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

LegalTender: I sent you a U2U Message

reply to post by LegalTender


Ok. The UN Human Rights definitions mean what exactly to the context of your earlier questions?
And sure keep your own records. I do. Just as the government keeps theirs. I am not following you.

reply to post by commdogg


1. artificial--man made--fiction--of no substance
2. omg dude, you went to google to check ur facts, i have 1st through 8th of black's law. "where i get MY facts"
3. "I have met some women who were into that sort of thing, but that's not relevant here."how is that not relevant in this argument??

all in all, i find it rather amusing that all your trying to down play the points which i have presented to you.
and just out of curiosity. do you even know what that declaration is??
have you ever read those definitions i posted??
from some where other than google??
i know i have

Originally posted by greenovni
LegalTender: I sent you a U2U Message

i can't send messages yet..i joined yesterday so i could get in on this thread..i use to just come on here on occasion to read interesting stuff

reply to post by LegalTender


oh ya, i forgot to clarify something

"HIS/HER PERSON" why say "ON HIS/HER PERSON"

cops are predators just like pedophiles and should never be trusted. they will plant evidence and use terms to charge you like: RESISTING, which is an instant felony.

when cops intentionally tail you on the road for long distances, they are predating you. PULL OVER and force their hand. be sure to have all your paper work handy, and if they do pull over with you, make sure to ask them why they are riding your ass and be sure to find out who they are and badge number.

also, when cops pull up to you at stop lights or next to you on the highway, never make eye contact with them, always look forwards and mind your own business.

recording police from your private vehicle, your private property, is your business, and is your right, any thing they say or do can be used against them in FEDERAL COURT.

you have the right to defend yourself from all physical abuse by law enforcement, and should use deadly force if necessary

reply to post by gallopinghordes


They still have a quota to meet, so smiling and nice convo won't do it EVERY time...

Originally posted by seeashrink
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

Yes, the officer can let the guy smoking weed go and I have done so on several occasions at my discretion. Yes, I have sent people to jail for weed and I am getting ready to do so again. The guy had over 2 onces (sp?). I agree it should be legal, but until that time I have to do my job.
Seeashrink

I find it extremely hypocritical that you willingly send people to jail for something that you believe should be legal if you have the option to not send them to jail for it. But to be fair, I'm one of the biggest hypocrites out there.

There are no rights to understand, everything depends on the particulars in any case.

The "cops" involved, the citizens or non, witnesses (if any) and all of the circumstances.

In a lot of cases law enforcement has all of the rights and the average citizen has none. ANY "cop" has ultimate power over anyone in any given situation and can end the life of anyone they choose, despite YOUR's or anyone's rights or interpretation of the "law".

Cops are the gods of our modern-world not always only enforcers of the "law" and keepers of the "peace".

To protect and serve corruption is often their secret motto.

Sure not all cops are bad, but enough are... Where are all of the good cops when corruption rules?

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by gallopinghordes

 

They still have a quota to meet, so smiling and nice convo won't do it EVERY time...

Refer to my R.A.T.S. ask-a-cop thread to see what my department does on quotas.

Secure

What if all is said and done and they ask you to sign the ticket. They usually say this isnt an admission of guilt but just to say you will appear at this court on this date and time.

What if I refuse to sign?
What if I sign my name as Captain X?
What if I sign it with a scribble rather than the way i signed on my drivers license?

When they read your rights if you are going to jail they usually ask you "do you understand these rights"? WHat if I say no all the way through court even after counsel..."No I dont understand these charges or these rights"?

reply to post by LegalTender


Since you are new I would like to tell you that you can attract a lot more flies with honey then vinegear. Usually being condescending doesn't get people to listen to what you say or want to discuss things with you. Not to mention that when you use words like "ur" instead of "your" you turn a lot of people off and make it hard to believe you are nearly as intelligent as you tell us you are.

Some friendly advice.

reply to post by superluminal11


STAMPED "under protest 1-308
note: in 2004 U.C.C. 1-207 was changed to U.C.C. 1-308.
I have a stamp that I ordered that says "without prejudice U.C.C 1-308".

I carry it everywhere, and anything I sign has the stamp. They say a stamp is better than just writing it, because it shows premeditation of your concern.

To begin with, all lawyers, and judges, are "officer's of the court", therefore, they work for the very system that has been thieving from this nation for almost 100 years; they truly DO NOT work for you or your best interests!! (That would be an automatic "conflict of interest on thier part because they are "officer's of the court".)

Secondly, all courts work for the "state", which in turn, works for the "corporate government" - remember, the US government is a "corporation", therefore, falls under the rules/laws of the UCC.
**The 'United States' has always been a "legal fiction" corporation. See: Republica v. Sween, 1 Dallas 43 & 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)**

Now, here comes the "slippery-slope" of "legalese": The Constitution was never intended for the US citizen!! Proof of this statement can be found at Padelford, Fay, & Co. v. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah [14 Georgia 438, 520].
Wherein the judges' decision clearly stated: "But indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he [the private person] is not a party to it."

