“Let’s play on BIG BOY terms. Let’s not play the lawyer game and my rights are violated game or none of that BULLCRAP today.”

Incident date : January 9th, 2015

Employees : Trooper Johnston and an unknown supervisor

Department : Georgia State Patrol

Contact : Major Tommy Waldrop
959 E. Confederate Ave., SE
Atlanta, GA 30316
(404) 624-7451

_____________________________

Dilshodjon Tulyaganov has been accused of not “coming  to  a complete stop”. According to Georgia state law it is required that you provide ID if a state employed law enforcement agent has “probable cause” or “reasonable suspicion”  that you have committed a crime. Here the supposed crime is a failure to come to a complete stop.  Dilshodjon provides the state required information but retains his right to be silent. Dilshodjon is not only calm in his demeanor, but also understands what is and is not required from him by law from the State during this type of law enforcement contact.

Trooper Johnston asks if the “address is current” at which point Dilshodjon exhorts his right and refuses to answer any other questions. Trooper Johnston then says “you don’t have a choice but to answer”,  yet presses the issue no further and shifts the topic over to the supposed traffic violation/infraction (the crime) and returns to his vehicle to write up the citation.

At approx 5.22 of the video the trooper returns back to Dilshodjon and asks him to get out of the car. Rightfully, Dilshodjon does not comply. Trooper Johnston let’s his ego and pride start to run the interaction as he claims again “you don’t have a choice” and opens the car door. Trooper Johnson then proceeds to tell Dilshodjon to “step on out before I pull you out” followed up by “all you have to do is do what I am ASKING you to do”.  Again, Dilshodjon calmly, politely, and well within his rights does not comply and asks for a supervisor. When Dilshodjon asks for the trooper to shut his door, the trooper refuses and begins to get agitated as Dilshodjon points out that the citation can be explained through the open window with the door closed. Trooper Johnston then says “I don’t think you understand, this is MY traffic stop”, and again, “all you had to DO is DO what I ASK”. So, is that really asking? Once more Dilshodjon asks the trooper to shut his door at which point trooper Johnston says “I’m not closing the door, you need to step out” and reaches into the car  grabbing at Dilshodjon. The trooper must have had a moment of clarity as he backs off a little and resists his urge to continue his assault on Dilshodjon. Soon after though Dilshodjon reaches out to shut the door and Johnston stops him,  physically assaults him, forcefully removes him from the car and places him in handcuffs. He tells Dilshodjon that he is not able to perform his “duty”.  Trooper Johnston apparently has no idea what his actual duty is if he is claiming that Dilshodjon, by not complying to an unlawful and unconstitutional order, is obstructing.

Film The Police Banner copblock-radio-show-sidebar-300x-80banner

 

Dilshodjon was assaulted,  illegally detained, and illegally searched.

When the supervisor shows up he explains Georgia state law concerning providing ID. It becomes apparent     that the supervisor wasn’t really informed by trooper Johnston as to what the issue was as he demonstrates he was unaware that the ID had already been presented to Johnston. When he is told ID has already been given over, the supervisor says, “that’s all he (johnston) was looking for”. This verifies that Dilshodjon was in compliance with the State law requiring ID. When Dilshodjon tells the supervisor it’s about answering other questions the supervisor has to begin to deceitfully convince Dilshodjon that what has been done  to him is perfectly legal.

The supervisor says ” ok here, here’s, let me try to see where he’s coming from with this and it’s PROBABLY the way I would be coming at it”. So the supervisor really doesn’t want to know where the trooper is “coming from”. He follows up with his reasoning and justification for their coercion in forcing the answer to followup questions.  Notice the supervisor states in his justification “the only thing I’m doing is ASKING”. There sure is a lot of forceful asking going on. All of a sudden the age ol “if you have nothing to hide” deceit tactic is pulled out. It get’s even better as the supervisor says “i mean, let’s throw all the legal mumbo jumbo out the window sir, ok. Let’s play on BIG BOY terms. Let’s not play the lawyer game and my rights are violated game or none of that BULLCRAP today.” After that sad view of your rights was used as a tactic of sidetracking, the supervisor sneaks the question in again. When he finds out it’s not the same address he ASKS “will you provide that address to this officer?” Once Dilshodjon answered, the supervisor continues to further the “investigation” with other follow up questions. Remember that in the beginning of this whole contact that Dilshodjon did not consent and invoked his 5th amendment right plainly and clearly. Now through scare tactics, deceit, and coercion Dilshodjon begins to answer their questions.

Hang on, it’s not over yet. We have yet to get to the “legalities” that this supervisor wants to discuss. The legality he starts with is a scenario of “what ifs”, neglecting that all the information that Dilshodjon would actually need concerning his court date is on the citation itself. More importantly he neglected providing any “legalities” at all in his excuses in covering the illegal behavior they were performing under color of law. He goes on to say that he is ” the top of the line supervisor”. There is no one above him. He proceeds to give more “legalities” when he gives “advice” and suggests that “it would probably be in your best interest to sign the citation”. He explains that if Dilshodjon doesn’t sign the citation that they would “feel like” he was “a flight risk” and he would be taken to jail.  Is that the legal knowledge of the  “top of the line supervisor”? Does he understand his own “legal mumbo jumbo”?

Trooper Johnston then returns back with the citation and spews what I call the “self righteous” cop attitude by saying “you realize we could have avoided all of this if you had told me that 20 minutes ago, do you realize that?”. I’m curious to know if trooper Johnston realized it could have all been over with if he had not persisted on violating Dilshodjon rights. This poor logic in self righteousness is a very scary attribute that many officers carry.

Trooper Johnson then ends the contact with “did you learn something today?” “Let’s not do it again, ok?”

~ Danny

 

Georgia CopBlock ~ Website ~ Facebook

___________________________________________________________________________________

The Doggie Treat Deceit Episode 1 & 2


EPN

Leather Jacket - Vintage Nyc Mounted Police , Horse Hide picture
Leather Jacket - Vintage Nyc Mounted Police , Horse Hide
$3500.0


 Buco P27 Brown 44 Steerhide Motorcycle Jacket Police Patrol Leather Uniform picture
Buco P27 Brown 44 Steerhide Motorcycle Jacket Police Patrol Leather Uniform
$1250.0


Original Rcmp Vintage Bison Buffalo Winter Jacket Coat Mounted Police Winnipeg picture
Original Rcmp Vintage Bison Buffalo Winter Jacket Coat Mounted Police Winnipeg
$999.99


Vintage Dallas Tx Sw District St. Hwp -redskins-motorcycle Police Leather Jacket picture
Vintage Dallas Tx Sw District St. Hwp -redskins-motorcycle Police Leather Jacket
$999.99


Vintage 1950's Providence Ri Motorcycle Police Guide Master Wolf Leather Jacket picture
Vintage 1950's Providence Ri Motorcycle Police Guide Master Wolf Leather Jacket
$750.0


Danny

has been an avid copblocker since 2012. If you would like to help support Danny’s efforts at CopBlock.org please consider Donating Bitcoin. Other ways you can help Danny and the CopBlock Network is by purchasing CopBlock Gear and Joining the Network. Check out these other links.- KCK CopBlock YoutubeKCK CopBlock Facebook KCK CopBlock Google+

  • definitelynotperfect

    Another great example of “God Complex” that is taught in the Academy…These 2 were top of their respective classes. Great job LE, trampling on peoples rights is why LE are not respected by the general public anymore. You’ve done it to yourselves with activity just like this.

  • JC

    Another stupid copblocker thinking they don’t have to follow the law. Sorry guy, you were stopped. You didn’t come to a complete stop. You decided to play this idiotic copblock game and you lost. Again, you didn’t stop. You got a ticket just like anyone else would. Crying the victim game doesn’t work.

  • Common Sense

    That didn’t turn out the way you thought huh sport.

  • t

    Wow.
    Gotta love activists that have zero idea of the “law”.
    We (the police) don’t need any reason at all to order you out of the car at any point during a stop. Sorry guys. Your ignorance is simply your ignorance.

  • ymygody

    it is attitudes like this that are going to lead to pigs being slaughtered in the streets. The people are not going to take it much longer, that’s already been shown in the recent past. though you can’t expect Nazis to see their own crimes.

  • Burn The Obedient

    I want any of you supposed police officers to find a law in Georgia, or any state for that matter, that shows the requirement to get out of the car for a simple traffic ticket. Also, for bonus points, find a law that makes it a crime, or gives reasonable suspicion, when people invoke the right to remain silent.

    The reaction from the police employee in this video is indicative of a low IQ. Anybody with a average IQ would be able to defuse the situation and realize they are wrong. But not this robot. When his authority is question, he reverts back to his indoctrination training and becomes the true picture of what he really is. A low level robot who has been programmed to react with violence when someone go outside of his parameters.

  • Burn The Obedient

    In situations like this, police employees base their authority on unwritten laws based on what they have been told. Its a never ending cycle of trainer and trainee that gets regurgitated over and over again until all the intelligence has been filtered away and we are left with what we see here. A big, dumb, animal.

  • Z

    This officer was fully within his rights. He did nothing “above the law”. Truly looking at this objectively, the only thing he could have done better was explaining the reason for requesting the suspects current address like the supervisor did.

    Did anyone catch the “illegal search” of weapons crap? Now THAT was truly reaching for something to pin on the officer.

  • Burn The Obedient

    I have my doubts that you are even remotely involved with any kind of government operation. But I think, based on most of your comments, that you just might have a low enough IQ to fit right in.

  • Burn The Obedient

    Rights? What rights? Citizens have rights. Police employees have rules. They dont the right to do anything. And again, I challenge you to find a law that requires the answering of ANY questions. Explain all you want on the reason to find out if the address is current, there is NO REQUIRMENT to answer your questions.

  • z

    Citizens also have “rules”. They’re called laws. Obey them and you don’t get into this situation in the first place. If you were half as smart as you claim you are, you would understand that.

    All of you activists who want to point fingers don’t want to see that the laws haven’t changed to control you anymore than 10 years ago. You only want to break laws and then cry assault when you’re not pampered like a child that thinks a smack on the wrist will do. That could be the issue that creates the attitude you have. Maybe you never were disciplined to know the difference.

  • pickle

    Don’t waste your time. This guy thinks that whatever a cop tells you to do, legal or not, you HAVE to do. He doesn’t really know the law or care to. He thinks that if a cop tells you to strip, bend over and spread ’em on the side of the road, you have to do just that. Of course, he probably does that for cops anyway, but that’s besides the point.

  • []

    “this is what the courts are for” says skinheaded and armed terrorist revenue agent pretending to be a peace officer. Courts, thus, are to redistribute money from the legal name to the legal corporation and the legal attorneys and legal cops which terrorize people into parting with their dollars. Georgia is ultra Gestapo so why not losethename.com ?

  • pickle

    Gotta love the dumb shit back woods accent the supervisor spews out. Sounds like Rosco P. Coltrain. “Let’s gyit ’em, Flash! hyuck hyuck hyuck. Dang ole Duke boys!”
    “If yew have nuttin to hyde…legal mumbo jumbo”

    Not exactly the most intelligent sounding accent.

  • qwe

    the attorneys only hire the most serious rednecks, psychopaths, and sociopaths to be sheriffs and police.

  • JC

    First off, you are not in control of the scene. The officer is. If the officer is suspicious of something, He can order you out of the vehicle. http://www.georgialegalaid.org/resource/your-rights-and-the-police?ref=vGlV7 Read down the list.

    It’s so sickening to constantly see morons like this think they have done nothing wrong and want to argue with the officer(s) If you are stopped in your car

    Show your driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance upon request. Your car can be searched without a warrant as long as the police have probable cause. To protect yourself later, make it clear that you do not consent to a search.

    If you are given a ticket, you should sign it. If you do not, you can be arrested. Your driver’s license can be taken from you, but it should be returned to you when you pay the fine. Of course, you can always fight the case in court later.

    The officer can search your vehicle. Maybe if you work with the officer you won’t get a ticket and if you do get a ticket, you can fight it in court.

  • pickle

    Anyone else feel like there should be a banjo playing when the supervisor talks?

  • Burn The Obedient

    Never claimed to be that smart. Im not, nor have I ever, contested the reason for the stop. The driver broke the law, and received a ticket. I dont have a problem with that. I understand the reason for such laws, and believe they serve a purpose. What I am arguing, with you, is the requirement to answer questions. The intent that I gathered from your statement was that the situation surrounding the police employee removing the driver from the vehicle was lawful. And that he was removed because he refused to answer questions. Now, again, please find a law anywhere on the books that requires anyone to answer any questions from a police employee. Thats my argument. Not the stop. Not the ticket. That can be settled in court. Show me the legal “mumbo jumbo” that says I have to follow orders to get out of my car only because a police employee “asked” me to.

  • Burn The Obedient

    The link you posted doesnt seem to be working.

  • JC
  • YourTaxDollarsAtWork

    According to the video, the rogue agent of the state asked but did not order the victim to get out of the car. The victim declined the request.

  • TexasForLife

    He didn’t just get a ticket – his rights were violated. GTFO man.

  • Shawn

    ““i mean, let’s throw all the legal mumbo jumbo out the window sir, ok.
    Let’s play on BIG BOY terms. Let’s not play the lawyer game and my
    rights are violated game or none of that BULLCRAP today.””

    Regardless of anything else, this is a lousy attitude for a cop to have. “Let’s throw out the legal mumbo jumbo?” OK. You’re now not a LE officer at all, just a thug. Or is it we only toss out laws and rules that cops don’t like?

    This attitude is just another example of how cops have zero regard for any restrictions of their behavior.

  • BarneyQ

    WOW .. Wow, if you are a cop, you’re a public servant, NOT GOD ! Do understand that? You play God with the wrong person and you’ll either murder them or they’ll take you to court and sue they hell out of you? Do you understand THAT ?

  • JC

    No, his rights weren’t violated. If the driver feels he has been wronged, he can file a complaint.

    http://www.georgialegalaid.org/resource/your-rights-and-the-police?ref=vGlV7

  • margova

    “You’re not obeying what I have asked you to do”.. ‘I don’t have to obey you.. and while its fine to ASK.. don’t whine when I say no. You have a legal right to ask.. and I have a legal right to say no. You must be thinking that you’re the boss of me or something, yes? While you’re mistaking me for someone who gives a shit about what you want.’

    Typical big-talking abuser of the system cop-scum. Couldn’t pull a bugger out of his own nose.

