"Operation of a motor vehicle upon public streets
and highways is not a mere privilege but is a right or liberty protected
by the guarantees of Federal and State constitutions." Adams
v. City of Pocatello 416 P.2d 46
"The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE
on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he
is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality
is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected
by the courts." People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971)
"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public
highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage,
wagon, or automobile is not a mere privilege which may be permitted
or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Slusher v. Safety
Coach Transit Co., 229 Ky. 731, 17 S.W.(2d) 1012,66 A.L.R.1378; and
affirmed by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367, 154
S. E. 579, A.L.R. 604. (11 Am.Jur. § 329)
"The license charge imposed by the motor vehicle
act is an excise or privilege tax, established for the purpose of revenue
in order to provide a fund for roads while under the dominion of the
state authorities, it is not a tax imposed as a rental charge or a toll
charge for the use of the highways owned and controlled by the state."
- PG&E v. State Treasurer, 168 Cal 420.
To them may be added the case of W. W. Cargill Co. v. Minnesota, 180 U.S. 452, 468, where it was held that "the acceptance of a license, in whatever form, will not impose upon the licensee an obligation to respect or to comply with any provisions of the statute . . . that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.",
Power Manufacturing Company v. Saunders, 274 U.S. 490 (1927).
(a) Definitions. - In this chapter, the following definitions apply:
(6) Motor vehicle. - The term "motor vehicle" means every description
of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power
and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation
of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
(10) Used for commercial purposes. - The term "used for commercial
purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee,
rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection
with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
"Me, if I am here at all my presence is special as I am
here as result of a force bill of pain and penalty against my Life, Liberty,
pursuit of happiness and my well-being; and as I am aware of [the following]:
"No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction."
Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S. Ct. 768
"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be 'assumed', it
must be proved to exist!" Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca2d 751, 211
P.2s 389
"Jurisdiction once challenged cannot be assumed and must
be decided." Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S.Ct. 2502
"Where jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven."
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 at 533
I am calling into question the application of the {particular
code} over myself and my property."
The Fourth Amendment "is not
an adjunct*
to the ascertainment of truth." The guarantees
of the Fourth Amendment stand "as a protection of quite different constitutional
values "values reflecting
the concern of our society for the right of
each individual to be let alone.
To recognize this is no more than to accord those values undiluted respect."
Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott, 382 U. S. 406, 416.
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 US 218, 242 (1973).
*Adjunct: added or connected in a
secondary or subordinate position; auxiliary - one may interpret this to mean that
one does have a right
not to tell the government everything; in fact, a right to hide stuff
from them! (Not Legal Advice.) They do not want you to know this! (This is in a majority decision!)
Opposed to the use of
roadblocks? Visit roadblock.org (Hint - operators of roadblocks are not your friends.)
“The temporary detention of individuals
during an automobile stop by the police, even if only for a brief
period, constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
Therefore, an automobile stop is subject to the Constitutional requirement
that the seizure not be ´unreasonable´ under the circumstances.”
Litzenberger v. Vanim, No. 01-5454, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13843
(E.D. Pa. July 31, 2002) (citing Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806, 809-10
(1996)
"Gee Officer, what is your articulate-able reason for stopping me?"
Awareness of this may be helpful "
(3) That an acceptance of a license, in whatever form, will not require the licensee to respect or to comply with any provisions of the statute or with any regulations prescribed by the state
. . . that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States." W. W. CARGILL CO. V. MINNESOTA, 180 U. S. 452 (1901)
"Me, I am unable to make a legal determination, I am going
to remain silent. I am capable of making informed decisions. I want assistance
of counsel."
VIDEO: PBS
- FRONTLINE - CRIMINAL JUSTICE How could four men confess to a brutal
crime that they didn't commit? IF YOU BELIEVE THIS COULD NEVER HAPPEN
TO YOU ...then go ahead and ´talk´ with the police...
The Confessions
" Me, I am (will be) happy to talk about what I may be aware
of... with immunity!"
Backgrounder
Generally a city´s charter
makes a mention that that all ordinances much be in compliance with state
law. Reading a city´s charter - look carefully for the word "power."
