The RIGHT Way to Handle a Police Stop: (made by Attys-good info)

reply to post by Raist


and THAt is why these people will ALWAYS find themselves in a hassle with the law everytime their pulled over

reply to post by HomerinNC


True, sad thing is most of the time the end up posting here about how horrible the cop is that pulled them over. When really it all started with how they reacted to the cop to begin with. I know I learned, some never learn.

A great man said acting in the same manner and expecting a different outcome each time is a sing of insanity. Of course he said it much better than I do but the point is the same.

Raist

reply to post by blu3nowh3r3

yes please let us all blindly follow every law.

I have read some confusing statements in my time, but this one takes the cake.

Just for clarity:

What, besides your own sense of self-importance, gives you any idea you should not obey all laws?

If you are that important, then it will not be to difficult for you, through appropriate process, to get the laws changed.

Try that first.

reply to post by coven83

I dont know how you can call it a propaganda video. Everyday there are reports of police over stepping their rights. Not every cop is a bad cop, but the ones who are WILL use your ignorance of the law against you. Your best defence is knowing your rights. That is all the video was intended to show.

I agree with you. I have a saying....Know the Law, or be a Victim of the Law
I am a law abiding citizen, I hardly speed, do not ever litter, always wear a seat belt, and obey traffic lights and stop signs. But I do get stopped sometimes. I right away inform the officer that I am a Sovereign Freeman with a working knowledge of the law. I never consent to search without a warrant. No traffic cop has ever sent for, or obtained a warrant. I give them my first name only, and say that my last name is a "family name." I keep asking if I am free to go. I will offer this to a belligerent cop: If you deem to waste my time, I assure you I will waste your time. I will cost you at minimum three days off for court appearances, I will cost the County a lot more than they would ever make if I just paid the ticket. I have found that one only has to go through with this one time.

An interesting post...

I would like to respond to a few of your positions and ask some questions if you dont mind. I am not trying to personally attack you or your beliefs so if something I say comes across in that manner my apologies. When i reference the term sovereign citizen it will be, in general, directed towards your position for this thread and is not directed at the whole..

I am going to play devil's advocate.

Originally posted by autowrench
I am a law abiding citizen, I hardly speed, do not ever litter, always wear a seat belt, and obey traffic lights and stop signs. But I do get stopped sometimes.

Law abiding? Do you obey all laws or just ones that you agree with while ignoring laws you dont agree with?

Originally posted by autowrench
I right away inform the officer that I am a Sovereign Freeman with a working knowledge of the law.

fair enough...

Originally posted by autowrench
I never consent to search without a warrant.

This is one of those comments where I would ask you for clarification. A search warrant is required by the 4th amendment and only applies to law enforcement. The US Supreme Court has made several rulings over the years that has refined / reinforced / increased protections while at the same time establishing very clear exceptions.

One of those exceptions is consent. If a law enforcement officer stops you for speeding and asks for your consent to search your vehicle and you allow it no search warrant is needed. If you refuse the request, as is your right, we either need a search warrant or one of the other exceptions SCOTUS has made dealing with searches over the last couple hundred years.

Am I misunderstanding your statement above or poor choice of words or?

Originally posted by autowrench
No traffic cop has ever sent for, or obtained a warrant.

There are exceptions / refinements / clarifications / case law in place when it comes to a motor vehicle search. Am I misunderstanding your statement / position or?

Originally posted by autowrench
I give them my first name only, and say that my last name is a "family name."

If you are law abiding then why go out of your way to violate the law (depending on state and their laws when it comes to indentifying yourself to law enforcement during lawful contact)? When law enforcement is conducting a lawful investigation what would be the purpose to refusing to identify yourself? To take this observation one step farther -
* - You stated you are a law abiding citizen
* - You have stated you occasionally speed (as we all do) which would be grounds for law enforcement to initiate a traffic stop based on the speed.
* - You abide by the law by yielding to the officer who is pulling you over.
* - You then state you only give your first name and not your family name.

