Dealing with cops, understanding your rights,.... by a cop.

Great post. It's good to know that some law enforcement actually does enforce the law. Where I live they're in everyone's pocket. This leads to mistrust, and it's a sad thing.

reply to post by seeashrink


nice thread mate. i am happy that cops like you exist. thankyou

reply to post by Blazer


absolutely excellent info..tyvm
it feels like the days of experienced good copper leeway has long gone in old blighty... they want to 'meet their target' everytime

and some of them are so dumb, me ex wife easily fooled them into thinking damage to MY house was done by me not her

does anyone have a British version of this?

reply to post by commdogg


i thank you for you imput, though i don't think you understood some of the questions.

1. i was referring to the fact they say "his/her" person
2. yes, i agree that it would indeed become a battle
3. how can a individual be forced to make claim upon something which has no reality. a fiction will always remain a fiction
4. i assure you, law is not easy to study. iv been studying law for about 2 years now
5. i'd suggest you not only read the current edition, but also the evolution of the "law language". not only that, but why take english, and distort it in a new fashion. this only makes law harder to understand. theres no need
6. and yes i agree, this would also end up in yet another battle. one which i would gladly fight
7. it's all a matter on how it's written, and sent. if you ask for answers and state if you are not answered, then there would be an estoppel placed upon it. again, it all depends on how you go about it
8. im just curious to know if you know where this word originated from??
9. i fully disagree on this one. my "opinion" is that personal is property that has been registered under ones person, and real is a private possession
10. well there is indeed a difference between the two, and you didn't quite answer the question
11. i knew that one already, i think i was jus tryin to be a smart ass on that one. one of my many flaws, though i will gladly admit to them all. for what is one without his "identity"
12. again i was being a smart ass, though theres alot more uses for such a thing. it's not just for business
13. i too study law, and one must give consent to be part of a society, if i were wrong, would that not imply slavery
14. i actually have looked into this myself. and you in fact, do not need a DLN, nor a SSN to get a passport. all you need is a signed affidavit by some one who has proof of citizenship who confirms you are a member of this country

im sorry if i have come off a little rude, this is one of the things i am most passionate about, and im only answering back so that it doesn't seem that i backed out. this is something i will always argue about.
oh N i have every edition of black's law dictionary, and a updated copy of the constitution.

ps again, if i come off as rude, i do apologize, this was some what of a challenge to all the officer's prior posts.
and please keep in mind that arguing by definition is to consider the pros and cons through discuss

reply to post by seeashrink


Nice one dude :-) Isn't it funny what fear spawns.. I live in Western Australia and back in the 70's and 80's some of the police here were crooked cowboys. In fact at one stage the Federal Narcotics Bureau after being investigated by an Australian Royal Comission were found to be so corrupt that they disbanded the organisation! Unfortunately all that really happened was that they changed the name on the door to: Bureau of Customs. The same cops were still doing the same jobs in the same office. Ah, the bad old days, when you could be bashed and gaoled for having a bag of pot. Well thankfully things have changed. I haven't had the pleasure myself lately but I believe that the cops are way more honest and professional these days here in Perth. Thank God for pragmatism and retired older generations..

When I'm watching COPS, I notice all the guilty people say "sir" too much... and they ALWAYS light up a cigarette...

What do you think when people do that?

i found humor works too, 3 days ago i got tagged 33km over the limit (100) the officer wonders up to the car, he says bit fast there mate, i said yea only little bit tho, he smiled and said try 33, quick as a flash i said orrr man BMW say the optimum highway cruising speed is 140 i feel abit robbed really, he laughed out loud and went back to his car to do the details thing i looked in the mirror and the other officer was now laughing too and he came back with a warning, now it was my turn to laugh..... but i waited till i was down the road abit first. its $10 per km over the limit here so it could have been a nasty one. here in NZ the police are pretty awesome tho they often give you 1 chance to walk away or make things right, no guns on hips or anything like that, when i see the cop shows out of the USA i carnt get my head around how tooled up they are and they just look aggressive before they even say anything

cheers, great thread

I'd like to know how the cops feel about these new laws that say the general public can't video record police while in the commission of their duty.
Personaly, when one set of laws are made for cops and an alternitive set are made for the general public somethings not right. This only breeds contemp for the officers and further seperates you from the gp. I know of no average individule who desired these laws to be passed and can think of no reason this has merrit other than to protect those cops who are not doing their jobs legaly, or to stem the tide of lawsuits due to abuse of power.

reply to post by seeashrink


iv decided to be a little more blunt with my message.

