IT HAPPENS EVERYWHERE, THEY STEAL ANYTHING THEY CAN – FROM YOUR HOME, YOUR CAR, YOUR BUSINESS, YOUR BANK ACCOUNT: http://www.ij.org/search?searchword=CIVIL+FORFEITURE
“The Post found that there have been 61,998 cash seizures made on highways and elsewhere since 9/11 without search warrants or indictments through the Equitable Sharing Program, totaling more than $2.5 billion.”
Did someone say WHOA!?! IS THIS A MEDIEVAL BIG ROAD ROBBERY LAWLESSNESS ? THIS IS THE BEST THE NAZI GERMANY AND COMMUNIST USSR’s COMBINED PRACTICE OF RAMPANT EXTORTIONIST “EXPROPRIATION” AND RACKETEERING UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW !!! WORSE, THE FASCISTS AND COMMIES WERE TARGETING ONLY CERTAIN GROUPS OF THEIR POPULATIONS, WHEREAS IN THIS ONCE “FREE COUNTRY”, THE “U.S. CORP.” TARGETS ANY- AND EVERYBODY WHO HAS UNPROTECTED ASSETS AT A HAND’s REACH ! HISTORICALLY, ALL EMPIRES ENDED UP REACHING THE TOTALITARIAN STAGE AND IMPLODE THEREAFTER. SAD.
Sign the petition to stop policing for profit! —> http://www.ij.org/endpolicingforprofit-2
‘‘All of our home towns are sitting on a tax-liberating gold mine.’’ Police seizures of cash rise, fueled by private training firms
By: DeMohrenschildt
After the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the government called on police to become the eyes and ears of homeland security on America’s highways.
Local officers, county deputies, and state troopers were encouraged to act more aggressively in searching for suspicious people, drugs, and other contraband. The departments of Homeland Security and Justice spent millions on police training.
The effort succeeded, but it had an impact that has been largely hidden from public view: the spread of an intense brand of policing that has spurred the seizure of hundreds of millions of dollars in cash from motorists and others not charged with crimes, a Washington Post investigation found. Read more…
Man is stopped on highway, arrested without charges, and has money seized.
By: orraz
Mandrel Stuart and his girlfriend were on a date driving on Interstate 66 toward the District of Columbia when a Fairfax County, Va., police cruiser pulled out of the median and raced after them. The cruiser kept pace alongside Stuart’s old blue GMC Yukon for a while, then followed behind for several miles before turning on its flashing lights. Read more…
For those who may have forgotten the term, it’s: HIGHWAY ROBBERY
So if the cops have no reason to confront you, no problem, they’ll just make stuff up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzULsIc68ME
So let’s keep in mind the very important legal principle: THE THREAT TO VIOLATE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED RIGHTS OR CLEARLY ESTABLISHED LAW FORFEITS/WAIVES THE OFFICER’S “QUALIFIED IMMUNITY” FROM PROSECUTION.
The principle that animates these cases is simple: a search is unreasonable — and so violates the Fourth Amendment — if its justification is grounded in officers “engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment.” Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct. 1849, 1858 (2011). UNITED STATES of America v. Dawud Ali SAAFIR (June 11, 2014), No. 13–4049, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
(c) The proper test follows from the principle that permits warrantless searches: warrantless searches are allowed when the circumstances make it reasonable, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, to dispense with the warrant requirement. Thus, a warrantless entry based on exigent circumstances is reasonable when the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct violating the Fourth Amendment.
Because the officers in this case did not violate or threaten to violate the Fourth Amendment prior to the exigency, we hold that the exigency justified the warrantless search of the apartment. KENTUCKY v. KING (2011), No. 09-1272, U.S. Supreme Court
The cop in the video not only THREATENED to violate CLEARLY ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED RIGHTS and the CLEARLY ESTABLISHED LAW, HE IN FACT DID VIOLATE THEM!!! He made a WARRANTLESS ARREST for NONCRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, that’s FALSE IMPRISONMENT and A CRIME!
“…an officer may be held liable in damages to any person injured in consequence of a breach of any of the duties connected with his office… The liability for nonfeasance, misfeasance, and for malfeasance in office is in his ‘individual’, not his official capacity…” 70 Am. Jur. 2nd Sec. 50, VII Civil Liability
COPS AGREED NOT TO VIOLATE THE LAW THEY SWORE AN OATH TO UPHOLD, OR YOUR SECURED RIGHTS!
These are some of your rights affected during a so-called “traffic stop”:
1. Freedom from arbitrary state interference
2. Free Passage
3. Autonomous self-positioning (going where you want)
4. Autonomous other-encountering (interacting with who you want)
5. Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy
It is settled that the streets of a city belong to the people of a state and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen of the state. Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 65 Cal. App. 534, 547, (1924) Escobedo v. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 35 Cal.2d 870 (1950) …Hanson violated Stevens’ right not to be arrested in the absence of probable cause to believe Stevens had committed a crime, and that right was clearly established and would be known to a reasonable officer in the circumstances. Stevens v. Rose (2002), 298 F3d 880, 9th Cir.
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Sec. 21.:
This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others, retained by the people.
—
The first step in solving a problem is recognizing there is one.
http://section520.org/rights.html
http://section520.org/points.html
http://www.youtube.com/user/drivingiscommerce
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 3527. The law helps the vigilant, before those who sleep on their rights.
“A statute does not trump the Constitution.” People v. Ortiz, (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 292, fn. 2 Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 163 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JERRY ARBERT POOL, C.A. No. 09-10303, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (Opinion filed September 14, 2010), On Appeal From The United States District Court For The Eastern District of California
“A statutory privilege cannot override a defendant’s constitutional right.” People v. Reber, (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d. 523 [223 Cal.Rptr. 139}; Vela v. Superior Ct, 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921], however, “the judiciary has a solemn obligation to insure that the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial is realized. If that right would be thwarted by enforcement of a statute, the state …must yield.” Vela v. Superior Ct., 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921
Obviously, administrative agencies, like police officers must obey the Constitution and may not deprive persons of constitutional rights. Southern Pac. Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 18 Cal.3d 308 [S.F. No. 23217. Supreme Court of California. November 23, 1976.]
If evidence of a fact is clear, positive, uncontradicted and of such nature it cannot rationally be disbelieved, the court must instruct that fact has been established as a matter of law. Roberts v. Del Monte Properties Co., 111 CA2d. 69 (1952)
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers. Thomas Pynchon
They will do whatever we let them get away with. Joseph Heller