  • simpleton

    right on

  • simpleton

    I can’t believe they give these buttfucks a gun and a 50K car to drive around.

  • Guest

    For some reason you forgot this part….
    Your Rights & the Police
    What you say to the police is important. What you say can be used against you and can give the police an excuse to arrest you, especially if you speak disrespectfully to an officer.

    You do not have to answer a police officer’s questions, but you must show your drivers license, registration, and proof of insurance when stopped while driving a car. You cannot be legally arrested for refusing to identity yourself to a police officer unless you are charged with loitering or prowling.

    You do not have to give your consent to any search of yourself, your car, or your home. If you do consent to a search, it can affect your rights later in court. If the police say they have a warrant, ask to see it.

    Oh yeah…..then there is this at the bottom of everything so I think it is not gospel for either side…..

    This is not complete advice.

  • keepitreal

    Douchebag, unless your telling the cop where you live would tend to incriminate you in a crime, THE FUCKING 5TH DOESN’T APPLY. Haven’t you ever heard the whole deal? I decline to answer that question on the grounds that the answer might tend to incriminate me. And go back to law school. A cop can tell you and anybody else in the car to step out. This is a waste of space.

  • Guest

    Exactly….

  • keepitreal

    Whats sickening is you and all of your bullshit, slaps.

  • JC

    I believe you missed the first part of it.

    “Show your driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance upon request. Your car can be searched without a warrant as long as the police have probable cause. To protect yourself later, make it clear that you do not consent to a search.

    If you are given a ticket, you should sign it. If you do not, you can be arrested. Your driver’s license can be taken from you, but it should be returned to you when you pay the fine. Of course, you can always fight the case in court later”.

  • JC

    Obviously you have to keep telling yourself that so you believe it.

  • Guest

    I missed none of it. I can read and I read all of it. You , however, only shared what you wanted….I was just making sure the rest was shown……Oh yeah…..then there is this at the bottom of everything so I think it is not gospel for either side…..

    This is not complete advice.

  • Pw4x3r

    You’re really confused about the whole “probable cause” part, and where there was none. How about, no requirement to verbally confirm or deny the address on the drivers license is current or not? How about opening the car door in violation of all rights?
    Misdemeanor misrepresentation of the law
    Felony assault with a deadly weapon.
    Felony attempted kidnapping
    Felony kidnapping
    Fuck you.
    YOU are a fucking idiot.

  • Pw4x3r

    The fucking JC and T bitches cannot provide you with the information you seek as it does not exist. This guys rights were destroyed on so many levels. There’s very little to argue on this one.

  • JC

    No, he was rightfully pulled over and subsequently searched. You are truly a stupid ass. The police can search his vehicle and they don’t need his permission. You need to step down off of the soap box you are standing on. Because you never seem to be right.

    “Show your driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance upon request. Your car can be searched without a warrant as long as the police have probable cause. To protect yourself later, make it clear that you do not consent to a search.

    If you are given a ticket, you should sign it. If you do not, you can be arrested. Your driver’s license can be taken from you, but it should be returned to you when you pay the fine. Of course, you can always fight the case in court later”.

  • Guest

    I agree, although I think you were directing that to Burn The Obedient…..thanks the same, anyway! JC , t, z, and there was one more, I forget his name….all paid shills that don’t believe in rights.

  • Shawn

    How about refusing to answer questions that violate a personal sense of privacy about their own business? Or does that not apply to citizens?

    People can refuse to give information on demand for more reasons than guilt. Maybe we just don’t feel like our entire lives are supposed to be open books to cops upon demand. There is this whole concept of boundaries. Having no boundaries is unhealthy.
    Cops certainly have a sense of privacy when it concerns themselves. Try getting to view their personnel jackets and complaints. You can’t. Yet that very stuff is critical to knowing how a cop behaves himself.

  • keepitreal

    I’m not commenting on refusing to answer questions. I’m just tired of every wannabe Perry Mason quoting the same 5th Amendment nonsense. Didn’t pay attention in High School civics class or something.

  • keepitreal

    No, I keep repeating it because you keep lying. Being the weak ass bitch that you are.

  • keepitreal

    Be careful of clicking any links provided by this ass-hat. He gets into some really sick shit.

  • t

    Brunie:
    Easy…..
    PA v Mimms. AND. Maryland v Wilson.

    Anything else there retard?

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    Again, another video where the subject got caught, tried to play Perry Mason and got pinched. Now the subject is whining about it.

  • t

    TFL:
    Where? At what point where his “rights violated”? Give a time stamp on the video.

  • t

    31:
    CBer learning. It’s the worst.
    What’s funny is that…yet again…another CBer who won’t talk…but won’t shut up. So funny.

  • t

    margove:
    SCOTUS disagrees.

  • t

    3r:
    How about no?
    SCOTUS has already ruled in this dude. And you are on the wrong side.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    Amazingly funny.

    Oh and 3 more days. :)

  • t

    You suck.

  • t

    “a personal sense of privacy”. Wow.

  • t

    Brunie:
    Ok sporto…..which part did I get wrong?
    SCOTUS a says I’m right.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    Admit it… You’re jealous.

  • t

    PA v Miims
    Maryland v Wilson

    Case closed.

  • t

    Absolutely.
    But at least I still get to go forth and educate the clueless CBer types. It really is fun and I’m betting….it’ll be lucrative too. I just heard of another case where an officer sued for defamation and won. I’ve actually had some very liberal folks even tell me recently that some of the “slanderous things” they’ve seen on line (not necessarily police related) needs to be stopped. Heck….just think about what we’ve started to see at the bottom of some of the article on this site alone. The little wackier statements about not needing permission to repost and such. There’s been some higher profile arrests even for online threats and such. Changes are a coming. Lies are still lies…even online lies.

  • Shawn

    A real mystery to you,isn’t it? A POS like you can’t get that people shouldn’t have to explain every aspect of their life on demand.

    Tell me, can I go in on demand and view your personnel jacket and complaints? No? Why? Got something to hide? Or is it that you understand privacy and dignity for yourself, but not for others?

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    True… So very true. But we both know the lowest common denominator in this type of civil disobedience is “I saw/heard it on YouTube so it must be legal and I’m gonna stop these jackbooted thugs in their tracks.”

    I’m always happy to see the end-result.

  • margova

    Who cares? Let em come get em some.

  • Chandler

    I just think it’s funny how people use these videos to argue back and forth threw a keyboard.

  • Ernie Menard

    Margrove, I think you’re wrong about that. I think the supreme court distinguishes between consensual and non-consensual interactions. A request is consensual, a demand is not. If the cop is asking then the request could be viewed by a reasonable person as something the person has a choice about doing.
    I think that the cop is giving an order despite his completion of the command with the word ‘okay’ that would seem to make the command a question and thus a request. The question that I have is whether in this situation, given the reason for the traffic stop – which is a detention – and the probable legitimacy of the concern about the person’s actual address is whether the cop had a right to order the person out of the car. Or do cops always have the default right to order somebody out of a vehicle?
    It would sure be nice if somebody could find some bright line rule that doesn’t consider what the cop purports to believe or suspect [because cops routinely fabricate facts to support their actions] regarding the answer to this question.

  • Common Sense

    til what? if you say “retire” then yes, you suck

  • Common Sense

    He’ll never get it.

  • Common Sense

    It all depends on the state. Why don’t you go to your local PD and try it.

  • Common Sense

    Double check and mate.

  • t

    Wow. What a winner you aren’t

  • t

    Nazis and gay sec. They are all obsessed with Nazis and gay sex.
    I’ve never understood that part

  • patriot156

    Why do cops get their panties in a wad when people defend their rights? not coming to a complete stop though doesn’t precipricate a crime it’s only a traffic citation.

  • patriot156

    problem with that is they can say they had probable cause at their own whim! hardly anyone ever questions them too so ergo absolute power and tyranny!

  • patriot156

    To say that a bad government must be established for fear of anarchy is really saying that we should kill ourselves
    for fear of dying. – Richard Henry Lee (1732- 1794), Member of Continental Congress, Signer of the Declaration of
    Independence, U.S. Senator
    The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
    it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government –
    lest it come to dominate our lives and interests. – Patrick Henry
    An Avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret,
    and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even
    his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach
    to himself. – Thomas Paine
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson
    If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. – Thomas Jefferson

  • Common Sense

    You should check out that nutter from Colorado’s FB page. He’s losing his shit.

  • Alexander Vucelic

    cop upset 1) he wasted time and is behind in his quota
    2) citizen will be filing a compliant for sure
    3) his anti-american law breaking will be all over youtube

  • Pw4x3r

    Dude, let’s throw all that legal mumbo jumbo out the window. Srsly.

  • JohnW

    As has already been stated… In Pennsylvania v Mimms the Supreme Court ruled that a police officer can ALWAYS legally order the driver out of the car on a traffic stop. You may not agree with that decision, but that’s the law.

  • JC

    I posted a link. Take it or leave it. It doesn’t matter too me.

  • JC

    No, you keep repeating it because you are trying to convince yourself that your lies are true. How’s the weather in College Park LV?

  • Guest

    You did! Good observation!! Apparently some people could not get it to work….took me a couple tries, finally got it to work, I READ what was relevant to this (I do not skimp on matters) and found you were not telling ALL of what that ACLU article is about and who wrote it (Gerald R. Weber, Jr. , American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia) the last time it was reviewed (Reviewed 9/2/02) and the part about your rights involving police contact.
    Ever wonder if things changed since then….2002? 13 years?
    That link is questionable at best, is not gospel either for or against what happened here, and even at the end of the page says “this is not complete advice”. So your point in using that article for an argument is moot. The only thing for sure to do regardless on that page is “be sure to consult your lawyer”.
    It doesn’t matter to me what you post either….take it or leave it…. at least I double check and see whether what I post has merit or not…..and will post all of it, regardless. Now take your shill and go away.

  • JC

    It’s easy to dismiss information that doesn’t support your own.

  • Guest

    Who is supporting what? All I am saying is (Dang…and I have to say it again? For the FOURTH time) …..for the slow ones out there ….I think it is not gospel for either side. Maybe you just like to attack people for their own opinion…..troll.

  • JC

    Really? Attack people for their own opinion. Let’s see.

    You said on another post, “JC , t, z, and there was one more, I forget his name….all paid shills that don’t believe in rights”. It would appear you like to attack people for their own opinion. Troll

  • Guest

    That is correct, I did post that. To someone else that I agreed with, I was not “attacking” you per se.. Seems you have a problem that I agree with someone other than you also. Ahhh, and your buddy with his sheep showed up, also…31B ….all the little sheep in a herd….. ROFLMAO!! At least it is true, anyway. NO one else but you can have rights…right? HAHAHA!!

  • Guest

    I don’t have all day to keep explaining to you…and your pointless uneducated self. Have fun being a troll…troll. I remember you and your friends…all here just to praise your gods and put others down with derogatory remarks. Nothing new… I am done with this conversation, I already made my point…no need to carry on.

  • Mitch Mitchell

    Time to stop this, if it continues IT WILL end badly. For everybody.

  • Mitch Mitchell

    t you old troll you, have not seen you on sucking cop cock in ages. How is it tasting these days? Does it make you feel good to be such a suck? Bet you love it when them pigs play rough and force you. Thought you had been fired from trolling it has been so long. Sorry to see your moniker again. Still hanging out at the back of your local cop shop? I see your assbandit JC is back too. Were you on vacation together?

  • Guest

    He is a paid troll, goes on ANY forum to suck cop cock. Calles himself a PO. Don’t rise to it he is pondscum.

  • Mitch Mitchell

    Don’t rise to the pondslime, him and t are paid pig cock suckers and troll all the forums defending the cunts in blue and winding up people who can see the way things are going, I’d love to have seen their faces when those two cunts in NY got justice.

  • t

    Shawn:
    About my personnel file:
    Some aspects of it yes…on demand. Some no…it’s like your job….not open to the public.

    Where did I say anything even remotely like people having to explain ever aspect of their life on demand?
    This….like nearly all police contact…is innocuous conversation. It’s not an knterogation. And I know….I know…..that’s what it feels like. It’s always about the “feels”.

    NOTHING in this event was invasive. Now of course…..there is the issue with the the dog sniff. Now….as we don’t get to see any of that….because the poster decided to edit it out. Everything from beginning to end that the police did in this video was spot on correct.

  • t

    Shawn:
    I have to apologize. I thought this was the thread about the dog search.

    My bad.

    This one is even more
    Ridiculous on the drivers part. He was told to step out so the officer could explain the citation. Really it’s not much harder than that. He choice to “exercise” his perceived right to be an idiot.
    We Don’t have too listen to that crap. For that momment….the duration of that stop….you are “seized” and as SCOTUS has correctly ruled….the very minimal intrusion into someone’s “privacy” doesn’t outweigh the GOVERNMNET interrest or the officers safety concerns. In both PA v Mimmd AND Maryland v Wilson the justices detail those concepts clearly.

  • RAD

    Pennsylvania v Mimms. It’s a piece of religious scripture written by the shamans of the government.

  • RAD

    Why do you worship scotus?

  • RAD

    The whole thing.

  • RAD

    Ya file a complaint. Make sure to forward it to the insurance company.

  • RAD

    Why should we have faith in this supreme court?

  • RAD

    What is a government?

  • RAD

    Why should we have faith in the scotus religion?

  • RAD

    They do think they are serving a religious deity (an invisible non-corporeal higher power called the “state”). The whole statist belief system is an insane religion.

  • Shaarinya

    every time I see a video like this I seethe with rage. They are nothing but little boys who think they’re important. If I ask them politely to jump off a bridge, will they comply? They apparently expect every one else to.

  • t

    RAD:
    Who said anything about “worship”
    See guy…here’s the thing. As has been pointed out many times….YOU love saying that laws aren’t real and that the courts are robed priests or some other such crap. But then your bi-polar nature swings back and you talk about suing everyone I. The same courts that you deny have any authority.

    No system of government is perfect. And clearly ours isn’t either.
    But j found myself hoping that the “Free Staters” really get some traction. I want to watch how their little anarchy experiment works when the streets don’t get plowed or paved, when the electrical grid starts failing and the water and sewer stops. See….no private company is gonna take over because there’s no recourse for them when you don’t pay. When all you have is takers…and nobody contributing….it all runs out pretty quick. That’s why liberal progressives are popular with the young and their fiscal polices are a raging failure.