Black's Law Dictionary 8th edition - pg. 2167 - human rights - human rights.The freedoms, immunities, and benefits that, according to modern values (esp.
at an international level), all human beings should be able to claim as a matter of right in the
society in which they live. See UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS . [Cases:
Civil Rights 1026. C.J.S. Civil Rights §§ 4–5, 8, 13.]

Black's Law Dictionary 8th edition - pg. 4772 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights.An international bill of rights proclaimed by the
United Nations in December 1948, being that body's first general enumeration of human rights
and fundamental freedoms. • The preamble states that “recognition of the inherent dignity and of
the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom,
justice and peace in the world.” The Declaration contains a lengthy list of rights and fundamental
freedoms. For the full text of the Declaration, see Appendix D. [Cases: International Law
10.45(1).]
“The Universal Declaration is the first comprehensive human rights instrument to be
proclaimed by a universal international organization. Because of its moral status and the legal and
political importance it has acquired over the years, the Declaration ranks with the Magna Carta,
the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the American Declaration of Independence as a
milestone in mankind's struggle for freedom and human dignity. Its debt to all these great
historical documents is unmistakable.” Thomas Buergenthal et al., International Human Rights in
a Nutshell 35–36 (3d ed. 2002).

Black's Law Dictionary 8th edition - pg. 1271 - real defense, found under DEFENSE - real defense.A type of defense that is good against any possible claimant, so that the maker or
drawer of a negotiable instrument can raise it even against a holder in due course. • The ten real
defenses are (1) fraud in the factum, (2) forgery of a necessary signature, (3) adjudicated insanity
that, under state law, renders the contract void from its inception, (4) material alteration of the
instrument, (5) infancy, which renders the contract voidable under state law, (6) illegality that
renders the underlying contract void, (7) duress, (8) discharge in bankruptcy, or any discharge
known to the holder in due course, (9) a suretyship defense (for example, if the holder knew that
one indorser was signing as a surety or accommodation party), and (10) a statute of limitations
(generally three years after dishonor or acceptance on a draft and six years after demand or other
due date on a note). — Also termed absolute defense; universal defense. [Cases: Bills and Notes
364. C.J.S. Bills and Notes; Letters of Credit § 191.]

reply to post by seeashrink


Excellent post. S&F goes to any post like this. I know there are bad officers (I hate the word "cop") just like there are bad managers, bad stockboys, etc., but I believe most of them are just regular people trying to do their job. If people would just lay off the attitude when they get pulled over perhaps they wouldn't get that "bad cop", but instead go home with a warning or, heaven forbid, a new ally.

/TOA

reply to post by seeashrink


S&F for a useful & well thought out thread...

I have butted heads here on ATS with other cops who post one sided views in which the cop is always right and the public be damned. Ones you refer to as "super troupers". I should say you must be a cop in the old tradition, as a public servant. Congrats!

Originally posted by Orkojoker
reply to post by seeashrink

 

What are the likely consequences of a driver's choosing to remain completely silent during a traffic stop? Suppose you are a mute or have taken a vow of silence. What will happen to you as a result of your unorthodoxy?

Most likely I would asked for nonverbal communication such as writing or head shakes, also I would have a supervisor in route. If they were uncooperative when the supervisor showed up most likely he would start the ECO(emergency committal order) paperwork.

Secure

Originally posted by mistressSOPHIA
reply to post by seeashrink

 

this corporate officer has been INDOCTRINATED and is trying to indoctrinate you.

PROVE UP YOUR CLAIM!!!

WHERE THERE IS NO CONTRACT THERE IS NO CLAIM.. i am NO PARTY TO ANY OF YOUR CONTRACTS

here is a detailed example www.gemworld.com...

WHY do more people not see it this way? Understanding WHO you are and what you are?

An automobile IS PRIVATE PROPERTY!!!!

Whatever happened to.....PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY

I DO NOT need the "protection racket" that the corporate city/state offer by way of the "policy enforcement officers", I can protect myself and my property WITHOUT them. I do not need them sticking their noses in my private and personal business!!