The Constitution was converted into a "trust", which is possessed by the King of England (now Queen of England) and the Holy Roman Church. Everything you "think" that you "own" actually belongs to the one(s) who possess the "trust".
The "Trustees" are all federal and state public officials, which means that they are "agents" of a foriegn power.

If I have gleaned your full attention, then you will desire to learn more - especially if you wish to regain your sovereignty!! Please note, I never have and never will asked for any type or form of compensation for the research that I do. Why? Because you, the citizens of the united States have a RIGHT to know the truth.

28 USC 1746(1) Which states

TITLE 28 > PART V > CHAPTER 115 > § 1746Prev | Next § 1746. Unsworn declarations under penalty of per­jury....
Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:
(1) If executed without the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.
(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.

I do this because I am not within the Corporation known as United States or it's possessions. The way I see it, if you are a citizen of the United States according to the 14th amendment, you are a federally protected 2nd class citizen and owe tribute to your creator... The corporation United States

One of the problems in these discussions is that people are trying to educated folks on things that go against what they have been programmed with.

The Police (not peace officers but Policy Enforcers) don't actually ask themselves why they are thinking the are peace officers but the car they drive in has suddenly altered its code to say Policy Officers (Enforcers). They think the name change means nothing, one has to go way back in the language to understand and why bother because the knowledge of that changes nothing?

The Enforcers have been programmed to believe they are keeping people safe. Makes sense, yet nearly everything they do is about raising revenue - taxes, in the form of fines. This makes sense to them, do bad = get fined. But they don't take the time to go back to find out why a person with no connection to the state, who can't actually harm the fictional entity - fantasy corporation called the state, must pay the state when it "harms" the non existing thing.

If you can't point to it, it does not exist - I can't point to you, but I can't point to the "State" or "city" or "county." The Policy Enforcers do not investigate how they can collect for something that does not exist. Why should they, as to know changes nothing?

The Problem here is that Policy Enforcers have been taught that the State creates and bestows rights. This is the key problem in the entire discussion. The state can't bestow anything, it does not exist, but people within the "state" have laid claim to being an intermediary for Creation and decided that rights are not rights, but privileges. Word games, they have switched them and simply hidden the real meaning. The majority of the people in the US think that the consitution GIVES them rights. No, it states the rights they already had, but the education around the document itself says that those who "speak" for the document can work to get people to choose to give up those rights in favor of xyz (the common game is give up rights in fave for more freedom).


The Policy Enforcers have not investigated the idea of true, Natural Human Rights and get hung up on the word game too late in the process. Example: Some one asked about "found on his person" and the answer was that it was a term used just like he/she. WRONG, then why not use he/she, Person is a LEGAL term, go back a hundred years and look to what it meant when it was introduced, not what you THINK it means based on your lifetime. So, we have a defense of a fictional legal word that has now become fact. Word game, using the term Person gives jurisdiction. jurisdiction is the name of the game here.

The officer says "do you know how fast you were driving" when stopped. The use of the word, "driving" is because you drive, you have a driver's license. WRONG, most folks are "traveling", which is not subject to jurisdiction - driving is a SPECIFIC legal term that means "for hire" and means you have agreed to license the term to be able to do it for money and because all money is property of the FED, and your use of it is licensed, you have to pay them a fee to use their currency in the course of something that collects THEIR currency in trade. The Enforcer asks the question using "driving" to get jurisdiction as one is "licensed" to drive and a license is a fee paid to be in uses of something - think licensing software, or music, as such it is permission to use and the owner of the copyright can restrict use. The Enforcer says "I could say driving or traveling it does not matter" oh, but it does, if you say traveling you not gotten jurisdiction and have no right to tax.

In the end the arguements happening here are interesting. The Policy Enforcers are genuine in their beliefs, as this is all they know and they have neither the time nor the resources to go back and look up every single word they use to find out WHY it is used as opposed to another. Most people have grown up with the code and figure that is just the way it is. What they don't see, and can't grasp, is that they are imprisoning their own people by taxation and fear, under the guise of "helping" and protecting. Free people don't need protecting, they need some common sense, some civility, compassion and the occasional third party to mediate things between them. A "speeding ticket" for 5 miles and hour over the speed limit on the freeway is a TAX, not protection. The justifcation for the tax, and it is nothing but justifaction, is "people get hurt when they speed" but this was created to JUSTIFY the tax, not to protect. If we were going to actually protect we'd demand real, physics driven, driver training.

The problem here, and why many are railing in the thread, is that the Corporation of the State has tricked the officers into using language that tricks the traveler into accepting jurisdiction, thereby making them libel for the tax.

