Cops dealing with people, understanding your rights...by a dude

reply to post by seeashrink

I understand your position. But, I am a realist.

When "realism" becomes a codeword for the justification of tyranny, this is not realism, this is cynicism. Realism as a philosophy deals with what is ontologically. That is to say what can be observed. Part of observable phenomena is the ability to take a phenomenon and form a hypothesis around that phenomenon, and begin testing this hypothesis to form a theory, which at some point either is rejected, or accepted as law. The phenomenon of rights is far more than just a hypothesis, and is even more than just a theory. So much of a law is it, that when governments fear losing the aggregation of power they have amassed, they begin strengthening their military's and police forces, because they are successfully predicting that their aggregation of power has exceeded the acceptable and insufferable limits on the intrusions on people that aggregated power tends to do. Political "leaders" will recognize that their intrusions has reached a point of critical mass and that revolt is soon to follow.

Unfortunately, their success at prediction stops short, and in their petty ambitions, these political "leaders" believe they can maintain their aggregation of power by the use of brute force. This phenomenon has existed since time immemorial, and is what has led to the axiomatic assertion that "history repeats itself". This is real, and observably so. So, when you claim to be "realistic", it is not realism - at least not in the philosophical sense - that you are referring to, but it is a cynicism based upon biased observations. Bias has no place in realism.

You are right, I took an oath to uphold the state and the US Constitution. I keep that oath and I am a Oath Keeper. I have to do my job and I have no problem with that as long as I do so in a fair and balanced manner.

This is your claim, and I have given you the benefit of the doubt, precisely because I cannot know whether or not your claim is true or not, and can only take your word for it. Even though I have given you the benefit of the doubt, still you feel compelled to state:

You don't even know me and you assume that I am a crooked cop.

I have made no such assumption. What I have done is pay strict attention to the language you have used in this thread, and even the O.P. in your own thread. It is fair enough to point to the language you rely on, and point to aspects of that language that are cause for concern.

You also imply that if I were a mod, that I would be crooked.

I did not hide behind implication, and instead used your own words and admission that if you were a mod you would close this thread and merge it with yours, and asserted that such an action would be an abuse of power.

Since, I have been on ATS, I have seen bias, jaded, and showing favoritism from the mods. Do you know why this is? Because they are human.

Since I have been on ATS, and as human as the moderators are, I have never witnessed what I would call an abuse of power. That is to say, I have never seen any thread closed for any other reason than the terms and conditions...the rules well established by this site...as the reason. I have only had one occasion where I disagreed with a moderators actions in regard to me, and because I disagreed, I contacted that moderator and plead my case. That moderator was more than respectful to me and responded with their reasoning, which was actually sound reasoning that only revealed my own personal bias on the matter. Even so, the moderator respectfully told me that if I disagreed with their reasoning that I was welcome to go above his head and continue to plead my case and that no ill will would come of it. I did not feel any need to go above that moderators head and accepted fully the reasoning of their decision as just and proper.

This is not to say that abuse doesn't happen in this site. It very well may, but I have not been privy to it, nor have I witnessed it. You are correct, however, that even if moderator abuse does happen in this site, it certainly doesn't justify more abuse.

Again, I admire the content of your post, but to try and live by these precepts is simply living a lie.

It is unfortunate that you believe that respecting the unalienable rights of all people would be living a lie. Particularly because the truth of all people being in possession of inherent unalienable rights is a simple, universal, absolute truth. Whether you can see this or not, it remains true. I do, however, have faith in you, and if you cannot see it now, I trust you will come to see this, as the truth has its way of insisting on being recognized as truth.

You will have to forgive me for the lack of clarity and organization in this post, I am suffering from the flu and it is kind of hard to put my thoughts together.

No forgiveness is necessary, and I wish you well, and a speedy recovery.

Peace;

reply to post by YouSir


Extricating oneself from the so called "Social Security" scheme seems to be far easier said than done. It appears to me members such as Kozmo and Protoplasmic Traveler have worked tirelessly, not just in this thread, but in their own threads, as well as others, in attempting to explain the problem and how one might correct the problem. It is much more than I can honestly answer. It is all a part of a system that I do not advocate, nor do I fully understand.

