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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:45 PM
reply to post by rebeldog

Very true.
I have a friend who used to work for the met police in london.....he was one of the most dodgy guys i have ever met :p
He would confiscate marijuana from people....let them off with a verbal warning and give it to his brother who would then go on and sell it. His brothers a weed dealer.

Theres good cops and bad cops....but all cops i think are crooked in their own ways. They get that power and just cant wait to abuse it

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:56 PM
reply to post by seeashrink

You know I did learn that you can be dicks to cops in school, public safety 101 (R.I.P. Mr. Whittington my teacher died by getting shot by thugs or something cuz he was an ex cop and had the hero mentality), ironic an ex cop taught me that I can be a dick to a cop and he can't do anything about it. And what reasoning powers do I need to tell the facts of what actually happened and the things I've seen? Why don't you enlighten us with the truth then? Everything I said was true and you know it so instead of attacking my facts you attack my level of maturity? nonono that's not going to work and you are the one making a logical fallacy by attacking me on a personal level instead of the argument. Anyways don't even bother replying unless you got some kind of contrary proof. Everyone knows cops like free # from donut shops, and that they don't want to die for some stranger they don't even know, I understand but at the same time I don't respect because they try to portray quite the opposite image of themselves.
edit on 30-1-2011 by intj123 because: correction

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:14 PM
reply to post by YouSir

Ihope this can answer your question

when someone is born they do not have first hand knowledge of who they are, what they are or where they are, nor do they have first hand knowledge of who their parents are, nor could they pick them out of a line up of two - therefore any knowledge of who our parents are or what the people we commonly know of as our parents have told us regarding our supposed time and date of birth in a de facto court of law for purposes of 'identification' is hearsay, and offering such information would be entering into fraud, and;

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:15 PM
reply to post by sempul

There is NO ONE to complain to,my friend. I have complained. When the the district Sargent gives you the run around,when you get stalked by police officers for speaking the truth,or intimidated for it,you tend to stop trying.
I know Im not the only one. The same thing goes for Lawyers and Judges. THEY protect their own. Why do you think most folks dont want to get involved as witnesses? Because they have something to hide? Its because they fear the Law,and the Law breakers. Does a burnt out license plate bulb,warrant removal from your vehicle,because said police officer has a "suspicion" that you might have drugs in the car? Police profile ALL the time. The need for monthly quotas in writing of tickets. Its morally wrong,and gives your fellow officers and you a bad name.I never have had my fingerprints taken,never spent a night in cell,I have a squeaky clean record.Been profiled ALL my life.Common Law,Regular by the book Law doesnt work anymore in the NEW Rome.

Convicted attorneys are still practicing

Drug Related Police Corruption

The National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project

BTW,I believe this is part of the topic. If Police Officers are willing to respond to the OP,I feel it is my right,as a witness to corruption,to add My Humble Opinion.

Only in a police state is the job of a policeman easy.~Orson Wells

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:18 PM
Go to this website

click on this folder and download the information you want to read ,it is well worth reading it explains a lot

Freeman on the Land
edit on 30-1-2011 by boroboy because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:29 PM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I think the policeman said it best in the post you refered to, "you know your intentions, we do not." They have a dangerous job. Just because you can't imagine yourself doing anything crazier than mocking a cop's sincere explaination of the position they are in during criminal encounters doesn't mean everyone else is the same. Wether you beleive it or not there are people out there that should not have the "freedom" to do whatever they want. If you disagree we can move you into a home between Charlie Manson and Jeffery Dahmer. After a month or so we would reevaluate your outlook on "rights."

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:38 PM
reply to post by kozmo

This should verify what you said

Does this give a new meaning to Federal Judge William Wayne Justice stating in court that he takes his orders from England? This order goes on to redefine words in the Social Security Act and makes some changes in United States Law.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:49 PM
reply to post by boroboy

Thank you! It most certainly does! This rabbit hole is so very, very deep my friend. I have been traveling down this hole for well over a decade and am nowhere near the bottom. An earlier poster shook me up with just a simple legal latin deifinition of "Constitution" meaning "paying off the debt of another".