Only ´certain powers´ are conveyed to cities and most of the powers deal
with issues of health and safety. Look to find the power of police in
the city charter. Chances are that here is none. Austin, Texas for example:
the
Austin City Charter says that there is a police department which is
an office under the mayor and city council. (See
here) There
is no provision for police officers in the city charter. The City of Austin
Police Department contracts privately with the mayor and city council via
the city manager. Yes, to say it in other words, they appear to be nothing
more than private security guards. Harmed or damaged by police action?
Consider a law suit against the city. Better yet -- get to know who you
are and act accordingly.
Right to Remain Silent
When Stopped by Police Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 1979 SyllabusFull Text
"The temporary detention of individuals
during an automobile stop by the police, even if only for a brief
period, constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
Therefore, an automobile stop is subject to the Constitutional requirement
that the seizure not be ´unreasonable´ under the circumstances."
Litzenberger v. Vanim, No. 01-5454, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13843
(E.D. Pa. July 31, 2002) (citing Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806, 809-10
(1996)
The use of excessive force can be an unlawful "seizure"
under the Fourth Amendment. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395
(1989); Carswell v. Borough of Homestead, 381 F.3d 235, 240 (3d
Cir. 2004). In deciding whether challenged conduct constitutes excessive
force, a court must determine the objective "reasonableness" of
the challenged conduct, considering "the severity of the crime at
issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety
of the officer or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest
or attempting to evade arrest by flight." Graham, 490 U.S. at 396.
PUBLIC SERVANT QUESTIONNAIRE
When you look around the web, you´ll find a
public servant questionnaire, but not like this one. Its been converted
to a single page so you can get a multi-part NCR form made up at FedExOffice,
Staples, Office Depot, etc.. Keep some by the door to your house and in
your glove compartment to give to [any] law enforcement officers who want
to ask you questions. Before answering theirs, make them answer yours. You´ll
find supporting law in
5 U.S.C. 552a
"When plunder has become a way of life for a group of men living
together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time
a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
- Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)
The cop pulled
me over, when he approached me and said: "What is your name"
I responded by stating, "What, is the question?"
Again he stated
"What is your name" to which I again responded, "That is incorrect,
what is not my name."
Again he stated
"What is your name" to which I responded "I just told you what
is NOT my name."
"Perhaps your inquiry would be better if
you asked me a question instead of making statements that are un-true."
-- "I know what I am - question is, do you?"
He then asked "who
are you" and again I had to direct him and inform him that it wasn't
who but "what" am I."
"Okay, what are
you" to which I informed him [that] "I am a living breathing man
on the soil, A child of my creator, the creator of all things in
Heaven and on Earth, just who might you be?"
He broke into
a tirade and admitted I was a living breathing man on the land by
stating, "WELL I CAN SEE THAT !"
I smiled, from that point
he can't ever presume that I am a legal fiction or that I am incompetent
for believing I am the same [thing] as appears on a [plastic] license
or [alleged] ID card.
He who has the most confidence
controls the event, the people or the situation.
(Think about it.)
Handicap: You opponent has a handicap IF
he cannot control himself.
Did someone say, "quotas"?
Here are four memos that
seem to add substance to rumors. These four memos were topic of KXAN
Austin, Texas, TV news story, January 16, 2008. Texas DPS
Memos Outline Trooper
Arrest Quota
Cruiser-Top Cameras
Make Police Work a Snap (The article doesn't mention what happens
to the data on legal plates. Suppose the DHS decides it wants a permanent
archive of who was where, when?)
Texas city Police Chief and mayor battle over officer
read here
Claim: Motorists
in most U.S. states can be fined for failing to slow down or change lanes
when passing parked emergency vehicles.
true
Did someone say, "Red-Light Cameras"?
(It simple. Stopping at red light or
a stop sign is not optional - IT IS THE LAW! ...and who doesn't want people
to adhere to the law?)
DIALOG: Consider that
a ticket from a red light camera may be disposable because you did not
sign a promise to appear. (See Opinion
No. JC-0317 below.)
Can one dispute a red
light ticket? "I want the camera brought in to court so that I can question
it. Thank you big brother." Bring the matter to trial, jury - (´the whole
nine yards´) -- and then tell them that there is a failure to lay proper
predicate and that you want the matter dismissed.
Traffic camera photos
are hearsay and inadmissible absent other "foundational" evidence - see,
California Appeals
case ruling
"The law requires PROOF OF JURISDICTION to appear on
the Record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings."
