MORE MESSAGES:

From Danny, 12/22/09:

get you the info soon as i can i'm working with glendale pd to get copys of the tape where the police arrested me for not wearing seat belts

thankyou so much for posting that stuff on your website i feel honored

please keep saving lifes

thankyou

Steven:

The responses to the letters keep coming in, and get more interesting as
they go along. One of which I thought you'd be especially interested in is
down below.

BRIAN

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sen.Julie Rosen" <Sen.Julie.Rosen@senate.mn>
To: "Brian Capanoli" <briancap@cpinternet.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: Seat Belt Laws


Thank you Brian for your note, and for continuing to share your concerns
with me over this issue. When the bill came before the last day of session
I did vote in favor of it. There was a lot of support for it initially by
law enforcement; however, now it is proving to be not as clear cut of a law
as originally thought. Seeing how this law does pan out should be an
interesting one to observe and keep track of. Again, thank you for your
note.

All the best,
Julie


Senator Julie Rosen
Minnesota District 24
109 State Office Building
St. Paul, MN 55155-1206
651-296-5713

>>> "Brian Capanoli" <briancap@cpinternet.com> 6/3/2009 3:04 PM >>>
Dear Senator Rosen:

The 2009 legislature has closed and among this year's highlights is the
passage of the mandatory seat belt law, making it a primary violation with
penalties of $100 for not buckling up in their own forms of transportation.

I have expressed my disagreements regarding this bill in the past, and
presently must say I am appalled at the transpiring of this law. Those who
supported in this and other past legislatures have claimed that it "saves
lives", yet regardless of the numbers and statistics, people still die from
them. It opens up numerous cases of racial profiling. It also offends many
different constitutional interpretations of rights to privacy, especially
the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Beyond these claims, I hope that those who supported this law are satisfied.
Of course such individuals might feel that they do their constitutencies a
favor by considering "saving lives" but at the same time they demean them.
One might claim to save a life, but at the same time devalue it by taking
away one of life's greatest treasures, being a person's own freedom of
privacy and protection from outside interference and intimidation, including
that of government. It changes the role of the relations between government
and constituency from trust to fear, from government being a public servant
to the constituency being a fearful servant of government.

One must ask now where do we go from here? What new laws should a
constituency fear will cause the forfeiture of basic human rights? What new
causes will arise for law enforcement to come into one's own private life
and instantly make one a criminal, therefore destroying it?

It will be interesting observing the results of this law, the reactions of
constituents, and how it will affect future legislation.

Sincerely,

Brian Capanoli

Steve:

Will do. Thanks.

----- Original Message -----
From: "webmaster" <webmaster@safetychoice.org>
To: "Brian Capanoli" <briancap@cpinternet.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: Seat Belt Laws