What I do understand is that all closed systems tend towards entropy. This inevitable entropy is evident in the system we are facing today. Entropy is, quite simply, useless energy. Another word for entropy would be chaos. Both the useless energy that is the system we face, and the encroaching chaos seem to be fairly self evident. Of course, there are plenty of "realists" who would disagree, but that all closed systems tend towards entropy is not my opinion, it is law. Of course, I am citing the second law of thermodynamics, and there are those who would dismiss this citation as inappropriate when it comes to governmental systems. I respectfully disagree, and what I have observed is a system tending towards entropy.

It is my genuine hope, "realistic" or not, that through the efforts of people such as Kozmo, Proto, yourself, and myself, as well as countless others too numerous to mention, that we can change this. Not by fixing a closed system, but by moving us towards an open system.

I wish I could offer you a better answer than this, but what I will offer is that law...real law, is not so complicated. It is, as all law is, simple, true, universal, and absolute. The law is self evident, and no one needed Sir Isaac Newton to write down the mathematical equation to gravity in order to know that gravity existed. The same goes for any laws of justice. When a so called "law" which is merely just legislation requires explanation as to how it works and why it exists, this is a good sign it is not law.

This is not to say that all legislation that is not law should not exist. Rules and regulations that operate outside the parameters of law are fine, as long as they are rules and regulations that do not in anyway deny or disparage the rights of people.

This is the best I can offer you, and I have no doubt that is not enough. Such is the problem we face when confronted with the complications of closed systems. I do not refer to legalese as being the mystical incantations of the priest class lawyer set just to be a smart ass. I do so because it is appropriate. Mystics thrive on confounding their audience, not making things clear. They are magicians who intend to dazzle you with their spectacular illusions. I would suggest that much of the legal nonsense that exists today is far from spectacular illusion, and is as easy to reveal for its trickery as the man behind the curtain so easily exposed by a impetuous little dog named Toto. However, mixed into all of this bad magic tricks, are some truly remarkable instances of genuinely impressive magic tricks that are spectacular and amazing in their illusory effects.

Critical thinking is a skill that requires a lifetime of exercise and development. Keep fighting the good fight, and keep developing your critical thinking skills so that you may see through the bluster of the Great and Powerful Oz, and pull back the curtain to find the scared little man who pulls the levers in an attempt to keep you stupefied.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Thank you Proto;

For your always welcome, and needed information. It is, as you point out, expedience that has been by and large the main culprit to our eventual and undeniable erosion of protection and respect for rights. Expedience is the monster under the bed of which we hope will leave us alone just as long as we don't peek under the bed and actually see what it is. Expedience is the justification we use for not doing what is right and proper. Expedience is the strategy we employ to do what is without a doubt necessary to do, and that is to survive. It is, however, a poor strategy. Sun Tzu advices us that when the enemy attacks we should retreat, and this is sound advice, but Master Tzu does not stop there, and follows this dictum with the flip side, which is when the enemy retreats, attack!

A constant retreat only emboldens our enemies, and if we do not understand that those who deign to lecture us on our "unrealistic" approach to unalienable rights being law as being delusional and boneheaded are our enemies, then we will never know what hits us when we are undeniably hit with tyranny. Just as incrementally as the local, state, and federal governments usurped our power, so too can we incrementally take that power back, and hopefully if enough of us do this, the painful and violent eruption of enough is enough can be avoided, and order restored.

This is the game. It is a good game, and I am proud to be on the same side as players such as yourself. Thank you for joining us in this thread, my friend.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Wow JPZ THANK YOU!!!

This is a brilliant and eloquently written OP along with the several responses I have read so far. I have not read the whole thread yet but will. I just want to tell you how much I appreciate all the hard work that went into this. I know how long it takes to read and comprise posts and responses like this when having to research laws. It takes a lot of work and those that flippantly answer have no idea how much work it takes.

I wish I could write and express as eloquently as you. I will try to help on the thread where I can so you do not get burnt out as you have helped me in the past. Thank you again and know it is truly appreciated. I considered writing something similar as it was sorely needed, however I doubt I could do it near the justice you have done it! Peace.

reply to post by hawkiye


Thank you brother,

For the needed support, and the acknowledgment of how difficult and tedious it can be reading case law. It is, I have no doubt, also tedious to read in these threads when posted and cited as well, so your efforts at reading them is more than greatly appreciated.

Also, I would like to use this post to speak to seeashrinks continued assertion that there is no case law that shows a person winning a case regarding the right to drive. I attempted to speak to that once, but admittedly my response was awkwardly written.

