Drivers, Beware: The Costly, Deadly Dangers Of Traffic Stops In The American Police State

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“The Fourth Amendment was designed to stand between us and arbitrary governmental authority. For all practical purposes, that shield has been shattered, leaving our liberty and personal integrity subject to the whim of every cop on the beat, trooper on the highway and jail official. The framers would be appalled.”—Herman Schwartz, The Nation

Trying to predict the outcome of any encounter with the police is a bit like playing Russian roulette: most of the time you will emerge relatively unscathed, although decidedly poorer and less secure about your rights, but there’s always the chance that an encounter will turn deadly.

The odds weren’t in Walter L. Scott’s favor. Reportedly pulled over for a broken taillight, Scott—unarmed—ran away from the police officer, who pursued and shot him from behind, first with a Taser, then with a gun. Scott was struck five times, “three times in the back, once in the upper buttocks and once in the ear — with at least one bullet entering his heart.”

Samuel Dubose, also unarmed, was pulled over for a missing front license plate. He was reportedly shot in the head after a brief struggle in which his car began rolling forward.

Levar Jones was stopped for a seatbelt offense, just as he was getting out of his car to enter a convenience store. Directed to show his license, Jones leaned into his car to get his wallet, only to be shot four times by the “fearful” officer. Jones was also unarmed.

Bobby Canipe was pulled over for having an expired registration. When the 70-year-old reached into the back of his truck for his walking cane, the officer fired several shots at him, hitting him once in the abdomen.

Dontrell Stevens was stopped “for not bicycling properly.” The officer pursuing him “thought the way Stephens rode his bike was suspicious. He thought the way Stephens got off his bike was suspicious.” Four seconds later, sheriff’s deputy Adams Lin shot Stephens four times as he pulled out a black object from his waistband. The object was his cell phone. Stephens was unarmed.

If there is any lesson to be learned from these “routine” traffic stops, it is that drivers should beware.

At a time when police can do no wrong—at least in the eyes of the courts, police unions and politicians dependent on their votes—and a “fear” for officer safety is used to justify all manner of police misconduct, “we the people” are at a severe disadvantage.

According to the Justice Department, the most common reason for a citizen to come into contact with the police is being a driver in a traffic stop. On average, one in 10 Americans gets pulled over by police. Black drivers are 31 percent more likely to be pulled over than white drivers, or about 23 percent more likely than Hispanic drivers. As the Washington Post concludes, “‘Driving while black’ is, indeed, a measurable phenomenon.”

As Sandra Bland learned the hard way, the reason for a traffic stop no longer matters. Bland, who was pulled over for allegedly failing to use her turn signal, was arrested after refusing to comply with the police officer’s order to extinguish her cigarette and exit her vehicle. The encounter escalated, with the officer threatening to “light” Bland up with his taser. Three days later, Bland was found dead in her jail cell.

You’re doing all of this for a failure to signal?” Bland asked as she got out of her car, after having been yelled at and threatened repeatedly. Had she only known, drivers have been pulled over for far less. Indeed, police officers have been given free range to pull anyone over for a variety of reasons.

This approach to traffic stops (what I would call “blank check policing,” in which the police get to call all of the shots) has resulted in drivers being stopped for windows that are too heavily tinted, for driving too fast, driving too slow, failing to maintain speed, following too closely, improper lane changes, distracted driving, screeching a car’s tires, and leaving a parked car door open for too long.

Motorists can also be stopped by police for driving near a bar or on a road that has large amounts of drunk driving, driving a certain make of car (Mercedes, Grand Prix and Hummers are among the most ticketed vehicles), having anything dangling from the rearview mirror (air fresheners, handicap parking permits, troll transponders or rosaries), and displaying pro-police bumper stickers.

Incredibly, a federal appeals court actually ruled unanimously in 2014 that acne scars and driving with a stiff upright posture are reasonable grounds for being pulled over. More recently, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that driving a vehicle that has a couple air fresheners, rosaries and pro-police bumper stickers at 2 MPH over the speed limit is suspicious, meriting a traffic stop.