> Thanks for letting me know anout this. I don't know if you watched the
> senate transportation committee hearing (link on our website) on the
> original primary seatbelt law bill, but Sieben was the one senator on the
> committee who questioned the wisdom of the original bill. I wrote to her
> at
> the time, thinking she was a decent person, and referred her to our web
> site. She wrote back and said she would look at it. So I'm surprised and
> disappointed that she voted for the final bill.
>
> You're right, this is not a democrat versus republican issue. There are
> members of both parties on both sides of the issue. I think it depends, as
> you say, on their district, but also on the internal dynamics of the
> legislature. Members get a lot of pressure from other members, and the
> leadership, and some resist better than others.
>
> I really think the only way we're going to stop this is to get the
> insurance
> companies to understand that they are shooting themselves in the foot.
> They
> are paying the members of congress so much that the members will do
> whatever
> they say. Just how we are going to get through to the top management of
> the
> insurance companies I don't know yet.
>
> Let me know if you get any more replies.
>
> Steve S.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Capanoli" <briancap@cpinternet.com>
> To: "webmaster" <webmaster@safetychoice.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 12:35 PM
> Subject: Fw: Seat Belt Laws
>
>
> Steve:
>
> I've still been getting letters in response to mine regarding Minnesota's
> new law. I'm starting to notice that while the support for this law has
> been
> bipartisan, it appears that those who did support it came from a specific
> part of the state, especially the southeast sector, going from the
> southern
> metropolitan Twin Cities area to the Iowa border, and starting in the
> Mankato area, stretching eastward toward Wisconsin. Other areas didn't
> support it as much.
>
> BRIAN
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sen.Katie Sieben
> To: Brian Capanoli
> Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 9:48 AM
> Subject: Re: Seat Belt Laws
>
>
> Dear Mr. Capanoli,
>
> Thank you for your recent email in opposition to the primary seat belt law
> recently enacted the State of Minnesota. While I can understand your
> frustrations with this new law, I was compelled to support it due to the
> lives saved and injuries prevented, taxpayer cost-savings, and additional
> revenue it will bring to our state.
>
> In Minnesota, traffic crashes are the leading cause of death for citizens
> aged 1 to 34. The Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) estimates
> that up to 30 lives could be saved and 400 injuries prevented each year
> under primary seat belt.
>
> It is reported that hospital costs for unbelted accident victims are 50
> percent higher than those who buckle up. Additionally, it’s estimated
> that
> government health care pays for over 20 percent of medical costs incurred
> by
> unbelted drivers—reducing the number of these accidents would save
> taxpayers
> ’ money. The Department of Public Safety predicted that primary seat belt
> could save $25 million in hospital costs in the first year alone. I feel
> it
> is important to find opportunities for cost-savings during this time of
> budget deficit.
>
> In addition, by enacting primary seat belt during the 2009 Legislative
> Session, the state will receive $3.4 million in federal funds for
> transportation-safety improvements and driver-safety programs. During our
> state’s economic crisis, I think it is fiscally prudent to take advantage
> of
> opportunities to secure additional revenue.
>
> For these reasons, I supported its passage of the primary seat belt.
> Please
> feel free to contact me again about this or any other issue.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Katie
>
>
>
>
> *********************************************
> Katie Sieben
> State Senator - District 57
> 75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
> 321 Capitol
> St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1606
> (651) 297-8060
> www.senate.mn/senatorsieben
>
> To receive email updates from Katie please send an email with the subject
> "Capitol Update" to jen.bruntlett@senate.mn
>
> Stay In Touch and up-to-date on Katie's legislative activities:
> http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/members/member_bio_personal.php?mem_id=111
> 5&ls=85
>
> *********************************************
>
>
>>>> "Brian Capanoli" <briancap@cpinternet.com> 6/3/2009 3:15 PM >>>
>
> Dear Senator Sieben:
>
> The 2009 legislature has closed and among this year's highlights is the
> passage of the mandatory seat belt law, making it a primary violation with
> penalties of $100 for not buckling up in their own forms of
> transportation.
>
> I have expressed my disagreements regarding this bill in the past, and
> presently must say I am appalled at the transpiring of this law. Those who
> supported in this and other past legislatures have claimed that it "saves
> lives", yet regardless of the numbers and statistics, people still die
> from
> them. It opens up numerous cases of racial profiling. It also offends many
> different constitutional interpretations of rights to privacy, especially
> the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
>
> Beyond these claims, I hope that those who supported this law are
> satisfied.
> Of course such individuals might feel that they do their constitutencies a
> favor by considering "saving lives" but at the same time they demean them.
> One might claim to save a life, but at the same time devalue it by taking
> away one of life's greatest treasures, being a person's own freedom of
> privacy and protection from outside interference and intimidation,
> including
> that of government. It changes the role of the relations between
> government
> and constituency from trust to fear, from government being a public
> servant
> to the constituency being a fearful servant of government.
>
> One must ask now where do we go from here? What new laws should a
> constituency fear will cause the forfeiture of basic human rights? What
> new
> causes will arise for law enforcement to come into one's own private life
> and instantly make one a criminal, therefore destroying it?
>
> It will be interesting observing the results of this law, the reactions of
> constituents, and how it will affect future legislation.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Brian Capanoli
>
>

