Tampering with Interlock System on 3rd DUI

[JamesVincent]

Isn't the interloc system to prevent drunk driving the property of the police that is rented by the car owner? If so, disabling it probably qualifies as damaging public property or something similar.

I think that depends on the district and the circumstance. Some are bought outright by the person who is required to have them, some are rented or leased in someway. I heard a radio show the other morning talking about new vehicles having it as an option being installed from the factory.

[The Observer]

I think that the anti-tampering systems are just not robust enough and encourage people to defeat the Interloc system. What is needed is an anti-tampering system that releases an angry rabid badger into the vehicle.

[Prof]

I think that the anti-tampering systems are just not robust enough and encourage people to defeat the Interloc system. What is needed is an anti-tampering system that releases an angry rabid badger into the vehicle.

Or psychotic, telepathic minks (see Cordwainer Smith, "Mother Hitton's Littul Kittens.")

[penny2]

You guys are hilarious.... I will keep you informed of the outcome! With my work and background checking of candidates that we bring in, it's crazy that the poor schlepp that gets caught once with a dui gets 30 days of jail time .. then you have this chick that appears to be an alcoholic criminal that might kill someone someday (including her kids or someone else's family) is claiming sovereign and the right to travel...drunk, attack a police officer, tamper with her interlock system by disengaging it, disorderly conduct, blah blah blah.... plus have two prior DUI's....

I guess you just can't fix stupid.

[Pottapaug1938]

Any thoughts on that one?

As a radical libertarian just one step shy of that cliff that plunges into full blown anarchism, I just have to say: Toss her ass in jail!

She is willfully endangering the lives of others on the road. If she wants to drink and drive, she should get her own damned road and drive on it all she wants. But stay the hell off of any public thoroughfare.

To put it another way: your right to drive where you want, when you want, how you want and in whatever condition of sobriety you want, ends at that point where you are no longer able to step on the brakes to prevent injury or damage to the person or property of anyone else.

[penny2]

Any thoughts on that one?

As a radical libertarian just one step shy of that cliff that plunges into full blown anarchism, I just have to say: Toss her ass in jail!

She is willfully endangering the lives of others on the road. If she wants to drink and drive, she should get her own damned road and drive on it all she wants. But stay the hell off of any public thoroughfare.

To put it another way: your right to drive where you want, when you want, how you want and in whatever condition of sobriety you want, ends at that point where you are no longer able to step on the brakes to prevent injury or damage to the person or property of anyone else.

Touche Pottapaug.... Touche

[LPC]

Since we don't have a constitutionally granted a right to travel (no Constitution) they don't have even that fig-leaf.

You understand that the "right to travel" - which does exist in the U.S. - doesn't mean anything like what sovrun nutjobs want it to mean. To get an idea of its real meaning, see Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). A free version is here.

The Saenz decision is quoted in my FAQ to refute the proposition that there is such a thing as state citizenship that is separate, much less superior, to US citizenship.

“Citizens of the United States, whether rich or poor, have the right to choose to be citizens ‘of the States wherein they reside.’ U.S. Const., Amdt. 14, section 1. The States, however, do not have any right to select their citizens.” Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), aff’g 134 F.3d 1400.

Saenz was about eligibility for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), but the "right to travel" has also applied to voting cases, and the Supreme Court has held that a state cannot deny voting rights or other rights of state citizenship to a citizen of the United States who resides within that state. Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Evans v. Cornman, 398 U.S. 419 (1970).

These cases also refute the claim that the 14th Amendment is limited to the rights of former slaves, because the racial history or ethnicity of the citizens at issue was irrelevant to the decisions.

[penny2]

Any thoughts on that one?

As a radical libertarian just one step shy of that cliff that plunges into full blown anarchism, I just have to say: Toss her ass in jail!

She is willfully endangering the lives of others on the road. If she wants to drink and drive, she should get her own damned road and drive on it all she wants. But stay the hell off of any public thoroughfare.

Here is the court docket I looked up on the girl... Good luck with the Sovereign Attempt in my mind.... Took her name out in case it was a problem

Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas
Court Summary

Coplay, PA 18037
Aliases:

DOB:08/06/1981
Race:Caucasian
Hair:Brown
Eyes:Blue
Sex:Female
Active
Lehigh
CP-39-CR-0004919-2011 Proc Status: Awaiting Formal Arraignment DC No: OTN:L6467683
Arrest Dt: Trial Dt: Legacy No:
Next Action: Formal Arraignment Next Action Date: 01/23/2012 Next Action Room: Courtroom 2D
Seq No Statute Grade Description Disposition
DUI: Gen Imp/Inc of Driving Safely -
3rd Off
1 75 § 3802 M2
DUI: Highest Rte of Alc (BAC .16+)
3rd Off
2 75 § 3802 M1
3 18 § 5104 M2 Resist Arrest/Other Law Enforce
Disorder Conduct Hazardous/Physi
Off
4 18 § 5503 M3
Ill Operate w/o Ig Int (BAC .025+) 1st
Off
5 75 § 3808 M3
Ill Operate Vehicle W/Out Ignition
Interlock
6 75 § 3808 M
7 75 § 3309 S Disregard Traffic Lane (Single)
8 75 § 3714 S Careless Driving
DUI: Gen Imp/Inc of Driving Safely -
1st Off
100 75 § 3802 M
DUI: Highest Rte of Alc (BAC .16+)
1st Off
101 75 § 3802 M
102 75 § 3808 M Tamper W/Ignition Interlock

Closed
Lehigh
CP-39-MD-0002838-2008
Arrest Dt:
Proc Status: Completed DC No: OTN:
Disp Date: Disp Judge:
Northampton
CP-48-CR-0004493-2007
Arrest Dt: 11/01/2007
Proc Status: Sentenced/Penalty Imposed DC No: OTN:K6869472
Disp Date: 01/23/2009 Disp Judge: Zito, Leonard N.
Def Atty: Applebaum, Michael H. - (PR)
Seq No Statute Grade Description Disposition
Sentence Dt. Sentence Type Program Period Sentence Length
DUI: Gen Imp/Inc of Driving Safely -
1st Off
1 75 § 3802 M Withdrawn
DUI: High Rte of Alc (Bac.10 - .16) 1st
Off
2 75 § 3802 M Guilty Plea
01/23/2009 Confinement Other Min: 2 Day(s) Max: 6 Month(s)
AOPC 3541 REV. 11/29/2011 Page 1 of 2 Printed: 1/20/2012 12:38 PM
Recent entries made in the court filing offices may not be immediately reflected on the court summary report. Neither the courts of the Unified Judicial
System of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assume any liability for inaccurate or delayed
data, errors or omissions on these reports. Court Summary Report information should not be used in place of a criminal history background check
which can only be provided by the Pennsylvania State Police. Moreover an employer who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal History
Record Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
Please note that if the offense disposition information is blank, this only means that there is not a “final disposition” recorded in the Common Pleas
Criminal Court Case Management System for this offense. In such an instance, you must view the public web docket sheet of the case wherein the
offense is charged in order to determine what the most up-to-date disposition information is for the offense.

Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas
Court Summary
(Continued)
Closed (Continued)
Northampton (Continued)
Seq No Statute Grade Description Disposition
Sentence Dt. Sentence Type Program Period Sentence Length
Recklessly Endangering Another (that was when she had her kids in the car and lost them)
Person
3 18 § 2705 M2 Dismissed (Lower Court)
CP-48-CR-0002709-2008
Arrest Dt: 05/13/2008
Proc Status: Sentenced/Penalty Imposed DC No: OTN:K7391952
Disp Date: 01/23/2009 Disp Judge: Zito, Leonard N.
Def Atty: Applebaum, Michael H. - (PR)
Seq No Statute Grade Description Disposition
Sentence Dt. Sentence Type Program Period Sentence Length
DUI: Gen Imp/Inc of Driving Safely -
1st Off
1 75 § 3802 M Withdrawn
DUI: High Rte of Alc (BAC .10 - .16)
2nd Off
2 75 § 3802 M Guilty Plea
01/23/2009 Confinement Other Min: 30 Day(s) Max: 6 Month(s)
DUI: Highest Rte of Alc (BAC .16+)
2nd Off
3 75 § 3802 M1 Dismissed (Lower Court)
AOPC 3541 REV. 11/29/2011 Page 2 of 2 Printed: 1/20/2012 12:38 PM
Recent entries made in the court filing offices may not be immediately reflected on the court summary report. Neither the courts of the Unified Judicial
System of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assume any liability for inaccurate or delayed
data, errors or omissions on these reports. Court Summary Report information should not be used in place of a criminal history background check
which can only be provided by the Pennsylvania State Police. Moreover an employer who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal History
Record Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
Please note that if the offense disposition information is blank, this only means that there is not a “final disposition” recorded in the Common Pleas
Criminal Court Case Management System for this offense. In such an instance, you must view the public web docket sheet of the case wherein the
offense is charged in order to determine what the most up-to-date disposition information is for the offense.

[penny2]

Oh I forgot to mention... do you think her Sovereign Attorney in Fact, Francisco Antonio Velez is going to get her out of this one? Using the right to travel as the basis in the moronic sovereign mind? Thoughts please!

[notorial dissent]

Is he even an attorney to begin with? He might get an adjoining cell for UPL though.

Not gonna happen. It sounds like she is a three time loser and they will most likely hammer her this time around.

