Police state=Loss of freedoms.

reply to post by GAOTU789


Come on GAOTU789 we were having a fun conversation why did you have to spoil it.

Regardless I've posted on about four different roadblock/checkpoint threads and I will continue to - no matter what case or video is used to provoke such thoughts.

So, the truth is she didn't provide her license, not because she was standing up for anything but because she didn't have one - go figure. She was a nasty terrorist who deserves to be flogged by the state - indeed.

Originally posted by AgentScmidt
Did you realize that driving a car is a privilege, and you don't have to drive a car?

One of the points I've been trying to make is that the exact terminology of the laws is what makes all the difference between Rights & privileges...It is a Right to Travel Freely, but it's a privilege to Drive a Motor Vehicle. The Right to Travel Freely does include "automobiles," but registering that automobile with the State re-classifies it a Motor Vehicle...That's where they get you on the path to unwittingly waive your Rights.

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
...you my friend would be one of those that belong to a different "constitutional religion" than I do.

I don't consider the Constitution to be a religion. I consider it (rightly so) to be the Supreme Law of the Land: Which all Government Officers are oath bound to obey! I just have a "bad habit" of pointing out the difference between real laws & idiot laws.

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
I disagree with that notion of privilege, the state did not invent cars, they did not purchase my car and they did not teach me how to drive my car.

They did not purchase your car, but when it was registered, you nevertheless gave them ownership of the Title to it...That's how they can legally turn it into a privilege. Even after you pay off whatever loan you had for it, you only get the certificate that proves that the Title exists, but the State still has the actual Title itself.

However, if you buy a car, make sure you don't let the dealer send the Title to the State...Ask them to give it to you instead & you'll take care of any registration required: But also don't forget to ask if there are any liens on the Title...If they say "no" & you check with your local Hall of Records & there is a lien, you can sue the dealer for "non-disclosure." But to get license plates for the car, you'll need to register the car by giving the Title to the State (They won't give you any plates if you don't).

Just make sure that when you sign your name to the Title to register it, don't sign your name in all capital letters & be sure to include "under duress" & "all rights reserved without prejudice UCC 1-207 & UCC 1-203" next to your signature. Also, when you get your Driver's License, include those two phrases next to your signature there too.

That's the only way you can defend yourself under the Constitution in a courtroom. To avoid getting hassled by the cops too often, still stop when they tell you & cooperate up to the extent of your patience so that they can determine that they're not looking for you specifically & they'll let you go sooner: Be sure to (politely) ask them if they have "probable cause" for stopping you. If they don't have probable cause & hassle you beyond your patience with your Rights, you can nail 'em in court but good.

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
We have hired representatives among us in order that we can all drive safely on the same highways and those highways will be maintained and regulated.

The whole proposed purpose of such regulations are to help protect Free Traveling Citizens from the extra traffic congestion caused by business interests making use of public roads for gain/profit. Business interests would include truck drivers, taxi drivers, even the pizza delivery boy, who all perform their jobs on public roads...It's the conducting of business that's legally defined as a "privilege." The real trickery comes from the State DMV's that try to entrap Free Travelers into becoming Vehicle Drivers.

If you manage to retain your Rights under the Constitution (instead of waiving them for State-granted privileges), then you can defend yourself all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Originally posted by caballero
Basically saying that unless a jury says you are guilty you are innocent. One thing checkpoints do is make everyperson Guilty before Innocent.

Well, not quite...Since most Courts will uphold the UCC or the Admiralty Court before they uphold the Constitution. The real reason they do this legally is, if your name on the Birth Certificate is all capital letters (which makes you an "item of inventory" as well as a State Citizen) & you have a Social Security card (which makes you a federal citizen as well as a State Citizen), then you fall under UCC jurisdiction or Admiralty Court jurisdiction more firmly than under Constitutional jurisdiction.

This is why, when the judge asks you for your plea, he states it as, "guilty or not guilty." But if you can successfully retain your Constitutional Rights by invoking the UCC remedies & recourses, then you can make your plea as "innocent or guilty" instead of "guilty or not guilty" & there's not a damn thing the judge can say against that once you've explained how your Rights were retained.
I think of it like, if the saying is, "a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client" is true only so far as your "client" has to prove that he's not a fool before he can get real justice.

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
If they choose not to listen to our wishes or demands we will replace them and if they refuse to leave we reserve our right to implement our 2nd amendment. Our right to have guns, is there for when our representatives no longer represent us.

In my opinion, apparently your opinion & in Charlton Heston's opinion too, the 2nd Amendment is the single most important Right that we have. Without the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, we have no method to defend any other Rights at all.

BTW, Don't go by my word alone. I also urge you to check it out with a lawyer, all I've said in my various posts here, mentioning everything about the registration, licensing & UCC codes...Most lawyers will provide a first-consultation for free.

reply to post by MidnightDStroyer


Thanks for that advice. I just don't understand why there has to be so much trickery with words.