For those of you who don't ride motorcycles, here is a comparison to something you might know more about. If you enjoy swimming so much that it is an important part of your life and contributes to your personal happiness, imagine how you would hate to have mandatory lifejacket laws for all swimmers. Swimming would stop being enjoyable. It is a fact that people drown, and many of those who drown would not have drowned if they had wore a lifejacket, but that is a bad reason for the government to step in and restrict everyones freedoms. Some who like their lifejackets might not feel like they stand out as sissy-boys or sissy-girls since everyone has to wear a lifejacket, but your fragile egos are not reason enough to make laws which prevent others from enjoying a swim, free of lifejackets. Stop making laws that suppress the pursuit of happiness.
An Australian study showed that people who favor helmet laws tend to bang their head with a much higher frequency than average. If you are clumsy, go ahead and wear a helmet when doing everything if you like. Let those who ride, decide what is right for themselves.

(Sent by "Danny", July 9, 2009 ed.)

____________________________________________________________
Stefan,
Thank you for the e-mail. I did vote against SB 116 today on the senate
floor.
Sincerely,
Barbara Cegavske


Senator Barbara K. Cegavske
Senate District 8

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Schreier [mailto:tiktin@fiberpipe.net]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 10:47 AM
To: Cegavske, Barbara Senator
Subject: SB 116



Dear Senator Cegavske,

Wearing a seatbelt increases the danger of being killed or
injured in an automobile accident.
About the only people who support this bill are the people who
are going to get the money, mainly the police department and the health
department. Practically everyone else is opposed to this bill.
In every state where such a bill has passed it has been abused
by the police.
This is not a Nevada bill, it is a Washington, D.C. bill,
submitted at the urging of NHTSA, under pressure from senator Patty
Murray of Washington state.
If this bill passes, some people are going to die as a result.
You can find out all about this issue by visiting our website,
www.safetychoice.org

Sincerely yours, Stefan Schreier, PhD (Aerospace Engineering) Founder,
Safety Choice Coalition

Stefan:

I have a great story for you.

My 85 year old father in law recently had a heart valve replaced.

His wife, and mine, and I went to see him at the rehab home yesterday, took him home to his house for the afternoon, and fed him a home cooked meal, than returned him to the rehab place for another week before he can finally come home.

Before he got into the car, he told us the Doctor had "ordered him to ride in the BACK seat, with NO SEATBELT on, and AWAY from the airbags." The Dr said that the stress of the seatbelt or airbag, would blow his chest open and possibly kill him right there.

I had to laugh, because I have been talking about these very things with him for years. But he always spoke in favor of the government's coercive laws and claiming "they knew what they were doing" when they passed these laws because "seatbelts save lives."

Strangely enough, yesterday, he didn't notice the irony of the situation he was in. If he had, he would have hanged his head in shame at having to admit that the seatbelts were dangerous.

Sure do enjoy your website, and I use it often when writing LTEs and general hell raising.


Don Hull
Costa Mesa, CA
Liberty fighter

Thanks for this information. Fascinating.

----- Original Message -----
From: "webmaster" <webmaster@safetychoice.org>
To: "Brian Capanoli" <briancap@cpinternet.com>
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: Dinuba, CA


> Hi, Brian
>
> I saw the report and also read the stories about the accident that
> were
> published in many newspapers, especially the L.A. Times. Having caught the
> police repeatedly lying about ejections, I was immediately suspicious.
> Many
> of the other reports hedged about whether the occupants were, indeed,
> ejected and whether or not they were wearing seatbelts. The first reader
> comment of the L.A .Times on line was "How could they have been ejected?".
> Good question. I immediately added my own comment in which I suggested
> that
> they ask the officer making the claim 1. Through what opening were they,
> supposedly, ejected? 2. In what direction were they, supposedly, ejected?
> 3.
> Did the officer see them being ejected? 4. Are there any independent eye
> witnesses to verify the officer's claim? Think about it, Brian. If this
> vehicle was hit from the side, as they claim, the only direction they
> could
> have been ejected would have been in the direction of the colliding
> vehicle,
> which was in the way. If this was a closed pick-up truck, the only opening
> they could have been ejected through is the side window. Four kids ejected
> through a side window in a fraction of a second? The story is nonsense,
> Brian. It is physically impossible.
> We have seen all this before. I reminded readers of the LA Times of the
> previous claim of "ejection" that they published, when an eye witness came
> forward who saw the accident and said the victim was still in the car
> wearing his seatbelt when the police arrived on the scene. It was the same
> story in Utah when the police said nine victims in a van were ejected in a
> roll-over, when pictures showed all the doors of the van closed and the
> roof
> caved in, making it easy to show that the claim was impossible.
> It's really pitiful. A person has a better chance of surviving a
> collision if he is ejected than if he is trapped in the vehicle by his
> seatbelt. Very few people are ever ejected in an accident, especially from
> closed vehicles, and then only in extremely violent collisions or
> roll-overs
> in which the vehicle is badly crushed or even torn apart, making it
> certain
> that any person trapped in the vehicle would be killed. But the seatbelt
> theory is so patently absurd that these fairy tales about "ejections" is
> all
> they can think of to bamboozle the public.
>
> Steve S.