    So for that run down the rabbit hole….but it all goes together with your nonsensical ideas.

  • t

    Wow. Enjoy the seethe and rage

  • ‘Craig Bruner’

    You are wrong…

  • JC

    No, you were attacking me. You twist things around like a true activist to make it seem like you don’t have to take responsibility for your actions. The only sheep on this site are copblock streetsheep. The attacks from others on this site toward anyone with a different opinion is absolutely pathetic. You believe what you want. What ever helps you sleep at night.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    Three days till I retire.

    But now it’s TWO days. :)

    (does the butt dance)

  • Sikko

    Do you have any facts to support the religious belief that he, in fact, has “rights” that are able to be violated?

  • Guest

    In your mind, fool, it’s all in your mind. I simply told the truth. I have no need to twist anything…and I have not. I have always taken responsibility for my actions, as I always will. I have no reason not to. You, sir, are the pathetic one. I think you are friends with someone else I know also….or maybe the same person, with another name…. you act so much alike. I will ALWAYS believe what I want to believe, no one forces me to believe any different. LOL…and I don’t need help to sleep at night…that is not an issue of mine…..maybe it is for you, not for me.
    Whatever……you are just all talk anyway……here, so you can understand…..baaa-aaa-aaa……got it now?

  • t

    RAD: Well educate me then. Where specifically? And what rights?

  • t

    Sikko:
    That’s awesome. He’ll never answer you.

  • t

    So are insurance policies.

  • t

    Idiot boy:
    It’s and instrument to restrain the governmnet.
    Where did this “governmnet” come from?
    Why should it be restrained?
    What “powers” are granted to it that have to be restrained?

  • t

    AV:
    1: doesn’t have one
    2: about what
    3: he didn’t break any laws.

  • t

    What is a RAD?

  • t

    Why shouldn’t we?

  • t

    BBQ:
    Where did someone “play God”?

  • t

    Not to the toolbags.

  • t

    3r:
    So…denial much?

  • Del

    Yes. That is way the officer should have gave him a ticket and been on his way. Instead the officer took a person dislike that the man wouldn’t answer his question and escalated the situation.

  • Del

    He by law was obligated to produce his DL, registration, and insurance. Besides that he has no obligation to answer the officers questions.

  • Del

    Do you know the definition of probable cause?
    In this case there was zero, so yes he needs permission to search is property.
    A traffic violation does not give a officer the right to make you do what ever he wants.

  • Sikko

    He hasn’t answered this question yet, no matter how I have posed it, but it’s still worth the effort. I figure it’s a good way to illustrate that his “logic” is silly from the outset

  • keepitreal

    Precipricate? I can’t even figure out what you were trying to spell.

  • keepitreal

    Can you believe the shit he’s saying? Freaking looking for some kind of domestic terrorist charge or something.

  • keepitreal

    And I just bet your Google returns 25 hits about this new case, doesn’t it…..

  • keepitreal

    Yeah, well I don’t understand how you ever knew about something as sick as nambla. That freaking shit is nasty.

  • JC

    In this case you are not taking responsibility for your actions. Your ridiculous rant means nothing. I posted a link to back up my statements. You haven’t. If you don’t want to believe the link, so be it. Who cares. I would like to thank you for keeping within copblock troll standards. What ever helps you sleep at night.

  • keepitreal

    See, that’s what I mean. You just keep spouting the same nonsense. Post something verifiable, slaps. My drivers license number. An address. My name. LOL. Oh, yeah, I know, “when I’m ready I will”. LOLOLOLOLOL. Stupid lying douchebag.

  • keepitreal

    Won’t take responsibility for his actions? Really slaps? You’re the cheesy fuck that posted a bestiality video, accused a few of us of being the stars, and now deny the whole thing. Lying hypocritical fuckstick.

  • Guest

    I sure enough DID take responsibility for my actions…I showed you what you failed to expound upon, with your link. You are taking that link as gospel , when , in fact, it even SAYS at the end of it “This is not complete advice.” and “Consult with your attorney”….they say ignorance is bliss…can you let us know? Baaaaaa…aaaa

  • Shawn

    I was only commenting on the cop’s attitude about answering questions or else, and his “legal mumbo jumbo” nonsense.

    I’m not about to play 20 questions about my life with an asshole who treats my dignity as nothing. Now ask me questions politely and an acceptance of my boundaries, and I’m probably going to be a lot more cooperative.

    I don’t trust the dog sniffs at all, but that is secondary to all of this.

    As for ID, I don’t see the issue with providing ID.
    As for removing someone from a car? There are clearly good reasons to do so, first and foremost removing them from potential weapons and from deciding to flee.

    I would add that removing someone to punish attitudes is not acceptable. i.e. it is raining hard and I’m going to drag you out into the water as punishment, or it is 20 degrees outside.
    If someone is removed from the car, the cop should be responsible for property treating them. In bad weather, put them in the patrol car.
    I’ve heard of one case where the cop wanted to search a car and the guy said no. The cop put him in the car on a hot day and then cranked the heat on. Came back a few minutes later and asked again. No? a few minutes later he returned. The guy submitted. It wasn’t worth the battle.

    This was torture. A deliberate decision to abuse a person to abuse someone to ignore restrictions of unreasonable search, or just to prove his power. Of course it was a he said/she said situation. No proof. Bad cops control evidence.

    Now I’m sure you will say “Lie”, but can you honestly claim cops won’t do this? We did just have that cop verbally abuse and slap a guy for refusing permission to search.

  • JC

    You are a truly stupid stupid person. You continually say the same thing over and over. I have never seen you say anything intelligent. You are OCD and schizophrenic. Get help.

  • corkie

    Their ability to order someone out of the car is limited to their reasonable concerns about safety. So, the trooper would be forced to articulate his safety concerns in this situation.

  • patriot156

    lol no wonder people are so ignorant of what is supposed to be and not what is, they can’t even recognise the original statements and signatures of the Constitution.
    Notice it’s Thomas Jefferson making most of these statements and not some who doesn’t have a clue. FYI he was one of the early Presidents and author of the declaration of Independance.
    Why should it be restrained? You advocate beating people up who defend their rights and you have the nerve to ask? If you actually read the Constitution it tells you there. Ignorant of who Thomas Paine was? OR Patrick Henry?
    Gov was formed after the Revolution might check your histroy!
    IDIOT BOY!

  • corkie

    “” some of the “slanderous things” they’ve seen on line (not necessarily police related) needs to be stopped. “” – Ha ha. Learn the difference between slander and libel prior educating anyone, professor. Things “seen” online can’t be slanderous.

  • corkie

    “” unless your telling the cop where you live would tend to incriminate you in a crime, THE FUCKING 5TH DOESN’T APPLY. “” – How do you know if such information would be incriminating? Is it illegal in Georgia to fail to get an address on a drivers license updated within a certain time period? The 5th might certainly apply. A cop might be justified in detaining someone until he’s sure that he has enough information to forgo an arrest, but don’t pretend that the 5th can’t apply in this situation.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Thanks for quoting the case names. I stopped reading the post at “trooper returns back to Dilshodjon and asks him to get out of the car. Rightfully, Dilshodjon does not comply.”

  • patriot156

    Whatever! you knew what I was saying or meant. It means not coming to a full stop in’t a crime read the back of tickets sometime they all say this is not a crime! PRecipricate Recipricate or however it’s spelled means that action doesn’t lend it’s hand to a crime which is what the little pig in little girl panties said in the story.

  • patriot156

    besides WTF you pulling my chain for? were both it seems against these posers JC and T anyhows. at least from what I’ve read on your comments to JC at least.

  • patriot156

    FYI to all ignorant of what it was the Forefathers truly wanted these are very good and very true quotes check into them sometime. http://www.americanrevival.org/quotes/forefathers.htm
    Very enlightening.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Yeah, it should have ended there with a “sign this” (if the state requires a signature, not all do), “here’s the ticket”, and “have a nice day” with asshole muttered under the Trooper’s breath.
    I have a DL issued in 2008, expires in 2019, so I can see asking if the DL has the correct address. If you neither pay nor show…

  • Yankeefan

    I am down with going after these idiots. But none of what they do has a thing to do with free speech not will it ever, Anyone who attempts to “harm and injure” another should be sued and put in their place.

    I also like to look at all angles. Did you see the news story that had the Quinnipiac University poll on what new Yorkers think of their PD’s game with their “stoppage”? Lets say they are calling BS on what the police are doing. So, sometimes the police do shoot themselves in the foot at times.

  • Common Sense

    Seething, double word score

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Just to help you, “Gotta love activists that have zero idea of a “law”.” Or “Gotta love activists that have zero idea of that “law”.”
    Police make mistakes about “law”, too, and all the time. Just not this one.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    He had no right to stay in the car when the Trooper ordered him out. Look up the two cases t. gave.

    Whatever the reason, the Trooper has that power.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    But not at the time, and the validity isn’t up to the driver.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Congratulations. But please don’t video the butt dance.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Just stretching this to a higher point, damn, don’t you wish the Labor movement, the Civil Rights movement, and the Free Speech movement just obeyed the law? Never made a fuss, just stayed obedient to the Law?

    Now putting it back to this trivial incident, yeah he should have got out of the car.

  • t

    cork:
    Simply wrong.
    No RS is needed.
    No PC is needed.
    No reason at all is needed.
    Sorry guy. Add this to the growing list of things you are wrong about.

  • t

    CB:
    About what?
    SXOTUS ruled in BOTH PA v Mimms ANDY Maryland v Wilson that the police don’t need ANY REASON AT ALL to order the driver or any passengers out of the car. Sorry dude.

  • t

    Ray:
    As always….I try to educate and inform the masses.

  • t

    Sikko:
    He can’t answer it. If he takes a stand either way….it’s means that half of what he writes is a lie.

  • Sikko

    Which is why I’m curious as to what his response to the question would be.

  • t

    Idiot Boy:
    Wow. You’re so dense that you didn’t get any of that.
    I’ll s l o w i t d o w n.
    YOU wrote that the Constitution is an instrument to restrain government. My question to you as you are so clearly a Constitutional expert is…..where does the governmnet get any powers or authority that needs to be restrained?

    BTW….I’m betting that there are several commenters here that know im getting ready to kick your ass.

  • t

    It’ll be silence.

  • t

    Ray:
    True. It could have been that. But the driver didn’t want it to be.

  • t

    a RAD:
    Why shouldn’t we?

  • t

    CS:

  • t

    No….video it and post it here. That would be AWESOME !!!!

  • RaymondbyEllis

    With an ego run rampant, thus prone to the mistakes that come from arrogance and hubris. Just not this time…

  • t

    YF:
    I saw. Funny that…..want to the police to write more tickets. A sick and twisted logic that is.
    But at the same time it should really show that people scream for more police…..not less.

  • t

    Ray:
    Someone’s gotta do it.

  • t

    realio:
    Know….I unfortunately knkw a lot about it. I’ve had to investigate lots of very disturbing things. That is why I told you not to tie yourself to @Glenn who was so into it.

  • corkie

    Obviously, you haven’t read the rulings in these cases either. You just blindly accept flawed police academy training. I have no doubt that you’re a Brady Cop.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Agency, accountability, and responsibility. My “it should have ended there” was before the Trooper demanded the driver get out of the car. The Trooper escalated it at that point, and then it became what the Trooper wanted it to be.

    I can see the issue with answering the question on correct address, but if there is no law requiring that, then the Trooper should have issued and moved on. The get out of the car was ego acting, not a safety issue. His ego, and yours, is not law.

  • corkie

    I never claimed otherwise.

  • corkie

    “” you are not in control of the scene. The officer is. “” – LOL! It’s funny how upset you get about any challenges to your control.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    The ACLU does it. Various blawgs do it. All sorts of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (I hate that I have to write both, they should be the same) organizations do it. The DoJ does it.

    And with much less ego displayed.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Kate Upton did the cat dance. And as hot as she is it wasn’t awesome, it was atrocious and embarrassing. Still, she is hot.

    31B doing the butt dance would likely fall into horrifyingly embarrassing for the rest of us (no offense 31B).

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Kate Upton did the cat dance. As hot as she is it was atrocious and embarrassing. Still she is hot..

    31B doing the butt dance is likely to be horrifyingly embarrassing for the rest of us (no offense 31B).

  • patriot156

    and I told you dumbass to loo it up yourself
    and that’s a threat and I’ll take it as one so bring it then!

  • t

    Shawn:
    Everybody has a story of having heard about this or that.

    Watch what happens in the video. Who was the asshole? I’ll give you a hint….it wasn’t the policei officer. Even after the idiot driver played all the im not talking games….the trooper simply told him to step tot the rear of the car so he could explain the citation.

    I don’t generwally do that. That’s not generally when the danger occurs. If I’m going to get you out….it’s during the initial contact. But that sure sounds and looks like its this troopers normal way of doing his business. It’s lawful for him to do so…

    As for your 20 questions and your “dignity”. How was asking is it was his correct address an assault on his dignity?

    At my PD…. it remained at over 80% of people stopped only got a warn for whatever they were stopped for. It was at or over 80% every month last year. Not an assault on dignity in that.

    But this is an excellent example of how bad the “never talk to the police” idea is.
    While it is certainly within your rights to sit there like a rock and only provide your license and whatever info your state requires…..what will that get you? Any cop with any common sense will be various curious at that type of response. With most stops….I would check the tag and then your license. For the odd folks or the evasive ones….I always ran warrants, checked VINs and if a K9 was available….I get them to check the car.
    The problem that I don’t think you get….and I can’t give you an answer for is:
    Which is more suspicious? Not talking or telling a lie? People lie like breathing sometimes. A lot of CBer type that are shown on this site are chief among those types. It’s why I started telling all the CBers not to talk to the police because when they talk….it’s always a lie and they get caught up in that.

    But this video shows quite clearly….that the asshole hear clearly isn’t the officer.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Yeah, the issue was the dog alerted but nothing was found. That’s called a false positive. Aren’t you glad at least one country, Australia, actually keeps data regarding dog alerts and false positives? Isn’t a shame the USA doesn’t when it has the money for it? Priorities.

  • t

    Ray:
    Just to clarify for you.
    I was right in this case. (As is usually the case)
    Activists like this cat…and many/most here on CB don’t get it that the police can order you out off he car at any point during the stop and that we don’t need a reason to do so. And it comes up here all the time…and regardless of how many times they’ve been shown….they still don’t get it.

