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.


Cops dealing with people, understanding your a dude

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 11:09 AM
reply to post by greenovni

I understand what you're saying. However, I see it as a technicality. I don't think that the majority of people would agree that all (but, perhaps, some) of those statutes should be made void because of that technicality. Of course, I could be wrong.

And to the above poster who made the argument about flying a 747 without proper licensing--Only when the pilot crashes the plane and hurts himself or others is he trampling anyone else's rights. I believe the OP argument could just as easily apply to planes, trains, boats, hot air balloons--any form of transportation.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 11:27 AM
reply to post by thepresenttense

The constitution can never be a technicality.

There are hundreds of cases that say that a statue without an enacting clause is void as shown in my original post on page 2.

Constitution + hundreds of case law = Void law / not a technicality.

Here is my original post so you don't have to look for it...


One thing that you forgot to mention when arguing with the officer from NC, Seebrese, is that whether is jay walking, driving without a license & the whole of the "statues" is, that none of them are valid.

The reason that they are not valid is because the statues book are missing a critical piece of text on each and every single statue...

This missing piece on each statue is the ENACTING CLAUSE!

The North Carolina Constitution on Section 21 of article 2 clearly states the following:

The style of the acts shall be: "The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:".

This simple sentence gives the law their power, if missing said law is simply void.

Enacting clauses are called by every constitution of each and every state. This is how important they are!

Florida states the following in Article 3

SECTION 6. Laws.—Every law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title. No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only. Laws to revise or amend shall set out in full the revised or amended act, section, subsection or paragraph of a subsection. The enacting clause of EVERY law SHALL read: “Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:”.

As we can see, the enacting clause of EVERY law SHALL read, which clearly means that if missing, the law is void.

But let's not just take my word for it, lets see some case law

KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, Appt., v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD' COMPANY. (— Ky. —, 170 S. W. 171.) Statute — absence of enacting clause — effect. A statute without an enacting clause is void where the Constitution provides a form of law which includes such clause.

Under a constitutional provision requiring an enacting clause, the majority of the courts hold that an enacting clause is a necessity, the requirement of such a clause being regarded as mandatory. Burritt T. State Contract Comrs. 120 111. 322, 11 N. E. 180; May v. Rice. 91 Ind. 546: People v. Dettenthaler, 118 Mich. 595, 44 L.R.A. 164, 77 N. W. 450; Sjoberg v. Security Sav. & L. Asso. 73 Minn. 203, 72 Am. St. Rep. 616, 75 N. W. 1118; State ex rel. Chase v. Rogers, 10 Nev. 250, 21 Am. Rep. 738; State v. Patterson, 98 N. C. 660, 4 S. E. 350; State ex rel. Gouge v. Burrow, 119 Tenn. 376, 104 S. W. 520, 14 Ann. Cas. 809; Montgomery Amusement Co. v. Montgomery Traction Co. 139 Fed. 353, affirmed in 72 C. C. A. 6S2, 140 Fed. 988.

Chapter 68, Acts of 1914 (2J-ccnt fare Law), is void for want of an enacting clause.

Consequently, a statute which has no enacting clause is void. Walden v. Whigman, 120 Ga. 646, 48 S. E. 159; People v. Dettenthaler, 118 Mich. 505, 44 L.R.A. 164, 77 N. W. 450; Sjoberg v. Security Sav. & L. Asso. 73 Minn. 203, 72 Am. St. Rep. 610, 75 N. W. 1116; State v. Patterson, 98 N. C. 000, 4 S. E. 350.

Some decisions in which the enacting clause is absent go merely to the extent of holding that at least a substantial compliance is necessary, and there being none the statute is void. Vinsant v. Knox

Now, if any of us where to go to any of our State's law libraries to look at laws, we would find something that does not sit right with us - This would be that there are 2 sets of books...

The first set would be the "Laws of such and such state" and the 2nd set would be "Such and Such State STATUES" - When you sit down and grab these books, they are completely different and one of them is missing the enacting clauses on each and every single "law"!

Guess which one it is?

Now, lets say that Officer Seebreze of North Carolina did not know until today that the laws that he has been enforcing since day one are all void, would that not make him a criminal by going out tomorrow to falsely arrest and enforce void laws?

See, when Officer Seebreze, or any other officer for that matter, charges anyone with a crime, they write on their report, summons or ticket that the defendant broke such and such Statue.