Those who do challenge the assertion that driving is a privilege and not a right do not enter a plea when confronting a traffic court judge. It should be noted that most traffic courts are not real courts, as they do not often come with prosecutors, and the judge will often act as both prosecutor and judge. There is no court stenographer usually, so there is no public record unless the defendant challenging jurisdiction has brought in their own stenographer to record the proceedings, of course, at their own expense.

Even if there is an instance of a public record of these proceedings, they are preliminary hearings, and finding preliminary hearings online is not as easy as finding well settled court cases decided by the Supreme Court. Indeed, finding Circuit Court of Appeals decisions is not as easily found online as SCOTUS hearings are. Because of this, finding criminal cases on a lower state level is even more difficult, and finding preliminary hearings where a person has successfully challenged the jurisdiction of the kangaroo court they have been forced to appear in front of is next to impossible to find online in order to provide a link.

To successfully challenge jurisdiction is to force a judge to dismiss the case, as this is the only lawful thing that judge can do, and as such, THERE IS NO CASE.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


police are just doing there job, what would the world be like without them. i live in the uk and happen to like are police force.

Originally posted by speedmaster
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

police are just doing there job, what would the world be like without them. i live in the uk and happen to like are police force.

If that job is in pursuance of the law, then it is a job well done. If that job is instead only following orders in spite of the law, it is another thing entirely.

Consider the Superior Orders defense that has often become synonymous with the Nuremberg trials, and is often called the Nuremberg defense:

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

reply to post by boroboy


Ummm........Thank you, I went to the site and downloaded/stored the 14 e-books onto my iphone in my ibooks bookcase. It's alot of material, however, it does'nt take up a great deal of memory in pdf format. In fact, it takes up less memory than the "US code" app which sits next to my "Fast case", "LawStack", "History Pro", "Your rights" and "My Gov" apps. All free apps btw. The "History Pro" app is my favorite, it includes everything from the "Magna Carta", the "Federalist Papers", The "Constitution", etc, etc, etc.
It's nice to have all of this at my fingertips, anytime, anywhere.....

Your reply to me in your first post would certainly coroborate my thoughts as per my original question.
Thank you
Where did you find that information? I would like to study that in greater detail.
Again, thankyou.

YouSir

Mods Note: Does any of the above violate the TOS?

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


I find this quote so true.

I see countries like Egypt burn,under Dictators,and its Police State. A right to live,shouldn't be hindered under the boot of Tyranny.

Originally posted by sonnny1
I would love for officers to actually do their homework,and learn about police corruption. Not every Police officer is bad. Just like not every citizen is a criminal. Heres a site from an ex-police officer. I would actually call him a ex-Peace officer,and rightfully so.

Blue Must be True

Excerpt: "In Norfolk I saw a senior officer pull a handcuffed prisoner out of a police car and start slapping him just because he felt like it. I was the junior officer on scene among several senior officers and I was amazed that it seemed to bother nobody else. I was more stunned and confused when I told a supervisor about the incident and his response was, in essence, a yawn. And I didn’t know what to think when I continued to hear about and see similar incidents, some of which involved supervisors setting the bad example - in both departments."

Stay safe all you Officers of the law. Realize you above all others have the Job to protect and serve.Dont blow it.

edit on 30-1-2011 by sonnny1 because: excerpt

Used to work in 'corrections'. I saw lots of things done by other officers, and by inmates, that were wrong. I tried to do things the way I was trained, to do it the right way, and by reporting things, but it was as if I had a deadly disease or something! Eventually, I had to quit because of all the corruption, and thats a fact. The word 'corrections' should not be used when it comes to prisons, because few were corrected.

ATLANTA -- A state lawmaker from Marietta is sponsoring a bill that seeks to do away with Georgia driver's licenses.

State Rep. Bobby Franklin, R-Marietta, has filed House Bill 7, calling it the "Right to Travel Act."

In his bill, Franklin states, "Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right."

www.cbsatlanta.com...

reply to post by DjOsiris


Wow! Thank you for posting that, and thank you to Representative Bobby Franklin for acting as genuine legislator and in accordance with both that State's Constitution, and the Constitution for the United States of America. What will the "realists" do if more people like Franklin are elected? Will they remain "realists" and accept that the times they are a changin'?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I know when I am outgunned intellectually. A wise man knows his limitations.

I don't believe that I was using "being realistic" as a justification for tyrany.