A couple years ago I bought a new PWC (SeaDoo) out of state with cash and the dealer gave me the original certificate from the manufacturer. I remember when I brought it to the state to get my boat registration, so I wouldn't be constantly stopped by the sheriff in every lake or river I went in, they were kind of pissed and tried to tell me the dealer was supposed to have givin it too them. I think the dealer didn't want to deal with another state and was just happy I paid cash for a couple of them.

Same with a dirt bike motorcycle, but I never had to get a license (except for an off road permit which only required a drivers license) so I kept the original title and then gave it to the guy who bought it from me.

If you buy a used car than you're never going to get that original title, right?

So, what your saying is by jump through a few extra hoops, I may still be harassed, but I will have the ability to take legal action against them to restore any wrongs. It just doesn't seem right that we should have to resort to trickery in order to counter their trickery. Why can't we all just be straight up and not have to hide the truth?

The real problem I see is even when your in the right, you still have to constantly battle these people and then when you begin to stand up for yourself all the sheeple accuse you of being some can of radical - instead of a regular guy standing up for what's right.

All the kids today are so brainwashed by the media and their teachers that they just happily give up their rights, because they don't even know they have any.

[edit on 9-6-2008 by verylowfrequency]

Ok catch up once again, sorry guys i have been pretty busy...

AgentScmidt-
she committed no crime, the crime that was committed was committed by the officers for taking part in the checkpoint. Checkpoints are, by the definition of the Constitution of the United States of America which is my stance (not the current law and not the supreme courts stance), Unconstitutional. They violate the peoples rights and should not be allowed to be set up. If people run from the cops that is probable cause so then the officers can use their legal authority. They had no probable cause to arrest that woman or even to stop her.

liamoohay-
we arent talking about civil wars (though i did mention it once). Those tv shows pick all the exciting moments so that isnt a reputable source. How many high speed chases have you seen?

Res Ipsa-
the supreme court can misjudge the constitution as well, they will allow unconstitutional laws to be passed and have in the past i dont see why you dont question them. Dont think less of me because i misquoted the Constitution as man people do. And it makes no difference in whether or not check points are or are not unconstitutional they still violate the fourth amendment. They do this, by stopping everyone without reason or cause. They go off of suspicion which is a very disturbing idea if you ask me, maybe next they will want to do random house searches to make sure no ones breaking the law behind closed doors, in essence those two things, check points and random house searches, are one in the same.
On a side note, no Res i dont belong to some cooky religion i just got it wrong

mcmartinson-
Thats probable cause. ust seting one up one day to check for possible illegal activity...thats where its unconstitutional. It seems to be to much to ask for my police officers to patrol the streets for ALL illegal activities and not stop innocent people for no reason at a checkpoint.

Gaotu-
HAHA! it seems she did break the law. However i am arguing the legality of checkpoints in the first place.

everyone else semi agrees with me i am only addressing those that disagree with my stance. Great posts everyone keep it up cause we arent arguing if the woman was guilty or not, she was my example, we are discussing on whether checkpoints are unconstitutional or not.

Side note.
MidnghtDstroyer you are pretty dang smart, it seems like you know the law like the back of you hand. you make more sense of it than i ever could at least.


[edit on 9-6-2008 by caballero]

reply to post by caballero

A few places where I get my legal sources:

The US Constitution: My first & foremost resource. I keep this up in another window every time I come into ATS.
Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence & Articles of Confederation: I keep these bookmarked because they represent a straight-line evolution of the Constitution.
Journals of the Continental Congress 1774-1789: These are the first clarifications, additions & modifications created by the original government...These Journals were written by those who truly obeyed their Constitutional Oaths of Office & acted "in pursuance of" the Constitution.
I also keep a link to my home State's Constitution: Every State must have one before it can be ratified as a State in the Union.

Supreme Law Firm: Not only do they reasearch the laws, but also cite court cases that set judicial precidence. They also offer courses in Constitutional Law & the lesser laws that (supposedly) support the Constitution.
We the People Foundation: It's a politically activist site, but damn they really do good research.
Prevent Tyranny: Not much in the way of real quoting of laws, but some good conceptual expression of the Constitution & some of the "lesser laws."
First Amendment Center: Very in-depth look at the 1st Amendment. If I need to get further info about other Amendments, I'll usually Google it.

One thing that's helped me a lot is the fact that I've been a voracious reader ever since I learned how to read...I was always ahead in my class when it came to reading. One of my friends referred to me as a "vast repository of completely useless information," but during the past 20 years or so, I've tried to learn "useful" stuff more.

In certain hands, a library card & internet access can become deadly weapons. That's why there's been some controversy about the government wanting to track library & internet usage...They know that intelligent people are a danger to their control-structures.

[edit on 9-6-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

Originally posted by caballero

If people run from the cops that is probable cause so then the officers can use their legal authority. They had no probable cause to arrest that woman or even to stop her.

Yes, as I said she was driving a car, so they had every right to stop her. To use public roadways, is a priviledge, and with your drivers license and driving on public roadways, you are consenting that they can stop you at any time while you are driving.

That's why you can do donuts or drive 200mph down your driveway and a cop isn't going to pull you over. It's not a public road.

If you don't want to follow traffic laws, then don't drive your car on public roads.

There is simply nothing unconstitutional about it.