  • t

    Ray:
    Now that didn’t hurt so bad did it?

  • RaymondbyEllis

    ” (As is usually the case)” And there’s the ego, the arrogance, and the hubris.
    Some do and some don’t about an officer ordering you out of a car. Just as officers don’t get you can take photographs and videorecord anything in public view because there is no expectation of privacy. No matter how often they are shown, some just don’t get it.
    Remember, the ultimate right is to be left alone. A lot of officers just don’t get that.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Drivel.

  • patriot156

    the answer is blowing in the wind
    er the quotes has the answer dumbass

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Not knowing whether this is t. (fake) or t., Mimms was about officer safety. The officer has to have a reason of where pulling the driver out increases his safety, or the driver’s for that matter. Wilson included passengers.
    This was always done before, the SCOTUS decision just gave approval but also set that it could not be done by whim. There has to be a reason supported by the decisions.

    Edit: I changed “him” to driver for clarity.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    I misunderstood what you meant by “forced to articulate”. Some here believe a cop has to tell you the why of what they are doing when they are doing it but they don’t have to, they should if they have respect for others, but they aren’t required to do it. So they don’t.

    Even with the excuse, I was still wrong.

  • latent homosexuals

  • corkie

    I meant that they would be forced to articulate to a court in a criminal or civil trial. Idiots like t think that a cop can say, “I demanded that he step out of his vehicle because, at that time, I felt like it.” It doesn’t work that way.

  • D-Man

    The cop was in the wrong, no matter what some arbitrary non-related court case decided. Deputy Donut was being an asshole and the civilian called him on it. Now it’s on video for the world to see, and this lazy pig will be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life. Stop wasting the public’s time over traffic stops and go fight some real crime. Go earn that paycheck like a “big boy”.

  • D-Man

    No one is obligated to follow unjust laws. If I didn’t have a vote in the matter, it doesn’t apply to me. End of discussion. The only power this crooked pig had over the driver is the presence of a firearm. Enforcing made up laws through threat of force. Typical. Glad to hear Anonymous will be releasing this pig’s home address soon.

  • Joe Shmo

    where is the urge to being an overwhelming asshole coming from?

  • keepitreal

    Dude, I’m just trying to figure out what word you were trying to use. I still don’t know. So no, I didn’t know what you meant.

  • keepitreal

    No, actually you said it was me who started it. But feel free to lie some more, it’s what you’re well known for here.

  • keepitreal

    Don’t be such a t. The OP was equating the right to remain silent with the 5th. Two totally separate things.

  • keepitreal

    I say the same thing over and over?????????? LOLOLOLOLOL. You mean the way I keep insisting that I have access to people’s driver’s licenses, that I know where people live, and that I’ve seen imaginary criminal records? And I’m the psycho with OCD???? Like I always DO say, you’re not only a liar, but you’re a stupid liar. Probation officer???? I’m saying no fucking way, douchetroll.

  • keepitreal

    Dude, nobody gets paid to post here. That’s one of the more ignorant things claimed on this site.

  • t

    cork:
    No….we won’t.
    No RS is needed.
    No PC is needed.
    No reason at all is needed.

    If an officer does it as a normal part of the way he does he traffic stops? It’s good.
    If an officer has never done it before and this is the first time? Still good.
    If I find it easier to watch you when you are outside the car? It’s good.
    If I just prefer to talk to you outside the car….still good.

    Read the cases dude. Clear as a bell. And your wrong. I’m sorry for your dumb

  • t

    Ray:
    Read up on it.
    No reason
    No RS.
    N PC.

    Trust me.

  • Common Sense

    I read about him before, most of it is the typical but he’s upped his game.

  • Common Sense

    I saw that, had to watch it several times, for research purposes.

  • JC

    How do you figure I’m upset? You are just puting words in others mouths to satisfy your own ego.

  • t

    Dman:
    Let me ask you there smart guy…..
    How to most criminals travel? Before, after, sometimes even during their crimes….how do they get around?

    BTW….many of the readers will recognize that you are about to get your ass handed to you. Let’s see if you are smart enough to see that.

  • macethis

    revenue agents are hired on the basis of: lower IQ and general hatred toward men and especially women. Hatred of dogs is also going to get a psychopath hired as an armed attorney servant.

  • sceeter

    grown up already: losethename.com

  • Spaghetti

    Actually, the police let the driver go after he admitted his mistake of not complying (obstruction of justice) to a respectable and professional police officer of a privileged, valid, commercial Class D Georgia drivers license. The police could have detained him for a (Caballes v Illinois) during the traffic stop, as well.

  • Darren Serati

    Why do people purposely want to unnecessarily escalate instances with cops?

  • Del

    He can ask about the address but he’s not obligated to tell him and yes he should sign if needed. But the officer telling him to get out of the vehicle is wrong.

  • corkie

    “” If an officer does it as a normal part of the way he does he traffic stops? “” – Then, in court, he would need to “articulate” that it’s something he does as a normal part of the way he does traffic stops. Then, such claim can come under scrutiny.

    “” If an officer has never done it before and this is the first time? Still good. “” – A court would require a cop to articulate why he suddenly did it for the first time.

    Again, t, try telling that court that you did it just because you felt like it. See what happens.

  • D-Man

    Nothing about this guy’s behavior suggested he was a criminal. Just a patriotic citizen who knew his rights and wasn’t about to be intimidated by some lazy piglet looking to fill a quota. If he were a real professional he would have intuited as much and moved along. But the moment the driver made him jump through actual hoops to earn his paycheck, it became a power play for him. This is America. We get to ask questions and say “no” when we feel our rights are being violated.

  • Freedom1Man

    Sue those police officers out of house and home. Make them so broke they have to stand on the street corner and beg.

  • LeslieFish

    What you need is a transmitting camera with audio, which transmits directly to a receiver in your lawyer’s office; turn it on the moment a cop pulls you over.

  • Guest

    *you’re

  • Melissa Hubbard

    Driving/travelling is a GOD GIVEN right. Not a privilege! The guy did comply but the officer was a Nazi. You do not have to answer any questions after that. He told him that he did not consent. Wake up! You are the problem because you are propping up the system with your compliance to corporate law and your lack of research. If you want to SHOW YOUR PAPERS ON COMMAND then go ahead but others prefer not to lick the officers boots. This officer and his dumb supervisor let him go because they knew what they did was wrong. Do you really think that they were just charitable? Good Grief. Please research the War Powers Act of 1933/bankruptcya act. Also, the Alien Registration Act of 1945, and you will see that we never had to be REGISTERED TO THE STATE AND ASK PERMISSION TO TRAVEL/(THEIR DEFINITION OF DRIVING.) You and I are AN ALIEN enemy to the state and that is why they are making you and I ask them for permission to drive, marry, carry a weapon and so on. They violated his rights. He did not consent and then the Nazi opened his door. That is a NO NO!! They took him out of the car for no reason. That is KIDNAPPING. They held him against his will for no reason other than a bruised ego because the guy was not licking his boots. They handcuffed him and illegally and unlawfully detained him. The is false imprisonment. Please do your research and maybe this will not happen to you.

  • Melissa Hubbard

    He gave the officer his ID and that is all he had to do. Everything after that was illegal and unlawful and they knew it and that is why he let him go. The officer was the one who did not follow the law. Upon command of his name badge number that must be given. NOT “it is on the summons!”

  • Mick

    Uh, YES you DO have to articulate a reasonable suspicion to believe the person to be armed and your safety to be in jeopardy, or you have to already have probable cause and are seeking to secure evidence and prevent it from destruction because opening someone’s door is a SEARCH you moron, and the 4th Amendment comes into play here when you go opening fucking doors. Where the fuck did you go to law school or academy?

  • Jö Miller

    The burden of proof is on the authority figure to demonstrate their trustworthiness and *not* vice versa.

  • Thenumber4

    Well nest time learn red means stop, green means go and blue means comply

  • Thenumber4

    Well nest time learn red means stop, green means go and blue means comply.

  • oregontrackers

    Saturday 1-17-2015 AD 5:30 pm Mountain Standard Time
    We the People conference call.
    Please Remember…There is a big difference between Hawaii time 2 30pm = 4.30pm pacific = 5 30 pm mountain = 6 30pm central = 7 pm eastern coast:

    Out at the White House.

    &

    At the white outhouse.

    Saturday 1-17-2015 5:30 pm Mountain Standard Time
    http://www.specialcollections.uws.ac.uk/documents/1.pdf

    712-775-7035 Access Code 988249 #

    This will be a call to introduce most people to the four historical written Instrument; by our Forefathers, their Laws (the 1776 A Declaration, the 1777-1787 Confederation, the 1787 proposed Constitution for the United States of America, the 1789 Unanimous ratified Constitution for the United States of America, and the 1789 ARTICLES, in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution…) and the methods of word usage (including case structure and punctuation).

    P.S This invitation is the only withstanding invitation. Although some People have received this exact information with “aditional information/propaganda/agenda/agendas” from other sources, this source is only about the aforementioned.

    Judge Rules that Government Debt is Covered by FDCPA, Forcing Collection Agency to Defend
    http://www.insidearm.com/…/judge-rules-that-government-deb…/

    God gave the Untied States of America only freedom on this planet wake up protect this god given right
    Merely being native born within the territorial boundaries of the United States of America does not make such an inhabitant a Citizen of the United States subject to the jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment” … Elk v. Wilkins, Neb (1884), 5s.ct.41,112 U.S. 99, 28 L. Ed. 643.
    “The fact is, property is a tree; income is the fruit; labour is a tree; income the fruit; capital, the tree; income the ‘fruit.’ The fruit, if not consumed (severed) as fast as it ripens, will germinate from the seed… and will produce other trees and grow into more property; but so long as it is fruit merely, and plucked (severed) to eat… it is no tree, and will produce itself no fruit.” Waring v. City of Savennah. 60 Ga. 93, 100 (1878.}

    PUBLIC NOTICE:

    Whereas this Constitution for the united States of America, Lawful children, women and the men, Title 7 USCA CHAPTER 6 § 136 (Page 3) (d) Animal The term “animal” means all vertebrate and invertebrate species, including but not limited to man and other. Now are you a form of and or you maybe practicing cannibalism. This is a question of these union States 50 now totally recognize how the criminal fraud against us are being played out, by our elected, appointed, and hired leaders/employees, Religious organization we are left with no other choice but to demand the following adjustment be made to our political system:

    We have a right to know If you stand with We the People of these United States of America, now 50, 1776 constitutional laws print copy notarized and Pass on to all peace and god bless Jesus.. Confirming link God thru your forefathers of kings from a foreign land saw the great sprite and filed the Constitution Paper that is filed with the Queen todate who’s appearance not to be of royal bloodline and a Convicted Pirate this is to includes any other further kings or Queens of England and Vatican None negotiable instrument filled , constitution reference numbers included 1993,, 1776 law of the United State of Americans soil only God gave United States of Americans the garden of Eden.
    read copy and print http://www.specialcollections.uws.ac.uk/documents/1.pdf
    http://www.specialcollections.uws.ac.uk

    Merely being native born within the territorial boundaries of the United States of America does not make such an inhabitant a Citizen of the United States subject to the jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment” … Elk v. Wilkins, Neb (1884), 5s.ct.41,112 U.S. 99, 28 L. Ed. 643.

    Public Notice
    It is a crime for any government office or any official to auction or otherwise sell in any way, private or business property of any individual WITHOUT FIRST HAVING DUE PROCESS OF LAW, to determine the cause of action and the recourse in law. The sale of any property outside this means is illegal, and all those involved with such a sale, including those purchasing said property, are personally liable for damages, and subject to criminal charges under Racketeering (RIC…O) laws, and for violation of civil and Due Process rights. All government officials have the “Greater Duty” to know the law and comply with it, and if you are involved with such an auction without Due Process for the owner, you are in breach of your fiduciary duty and you can be held personally liable by those harmed by this fraud. Any challenge to property taxation or property sale made by any citizen requires you to respond, point by point, and to “prove up” your position in law.
    by http://www.oregontrackers.com and the United States of America We the People Standing By our God fearing forefathers bloodlines to protect The 1776 God given Freedom Law of the land
    http://www.specialcollections.uws.ac.uk/documents/1.pdf Filed law of the united states for American’s bloodline
    [EDWARD MALONE JOHNSTON II ] a Birth Certificate fraud scheme, dead entity; American National, Heir, Successor, and Beneficiary, Living, Breathing, Bloodline Flowing Human , Animal , Being. U.C.C. 1-308 =I 207 All Rights Reserved; :www.oregontrackers.com http://www.oregontrackers.org

  • oregontrackers

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/508

    26 U.S. Code § 508 – Special rules with respect to | LII / Legal Information Institute

    These documents, sometimes referred to as “Private Letter Rulings”, are taken from the IRS Written Determinations page; the IRS also publishes a fuller explanation of what they are and what they mean. The collection is updated (at our end) daily. It appears that the IRS updates their listing every F……

    law.cornell.edu

  • oregontrackers

    Here are the Documents that the IRS has been removing from the internet, to stand in the way of Sovereigns!

    The CORPORATION SOLE – IRS Section 508: tax exempt organizations
    corporationsole.insights2.org
    http://corporationsole.insights2.org/508.html

    The CORPORATION SOLE – IRS Section 508: tax exempt organizations: an extract from the horse’s mouth
    http://corporationsole.insights2.org/508.html

  • oregontrackers

    Police lie to you every time: Do you really understand your rights:
    The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda’s confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. The police duty to give these warnings is compelled by the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse “to be a witness against himself,” and Sixth Amendment, which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney.

    The Court maintained that the defendant’s right against self-incrimination has long been part of Anglo-American law as a means to equalize the vulnerability inherent in being detained. Such a position, unchecked, can often lead to government abuse. For example, the Court cited the continued high incidence of police violence designed to compel confessions from a suspect. This and other forms of intimidation, maintained the Court, deprive criminal suspects of their basic liberties and can lead to false confessions. The defendant’s right to an attorney is an equally fundamental right, because the presence of an attorney in interrogations, according to Chief Justice Warren, enables “the defendant under otherwise compelling circumstances to tell his story without fear, effectively, and in a way that eliminates the evils in the interrogations process.