Makes me want to go back to the "All roads lead to Rome" thread and start over.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:53 PM
reply to post by intj123

You come on here bragging that you have learned to be a dick to cops and that all cops are pussies and eat donuts, and you expected an intelligent reponse.....really?
What argument did you propose? The only question that you asked is; is it against the law for cops to take coffee without paying for it? No, convenience stores give us free coffee because it brings us to their door at 3:00am and we can keep a check on them. They are not required to. More than likely the cop that you saw at the store has a long working relationship with the owner. It's just something that they do for us. You post something intelligent and I will reply intelligently.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:59 PM

Originally posted by kozmo[It is obvious from your post that you are unfamiliar with the movement. One must FIRST gain administrative rights over their strawman and then extricate themselves lawfully from the contracts by which they are bound. Once done, the defense is perfected.

Actually, I was initially intrigued by this freeman thing ( I do so live to rebel and stick it to the man, especially sweet is using his rules against him) - so I have done quite a bit of research on the issue; however, in my research I have found the evidence that this works to be full of holes the size of dump trucks and about as consistent as the electricity at my compound in Afghanistan.

I actually think it fitting to use the AMWAY example when I talk to people I have met around my house because that is the most apt one word analogy I can think of when it comes to the freeman movement. Seems like a big smoke a mirror thing to me.

Try to look some concrete information up on what how to write the declaration of your freeman status and you'll get a bunch of crap - in short no real answers.

"It's different for everyone" you see "You have to do the research yourself for it to work but it works see" (points out crappy video of dude pissing off a judge so bad he leaves the room) are the most likely answer and common information you will find in most cases.

If it was a locked tight defense - it would give the equally locked tight example of how to write ones declaration; the steps to take in which order to defeat any prosecution attempt etc... Also, the results would be predictable, constant and consistent not a crap shoot.

Instead you hear about how cool it is to be free; "you are a slave if you don't see it" and "you need to wake-up and see the truth", "this works" etc...but again no how to book...

Again never any real concrete effective wording or steps to declare such a status and how to use it with consistent and effective results throughout the US various territories.

So like I said AMWAY sounds great everyone talks about how financial freedom is within your grasp but they "the successful" will not just come out as tell you how to do it. Which is the tell tale sign of a scam in their case and a sign of a BS argument in the case of the freeman issue.

Originally posted by kozmo[The reasons most lawyers do not do this is that they make money by having people trapped in the system. They are masters of Uniform Commercial Code manipulation and recognize that Common Law does not require the services of an attorney.

Again evidently common law does require the services of a lawyer or attorney because no one gets it therefore they could make a killing practicing the same. If it were so easy the methods or defense would be well known and the outcomes of cases would be predictable, constant and consistent not a crap shoot.

I recognize the validity; however, that at some point the well would dry up and agree that in a sense this would be sort of like putting themselves out of work but here's where I draw a question.

Lawyers and Attorneys are a slippery lot and usually bottom feeding liars of the first order and moreover usually passive aggressive type people. Most judges were once lawyers as well and the media so loves to create a villain especially say a conservatively elected one. They love a good corruption scandal too - the live for them in fact.

Why is it then that the same slippery lying conniving individuals don’t regularly use this defense in their own legal issues? Certainly, any lawyer worth his salt would avoid the licensing fees and costs associated with the system of revenue generation however small they may be in comparison to his income just for the pleasure of being right and beating the system - lawyers live for that crap!

Half of them would sell their mothers for a dollar - yet we are supposed to believe they know a way to have no license plates or a driver’s license and consent to it anyway knowing that they give up their rights in so doing?

I for one do not buy that for one instant.

Also, they would argue any license to practice law or marry or whatever suspicious nefarious revenue generators were unconstitutional the minute one had to face divorce or a malpractice suit.

