posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 06:59 AM
I understand your point, Chief, but allow me to make a view points in reference to constitutional PEACE officers and police state POLICE officers.
A peace officer, as a cop should be, does not make contact with the citizenry on a lesser crime unless there is a warrant by another citizen against
that citizen, with an affixed affidavit, and the warrant signed by a judge. They are not there to make us walk the line and be good little boys and
girls. They are not there to stop me while I am travelling and ask to see my papers, snoop around my car and breathe into their hat at roadside
spotchecks. I don't care if I'm unlucky enough to be one of the every third car or if they are unconstitutionally making contact with every car,
they are still in the wrong.
The highway patrol is a game of revenue, plain and simple. When you are pulled over and ticketed for doing 78 in a 65 zone with light traffic around
you, you know as well as I do that you are no threat to life and property, but you do have a wallet, and you will be digging into it because the
officer cited you with a midameanor offense. Want to take it to court? Go ahead. You'll lose, obviously. Were you not speeding but got the
ticket? Go ahead, take it to the judge - as if he wants to turn down the revenue you represent.
Understand, I am not throwing rocks at the cops; they are doing their job as trained. Understand, however, they are not given all the information
they should have, as most of those guys, being good people, would not feel comfortable in shafting their fellow citizens.
Here is something that most citizens do not know, something that makes the above constitutional argument invalid.
WEre you travelling in your private means of conveyance, the UCC (Uniformed Traffic Code) would noty apply to you. You'd be a citizen who was simply
excercising your right to travel. AS it is a right, you need no license.
License, Black's Law Dictionary: The permission by competent authority to do an act, which, without such permission, would be illegal, a tort, a
trespassor otherwise not allowable.
Excerising a right obviously needs no license.
So why is "driving" a privilege? Because it is a commercial term, not a constitutional one. When you buy your brand new automobile, one of the
first things you do is get it registered, like a good little servant, right? You purchase the tag and proudly bolt it unto the bumber of your shiny
new ride. You've done two things when you bought and hung that tag. First, you gave the state your car, and they in turn redifined it. It is now a
"motor vehicle". Motor vehicles must be "operated" IAW the UCC. Therefore, the second thing you did was entered their jurisdiction, and made
yourself accountable to the UCC. Since it is now their motor vehicle, and it is their UCC, if you transgress you must pay the fine.
Have a good day, fellow servants. Don't gripe about them taking your rights anymore since you willingly give them up all day long!