Personal Run-In With Corrupt Police "Freeman" Status Wins

reply to post by ownbestenemy

You see how someone a bit skeptical can be a little wary of your story?!

yes, however it is decently well documented on this site that i carry laws with me.

i do understand your skepticism, and i don't hold it against you.

the police never bared down on me at all, and thanked me for the call. when i was told that i shouldn't be there so late, i offered to show the officer the cases i had with me, she asked if i was a sovereign and i said "something like that". they never mentioned that i couldn't be there again. she walked away, and the senior officer walked over a few minutes later.

i do not know the kids, and before they started hitting golf balls at things i assumed it was just some kids having a party at the beach at night, not that uncommon, and if the police had showed up to shut it down i would have used the court rulings i carry to defend them.

i'll toss up a link to me referencing what laws i carry with me:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by UmbraSumus

And some high ranking officer sauntered over and shared such specific information with you ?

Everything about this screams made up. How did he know the officer was high ranking? Can you tell by the way he walks? Do they saunter differently based on rank?

Typically the chevrons on their uniform......So if I see someone with insignia with that of a sergeant, to that of a patrolman, I would easily assume such a person is higher-ranking. Better yet, it isn't out of the ordinary for lieutenants to be on the beat which would put them in the "high ranking" status.

Then you wouldn't say "high ranking", you would say a sergeant, or a lietenant. "High Ranking" is a term used by scammers to give legitimacy to made up stories, or when the source needs to be protected by actual reporters which does not apply here.

So, when the OP can show a single court case where Freeman was used and won the case I will listen.

Here's a hint, it doesn't work.
news.nationalpost.com...

reply to post by UmbraSumus

Weren`t both the teenagers and yourself in the park illegally ? But ..... because of your freeman status you believe you were exempt from that statute ? Forgive me for playing devils advocate; Question: If you were in the park after closing time - drinking beer and driving a few golf balls into the water and somebody phoned the police on you - would you feel that you had broken the law ?

if you'll kindly look at the post where i referenced one of the laws that i carry, the right to travel, you'll see that it isn't illegal. if you'll read the 14th amendment, you'll see that states cannot pass or enforce laws that infringe on rights established in the federal constitution.

as for your question: i obviously don't have a problem with anyone being there at any time, it is a fundamental right. drinking also wouldn't be a problem, even though one of the girls asked me to buy for her, as most of them were underage. i declined politely, being that age before. even the underage drinking didn't bother me that much so long as they didn't get wasted and try to drive. it was the vandalism and the littering.

if someone called the cops on me for being there "past hours" (i encourage you to read the laws i referred you to) and for drinking, i would have presented them with the laws i carry. i wouldn't think ill of the person who called the cops on me, merely that they haven't studied the pertinent laws.

the vandalism and pollution is the real problem. it is a problem where i live, and i love nature and the facilities at the beach. they are not for people to destroy.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Everything about this screams made up. How did he know the officer was high ranking? Can you tell by the way he walks? Do they saunter differently based on rank?

i meant senior in the literal AND physical sense. he was older, his uniform was subtly different, and the other officers deferred to him.

there was no "sauntering".

i know little about police ranks, or identifying them by uniform, i simply assumed he was the senior officer. he had a silver star embroidered on his uniform and i don't believe the others did. that's all i remember.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


It sounds more to me that this has nothing to do with freeman and more to do with you werent being a nuissance so they left you alone. I see nothing about your story that has anything to do with "freeman" status winning anything. Can you show me a single legal court case where this argument won? I cited one where it did not, it never does, ever.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

It sounds more to me that this has nothing to do with freeman and more to do with you werent being a nuissance so they left you alone. I see nothing about your story that has anything to do with "freeman" status winning anything. Can you show me a single legal court case where this argument won? I cited one where it did not, it never does, ever.

i found it quite interesting that when the officer assumed i was a freeman when i presented her with the law. i was told that i should leave. it was only after presenting the laws that she assumed i was freeman and that they stopped asking me to leave.

this leads me to conclude that they have run into people claiming such status before, and that they know they won't make much headway.

i would give you a court case from that night, but the police were competent enough to follow that particular law.

this might interest you:

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
this might interest you:

Not really, no one was arrested in that video...

I especially love the claim....

Everything was dismissed after five years of bull#, wasted time, and wasted money. The case is tagged "confidential"

In fact he lost, which is why he is not willing to show the details!

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


I'd be frustrated in your position as well.

As far as making your own karma by doing good deeds, I firmly believe that as well. I'm glad you stole their stash in this case.

Also, if you've got those 50+ golf balls, check out how much you can make selling them on eBay. I'm totally serious, you might have bank. Some of the nicer golf balls are $5-7 used, if you have a bunch of not-brand-name ones, you can still sell the lot for probably $50. Check it out.

reply to post by hellobruce

Not really, no one was arrested in that video...

the district attorney actually was arrested. notice how he hands his wallet and keys over to someone and says "give these to my wife".

there is a difference between being "arrested" and taken into "custody". he was arrested, but the corrupt judge prevented him from being taken into custody.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
i found it quite interesting that when the officer assumed i was a freeman when i presented her with the law. i was told that i should leave. it was only after presenting the laws that she assumed i was freeman and that they stopped asking me to leave.

this leads me to conclude that they have run into people claiming such status before, and that they know they won't make much headway.

i would give you a court case from that night, but the police were competent enough to follow that particular law.

It leads me to believe that they assumed you weren't doing any harm and they didn't care. I gave you a court case. Freeman did not work. Freeman does not work. The fact it has been used numerous times and has failed every time is proof. Your video is proof of nothing I can see ....

