I, a U.S. citizen, was arrested by a U.S. Border Patrol Agent today

page: 28
45
<< 25  26  27   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





Yes - I personally believe the drug trade is planned and fueled by a global power. So what.


Do you think this "global power" that in your eyes is fueling the drug trade is acting in our best interest. If not then how can you possibly believe their "solution" to be in your best interest.






posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





nd how many times can you and your "followers" repeat your opinion - - - while completely and totally ignoring others who have proven your opinion invalid?

I am RIGHT in my perspective. Whether you agree with it or not.


Anne,

I have posted a case ruled by the Supreme Court that concedes that these check points are unconstitutional. You are right in the fact that they Supreme Court has ruled in favor of these check points but even the Supreme Court has admitted they violate constitutionally protected rights.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zealott
(Slightly less crude than the OP)


I agree with what you've stated about this country staying divided, it's way too easy to turn us against each other as this thread has shown. But out of curiosity, how was I "crude"?



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 





I believe that the Border Patrol, in that they check every vehicle or some set ratio 1:3, 2:5 1:7 etc, does so in a manner that is fair and impartial; and importantly can be demonstrated as fair and impartial in a court of law.


So if I am understanding correctly house checks that were truly random in that it was every 1:3, etc. would pose no issue to you? You wouldn't see a constitutional issue there?



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Obviously, if you had been following the laws of the U.S. you wouldn't be in this predicament. Not to say those laws are "good" laws. Just saying, if you do the crime, do the time. I spent 10 months in a work release for what I'm assuming is the same thing you are in trouble for. I knew the consequences and it was my own fault. I think CA would be a good move for you.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


Calling em old, drunkard, rabid soldiers, it's crude and was said in an articulate way. I enjoyed it.
27 pages of you defending various points (Well.) and all these knuckle heads can come up with is to call you naughty. Although it was entertaining to read, it's sad the whole point of the post never got really discussed.
Due to the T&C I'm forced to be hypocritical and contribute more crap my apologies.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Zealott
 


Oh, yeah, lol. That. That was all pretty fresh after the incident itself, and i was calling them as i saw them. I admit i may have let my emotions get the best of me. But the rabid soldiers are the most concerning, IMO. If anybody has any question whether they (not all of them, the ones on this thread) would follow any orders given them, they should see their posts.

I agree, the real point was completely ignored.

[edit on 10-8-2009 by 27jd]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


Hey man, just wanted to say that I am with you 100% on this one. You're constitutional rights were severely violated and that is the main topic of this conversation.

Unfortunately many people on here decided to throw their opinion of your personal life and choices into the mix instead of trying to get to the root of the issues which was the violation of your rights.

To everyone on here who came on and said "you do the crime, you pay the time" or something to that effect, I'd like to label those posts EPIC FAIL. You 100% missed the issue here.

Did you ever decided what you're gonna do about this one jd? Fight it? Just pay it and be done?



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockstar1102
Did you ever decided what you're gonna do about this one jd? Fight it? Just pay it and be done?


Well, since i started the thread, i've learned that due to the streamlined nature of the checkpoint and the citations themselves, there really is nothing to fight, except maybe the citation itself i guess. The lawyers i've consulted with are in on the scam themselves, they aren't interested in the constitutional violation, they want a 2,000 dollar flat fee just to make it to where i don't have to take an hour drive to go pay the 400 dollar fine myself, the case is dismissed as soon as the fine is paid anyway, so no record or conviction to fight. They do that on purpose so people will just pay and not clog up their little system, unless they have the money to take it alot higher, which i for sure don't.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   
heh ive been stopped for driving while black. these things are nothing new, sad but it'll probably never change



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   

restoretherepublic.com...[ /headline]

Check out this vid!!




posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio
Check out this vid!!


Wish i could, but for some reason that site freezes my computer...



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


my first questions is this. Did you have anything on you? if you did then tough luck man. keep your car clear of it. if not then you got one hell of a case against them.

But if you did and the drug dog did get your car. that is called reasonable doubt and probable cause. so they did infact once again do their job. Just because their boarder patrol doesnt mean they dont look for drugs. Since they are law enforcement and pot and meth both are comming from mexico in alarming numbers they had to step it up. That and because only certain counties allow weed in california, so say someone goes to California to get some then comes back to az to sell it. What are they suppose to do. slap you on the wrist and say dont do it again or follow the rules that have been placed in front of them. but if you did not have anything since you did not disclose if you did i assume you did or you would not have gotten pulled over. ALso a car search here in MO is that they can sit in your front seat and not open anything and can only search were they can reach or see. They have to have a search warrant to check anything else.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Just to keep this on track.

The point of this thread is actually - - - a Constitutional issue.

Do these checks and dogs and search of an American citizen violate the Constitution.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   
8 U.S.C. Section 1357(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)provides that “Any authorized CBP employee(Border Patrol Agents) shall have power to arrest without warrant within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within a distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to have access to private lands, but not dwellings for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States.”“Within a reasonable distance” is defined in 8 C.F.R. 287.1(a)(2) as within 100 air miles of any external boundary of the United States or upon recommendation of the District Director, the Commissioner may declare a distance of more than 100 air miles to be reasonable.

Its losers like you who just want to do whatever they want with no respect for the law of the lands. If you don't like the laws move out!



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by cowboyhero
Its losers like you who just want to do whatever they want with no respect for the law of the lands. If you don't like the laws move out!


Gee, excuse the impertinence from a foreigner , but was it not a bad law that occasioned the War of Independence? I'm not advocating insurrection, merely pointing out that America has a history of not taking a 'sit down and shut up, if you don't like it then leave' brand of autocracy.

Seems to me you have jurisdictions that are simply ignoring possession laws...are they losers, too?



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ninecrimes
 

ma kops are no joke.. ive had the pleasure of growing up in this police state.
on topic yes op what thay did to you is very un-constitutional. its times likes we as american citizens of our"free" country need to get creative when defending our God given rights.us



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 





Today's reality is that we are living in a police state. We have allowed it to happen and continue to allow it to happen.


I live on the Atlantic coast a good 150 miles or more from the coast. I live out in the country on a little dirt road and I do not know how many times we have been stopped and had our licenses, registration etc checked. No dogs yet.

Here is the big problem. A large percentage of cash in the USA will test positive for drugs, unless it is brand new just out of the bank. www.snopes.com... aine.asp


Incredible as it sounds, civil asset forfeiture laws allow the government to seize property without charging anyone with a crime.

...Under civil asset forfeiture laws, the simple possessoin of cash, with no drugs or other contraband, can be considered evidence of criminal activity.


THAT applies ANYWHERE and people who are traveling especially long haul truckers have had their traveling money "confiscated" by Law Enforcement without cause. It then take a lawsuit to get it back!





new topics
top topics
 
45
<< 25  26  27   >>

log in

join