    * Here is the crime: they begin to question you without the presents of this attorney – procedural error. Also note that there is nothing mentioned that you are entitled to just one phone call – is there? You have the right to remain silent – this does not mean should you not answer you give up your consent to remain silent rather doing exactly what the officer has just advised you are/is your right. Has your attorney arrived yet? Therefore anything you say, without your attorney present, is therefore unconstitutionally obtained. Their oath of office must comply with the 1786 Constitution for the United States of America is Law of the Land.

    Without these two fundamental rights, both of which, the Court ruled, “dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings,” “no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice.”

    Thus, to protect these rights in the face of widespread ignorance of the law, the Court devised statements that the police are required to tell a defendant who is being detained and interrogated. These mandatory “Miranda Rights” begin with “the right to remain silent,” and continue with the statement that “anything said can and will be used against [the defendant] in a court of law.” The police are further compelled to inform the suspect of his or her right to an attorney and allow for (or, if necessary, provide for) a defendant’s attorney who can accompany him during interrogations. Because none of these rights was afforded to Ernesto Miranda and his “confession” was thus unconstitutionally admitted at trial, his conviction was reversed. Miranda was later retried and convicted without the admission of his confession.

    Miranda v. Arizona, in creating the “Miranda Rights” we take for granted today, reconciled the increasing police powers of the state with the basic rights of individuals. Miranda remains good law today.

  • oregontrackers

    MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN LAW ON THE PEOPLE & THEIR PERSON

    In American jurisprudence, it is essential to identify parties to court actions properly. If not properly identified, all corresponding judgments are void, as outlined in Volume 46, American Jurisprudence 2d (Am. Jur. 2d) at Judgments; §100 Parties it is stated that, Law revolves around how words are preciously defined and used. A Man should be defined by law as he is supposed to be defined and recognized. An ancient maxim of law states: “In order rightly to comprehend a thing, inquire first into the names, for a right knowledge of things depends upon their names.” 57 Am. Jur. 2d © 200l West Group beginning on page 613 and continuing through page 675, deals with the subject NAME.
    § 1 Defines a name in relevant part as “the word or combination of words by which a person is distinguished from other individuals. ..” Petition of Dengler, 246 N.W. 2d 758 (N.D. 1976).
    § 2 relates the common law authority to adopt any name a man or woman wishes, providing it is not done for fraudulent purposes. In re: Adoption /Guardianship No. 3155 Circuit Court for Harford County, 103 Md. App. 300, 653 A. 2d 521, 525 (1995); Rappley v. Rappley, 183 Mich. App. 396, 454 N.W. 2d 231 (1990).
    The rules of English grammar authorize a capitalized letter only for a very limited number of well- defined uses. One such use is the initial letter of a proper name. A capital letter is defined as, “of the large size used at the beginning of a sentence or as the first letter of a proper name.” No lexical authority exists for use of all-capital letters in writing the proper name of a man or woman. An all-capital letters written version of one’s name is not one’s name, but strictly an artificial construct, existing by color of law only. It is this very construct which we intend to show here today. This construct or manifest has been a long contested; point of confusion, amongst many lay man. Here we will attempt, to show the court that the man, is not the person or legal fiction as it is sometimes called. Let us start with the most obvious difference the letters being capitalized this full capitalization represents a corporate soul and invokes the following.
    Blacks Law Dictionary – Revised 4th Edition 1968
    Capitis Diminutio Maxima; (meaning a maximum loss of status) –
    The very highest, or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man’s condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights. This means the man, is now considered to be CIVILITER MORTUUS meaning one who is civilly dead; one who is considered as if he were naturally dead, so far as his rights are concerned.
    In The Real Life Dictionary of the Law, Oran’s Dictionary of the Law, and Merriam-Webster’ s Dictionary of Law, the term legal fiction is used and described. The synopsis of these shows that a legal fiction is an assumption or presumption on something that is, or may be, false or nonexistent is true or real… Something assumed in law to be fact irrespective of the truth, or accuracy of that assumption or presumption.
    There is one area which does use all capital letters for proper names – Corporate Law. Names of artificial entities (artificial persons) are written in legalese (artificial English), i.e., ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Now let us examine case law on the matter as we have already distinguished there being a clear, difference in the name. That one name shows a natural person; the other names an artificial person/IE the all caps name.
    As Black’s Law Dictionary explains, the full capitalization of the letters of one’s natural name, results in a diminishing or complete loss of legal or citizenship status, wherein one actually becomes a slave or an item of inventory. The method, by which the State causes a natural person to “volunteer” himself into slavery, is through forming legal joinder, implied or stated, with the entity or legal fiction (name all CAPS).
    IDEM SONANS. As we pursue this line of logic, we need to address IDEM SONANS. Its definition can be found in 14 C.J.S., Names, pg. 36. (a) in general… “If names sound alike, they are usually regarded as the same, although spelled differently, and the variance in their spelling is considered immaterial.” With respect to names, the phrase “idem sonans” means “of the same sound.” “The general rule is that the law (Public) does not regard the spelling of names as much as it does their sound.” “Great latitude is allowed in the pronunciation and spelling of proper names, since proper names are often spelled differently, although pronounced the same (Terry-Terri) .” “If they sound alike, or even if common usage (widely known) has made their pronunciation identical, they are regarded as the same and a variance in their spelling is immaterial, unless it is such as misleads a person to his prejudice, or the misspelling transforms the name into a wholly distinct appellation/corporate soul. ”
    Same sounding names discussed above are like Terry and Terri, not Terry and TERRY, as the latter is not a proper name, but an abbreviation/ acronym/initiali sm. So what is JOHN! It could be a corporation, a vessel, a computer term, etc. It is not widely recognized or known, and therefore, according to the Government Printing Office publication on style, an improper abbreviation. This is nothing other than an appearance of legitimacy (legal). The exception clause of the “idem sonans” test must be invoked, i.e., “…unless it is such as misleads a natural person to his prejudice, or the misspelling transforms the name into a wholly distinct appellation.” We intend to prove both happen, by way of (fraud upon the court) by the Trust Administrator/judge.
    First thing one must comprehend is, (can a man/woman, be a person in law)? The astounding answer is what we seek to find. We think it’s first proper to establish what a person is in law. Please see the following definition from Black’s law dictionary 5th edition.
    BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 5TH EDITION PG 1028
    Person. In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, cor¬ porations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. National Labor Relations Act, § 2(1). Bankruptcy Act. “Person” includes individual, part¬ nership, and corporation, but not governmental unit. Sec. 101(30). Corporation. A corporation is a “person” within meaning of equal protection and due process provi¬ sions of United States Constitution. Allen v. Pavach, Ind., 335 N.E.2d 219, 221; Borreca v. Fasi, D.C.Ha¬waii, 369 F.Supp. 906, 911. The term “persons” in statute relating to conspiracy to commit offense against United States, or to defraud United States, or any agency, includes corporation. Alamo Fence Co. of Houston v. U. S., C.A.Tex., 240 F.2d 179, 181. Foreign government. Foreign governments other¬ wise eligible to sue in U.S. courts are “persons” entitled to bring treble-damage suit for alleged anti¬ trust violations under Clayton Act, Section 4. Pfizer, Inc. v. Government of India, C.A.Minn., 550 F.2d 396. Illegitimate child. Illegitimate children are “persons” within meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68, 88 S.Ct. 1509, 1511, 20 L.Ed.2d 436; and scope of wrongful death statute, Jordan v. Delta Drilling Co., Wyo., 541 P.2d 39, 48. Interested person. Includes heirs, devisees, children, spouses, creditors, beneficiaries and any others hav¬ ing a property right in or claim against a trust estate or the estate of a decedent, ward or protected person which may be affected by the proceeding. It also includes persons having priority for appointment as personal representative, and other fiduciaries repre¬ senting interested persons. The meaning as it relates to particular persons may vary from time to time and must be determined according to the particular pur¬ poses of, and matter involved in, any proceeding. Uniform Probate Code, § 1-201(20). Municipalities. Municipalities and other government units are “persons” within meaning of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Local government officials sued in their official capacities are “persons” for purposes of Sec¬ tion 1983 in those cases in which a local govern¬ ment would be suable in its own name. Monell v. N.Y. City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611. See Color of law. Protected person. One for whom a conservator has been appointed or other protective order has been made. Uniform Probate Code, § 5-101(3).
    Here we see an amazing transformation the term person in law is without any doubt a corporation. This is truly a wholly distinct appellation, as official sources of reference and information, do not identify, describe, or define JOHN. the “Manual on Usage & Style,” Eighth Edition, ISBN I-878674-51- X, published by the Texas Law Review in 1995. Section D, CAPITALIZATION, paragraph D: 1:1 states:
    “Always capitalize proper nouns… [Proper nouns], independent of the context in which they are used, refer to specific persons, places, or things (e.g., Dan, Austin, Rolls Royce).” [Emphasis added] Paragraph D: 3:2 of Section D states:
    “Capitalize People, State, and any other terms used to refer to the government as a litigant (e.g., the People’s case, the State’s argument), but do not capitalize other words used to refer to litigants (e.g., the plaintiff, defendant Manson).”
    This would mean by fully capitalizing a man/woman’s name the court, transforms the name into a wholly distinct appellation/a corporation, or share holder”. This action would invoke Capitis Diminutio Maxima & CIVILITER MORTUUS causing the man to be without rights. The following case law, leaves no doubt to the belief. (A corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of that provision of the Constitution, which declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. Special privileges enjoyed by citizens in their own States are not secured in other States by this provision such as grants of corporate existence and powers. States may exclude a foreign corporation entirely or they may exact such security for the performance of its contracts with their citizens as, in their judgment, will best promote the public interest).
    (Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall (U.S.) 168; 19 L.Ed 357 (1868)
    Of couse if a man/woman has not had full disclosure of the aforesaid transformation; it is (Agreed that without full disclosure unknowingly, from first date of waiver, a waiver of rights has no power)./10 Brady. supra 748. Johnson v. Zebet, 304-US 458. 464. Aetna Inc Co. v. Kennedy 301 US 389-393

    However this still does not show the people/man or woman is a separate entity which is only an authorized signature, for the person. So we must look further in to the case law to denote, a difference between the people, and the artificial person/corporate soul. Now without further delay please sees the following case cites. (” ‘in common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign people, and statutes employing the (word person) are normally construed to exclude the sovereign people).’ Wilson v Omaha Tribe, 442 US653 667, 61 L Ed 2d 153, 99 S Ct 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v Cooper Corp. 312 US 600, 604, 85 L Ed 1071, 61 S Ct 742 (1941). See also United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258, 275, 91 L Ed 884, 67 S Ct 677 (1947)” Will v Michigan State Police, 491 US 58, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304 b)
    The sovereign people are not a person in a legal sense” In re Fox, 52 N. Y. 535, 11 Am. Rep. 751; U.S. v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192.
    Now we have established the clear difference between the two entities the people, and the person and it is very clear the people are not a person or persons in law, but rather only the authorized signature for the all caps name. We feel it important to note that no contract exists, which forces the people to stand as surety; for the all caps name. As such it is equally important; to state the people in no way agree, to be surety for the all caps name.

    This should clear the question of why the United States Supreme court has ruled as follows.
    “(S)tatutes apply only to state created creatures known as corporations no matter whether (creatures of statute and offices of] state, local, or federal (government).” (Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle, 421 US 100. (1975).
    United States Supreme Court, (much less any inferior court of limited jurisdiction) cannot supply what Congress (or the legislatures of the several states) has studiously omitted in a statute.“ (Federal Trade Com. v. Simplicity Pattern Co. 360 U.S. 55, p. 55 475042/56451 (1959)). ”
    (T)he fact that Congress might have acted with greater clarity or foresight does not give courts a carte blanche to redraft statutes in an effort to achieve that which Congress is perceived to have failed to do.” (United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 95 (1985)). “[N]o clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant” (United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617 (1954));
    “All legislation is prima facia territorial and words having universal scope will be taken, as a matter of course, to mean only every one subject to such [territorial] legislation, not that all the legislator subsequently may be able to catch. (American Banana Co. v United Fruit Co. 213 US 347, 29 S Ct 511, 53 L Ed 826 (1909))
    “Criminal statutes are not by implication given extra territorial effect (or personum jurisdiction).” (United States v Flores, 289 US 137, 53 S Ct 580, 77 L Ed 1086).
    “A statute will not be presumed to have extra territorial effect… outside the (territorial) jurisdiction of the legislature. over the people residing outside the (territorial) jurisdiction, of the legislature.” (Bond v Jay, 7 Cranch 350, 3 L Ed 367). ”
    The reason is now clear the people are not a person in law, & all statutes, codes, and regulations, refer to the juridical person, the legal fiction or Government employees. While the people are the authorized signature they are in no way surety for the juridical person. This name is the name by which one must be recognized if one were to work in government, then and only then can one be held as surety for the name. this is the reason when one the people receive their Birth Certificate it states do not use as ID. Because when one uses the birth certificate as ID they put their self on the public record as a Government Employee, allowing the presumption and assumption of the courts to take place. However this does not absolve the administrator/Judge, of liability as the administrator/Judge, was fully aware of the fraud perpetrated upon the court.

  • oregontrackers

    The term person as used in law, according to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856 Edition:

    =================================
    PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons.

    In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.

    2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.

    3. But when the word “Persons” is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.

    4. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.

    5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man.

    6. Persons are also divided into citizens, (q. v.) and aliens, (q. v.) when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; vide Civil Death; outlaws; and infamous persons.

    7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as to their rights by birth.

    8. When viewed in their domestic relations, they are divided into parents and children; husbands and wives; guardians and wards; and masters and servants son, as it is understood in law, see 1 Toull. n. 168; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1890, note.
    =================================

    As you can plainly see, “person” was ALREADY being used to ALSO identify a corporate entity in 1856. This definition of “person” predates the 14th Amendment, which was enacted in 1868, by twelve whole years. It is sheer idiocy and illogical “patri-nut” mythology to keep insistently arguing that a “person” is actually a “straw man” or corporation created entirely by the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.mythology to keep insistently arguing that a “person” is actually a “straw man” or corporation created entirely by the 14th Amendment

    being native born within the territorial boundaries of the United States of America does not make such an inhabitant a Citizen of the United States subject to the jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment” … Elk v. Wilkins, Neb (1884), 5s.ct.41,112 U.S. 99, 28 L. Ed. 643.