Unfortunately for drivers, not only have traffic stops become potentially deadly encounters, they have also turned into a profitable form of highway robbery for the police departments involved.

As The Washington Post reports, traffic stops for minor infractions such as speeding or equipment violations are increasingly used as a pretext for officers to seize cash from drivers.” Relying on federal and state asset forfeiture laws, police set up “stings” on public roads that enable them to stop drivers for a variety of so-called “suspicious” behavior, search their vehicles and seize anything of value that could be suspected of being connected to criminal activity. Since 2001, police have seized $2.5 billion from people who were not charged with a crime and without a warrant being issued.

“In case after case,” notes The Washington Post, “highway interdictors appeared to follow a similar script. Police set up what amounted to rolling checkpoints on busy highways and pulled over motorists for minor violations, such as following too closely or improper signaling. They quickly issued warnings or tickets. They studied drivers for signs of nervousness, including pulsing carotid arteries, clenched jaws and perspiration. They also looked for supposed ‘indicators’ of criminal activity, which can include such things as trash on the floor of a vehicle, abundant energy drinks or air fresheners hanging from rearview mirrors.”

If you’re starting to feel somewhat overwhelmed, intimidated and fearful for your life and your property, you should be. Never before have “we the people” been so seemingly defenseless in the face of police misconduct, lacking advocates in the courts and in the legislatures.

So how do you survive a police encounter with your life and wallet intact?

The courts have already given police the green light to pull anyone over for a variety of reasons. In an 8-1 ruling in Heien v. North Carolina, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that police officers can pull someone over based on a “reasonable” but mistaken belief about the law.

Of course, what’s reasonable to agents of the police state may be completely unreasonable to the populace. Nevertheless, the moment those lights start flashing and that siren goes off, we’re all in the same boat: we must pull over.

However, it’s what happens after you’ve been pulled over that’s critical. Survival is the key.

Technically, you have the right to remain silent (beyond the basic requirement to identify yourself and show your registration). You have the right to refuse to have your vehicle searched. You have the right to film your interaction with police. You have the right to ask to leave. You also have the right to resist an unlawful order such as a police officer directing you to extinguish your cigarette, put away your phone or stop recording them.

However, as Bland learned the hard way, there is a price for asserting one’s rights. “Faced with an authority figure unwilling to de-escalate the situation, Bland refused to be bullied or intimidated,” writes Boston Globe contributor Renee Graham. “She understood her rights, but for African-Americans in encounters with police, the appalling price for asserting even the most basic rights can be their lives.”

So if you don’t want to get probed, poked, pinched, tasered, tackled, searched, seized, stripped, manhandled, arrested, shot, or killed, don’t say, do or even suggest anything that even hints of noncompliance when it comes to interactions with police.

One police officer advised that if you feel as if you’re being treated unfairly, comply anyhow and contest it in court later. Similarly, black parents, advising their kids on how to deal with police, tell them to just obey the officer’s orders. “The goal,” as one parent pointed out, “is to stay alive.”

It seems that “comply or die” has become the new maxim for the American police state.

Then again, not even compliance is a guarantee of safety anymore. “Police are specialists in violence,” warns Kristian Williams, who has written extensively on the phenomenon of police militarization and brutality. “They are armed, trained, and authorized to use force. With varying degrees of subtlety, this colors their every action. Like the possibility of arrest, the threat of violence is implicit in every police encounter. Violence, as well as the law, is what they represent.”

In other words, in the American police state, “we the people” are at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.”

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, this mindset that any challenge to police authority is a threat that needs to be “neutralized” is a dangerous one that is part of a greater nationwide trend that sets the police beyond the reach of the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, when police officers are allowed to operate under the assumption that their word is law and that there is no room for any form of disagreement or even question, that serves to chill the First Amendment’s assurances of free speech, free assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Frankly, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a casual “show your ID” request on a boardwalk, a stop-and-frisk search on a city street, or a traffic stop for speeding or just to check your insurance. If you feel like you can’t walk away from a police encounter of your own volition—and more often than not you can’t, especially when you’re being confronted by someone armed to the hilt with all manner of militarized weaponry and gear—then for all intents and purposes, you’re under arrest from the moment a cop stops you.

