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.

 

Dealing with cops, understanding your rights,.... by a cop.

page: 37
172
<< 34  35  36   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   
First excellent op, it's good to hear from the real people behind the badges on this board. So many threads that show the bad side of law enforcement have cast many officers in a bad light here.

I've always found that politeness is the key. Turn the vehicle off, wait till the officer approaches to roll the window down. Hands always in visible sight. Do not start rifling for papers before the officer can get a good visual.

Now the most important thing, in a traffic stop; you never argue on the spot. The officer is not a judge.

I was stopped once by what we can call a jerk, but a jerk with a badge. I politely yes sir'd him to death...he wrote me three tickets. I did not argue them there but I showed up in court. They made me wait till everyone who agreed to plead guilty and pay a fine had gone first to give the officer a chance to get to the courtroom. (As a side note I was the only one who pled not guilty.)

He pointed out to the judge my suspicious behavior,I'm a spaz I admit it, but while I may appear to not be paying full attention I have a rather gifted memory. They brought in a prosecutor and he helped by questioning the officer and the judge asked some questions. When it was my turn to speak I corrected his account of the ordeal, and then challenged them to pull the records on his unit. I knew the car number he was driving his badge number the weather...the just about everything on every question the judge asked me and proved that the officer had a faulty recollection. I brought his testimony into light and showed where he'd made his error and proved my innocence. After I spoke the officer admitted he might have been mistaken, and I walked out. I didn't pay a cent but I did have to invest my time.

Now the officer believed he was in the right when he stopped me. I knew I was innocent, I knew I could prove it, and I did what few do, I took the time to prove it.

Lessons from this:
Don't bother arguing it till court
Argue it in court
Be respectful
Take notes, even if just mentally




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   
I'm just real curious whether or not someone going to try to take over!
I trust the cops my brother is a cop.I know he would defend the republic if something like that is attempted.
I tell everyone on this board, to kill fellow citizens would rip all involved down to your souls.
Don't shoot, think.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by seeashrink
 


You have the right to remain silent whether or not they read you your Miranda rights. Know when to envoke and assert your rights. In a traffic stop you are required to hand over your drivers license, insurance, and registration. Don't answer any more questions. The cop will probably ask you to get out of the car. Do as he says calmly and cool. Be as professional as the cop. By rule of the SCOTUS, cops can lie and coerce to their hearts desire, you on the other hand can not. The cop will try to use fear to his advantage. Don't be afraid. Ask if you are being detained or if you are free to go. If the cop puts you in cuffs, do not fear cuffs. It's another form of fear and coercion.

Ask again if you are free to go. This forces the cop to determine whether he can legally detain you beyond the lawful reasonable amount of time. Do not consent to search and seizure. Don't fall for the statement "well if you have nothing to hide...blah blah blah". It is your legal right to not consent to a search. Once again in regards to cuffs, dont confuse being cuffed with being arrested. Dont resist. If all goes well, the officer will go sit in his car to do paperwork. He will then return, take the cuffs off, say his thing and be on your way. It is not illegal to know and assert your rights. It won't make you friends in the cop community, but cops are not your friends. Even a during a friendly conversation, a cop is data mining and profiling. If you are a law abiding citizen, there is no need for interaction with the cops. It will never benefit you.

Just watch shows like COPS and especially 48 hours. These shows show people who are ignorant of their rights and how to deal with a law enforcement interaction. Now don't get me wrong, I love watching a criminal get taken down and charged for their crimes. I'm all for safer streets. The problem is widespread though in our country. People do not really understand their rights and how to properly assert them. Law enforcement knows this and that's why we have so many people getting rolled over while they scream "I know my rights, I know my rights!".



posted on Jan, 17 2018 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: daddio

Originally posted by xXxtremelySecure

Originally posted by wrkn4livn
What the officer says is true. You have the right to travel (walk) anywhere you want within the confines of the US (well, outside restricted areas like the Whitehouse compound, private property etc.). Driving is a privilege reserved only for responsible persons.


This is what I have thought everytime I wrote one a ticket, for driver w/o license, expired tags, etc.


reply to post by seeashrink
 


I have to agree with you here most of the "sovereigns" we have had problems with ended up being 96.

Secure



Are you an American? I would assume so. But you "believe" in violating the rights of the natural people?



It is undisputed that the use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a
mere PRIVILEGE, but a "COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of which the public and
individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. (Emphasis added) See: Chicago Motor Coach v.
Chicago, supra; Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; Boone v. Clark, 214 S.W. 607; American
Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways 163

Refute and rebutt that WITH some evidence?