We are not free because someone or something says so. Freedom is not a thing to be regulated by sophiscated word games and trickery. You ask your self why does it have to be this way. Here is THE answer:

Creation is FREEWILL. There is only, Freewill. Again, you are Freewill and there is nothing but Freewill. You must choose everything that happens to you, EVERYTHING. In order to get you to do anything you might not want to do, you have to GIVE UP FREEWILL. You must accept the terms of the request voluntarily. The language game of "person" versus "Natural Person" and "Traveling" versus "Driving" and "understand and accept these terms and conditions" versus "I don't accept your jurisdiction" is ALL ABOUT GIVING UP YOUR FREEWILL AND ACCEPTING THE CONTROL OF ANOTHER.

Until you accept you are Freewill and not subject to the state bestowing privileges on you, you will simply be fighting for better benefits in a prison. Sadly this will not happen. The game was rigged, too many people are programmed to accept the matrix as it is, they believe that there must be crime, when crime is something that is created by the matrix to get folks to accept restrictions in order to be safe. One terror scare has people DEMANDING the Enforcers do something to keep them safe, and they will give up their Freewill not to die at the hands of a terror attack - sadly, they are more likely do die of a medical error or slipping and falling in the bathroom. In fact, I see why the Enforcers leap into action to keep the bad guys from killing the poor people, but facts show you're more like to die from an Enforcer killing you then a terrorist. Folks who accept this hate the idea of Freewill.

I have a quick question related to this topic that his been bothering me for some time. And I really would like some well thought out answers on this from anyone who has some understanding on this subject, the OP included (thank you for the compliment).

What happened that started this whole Us vs Them mentality. The Wolves hunting the Sheep. That I now drive around with my eyes glued to my rearview looking for that lightbar as if I'm doing something wrong. What happened to Officer friendly in his slacks with piping and campaign hat to a tac vest and 511 first responder pants. How did this public servant become such a militant arm of society?

I suspect some event or some series of events led to this development and this trend needs to be reversed.

reply to post by sputniksteve


r u implying that i havn't brought up some good points??

Originally posted by WWJFKD
What happened that started this whole Us vs Them mentality. The Wolves hunting the Sheep. That I now drive around with my eyes glued to my rearview looking for that lightbar as if I'm doing something wrong. What happened to Officer friendly in his slacks with piping and campaign hat to a tac vest and 511 first responder pants. How did this public servant become such a militant arm of society?

In the city I work in I can tell you why it happened...comfort. We used to wear an uncomfortable dress uniform and a covert(under the shirt) vest. When the new chief came in we asked for new uniform we told him what we needed. He found Proper brand tactical pants DuPont Teflon coated, stain resistant, and triple sticked(to avoid rips), we also went to the shell(outer) vest it was more confortable, you can take it off in the car when you get hot or are writing an incident report. So for our city comfort was the main reason. DISCLAIMER: this post was not endorsed or paid for by Underamour, Proper or any other entity

Secure

reply to post by daddio

I don't know what state or fairytale you live in. I appreciate the case law and I don't doubt that it is there. Funny, when I went to the Police Law Institute, none of them were mentioned. I suggest that if you come through NC, you throw that crap out the window. You will show your license or you will go to jail, you will show your registration and insurance or your car will be towed and you will walk. Don't take my word for it, come to NC and try your luck. And when you do drop me a U2U, I can't wait to see how it went for you.
Seeashrink

Originally posted by seeashrink
reply to post by daddio

 

I don't know what state or fairytale you live in. I appreciate the case law and I don't doubt that it is there. Funny, when I went to the Police Law Institute, none of them were mentioned. I suggest that if you come through NC, you throw that crap out the window. You will show your license or you will go to jail, you will show your registration and insurance or your car will be towed and you will walk. Don't take my word for it, come to NC and try your luck. And when you do drop me a U2U, I can't wait to see how it went for you.
Seeashrink

I have to agree with you if you come through VA you will most likely it will not turn out to well either. The last 3 we have had to deal with ended up having ECO's filed on them.

Secure

reply to post by urmenimu2


Very good point and well said. To me, officer decretion kicks in after the law has been broken. In other words, if I stop you on probable cause, lets say speeding, then the law has been broken. It is at this point, according to the severity of the infraction, where my discretion kicks in. Were you doing 70 in a 35....not good, probably needs closer attention. 45 in a 35? probably just a warning. Were you doing 70 in a 35 because your passenger is having a siezure or you have IBS and you are about to crap your pants? Again, different circumstances, different outcomes. I could care less about the dubie, I will give you a warning and grind it into the ground in front of you. If it's ever legal, I'll share it with you. Got several grams or a pound? You're going away, sorry but thats the law.
Seeashrink