The defendant then goes to a "court of law" and makes mistake # 1 which is pleading, but not all is lost.

The defendant should now throw in his motion to dismiss and give a copy to the prosecutor and show them that the law is void since it is missing the Constitutional mandated, enacting clause.

Once Officer Seebreze's laughing judge denies said motion, the defendant now has a wide open door to appeal as well as a personal lawsuit against the laughing judge & as well as officer Seebreze!
End Original Post
edit on 30-1-2011 by greenovni because: More information

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 11:32 AM
reply to post by mrwiffler

what he is saying is you have a right to travel freely, anywhere in the country, and the mode in which you do should not matter.

whether it's a bicycle, horse, your feet or a motorized vehicle, the police don't have a right to impede your travels without just cause to do so.

having a state issued plastic card with your name on it doesn't make you or measure how good you are operating a motor vehicle. i see driver licenses as a form of control.

many people depend on their vehicles to work or go to work, i.e. make money, put food on the table and shelter. if the government can control this, then it is basically controlling your very survival.

to make a living is a right, and if a motor vehicle is the means of which you make that living, then driving no longer a privilege but a right. therefore a drivers license is a right.

now, if the state revokes your license, you lose your job, and their attitude is get another job that doesn't require the use of a car, the state is now dictating your occupation and denying your legal rights to choose an occupation.

well people counter, take the bus. but what if you are a dry waller, your next contract is in a town 30 miles away. is it reasonable to ask that person to wake up at 4:00am in the morning, load 25 sheets of plasterboard and tools on public transportation, ride the bus for an 1hr to a greyhound terminal, load all that material and tools, and ride another hour to the town the jobsite is on, then hand carry all the material and tools to a jobsite that can be 1 block or 1 mile away from the greyhound stop. by the time he's done it'll be 4:00 pm.

you'd have to find another line of work.

edit on 30-1-2011 by randomname because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 11:36 AM
Yes we do have unenumerated rights but the courts make us jump through hoops and prove these rights to them. If our circumstances don't satisfy their process then we're screwed.

It's precisely this process, imo, that keeps us from enjoying a life full of liberty and a limited government.

Case in point: Raich vs. Gonzales (03-15481)

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 11:38 AM
As always Jean Paul it’s a very informative, intelligent and well constructed Opening Piece that was truly a pleasure to read.

I personally believe where most people miss the boat is their predisposition to believe it’s better to just submit to the extortion tactics of the state and it’s armed henchmen. That they will be better off in the long run and it’s not worth taking the personal risk in upholding your own rights.

This though sadly is how a small simple government like the Federal Government and States started out as, then end up growing into a police state where people are by and large frightened to challenge, question, disobey or otherwise contest the will of the state.

While a lot of people talk passionately and sincerely about concepts of the collective and greater good, the reality is that in the long run failure to challenge the state in regards to it’s every whim and extortion scheme is detrimental to the collective good.

I live in a relatively affluent and upscale incorporated beach community that is just one square mile. The town has over thirty uniformed officers, 25 squad cars, 6 Sport Utility Vehicles, 2 pickup trucks, 2 canine units, 3 unmarked cars, 6 motorcycles, 4 All Terrain Beach Vehicles, 6 Bicycles and 2 of those 2 wheeled electric run about contraptions that you stand straight up on to cruise sidewalks.

Between traffic violations (rigidly enforced) and parking citations (rigidly enforced) the town grosses nearly 5 million dollars a year in code violations. There is virtually no other crime except for a very rare burglary or domestic violence call.

So in essence this force exists to do little but extort money.

As you mention they have a state of the art facility, and despite the money they take in, the property taxes are some of the highest in town.

It is nothing but an aggressive business that often targets poor people for equipment violations, and driving 1 mile an hour over the 5 mile an hour over mandatory window for speedometer discrepancies the state allows will trigger a speeding ticked. In other words if you are driving six miles over the speed limit you have an excellent probability of getting ticketed by one of three roving speed traps that operate 24/7.

Oh did I mention the newly installed Traffic Cameras at every street light in the town?

Yet the police themselves often speed far in excess of the limit when not responding to any emergency, routinely roll and run stop signs on the side streets with little to no care, and drive against traffic on one way streets to keep from having to go all the way around a block to perch for their next victim.