Why obey some laws while ignoring others? What would be the purpose of refusing to provide your name to the officer? How could you proceed if the officer refuses to provide you with his identification / name? Under the constitution we have a right to face our accuser and to challenge evidence etc, just as you do when it comes to being issued a citation for speeding etc... That means you are going to need to provide your information to the courts in order to move the case forward.

To me it looks as if you are going out of your way to force an issue while in contact with law enforcement. Also, again, it seems you are picking and choosing what laws to abide by while ignoring ones you dont agree wtih.

Would it be appropriate for an officer to stop you for no other reason than your affiliation with sovereign citizens? Would it be appropriate for that officer to remove you from your vehicle and then search it from top to bottom, front to back without consent / warrant?

My answer is going to be no, its not appropriate and I think you share that position. Now, what if that officer tells you since he does not agree with the laws in place regarding the 4th he is going to just ignore it?

Being a sovereign citizen I ask -
* - what makes a sovereign citizen above the very laws they demand to be enforced?

Originally posted by autowrench
I keep asking if I am free to go. I will offer this to a belligerent cop: If you deem to waste my time, I assure you I will waste your time. I will cost you at minimum three days off for court appearances, I will cost the County a lot more than they would ever make if I just paid the ticket. I have found that one only has to go through with this one time.

Which seems backwards to me as the situation could have very well gone down hill based on your refusal to provide identification.
Some other points to debate / consider -

* - If your position is based off of the Constitution and ignores case law then how is your motor vehicle protected by the 4th? Cars were not around when it came into existence so how does it apply to them?

* - If Sovereign citizens want to have thri position on the issues respected then should they not extend that same courtesy to the officer / system?

* - How can a person be law abiding while breaking the law? A law is not invalid / unenforceable simply because people do not agree with it.

Your position in your post appears confusing and appears contradicting. Your position from what I see is that of law enforcement being required to respect your personal viewpoint and interpretations of the law while at the same time refusing to extend that same courtesy to the officer.

Anyways like I was saying my response is not meant as an attack on your or your beliefs. I just wanted to ask these questions / point out some obervations that you may be able to answer / shed some light on.

Thanks in advance.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Law abiding? Do you obey all laws or just ones that you agree with while ignoring laws you dont agree with?

Are you speaking of just traffic laws, or across the board? I will assume you mean traffic laws. I have a Driver's License. This is a Right changed into a Privilege issue, but for hassle's sake, I have one. To me, the license is a Contract between myself and the BMV.
In return for paying a fee, and carrying insurance, and obeying the BMV rules of the road, I get to travel the roads hassle free and unencumbered. I admit fracturing speed laws, I was a professional driver for many years, and drive quite well, not to mention, where I live everybody speeds.

One of those exceptions is consent. If a law enforcement officer stops you for speeding and asks for your consent to search your vehicle and you allow it no search warrant is needed. If you refuse the request, as is your right, we either need a search warrant or one of the other exceptions SCOTUS has made dealing with searches over the last couple hundred years.

Am I misunderstanding your statement above or poor choice of words or?

Poor choice of words on my part. What I meant was I have never given consent for a search, or my vehicle, or my person. I have found that if you are adamant, and respectful, the office will get tired and let you go. After all, I am an old man driving a family van. Do I look like I need to be searched?

There are exceptions / refinements / clarifications / case law in place when it comes to a motor vehicle search. Am I misunderstanding your statement / position or?

On one occasion the police impounded my car and performed an illegal search in which they found nothing. At the hearing, I called this into the record, and the police dept was ordered to "effect repairs." I do not drive, or operate a "Motor Vehicle." I drive a "Private Conveyance." My van is clearly marked, "Not For Hire," which in effect, and law, changes the vehicle from a Motor Vehicle, or vehicle for hire, into a private car.

If you are law abiding then why go out of your way to violate the law (depending on state and their laws when it comes to indentifying yourself to law enforcement during lawful contact)?

I do not "go out of my way" to break laws. I know about the board ship rule. The officer has my license, with my all caps Strawman name. He asks me for my name, and if I reply as it is written on the license, I waive all my rights. I board the British Ship, and am now under Admiralty Law. I am not that all caps "person," but I am the beneficiary of that person's Trust. It is that person that holds contract, not flesh and blood me. To retain your Constitutional rights you have to separate yourself from the Strawman.