You also have the choice to not fly on public planes if you want to bring a gun on them. No one is forcing you to fly on public planes, just as no one is forcing you to drive your car on a public road.

Earlier you said that the no-weapons on airplanes thing is for safety - WHAT DO YOU THINK TRAFFIC LAWS ARE FOR? Safety. It it safe to drive 150mph down a narrow road with hairpin turns all over it? Of course not, that's why speed limits are put in place. What about DUI checkpoints? It's to make sure people aren't driving illegally (illegal drivers are a DANGER).

Checkpoints on the road, are no different than the checkpoint you go through before boarding an airplane.





[edit on 9-6-2008 by AgentScmidt]

reply to post by verylowfrequency


Don't stop the discussion because of the time line. I find this stuff very interesting and enjoy reading it. As a Canadian, my knowledge of your laws is limited so threads like these help my understanding.

I just wanted to point out that it's an older case. Maybe she appealed? Some one with more time than myself could look into that.

It just occurred to me that if there is a DUI checkpoint shouldn't they have just checked if she had been drinking? There is no need to check her license unless the police had an ulterior motive for stopping people which would then be using a DUI checkpoint as somewhat as an excuse to pull people over. I have been through DUI checkpoints and have not been asked for my license.

reply to post by liamoohay


That's just it, the DUI checkpoints have become a pretext to stop motorist in some areas (not all) and look for anything they can find visually searching the automobile & it's occupants. Basically allowing them to stop everyone is like going to the checkout at the supermarket for drivers and the police become the cashiers for their municipalities who use the police as tax enforcers.

Originally posted by AgentScmidt
Checkpoints on the road, are no different than the checkpoint you go through before boarding an airplane.

Not true Airports & Highways are apples & oranges. We allow stricter airport regulation because Aircraft are flying bombs, they carry up to hundreds of passengers and they are ports of entry & exit to the United States.

If you don't want to follow traffic laws, then don't drive your car on public roads.

Well MidnightDStroyer pointed out that they can also pull you over because the state owns your car, unconstitutional, so maybe when i intoduced this topic i was introducing a gambit of problems road related. Think about it for a second almost everyone and their mum drives yea, whats to stop them from saying we cant drive their cars after 7:00pm? they own them they dictate the laws on the road they are able to pull it off. Now you look at that and think "well come on that will never happen caballero youre crazy" but i say to you i would have never thought an act like the patriot act would ever be passed but it was. That act is a disgrace to The United States of America and is sooooo unconstitutional it is crazy, but it was still passed. So all they have to do is make us think there is a good reason behind a curfew and they can pass it when really there is no GOOD reason to give up your personal freedoms.

Originally posted by AgentScmidt
Checkpoints on the road, are no different than the checkpoint you go through before boarding an airplane

Like frequency has said there is a big difference. One being a drunk driver would have never been able to do what happened on 9/11, but obviously planes can. So the danger level is WAY higher for air traffic as it can go places and do things a drunk driver can not, there is a reason for that one. The reason for DUI checkpoints is very weak because cops can just patrol and find the drunk drivers, but the person who came up with the name DUI checkpoints is a very smart person kinda like the namer of the PATRIOT ACT!!! Sounds so patriotic doesnt it, when in reality there is nothing patriotic about either one. They named them DUI checkpoints to make it seem like they have a solid reason to stop traffic.

MidnightDStroyer-
It is like a reasure trove of information!
The government knows the danger of having a smart society, because a smart society wouldnt give up their liberties like we have done. Thank you for the links they are really great.

It just occurred to me that if there is a DUI checkpoint shouldn't they have just checked if she had been drinking? There is no need to check her license unless the police had an ulterior motive for stopping people which would then be using a DUI checkpoint as somewhat as an excuse to pull people over. I have been through DUI checkpoints and have not been asked for my license.

EXACTLY! They had no reason to stop her because she wasnt doing anything illegal, and how would they know she didnt have her license? They made an illegal stop at an ILLEGAL checkpoint, because they had no proof, or probable cause, that she had done anything warrenting a stop.

So I had the random urge to research more than my norm to solidify my stance.
Between 2005 and 2007, three years, in Arizona they stopped more than 46,000 people, one percent being guilty of drinking and driving that leaves 45,540 innocent people that were stopped with no probable cause. Only 460 people were actually arrested for being drunk. There has not been a notice of effectiveness since 2005. Arrests made at DUI checkpoints are generally lower than arrests made from patrolling officers. In Pima County, I am not sure which state, recording from the end of Labor Day weekend 2005 until the end of 2006 officers (operating at DUI checkpoints) stopped 36,798 people. Officers demanded 995 of those innocent people to perform field sobriety test in which 219 people were arrested for driving under the influence. This shows that officers were wrong 80% of the time that they FORCED innocent people to take a FST. That means 36,579 innocent drivers had their fourth amendment right violated. This site has TONS of information regarding DUI checkpoints DUI checkpoint statistics.htm. And this is all off of a simple yahoo search so there is way a more site regarding DUI checkpoints and how INEFFECTIVE they really are. So since they are so ineffective why do we continue to allow them to infringe on our rights?

source 1
source 2