Anyone who imagines that the extent they take this extortion business too is in the interest of the public’s safety is simply delusional.

It sucks millions of dollars out of the local economy that otherwise might be spent at local merchants and indeed gives many non-residents pause when it comes to visiting or driving through the community because of its reputation for exceedingly rigid code enforcement.

I got so sick of it, I sold my car close to two years ago to buy a bicycle, and now often harass them every time I spot them violating a code. I lodge complaints with the department when I witness serious excesses and have seen a couple of the more aggressive and dangerous officers that they have hired fired as a result.

Law enforcement/code enforcement and a growing private prison industry in this country represents a real danger to the people and no, I don’t personally believe it’s in anyone’s benefit to roll over and play dead for them, just because it makes them happier, and makes it easier for them to extort money from the people more efficiently.

For those people who really imagine we need all this to keep the roads safe I know better. When ever a hurricane passes through knocking out street lights for days at a time, and drivers have to get by on common sense and courtesy the number of accidents goes way down.

We have a growing police state in this country, far too many of them soldiers fresh from urban combat zones where civilians are considered a threat and an enemy, and far too many of them trained by private corporations in specialty classes as part of the Homeland Security Gravy Train, war to terrorize the citizens where the concept of all citizens being a potential threat is drilled into them again and again.

While I have no doubt many mean well, once indoctrinated into the ‘police’ culture, isolated from main stream society by their uniforms and guns, and constantly bombarded with ever sophisticated forms of brainwashing and group think through training seminars designed to do just that, few of them do well.

Far too many are just thugs with guns and a badge with mannerisms and tactics no different than a common criminal.

They get worse every year, and on average every year 380 more laws with criminal penalty are created to go along with the 250,000 that already exist, with over 600,000 that can trigger a fine.
We live in a police state, it’s stupid to deny it, and it’s even more stupid to make their job easier by rolling over for them in their every excess.

Feeding the beast gets you nothing but a very big beast with a very large stomach and appetite to go along with it.

Speaking of retaining your own rights, while many will take exception referring to them as armed henchmen of the state puts you in a more powerful position to retain your rights if you verbally and contractually fail and refuse to see them as ‘officers of the law’.

The bulk of them really are armed henchmen for the corporate government, and care nothing about the citizens, but just doing the ‘job’.

Hurt your feelings Mr. Henchmen, well the billions of dollars you help suck out of the economy annually to enrich a corrupt corporate government hurts us a lot more.

edit on 30/1/11 by ProtoplasmicTraveler because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 11:52 AM
reply to post by seeashrink

Ummmmm..............You, Sir, are not a realist........and you are most oath keeper.
Rather, you are a willful, representative of an unlawful corporate entity. You ignore the constitution and uphold the unlawful statutes of your corporate charter............The only oaths you keep are corporate, not constitutional.
Your fascile claim that you would shut down this thread........exposes you for what you are.

Realism, would take heed of the.........pulse..........of the people and inform the utter seriousness, of their disposition......Reason, would determine the regard of the people is nearly at it's limit, and the people stand on the far side of this moment.

Realism, would heed the warning of revolution that is spreading across the world........When the same occurs here.........I will keep the overbearing, overintrusive, corporate charter.


posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:10 PM

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
I want to give this a bump.. I would like to see a cop answer some of this that has been put on here and see what they have to say.. I know we have a few on ATS..

Good luck finding a cop that has the mental ability to rationally challenge that!

And good work, OP! I'm not directly concerned by it, but it's a good thing to clear things out with people here, whom many are deluded with contextual notions of law that negate its very fundamentals... that the Law is NOTHING without the recognition of our basic rights to live and enjoy life.
edit on 30/1/11 by Echtelion because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:12 PM
I love how it always falls into a bunch of extortionists doing the job for "the man". I don't know much about American laws and such, but remember:

People demand protection. People want to be protected, and want their "constitution" and Laws to be upheld. Firstly, don't break the laws if you know them.. If you think they are stupid, find out exactly WHY or HOW they came into existence. You can still have them changed, amended...that is all still possible in your FREE country.

Also, crime prevention requires enforcers and protectors to be paid, but ALSO be protected from the ever evolving and violent criminals. So they do require state of the art tools, buildings, etc. Where SHOULD this money come from?