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533
In Texas “Peace officer” means a person elected, employed,
or appointed as a peace officer under Article 2.12, Code of Criminal
Procedure, Section 51.212 ~ 51.214, Education Code, or other law.
OK, then whoever is pretending to be a “Peace officer” should have no
difficulty in producing competent evidence of election, employment or
appointment - yes? And that election, employment or appointment possibly
has conditions - yes? And is the actor complying with, operating
within all the conditions? (For more see DIALOG below.) And does
one not have a right and a duty to ascertain just who it is that they
are dealing with? YES, one does have the right and duty! (See
the PUBLIC SERVANT QUESTIONNAIRE below.)
NEVER challenge
an officer´s authority on the street -- wait for court.
Message recently received: "My friend
was pulled over for a taillight being out, and the officer
ran her plates and saw that there was an outstanding warrant
for an unpaid ticket for expired inspection. They told her
to step out of the car and that if she had anything on her
that, "now is the time to tell us." She came clean immediately
as she was in possession of a controlled substance (cocaine,
which was not in her system) and handed it over. They took
her to jail and she´s being charged with a felony. What
can she do?"
Reply: [from someone who
is NOT an Attorney -- and that anything said is not to be
considered legal advice - hey, the respondent may not even
know what he/she is talking about.] Apparently your
friend has not heard this, "They (Police, government agents,
etc.) have nothing, they want everything and they want us
to give it to them!" We, here at the School say, "Why?"
Rule one; avoid giving them any reason
[articulate-able suspicion] to
be interested in you - check often and keep lights,
tires, car, etc., in working order - and of course,
operate your car reasonably, defensively, and safely.
Rule two; avoid having any reason for them to detain
you if they do become interested in you - settle
past matters.
Rule three; if one has one or more of their asset identifiers
(state plates, registration, etc.) and one has a state
issued Driver License -- well, then one is expected
to abide by the state´s rules and regulations - yes?
However, was it that you were in commerce? Remember
that it is not up to you to prove that you weren't -
it is up to them to prove that you were.
Rule four; avoid giving consent, avoid giving up rights.
(Gee Mister [alleged police officer], what is your show
of authority? ) The old, "...now is the time to tell
us" bluff is used, and used with success, more times
that one can imagine. One does have the right to remain
quite. "Me, I don't accept your offer." -- "Me, I don't
consent to this." -- "Me, I am competent to make an
informed decision and I am unable to make legal
determination about this matter until I have assistance
of council." -- "Am I under arrest -- or am I free to
go?" -- "What is that... it isn't mine... I don't know
how it got there... are you guys planting stuff... setting
me up?" (See,
public servant questionnaire.)
Rule five; learn this stuff (and more)
BEFORE it is needed!
Confidence = NO negotiation!
Remember: There is a cost for
freedom -- as it is not free!
"Waivers of constitutional rights not only must
be voluntary, but must be knowing, intellegent acts
done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances
and likely consequences."
Brady v. U. S., 397 U.S. 742 (1970)
Review
a recent Iowa case involving a warrantless search
STATE v. GARRISON
...as for an illegal arrest...
"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance." Adams v. State, 121 Pa. 16, 48 S.E. 910
Also,
"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary." see, Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the supreme Court of the United States in John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.
All warfare is based on deception.
Officer must identify himself and show you ID if you request it.
Also, officer cannot swear an oath in his own mind he has to swear
to the complaint in front of a proper party to attest to the swearing,
i.e. signing a ticket and giving it to you on the street doesn't
get it anymore. City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa vs. Atsinger, 617 NW 2d 272, 9-7-2000.
(Iowa Supreme Court)
(See the
public servant questionnaire)
[3] The fact the restraint on Ms.
Spicer´s liberty was minimal does not make the restraint a reasonable
one. The Fourth Amendment applies to all seizures of the person
including those consuming no more than a minute.
(United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra, 422 U.S. at pp. 879-880
[45 L.Ed.2d at pp. 615-616].) PEOPLE v. SPICER,
157 Cal.App.3d 213 [Crim.
No. 45072. Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate
District, Division Seven. June 15, 1984.] The Fourth Amendment
prohibits a police officer from arresting a person without probable
cause. Paff v. Kaletenbach, 204 F.3d 425, 435 (3d Cir. 2000).
Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign
disorder, and crush him.
"Jurisdiction is essential to give validity to the determinations
of administrative agencies and where jurisdictional requirements are
not satisfied, the action of the agency is a nullity..." City Street
Improv. Co. v. Pearson, 181 C 640, 185 P. 962 O'Neill v. Dept. of Professional
& Vocational Standards, 7 CA2d 393, 46 P.2d 234.
When whoever stops you
asks, "Do you know why I stopped you?" ...consider saying, "No, I don't."
Giving a response like, "I was over the speed limit" or "I was weaving"
- even if just a guess ...not only can be an admission of a violation
(and maybe not the one you were stopped for) but an indication of KNOWING
the violation - which only makes it worse.
For those who get this far: The instant a citation,
or warning, is issued, the motorist is free to leave! TIP: Don't
hang around and answer the usual drug interdiction questions, i.e.;
"Are you carrying anything illegal?" If you have received a verbal warning
or have your citation in hand and an officer continues questioning,
reply with, "Gee, I thought I was free to leave and if I'm not then
what are you holding me for?" The officer must explain why he is detaining
you since he has already dealt with the alleged traffic violation. If
there are no more violations, or [articulated] probable cause, he must
let you go! This method stops you from having to go through the, "...can
I search your car" process.
Brian
Tracy: "Most people achieved their greatest success one step beyond
what looked like their greatest failure."
A positive mental outlook and attitude is paramount,
because if you think you can’t, then you can’t. But, just
because you think you can doesn't mean that you can if you don't acquire
the awareness, skill and knowledge to succeed.
"Am I under arrest?"
"Am I free to go?" ("I´m going to remain silent.")
"If I am not free to go then I must be under arrest.
I do not consent. Do you have a warrant with my name on it? What is your
show of authority?" "What is your probable / articulate-able cause for
placing me under a warrant-less arrest? I do not consent." If asked for
ID, proof of insurance, or any other thing - ask, "Gee, are you going
to use this information in a criminal investigation?" (Question: Do police
ever get involved with a civil matter?) Because, if it is to be used
in any manner of [criminal] investigation then you are going to exercise
your rights especially the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and
not to be a witness against one´s self.
(If you haven't seen it already, see James
Duane´s presentation above.)
Know your rights and be awake when dealing with police officers.
As a lobbyist against liberty a Police Officer´s worst enemy is a well informed Citizen who knows their rights!
If your enemy is secure at all points, be
prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, AVOID him.
Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1998)--cannot
search car in routine traffic stop!
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES KNOWLES
v. IOWA,/b> CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA, No. 97—7597.
Argued November 3, 1998 – Decided December 8, 1998
An Iowa policeman stopped petitioner Knowles for
speeding and issued him a citation rather than arresting him. The
officer then conducted a full search of the car, without either
Knowles' consent or probable cause, found marijuana and a "pot pipe,"
and arrested Knowles. Before his trial on state drug charges, Knowles
moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that because he had not
been arrested, the search could not be sustained under the "search
incident to arrest" exception recognized in United States v. Robinson,
414 U.S. 218. The trial court denied the motion and found Knowles
guilty, based on state law giving officers authority to conduct
a full-blown search of an automobile and driver where they issue
a citation instead of making a custodial arrest. In affirming, the
State Supreme Court applied its bright-line "search incident to
citation" exception to the
Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, reasoning that so long
as the officer had probable cause to make a custodial arrest, there
need not in fact have been an arrest.
Held: The search at issue, authorized as it was by state law,
nonetheless violates the
Fourth Amendment. Neither of the two historical exceptions for
the "search incident to arrest" exception, see Robinson, supra,
at 234, is sufficient to justify the search in the present case.
First, the threat to officer safety from issuing a traffic citation
is a good deal less than in the case of a custodial arrest. While
concern for safety during a routine traffic stop may justify the
"minimal" additional intrusion of ordering a driver and passengers
out of the car, it does not by itself justify the often considerably
greater intrusion attending a full field-type search. Even without
the search authority Iowa urges, officers have other, independent
bases to search for weapons and protect themselves from danger.
