Personal Run-In With Corrupt Police "Freeman" Status Wins

reply to post by hellobruce

No he did not.... what makes you claim he did?

because i watched the video. go troll elsewhere.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Well at the end of the stop they admitted that it was properly stored, but they did hold me making me late for work. They said that my firewood for camping was suspicious and he evntually said people use stuff like that to throw off dogs. I'd say they kept me for at least half an hour and made me sit on my hood, eventually only citing me for speeding and not getting any dogs after he looked through the hatchback.

Thank you a lot though I will read about traveling opposed to driving. I also read that if they are talking window to window or on cell phones they aren't supposed to cite you. Also radae guns are only accurate up to half a mile (though they can give readings up to several miles). I was about half a mile at least and travelling in a clump of cars so I doubt tgeir reading.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

Well at the end of the stop they admitted that it was properly stored, but they did hold me making me late for work. They said that my firewood for camping was suspicious and he evntually said people use stuff like that to throw off dogs. I'd say they kept me for at least half an hour and made me sit on my hood, eventually only citing me for speeding and not getting any dogs after he looked through the hatchback.

it is strictly illegal to hold someone for dogs, i'm quite certain of that.

Basically, if police can’t bring a dog to the scene in the time it takes to run your tags and write a ticket, the use of the dog becomes constitutionally suspect. So if you’re pulled over and police threaten to call in the dogs, you are not required to consent to searches.

www.flexyourrights.org...

unfortunately one truly needs to know their rights at the time, because not knowing them is as good as consenting to waiting there. you could try the ruling at that link because they shouldn't have held you there. that was improper, if not illegal.

as for speeding, i'd stick to arguing that you were traveling, and ask them who you injured, what rights you violated, etc. they won't be able to produce any.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


When he started talking about dogs I asked why I would be searched and he said " I didn't say we were goinf to" then mentioned searching and dogs several more times. The reason I felt I couldn't do anything was because they said I couldn't get back into my car that had a gun in it. I know the treatment was because of the gun. The officer asked me who told me I could keep it in my glove box, etc. Then made me get out based on nothing. I have been stopped probably 8 to 10 times since I got my license, despite no criminal record at all, and this time (first time withmy legally owned and contained handgun) was the first time ive been asked to get out and subtly threatened with dogs.

And I'm not big on the idea of paying 200 bucks (60 fine and 140 court cost) for allegedly speeding and subsequently being late for work risking my livelihood and negatinf the days work I was driving to. Ya know?

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

yes, i know exactly how you feel.

if you take it to court, the laws i linked are probably your best bet. establish that you were traveling,. cite the laws i gave. ask the prosecution to present a victim, or the person who's rights you violated and evidence that you violated them.

if you're just going to pay the fine i can offer tips for the future:

don't get out of your car unless they give you a very good reason. don't even give them your license without them telling you why. try to be polite about this obviously, and it will usually result in them never finding the gun.

IF you get out, lock all the doors, and put the keys in your pocket. tell them up front that you do not consent to any searches or seizures. even if they search you illegally, stating this up front will help you in court.

carry some of the laws that i cited with you. don't just print them out, but get a feel for what is actually law. this way when the police try to tell you to do something, you'll know the difference between lawfully given orders and "policies".

as they were holding you there, you should have asked them "am i being detained?" if they said yes, ask why. they are legally obligated to tell you the reason. if they say "no" then say something like "ok, thanks officers, have a nice day" and make your way to your automobile and leave.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Good advice, thanks. I will let you know how court goes in a few weeks.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

of course, best of luck mate. feel free to ask me any other questions and i will answer to the best of my ability.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

Dear Bob Sholtz,

Please. And again please, do a little more research before you risk yourself or others on the advice you offer here.

For example:

Following is a list of cases holding a lengthy detention reasonable while officers were waiting for a canine:
•United States v. Lebrun, 261 F.3d 731, 734 (8th Cir. 2001): 20 minutes waiting for drug dog was not deemed unreasonable;
•United States v. Orsolini, 300 F.3d 724, 730 (6th Cir. 2002): 35 minutes waiting for the canine unit to arrive was not deemed unreasonable;
•United States v. Davis, 430 F.3d 345, 354 (6th Cir. 2005): police had reasonable suspicion to detain suspect for 30­–45 minutes to wait for the first drug-detection dog to arrive;
•United States v. Alpert, 816 F.2d 958 (4th Cir. 1987): upholding 50 minute detention; and
•United States v. White, 42 F.3d 457, 460 (8th Cir. 1994): finding delay of one hour and 20 minutes for arrival of drug dog reasonable.

And, no the prosecutor wasn't arrested, and no you don't have a right to travel anywhere. Visit Area 51 the next time you want a stroll. Cities are allowed to place restrictions on the use of parks and the times of their usage.