I guess this is what I find confusing about your intelligence and your dogma for your belief. You know that in 99% of the states that if you are stopped and cannot present a valid driver's license and you are cited you will not be able to defeat it in court with this idealism. This is the world that you live in regardless of how right you may be.

I believe that I read somewhere that the freeman movement is around 300,000 strong. Even if it were possible for everyone of you to try to claim these rights at the same time on the same issue, it wouldn't be enough.
This my friend is realism.

I believe that you make an outstanding advocate for this idealism and should continue to pursue it. Change takes time, and the only way to force change in this society is through violence and I am not an advocate for that. So time is all you have. Your vote will not do it, not any more.

Good luck, I look forward to this utopia once you folks have it in place
Seeashrink

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by DjOsiris

 

Wow! Thank you for posting that, and thank you to Representative Bobby Franklin for acting as genuine legislator and in accordance with both that State's Constitution, and the Constitution for the United States of America. What will the "realists" do if more people like Franklin are elected? Will they remain "realists" and accept that the times they are a changin'?

If and when the "times they are a changin" happens, I'll go with it. Until then, I will continue being the realist.
Seeashrink

As I have stated in another thread of this nature, first and foremost, most officers are unable to decipher the differences between law, and justice. Those of us, with common sense can define both, and there is a vast difference between the two.
Secondly, because of the actions of most ( but not all ) cops, whom btw, have become more of a para-military organization, or also known as instruments of the elite, the public has lost " faith " in these men/women in uniform. And because of that, more and more people are beginning to inform themselves, and decided within each of our selves to stand up against the power hungry thugs.
With that, and the increased number of police involved shootings/tazings/and beat downs, the once respected view of the LEO, has become tarnished to where many have no respect for those in uniform. Fact still remains that they too are instruments for the DMV scheme, to obtain funds by any nature or offense, instead of standing for what is right, and just, they have " adopted " the need to " cite " for any ol' reason deemed notable, all to push the corporate "DMV" agenda, under the premise of " protect and serve". More like " to punish and enslave "!

As for me, I have no respect for anyone in the LEA uniform....for they are the true example of a corporate pawn.

reply to post by seeashrink


It is not a Utopia I seek. Utopia's are for idealists, even the ones who believe themselves to be "realists". It is not Utopian to expect the rule of law to be the rule of law, not rule by law. The reality today in the United States is that much of what has been happening is the rule by law, not the rule of law. This, however, does not in anyway diminish the rule of law, nor does it diminish the reasonable expectation that rights be respected, particularly government officials.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that voting is not going to fix the corruption that has insinuated itself into American politics. I disagree that the only way to affect change is through violence. Violence certainly is one strategy, but it is not the only strategy, nor is it necessarily the best strategy.

As to your assertions that people who refuse to comply with licensing schemes have no recourse in courts of law, this is just no true. Granted, there are judges who will ignore the rule of law, and actually buy into the artful language of "full immunity" or "official immunity" as absolute protection from their corruption. However, a judge is only immune when that judge is acting as a judge, which means that judge has a very narrow scope of jurisdiction that comes with restraints and prohibitions, and if any judge acts beyond the scope of their jurisdiction they are no longer acting as a judge, but are acting as private citizens on behalf of their own private beliefs and will not find immunity from such actions.

People cannot sue judges for acting in a judicial manner, but people can sue private citizens including judges who step outside of their jurisdiction in order to act under color of law.

Not only do people enter into a traffic court and successfully challenge the jurisdiction of that court, this sort of action goes well beyond drivers licensing schemes. A few years ago I was arrested for selling my DVD collection on a public sidewalk. There was an ordinance prohibiting such sales, and I was unlawfully detained and ticketed for this. It took me less than twenty minutes to have the charges dropped. Of course, it took me several hours to do the research and find appropriate case law to back up my Constitutional assertions. (I did not rely on the federal Constitution, which pleased the judge greatly who at first assumed I was going to "bring the federal Constitution into his court", but when I assured him I had no intention of doing so, he responded with "Good" and then did a sleight double take followed by a genuine grin when I informed him that I was going to bring the State Constitution into "his" court.) The judge was more than respectful and seemed to be having a genuine good time with my challenge of jurisdiction, even when I asked him to strike the ordinance down. He refused to do so, and when I pushed further, he finally said; "I will dismiss the charges, but I am not going to strike the "law" down. Take it or leave it".