Dear friends in Liberty:

The attached cars were what Detroit produced BEFORE government began its heavy hand on the industry under Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s.--- before the loony gas mileage standards, emission regulations and "safety" regs which has forced car makers to build the same car. That's why they all look alike today.

No wonder the US auto industry is just a shadow of its former self, and "foreigners" have taken over our industry. Our own government has done more damage to this industry than Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, and Mussolini combined. And now, OUR OWN GOVERNMENT is using OUR money to buy GM and Chrysler for itself. Mind boggling!

Don Hull

hello my names danny from los angeles california i am fighting seat belt and helmet laws please check out www.motorists.org <http://www.motorists.org> www.buckleoff.com <http://www.buckleoff.com> and <http://boltofca.com/index.html>
if we could please speak over the phone would be really great i am requesting permission to use stuff on your website photos ect, please let me know thanyou!!
____________________________________________________________
Beauty School Programs - Get the career you've always wanted. Click Now.
<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/BLSrjnsNMGHsxcZ5rNCzgaN9X914FRMmmZa3mNKYnzgFrVFPMCZ3eEE6E96/>

On June 23, next Tuesday, the California Senate Transportation and Housing Committee will hold a hearing on Assembly Bill 564 (AB564). This bill will gut the CA speed trap law, by allowing cities and towns to ignore the historic requirements for setting speed limits. No longer would engineering and speed surveys be required for the use of radar or lidar in order to determine the safest speed (the 85th percentile). Should this bill pass and become law, the cities and towns across California will be able to justify greatly reduced and unsafe speed limits. Please contact the members of the Senate Transportation Committee (member info) and your representative (find contact info), and urge a NO vote on Assembly Bill 564. Please do it today! NMA California Activist
____________________________________________________________
Free Fashion Design Education Information. Click now.
<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/BLSrjnsM7HafITCSJsxVhNP7HKcYNkVyunoQDH7Lu91fodJBL4RXyD9VPMU/>

It was funny but I got a different message out of this. To me, she sounded
like she was saying that the law enforcement people themselves were having
second thoughts about this bill, and that they did their own findings and
discovered it wasn't so cut and dried as they thought it would be. They saw
other factors involved and therefore had a change of heart. Maybe it's
wishful thinking here, but that's how I took the message.

----- Original Message -----
From: "webmaster" <webmaster@safetychoice.org <mailto:webmaster@safetychoice.org>>
To: "Brian Capanoli" <briancap@cpinternet.com <mailto:briancap@cpinternet.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: Seat Belt Laws