Second, the need to discover and preserve evidence does not exist
in a traffic stop, for once Knowles was stopped for speeding and
issued a citation, all evidence necessary to prosecute that offense
had been obtained. Iowa's argument that a "search incident to citation"
is justified because a suspect may try to hide evidence of his identity
or of other crimes is unpersuasive. An officer may arrest a driver
if he is not satisfied with the identification furnished, and the
possibility that an officer would stumble onto evidence of an unrelated
offense seems remote. Pp. 3—6. 569 N. W. 2d 601, reversed and remanded.
Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
The officer, who
acting alone had stopped the driver for a seat belt violation, made
no attempt to investigate the seat belt violation but rather launched
into an extensive series of unrelated questions that eventually
led to the discovery of illegal drugs on the driver's person. Only
later did he write the seat belt citation. We upheld the suppression
of the drugs, emphasizing in Presiding Judge Pope's special concurrence
(joined in by six other judges and quoting from Sims extensively)
the trial court's finding that " '[r]ather than ticket [the driver]
or release him, the officer decided to conduct a drug investigation.'
It is this continued detention that makes the questioning and request
to search without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity impermissible."
The Supreme Court has ruled that as long as the
police do not force an individual to do something, the individual
is acting voluntarily, even if a normal person would feel very intimidated
and would not reasonably feel they could say no. See
Florida v. Bostick, (89-1717), 501 U.S. 429 (1991) If you do
what a policeman tells you to do before you are arrested, you are
'voluntarily' complying with their 'requests'.
Never
consent to a search. Don't resist, be respectful, but
do
not consent. One has no idea as to what the cops are
looking for, or
how
they will interpret what they find. Most important, whatever errors
the police may have made in stopping you, or in the warrant, or
in the subsequent search are irrelevant if one consents!
(If you haven't seen it already,
see Professor James Duane's presentation
above.)
To sign or not to sign a ticket -- Texas
Attorney General´s opinion items for consideration:
Opinion No. JC-0317 Re: Whether the addition of certain protest words
to a traffic citation constitutes a valid promise to appear in court.
Opinion No. JC-0153 Re: Effect of certain protest words written beneath
a person´s signature on a state document.
"Gee, is this ticket constitutionally valid?"
"Gee, this ticket doesn't seem to have a [valid] statute number
showing on it."
The following cases substantiate that it is a fact of
law that the person asserting jurisdiction must, when challenged, PROVE
that jurisdiction exists: McNutt v. G.M., 56 S. Ct. 789, 80 L.Ed. 1135
Griffin v. Mattews, 310 Supp. 341, 423, F.2d 272 Basso v. U.P.L., 495
F.2d 906 Thomson v. Gaskiel, 62 S.Ct. 673, 83 L.Ed. 111 Albrect
v. U.S., 273 U.S. 1
"Gee, is this ticket appears to lack a competent fact witness."
Did someone say, "I want to fight the ticket"
- in court? (Remember that to
fight, to argue, is to enter into 'their' jurisdiction and lose. Consider
a conditional acceptance.)
[You] "Thank you Officer {Jones} for being here today. You are properly sworn in?
[Yes] OK, please tell this court, did you file a valid cause of action against
me?" [Officer] "Yes." [You] "OK, please tell this court just how many
elements are in a valid cause of action." You may hear, from prosecutor,
something like, "Objection, calls for a legal conclusion, witness is not
competent to testify." Then you may, from judge, hear something like,
"Objection sustained." Then you say, "OK, then I move to strike the witness´s
testimony." [testimony includes the ticket] "...and I move this matter dismissed."
[You] Smile ;)] (Of course this entails the officer actually showing
up (the prosecutor may try bluffing you on this, [you] just want to go on
and have 'your day in court') -- if he or she doesn't - well they don't
have a case then do they? {You} Smile ;) and say, "I want this matter dismissed."
Questions for Police
Officer in traffic court:
[You] "In order to be a policeman you had to swear an oath to support both
State and Federal Constitutions didn’t you?" [Officer answer] "Yes."
[You] "On the day and time you approach me you were armed were you not?"
[Officer answer] "Yes." [You] "Having sworn an oath to the constitution
you attacked me by force of arms in an attempt to compel me to be a witness
against myself in felony breach of your fiduciary duty pursuant to the oath
you sworn." [Officer answer] "Yes." [You] "I move to dismiss because
the officer just impeached himself under oath."