They would argue they didn't consent and defeat their straw man to get out of any obligations in a heartbeat as would most people. Why don’t we hear about them doing it?

If they are doing it, where are the undercover reporters with video of corrupt lawyers and judges using a dual system of law all their own - you honestly believe this is a secret they could keep in this society?

This would be too juicy of a scandal for any reporter to pass up.

To disrupt the and expose the fallacy of the entire legal system of the dreaded USA would be the Pulitzer of the millennium for not only our American reporters but foreign agents and governments of all types who wish us ill.

Yet what do we hear? Crickets that's what.

If there were a remedy or get out of jail free card to the imposition of illegal and unconstitutional fees and revenue the lid on the way to do it would have been blown long ago....

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 08:09 PM
As seeashrink said most store give us free coffee. most of us have a very good relationship with different store. Dumb Criminal
edit on 30-1-2011 by sempul because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 08:12 PM
Um, back to the original post...

Can someone explain to me how driving a car is some sort of right? And what about aircraft?

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 08:15 PM
The main problem facing police officers these days is our perception of them (of which they do nothing to attempt to change)

To a large percentage of the population see the police as a representation of repression and taxation (I know I think of them as just another tax collector) Also, I disagree with the concept that police are the only force to protect us from those who want to break the law. I always hear, don't take the law in your own hands, just hide / call police and hope they get there in time. People should have the right to defend themselves (and one can list many an occasion that a person defended themselves and ended up having to go to court.) Does anyone wonder why so many parts of the inner cities are becoming abandoned - crime elements move in and the people have to move out because they are helpless to do anything.

People believe the criminal has more rights then the citizen. People are sick that the rich and powerful get an easy ride - corrupt judges and government officials - who should be arrested.

Until some of these issues are addressed, people will continue to distrust the police.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 08:26 PM
reply to post by Golf66

You bring up some valid points and make some incorrect assumptions as well. I have linked to a document that outlines what you are requesting. Posted again for your review - Johnny Liberty The Global Sovereigns Handbook. Loaded with a ton of spiritual stuff which is the basis for the Magna Carta and Common Law. If spirituality doesn't appeal to you, simply ignore those portions and focus on the rest. Good stuff!

You have to appreciate that just because you have a legal basis for declaring your sovereignty and you follow every step, you can fully expect that over-zealous cops and judges won't make life easy for you. Nothing is full proof but when a personal mission becomes a massive movement, momentum prevails!

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 08:27 PM
reply to post by mrwiffler

We already have - ad nauseum. Go back through and read the thread.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 08:29 PM
Cops are dumb. They are even required to be so...

104 average IQ. A thug force of stupid cops couldn't possibly understand or care about the Constitutional issues being discussed here. We've allowed the least intelligent among us to police us. I try to treat them with the same compassion and patience I have for the mentally handicapped fellow who bags my groceries. Difference is, he isn't armed.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 08:31 PM
OP, I have only read your post (not the entire thread yet as I always do) and am truly respectful and appreciative of this discourse.

As an old, teargas sucking, Kent State saddened activist I learned that our police are human and that we frightened them. A lot of us realized this, when we thought we were using our right to peaceful protest we were actually triggering fear in them and our nation. Some, like the Weatherman, Radical Education League, etc thought that was cool. We did not.

After Kent State we noticed that most PDs nationwide stopped the whole riot thing. We had a sit in and the police came with no riot was truly amazing for everyone. They took a totally different demeanor and just encircled protesters, but did not react. There was a mutual respect. "You have to do what you have to do and I have to do what I have to do." This did coincide with the Anti-War Veteran Movement (of which I was apart) and the PDs respected the soldiers coming by back from Nam. Nonetheless, it happened across the board.