Why obey some laws while ignoring others? What would be the purpose of refusing to provide your name to the officer?

I give my name, the name everybody call me and knows me by. It is the way I give my name that confuses you. "I am Auto, of the family of Wrench, I am domiciled within the Republic of Ohio.

How could you proceed if the officer refuses to provide you with his identification / name?

The office is under oath to obey and defend the Constitution. Let him refuse to ID himself to me. Wait until I get him in court, and on the stand. By law the officer must ID themselves, and provide such ID upon request.

Under the constitution we have a right to face our accuser and to challenge evidence etc, just as you do when it comes to being issued a citation for speeding etc... That means you are going to need to provide your information to the courts in order to move the case forward.

Damn right I have the right to face my accuser. Now get that VASCAR unit in here and put it on the stand, I wish to question my accuser. I have won more than a few speeding tickets in this way. A machine cannot answer questions, and the office cannot speak for the machine. The ones that cannot be beat is when the court has a nice photos of your car breaking the law, like those new traffic cams.
By law, and by the very instructions that come with the radar units, they are to be installed and calibrated by a factory technician, and then recalibrated every 30 days. They never are. Some police stations don't renew their FCC license, I won one case that way, took a photo of the expired FCC license.

To me it looks as if you are going out of your way to force an issue while in contact with law enforcement. Also, again, it seems you are picking and choosing what laws to abide by while ignoring ones you dont agree wtih.

No, that's not it at all, but it is a common argument for a society that is used to everyone just obeying their every wish and command. I have a Notice of Understanding and Intent And Claim of Right filed.

Great video OP!


I have a lot of respect for law enforcement, but I also have seen them walk all over people who did not know their rights.These are things everyone should know.




It is not what happens, but how you react that counts, especially when dealing with law enforcement.

reply to post by Xcathdra

"There are exceptions / refinements / clarifications / case law in place when it comes to a motor vehicle search. Am I misunderstanding your statement / position or? "


Does that vary state by state?
Could you give us a few examples of probable cause to search without permission/warrant?
Not just the obvious like beer cans all over the car, smell of pot, etc...

First off thank you for taking the time to respond and share your position / mindset / what have you on this topic. I do appreciate it very much. I am not stating you break the law.. I was pointing out that your post, at least to me, has you complying with some laws and not others.

Originally posted by autowrench
Are you speaking of just traffic laws, or across the board? I will assume you mean...

Travel within a state as well as across state lines is constitutionally protected. The method of travel on the other hand is not protected. Since there is nothing in the Federal Constitution that addresses motor vehicle the issue is reserved to the states who can regulate the item in question. Its the same situation where the Constitution says citizens have a right to bear arms. No where in the amendment does it state weapons requirements / clip size etc.

Whether or not a law is fair / unfair is not up to the officer nor the person they are dealing with. We have separation of powers and a judicial system in place to address that issue.

Originally posted by autowrench
Poor choice of words on my part. What I meant was I have never given consent for a search, ...

I asked the search question to clarify your statement, which you did. As far as the last part that is a question I cannot answer since I dont have you stopped / detained. An 80 year old man can be just as deadly as a 6 year old child.

Totality of circumstances is the best answer I can give you.

Originally posted by autowrench
On one occasion the police impounded my car and performed an illegal search in which they found nothing.

Depending on the issues involved resulting in the vehicle being impounded a search of the vehicle could be lawful without a warrant. Depending on your state / federal appeals circuit you are in law enforcement is required to perform an inventory of the vehicle being impounded / towed. This ruling / result is not designed by the courts to circumvent the 4th amendment. What it does do is add in protections for both, the citizen as well as the officer, so neither side can come back and claim items are stolen / missing or contraband / illegal items were planted after the fact.

The most recent scotus ruling on the issue is Arizona vs. Gant where scotus ruling restricted an officers ability of performing a search incident to arrest of a vehicle if the driver is being arrested on a warrant and nothing else.