Again, PROVE UP YOUR CLAIM.




If any person (cop/lawyer/judge) claims that any other definition of the term “motor vehicle,” that varies from the
definition below that would include any carriage or contrivance NOT used for commercial purposes, exists at law, or in any Federal and/or State statute, let him come forth by sworn
affidavit, as such a claim would nullify, under the Void for Vagueness Doctrine, all statutes or
rules that include the contradictory term.

Title18, UNITED STATES CODE Sec. 31
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 2 - AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLES
Sec. 31. Definitions
When used in this chapter the term –

(6) “Motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or
drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the
transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo;

(10) “Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any
fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection
with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit[.]”


Cops DO NOT have the right nor the authority to stop anyone for having no license or plates on their PRIVATE PROPERTY automobile. You obviously have never read American Jurisprudence nor any other "legal" document. What you claim to enforce are merely statutes, ordinances and regulations, they ARE NOT LAWS!!!

If there is no victim and no damaged property, there is NO CRIME. Prove there has been a crime committed!!!




"... [T]he exemptions provided for in section 1 of the Motor Vehicle Transportation
License Act of 1925 (Stats. 1925, p. 833) in favor of those who solely transport their
own property or employees, or both, and of those who transport no persons or
property for hire or compensation, by motor vehicle, have been determined in the
Bacon Service Corporation case to be lawful exemptions. --In re Schmolke (1926) 199
Cal. 42, 46.

"It is obvious that those who operate motor vehicles for the transportation of persons or
property for hire enjoy a different and more extensive use of the public highways. * *
* Such extraordinary use constitutes a natural distinction and a full justification for their
separate classification and for relieving from the burden of the license tax those who
merely employ the public highways for the transportation of their own property or
employees."
--Bacon Service Corporation v. Huss, 129 Cal. 21, 248 P. 235, 238." (State v. Karel, 180
So. 3 at 8.)


Come on already, most of the people know that a traffic stop is all about commerce and NOT right and wrong, THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!! It's all about MONEY and CONTROL!!!! It IS NOT about protecting the public. Read Article 1 Section 1 of ANY State Bill of Rights...


MINNESOTA STATE CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE I
BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 1. OBJECT OF GOVERNMENT. Government is instituted for the security, benefit and protection of the people, in whom all political power is inherent, together with the right to alter, modify or reform government whenever required by the public good.


How dumb do you have to be NOT to be able to see that? Come on people.


Daddio, You and seeashrink are both correct on this issue because there are two types of citizenship in america. Most people in america believe, assume, and presume that there is only one form of citizenship in america and this citizenship is the statutory u.s citizenship. The 2nd type of citizenship and which many people like some freeman and all sovereign citizens try to be unlawfully ( and so they get in trouble) is constitutional citizens and american national/state national/state citizen are in this category.

Seeashrink is correct because most people is the U.S including himself are U.S citizens and thus are a resident of the county, town,city or village they live in. U.S citizens are bound by and have to comply with all statues, regulations, codes (including traffic codes) and ordinances while constitutional citizens are not because U.S citizens have contracts with the national government to do so, and these contracts are the socialist security number, drivers licence, government forms (that they sign under penalty of purgery) etc etc! Parents think that it is mandatory to get a s.s number for thier children, when in fact, it is not, so the whole system is based on lies and fraud and thus are null and void!

You are correct on this issue because what you talk about is for constitutional citizens, not statutory citizens.

Seeashrink is a commercial police officer/policey enforcer of the police department that gives him a salary, paycheck, benefits and a pension so of course he is going to swear up and down and assume and presume that you are a us citizen and so you are required to have a drivers license and everything else that comes with being a 2nd class statutory us citizen.

CONSTITUTIONAL citizenship is Referenced in the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1
U.S. Constitution:
Fourteenth Amendment
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to
THE [POLITICAL AND NOT LEGISLATIVE] jurisdiction thereof, are
[CONSTITUTIONAL] citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they
reside.

STATUTORY citizenship is Defined in 8 U.S.C. §1401.
– Called a “national and citizen of the United States at birth” in Title 8 of
the U.S. Code.
– ALSO called an “American Citizen” or “citizen of the United States by
the federal courts.
– THIS is the ONLY type of “citizen” mentioned in the Internal Revenue Code
26 C.F.R. §1.1-1 Income tax on individuals
(c ) Who is a citizen.
Every person born or naturalized in the [federal] United States and subject to ITS [NATIONAL GOVERNMENT’S LEGISLATIVE] jurisdiction is a [STATUTORY] citizen.
For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of
title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. §1401-1459).