Sad, isn’t it, how quickly we have gone from a nation of laws—where the least among us had just as much right to be treated with dignity and respect as the next person (in principle, at least)—to a nation of law enforcers (revenue collectors with weapons) who treat us all like suspects and criminals?

Clearly, the language of freedom is no longer the common tongue spoken by the citizenry and their government. With the government having shifted into a language of force, “we the people” have been reduced to suspects in a surveillance state, criminals in a police state, and enemy combatants in a military empire.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
chosen's picture

Not all cops wear uniforms.  I was stopped by three thugs in LA once, I thought they were going to rob and maybe kill me.  It turns out they were "undercover" cops looking for someone else.  I actually went to the police station to see if they were actually pigs, and they were there standing around like effing idiots.

FrankIvy's picture

 

 

"If there is any lesson to be learned from these “routine” traffic stops, it is that drivers should beware."

That's what the author got out of all this?  Really?

I would think the following would be the lesson to be learned:

When pulled over for a traffic violation, be respectful, cooperative, and reasonable.  Do not run, do not struggle, do not wrestle, do not loudmouth, do not make fast movements, do not reach into places the officer can't see, do not speak and act like a ghetto thug - in short, DO NOT DO ANYTHING THAT COULD EXACERBATE THE OFFICER's ALREADY HEIGHTENED SENSE OF DANGER.

Further, if you are black, or otherwise have dark skin, it is MORE important than for others to follow the above "lesson."

Call me crazy, but that's the lesson I got from this.

Not a supporter of the worsening police state, but gotta use some common sense.

Pickleton's picture

"When pulled over for a traffic violation, be respectful, cooperative, and reasonable.  Do not run, do not struggle, do not wrestle, do not loudmouth, do not make fast movements, do not reach into places the officer can't see, do not speak and act like a ghetto thug "

 

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/driver-pulled-over-by-off-duty-detective-ill-blow-a-hole-right-through-your-fing-head_07282015

 

FYI, you're the gestapo's supportive little bitch everyone else is talking about here.

 

Lumberjack's picture

Good advice. It's like trying to intervene in a disagreement between two drunk and aggravated individuals at a bar. It almost always ends up with you taking the first hit.  Like truckers do, try to inspect your vehicle before heading out, make sure all lights are in good working order. Don't give them a reason and record the situation from the get go if you are stopped. Try not to be obvious and be polite and courteous. You can say fuck you later.

Sandmann's picture

Looks like Americans are the new Palestinians

Government needs you to pay taxes's picture

Pigs are the enemy in a post rule of law world.  Minimize your risk by consolidating your trips off property, tell others where you are going, and roll deep when possible.

Pickleton's picture

Whaddya know.  I was just pulled over the other day in a VERY used (was a rental car) Mazda 2 1.5L that's apparently able to go from 0-50 in less than 300 feet (distance according to google maps and speed according to dickhead with a radar). 

I tried talking to the dickhead whom I most certainly saw before the 300 ft mark (and was already moving quickly to intercept me) and immediately looked at my mph.  I was doing 13 mph UNDER what he said and when I tried to suggest the dickhead made a mistake, the dickhead became VERY agitated.  When the dickhead's tone became combative, I told him to go write his ticket because I was afraid of getting drug out of the car in front of my son or "shot in the fucking head" as other dickhead's are apparently want to do.

And of course, my wife has tried to recreate this feat without success.

And I will most definitely be found guilty by another dickhead in a robe when I go talk to him.

 

 

 

VegasBob's picture

Find the 1-800-got-ticket shysters in your area, and pay them to plea bargain your ticket down to a parking ticket.

If you take points on your driver license, you'll get fucked again by your auto insurance company...

And that fucking usually goes on for 3 long years. No kiss, no vaseline, no reach around hand job.

Kickaha's picture

The traffic cop is trained to always ask you "Do you know why I stopped you?" in the hope the driver is a total fucking moron and will admit to speeding over the limit, running the red light, etc.  That oral admission is admissible into evidence as proof of the traffic offense.  Whenever I'm stopped, and when it appears inevitable that a ticket is in the works, when I'm asked the question, I always respond "You must have stopped me to give me my safe driving certificate!".  I haven't been tasered or shot, yet.