It's just sad.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

Please. And again please, do a little more research before you risk yourself or others on the advice you offer here.

only with reasonable suspicion. that is a different issue. hauling firewood around doesn't constitute reasonable suspicion of trafficking drugs. if the issuing of a ticket is delayed without any reason, save that police dogs can arrive on scene and sniff search, it would be constitutionally suspect.

and no you don't have a right to travel anywhere. Visit Area 51 the next time you want a stroll. Cities are allowed to place restrictions on the use of parks and the times of their usage.

please read what i quoted from american jurisprudence. you'll see that provisions exist to prevent someone going somewhere on public property if there are safety issues, or other, similar things.

cities place those restrictions illegally. they directly violate the 14th amendment:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

i fear that you have not read what i posted from american jurisprudence.

if there is a real public safety issue, something like construction, an accident that results in a road being closed off, a criminal investigation, etc...all these things are covered and valid. passing and enforcing a law that prevents someone from being at a public park during certain hours without such a reason is illegal and violates one's right to travel.

reply to post by charles1952


In my case i was held while they threatened to call the dogs. 30 min ans they didn't ens up calling the dogs, it was a scare tactic in hopes I would fess up to something . There was no reasonable suspicion.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

Dear Bob Sholtz,

cities place those restrictions illegally. they directly violate the 14th amendment:

Whether we like it or not, cities' restrictions on park usage have been upheld in courts. From New York City:

§1-03 General Provisions
a.Hours of Operation1.Persons may enter and use the parks from 6:00 a.m. until 1:00 a.m. unless other open hours are posted at any park.
2.Whenever a threat to public health or safety exists in any park resulting from any natural cause, explosion, accident or any other cause, or by riot or unlawful assembly or activity, the Commissioner may close the park or any part thereof to the public for such duration as he deems necessary to ensure the safety and well-being of the public.
3.No person shall enter or remain in any park without the permission of the Commissioner when such park is closed to the public.

www.nycgovparks.org...

How "American Jurisprudence" applies to this is beyond me. It's a little bit like saying I should consider "mechanics" before I tell you that your gas cap isn't on.

One thing that you should consider is that the courts have allowed limits and restrictions to be placed on the Constitution. For example, you can't say anything you want, anywhere you want, whenever you want to.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

Whether we like it or not, cities' restrictions on park usage have been upheld in courts.

the 14th amendment is upheld in the constitution, and the rulings i have provided come from the supreme court, not a state court.

How "American Jurisprudence" applies to this is beyond me.

it's an incredibly useful legal encyclopedia. costs 10-13 thousand each. that passage i linked has been to the supreme court.

One thing that you should consider is that the courts have allowed limits and restrictions to be placed on the Constitution. For example, you can't say anything you want, anywhere you want, whenever you want to.

you seem to understand law much as a police officer is taught law.

courts cannot restrict the constitution. they do not have the authority.

the general rule for rights (and if you read the paragraph i posted, you would know this) is that they are virtually unlimited, until they violate the rights of another. my freedom of speech does not allow me to say untrue things that would result in death or property damage, such as starting a stampede out of a movie theater by yelling "fire". that "restriction" doesn't come from the courts at all.

reply to post by charles1952


That link isn't a court ruling. It's simply the park(s) regulations.

Bob is saying those are illegal. Do you have anything that disputes that, or disputes what Bob is saying, if ( Bob) argued that in court?

reply to post by CheckPointCharlie and Bob Sholtz

Dear CheckPointCharlie,

Let's take an even more fundamental right than travel, free speech. The Supreme Court dealt with that issue in a 1984 case, Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence

The issue in this case is whether a National Park Service regulation prohibiting camping in certain parks violates the First Amendment when applied to prohibit demonstrators from sleeping in Lafayette Park and the Mall in connection with a demonstration intended to call attention to the plight of the homeless.

Or, does the Constitution ban governments from restricting how and when parks are used.

We hold that it does not, and reverse the contrary judgment of the Court of Appeals.

In the Opinion, the Court stated:

Expression, whether oral or written or symbolized by conduct, is subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions. We have often noted that restrictions of this kind are valid, provided that they are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.

www.law.cornell.edu...

So, if the Supreme Court points out that the First Amendment is subject to restrictions, and that they have done so many times, why should fredom to travel get any greater protection?

Besides, I'm too lazy to look up that specific issue.

I hope this answers your question.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

So, if the Supreme Court points out that the First Amendment is subject to restrictions, and that they have done so many times, why should fredom to travel get any greater protection?

i believe you still have not read what i posted. it is a shame. i shall post it one last time in the hope that you will read it and understand the implications.

"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

if you bother to pick up a legal dictionary and look up personal liberty, you will find the right to locomotion, right to travel, etc.

"Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law." 1 Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__.777; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.

the above are the legal definitions from a few law dictionaries. i figured i'd include them because if you are so against reading paragraphs quoted for your leisure, the odds of you looking up the definitions yourself approach zero.