Legal context is extremely important and 99.9 percent of the american population can not discern legal context!



posted on Jan, 17 2018 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: daddio

Originally posted by xXxtremelySecure

Originally posted by wrkn4livn
What the officer says is true. You have the right to travel (walk) anywhere you want within the confines of the US (well, outside restricted areas like the Whitehouse compound, private property etc.). Driving is a privilege reserved only for responsible persons.


This is what I have thought everytime I wrote one a ticket, for driver w/o license, expired tags, etc.


reply to post by seeashrink
 


I have to agree with you here most of the "sovereigns" we have had problems with ended up being 96.

Secure



Are you an American? I would assume so. But you "believe" in violating the rights of the natural people?



It is undisputed that the use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a
mere PRIVILEGE, but a "COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of which the public and
individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. (Emphasis added) See: Chicago Motor Coach v.
Chicago, supra; Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; Boone v. Clark, 214 S.W. 607; American
Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways 163

Refute and rebutt that WITH some evidence?

Again, PROVE UP YOUR CLAIM.




If any person (cop/lawyer/judge) claims that any other definition of the term “motor vehicle,” that varies from the
definition below that would include any carriage or contrivance NOT used for commercial purposes, exists at law, or in any Federal and/or State statute, let him come forth by sworn
affidavit, as such a claim would nullify, under the Void for Vagueness Doctrine, all statutes or
rules that include the contradictory term.

Title18, UNITED STATES CODE Sec. 31
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 2 - AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLES
Sec. 31. Definitions
When used in this chapter the term –

(6) “Motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or
drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the
transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo;

(10) “Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any
fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection
with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit[.]”


Cops DO NOT have the right nor the authority to stop anyone for having no license or plates on their PRIVATE PROPERTY automobile. You obviously have never read American Jurisprudence nor any other "legal" document. What you claim to enforce are merely statutes, ordinances and regulations, they ARE NOT LAWS!!!

If there is no victim and no damaged property, there is NO CRIME. Prove there has been a crime committed!!!




"... [T]he exemptions provided for in section 1 of the Motor Vehicle Transportation
License Act of 1925 (Stats. 1925, p. 833) in favor of those who solely transport their
own property or employees, or both, and of those who transport no persons or
property for hire or compensation, by motor vehicle, have been determined in the
Bacon Service Corporation case to be lawful exemptions. --In re Schmolke (1926) 199
Cal. 42, 46.

"It is obvious that those who operate motor vehicles for the transportation of persons or
property for hire enjoy a different and more extensive use of the public highways. * *
* Such extraordinary use constitutes a natural distinction and a full justification for their
separate classification and for relieving from the burden of the license tax those who
merely employ the public highways for the transportation of their own property or
employees."
--Bacon Service Corporation v. Huss, 129 Cal. 21, 248 P. 235, 238." (State v. Karel, 180
So. 3 at 8.)


Come on already, most of the people know that a traffic stop is all about commerce and NOT right and wrong, THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!! It's all about MONEY and CONTROL!!!! It IS NOT about protecting the public. Read Article 1 Section 1 of ANY State Bill of Rights...


MINNESOTA STATE CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE I
BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 1. OBJECT OF GOVERNMENT. Government is instituted for the security, benefit and protection of the people, in whom all political power is inherent, together with the right to alter, modify or reform government whenever required by the public good.


How dumb do you have to be NOT to be able to see that? Come on people.

Legal context is extremely important and 99.9 percent of the american population can not discern legal context! Legal context is everything!
There are TWO main LEGAL contexts
• CONSTITUTIONAL:
– Relates to the states of the Union and EXCLUDES federal territory and legislative jurisdiction of Congress over SOVEREIGN states of the Union
– Defines “United States” as states of the Union
• STATUTORY:
– Relates to federal territory and EXCLUDES states of
the Union.
– Defines “United States” as federal territory not within any state of the Union
• A CONSTITUTIONAL “citizen of the United States” is a STATUTORY “non-resident”. They are NOT the same CONTEXTS!

 A citizen of any type can not use ignorance of the law ( wether it be commercial law, common law or any other type of law) as an excuse in a court of law and so can't a police officer/policey enforcement  officer!

Seeashrink, go ahead and arrest and threaten and intimidate  a constitutional citizen who knows what he or she is doing whom you have zero jurisdiction over and tow his or her private property, i double dare you! I promise you, you will be held personally responsible for it and he or she will be able sue you for everything you have and win and he or she will take your bond (if you have one), and job/career along with it! This is no joke!




top topics
 
172
<< 34  35  36   >>

log in

join