It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
State Troopers - The biggest jerk wads of all time.
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
I left the career because I got tired of the rampant politics, back biting, corruption, and constitutional infringements that were present in every department (over 30 different departments in the are I live).
Originally posted by seeashrink
reply to post by GenerationXisMarching
I don't know where Hamilton County is but it sounds like it's time to move. If I'm getting the whole story you have a bunch of crazies on the force. Go to the newspaper, tv station or something. Again, maybe time to find a less crazy place to live.
Originally posted by maxinsurrey
reply to post by seeashrink
IMHO you are in error, do you need a piece of paper to use a washing machine, a lawn mower? it (the car legislation) is just tax, make it special (freedom) tax it.. control it....avert thee satan (not you the poster- the control behind it)
Legal Definition of TORT
A tort is a type of civil wrong for which a person adversely affected or injured thereby can claim
damages. Damages are sums of money, awarded by a court to compensate a person for loss or
harm resulting from civil wrongs, including torts. A person seeking damages in the courts is the
plaintiff, and the person against whom the plaintiff makes a claim is the defendant. A person who
commits a tort is known as a tortfeasor. If the court determines that the defendant’s tort has
caused the plaintiff to suffer loss or harm, then the defendant is deemed legally responsible or
liable to compensate the plaintiff. More than one tortfeasor may be involved in contributing to a
tort. Joint tortfeasors are responsible for the same wrongful act which results in a tort.
From the 20 Facts all Americans should know...
15. It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect the
Corporation and arrest code breakers. Sapp v. Tallahasse, 348 So. 2nd 363,
Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F. Supp. 1262, Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of 376 S.E. 2nd. 247.
"With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or
protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police
authority." --Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co.184 US 540
"The claim & exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
-- Miller vs. U.S., F486, 489
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
"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property
thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has
under his right to enjoy life and liberty.... It includes the right in so doing to use the
ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under existing modes of travel
includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an
automobile thereon for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not
a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business
stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which the
city may permit or prohibit at will."
Key emphasis added. Indisputable wisdom recorded in Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 1929.
IN RE BARNES
United States District Court,
D Maine, September 15, 1972
Bankruptcy No. BK 72-129ND, No. EK 72-13OND
 Consumer goods - automobile for transportation to and from work.
The use of a vehicle by its owner for purposes of traveling to and from his employment is a
personal, as opposed to a business use, as that term is used in UCC § 9-109(l), and the
vehicle will be classified as consumer goods rather than equipment.
The phraseology of § 9-109(2) defining equipment as goods used or bought for use primarily in
business seems to contemplate a distinction between the use of collateral "in business" and the
mere use of the collateral for some commercial, economic or income-producing purpose by one
not engaged "in business."
The appropriate filing place turns upon the classification of the collateral as consumer goods or
equipment. The Uniform Commercial Code classifies goods as consumer goods
". . . if they are used or bought for use primarily for personal, family or household
purposes. (2). Fn (2) 11 MRSA § 9-109(1).
It is the court's opinion that the use of a vehicle by its owner for purposes of traveling to and
from his employment is a "personal," as opposed to a business use, as that term is used in
UCC § 9-109 (1). The phraseology of UCC § 9-109 (2), defining "equipment" as goods used or
bought for use primarily "in business" seems to contemplate a distinction between the use of
collateral "in business," and the mere use of the collateral for some commercial, economic or
income-producing purpose by one not engaged "in business."
"A vehicle not used for commercial activity is a "consumer goods", . . . it is NOT a
type of vehicle required to be registered and "use tax" paid of which the tab is
evidence of receipt of the tax." Bank of Boston vs Jones, 4 UCC Rep. Serv. 1021, 236
A2d 484, UCC PP 9-109.14.
"Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put
rather than according to the means by which they are propelled." Ex Parte Hoffert,
148 NW 20.
“The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held
that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that
automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.” Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163,
164 (2nd Cir. 1907).
“A soldier's personal automobile is part of his ``household goods[.]'' U.S. v Bomar,
C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235” 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West)
pocket part 94.
Originally posted by lastrebel
But when even the good cops say the best way to react is with complete subservience like medieval serf or something it makes you wonder just what there mindset is.
We are not a nation of serfs or slaves that need to bow and grovel under the eyes of our betters..........we are a nation of freemen with the right to do as we damn well please as long as we arent harming anyone else. We should be free to move about without being harressed just because we fit some profile or because some x schooll bully has had a bad day