    While a man is NOT actually a “person,” he HAS a “person” of some type with which he is associated, whether that “person” be private or public. This goes directly to that “legal capacity” contention that I have discussed before. Take note of the very last portion of the definition’s first paragraph, where it reads “AND THE DUTIES WHICH IT IMPOSES.” A “person,” as a legal capacity, may, and usually does, hold some legal duty to which the human acting in that capacity can and is bound to answer when failing to perform it.

    Therefore, they MUST identify you as acting in some legal capacity, with a legal duty to perform accordingly in said capacity, in order to gain the necessary jurisdiction over you as the man acting in that legal capacity called “person” upon whom the alleged legal duty rests. Failing that, they have no case as they have no in personam (personal) jurisdiction.

    THIS is precisely why you cannot argue merits in order to defeat the system’s application of its bogus “transportation” scheme and charges. To argue merits means that you must necessarily assume the legal capacity to which the merits apply, i.e. “person,” “driver,” “operator,” etc. To extricate yourself from the “transportation” scheme, you MUST disavow acting in the legal capacity to which the regulatory rules actually apply, thus, forcing them to actually prove that you were. How? By properly objecting to any and all uses of the eight deadly sins, all of which are legal capacities for either (A) person or (B) property.

    1. Transportation (A) & (B)

    2. Police Officer (A)

    3. Law (A) & (B) (you are being charged with violation of a statute, NOT a law)

    4. Vehicle (B)

    5. Motor Vehicle (B)

    6. Commercial Motor Vehicle (B)

    7. Drive and any grammatical variation thereof. (A) & (B)

    8. Operate and any grammatical variation thereof. (A) & (B)

    The proper objection to such use is ALWAYS “Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence, not previously agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion [by the fact witness.]”

    Add the last four words if the deadly sin issued from the mouth of a witness on the stand.

    THIS is how you disavow the legal capacity, and, thus, the alleged legal duty, NOT by ignorantly repeating “I am not a corporation or a “straw man.”

    Understanding the legal use of the term “person” when defined as anything resembling “means/includes an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association, limited liability company, or any other legal entity.”

    In the case of statute, “individual” almost always has one of two meanings depending upon its contextual definition:

    (1) a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every state of gestation from fertilization until birth. (Texas Penal Code Sec. 1.07(a)(26)).

    (2) a living being as defined in (1), acting in some contextually defined individual legal capacity, on behalf of one of the following types of legal entities.

    For example:

    “The fact is, property is a tree; income is the fruit; labour is a tree; income the fruit; capital, the tree; income the ‘fruit.’ The fruit, if not consumed (severed) as fast as it ripens, will germinate from the seed… and will produce other trees and grow into more property; but so long as it is fruit merely, and plucked (severed) to eat… it is no tree, and will produce itself no fruit.” Waring v. City of Savennah. 60 Ga. 93, 100 (1878.}
    ======================================
    TRANSPORTATION CODE
    TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
    SUBTITLE C. RULES OF THE ROAD
    CHAPTER 541. DEFINITIONS
    SUBCHAPTER A. PERSONS AND GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES
    Sec. 541.001. PERSONS. In this subtitle:

    (4) “Person” means an individual, firm, partnership, association, or corporation.”

    ======================================

    The definition in (2) is the only logical one for statute sections where the term “person” is defined similarly to that shown in Sec. 541.001(4), Texas Transportation Code.

    When “individual” is placed alongside legal fictions in a definition, the rules of statutory construction, as defined by the courts themselves, makes the second usage the only valid one to assert as the proper context for the term.
    Consider the explanation I have made for this before:

    A ‘police officer,’ ‘mayor,’ “CEO,” “councilman,” are, each and every one, an INDIVIDUAL legal capacity. ‘Individual’ because each such capacity is simply ‘one’ or ‘one of x / many,’ and ‘legal’ because they don’t exist as natural capacities found in nature, meaning that both are man-made, and, thus, both are required to be defined by law in order to function.

    Thus, the commonality between each of those legal capacities is this – none of them function or act on their own, nor do they have any power and authority in and of themselves.

    In order to ACT, each ONE of these legal capacities REQUIRES that an INDIVIDUAL as defined in (1), assume the role of an INDIVIDUAL or PERSON as defined in (2), in order to perform any act under any type of authority. Authority which can only have come from one of the other legal entities contained in the list following “means/includes.” Like the example shown in (4).

    Which, in the context of (2), means that (4) can be most correctly interpreted to read “ONE authorized by and acting on the behalf of one of these following types of legal entities, in some specific legal capacity, i.e. ‘police officer,” ‘fireman,’ code enforcement,’ ‘mayor,’ ‘CEO,’ etc.”

    In other words, if *I* am NOT acting in a legal capacity as defined by (2), then, I am NOT one of those defined as “person” in the context of the statute in (4).

    Does it make sense now?

    “So it’s kinda’ like the straw man concept? Where it’s only a theoretical position until someone [sic] “individual” in the first definition fills it?”

    It is my opinion, and only my opinion, but the “straw man” theory is nothing more than an incorrect analysis of the “legal capacity” issue as I have come to understand and raise it. My theory is based entirely upon the history of case law, statutory wording, and simple logic with minimal inference.

    A legal capacity IS related to a legal entity in some form or fashion as I have described, but, it is NOT the legal entity itself, only an agent capacity FOR that entity, whether it be a corporation, government, or any other legal fiction.

    However, the agent capacity is not necessarily one that is ALWAYS related directly to the legal entity itself, but it IS ALWAYS related to some legal authority, right, benefit or privilege bestowed upon some individual as defined in (2) by such a legal entity as defined in (4).

    Every statutory scheme is about getting someone to assume the necessary statutorily defined legal capacity, thereby, invoking the statutory provisions and the related subject matter jurisdiction. Only by assuming the role and duty of the legal capacity, and thereby, the attached legal liability, can the statutory system obtain the two primary jurisdictional requirements, subject matter and in personam. In the “transportation” scheme the predominant legal capacities are “driver” or “operator” and any grammatical variation of either in relation to the individual, and “vehicle,” “motor vehicle,” or “commercial motor vehicle” in relation to your conveyance. In the income tax scheme it is all about getting you to assume the legal capacity of a “taxpayer,” “employee,” or “employer” that is being compensated by receipt of “wages.” These are all statutorily defined legal capacities that are automatically applied to either the individual, their property, or their actions, regardless of whether they should be or not.

    Saturday 1-24-2015 5:30 pm Mountain Standard Time
    http://www.specialcollections.uws.ac.uk/documents/1.pdf

    712-775-7035 Access Code 988249 #

    This will be a call to introduce most people to the four historical written Instrument; by our Forefathers, their Laws (the 1776 A Declaration, the 1777-1787 Confederation, the 1787 proposed Constitution for the United States of America, the 1789 Unanimous ratified Constitution for the United States of America, and the 1789 ARTICLES, in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution…) and the methods of word usage (including case structure and punctuation).

    P.S This invitation is the only withstanding invitation. Although some People have received this exact information with “aditional information/propaganda/agenda/agendas” from other sources, this source is only about the aforementioned.

  • oregontrackers

    Supreme Court Green Lights Fema Camps
    yournewswire.com

    Supreme Court Green Lights The Detention of Americans A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court gives the…http://yournewswire.com/supreme-court-green-lights-fema-ca…/

  • oregontrackers

    Henry V111, Fired the EVIL Catholic BISHOP and Made Himself HEAD of CHURCH of England, He Approved HERBAL TREATMENT Parliament Approved it, 1776 Each State Adopted COMMON LAW its Still Valid, The Jury can Judge the Facts and The LAW see Jury Nullification, That is Valid in America Today, you can Ask a Evil Judge to RECUSE Himself see Former Judge Richard Fine Video how to DisQualify a Judge, You can Also call for I thinks its 42-18 Investigation of a Evil Judge, you can go after His and and a Bad Cops BOND, If Judge give a Bad Judgement say I OBJECT 3 TIMES then say I TAKE EXCEPTION you can use this on Appeal, you can sue a Gov Worker that Violates your Rights see Supreme Court Ruling Owens v Independence MO, Suing as a Pro se Judge must tell you how to Amend Law Suit so it can go Forward see Platsky v CIA, FBI,

    1938 Same Year BANKERS took over our JUDICIAL with UCC Codes < Policies and Ordinances they Started the EVIL FDA, CODES are FALSELY Call LAWS only The CONSTITUTION Bill of"" Rights ""and Amendments "is REAL LAW, Any Code, Ordinance or So Called Law that Violates the CONSTITUTION is not Law see MARBURY V. MADISON See Carl Milller Know your CONSTITUTION Videos, Richard Cornforth THE LEGAL INDUSTRY Videos , Former JUDGE Richard Fine Videos you can DEMAND JURISDICTION under COMMON LAW, Do not TRUST LAWYERS
    http://youtu.be/ziCTNkV3FBI

    Henry VIII (28 June 1491 – 28 January 1547) was King of England from 21 April 1509 until his death. He was Lord, and later assumed the Kingship, of Ireland, and continued the nominal claim by English monarchs to the, http://youtu.be/_hCilSHephE

    Annis Tircesimo Quarto and Tricesimo Quinto. Henry VIII Regis. Cap. VIII.
    An Act That Persons, Being No Common Surgeons, May Administer Outward Medicines

    INTRODUCTION

    When the American Colonies declared their independence as Sovereign States, in July, 1776, they each adopted the Laws of England as the Common Law of the State.

    Among the Laws of England so adopted is the Herbalists' Charter, an Act of Henry the Eighth and adopted thereafter by Parliament: Statutes at Large 34&35 Henry VIII. C8. (A Bill that Persons, being no common Surgeons, may minister Medicines, notwithstanding the Statute). It is astonishing to note that many of the issues confronting alternative practitioners today are the same issues that the Act of Parliament addressed.

    In the Sixteenth Century, as in the Twentieth Century, licensed physicians and surgeons were going to Court to ban the activities of the alternative practitioners of their day, the herbalists. Parliament ordered an end to this misuse of the Courts to enforce licensure, protecting the herbalists from "suit, vexation, trouble, penalty, or loss of their goods…" This ancient Act of Parliament applied to England and the King's "other dominions" including, of course, the American Colonies, and later, States. This Act has never been repealed, and thus remains part of our Common Law to this day, offering protection to alternative practitioners, "at all Time from henceforth…" as a perpetual Charter of Rights.

    HERBALISTS' CHARTER OF HENRY VIII

    henry viii

    Were in the Parliament holden at Westminster in the third Year of the King's most gracious reign, amongst other things, for the avoiding of Sorceries, Witchcrafts, and other Inconveniences, it was enacted, that no Person within the City of London, nor within Seven Miles of the same, should take upon him to exercise and occupy as Physician or Surgeon, except he be first examined, approved, and admitted by the Bishop of London and other, under and upon certain Pains and Penalties in the same Act mentioned:
    Sithence the making of which said Act, the Company and Fellowship of Surgeons of London, minding only their own Lucres, and nothing the Profit or ease of the Diseased or Patient, have sued, troubled, and vexed divers honest Persons, as well Men as Women, whom God hath endued with the Knowledge of the Nature, Kind and Operation of certain Herbs, Roots, and Waters, and the using and ministring of them to such as been pained with customable Diseases, as Women's Breast's being sore, a Pin and the Web in the Eye, Uncomes of Hands, Burnings, Scaldings, Sore Mouths, the Stone, Strangury, Saucelim, and Morphew, and such other like Diseases; and yet the said Persons have not taken anything for their Pains or Cunning, but have ministered the same to poor People only for Neighborhood and God's sake, and of Pity and Charity:
    And it is now well known that the Surgeons admitted will do no Cure to any Person but where they shall be rewarded with a greater Sum or Reward that the Cure extendeth unto; for in case they would minister their Cunning unto sore People unrewarded, there should not so many rot and perish to death for Lack or Help of Surgery as daily do; but the greatest part of Surgeons admitted been much more to be blamed than those Persons that they troubled, for although the most Part of the Persons of the said Craft of Surgeons have small Cunning yet they will take great sums of Money, and do little therefore, and by Reason thereof they do oftentimes impair and hurt their Patients, rather than do them good.
    In consideration whereof, and for the Ease, Comfort, Succour, Help, Relief, and Health of the King's poor Subjects, Inhabitants of this Realm, now pained or diseased: Be it ordained, established, and enacted by Authority of this present Parliament, That at all Time from henceforth it shall be lawful to every Person being the King's subject, having Knowledge and Experience of the Nature of Herbs, Roots, and Waters, or of the Operation of the same, by Speculation or Practice, within any part of the Realm of England, or within any other of the King's Dominions, to practice, use, and minister in and to any outward Sore, Uncome Wound, Apostemations, outward Swelling or Disease, any Herb or Herbs, Ointments, Baths, Pultess, and Emplaisters, according to their Cunning, Experience, and Knowledge in any of the Diseases, Sores, and Maladies beforesaid, and all other like to the same, or Drinks for the Stone, Strangury, or Agues, without suit, vexation, trouble, penalty, or loss of their goods;
    the foresaid Statute in the foresaid Third Year of the King's most gracious Reign, or any other Act, Ordinance, or Statutes to the contrary heretofore made in anywise, notwithstanding.
    http://www.saveourherbs.org.uk/Charter.html

    http://www.google.co.uk/search…

    Synopsis

    Henry Tudor, son of Henry VII of England and Elizabeth York, was born at the royal residence, Greenwich Palace, on June 28, 1491. Following the death of his brother, Arthur, he became Henry VIII, king of England. He married six times, beheaded two of his wives and was the main instigator of the English Reformation. His only surviving son, Edward VI, succeeded him after his death on January 28, 1547.
    Childhood and Early Adulthood

    Henry Tudor, the son of Henry VII of England and Elizabeth York, was born on June 28, 1491, at the royal residence, Greenwich Palace, in Greenwich, London, England. He had six siblings, but only three survived: Arthur, Margaret and Mary. Arthur, being older than Henry, was expected to take the throne. In 1502, Prince Arthur married Catherine of Aragon, the daughter of the Spanish king and queen, Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile. After less than four months of marriage, Arthur died at the age of 15, leaving his 10-year-old brother, Henry, to assume the throne.

    The patriarch, Henry VII, wanted to affirm his family's alliance with Spain, so he offered his young son Henry to Arthur's widow. The two families requested that Pope Julius II officially grant dispensation to Arthur and Catherine's marriage. The pope conceded, but the official marriage of Henry and Catherine was postponed until the death of Henry VII in 1509, when, at the age of 17, Henry married Catherine and the two were crowned at Westminster Abbey. The couple remained married until he divorced her in 1533.