I showed you a court case. Show me one where it works, you can't, end of story.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
the district attorney actually was arrested.

Who arrested him? Exactly what was he arrested for? What was his bail set at? When was he charged?

he was arrested

your proof of that claim is what?

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
i found it quite interesting that when the officer assumed i was a freeman when i presented her with the law. i was told that i should leave. it was only after presenting the laws that she assumed i was freeman and that they stopped asking me to leave.

this leads me to conclude that they have run into people claiming such status before, and that they know they won't make much headway.

i would give you a court case from that night, but the police were competent enough to follow that particular law.

It leads me to believe that they assumed you weren't doing any harm and they didn't care. I gave you a court case. Freeman did not work. Freeman does not work. The fact it has been used numerous times and has failed every time is proof. Your video is proof of nothing I can see ....

I showed you a court case. Show me one where it works, you can't, end of story.

i wouldn't go that far, even if his freeman argument was not the sole reason for them not forcing him to leave, it sure as hell gave the popo good reason to not mess with him, you know lengthy court costs, paperwork, time in court, they all have a valid bearing on success of such an argument. i think people standing up for their rights is a damn good idea and more popo's be warned, we aint rolling over any longer and your job has just become hell and televised hell at that.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


You probably interrupted a doughnut run.

Originally posted by geobro

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by geobro

 

golf balls over here are expensive hope you sold them on i would be back for the other 100 with a snorkel .

hahaha, good idea! but no, i threw them away. they looked brand new and expensive, but i don't care much for money.

what did you do with the drink

i hope you never poured that away nooooooooooo please

He should have peed in it and left it for them to find again.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

It leads me to believe that they assumed you weren't doing any harm and they didn't care.

then why ask me to leave in the first place?

are you arguing that because rights are trampled on, that those rights do not exist?

reply to post by hellobruce

Who arrested him? Exactly what was he arrested for? What was his bail set at? When was he charged?

mr. alexander placed the district attorney under citizens arrest. ANYONE watching the video can see the district attorney hand his things away and mumble "give these to my wife".

at the end of the trial, mr. alexander turned custody over to the police, which is when the judge stepped in and said that the police would do no such thing (sticking up for their own, as always. can't have a peasant disturbing the carefully balanced oligarchy)

after 5 years, the charges were dropped. the records were declared confidential by the other party, but you can email mr. alexander and discuss the whole matter with him if you have any questions. i believe his email is in the "about" section.

mr. alexander requested that the trial be video taped, however at the end you will hear that they made a mistake and didn't "put the tape in". if he had not asked for the recording before he left, chances are the footage from the court wouldn't be available for us to view. consequently all further trials were moved to a chamber that didn't have video surveillance.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

perhaps watching this you will understand the injustice in the system.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


I would be interested in what info you were carrying in your car, cases and what not. I had a run in with some cops that harrassed me after pulling me for speeding ( they were parked window to window and I saw them and slowed a half a mile or more away and checked my speed so I presume it had more to do with who is slowing down than who is speeding). Anyway the officer implied I was wrong about my gun being legally stashed and used that as a pretense to get out of the car. I would have argued but they said some cut firewood was suspicious and discussed bringing dogs, it wasn't my car and I was late for work so I complied rather than risk it. In the end they admitted my gun was legal and gave me a ticket with no dogs (though he did take it upon himself to look through the hatch back). I am going to contest this, but I don't know what thw beat argumwnt is. I've probably posted this 3 times on different threads.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

I would be interested in what info you were carrying in your car, cases and what not. I had a run in with some cops that harrassed me after pulling me for speeding ( they were parked window to window and I saw them and slowed a half a mile or more away and checked my speed so I presume it had more to do with who is slowing down than who is speeding). Anyway the officer implied I was wrong about my gun being legally stashed and used that as a pretense to get out of the car. I would have argued but they said some cut firewood was suspicious and discussed bringing dogs, it wasn't my car and I was late for work so I complied rather than risk it. In the end they admitted my gun was legal and gave me a ticket with no dogs (though he did take it upon himself to look through the hatch back). I am going to contest this, but I don't know what thw beat argumwnt is. I've probably posted this 3 times on different threads.

there are some simple laws that you can use to show that your possession of a firearm is completely legal (even when the state says otherwise). oh, and the threat of "bringing dogs" has no teeth. they cannot hold you to wait for dogs to come. there are laws that prevent that. if they prolonged the stop to wait for dogs, you could destroy them in court and get it tossed out very quickly, and follow up with charges of rights violations.

the strategy would go something like this:
ask by what law was your gun improperly stored, they'll cite some state law, then you should present the 14th amendment:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

you will find this in section 1 of amendment 14. present also, the second amendment; and ask if you are considered as "bearing" arms. obviously you are. therefore your rights to bare arms CANNOT be abridged by state law. this is also a useful supreme court ruling:

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

as for "driving" your best defense would be to claim that you were traveling, not driving. driving is commercial by nature, traveling is an inalienable right. there are many supreme court cases on traveling being a fundamental right. as such, you could only be held accountable if they could demonstrate that your mode of traveling violated someone's rights.

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.

this page may further help you www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

i am assuming that you were traveling, not driving. that you weren't using the roads for commerce. because of this:

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

essentially, going to court with this, they would have to prove that you weren't conducting yourself in an orderly or decent manner, and that you had violated the rights of another.

i hope this helps.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
mr. alexander placed the district attorney under citizens arrest.

No he did not.... what makes you claim he did?

Why was he supposedly placed under citizens arrest? What was the reason?

You seem to be avoiding this simple question....

Why doesn't he tell us the case number.... probably because it is not confidential at all....