[penny2]

Is he even an attorney to begin with? He might get an adjoining cell for UPL though.

Not gonna happen. It sounds like she is a three time loser and they will most likely hammer her this time around.

His Name is Francisco Velez... Attorney in Fact... he is a "man" that is representing a "man" under God.... what is UPL???

[LaVidaRoja]

Unauthorized Practice of Law. It's when someone who is not admitted to the State bar stands up to represent someone else in a legal proceeding. If he is not an attorney, and he attempts to file anything on her behalf, or make a court appearance with her or on her behalf, he may be cited for UPL.

[penny2]

Well according to him.. he just shows up and gives "advice" to the person being convicted. After all... she has a right to travel with or without a license and being pulled over is against Sovereign Law. He is also the one that filed the "Cease and Desist" recently for the dude losing his house.. and guess what... The Judge ruled for the Bank "Plaintiff" for $400,000 plus $94 per diem per day for everyday since 2009 (last house payment made). The house is worth $320,000 at this time. Now I wonder how many bogus charges will be filed against the Foreclosure Judge.

We will see what this brilliant Sovereign Strawman can do to save the world. There should be a comic book made out called Savior Sovereigns.... They would be the Bad Guys.

[notorial dissent]

An Attorney-in-fact, only means that he has the general powers and authority granted him by whomever he is acting for, but it does not make him an attorney, and it does not allow him to appear for the other party in court, or give them advice, despite what he may claim. An attorney-in-fact, can if necessary, retain an attorney to represent the other party in court, but cannot do so himself.

As some one pointed out, Velez can claim anything he wants, it just doesn't make it so, but when fantasy meets reality he is going to get smacked down hard. His “advising” the person going in front of the court is UPL, and will get him in a lot of trouble, not to mention the trouble his bogus advice will get the victim in to. “Sovereign Law” is an oxymoron, and meaningless. The so called “right to travel”, is just that, a person has the right to travel from point A to point B, but there is no "right" to any specific mode of transport, no money, you walk, no driver’s license, you ride with someone as a passenger, or walk, those are the options.

If he does anything more than make mouth noises, and even possibly then depending on what he says, he can and will find himself charged with intimidation and harassment, and filing any kind of fraudulent paper against a judge in particular or an official person is now in most jurisdictions at least a serious crime if not a felony, and the courts have absolutely no sense of humor about people who do that. Not a really wise maneuver, but then Velez isn’t a particularly wise or intelligent individual from what you have said.

[LPC]

Unauthorized Practice of Law. It's when someone who is not admitted to the State bar stands up to represent someone else in a legal proceeding. If he is not an attorney, and he attempts to file anything on her behalf, or make a court appearance with her or on her behalf, he may be cited for UPL.

Ummmm... Not exactly.

The general rule is that every tribunal has the power to decide who should (or should not) practice before that tribunal. So (for example), the IRS has for a long time had regulations about who may "practice" before the IRS, and has now promulgated regulations about who may prepare and file income tax returns.

If someone tries to appear before a court or tribunal who is not authorized to appear in that forum, the forum usually just dismisses them and that's the end of the matter. Unless there is some sort of fraud or misrepresentation, there is no crime involved.

Many (but not all) jurisdictions have a crime of "unauthorized practice of law" that is a kind of consumer protection law. (I say "kind of" because it's not always clear that consumers are being protected.) If you hold yourself out as someone authorized to practice law, and actually attempt to represent people based on your misrepresentation of your status, you might be held criminally or civilly liable for that holding out.

Think of it like a plumber protection law. If plumbers are licensed, and you hold yourself out to be a licensed plumber, you may have committed a crime. The crime is not that you cleared a drain that you shouldn't have cleared, but that you misrepresented your credentials to the public.

[penny2]

Either way I don't think she is going to avoid some sort of jail time!

[ArthurWankspittle]

Well according to him.. he just shows up and gives "advice" to the person being convicted.

Not sure if that was Freudian or whether you were paraphrasing his Freudian slip. Personally, I'd want an attorney to advise me on how NOT to get convicted.

[wserra]

Personally, I'd want an attorney to advise me on how NOT to get convicted.

You're obviously not a sovrun.

[penny2]

She works for my company and I am required to attend the hearing tomorrow since she has been suspended since the 3rd offense. I will let you know the outcome and whether this imposter gets her off. Interesting comments... you have all been extremely helpful in trying to clear their tactics up for me. She gave him $2000 for his bs advice. I think the Judge will laugh her and him out of the room.

[notorial dissent]

On the humor part, probably a mixed bag. I certainly don't think she will be laughing when it is over and done with. Her money is gone, and, I suspect, shortly her freedom as well. A lot will depend on how much of his ego is involved here as to how big a fool he makes of himself.