    As a young man and monarch, second in the Tudor Dynasty, Henry VIII exuded a charismatic athleticism and diverse appetite for art, music and culture. He was witty and highly educated, taught by private tutors for his entire upbringing. He loved music and wrote some as well. A lover of gambling and jousting, he hosted countless tournaments and banquets. His father always envisioned Arthur as king and Henry as a high-ranking church official—the appropriate role at that time for his secondary birth order. As fate would have it, Henry instead inherited an entire peaceful nation after his father ended the Wars of the Roses.

    Henry was good-natured, but his court soon learned to bow to his every wish. Two days after his coronation, he arrested two of his father's ministers and promptly executed them. He began his rule seeking advisers on most matters, and would end it with absolute control.

    Advertisement — Continue reading below

    Catherine of Aragon and Princess Mary

    On February 18, 1516, Queen Catherine bore Henry his first child to survive infancy, Princess Mary. Henry grew frustrated by the lack of a male child and began keeping two mistresses at his beckon. His philandering ways were tame by the standards of his contemporaries, but they nonetheless resulted in his first divorce. One of his mistresses, Mary Boleyn, introduced him to her sister, Anne Boleyn. Anne and Henry began secretly seeing one another. Catherine, by now 42 and unable to conceive, set Henry in a tizzy. Henry configured a way to officially abandon his marriage with Catherine. The Book of Leviticus stated that a man who takes his brother's wife shall remain childless. Though Catherine had borne him a child, that child was a girl, which, in Henry's logic, did not count. He thusly petitioned the pope for an annulment. The debate, during which Catherine fought mightily to maintain both her own and her daughter's titles, lasted for six years.
    Save Our Herbs
    Save Our Herbs acampaign to ensure protectionn of the practise of herbal medicine and free access to our herbs in light of the government's current regulatory proposals throughout history herbal medicine has always been the peoples medicine and should remain so
    saveourherbs

  • Lanvy Nguyen

    You cant believe??? This is the United States of government sanctioned bullying by increased force and decreased civil liberty.

  • JC

    The officer asked him to verify his name. Yes, the officer can do that and it isn’t illegal. He was given his badge number. It was written on the ticket. There is no law that says an officer has to give you his badge number orally. To use the word “command” is just another attempt to try and control something you cannot.

  • kate

    my my my your “little twat” is showing.

  • JC

    No, that’s yours showing. It’s too bad you have such a pathetic sense of humor Jerod Dorner.

  • John Smith

    This is a must watch. Andrew P. Napolitano is awesome.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN9n6cVQp4I

  • t

    Mick:
    Yeah……no moron.
    Read the SCOTUS majority opinion in both Mimms and Wilson.
    No RS is needed.
    Certainly no PC is needed.
    No reason at all is needed.

    The only questions that I’m aware of that has survived about this are the conditions outside the vehicle. Dangerous conditions of some kind have had some questions…..but in as simple a language as can be….in a “bright line ruling” although not unanimous).SCOTUS has said exactly what I said.

    So sorry you’re dumb.

  • t

    cork:
    I have. And it happens everyday in court.
    Dude….I really think you are the fraud under a new moniker. You think you are brilliant when you are clueless. Again….this is very settled law.

  • t

    Wow. You guys and Nazis. Obessessd much?

  • t

    For what?

  • t

    JM:
    What?

  • t

    Idiot boy:
    I don’t need too. I understand the document. Clearly you don’t.

    So again…..where does the government get any power that needs to be restrained?
    If that’s too hard to answer….try: where did our governmnet come from?

    Come on dude. This is 3rd grade stuff.

  • t

    D:
    True. You do get to ask questions. But it’s not street court. And I never said this guy was an crminal. I simply asked you a question about vehicle stops….and you are dodging it because you don’t like the answer.

  • t

    Ray:
    You do know that the ACLU gets it handed to,them all the time in court right?
    They came to my PD on a worthless complaint a while back and left with their tails between their legs. Why? Because they beleive liars all the time.

  • t

    Sikko:
    See how right I was? He’s gone.

  • t

    Ray:
    Did you watch a different video?
    This one shows the officer exiting his vehicle….walking up to the posters vehicle and telling to step to the rear of the car. I don’t know what you watched.

  • Mitch Mitchell

    You don’t think that people get paid for “uping” things on the net? Ok, whatever you want to think. These people go on any anti cop forum to blow the cops. Same people posting constantly. They blindly refuse to accept any argument and post the thin blue line dogma. I’ll let you work it out. You should know, you are on quite a few too.

  • t

    real:
    No. I said you excepted it. And in post after post after post…..you and @Glenn defend that it is right for adults to have sex with kids as long as everyone consented. You over and over went into how indiscriminate and statutory age restrictions on sexual relations were wrong. My saying you were into NAMBLA was from your comments that support wht they support.
    That’s on you dude.

  • patriot156

    hey Marxist pig if you truly knew you’d answer yourself. And lol you don’t know the document or you wouldn’t be running around telling people how it’s good to beat people up.

    Ok Marxist its the constitituion which is in the quote the Constitution is not an instrument to restrain people but for people to restrain the gov theres your anwser marxist.

    my gov and not yours came from the founders their the ones who created the Constitution and the articles and rules for Gov and what they’re to do and what they can’t. which is the bill of rights. Problem is marxists like your self have missinterpreted that Document and violated everyone warning and quote.

    these quotes are for future generations to learn from

    To say that a bad government must be established for fear of anarchy is really saying that we should kill ourselves
    for fear of dying. – Richard Henry Lee (1732- 1794), Member of Continental Congress, Signer of the Declaration of
    Independence, U.S. Senator
    The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
    it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government –
    lest it come to dominate our lives and interests. – Patrick Henry
    An Avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret,
    and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even
    his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach
    to himself. – Thomas Paine
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson
    If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. – Thomas Jefferson

    which obviously you people have missed the boat.
    PS I answered your stupid question so dont’ come back here spewing your mouth!
    and if you think you can take me bring it leave the badge and gun at home though.

  • patriot156

    well whatever would go with not stopping correclty doesn’t lend it’s hand to a crime so what ever word would fit

  • D-Man

    But it is street court. The cop himself said law was irrelevant in this particular situation, and the man will no doubt bring that up in court as a viable defense. Therefore it was just an instance of a guy minding his own business against an inflated bully with a gun. The moment the cop resorted to violence to win the argument, he’d lost. Show me a video of the cop pulling out a book or some paperwork to cite the law the man was breaking and then I will believe you. Otherwise the driver did nothing wrong.

  • Sikko

    I knew there’d be no answer, but I kind of hoped he’d provide one anyway. It’s a real shame, could have made for an interesting dialog

  • Melissa Hubbard

    better than being a dumb dumb.

  • t

    Mel:
    Sadly….yore both.

  • t

    Idot boy:
    Ok. So now you’ve ID’d your problem.

    So…..the Constitution (and the constitutions) were written to create GOVERNMNET.
    And….you’ve figured out that to have powers that need to be restrained….that someone or something has to be granted powers to start with.
    So if the Constitution was written to create government….and grant that government “powers” (authority is a better term) to create/write laws to “govern”…..and in the case of the Constitution….divide those powers into 3 branches of different to act as a check and balance so that no one branch can awesome to much power. Then of course there is the “bill of rights” amendments that place certain and sometimes specific restraints on the governmnet. (BTW….. To “love” the Constitution means the entire document. Meaning….not JUST the bill of rights, but ALL of the documents t include the preamble, the articles, and (get this) ALL of the amendments

    Wow….isn’t education fun.

  • pickle

    so sorry you were born

  • pickle

    No reason is needed at all. We should all just bow down and kiss the pavement when we see a badge. If we don’t sing loud enough praises to them when the pas by, we should be shot. For those who wear the shiny badge of impunity are gods among us. Those who do not worship them are evil and probably going to try to kill school buses full of orphans and nuns. All hail the obese, lazy, gun wielding, psychopaths! Feed them for they are eternally hungry for your misery. (and fried bread) Give them something to abuse but no reason to do so. Give them your children to molest and kill. They put their lives (along with ours) on the line every day with their poor driving and careless firearm handling. They deserve nothing less than our worship because……hmmm….because……because they are not suitable for any other profession!!

    I’m sorry your parents were brother and sister. I’m sorry you have an internet connection. I’m sorry you exist. I’m sorry everybody here has to wade through your inane blathering. Whew! I feel better. You know, I could have been a cop, but I’m not a big enough a-hole. I’m here to work on that. How am I doing? I still couldn’t bring myself to throw a flash grenade at an infant or call a puppy over to shot it in the face, but maybe someday…

  • pickle

    Funny, I thought you were a new fraud under an old moniker.

  • pickle

    Cops don’t care. They want to throw out all that legal mumbo jumbo. That’s what I heard.

  • IbringTeatotheParty

    My favorite part; where the cop essentially admitted he could be as big a fuckup as he wanted to be and it was up to the citizen to remedy that in “court,” without so much as remediation for the officer.

  • Melissa Hubbard

    T. Lol. You will learn the hard way. Unless you are a police officer that is.

  • t

    picks:
    Most of the criminal types I’ve met are sorry I was born.
    It’s a compliment

  • corkie

    I am most certainly brilliant, and you hate the fact that I’m on here making you look stupid every day.

  • t

    picks:
    Wow. You are the reason Joe American hates activists and support their local PDs so strongly.
    Nobody has said ANYTHING like bowing down or any such crap.
    But you…like some many here claim things and say that you love the Constitution and want the police to “uphold their oaths” to,the Constitution. But youmsoreadily forget and dismiss that the Constituiton created GOVERNMENT. You hate that…..but you partake in its benefits daily. You are using a phone or tablet that was delivered to you via highways, roads, and streets that were constructed….by taxpayers. The construction of which was overseen by government bodies. The power to charge it is likely delivered via power lines that have been built on right-of-ways have been built…..either on lands secured by/from the governmnet or lots of times court cases that are overseen by governmnet.

    There….in 2 extremely over simplistic examples…..I have shattered all,of your nonsense. Move to “the ‘Shire” and be a free stater. I’m so hoping that enough idiots move there that they can actually start to effect how the state is run. I so wanna watch the power grid collapse, the roads and bridges all decay, the water and sewer stop.
    No private companies will come in to handle those things….because there won’t be anyway for them to make money from it. And without those simple little things…..goods stop coming in (no roads to transport them on). I so hope it happens. And I hope you’re part of the self imposed disaster.

    This is simple and settled law.
    As I’ve said before…..at my PD our average is over 80% of ALL traffic stops result in nothing but a warning about the reason for the stop. Those that don’t get just a warning talk themselves into the citation most of the time.
    You have the right to be quiet and say nothing. You can say whatever you’d like. But nowhere does any law say that I have to listen. Nor does it say that if you want to be difficult….that there can’t be repercussion form that.

  • t

    cork:
    All you do…like RAD, the fraud, pickle, and Mick (and several others) is give people bad info.
    EVERYTHING I’ve written about this topic is spot on accurate. This officer DIDNT do anything wrong. He did it right. You may not like it…..but that doesn’t make anything he did wrong.

    My information is always aimed at keeping people out of trouble. At limiting any governmental,contact they may have….and specifically any police contact.
    You and the others do the opposie. You WANT these sheep to,follow your you ideals and get into trouble. It’s your proxy war with the police. You hide behind a screen and tell,them to do stupid things.

    I can’t think of a single topic that you’ve been even close to right about.
    You’ve been wrong on this thread.
    Your wrong about the dog search thread.

    But you keep swinging away. It’s fun to watch.

  • t

    Mel:
    Hmmmm.
    Not sure what any of your little cryptic comments are supposed to be about.

    I comment about how CBers are obsessed with Nazis (and gay sex).
    Maybe it’s just the history part you guys didn’t learn.
    But hey….I’m a fair guy. Educate me. How are the American police like Nazis?

    This ought to be funny.

  • t

    Dman:
    Where was the violence?
    Was it after the lawful order to get out of the car?

  • D-Man

    After the lawful refusal to get out of the car.

  • Riley Long

    Did you guys notice how the cop ordered him to get out of the car so he could explain the citation as a way to retaliate and escalate the situation to get back at the guy for trying to assert his rights? How many times have any of you been asked to get out of your car over a minor traffic citation? Most of the time they are screaming at you to stay in your car. Cops use this tactic in many different situations to escalate a situation while hiding behind the excuse of “just doing their jobs”.

  • Sikko

    So, what you’re saying is you get paid to post here? I mean you blindly refuse to accept any argument and post CopBlock dogma.

  • t

    Dman:
    So….now at least you’ve figured out it was a lawful order I get out if the car.

    That first lawful order…,when delayed of ignored in the case becomes resistence. Without looking…..I’m certain that there is a clear statutory authority for the officer to use reasonable force to overcome resistence. A good case to read up about it is the “bright line” case of Graham v Connor.

    Now to me…..the kind of guy that a judge would look at as someone who has “training and expereince” when I see someone that resists that much to such a simple order I’m certainly not stopping. That’ll pique my interest.
    Based on just what WE see (which is t what the officer is seeing) if off pulled him, patted him down (at least) and cuffed him while we worked on why he was acting that way.
    Again….I’m not saying that he doesn’t have a right to remain silent or too say whatever he’s like.
    But ridiculous claims or needless resistence will only get more attention….not less.

  • keepitreal

    Fuck you, you lying pile of horseshit. I have NEVER in my entire life advocated or supported ANY kind of child abuse, you fucking scumbag pile of shit. Show one motherfucking post EVER where I defended such foulness. You’re a pathological liar, foul ass fucking punk motherfucker. Son of a bitch that fucking pisses me off. Lying shit stain motherfucker.

  • D-Man

    Since the officer admitted he was acting outside the law, it was his choice to escalate the situation, not the diver’s. I do not believe for the moment the cop thought his life was in danger. This was just an ego trip. Since citizens are not obligated to follow unjust laws, the driver in no way implicated himself by refused to follow the cop’s orders. There was nothing going on here to “pique” the cop’s interest other than the need to get his own rocks off. Unlucky for him, it was all caught on tape, and future victims will be inclined to “shoot first” and ask questions later. All the cop did was make his own job more difficult. Hiding behind arbitrary fine print just shows you to be yet another bootlicker who would rather hide under his own bed than question unjust authority. Shame on you.

    Still waiting for you to explain in detail how this donut muncher was doing anything other than wasting the driver’s time.