Not being an idiot, I accepted the minor victory and left the courthouse a free man unencumbered by any fines. The city I live in remains encumbered with this odious ordinance, but as you say, these things take time. The point is, that free people do not have to acquiesce to bogus legislation, and they do not risk - in some circumstances - jail time just for having the audacity of challenging the bogus legislation. Not all circumstances, and while I find the drug prohibition laws to be bogus, I would not advise anyone at this point to enter into that black market, and if they do, I would highly recommend not getting caught, particularly on a federal level. I too know my limitations, as temporary as they may be.

It is worth pointing out at this point that I am not in anyway offering anyone legal advise and am merely speaking to the law, and to rights, and to freedom in the way they should be spoken to, with reverence and respect.

There have been some who have entered this thread who have seemed to want to construe my assertions as a call to violence against police officers, or even a call to argue needlessly with them. You are not one of those members, and I have found your posts to be respectful and sincere. However, because there have been those who seem to want to either imply or more subtly through innuendo make it appear as if I am advocating assault on a police officers, I am most emphatically not! When I was unlawfully detained by the two police officers who ultimately ticketed me for selling my DVD's, I did not argue with them, and I certainly did not rely on violence in order to deal with them. I did keep insisting I didn't understand, and towards the end, after I had requested - several times - that they call the Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff...someone with real jurisdiction - they finally told me that there was no need to bring in the Sheriff's because they were not detaining me, and they took the handcuff's off at that point, and attempted to explain that my three words - "I don't understand" - were legally construed as violence against them.

At this point I respectfully disagreed with them. I did not argue the point, but suggested that they were grossly misinterpreting and misapplying the law in this circumstance. I also made clear that I had no intentions of suing them or jamming them up in anyway, but did request, since they did detain me, to allow me to do the same and we have a discussion about the law for a moment. To their credit they did, and when all was said and done, and after they convinced me to sign the ticket they gave me, doing so by arguing that they suspected I would beat the case, I asked them why they were even bothering to write the ticket up? The looked at me, then at each other, and then around the neighborhood where other street vendors usually hang out selling their wares but were not so visible while I stood there having this discussion. "Ah!" I said. "It's not for my sake, it's for the sake of everyone else." They grinned at me, and we talked a few more minutes before they shook my hand and left.

This is what we face in this country today. We face a government that keeps bogus legislative acts on the book because they can get away with it, and because few are willing to challenge it. Because few are willing to challenge it, sometimes when a cop is confronted with a challenger, that cop can wind up being genuinely perplexed. This was the case with those two police officers, but I suspect the next time they run into someone who is respectfully articulate about the challenges of jurisdiction, they will be more willing to see this for what it is, instead of construing words like "I don't understand" as violence. How absurd is that? Three innocuous words manipulated to be construed "legally" as violence. This is not "realism", this is horse puckey, plain and simple.

At any rate, I thank you much for your contribution in this thread, my friend, and I hope you are feeling better.

reply to post by seeashrink

you seem to be wanting some kind of respect. As I have said so many times, " your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused by the facts" Seeashrink

You seem like a sincere guy and that is good as far as it goes. However ever reading your posts on both this thread and yours may I suggest some serious self introspection on your own statement quoted above.

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by seeashrink

 

you seem to be wanting some kind of respect. As I have said so many times, " your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused by the facts" Seeashrink

You seem like a sincere guy and that is good as far as it goes. However ever reading your posts on both this thread and yours may I suggest some serious self introspection on your own statement quoted above.

Well played sir and point taken.
Seeashrink

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Congratulations on that small victory, it sounds like you handled it well. To imply "I don't understand" as being agressive or an act of violence is absolutely rediculous. As an officer for many years I have never heard of such a thing. I'm surprised that you were able to get as far with them as you were with the mindset that they had.
Thanks for the well wishes,
Seeashrink

reply to post by LanMan54


As a human-being,its hard to stand by idle,if you see injustices. Even harder if no one is willing to fix the injustices. When a police officer tells me to complain about something that has happened to me,or something I have seen,its almost impossible not to laugh. There is a code of silence,when it comes down to the Police. It is well known that most Internal affairs find it hard to get straight answers from their own officers. When it comes to our Constitution,most officers dont know what YOUR rights are,or even theirs. Its too bad that the sub laws,the ordinances,the lack of real truth,is blinded by corruption.I can back what I am saying,by the statistics I have posted in previous posts.I am glad the OP decided to post about this subject. We need more like this. To those Officers that are serving with integrity,I give them my respect. Being a officer,in these days,is one of the toughest jobs there is.