SamuelMaverick's picture

When asked " do you know why I stopped you ?", my answer has always been the same: you stopped the wrong car, you made a mistake. The few times I have been pulled over, every time it was completely bullshit. They were trolling for revenue. One time I was going 55 in a 65, and the dumbass tried telling me I was clocked at 75. I asked him if he was just fucking stupid.  That did not sit well.

         I just had come out of a severe fog warning condition where everyone was going 5 mph, and we were just coming out of the 20 miles of brutal fog, and I was just trying to get back to the speed limit. I was the first car in the line with about 10 miles of cars lined up behind me. Going up a steep grade with a 4 cy,l and I could not get up to the speed limit.  I had 10 miles of pissed off people behind me.

          Off to court, and got it thrown out. Still cost me a day of work, bet hey , I did not pay a fine according to the judge, so I should be happy !! Idiots - before leaving court I slammed the court and the judge and the cop - asked them if losing a day of my life for being innocent was a good deal. To this day I have never had a good experience with any law enforcement, anywhere.

 

             Maverick

Lumberjack's picture

BINGO! and the answer is, "No sir I do not know". 

PoliceThePolice's picture

Never fails on this site that some of the people bitch about all the illegal taxes the system throws at us. Until it's the theft- taxes by law enforcement, then they jump in bed with them.

"They protect us from the scum" 

 

This is not about treating cops with respect or not getting killed when they pull you over. It's about the legal theft that they get away with everyday in the USSA. Pay up or end up in the for profit prison system. Question authority and legal murder can happen as well.

 

I just don't understand the blind love for these scumbags. I could care less about them killing crackheads and other waste of space. I will not support any of the scum that invent more ways to steal my money. I remember when I used to look up to police, then I turned 9 and grew the fuck up.

Government needs you to pay taxes's picture

Fuck the pigs.  Shit, they are worse than drug dealers.

Pickleton's picture

"I could care less about them killing crackheads and other waste of space"

 

Yea, dont shoot me for what I do, but I'm cool if you kill them.

 

I was with you up until this little gem, when you invalidated everything else you said and just made yourself sound like a whiny buffoon instead.

 

 

PoliceThePolice's picture

You're implying I'm doing something illegal?

"Yea, dont shoot me for what I do, but I'm cool if you kill them."  

My point was about the theft of my money! I'm whinny for not giving 2 fucks about them killing anyone, yourself included.  Just don't steal my fucking money... Period....... So does that validate the point you were trying to make about a point I did not make?

Pickleton's picture

You're not very quick, are you? 

 

You clearly whined about being at risk of the wrath of killer pigs and then said you didn't care if they kill others.  Imbecile.

22winmag's picture

True... cops are little more than armed tax collectors (on steroids and rarely subject to random drug testing).

WTFUD's picture

I've traveled and have had lengthy stopovers in 25 or so countries and never had a single issue with a cop. Some of the villages/towns/cities have been rough in terms of police corruption. $50/100 gets you a safe passage in places like Angola or Romania and is worth paying if you're there on business spending thousands.

Twice a year for maybe 10 years i visited the US and although i never had any issues/ run-ins with the police, towards the back end, my last few visits, i could taste the attitude of the authorities from landing to departure and $100 won't buy you much grace in the land of the fleece.

A decent cop should be able to differentiate between shit and shinola but seems the need to separate you of your valuables means we're ALL fair game in BarryLand.

zuuma's picture

So, do FRNs need to be carried in Mylar bags, now?

Is that how you avoid getting your cash "sensed" and confiscated?

kchrisc's picture

The biggest mystery to me is that these treasonous thugs continue to live peacefully amongst their victims.

But, the times are a changin'.

Liberty is a demand. Tyranny is submission.

 

"Sir, do you know why I pulled you on to this guillotine? Well, Article 3, Section 3 is why. Ignorance of The Law is no excuse. Especially so, in that you took an oath to the Constitution. Well, I'm sorry too; Sorry that you put me in this position. Any last words."

