• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

U.S. SUPREME COURT SAYS NO LICENSE NECESSARY TO DRIVE AUTOMOBILE ON PUBLIC ROADS

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
20,335
Likes
26,902
Location
Qmerica
Hey WAaalllt, Snoop no habla English. Got any other ideas?
 

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
11,223
Likes
16,018
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
Hello BarnacleBob,

Thank you for the link to the video above. I have not only already seen this video, I have also looked up the subject statutes and the COMMON LAW (case law) which explains them. These cases confirm that this amateur legal theorist misunderstands the law.

THE AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY:
“Section 21052 and Section 260 of the California Vehicle Code LIMIT the application of the ENTIRE California Vehicle Code to the drivers and to the vehicles described ONLY IN THOSE TWO SECTIONS of the code (which apply only to state and local governmental vehicles and/or to commercial vehicles).

THE LAW ON SECTION 21052:
It is NOT the case that section 21052 of the California Vehicle Code LIMITS the application of the ENTIRE California Vehicle Code to the drivers and vehicles described in THAT SINGLE SECTION of the code (which applies only to state and local governmental emergency vehicles). (Section 260 is discussed below).


CASE 1:
Olejide v. California Dept. Of Motor Vehicles, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7710645811990665171&q=21052+California&hl=en&as=sdt=4,5. This case reads, “As best as we [the court] can discern from his opening brief, appellant [the defendant driver] claims that the California Vehicle CODE DOES NOT APPLY TO ANYONE OTHER THAN ONE DRIVING FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR FOR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF, OR ONE DRIVING FOR COMMERICAL PURPOSES. WE [the court] respectfully DISAGREE… .” [this preceding quote is the last sentence of the "Introduction" paragraph at about 15% through the text]. “In support of his [the defendant driver’s] contention that the Vehicle CODE DOES NOT APPLY TO HIM, appellant [the defendant driver] refers to section 21052, which provides: "The provisions of this code applicable to the drivers of vehicles upon the highways apply to the drivers of all vehicles while engaged in the course of employment by this State, any political subdivision thereof, any municipal corporation, or any district, including authorized emergency vehicles subject to those exemptions granted such authorized emergency vehicles in this code. APPELANT [the defendant driver] MISUNDERSTANDS this section to mean that the ENTIRE Vehicle Code, including section 11353.2, ONLY APPLIES TO THOSE DESCRIBED IN SECTION 21052. Section 21052 was originally enacted as section 453 in 1935 specifically to include police, fire and rescue personnel within its coverage while operating vehicles in the ordinary course of their work as such. (See 17 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 121 (1951); 8 Cal.Jur.3d (2005) Automobiles, § 225, pp. 326-327.) IT [this code section] WAS NOT INTENDED TO EXCLUDE ALL OTHER PERSONS FROM THE COVEREAGE OF THE VEHICLE CODE. There is no doubt that the provisions of that code, including section 13353.2, APPLY TO APPELLANT [the defendant driver]… .Therefore, we reject his narrow reading of section 11353.2, and conclude the hearing officer correctly suspended appellant's driving privileges… [the preceding quote is at the last three paragraphs of the "Discussion" section at about 90% through the text].”

TRANSLATION: The fact that ONE SINGLE SECTION of the vehicle code ONLY APPLIES TO CERTAIN VEHICLES, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ENTIRE REST OF THE VEHICLE CODE ONLY APPLIES TO THOSE SAME VEHICLES.


THE LAW ON SECTION 21052:
Section 21052 merely exempts certain governmental vehicles responding to an emergency from obeying posted speed limits. Section 21052 does not limit the application of the entire California Vehicle Code to the vehicles described in that single section of the code.