Originally posted by autowrench
I do not "go out of my way" to break laws.

What I was getting at was your statement about stopping your car for the police, recognizing that authority / traffic law, only to ignore the law that requires identification. That position in my mind doesnt make sense because it comes across as picking and choosing which laws you follow / ignore.

Im not stating you are a criminal so please dont take it that way.

Originally posted by autowrench
I know about the board ship rule.bThe officer has my license, with my all caps Strawman name. He asks me for my name, and if I reply as it is written on the license, I waive all my rights.

This information is not accurate. The individual is the only person who can invoke / waive their rights and it cannot be done by subterfuge / hidden actions by law enforcement.

Originally posted by autowrench
I board the British Ship, and am now under Admiralty Law. I am not that all caps "person," but I am the beneficiary of that person's Trust. It is that person that holds contract, not flesh and blood me. To retain your Constitutional rights you have to separate yourself from the Strawman.

Admiralty law has nothing to do with traffic stops / domestic law. Traffic stops have nothing to do with Federal law. As far as retaining your rights, again, only you can waive / invoke them. If law enforcement performs an action that results in a person being duped into waiving their rights, anything gleaned is not going to be admissible in court. Fruit of the poisonous tree as well as the rulings dealing with coercion are very clear on that.

Originally posted by autowrench
I give my name, the name everybody call me and knows me by. It is the way I give my name that confuses you. "I am Auto, of the family of Wrench, I am domiciled within the Republic of Ohio.

Again this to me is an example of complying with one set of laws (getting a drivers license) while ignoring other laws (refusal to identify yourself) - picking and choosing based on acceptance / rejection of the law in question.

Originally posted by autowrench
Wait until I get him in court, and on the stand. By law the officer must ID themselves, and provide such ID upon request.

There is no federal law / State law that requires that action (unless you are referring to the court process).. If you have a link to your source for that can you share it?

Originally posted by autowrench
Damn right I have the right to face my accuser.

That right applies to law enforcement as well when people lay charges against an officer.

Originally posted by autowrench
Now get that VASCAR unit in here and put it on the stand, I wish to question my accuser. I have won more than a few speeding tickets in this way. A machine cannot answer....

A few things to note -
* - Law Enforcement (traffic law) Officers do not use their instruments first. They are required to observe the potential violation and then use their instruments to build their case / support their case if it goes that far -

Observation builds reasonable suspicion a law violation took place. While investigating that possible violation we will either confirm and move to probable cause or we wont.

Example -
While patrolling I observed a vehicle that appeared to be travelling at a rate of speed in excess of the posted speed limit.. I activated my radar unit and tracked the vehicle for several seconds, noting the individuals speed was over the limit while at the same time was not slowing down.

The officer did not use their instrument solely to initiate the stop. They used the instrument to support the officers observation of a potential law violation.

* - In legal areas there is a very distinct difference between a machine and a calibrated instrument. That distinction is important because of legal requirements that goes along with each for admissability.

Originally posted by autowrench
By law, and by the very instructions that come with the radar units, they are to..

* - Radar unit calibration tests are done by the officers prior to and after their shift (at least we are). We use 2 tuning forks and hold them in front of the radar unit. If the instrument shows 25mph and 45mph (numbers will vary) the unit is considered callibrated. In order to use and have the results admissible in court the officer is required to be trained and certified on and undestand the operation of the instrument.

If you have a link to the law on radar operations shoot me a link.

On the off chance you arent aware Laser units do not fall under FCC requirements. They actually fall under and must comply with FDA requirements (FDA governs Lasers).

Originally posted by autowrench
No, that's not it at all, but it is a common argument for a society that is used to everyone just obeying their every wish and command. I have a Notice of Understanding Intent And Claim of Right filed

No offense is intended here but if you look back through your argument / position / explanations / answers you are citing laws that you want law enforcement is to abide by. I have no issues with that at all however I will point out that it comes across as contradictory (again not trying to be insulting / difficult)

Law Enforcement should be required to comply with all local / state / federal laws - We are both on the same page in that area.