Sorry_about_Dresden's picture

My wife got t-boned by a kid who ran a stop sign. It was 10 a.m. and that was the 243 accident in the city of 213,000 people. 

HE said he spent a majority of time filling out accident reports; not preventing or responding to crime.

Why do we need paramilitary to fill out accident repoforfor fender benders?

Why do we pay a shit load of money for public safety when, in actuality, the police spend most of their time filing reports for insurance companies?

Why aren't the insurance compnies paying for these reports when they should bear the cost?

Just a thought!

PoasterToaster's picture
PoasterToaster (not verified) Sorry_about_Dresden Jul 29, 2015 2:21 AM

The same reason the Insurance Cartel passed laws on us that mandates we buy their shitty "product".  Extortion and fascist entanglement Between business and State.

VisionQuest's picture

The national insurance scam started with the "seat belt laws." They figured if we'd sit still for that, we'd sit still for anything.

Kickaha's picture

You need to think this through.  Seriously, do you want somebody on the payroll of the insurance company filling out the accident report?

hangemhigh77's picture

Be picking your nose when the cop comes up to the window. Then Blow a really bad fart when you roll down the window. The cop will leave you alone.

hangemhigh77's picture

If you can barf in your mouth when the cop asks you a question, swallow it and then breath on him when you answer he'll let you go. Cop: "where are you going?" You: " I have to hit the head!" Then puke in your mouth and fart really loud.

hangemhigh77's picture

Or the best one is be eating a yummy warm Dunkin Donuts jelly donut with a dozen of them on the passenger seat. Offer them to the fat dim witted low IQ assclown cop. He'll let you go.

PoasterToaster's picture
PoasterToaster (not verified) Jul 29, 2015 2:23 AM

If cops are so keen on fighting this War on Particular Drugs, their first stop should be over at CIA HQ. 

g'kar's picture

If a cop approaches you and asks you anything my Pre-Paid Legal Shield card says:

 

If asked, give the officer your name, address, SS number and destination. Present your card in a courteous and respectful manner.

To law enforcement officers and security personnel:

If it is your intention to question, detain or arrest me, please allow me to call an attorney immediately.

This person is a member of the Legal Shield program and has 24 hour access to legal representation by a law firm provided by Pre-Paid Legal Services. Inc

 

Best $17 bucks a month I ever spent.

djsmps's picture

You pay $17 a month for that?

falak pema's picture

The Zeitgeist of the age; from China to USA, around the world in 80 seconds, the "deep state" wins hands down. 

VisionQuest's picture

Jews, Catholics & Protestants of good conscience should organize together against the tyranny of the Death State. Politicians & bureaucrats in America have accepted the industrialized death machine of Planned Parenthood. If the revelations about the PP Ghouls does not raise a outcry in official circles, nothing will.  Who in the present field of U.S. "leaders" can lead the reform of U.S. government? Scott Walker and anyone associated with him are getting a taste of what happens when you strike against Death Machine Bureaucracy. It will take a MILITARY LEADER with the same kind of grit and honorable qualification as George Washington or Benjamin Netanyahu. There are millions of Protestants, Catholics & Jews who would glady join forces against the Death Machine. What is missing? An honest-to-God leader.

smacker's picture

"On average, one in 10 Americans gets pulled over by police."

Astonishing.

g'kar's picture

Where I live (small town USA), beaners get pulled over all the time. Only problem is they are beaners.

They are exempt from prosecution for:

Riding ATV's on the street illegally

Not having an Off Highway Vehicle sticker on their ATV

Drawing who knows how much free shit while having $300,000 worth of vehicles parked in their driveways as well as numerous kids while not working

Pulling trailers with no license

Riding horses across private property while crapping on them

Having no helmet while riding their ATV illegally on a road with no registration or insurance

I could go on but why bother...

 

smacker's picture

This out-of-control police madness is along the lines of a foreign tourist couple in London being ordered by police to stop taking photos of famous buildings or any other building worthy of a tourist photo.