CASE 2:
Monroy v. City of Los Angeles, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8858374689860371473&q=21052+California&hl=en&as_sdt=4,5Section. That case reads, “With regard to Section 21055 and its companion statute, Vehicle Code section 21056 (Section 21056), the jury was instructed: "California Vehicle Code provides that THE DRIVER of an authorized EMERGENCY VEHICLE is EXEMPT from the . . . [requirement] to observe the provisions of the Vehicle Code RELATING TO SPEED LIMIT. . . under all of the following conditions: IF — A, IF THE VEHICLE IS BEING DRIVEN IN RESPONSE TO AN EMERGENCY CALL ; and, B, IF THE DRIVER OF THE EMERGENCY VEHICLE SOUNDS A SIREN as may be reasonably necessary and THE VEHICLE DISPLAYS A LIGHTED RED LAMP visible from the front as a warning to other drivers and pedestrian… .Plaintiffs concede that the instruction was an accurate statement of the law. Accordingly, as Section 21055 is explained in the instruction, IN ORDER FOR EMERGENCY RESPONDERS TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE RULES OF THE ROAD including the speed limit, they must be responding to an emergency call, they must sound a siren as may be reasonably necessary, and their vehicle must display a lighted red lamp visible from the front as a warning… .” The effect [the meaning] of Vehicle Code sections 21055 and 21056 is: where THE DRIVER of an authorized EMERGENCY VEHICLE IS ENGAGED IN A SPECIFIED EMERGENCY FUNCTION HE MAY VIOLATE CERTAIN RULES OF THE ROAD, such as speed and right of way laws, IF HE ACTIVATES HIS RED LIGHT and where necessary his siren in order to alert other users of the road to the situation[the preceding quotes begin in the first four paragraphs of the section entitled, "1. Section 21055 And The LAPD Manual" at about 30% through the text].”

TRANSLATION: Because SAVING LIVES IS MORE IMPORTANT than obeying speed limits, DRIVERS of EMERGENCY VEHICLES in the process of trying TO SAVE A LIFE--- CAN GO FAST as long if they turn their red light on and use their siren when necessary.

THE LAW ON SECTION 260:
Section 260 of the California Vehicle Code DOES NOT LIMIT the application of the ENTIRE California Vehicle Code to the commercial vehicles described in THAT SINGLE SECTION of the code. Instead, section 260 merely definescommercial vehicles for the purpose of special insurance requirements and special liability insurance formulas (not applicable to non-commercial vehicles).

CASE 3:
Mission Ins. Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15931891282690057915&q=%22section+260%22+%22vehicle+code%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4,5. That case reads, “Mission argued and the trial court agreed that Redwood was "engaged in the business of renting or leasing commercial vehicles without operators" and that its [insurance] policy was excess pursuant to section 11580.9, subdivision (b). That section provides: "(b) Where two or more [insurance] policies are applicable to the same loss, and one of such [insurance] policies affords coverage to a named insured engaged in the business of renting or leasing commercial vehicles without operators, as the term `commercial vehicles' is used in Section 260 of the Vehicle Code... , it shall be conclusively presumed that the insurance afforded by such policy to a person other than the named insured or his agent or employee shall not be primary, but shall be excess over any other valid and collectible insurance applicable to the same loss covering such person as a named insured or as an additional insured under a policy with limits at least equal to the financial responsibility requirements specified in Section 16056 of the Vehicle Code; and, in such event, the two or more policies shall not be construed as providing concurrent coverage, and only that policy which covers the liability of such person as a named insured, or as an agent or employee of a named insured, shall be primary and the other policy or policies shall be excess… [the preceding quote begins with the term, "1(a)" at about 50% through the text] ."

TRANSLATION: The ELECTED lawmakers liked THE DEFINITION of "COMMERCIAL VEHILCES" in another statute so well that they INCORPORATED that DEFINITION into the INSURANCE statute above by reference (rather than re-writing that definition again from scratch). The INSURANCE statute above does not apply to NON-COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. But, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ENTIRE VEHICLE CODE DOES NOT APPLY TO NON-COMMERCIAL VEHICLES.

I hope this helps.