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public hi ghways and to transport his property thereon, by horse - drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile , is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions , travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct ." Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135

if you cannot grasp these rulings and definitions, there is no hope for you, and i truly hope that you do not have a job that involves enforcing law in any way. no offense is intended by this, but merely the acknowledgement that a lack of understanding common law coupled with "authority" would be very dangerous.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

Dear Bob Sholtz,

Corpus Juris Scundum and American Jurisprudence are SECONDARY SOURCES. They rank below Constitutions, statutes, regulations, precedents, and a bunch of other primary sources. They are not law. They are summaries, essays, whatever you want to call them, but they don't have the same weight as a Constitution, or even regulation. They are a guide to legal principles for the student and a jumping off place for research.

en.wikipedia.org...

A Supreme Court decision laughs at CJS, and CJS will meekly follow afterward to show that things have changed. Please do not go into court pleading CJS as your authority, you will be mocked.

I hope that explains why I haven't been excited about adopting positions based on those sources.

reply to post by charles1952

SECONDARY SOURCES

yes...the passage i linked is based on the following supreme court cases, and many others that you can look up for yourself.

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22?1;
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579

^^actual supreme court ruling^^

MUCH of what i quote is either constitutional law, or supreme court rulings. american jurisprudence is a law encyclopedia that takes all of the hallmark precedents on the most important constitutional laws and attempts to include them all.

black's law dictionary and bovier's law dictionary are far from secondary, and yet precedents are set on them.

even when i quoted the constitution at you (14th amendment), you still cited a statute from new york and claimed that the statute overruled it.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

Dear Bob Sholtz,

May I assume that you don't have a law degree? Whether you have one or not, your opinion is still valuable, but getting the training helps one learn how to read cases, and understand the legal system. There are some people whose minds don't tend towards the artistic, or musical, or spatial, and there are some whose minds have great difficulty with law.

From your most recent posts, I detect some confusion. If a court wants to interpret a statute or a law to see if it fits in a particular case, it most often looks to precedent and strict interpretation first. If the issue has been decided before by the court, or a higher one with jurisdiction, that usually settles the matter right there. That's the idea of a precedent.

Neither AmJur nor any law dictionary can be used for it's precedential value. Ever. It doesn't have any. At most, it can offer a suggested aid to the court in interpretation. If an attorney cited AmJur, or Black's as having precedential value, he might be looking at a reprimand from his employers if not the court itself.

Here are comments by the court on a case relying on Thompson:

Ms. Port claims she is constitutionally entitled to this special status because she is not engaged in commercial travel. She relies principally upon quotations from Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367, 154 S.E. 579, 72 A.L.R. 604 (1930), and Chicago v. Banker, 112 Ill.App. 94 (1904). Although the Thompson court declared the right to travel public highways an individual's "common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty," the court also noted that the exercise of such a common right may be regulated under the City's police power if in the interest of public safety and welfare. Thompson, 154 S.E. at 583. The City driver's license revocation ordinance at issue in Thompson was upheld except to the extent it granted broad discretion to the City's chief of police to revoke licenses. "The issuance and revocation of such [driving] permits by a city is merely a means of exercising the police power of the State delegated to the city to regulate the use of the public highways in the interest of the public safety and welfare." Thompson, 154 S.E. at 583. (Emphasis added.)

www.quatloos.com...
You see, Thompson did have the quote you mentioned, but it also said the State had a right to regulate it, and the State could revoke a license "in the interest of public safety and welfare."

It may help you to actually read the case, which, by the way was not decided by the US Supreme Court as you seem to claim, but by the Supreme Court of Virginia, which has no authority over any other state. Besides, it ruled the State could regulate auto traffic.. Here it is, you can read the syllabus at the beginning, or not, but the syllabus isn't precedent either.
www.christianliberty.org...

You're a bright enough guy, but you've been fed some false information by various websites.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

if you'll notice, you'll see that what i quoted does allow for "regulation", but in the same manner as the first amendment right to free speech is regulated so that one cannot shout "fire" where there is none and start a panic. one does not need a permit to speak freely, nor are permits issued to help prevent people shouting "fire" where there is none.

there are other rulings preventing the issuance of a permit for a constitutional right. three come to mind:

"No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways... transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances." Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22

Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham Alabama, 373 US 262: "If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity."

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.”

as i have been saying all along, there is a difference between requiring one to obey the speed limits for public safety (remember that the right is virtually unlimited, so long as it does not violate the rights of another. safety being one of those rights.), and converting a right to a privilege.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Any possibility of reporting this to Internal Affairs? The guy basically admits they know who is guilty of arson, and that they deliberately didn't arrest them? If not IA, the local press? That is seriously messed up! All considered, I am amazed you didn't get trouble from the cops and the kids.