Citizens should be required to comply with all local / state / federal laws as well - which seems to be an issue if a citizen doesnt like a law and even more so if the person is cited under the law they dont like.

If we are using the US Constitution as our guide, and the Constitution applies to everyone (citizens / police), how can Sovereign Citizens support / justify their position while ignoring the very same Constitution?

Again thank you for responding.. I find this topic extremely interesting at a professional as well as personal level. Again my apologies if my respnses are coming across in a negative manner. Its not my intention at all.

Thanks

Originally posted by DAVID64
Does that vary state by state?

Yes and no... and sorry for the long winded response.

A quick and general overview of the judicial system on the off chance people arent familiar with it.
* - Municipal / Circuit courts at the state level are the first step when it comes to prosecution of violations.
* - State appeals courts are the next step.
* - State Supreme Court is the end of the line in terms of legal challenges based on State Criteria.
* - The next step is to appeal the State Supreme Court ruling to the Federal appeals circuit.
* - Appeals from there will go to the US Supreme Court.

In order to make it to the Federal level the argument moves away from a persons innocence / guilt and instead focuses on constitutional issues (violation of due process / other constitutional issues).

* - A ruling by State courts will only apply to that state.
* - A ruling by a Federal appeals circuit will apply to all states that are within that circuit.
* - A ruling by the US Supreme Court will apply their decisions to all states / commonwealths / territories of the US.

A recent example is Arizona vs. Gant.
Brief overview provided by wiki -

The case involved Rodney J. Gant, who was arrested by Tucson, Arizona, police and charged with driving on a suspended driver’s license. Police arrested Gant in a friend's yard after he had parked his vehicle and was walking away. Gant and all other suspects on the scene were then secured in police patrol cars. The officers then searched Gant's vehicle. After finding a weapon and a bag of coc aine, they also charged him with possession of a narcotic for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia.

Due to the number of people detained it took some time before they could get Mr. Gant to jail. Once that was done they returned and searched the vehicle, citing the search incident to arrest exception to the 4th amendment. Gants lawyer argued that a warrant should have been obtained due to the length of time in between the arrest and the time of search ( Since there was no imminent danger of losing evidence / officer safety issues the poilice cant justify the search by arrest).

It made its way through the state courts and eventually ended up at the Federal level. The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Gant. The result of that is law enforcement cannot simply search a persons vehicle based solely on an arrest (DWI / DUI / plainsight exceptions exist) and it applies to all states / etc.

Another good example is Miranda vs. Arizona - Miranda rights requirements

Originally posted by DAVID64
Could you give us a few examples of probable cause to search without permission/warrant?

* - Consent - Police ask to search and the peson allows it.
* - Plain view - Drugs / Alcohol / illegal items that are in the vehicle / property and visible to the officer without manipulation of items (A house and a car do not have the same level of protection)..
* - Search incident to arrest - (Aside from gant) - A person who is stopped and arrested for drunk driving meets the stricter criteria to perform the search of the vehicle incident to arrest.
* - Exigent circumstances - A situation where waiting for a warrant could place people in danger / death or result in the destruction of evidence.
- Hot pursuit - A person who is fleeing (foot / car) from the police enters their house / someone elses house. So long as visual contact is present the officer can enter in pursuit of the individual.
* - Border crossings etc etc etc etc...

There are a few others and all have strict requirements in order for the action to be lawful. It is the resonsibility of the officer to justify their actions.

Every single encounter is unique and actions are based on totality of circumstances. Rule of thumb is if you have the time to file for a warrant then that should be done, even if the actions are valid under one of the exceptions.

reply to post by Xcathdra

reply to post by Xcathdra

This information is not accurate. The individual is the only person who can invoke / waive their rights and it cannot be done by subterfuge / hidden actions by law enforcement.