Not once did I ever feel like I was "getting the man" his money while writing a speeding ticket. I was hoping that digging into the pockets of a kid driving a souped up honda at 120 through a residential area would teach him that maybe he should slow down. For safety sake. Not just his, but yours too.

Most of the laws and rules exist based on safety. "Cops" aren't trained in politics. They are trained to protect the safety of the people who pay the taxes that pay them to protect you. The laws have also come from the peoples' demands to be protected.

Maybe it wasn't YOU who wanted these laws, but it was the people of history, who had it a lot worse than you.

If there is a better way, then fantastic. Propose it. Start lobbying your ideas. You still have the right to effect change, if you educate yourself in the ways, rather than "educating" your self to highlight the problems.

Police officers are well aware of the problems as well.

When we arrest the guy that killed your kid because he was driving too fast in the residential area, knowing he was violating the posted speed limit, it pisses us off to see him walk less than a year later because of some loophole created in the early 1900's. So then...Public outcry...makes tighter laws, people feel oppressed again...sad circle. Pretty soon, we will just choke ourselves out.

The problem can swing both ways.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:22 PM
iAn interesting test will be when an armed citizen (properly licensed for CCW) witnesses an act of police brutality (from the beginning so he cant misjudge where the policeman was justified in using great force) and then sides with the citizen being abused or beaten for no reason while being detained and then decides to take action to protect the citizen from the rogue cop and make a "citizen's arrest." Since the policeman is armed the "arresting citizen" would have to draw his weapon to effect the arrest of the erranant officer. And then he couldnt let the "arrested citizen" free in the event that he or she did break the law initially. So what would happen to the arresting citizen?
Would he be arrested for "assaulting an officer" (for brandishing a weapon)? How about "obstruction of justice?" Or some lesser offense involving the use of a firearm or aiding an abetting a potential criminal? I am afraid so. And with out clear and concise, collaborating evidence to support the action (preferably video evidence of the whole event from the beginning) then he good samaratin would likely spend a long time in jail and most likely abused himself by the backup officers that respond (possibly even shot and killed on the spot for holding a weapon on the "arrested" cop). It would certainly make an interesting case.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:33 PM
Ummm............I have starred, flagged.........and.........added this thread to "my favorites", ie., (bookmarked)

I am not a student of "law", yet these truths.......are.........selfevident, a not so-common sense, that in a perfect world would never have needed to be uttered. However, much better men than those in evidence in the political realm today, sought to insure that there was always........recourse.
Those that proceeded, were not greater, in a humanistic standpoint, however they did........stand....They affirmed, that enough was toomuch........
I cannot fathom how events will unfold, where the lines will be drawn.....or blurred.....yet there is in me a miniscule remnant of the blood that flowed through the hearts of those good men.....should the need arise, comes, I also will.............stand...This is my affirmation, that I place my signiture alongside those good men and re-pen in ink and if need blood the sacred election of my rights and my freedom, government or corporation.....but by whatsoever placed me here, that I occupy this time...that I am given this opportunity, this forum............As are we all...


posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:44 PM
Very good piece of work,Star and Flagged!

I will be bringing up the Op's argument,next time I get pulled over,or I get a ticket driving.

Recently I was pulled over,and was asked if I was ever arrested. I asked the Police Officer if he was ever arrested,as my response.You could see the anger in his eyes for defying him! His reason for stopping me was he believed I wasn't wearing a seat-belt. He could clearly see I had one on,after the fact. There was NO reason to pull me over. Still,I received a "written warning" for driving without one,because HE believed I put it on,AFTER pulling me over.Driving a nice vehicle,in a crime ridden area,doesn't give the Police a reason to pull you over.that is profiling,in MHO.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Hefficide

And the "why" of this is glaringly obvious and simple...

Most motor vehicle laws, including licensing, registration, as well as most traffic violations, exist as state or local revenue creation devices. The fees and fines involved literally provide the honey pot that our "protectors" feed from.


And there you have it folks, plain and simple. It's mainly about the money.

Yes we have rights, but they are subject to interpretation.

So, if you have a lot of time, money and attorney power backing you, then you can challenge the law at every confrontation that should arise.

Other wise just use common courtesy and common sense, because it goes a long way, on every level.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:18 PM
FIRST : That analisys was one of the best, outstanding job OP, It's clear you know well the topic. S&F. If one day I need legal advice, I'll pm you.

