It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


arrested in Denver for refusing to show papers.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:16 PM
new video from adam and pete....

Adam and Pete’s perspective, from their cameras, of their arrests in Denver at the Broncos’ stadium. This is what happens when you refuse to show your masters “your papers” in this supposed “free” country:

On Sunday, Aug. 29th the crew, joined by many Denver-area lovers of liberty, did outreach at Invesco Field to tailgaters prior to a Broncos-Steelers game. It was going well - folks were really receptive - then some strangers with badges arrived...

[edit on 2-9-2010 by Funkydung]

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:23 PM
reply to post by Funkydung

No american citizen should be required to carry papers around them everywhere. Absolutely not. We should be able to walk down to the grocery store without fear of being harassed by police officers. Now if you are driving, it is a different story as you are using a privilage to get from place to place. Walking down the road, attending public areas and minding your own damn business should not have to be anybody else's business.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:15 PM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

Actually, travel is a RIGHT.

Driving is the legal term used to confuse people like you. I know that in Canada the definition of a "driver" or "driving" is a person operating in commerce on a public roadway. What this means is someone like say, a limo driver, a FedEx or UPS driver, school bus driver, etc...

There is a huge difference between a traveler and a driver, legally speaking of course...

Most people probably have a license (their act of begging for permission from a MASTER) that license is their CONTRACT with the government (MASTER) that you will follow all the rules your MASTER has set for you. This is why you are asked by the MASTERS policy enforcement for "license, registration and insurance", right off the hop when pulled over.

If you are but a simple traveler (like me) you can tell the officer you are no driver, have no license and no contract to enforce and off you go.

You get asked 1 of 2 questions first;

Do you know why I pulled you over? (This is to admit guilt, usually this question gets asked when an officer isn't quite sure if you were speeding but it "looked" like you were.)
May I see your license, registration and proof of insurance?

Now no cop will ever admit to the following and its not because they have been trained to hide the truth, it is because they are only doing what they were trained to do, or should I say not trained to do?

You see, here is what they won't admit too, when they ask to see your license/registration they ARE actually checking to see if you have a contract with the MASTER. The cop doesn't know that is why he is asking the question, he believes this is just the easiest way to go about his duties. Because that is what he has been TOLD, by the MASTER.


As a side: I was having a talk at the ball game with the RCMP (Can. Federal police) officer that serves our rural area (about 150km2) about a family member that got into an auto accident. (Quick details: Other persons fault, they had clipped something on the road and swerved into my family member's lane sideways, my family member hit their passenger side at about 60kph with brakes fully applied [all supported by multiple witness statements], family member charged with "driving with undo care and attention", fine = 560.00) What he told me is this... That using the word "accident" can still get you charged with something like this even if you were not the at fault party party because the government (MASTERS) definition of "accident" in the "Traffic Safety Act" includes the word INTENTIONAL. He went on to say a little while later you should always use the words UNINTENTIONAL COLLISION when referring to an "accident". Now if that is not a wake up call... I don't know what is...

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 04:21 PM
reply to post by Lightrule

Beautifully stated, and for Southern Guardian, "driving" IS a privilege if you have accepted FROM the States by way of a "drivers license".

If ever a judge understood the right of the public to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington.

Justice Tolman stated:

"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.

The words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically in the ears of Citizens throughout the country today as the use of the public roads has been monopolized by the very entity which has been empowered to stand guard over our freedoms, i.e., that of state government.

And from American Jurisprudence...

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion to go where and when one pleases only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.

And there you have it. The right to "own" property also encompasses the right to USE that property so long as you harm no one or damage property or violate others rights.

But getting back to the OP, demand that they show their constitutional authority to address you. Demand their oath of office that should be on file in writting. If it is not, they are impersonating an officer of the State, and you are the states power......FIRE (terminate employment) them on the spot.

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in