No, your information is not accurate, and here is some case law to prove it:

Admitting It's Your Name

If a court calls out a name (which is fictitious), and the accused answers to that name, even if he says his name isn't spelled that way, he is still admitting that it is his name! The body of the accused is present, what does it matter how it's spelled now? Remember, either it is your name or it is not your name. If it's not your name, you don't answer to it. Period. Here's what happens if you do:

Russell v. US (WD Mich 1997) 969 F.Supp 24. "Petitioner...claims because his name is in all capital letters on the summons, he is not subject to the summons...completely without merit, patently frivolous, and will be rejected without expending any more of this court's resources."

[To argue that your name is spelled in all caps is wrong, because then you are admitting it is your name. A name spelled in all caps is not your name, and to say it is your name gives jurisdiction to the court. Instead of saying, "My name is spelled in all caps on your papers," one should say, "My godly name does not appear on your papers"].

Wyatt v. Kelly, Chief Bankruptcy Judge (WD Texas unpub 3/23/98) 44 USPQ2d 1578, 81 AFTR2d 1463, 98 USTC para 50326. Tried to sue judge for violating his civil rights by having his name printed in court documents in a way other than the "appellation" this crank prefers. Crank reacted by refusing to respond to prosecution's complaint whereupon the judge entered a Not Guilty plea on his behalf. Suit against judge dismissed.

[#1: Civil Rights, which have men for their author, are an abomination to God because they create State Worship. If you partake of man's created rights, you are under the power of the creator of those rights (man). The creator determines what the created violated, not the other way around. #2: By him admitting "his name" was spelled incorrectly, he admitted it was his name, and he, again, gave jurisdiction to the court. #3: Scripture forbids us to go to courts of law, and commands us not to sue others, but to forgive others. Therefore, he gave jurisdiction to the court simply by being lawless in God's eyes.]

Gdowik v. US (Bankr. SD Fla unpub 7/23/96) 78 AFTR2d 6243 aff'd (SD Fla unpub 11/6/97) 228 Bankr.Rptr 481, 482 80 AFTR2d 8254. Claims that "the use of his name JOHN E GDOWIK is an 'illegal misnomer' and use of said name violates the right to his "lawful status" was rejected.

[Basically, John confessed to, and answered to, "his name" in all caps. Since by doing so, he gives jurisdiction to the court, it is no longer an "illegal misnomer."]

US v. Frech (10th Cir unpub 6/16/98) 149 F3d 1192(t). "Defendants' assertion that the capitalization of their names in court documents constitutes constructive fraud, thereby depriving the district court of jurisdiction and venue, is without any basis in law or fact."

[The defendants already admitted it was "their name", and answered to that name, so how can it be fraud? The court is correct].

ecclesia.org...

Similar Cases

Sadlier v. Payne (D Utah 1997)974 F.Supp 1411. Crank called it "killed on paper".
Braun v. Stotts (D Kan unpub 6/19/97) aff'd (10th Cir unpub 2/4/98).
Vos v. Boyle (WD Mich unpub 4/11/95).
Liebig v. Kelly-Alle (EDNC 1996) 923 F.Supp 778).
US v. J.F. Heard (ND WV 1996) 952 F.Supp 329).
Napier v. Jones (WD Mich unpub 2/10/95).
Wacker v. Crow (10th Cir unpub 7/1/99).
Brown v. Mueller (ED Mich unpub 6/24/97).
Harvard v. Pontesso (6th Cir unpub 8/8/97) 121 F3d 798(t).
State v. Martz (Ohio App unpub 6/9/97).
Cole v. Higgins (D. Ida unpub 1/23/95) 75 AFTR2d 1102 rept adopted (D. Ida unpub 2/27/95) 75 AFTR2d 1479 aff'd (9th Cir 4/1/96) 82 F3d 422(t), 77 AFTR2d 1586.
Capaldi v. Pontesso (6th Cir 1998) 135 F3d 1122.
Russell v. US (WD Mich 1997) 969 F.Supp 24.
In re Shugrue (Bankr. ND Tex 1998) 221 Bankr. Rptr 394.

ecclesia.org...

Have you ever noticed that your driver's license, bank statement, and any bill that you receive is in all capital letters?
This is not by accident; there is a legal reason for this.