Or a motorist parking his car in a public car park being ordered by the jumped-up uniformed car park attendant not to take his photo. When he refused saying it was perfectly legal, the attendant called the police who arrived in double quick time and arrested the motorist.

g'kar's picture

This BS seems to be so coordinated between the powers that be and so anti-western there can be no doubt it is coordintated.

smacker's picture

It bears an growing uncanny resemblance to what happened in Nazi Germany in the 1930s when the fascist Sturmabteilung took control of the streets and made the law up as they went along.

VisionQuest's picture

"May the Schwartz be with you."

deerhunter's picture

wife and I were in Indiana driving two vehicles.  We had 4 grandkids and two adult kids with us.  I got pulled over on the freeway and the wife was in her car in front of me so she pulled over too.  The cop said I was doing ten over.  He wrote me a ticket.  The wife got out of her vehicle and he asked her what she was doing.  She said I am his wife.  He wrote her a ticket too and did not have her on radar.

We went to court for two reasons.  He didnt have her on radar.  He wrote her ticket with the wrong vehicle model.  The incorrect state for the license plate and even the incorrect letters and numerals on the license plate.

Long story short the prosecutor took the wifes ticket from her before the judge came into the courtroom.  I paid my ticket but we contested hers.  When the judge called her forward he asked how do you plead?  She said not guilty and told him about the botched ticket information.  He asked to see the ticket and she told him the man at that table took it from me.  The judge looked over at the prosecutor and said let me see the ticket and the porsecutor said "I dont have any ticket from her."

I stood up and the baliff asked me who i was.  I said I am her husband and he most certainly took the ticket from her.  I was told to sit down or I would be held in contempt.  I ran out in the hallway to get the cop running the metal detector.  I told him he may be getting called into the courtroom to arrest me soon so I wanted to explain what was happening and why i was going to make a stand.   My wife was just called a liar by an officer of the court to an officer of the people in front of a courtroom full of people ,, many lawyers included,  and no one said shit about it.

By the time we got back into the courtroom the judge had ordered my wife to pay the fine and left the bench. 
Rule of law is a joke in the USA.  Period.  Best rule is stay as far away from the police as possible.  PERIOD.  We are in our 60 s.  White.  Middle Class.  Hard Working.  Pay all taxes.   IT DOES NOT MATTER.   Our country is a Banana Republic now.  Get used to it.  Prepare for it.  Deal with it.  Police and fire protection are a 44 mag and a fire extinguisher.  Period.

F em all but 6's picture

I have a great deal of constitutionally based research into this area. This is why we are in so much trouble.

 

USSC precedent confirms the distinction between the RIGHT of common or ordinary use by the public of its right of ways. property in common is property none the less and how a court sits in relation to that right is dependent on the context of the individuals circumstance. Keep that fact in mind as I explain the following.

WE the PUBLIC have a property right in common use. Yet there exists a USE of the publics ways that is not a right. These have been identified and circumscribed by the courts as business/occupational uses that extract profit gain or advantage over the equal trust rights of the traveling public. Taxi drivers, over the road truckers, ect. This class is engaged in an activity or USE that can be prohibited altogether as a TRESPASS, or allowed under certain POLITICAL QUESTION conditions. Notice I said political question. The courts of law and equity do NOT deal with political questions therefore the standards of reasonableness cannot be considered by the courts as long as those subject to the law and administarive regulations are treated equally.

 

So WHY has the traveling public been moved to the political question side of the equation pursuant to the PRIVILEGE of operating a motor vehicle? Its really quite simple, but legally brilliant.

 

Under the power to prohibit, the State says in effect to the citizen, "I will grant you the special privilege of USE of my right of ways under the CONDITION that you turn yourself AND YOUR PROPERTY over to whatever conditions I set forth. We cannot force you to accept (WAIVER) but if you do not, we will not grant the licence. Those conditions, summary and plenary in nature justifies the imposition of excise taxes, advalorum taxes, summary administrative control over the property, ect. In order to TAX and CONTROL the PROPERTY, it must be statuatorily classified. Your vehicle becomes a "MOTOR VEHICLE". Again summary administrative control over personal property predicated on WAIVERS and based a a plenary legislative power that poses a political question upon the courts.