The protesters who were real worked through the system, collected signatures and brought legislation to the floor of their respective State Congresses and it did not pass our notice that the PDs differentiated us from the violent parties of the times.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 08:36 PM

Originally posted by Turkenstein
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I think the policeman said it best in the post you refered to, "you know your intentions, we do not." They have a dangerous job. Just because you can't imagine yourself doing anything crazier than mocking a cop's sincere explaination of the position they are in during criminal encounters doesn't mean everyone else is the same. Wether you beleive it or not there are people out there that should not have the "freedom" to do whatever they want. If you disagree we can move you into a home between Charlie Manson and Jeffery Dahmer. After a month or so we would reevaluate your outlook on "rights."

The police don't need to know my intentions, it's none of their business if I have broken no law, nor do I have to prove I have not broken a law, or to prove that I do not intend to break a law.

I am 'innocent' until proven guilty, and that guilt can only be determined through self admission or a jury of my peers.

Police officers get paid to take risks, according to studies fire fighters and taxi cab drivers have riskier jobs.

The cab driver essentially has to make himself available to every ellement the police officer does but without the benefit of a gun or a badge.

If you wouldn't tolerate a cab driver violating your rights, and asking you questions that are none of their business, why would you tolerate a police officer doing the same.

The vast majority of people in jail are in jail for non-violent victimless crimes, and most police officers are never involved in a shooting in their entire careers.

The fact that the serial killers/murderers you used as an example had crime sprees 30 years and 2500 miles apart highlights the actual frequency in which such dangerous criminals are actually encountered.

So it's the typical fear based argument aimed at giving the people who are supposed to be and are being paid to serve us, more consideration, more respect, and more discretion than they want to give to the people they serve.

In fact that argument is their excuse to violate our rights, disrespect us, abuse the color of their authority and disenfranchise us and terrorize us.

Don't want to get violently hurt on the job, well don't become a taxi driver, fire man or cop.

The cab driver doesn't know your intentions either when he lets you in the backseat behind him at 1:00 am in the morning in the wrong part of town, but he still treats you with respect and courtesy, because he knows as someone providing a service he has too.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 08:39 PM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux



On February 10, 1972, as the nation’s press and TV were inundating the American people with coverage of Nixon’s upcoming journey to Communist China, the President signed Executive Order No. 11647, which then appeared in the FEDERAL REGISTER of February 12. There was virtually no comment in the nation’s press on this action.

By this Executive Order, the President by a stroke of the pen divided the United States into ten federal regions to be run by "Federal Regional Councils."

In Executive Order No. 11647, the President decreed:

"There is hereby established a Federal Regional Council for each of the ten standard federal regions. Each Council shall be composed of the directors of the regional offices of the Departments of Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare, and Housing and Urban Development, the Secretarial Representative of the Department of Transportation, and the directors of the regional offices of the Office of Economic Opportunity, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

"The President shall designate one member of each such council as chairman of that council and such chairman shall serve at the pleasure of the President. Representatives of the Office of Management and Budget may participate in any deliberations of each council."

The "ten standard federal regions" referred to by Nixon were delineated by him in a press release issued by the White House on May 21, 1969. Purporting to "streamline the structure and processes of federal agencies in the field," the President then gave the alignment for the federal regions as follows: (The city in parentheses is the federal capital of each region.)

REGION I (Boston) - Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

REGION II (New York City) - New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

REGION III (Philadelphia) -Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.

REGION IV (Atlanta) -Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

REGION V (Chicago) -Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

REGION VI (Dallas-Fort Worth) Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.

REGION VII (Kansas City) - Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska.

REGION VIII (Denver) - Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

REGION IX (San Francisco) -Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada.

REGION X (Seattle) - Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.

As can be noted in the foregoing list, in all cases the lines drawn for these federal regions cross State lines, thus to all intents and purposes obliterating the sovereignty of the States.

ARE WE CLEAR ON THIS NOW! Do you now understand why the Federal 'authorities' in these 'Regions' do the things they do? The 'states' are just window dressing, a cover for the real governing authorities! Have a nice day.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 08:40 PM

the term 'police officer' means a corporate policy enforcer, and; police officers who ask for identification are not acting under their oath of office and therefore are not acting lawfully

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in