DIALOG: ...next
time you get a 'traffic ticket'; ask the court, and the policeman (on the
stand), what makes them think your automobile is a 'motor vehicle'? Ask
them, since you received a 'traffic ticket', just what goods were you 'trafficing'
in? And since the fine is to be paid in so many 'dollars', ask them what
a "dollar" is. Watch them look at you like you are insane. Speak clearly
and loudly, tell them that you are competent to make an informed decision
and that you are not able to understand the nature and cause of the charges
unless, and until, they explain their semantics. Remember, in law or life,
it is not wise to go passed an undefined word or phrase.
F.Y.I.:
Believe it or not, everybody´s case is pretty much the same. The "System"
(b)leeds you to believe you are some kind of "special case." The absurd
accusations they have brought against you are NOT a "mistake." It is
a SCAM to keep you dizzy with and in fear. Its NOT about "misunderstanding"
you -- THEY ARE DOING IT DELIBERATELY! Remember: Its their 'system' -
not yours.
FOLKLORE? A man who, appeared on a criminal charge. The judge
asked him if his name was "John Doe" He replied; "My mother told
me that was my name." This statement then cannot be used to certify
the identity of the defendant, as it is hearsay. The judge looked
at him a little funny, and asked, "How do you plead?" To which the
man replied, "Judge, I'm ready to plead but first I want to know
who is going to certify the charges to the court?" That is all he
said, and after the judge haggled with the clueless prosecutor a while,
he cut him loose. Probably because they could not certify his identity,
as he declined to testify as to his identity.
The purpose of fighting is to win.
There is no possible victory in defense, a/k/a: waiting for attack.
The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important
than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.
Leaving it up to the discretion of the police to decide who is
suspicious? The courts have ruled that is unconstitutional, because it
allows the preferences and prejudices of an individual to make the
decision.
Are we ruled
by law or by men? "Gee, Officer, what was your articulate-able reason
for stopping me?"
JUDGE:
"I know that is what the law says in the book, but that is not what it means.
We only use the law book as a guide. In this court I make the law."
PERSECUTED: Wow! You actually have that delegated power? Then perhaps
you´ll have no difficulty entering proof of that power into the record
of this matter -- and then I'll be happy to bow down and worship you.
(A transcription
of any video presentation on this page would be great learning opportunity
for the transcriber and a fine contribution to the page. Webmaster)
Sets a precedent for a large dollar return for unlawful arrest and incarceration
Trezevant v. City of Tampa,
741 F.2d 336
In battle, there are not more than two methods
of attack--the direct and the indirect; yet these two in combination give
rise to an endless series of maneuvers.
NOTICE: Various presented
entities are not affiliated with Freedom School.
NOTICE:
The information on this page was brought to you by people who paid
this website forward so that someone such as you might also profit
by having access to it. If you care to do so also please feel encouraged
to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation today. Thank you.
Freedom-School
is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.
This enterprise collectively is known and generally presented as "Freedom-School.com"
- "we," "us" or "our" are other expressions of Freedom-School.com used throughout.
"You" is in reference to the user / visitor.
This is the
fine print that so important. Freedom School and other information served
is so for educational purposes only, no liability expressed or assumed for
use. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended
to be, legal advice. Freedom School does not consent to or condone unlawful
action. Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere
to, support and defend all Law which is particularly applicable. Information
is intended for [those] men and women who are not "US CITIZENS" or "TAXPAYERS"
- continued use, reference or citing indicates voluntary and informed compliance.
Support is not offered.
Freedom School
is a free speech site, non-commercial enterprise and operation as there
is no charge for things presented. Freedom-School.com site relies on
this
memorandum and others in support of this philosophy and operation.
The noteworthy failure of [the] government or any alleged agency thereof
to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal
admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which
are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and any
and all [third] parties affiliated or otherwise. THIS IS AN ELECTRONIC AGREEMENT
AND IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT, EQUIVALENT TO A SIGNED, WRITTEN CONTRACT
BETWEEN PARTIES - If the government, or anyone else, wants to assert that
any of the religious and/or political statements appearing on this website
are not factual or otherwise in error, then they as the moving party have
the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof
under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. § 556(d) and under the
due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to
the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons,
questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling
presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular
claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and
prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything
on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to
correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
Freedom-School.com
is not responsible for content of any linked website or material. In
addition, users may not use Freedom-School.com to engage in, facilitate
or further unlawful conduct; use the service in any way, or manner, that
harms us or anyone connected with us or whose work is presented; damage,
disable, overburden, or impair the service (or the network(s) connected
to the site) or interfere with anyone´s use and enjoyment of the website.