And this should be fine fore those that actually access the PRIVILEGE. But again WHY is the PUBLIC itself subject to these summary conditions? To answer, one must look at the brilliant legal framework put in place by our so called servants.

 

Go to your State statutes and look up the motor vehicle licensing laws AND the motor vehicle TITLING requierments. ALL vehicles in the State MUST have a TITLE. Within Minnesota Statutes your untitles car is identified as a MERE VEHICLE but comes out titled as a MOTOR VEHICLE. The State under the Statute just assumed summary administraive control over the PROPERTY BEFORE the privilege was established. It then created a completely different statute that declares NO PERSON shall OPERATE a motor vehicle without the proper licence. And WHAKLA!!! The RIGHT of PROPERTY in COMMON USE was just converted to the PRIVILEGE allowing the State extraordinary control over YOU and what used to be your personal property for the purpose of TAXATION and SUMMARY ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL. Ah!! Do you now see the legal basis for summarry siezure and forfiture laws?? Do you now see the in for the application of privilege excise taxes? We the PUBLIC , our property having been UNCONSTITUTIONALLY CONVERTED are now TAXED and REGULATED as MERE TRESSPASSERS on our OWN PROPERTY.

 

The public has no property in the common use of our property. Constitutionally and judicially absurd. But there it is and thats how they did it. The courts of law and equity can not and will not interfer under separation of powers. YOU cannot challenge this or assert a property right as a defense to any charges as THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE HAS BEEN OBLITERATED DUE TO A LEGAL PARADOX CREATED BY THE JUDICIARY ITSELF.

 

 And so it is. And now the fucking GESTAPO is out of control. ....for now. I am headed back to court this winter as the courts once again found a way to sidestep the issue under a motion to dismiss. But, for those that find themselves interested, here is the last part of my motion where I let these constitutionally ignorant imbeciles have a piece of my mind.

 

.......We the public are the sovereigns of this nation in which all political power is inherent. Our representatives have been granted the exercise of our sovereignty in the form of eminent domain for the purpose of securing property for ourselves so as not to risk trespass on another man’s property when exercising our fundamental right of locomotion. WE are the grantors and beneficiaries of our right of ways as held in trust for those purposes and our rights in the liberty of locomotion and the property secured therein for those purposes have been properly classified by the courts as INAILENABLE. We the public, through our representatives license those who would seek permission to use our right of ways in an extraordinary capacity as set forth by the Courts. It is an absolute impossibility of law that the licensor and the licensee stand as one in the same.

 

 The States entire regulatory structure as applied to the Trust (property) rights of the traveling public in common and inalienable use is built on a rotten, corrupt, and unconstitutional foundation. 171.02 constitutes a Breach of the Public Trust via gross criminal negligence by the Trustee against the beneficiaries that has now been exposed by the accused as an absolute defense to the charges. 

The premise is simple. The Trustee simply evaded the fiduciary and constitutional duty to properly provide for regulation of the beneficiaries. The Trustee, then changed a few words within its licensing Statute to declare “no person”. Conceal in plain sight, confuse, obfuscate, redefine, engage in legalese and deny. Under the guise of the police powers, extend class specific judicially immune plenary powers into an area of regulation outside of proper context,

and then allow the Executive branch to run amuck with interpretation of legislative intent using the immense resources of the public treasury to enforce. Causality continues unabated throughout our entire national federal republic while the legal profession as an institution positions itself to profit from the massive expansion of the law.

Inclusion of the public within the licensing Statute and the inseverable waivers required within, instantly reduced the standing of the public and their private property before the courts as beneficiaries, to that of being similarly situated as those who’s (extraordinary) use of the public’s property falls outside of the terms of the trust and therefore, can be prohibited altogether as a trespass or conditioned upon waivers. Those judicially defined (extraordinary) uses falling outside of the scope of property.  