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee 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." [emphasis added] American Jurisprudence 1st. Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p 1135.

Defendant did not suddenly lose his right to drive.
By stealthy encroachment the state takes away our liberty and sells is back to us as a license. The stealth encroachment process of the corporation/ state against the human depends on time for its success. The human lives perhaps 85 years. The corporation/ state has eternal life. As each succeeding generation dies off, the next generation fails to remember the lessons and history of the previous generation. The corporation state counts on that. Defendant remembers the way it was.

We use the road as common tenants - not as renters from the state
Stealthy encroachment at work: The state counts on this generation to forget that we use the roads as tenants in common - not as licensees! Teodor Marian and his Mentor Richard McDonald have researched this vein. By looking back at old disputes regarding roads, rivers, and other ways of passage, we see clearly that the view was that public property is nothing more than property held in common tenancy for use by the

public.

Comparison of Tenant in Common to Licensee
The licensee must request the license from the licensor, he cannot demand it from him. The licensor cannot require the licensee to take his license under the licensee has encroached upon the thing or act that the licensor has competent authority over. You cannot demand a liquor license. By comparison you can use the road without even demanding anything. It is there to be used by all.

The Nature of a License: permission to do something that one otherwise may not do.

www.landrights.com...
The above quotes are from the case cited above. READ IT, ALL police/policy enforcement officers should understand their place.

See-ya!!

Seeshrink I have an officer to officer question for you. Has your department developed a "sovereign citizen" policy yet? If you want to you cant U2U the answer.

Secure

reply to post by LegalTender


It sounds like you already have an "understanding" of something if you are asking those questions. The whole situation stems from the U.C.C./Common Law split. Almost all people ignorantly adhere to the U.C.C. system, without even knowing that they contracted to do so via the Birth Certificate. While this is commonly said to be crazy talk, if that were the case, then you would not be provided a means to get out of that contract via filing a U.C.C.-1.

Because of our adherence to this system, we then follow the Black's Law Lingo in court, where the meaning of common use of words like "understand," really mean to "stand under authority," always the authority of the court.

I have read some other people's posting on here that get what I am talking about and what you seem to be intimating to.

Nonetheless, more of a psychological/logical massage.

reply to post by alyoshablue


well thank you for the semi-compliment...FYI--iv been studying this stuff for years. though iv only been studying law for about 2.
google "the universal declaration of human rights" and read it...it'll be on the top

reply to post by LegalTender


Okay studied law where? Because the law you are studying is not the law I am familiar with in my profession.

On to your further interrogatives:

1) Gender neutral language is fairly standard in statute definitions. Also, much of the court process forms used nationwide are pre printed with gender neutral wording so they do not have to be completely rewritten for every single case. This allows a judge or court staffer to fill them out quickly and move along the docket.
2) Oh good.
3) Corporations are not fictional. Well, some are, but that is generally indicative of fraud.
4) To each their own on studying law. I have an undergraduate degree dealing with law as well as a Juris Doctor of Law. For me it isn't really that difficult. Plus I did in fact work as a peace officer for six years.
5) I have no idea what you mean by commercial fiction. I indulged this with handy actual legal reference material before I left for work and still do not understand this as a legal term. Google claims commercial fiction means low brow romance novels.
6) If one is going to fight the police over a belief that whatever order or direction they were given by the police is unlawful, I would strongly suggest being CORRECT in that belief or expect to go to prison forever.
7) Again both of those pieces of "process" have absolutely no relevance to anyone actually doing law. "Estoppel" is merely a broad legal term stating that, basically, if the court has found something to be true, no one can petition differently from the capacity of that court. So if party A misrepresents a fact, party B can prove it before the court and the court can legally force A to retract it. If a court ignores bogus crap, it doesn't automatically become a true assertion, it merely remains ignored bogus crap.
8) I assume you are referring to the laws against recording police? I feel that is unconstitutional. Unless of course these people are recording information that only the police lawfully have access to. For instance, if somebody posted a youtube video of a police officer sending my name, date of birth, and drivers license number over the radio I would sue said individual seeking every cent of value I could scrounge from them.
9) All I can tell you on this one is look it up. This one is not ambiguous.
10) There is no difference to legal professionals. There may be a difference to you, but not to us.
11) Good, Everyone should know and understand the 14th Amendment. If the state can't adhere to proper just cause and due process requirements then they can not mess with you.
12) Cool. Technically even a McDonald's menu is a fee schedule I guess.
13) That one cracked me up. Slavery? Being a slave is lacking of consent as a matter of course. However, I have met some women who were into that sort of thing, but that's not relevant here.
14) What you are referring to broadly are called "affidavits of truth" and they are used in many different things with various names as they relate to specific legal process. That is typically how a baby not born in a hospital, for example, gets a birth certificate. It happens when people auction expensive things, appraisers must sometimes supply them to authenticate the item, etc. This happens all the time.