All claims to be settled on the land - Austin, Travis county Texas,
united States of America, using Texas Common Law. All parts of this contract
apply to the maximum extent permitted by law. A court may hold that we cannot
enforce a part of this contract as written. If this happens, then you and
we will replace that part with terms that most closely match the intent
of the part that we cannot enforce. The rest of this contract will not change.
This is the entire contract between you and us regarding your use of the
service. It supersedes any prior contract or statements regarding your use
of the Freedom-School.com site. If there exists some manner of thing missing
we do not forfeit our right to that thing as we reserve all rights.
We may assign, or modify, alter, change this contract, in whole or in
part, at any time with or without notice to you. You may not assign this
contract, or any part of it, to any other person. Any attempt by you to
do so is void. You may not transfer to anyone else, either temporarily or
permanently, any rights to use the Freedom-School.com site or material contained
within.
GOOGLE
ANALYTICS: While we do not automatically collect personally identifiable
information about you when you visit the Freedom-School.com site, we do
collect non-identifying and aggregate information that we use to improve
our Web site design and our online presence. Visitors to this site who
have Javascript enabled are tracked using Google Analytics. The type of
information that Google Analytics collects about you includes data like:
the type of Web browser you are using; the type of operating system you
are using; your screen resolution; the version of Flash you may be using;
your network location and IP address (this can include geographic data like
the country, city and state you are in); your Internet connection speed;
the time of your visit to the Freedom-School.com site; the pages you visit
on the Freedom-School.com site; the amount of time you spend on each page
of the Freedom-School.com site and referring site information. In addition
to the reports we receive using Google Analytics data, the data is shared
with Google. For more information on Google´s privacy policies, visit:
http://www.google.com/privacy/ads/
Here is Google´s description of how Google Analytics works and how you can
disable it: "Google Analytics collects information anonymously, and much
like examining footprints in sand, it reports website trends without identifying
individual visitors. Analytics uses its own cookie to track visitor interactions.
The cookie is used to store information, such as what time the current visit
occurred, whether the visitor has been to the site before, and what site
referred the visitor to the web page. Google Analytics customers can view
a variety of reports about how visitors interact with their website so they
can improve their website and how people find it. A different cookie is
used for each website, and visitors are not tracked across multiple sites.
Analytics requires that all websites that use it must update their privacy
policy to include a notice that fully discloses the use of Analytics. To
disable this type of cookie, some browsers will indicate when a cookie is
being sent and allow you to decline cookies on a case-by-case basis."
Freedom-School.com site, the DVD issue, microSDHC card issue, or work computers´ DMCA Policy
the Freedom-School.com site, the DVD issue, microSDHC card issue, and/or work computers, make effort to be in compliance with 17 U.S.C. § 512 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). It is our policy to respond to any infringement notices and take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") and other applicable intellectual property laws.
If your copyrighted material has been posted on the Freedom-School.com site, the DVD issue, microSDHC card issue, or work computers, in other than fair use capacity or if links to your copyrighted material are returned through our search engine and you want the material removed, you must provide a written communication that details the information listed in the following section. Please be aware that you will be liable for damages (including costs and attorneys´ fees) if you misrepresent information listed on the site that is allegedly infringing on your alleged copyrights. We suggest that you may want to first contact competent legal assistance on this matter.
The following elements must be included in your copyright infringement claim:
* Provide evidence of the authorized person to act on behalf of the fully disclosed alleged owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. Please notice that we generally do not deal with third parties.
* Provide sufficient contact information so that we may contact you. You must also include a valid email address.
* You must identify in sufficient detail the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed and including at least one search term under which the material appears in Freedom-School.com search results.
* A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
* A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
* Must be signed by the authorized person to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly being infringed. (Proper ratification of commencement.)
Send the infringement notice via email to the postmaster at Freedom-School.com
Please allow 1-3 business days for an email response. Note that emailing your complaint to other parties such as our Internet Service Provider (ISP) or server host(s) will not expedite your request and may result in a delayed response due the complaint not being properly being filed.