> Dear Brian,
>
> Thanks very much for writing to all these legislators and sending me
> their replies. I did think the reply from Senator Rosen was interesting,
> especially the part about "law enforcement" and how they brought the bill
> up
> on the last day. We have seen these tactics in other states. Legislatures
> usually try to get through a whole raft of bills on the last day of a
> session - bills that somehow haven't made it through but that somebody
> wants
> very badly. The legislators are tired and anxious to go home, so they tend
> not to look too carefully at what is being put before them.
>
> As far as "law enforcement" is concerned, of course that is part of the
> NHTSA tactic. By getting the police to push these bills, you get the
> intimidation effect, and also the "authority figure" effect, which works
> particularly well with women legislators. It's amazing how few of these
> legislators stop to say to themselves, "Hey, wait a minute, I'm here to
> represent my constituents, not the police. Shouldn't I consider how my
> constituents are going to feel about this?"
>
> As far as her comment that she wants to "observe how this law pans
> out",
> I don't know if she is referring to the fatality rates or reactions from
> her
> constituents. Because the police routinely falsify the accidents reports
> where seatbelts are concerned, and because the fatality rates themselves
> are
> an arbitratry number generated by NHTSA, based on an estimate of the total
> number of miles driven, I doubt if she will see much change there,
> although
> they may "adjust" the estimate to show a decrease.
>
> On another issue, we sent an email to every member of the Rhode Island
> House of Representatives last night, asking them to take Article 18 out of
> H
> 5983. We will fight them in the House and we shall fight them in the
> Senate.
> We may not win but, by God, we are going to try.
>
> Best wishes,
> Steve S.
>
>

Steve:

I received another response today from a state senator named Terri Bonhoff (D). I gave referred your website containing all the information. You might possibly get a response from her or commentary of some sort. Not sure, but thought you'd like to be aware of it.

BRIAN

The film clip didn't come up.
----- Original Message -----
From: Safety Choice Coalition
To: car253@juno.com <mailto:car253@juno.com> ; dan@dangoebel.net <mailto:dan@dangoebel.net> ; Brian
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 2:55 PM
Subject: Fw: couple misses funeral over seatbelt ticket


----- Original Message -----
From: eva appliance
To: editor@safetychoice.org <mailto:editor@safetychoice.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 7:53 AM
Subject: couple misses funeral over seatbelt ticket


<http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=011008&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=8077241&referralPlaylistId=playlist>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.24/668 - Release Date: 2/4/2007 1:30 AM

i have very good news i won both my helmet tickets these cops claim my helmets missing parts i just won both of those tickets!!
____________________________________________________________
Turn life into a beach with a new sandbox. Click now!
<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/BLSrjnsE2XyWhgj0nNHuVnymjnMOgyWEaXgsEeKBu8zDni390HBsGCUm2UA/>

Susan Pruvli sent you this link from from 6ABC:
Central Bucks South student killed in crash
<http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=resources/traffic&id=6995640>

____________________________________________________________
6ABC - The Delaware Valley's Most Watched Station



X-CIP: Not present

X-Forwarded-For: 65.95.53.148

RemoteIP: Not present

IPAddr: 10.193.10.234

Steve:

I thought this article from MSNBC might have interested you. No doubt that some of these tickets involved seat belts.

BRIAN

Cop shoots fire chief in Ark. court over tickets
Fire Chief Don Payne didn't hesitate to tell the judge what he thought of the Arkansas town's police and their speed traps. Then an officer shot him, right there in court.
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32680338/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/page/2/from/ET>

In any case, I find it pretty appalling that law enforcement would go
through these lengths to enforce something this trivial.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Safety Choice Coalition" <editor@safetychoice.org <mailto:editor@safetychoice.org>>
To: "Brian Capanoli" <briancap@cpinternet.com <mailto:briancap@cpinternet.com>>
Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2009 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: msnbc.com: Cop shoots fire chief in Ark. court over tickets


> Thanks very much for the article. I suppose some of them might have
> been seatbelt tickets since Arkansas recently passed a primary seatbelt
> law. It reminds me of the story of the Texas rancher who shot a state
> trooper for giving him a seatbelt ticket. Of course that's silly. The
> police are at the bottom of the pecking order. It is the United States
> senate which is responsible for this and they are doing it because they
> re being bribed by the insurance companies. So that is where we need to
> focus our attention.
> Steve S.
>
On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 13:56 -0500, Brian Capanoli wrote:
>> Steve:
>>
>> I thought this article from MSNBC might have interested you. No doubt
>> that some of these tickets involved seat belts.
>>
>> BRIAN
>>
>> Cop shoots fire chief in Ark. court over tickets
>> Fire Chief Don Payne didn't hesitate to tell the judge what he thought
>> of the Arkansas town's police and their speed traps. Then an officer
>> shot him, right there in court.
>> <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32680338/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/page/2/from/ET>
>
>