I hope I could clarify some of this stuff for you.
Comm

Originally posted by twohawks
I'd like to know how the cops feel about these new laws that say the general public can't video record police while in the commission of their duty.
Personaly, when one set of laws are made for cops and an alternitive set are made for the general public somethings not right. This only breeds contemp for the officers and further seperates you from the gp. I know of no average individule who desired these laws to be passed and can think of no reason this has merrit other than to protect those cops who are not doing their jobs legaly, or to stem the tide of lawsuits due to abuse of power.

I generally feel these are unconstitutional on its face. You have no right to privacy in a public place, and police know that about as well as anyone. However, there are some "iffy" legal issues, like for instance if someone films a police car computer screen displaying information legally only for use by a law enforcement officer. I haven't read any of them personally, just saw the blurbs on the news one day. Do you have any links for them?
comm

reply to post by commdogg


iv decided to be a little more blunt with my message.

Black's Law Dictionary 8th edition - pg. 2167 - human rights - human rights.The freedoms, immunities, and benefits that, according to modern values (esp.
at an international level), all human beings should be able to claim as a matter of right in the
society in which they live. See UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS . [Cases:
Civil Rights 1026. C.J.S. Civil Rights §§ 4–5, 8, 13.]

Black's Law Dictionary 8th edition - pg. 4772 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights.An international bill of rights proclaimed by the
United Nations in December 1948, being that body's first general enumeration of human rights
and fundamental freedoms. • The preamble states that “recognition of the inherent dignity and of
the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom,
justice and peace in the world.” The Declaration contains a lengthy list of rights and fundamental
freedoms. For the full text of the Declaration, see Appendix D. [Cases: International Law
10.45(1).]
“The Universal Declaration is the first comprehensive human rights instrument to be
proclaimed by a universal international organization. Because of its moral status and the legal and
political importance it has acquired over the years, the Declaration ranks with the Magna Carta,
the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the American Declaration of Independence as a
milestone in mankind's struggle for freedom and human dignity. Its debt to all these great
historical documents is unmistakable.” Thomas Buergenthal et al., International Human Rights in
a Nutshell 35–36 (3d ed. 2002).

Black's Law Dictionary 8th edition - pg. 1271 - real defense, found under DEFENSE - real defense.A type of defense that is good against any possible claimant, so that the maker or
drawer of a negotiable instrument can raise it even against a holder in due course. • The ten real
defenses are (1) fraud in the factum, (2) forgery of a necessary signature, (3) adjudicated insanity
that, under state law, renders the contract void from its inception, (4) material alteration of the
instrument, (5) infancy, which renders the contract voidable under state law, (6) illegality that
renders the underlying contract void, (7) duress, (8) discharge in bankruptcy, or any discharge
known to the holder in due course, (9) a suretyship defense (for example, if the holder knew that
one indorser was signing as a surety or accommodation party), and (10) a statute of limitations
(generally three years after dishonor or acceptance on a draft and six years after demand or other
due date on a note). — Also termed absolute defense; universal defense. [Cases: Bills and Notes
364. C.J.S. Bills and Notes; Letters of Credit § 191.]

reply to post by commdogg


FYI, i was never undereducated on this matter..i hav in fact been privately studying law for, like i said, about 2 years now, though i failed to mention this in my earlier posts..i just wanted to see if the officers who had spoken earlier on the matter would try and lie about wut they know, or rather, prove they know jak squat.

ps. i suggest you google "the universal declaration of HUMAN rights" you will find it at the top of the search, @un.org

and ya, if you don't believe me about the passport, call for yourself like i did..thats how i know about it..my words come from not only self research, but also self experience. or how bout u call the vital records attorney and ask him to answer UNDER OATH, if we the people can obtain, and maintain, our own records