SECOND : Right now, when we see a policeman, we don't know what to feel...protected or ......, At the end, he is a guy with a gun and with power to make your life harder.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:32 PM

Originally posted by YouSir
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Ummmm........I have read through the entirity of this thread, whenever, I read threads like this, one question stands out glaringly and I have not asked it yet, nor have I seen an adequate representation of an answer anywhere.......

How can an individual, lawfully, be considered to have entered into a binding contract with a federal or state corporate entity, when the individual in question was 1... too young to have lawfully represented or been represented or informed of such contract, ie., social security, as per an social security number. 2... never been informed of or approached by a federal, state, or local corporate entity, that a contract was even implied, when various federal, state, or local, "statuates" were entered in upon by said individual. ie., licensing, taxation, registration, etc...?

Wouldn't the noninformative, unimplied, nature of any contract, unknowingly, entered into, by purposeful, nondisclosure of said contractual nature, be considered nefarious and coercive, therefore unlawful...?

Is this a lawful argument, in regaining your "strawman"...?

edit on 30-1-2011 by YouSir because: edit to add final line

edit on 30-1-2011 by YouSir because: edit to add salutation

edit on 30-1-2011 by YouSir because: edit to readd salutation

SInce your post was buried at the bottom of page 2 and since no one has responded, I will. The simple answer to your question is, it doesn't matter, your parents did it for you by registering you for a social security number. You affirmed said contract when you signed for your driver's license and registered with selective service if you are a male. You further affirmed said contract by filing taxs, completing I-9 forms and filling out a W-4. Many sovereign "Freemen" have gained control of their strawman for the very fact that you outlined above... they argued in court that the "Contract" is void due to the fact that they lacked full-disclosure and could not then have offered informed consent. Hope that helps...

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:32 PM

Originally posted by 23refugee

Originally posted by macman
Ok, so what is the point?
The point of the threads from the cops is kind of a "please understand" thread.

Cops don't know you from Adam. They are paid to uphold the law and enforce the same.
But, they are paid to win and go home at the end of the day.
If you want to fight a cop, do it so after the traffic stop, ticket or arrest. Work your way through the chain of command, then to Internal Affairs onto the Chief of Police. Nothing hurts a cop more then an IA investigation.

If you want to physically fight a cop, doom on you.

Aside from your assurance, how is one to know that "Nothing hurts a cop more then an IA investigation"?
If all cops "are paid to win and go home at the end of the day", it would seem that working your way up the chain of command is little more than an exercise in futility designed to deter the complaintant.

You have never been a cop.
Trust me. Nothing ticks a cop off more then being called into IA, going through an interview with another cop who thinks that they walk on water, asked to turn in all IDs and firearms, sent home, told to wait by the phone, wait for 3 weeks only to be cleared on BS complaints.

You have 2 basic types of cops, street cops and desk jockeys. One works, the other investigates crimes or other cops.
Complaints hit the street cop hard.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:36 PM
reply to post by randomname

As always, the devil is in the details. You are free to "Travel" but not "Drive". "Driving" is an act of commerce and is regulated. When "Driving" without a license, you must be certain to explain to the officer that you are NOT "Driving", you are merely executing your Constitutional right to travel freely. Part of the problem is that words don't mean what YOU think they mean. This is part of the entrapment proceedure that keeps you in perpetual contract.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:38 PM
reply to post by FortAnthem

In the old days, riding your beast of burden or oxen-drawn carriage around your property or into town out on the frontier was one thing. Nowadays, establishing a modern grid of asphalt-paved roads that require maintenance and a set of agreed-upon rules to prevent total chaos require both funding and regulation.

As such, we do all have freedom "to bare cars" as the previous poster stated it. However, what we do with those cars in the isolation of our property is one thing, driving them around town is another.

If we would like to do away with all licensing fees and taxes associated with driving, one would expect a higher frequency of car accidents and potholes.

Now, the whole thing that is always ignored in issues like this is the right of city dwellers to have access to transportation. I mean, since we're going to go through the whole messy process involved in a landed society, we might as well account for being ferried around town in a safer, cheaper and cleaner way.

For whatever reason (perhaps the created need of automobiles or gasoline, I wonder...), we do not have effective public transportation in this nation. If we did, I can guarantee that many of our issues revolving around automobile-centered society would evaporate (almost) over night. I say almost because things have been going on for a long time in a totally mismanaged way that it will take some cleaning up to start from scratch at this point.

