters I referenced the michigan MPS site quite awhile ago, further more your own reference supports exactly what I said, that the trend in decreased accidents began in 2000, not 2003.

Time to face some facts, there are legitmate arguments for the legality of the DRA, none of which you have brought up, instead you have referenced links(such as the 1910 fees that punish people for comitting crimes, that upon review ended being... none, 9th amendment, tenth amendment, etc)that don't support your arguments. Here let me try:

You're wrong Mckrackin, the DRA is completely legal because it is not a sentence but a fee. The service provided is safe roads.

Or, it is not a criminal fine but a civil fine which is a defined role of the secretary of state per Act 388 of 1976. This is to compensate the governement for the time spent on these threats to all things decent(of course you'd be wrong here as well, since the court usually charges you for everything from the mouth piece on the breathalyzer to the arresting officers wage for the night).

The second you say "punitive" you are then crossing the border into several different violations of the law, as well as(and I never would have argued this before, but upon further review, thanks for the tip)the US constitution's fifth amendment(I always took it to mean you cannot be tried twice, but, every translation I have read since it was brought up does, in fact include punished twice or some degree of.)

So, to summarize, you are wrong on almost every point and I could argue your own cause better than you. Further more, to suggest I am a minority, is a pretty generous assumption, considering a bill has been introduced to repeal. I can't imagine a politician jeopardizing his political career by trying to repeal a law if it is so overwhelmingly popular. You are aware legislators are voted into office aren't you? At this point I wouldn't really be surprised.
Top of pageBottom of page

Wsugrad
Member
Username: Wsugrad

Post Number: 10
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 5:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I wouldn't go qouting Wikipedia. Not the most reliable source.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mckrackin
Member
Username: Mckrackin

Post Number: 28
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 10:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"I wouldn't go qouting Wikipedia. Not the most reliable source."

Nor would I, if I hadn't already researched the validity of the statements. Here are some more sources that say the same thing:

http://www.record-eagle.com/ed its/know_your_rights/19fifth-j eopardy.htm

http://www.justicelearning.org /justice_timeline/Amendments.a spx?id=5

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb /law/june96/double_jeopardy_6- 24.html

http://law.enotes.com/everyday -law-encyclopedia/fifth-amendm ent

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ann con/html/amdt5afrag5_user.html

I could create quite the enormous list, but seeing as in this case, everyone is familiar with wikipedia, it seems to suit.

(Message edited by mckrackin on February 23, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Mckrackin
Member
Username: Mckrackin

Post Number: 30
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Monday, March 05, 2007 - 2:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hey, here's another forum on the wildly popular Drivers Responsibility law
http://www.michiganvotes.org/C omment.aspx?ID=39867&ActionID= 211984
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2391
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Monday, March 05, 2007 - 5:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yawn!
Top of pageBottom of page

Yvette248
Member
Username: Yvette248

Post Number: 450
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Monday, March 05, 2007 - 10:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I like the comment where the person said they had to take their insurance money to pay the drivers responsibility fee for have no insurance. Now they can't afford insurance.

Is this totally ridiculous or what???
Top of pageBottom of page

Mckrackin
Member
Username: Mckrackin

Post Number: 31
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Monday, March 05, 2007 - 11:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Yawn"

Yes, it must get boring being wrong so often.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.