DID YOU EVER WONDER WHY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE STATE CAN TAKE YOUR HOUSE, PROPERTY, CARS, BANK ACCOUNTS, CHILDREN ETC.?

WHAT IS YOUR REAL NAME? IS IT JOHN HENRY DOE, IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS OR IS IT, John Henry Doe, IN UPPER AND LOWER CASE LETTERS?

source
Scroll down the page at the website and find out why all caps are used.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Admiralty law has nothing to do with traffic stops / domestic law.

Then why, upon receiving a traffic ticket, and appearing in Court, why is the sitting Judge a Criminal Courts Judge? Did I commit a crime? No! I committed an infraction. Why is a Criminal Courts Judge sitting in jurisdiction over a Civil matter? Make this known to that judge, that you know he/she is out of their proper jurisdiction, and they have two choices:
Either proceed and be in direct violation of his/her Constitutional Oath, or leave the "field of battle," the Courtroom. As soon as the judge exists the Courtroom, stand up and say, "Court dismissed."

reply to post by Xcathdra

While patrolling I observed a vehicle that appeared to be travelling at a rate of speed in excess of the posted speed limit.. I activated my radar unit and tracked the vehicle for several seconds, noting the individuals speed was over the limit while at the same time was not slowing down.

Friend, you sound like one of the good guys. I have had LEOs follow me for several miles while my Radar Detector is going crazy and beeping like mad, finally the LEO pulls me over and says he has me speeding, which I know he does not. Shall I bend over here, or should I make that LEOs next few week miserable as I take his life apart, and cover him up with legal motions?

To me, and as I said, I am a Sovereign Freeman with a working knowledge of the law, there are two kinds of police officer:

1. Peace Officer
2. Policy Enforcer

A peace officer gets my respect and cooperation. policy enforcers get a very hard time. I know all about letters of complaint in the officer's file, and I know all about sworn affidavits, and I know all about civilian review boards. I never hire an attorney, write me an illegal ticket and you will face me on the stand.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Law Enforcement should be required to comply with all local / state / federal laws - We are both on the same page in that area.

Friend, I don't think we are there yet. First and foremost of Constitutional Law, the Document that you, when you became an officer of the law, swore a solemn oath to "Protect and Defend against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. You obey that law first. Local laws are not law, they are city ordinances, a rule agreed upon by a legislative body. States have Constitutions, and all are in agreement with the Constitution of the united States.

If we are using the US Constitution as our guide, and the Constitution applies to everyone (citizens / police), how can Sovereign Citizens support / justify their position while ignoring the very same Constitution?

I am using the U.S. Common Law. Under Common Law, all are equal, and the only crime is when a person is harmed, or hurt because of something I done. Under existing Federal Laws, we have no right to do anything that smacks of fun, and they even circumvent State Laws. Feds to Continue Raids on Medical Pot in California
Under the Common Law, this kind of thing would not happen. Common Law is Contract Law. I have contracts. I have a contract with the State of Ohio. If I have to abide by the wording of that contract, then so do the enforcers of that contract.

Originally posted by autowrench
Not really but its cool.

One party cannot invoke the rights of another person.
When a person is charged with a crime and goes before the judge and refuses to enter a plea its assumed (scotus ruling) the defendent is invoking their rights to remain silent.

Since a person is innocent until proven guilty its once again assumed the defendant, by their actions or lack of, is invoking a not guilty plea.


Since the plea needs to be part of the offical court records and taking into account the facts above the Judge is not invoking the defendants rights. The defendant automatically invoked them by their actions and the judge is putting that info into the court records.

Originally posted by autowrench
Then why, upon receiving a traffic ticket, and appearing in Court, why is the sitting Judge a Criminal Courts Judge? Did I commit a crime?

Yes you committed a crime - exceeding the posted speed limit.
Depending on how fast you were going it goes from infraction to misdemeanor.

The Constitution sets the criteria for the US Supreme Court. Supreme Court aside the constitution goes on to state the government can create the lesser courts so long as they are subservient to the Supreme Court.