Going back to the cops, I think we can blame a lot of our social issues on our car culture. Second, a large portion of police involvement in our society is related to driving our cars (speeding, accidents, chases).

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:41 PM
The laws/statutes for driving were merely passed/implemented so the states could generate revenue from the people. This is in the form of DL, registration and so on.
It is always about the money. But, they (Govt) went into it bullying the notion of safety and so on.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:49 PM
Hello JPZ.
A pleasure to read your well thought out post, as usual. Unfortunately my reply is not as well thought out, more on the fly. Something struck me with this portion of your post..

Driving recklessly, for example, is a threat to individuals, both driving in traffic and walking as pedestrians. It matters not whether a person has a license to drive or not, if they are endangering other people, they are not acting by right, but acting criminally, and as a police officer it is your sworn duty to deal with such people.

Somehow I think this applies to the argument.

Something always puzzled me about Texas law regarding operating farm equipment (ie..anything from a riding lawnmower to heavy farm equip. to certain golf carts) on public roads and highways.

You need not register said equipment or be licensed to operate if operating within 150 miles of your home (farm). Literally a five year old can go up to 150 miles away on a lawnmower on regular roads and streets but must have proper signage and lighting to operate on highways. As long as you are not impaired by drugs or alcohol or not committing an improper or illegal act and obey all road safety regulations, you can put the petal to the metal so to speak.

Operator Responsibilities If an operator is impaired by the use of drugs, alcohol, prescription drugs or fatigue, he places his life and the lives of others in danger. While operators are exempt from the licensing portion of the law, they are not released from liability resulting from improper or illegal acts.
Farm Tractor Road Safety.pdf

A list of equipment not required to be registered from the Texas Drivers Handbook.

2. The following vehicles are not required to be registered or inspected or to display a license plate when operated temporarily upon the highways:
a. Farm tractors.
b. Farm trailers, farm semi-trailers, and certain fertilizer and cottonseed trailers weighing not more than 4,000 pounds gross.
c. Implements of husbandry.
d. Power sweepers.
e. Certain golf carts.

Exemptions from a CDL

Exemptions: Persons operating the following vehicles are exempt from a Commercial Driver License (CDL): 1. A vehicle that is: a. controlled and operated by a farmer;
b. used to transport agricultural products, farm machinery, or farm supplies to or from a farm;
c. not used in the operations of a common or contract motor carrier; and
d. used within 150 miles of the person’s farm.

This is interesting also.

7. Farm registered vehicles, in addition to use for farm and ranch purposes, may be used as a means of passenger transportation for members of the family to attend church or school, to visit doctors for medical treatment or supplies, or for other necessities of the home or family - but not for gainful employment.

We also have a statewide system of more than 50,000 miles of interconnecting roads and highways set up for transport of goods called Farm to Market and Ranch to Market roads.

However, in Texas, the terms "Farm to Market Road" or "Ranch to Market Road" indicate a road that is part of the state's system of secondary and connecting routes, built and maintained by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). This system was established in 1949 as a project to provide access to rural areas. The system consists primarily of paved, two-lane roads. Roads occurring west of U.S. Highway 281[1] (or Interstate 35 in some locations) are designated Ranch to Market Roads, while those occurring east of US 281 are generally designated Farm to Market Roads, though there are exceptions to this naming system.


Anyway. I am not sure how, but I think this applies to self-evident and universal inalienable rights. FOOD!

As Davy Crockett once said..."You may all go to hell and i will go to Texas".
edit on 30-1-2011 by timewalker because: forgot something.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:52 PM
The only thing I can add to this thread is my personal experience.

I was driving home around 9pm at night, after seeing a movie. When I was almost home I saw the lights flashing in my rear view mirror, so I pulled over

As the cop comes up to my window I ask What did I do wrong?

He replies - Nothing, I can pull you over if I feel like it (with a smirk on his face)

I was pissed, but didn't want to get in a fight over it, he asked for the usual...I gave it to him and then he says I recommend you go home.

WTF - I don't care who you are, what is up with that.....and it isn't the first time I have run across that type of attitude with police (and I have no police record, nor do I go out of my way to find trouble)

Seems to me the new breed of officer likes this DO WHAT I SAY entitlement.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in