  • keepitreal

    Here, you lying motherfucker. This is a direct quote from an earlier post I made on the subject –

    “When I first started looking at cop block, t was probably the first one to catch my attention. I saw him make reference to somebody belonging to nambla (don’t capitalize those sick fucks). I didn’t know what it was, so I looked it up. Sick-ass freaking gang of weirdos. So I signed up for CB, just to be able to post a comment on such a sick motherfucker. Easily proven that sick-ass was making his sick-ass comments before I ever joined. Now his story is that I’m the one who started that sickness. Lying fucking troll piece of shit.”

    Comes from this post – http://www.copblock.org/47845/dont-raise-your-hand/

    So where was it that I was defending their actions, lying shit stain? PROVEN FUCKING LIAR.

  • Mitch Mitchell

    Jeez, another one. They are breeding.

  • Melissa Hubbard

    Oh my. I cannot help you. I know the true history of the Nazi regime and who the Nazi’s are in this country brought over here via OPERATION PAPERCLIP. I will not engage someone so ignorant of the truth when you obviously have the internet, and therefore you have the means to get to the truth. Look up operation paper clip. Look up Prescott Bush and George bush and Barbara bush. Look up the Bar ASSOCIATION OUT OF THE CITY OF LONDON AND THE ZIONIST WHO RUN THE WORLD FROM THE CITY OF LONDON and the Vatican. Look up the fact that the Bush Crime Cabal has partnered with these NAZI’S out of The City of London. Look up who is in charge of Homeland Security and why it was really created. Copy and paste these links and learn as these are whistle blowers retired from intelligence such as NSA and other intel agencies whom are tired of the bullsh*t going on and they want everyone to wake up.. These people know the truth unlike you. I did not post something which is my opinion. I do my research. These are just to get you started as the rest is your problem I do not have the energy to educate you as that your own responsibility . Until you have done your research do not call people Moron and whatever name you want to call people simply because you are ignorant. then you become that name when you know nothing obviously. IF you do refuse to hear the truth or research the truth then just be dumb and believe the Zionist owned mainstream media whom is owned by only six people in the world to censor the truth.

    copy and past and learn.. .
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/07/02/the-real-reason-homeland-security-exists/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-real-reason-homeland-security-exists

    AND THEN THIS ONE.

    police. http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/08/10/255432/us-police-now-israelidhs-trained/

    Here is a little sample for you as to who the American police really are. Wake up!!!

    http://goo.gl/UT7DTI

    I will not help you any further..

  • Sikko

    Yes, another person that sees through the utter bullshit that CopBlock tries to portray as cops behaving badly, and see through your close minded vitriol.

  • Mitch Mitchell

    Just another cock sucker for local law enforcement, Ah well, there are plenty of your type about. I’ll bet your boyfriend is in the thin blue line gang. I bet you say he is one of the good ones.

  • Mitch Mitchell

    Everybody is entitled to an opinion, even if it is wrong.

  • t

    Mel:
    So….your answer to the question of “how are the American poloce like the Nazis” is conspiracy theory?
    Perfect. Thanks for not disappointing

  • Sikko

    Nope, just someone that actually contributes to the dialog that this site CLAIMS to be about, unlike you, since all you ever have to offer is insult, with a particularly odd focus on homosexual sexual relations. I’d say you’re just prone to projecting your own issues onto others, but it’s ok man, no one cares if you’re gay. Just do you.

  • Sikko

    Lucky for you, given how wrong you are an how often you are that wrong.

  • Yankeefan

    So do the police. Spending a little time researching will show how the ACLU gas been effective in combating police and their abuses at times. The Drudgereport headline 4 years ago…”Pennsylvania State police (et al.) reach settlement with the ACLU to stop using the D.O. to cite citizens who cuss in public”. Or something like that.

    Also, they believe liars. How is that different than cops who will obtain a search warrant based on the first hand testimony of a strung crack whore? Only to breach and find nothing at all and no dangers.

  • Mitch Mitchell

    I take it you imagine that your dogmatic repartee is somehow a counterbalance to me pointing out to people the pro pig trolls? have a look at the “likes” on Copblock, See how many people there are? People are wakening up, slow I will admit but at least it is growing, and those people now will pass the message on to others. That is good news for us all as your “heroes” will now have to watch their backs as they will not be able to break the law with impunity, just as much. And THAT, at the end of the day, is the purpose of Copblock. happy trolling.

  • Sikko

    “I take it you imagine that your dogmatic repartee is somehow a counterbalance to me pointing out to people the pro pig trolls?”

    Nope, I don’t “counterbalance” your dogmatic adherence to the group think of CopBlock wherein all who disagree in any way on any point are “pro pig trolls” or “cop suckers.” What I provide is actual discussion rather than piss poor efforts to silence or undercut those with a differing viewpoint, and that’s because I don’t fear discussion, since it doesn’t hurt my stance at all.

    “have a look at the “likes” on Copblock, See how many people there are?”

    This is just a dogmatic statemeny and fallacious appeal to numbers, a poor one given the paltry number of “likes” that CopBlock has. I guarantee you the cumulative numbers when considering “likes” for police departments greatly dwarfs the number of cumulative “likes” for CopBlock and it’s subsidiaries.

    “People are wakening up, slow I will admit but at least it is growing, and those people now will pass the message on to others.”

    Dogmatic statement, nothing more

    “That is good news for us all as your “heroes” will now have to watch their backs as they will not be able to break the law with impunity, just as much.”

    My “heroes?” Really, I never knew my sandwiches were capable of breaking the law. I no more idolize police than I do anyone else. Of course, you’ll believe otherwise, because a strict adherence to the dogma of CopBlock says that anyone who disagrees with CopBlock and doesn’t believe them to be of the highest moral caliber and present only the God’s honest truth is a “pro pig troll” or a “cop sucker.”

    “And THAT, at the end of the day, is the purpose of Copblock.”

    If only that were true, you might have a point, but that’s far from the actual purpose of CopBlock, as demonstrated by the actions and articles this site presents.

    “happy trolling.”

    Nah, that’s your realm, not mine.

  • Mitch Mitchell

    Like I said…everyone is entitled to an opinion…….

  • Sikko

    And unlike yours, which is so obviously derived through anal excretion, mine is founded in evidence

  • pickle

    I must have hit a nerve. I got three paragraphs.

    Hey, Dumbass, Joe American IS the activist and the only ones supporting their local PD anymore are the families of said PD. And I never said anything like I want to get rid of the government, so thanks for paying attention. Wanting Police to honor their sworn oaths to uphold the constitution does not mean anyone wants to get rid of the government it created. Quite the contrary. We love the government it was supposed to create. The problem is that we don’t have that government because the police do not honor the oaths they took. I can’t tell if you just went retarded there for a second or what. In fact, I feel like anyone who has read your rant is a little dumber for having done so.
    As far as “your PD”, maybe they should take a note from NYCPD and stop harassing people needlessly. Ever stop and think that there wouldn’t even BE a Copblock if cops didn’t need blocking in the first place? No, you don’t think at all.

  • pickle

    Most people who have met you are sorry you were born. And, only a f*cking moron would think that was a compliment. Let your true colors fly, dumbass.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    Now that the hangover’s cleared (woah, did I get pretty hammered at my retirement party), I’ll woefully admit that I butt danced and there’s abundant video of it.

    My sons refuse to stop giving me shit about it.

  • patriot156

    you didnt say much but do you even know the meaning of those statements I posted, and why Patrick Henry would say such a thing?

    To say that a bad government must be established for fear of anarchy is really saying that we should kill ourselves
    for fear of dying. – Richard Henry Lee (1732- 1794), Member of Continental Congress, Signer of the Declaration of
    Independence, U.S. Senator
    The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
    it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government –
    lest it come to dominate our lives and interests. – Patrick Henry
    An Avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret,
    and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even
    his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach
    to himself. – Thomas Paine
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson
    If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. – Thomas Jefferson
    Explain these then to those that would be ignoratnt of such statements. SInce such ideas of Liberty against Police brutality are out of your range I expect you to not be able to expalin to the good people on here as to why anyone would say such things.

  • Mitch Mitchell

    Why don’t you drop dead you asshole. Like I care if you think you know shit. If you are anything like the criminal cops, your evidence will be fabricated and lies.

  • Sikko

    Drop dead? No, I don’t think I’ll oblige you there.

    Fabrication and lies? You mean like the basic fundamentals of a CopBlock story?

  • Mitch Mitchell

    whatev

  • Robert Mathis

    Well when you lazy mother fuckers that have way too much time on your hands come to Georgia, plan on abiding by our laws. Us country talking Roscoe P. Coaltrain boys will kick your ASS if necessary. Keep in mind we are all armed as well as the cops. IF ANY OF YOU FOREIGNERS DONT LIKE IT HERE GO AWAY!!

  • RaymondbyEllis

    You raised your sons well. Intelligence and good taste. The student surpasses the Master.

    Congratulations again on your retirement. You are now an ex-cop, but that’s not what I’m congratulating.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Joe American hated the Civil Rights movement (lived through that), hated the Labor movement, and in general hates anything that could be labelled “trouble-making”. Anything disturbing his complacency.

    Joe American knows you have to read him his Miranda rights when you arrest him. Joe American knows he has never committed a crime because he believes crimes are only done by bad people.

    Joe American can be highly for police and then against them as polls show. Bull Connor did a favor…

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Pickle, unless police families make up 57 to 75% of the population (the range I remember from polls), then, no, Joe American isn’t just the families of PD.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Must be the troll.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Yes, they have to have a reason. No cop will say “I felt like it”, but they will speak to their safety or the safety of the people in the car, the nervousness of the passengers (because only bad people are nervous when stopped by a cop), and others I can’t think of at the moment.

    A cop can tell you to get out of your car at anytime because he will always have a reason that will be accepted in court. He may be lying his ass off, but it will be a truth in court. It is settled law, Lenny Bruce saw it was before it was.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Well, if you ignore everything between “exiting” and “telling” by your ellipse, then yes we watched different videos. I watched the one where there was more to it.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    And you do know that when they win they win big? They no more believe liars all the time than you believe CIs all the time. You don’t do you?

    The ACLU lost in Korematsu. Want to support that decision? Our system isn’t kindergarten bad guys vs good guys, or liars and those that know the absolute truth, it’s a dynamic with a lot of bad players, good players, and all in between.

    However, if it must be believing liars all the time, Courts believe liars all the time too. There’s even a term for it, that term being “testilying”.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    It’s wrong because you see it as a response to not answering questions. The Trooper would claim otherwise, and any claim he made would be supported in court as reasonable.

    I agree with you in a sense because I see a point where the Trooper could just let go of his ego, issue the ticket, and be done with it.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Actually, some states do require the officer to identify himself by name and badge number when asked. That requires oral, or he could just remain silent and give a written note. Either way, he still has to identify himself. Arizona does require an officer to answer, but the law has no teeth. Massachusetts requires it, which has all sorts of funny attached.

    An officer can ask for anything, it doesn’t mean he has the power or authority from that power to demand an answer. Nor the power to act if not given an answer.

    I’m only replying to you because I don’t want your comment to make others more stupid. I won’t get into an exchange with you because I neither want to be made more stupid or join you in crazy.

  • pickle

    So, who in your family is a cop? Uncle Joe? Dad? Sissy? I don’t put much faith in “polls” anymore. They are way too easy to make them come out the way you want them to. That, and people are stupid. If you don’t believe me, youtube “Mark Dice” and some of his petitions. And if your percentages are actually accurate, why so many protests? Just curious.

  • JC

    You start off decent and then end with insults. Please post the law that says an officer has to identify him/herself orally.

  • Del

    I hope not any claim by the officer would be accepted but yes most the time their statement are taken as truth.
    Like you said it was a ego thing like “you wanna give my lip I’ll make this difficult on you”. But officer need to start understand they have to deal with all types of people and not everyone is gonna do exactly what you want, which is fine police should expect people to do everything or answer every question you ask.
    I think these officer dealing with traffic stops should not get upset if some one doesn’t want to roll their window down or just even just acts pissed of. I’m think about if you stoped people all day and charged them fines, should you really expect them to say thank you and smile every time?

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Two, one I like and one I dislike. One is younger than me and one is older. One stayed part of the greater community and one didn’t.

    Polls are accurate within the margin of error. They are a snapshot, a moment in time. Pollsters like Gallup try to remove the “way too easy” manipulation from their polling because it’s way too easy to see. They are in business to stay in business. If their product is always tainted they won’t.

    Protests are always only a small part of a community. They only represent the community when the community gets on board, and that in these United States is when the community sees blood wrongly spilled. They may have to see it again and again before they recognize it.

  • pickle

    A cop’s family member defending cops. (There’s something you never see) This didn’t exactly help your argument.

  • Jö Miller

    Let me google the phrase for you. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=burden+of+proof

  • RaymondbyEllis

    So, if I had no family members that were cops then when I defend cops what other reason would you draw upon to dismiss me, impugn me and my arguments?

    “Two, one I like and one I dislike. One is younger than me and one is older. One stayed part of the greater community and one didn’t.” So was I defending cops by that, or saying that some cops are good and some bad?

    BTW, both are on the side of my “family” that I’ve only seen once in eleven years because I have nothing to do with that side at near all cost. I only saw them because my daughter begged me to go to a wake, and only she could get me to go. I was heartened to see that one officer was still good and the other still an ass.

    Now believing because someone has “family” members
    that are cops they are therefore predisposed to defend cops, and that defense of any cop at any time is solely because they have cops in their “family”, is truly something you never see. After all, that would be a dialectic that all anyone thinks is only based on tribe.

    Do me a favor, convince t. I’m a defender of cops. I’d love to watch that thread unfold.

  • Joe Shmo

    well yeah, but that has nothing to do with the basis of my question, even a really simple minded person with psychopathic tendencies can be nice to a dog that has done them no wrong

    it’s just weird ya know? where is this idea of IT’S US VS. THEM coming from? it doesn’t make sense we’re all American aren’t we?

    but I do not mean to be two-faced about this either I know many Americans can be assholes (myself included for certain reasons)

    but this, why this, why like this WHERE THE HELL is the overwhelming urge to be an asshole coming from? it’s doesn’t add up and does not make sense

    all I’m looking for is why, and I just don’t see it

  • Pingback: Small Town Police Steal Money, Kidnap Child in Maury County, TN. | Cop Block()