It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Res Ipsa
...I stand by my first post because it is the stance of the Supreme Court.
What more do you want?
Originally posted by caballero
Its the same thing with this police state concept, the police are getting more power when they should NOT have a lot of the powers they do have. This checkpoint thing is one of those powers, they should not be allowed to set these things up because they infringe on my rights as a sober law abiding driver.
Tennessee Department of Revenue Operations Supervisor Denise Rottero told Judge Greer how Tennessee's auto registration process works...
The process begins with the "surrender" of the Manufacturer's Statement of Origin ("MSO") by the auto dealer to the Department of Revenue, in exchange for a Certificate of Title. Asked if a Manufacturer's Statement of Origin is proof of ownership, legal title to the automobile, Ms. Rottero said, "Yes."
"Are you telling me that ownership of an automobile must be surrendered to the State before it can be registered?" she was asked.
"Surrender title, yes." Rottero said.
The certificate of title to your automobile is Not title, it's merely evidence that title exists. Your car's legal TITLE is the MSO, which the dealer surrendered to the State. Ms. Rottero said the MSO is put on microfilm for permanent
keeping, the original is destroyed.
After the trial, spectators expressed shock that their personal automobiles were actually owned by the state. "No wonder state law officers stop people for no reason!" said a housewife. "If your car's got a Tennessee plate, it's
theirs, and they can do anything they like to you!" That's the law, but it's voluntary. No one but Judge Greer had dared say that if you don't surrender your car to the state in exchange for plates, you go to jail.
Originally posted by Res Ipsa
Show me one case where your idea of getting around not having a DL has been successful here in the United States.
Originally posted by Res Ipsa
I will respond to dude about the lengthy lesson about "Right to travel"
You forgot to mention that you don't have a Right to travel outside of this Country. If you are going to give me a long disertation on freedom of movement, then you needed to put that in.
Originally posted by Res Ipsa
I mentioned before that what is and what isn't Constitutional, (as a real world, practical matter) is not going to be determined by your knowing the written words of the Constitution by heart.
Originally posted by caballero
So what you're saying is that the whole concept of Drivers licenses and the DMV are unconstitutional as well?
Originally posted by caballero
I am also confused on one point are officers able to pull over truck drivers, commercial drivers, with no probable cause?
Originally posted by caballero
well it seems that you were saying police officers can pull any one over without probable cause but can they search through your car considering thatits theirs?
Originally posted by caballero
It all seems like a bit of conspiracy if you look at it in a certain light...
...Why do they do this?
Originally posted by smokey101
The law is the law and even if we don't agree with it, without laws would we have order?
Originally posted by caballero
the woman was upholding the constitutional laws, the officers were upholding a new fascist set of laws.
A person is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when by means of physical force or show of authority his freedom of movement is restrained, and in the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would believe that he was not free to leave.
Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
No, the Feds & the State are authorized to regulate companies because it's considered a privilege to conduct business for profit/gain...But they also Unconstitutionally trick the average American Citizen into declaring themselves as some type of "commercial entity." The difference is there, but it's subtle.
I'd mentioned the Birth Certificate earlier? By putting the child's name in all capital letters, this basically turns "Joe Blow," the Citizen into "JOE BLOW," the corporate entity. There is recourse for this, but the timing is critical--The parents have a time limit to change the birth certificate & the child can change it within a time limit after his 18th birthday.
But since very few parents recognize this, it becomes a problem when the child grows up & starts participating in contracts as an adult. This is why it's so important to include the "UCC 1-207" phrase when signing contracts of your own...Knowing the meaning of the recourse & remedies under the UCC allows you to participate in contracts while still retaining your Rights as a Citizen, instead of your privileges as a "corporate entity."
Originally posted by smokey101
Then if you choose not to follow the law you may find yourself in a cell someday.
Now i am not saying that the laws are right, for instance i live in the U.K. and i detest the damn smoking ban,
Basically my point is like it or not, good or bad, if you don't abide by the laws then the cops will come knocking on your door and resist too much and you may find yourself knocking on heavens door.
Follow the laws and work for change within the law, after all its easier to fight from the inside than from the outside.
Originally posted by caballero
So i just watched a video of a DUI checkpoint somewhere in the east coast, where a middle aged mother who has no criminal record of any sort was being stopped. The woman was very upset she was being stopped as she had done nothing wrong and should not have to be stopped
Originally posted by caballero
, however the police felt differently. When the police asked to see her drivers license she did the smart thing and asked if she was being charged with anything
Originally posted by caballero The woman did not let him see her ID and protected her Constitutional Rights very bravely.
Originally posted by caballero
- DUI check points are unconstitutional and should be illegal because they take away our fourth amendment right, which protects us from unreasonable searches or seizures.
Originally posted by caballero
-Then the police officer stops and detains a woman who has not broken any laws and is not being charged for any crime which is also illegal for the police to do, if you didn't do anything they cannot legally detain you.
Originally posted by caballero
-The police officer reached into her car and pulled her out when she has not been charged has not done anything wrong
Originally posted by caballero
Im sorry but she knew more than they did about her constitution
Originally posted by caballero
Looking at this situation we can see that the police broke the law on every level.
Originally posted by caballero
This happens every day to ordinary people.
Originally posted by Rasputin13
So, what about my "right" and my family's "right" to not be killed by a drunk driver? While you may consider them unconstitutional...
Originally posted by Rasputin13
I certainly don't want someone with no valid license or insurance getting into an accident with me. And I certainly don't want someone with a suspended license who is intoxicated or under the influence of drugs getting into an accident with me.
Originally posted by verylowfrequency
Well, I detest all the years I had to breathe the dirty smoke if I chose to be in a pubic restaurant or bar.
Originally posted by Rasputin13
I fail to see how someones rights are violated by having to show their drivers license, or even insurance and registration cards.
Originally posted by blahdiblah
Although are you saying everyone who has their name printed in capitals on a birth certificate, drivers license, etc is therefore deemed a cooporate entity not a citizen and only has privileges instead of rights?
Originally posted by Res Ipsa
The way you explain it we own nothing. But that isn't practically the truth is it?
I don't own land or "real property" because I'm always being taxed on it and in some fracked up circumstances the gov. can take it away (albeit pay for it)
Originally posted by Res Ipsa
Maybe I'm missing the argument here.
Are you saying that these things are unconstitutional according to your understanding or the understanding of the Supreme Court.
These issues have been answered by the Court.
I stand by my first post because it is the stance of the Supreme Court.
What more do you want?