Minn. Statutes 171.02 is at the antipodes of Public interest. THE STANDING OF THE BENEFICIARIES DESTROYED FOR DUE PROCESS PURPOSES: WE THE PUBLIC ARE NOW IDENTIFIED, TAXED, AND REGULATED AS MERE TRESPASSERS ON OUR INAILENABLE RIGHT OF WAYS AND OUR PRIVATE PROPERTY HAS BEEN CONVERTED THROUGH THE UNLAWFUL REQUIREMENT OF WAIVERS.  The courts therein, fall in line under the licensing statute. The dominoes continue to fall in favor of the Trustees with full knowledge that the Courts, pursuant to separation of powers doctrine, can not and will not interfere with plenary political nature of the (police/taxing) powers exercised under the licensing laws. The courts, now bound by the forms of their judicially created doctrines simply adhere to the forms they have created and through a legal paradox of their own creation, functionally allowed themselves to be removed from the substance of the power balancing struggle with the political branches before it

started. As proven by the accused, STANDING to reach PROPERTY and constitutional/judicial scrutiny thereof has been unconstitutionally removed from the jurisdiction of the courts.

The removal of the (due process) keys from our protectors has created a nearly incomprehensible crisis of national scope as the public itself continues to be irreparably harmed through excise extortion, conversion of private property, and subjection to an increasingly belligerent and militarized police force now monetarily supported from unlawful conversion of private property via summary forfeiture laws predicated on extorted waivers. The courts all but removed from the constitution, now reliant on revenue crumbs from the Trustees who continue to successfully hide their criminal treason behind an illusion created by separation of powers. 

 

 

detached.amusement's picture

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

most people tire of legalese within 3 minutes and just stop

RidgeRunner77's picture

If you are driving with a wad of cash, or some bullion, they love to steal these items, so if you have to drive with these items put them in an envelope or box, address it to yourself, as you would regular mail, put the proper postage on it and seal it.  That turns it into mail, if the cops ask you to open it tell them no, if they then open it without your permission, they have entered into a world of hurt because they have committed a felony.  If they seize it and refurse to give it back without probable cause they will have to return it, and even if they have probabe cause they need to go to a federal court otherwise they can not open it.

danl62's picture

Thank you, that is good to know. I don't really trust cops. Seems like they are teaching at the police acadamies to treat the people with less and less respect.

Ex Cathedra's picture

How can the courts keep ruling in favor of cops?  Maybe it's because so many judges are ex-prosecutors, and very few are ex-public defenders and criminal-defense lawyers. On the Supreme Court--

Roberts:  Ex-Justice Dep't

Scalia:  Ex-Justice Dep't

Thomas:  Ex-Missouri Attorney-General's office

Breyer:  Ex-Watergate prosecution team

Alito:  Ex-federal prosecutor

Sotomayor:  Ex-federal prosecutor

As best I can tell, none of the current justices have any real experience in criminal DEFENSE law.  Is it any wonder the courts keep ruling for the cops, no matter how inane the arguments?   

 

Ban KKiller's picture

Public retirement funds for police are made up of 25% bank stocks in most states. So police/pigs/judges/DAs/Pigs/pigs....support prison for profit. 

Courts are banks. 

Law and order is only for the serfs. Pigs, courts, banks are all above the law. 

chosen's picture

Ya know how everyone thinks lawyers are close to being the most disgusting human beings on the planet?  Well, a judge is just an old washed-up lawyer.

RidgeRunner77's picture

On July 16, 2015 the Fifth Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled that it is suspicious for a vehicle to have air fresheners, rosaries, or pro-police bumper stickers. Stickers that include: “I Love the U.S.A.,” thin blue line, D.A.R.E or “support local law enforcement” related license plate frames or stickers. on your car is sufficient  probable cause for a stop.

Pumpkin's picture

Don't do anything stupid at a traffic stop, and you can beat them like a tin drum in court latter.  Traffic stops, daily, truly reflect the ignorance of the people in law.  They don't have a clue that traffic tickets are a full demonstration of mental control.  How many here have read the rules of court for their state?  I've read mine 100 times plus and am still finding new and useful information in them.  A court case required many seperate components, all of which are listed in the rules of court.  The cop has no clue either, because if he did, he would never make another traffic stop in his life.  The true liability is just too great.