Criminal Court.... Drug court... Traffic court... Night court....
The States are responsible for creating their own court systems in terms of what they are called, what the breakdown of those courts will be as well as categorizing how cases flow through that system.

The states set the criteria for a person to become a judge. A criminal court judge,,, juvenile judge....civil judge are one in the same.

As for the the comment why are you in criminal court when you did not break the law. You are getting caught up in terminology imo. Its like saying you won a gift card for a steak dinner. Upon arrival at the location you notice that the name says Red Lobster.

You dont like seafood...
You are not a Red Lobster
Why go to a seafood resteraunt for a steak dinner.

It turns out the cooks are capable of preparing non seafood dishes even though its not their main focues.

Originally posted by autowrench
No! I committed an infraction. Why is a Criminal Courts Judge sitting in jurisdiction over a Civil matter? Make this known to that judge, that you know he/she is out of their proper jurisdiction, and they have two choices:
Either proceed and be in direct violation of his/her Constitutional Oath, or leave the "field of battle," the Courtroom. As soon as the judge exists the Courtroom, stand up and say, "Court dismissed."

Again you violated the law.
An infraction is not limited to civil court and has a place in criminal court, up to and including it being an actual crime instead of administrative. As far as jurisdiction goes I think the term and how its applied is not understood.

If I am a municipal officer my jurisdiction is the city proper. However I can respond to / be sent to calls that are outside my city limits. I have the exact same training the county deputies do and we both can enforce state laws which are the same.

Just because im dealing with an issue thats outside my city does not make any actions I take unlawful / null / void..
Going into a building with the sign criminal court does not make you a criminal. Just as If you visiting a fire department or police department does not make you an officer / firefighter

Originally posted by autowrench
Friend, you sound like one of the good guys.

Im sure there are people here who do not agree with that sentiment lol.

Originally posted by autowrench
I have had LEOs follow me for several miles while my Radar Detector is going crazy and beeping like mad, finally the LEO pulls me over and says he has me speeding, which I know he does not. Shall I bend over here, or should I make that LEOs next few week miserable as I take his life apart, and cover him up with legal motions?

Personally speaking I think its a bad idea to debate an issue with an officer roadside. For starters its dangerous. The officer, when they have a person stopped / detained / arrested is responsible for the safety of that person / persons. Whether an officers actions are lawful or not is not within the scope of the stop. Police are not a part of the juudicial branch, which is the proper setting for a challenge of facts / training of the officer etc etc.

Originally posted by autowrench
To me, and as I said, I am a Sovereign Freeman with a working knowledge of the law, there are two kinds of police officer:

1. Peace Officer
2. Policy Enforcer

A peace officer gets my respect and cooperation. policy enforcers get a very hard time. I know all about letters of complaint in the officer's file, and I know all about sworn affidavits, and I know all about civilian review boards. I never hire an attorney, write me an illegal ticket and you will face me on the stand.

Legal or illegal is up to the judge, not the officer or the other party.

I understand what you are saying.. My confusion with this issue deals with what Freeman decide to reject as unconstitutional and what they feel is lawful. I have noticed they seem to restrict their argument / position to the Federal Government only, ignoring the state ramifications / laws / positions.

I have had freeman (in general and not a blanket accusation) debate with me on the Constitution. I had a few talking about the changes made to the Constitution by courts / laws / trying times. They feel we must return to an origional plain text reading of the constitution.

I start out by asking if they are going to be the ones to break the news to the group of people that just got reduced to 3/5 of a person. I then ask if they want me or them to inform all females they no longer have a right to vote.

That is one of the reasons I am asking questions to you about your position on the issues. Also my posts are not meant to attack you or your beliefs so if something comes across as offensive or waht not let me know.

The secret to interactions with the police is to pass "the attitude test".

~ Don't make me ask for ID. Offer it.

~ Don't lie to me. If you screwed up and you know it, admit it.

~ Don't get cute with me. My job is not a joke. I can be shot or stabbed at any time and I must consider that when I deal with people.

~ Be polite to me and I will be polite to you.

~ If you don't cooperate I will think you have something to hide.