All The Best,
Snoop

All of that sounds real nice, but I learned a long time ago that the law is like liquid soap, its very slippery... When the folks in charge seek to corrupt the law, they invent such nonsense as "public policy", "continuity of .gov", "war & emergency powers", etc., etc., etc.... One needs only look at the unconstitutional powers that the judiciary itself has usurped.... The law is whatever the guy with the loaded gun pointed at your head says it is! All those stare decisis cases, etc. et al are a nice touch to keep the throng believing that there is credibility in the metaphysical flim-flam called the law.... the law is nothing more than a socioeconomic sociopolitical control mechanism for the ruling classes. Nowadays the ruling classes are not respectable, and hence this is also observed in the law, for it is no longer respectable either!
 

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
11,223
Likes
16,018
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
All of that sounds real nice, but I learned a long time ago that the law is like liquid soap, its very slippery... When the folks in charge seek to corrupt the law, they invent such nonsense as "public policy", "continuity of .gov", "war & emergency powers", etc., etc., etc.... One needs only look at the unconstitutional powers that the judiciary itself has usurped.... The law is whatever the guy with the loaded gun pointed at your head says it is! All those stare decisis cases, etc. et al are a nice touch to keep the throng believing that there is credibility in the metaphysical flim-flam called the law.... the law is nothing more than a socioeconomic sociopolitical control mechanism for the ruling classes. Nowadays the ruling classes are not respectable, and hence this is also observed in the law, for it is no longer respectable either!
All laws are found in "bills" that the bi-cameral legislatures have agreed upon & passed via parlimentary procedures using Roberts Rules of Order and/or prescribed constitutional procedures (Be it enacted by the legislature of The State of ______) . The bill once properly passed pursuant the forms & solemnities prescribed by the constitution or legislature is then forwarded to the executive office of the governor for his acceptance or denial. Once the governor has signed the bill, the bill becomes either private or public law.

The bill is then submitted to the proper executive department which then using unprescribed powers begins transforming & redefining the bill into statutes & regulations... The bill will always begin with the legislature prescribing the class of persons, class of activities and/or class of objects/property that the legislation & jurisdiction is aimed at taxing or regulating.... it must be noted that using the short comdensed version of the bill & presenting it as a regulation or a statute usually omits the SPECIFIC prescribed class of objects, persons, & activities that fall under the said jurisdictional activities of the executive department charged with enforcement... Now the regulation or statute appears to be all encompassing spreading its jurisdictional wings across all classes of persons, objects & activities.... For instance in most states DHSMV regulations & statutes designed to regulate tow trucks & other commercial vehicles are illegitimately employed against common ordinary persons conducting personal business in the ordinary course of their day & their pursuit of happiness.... Every state & federal constitution became codified & enacted including some form of verbiage that includes or implies that every person has the COMMON RIGHT to "the pursuit of happiness." Hence there can be no legitimate law making, regulation or rule making designed for any reason that could impede the said right.... Requiring an American by birth to have & possess any form of license and to conform to a licensing scheme to exercise the pursuit of happiness is unconstitutional ab initio. Such a scam is contrary to writtent intent of the constitutions and the will of the people....
 

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
11,223
Likes
16,018
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
The law "for sale" by the "for profit" keep them ignorant State.... !!! Like I said, the law perverted is nothing more than the mechanism the ruling & moneyed classes use to socially & economically exploit & control the working & lower classes.

Court Tells Georgia It Can’t Charge People to Read the Law

Snip:

In a victory for the people of Georgia, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday that the state can no longer charge individuals hundreds of dollars to see the laws that govern them.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/court-tells-georgia-it-cant-charge-people-read-law
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
36,443
Likes
52,041
Location
Rocky Mountains
It's been pointed out that the laws between states are nearly identical. One merely needs to read their laws and decipher.

Here's something from Texas I got from Tao of Law. You would think the judge would know their own laws!!

They must establish jurisdiction over the human. No jurisdiction - no case!

It really should be that simple.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

An email after a debunked Motions hearing at County Court at Law:
"Mr. C. –

Judge Sorensen would like for you to please cite to her the statute that requires finding of fact and conclusions of law before a final judgement.

Sincerely,

Samantha Echtler

Criminal Court Coordinator
Walker County Court at Law
1100 University Avenue, Ste. 102
Huntsville, Texas 77340

936-436-4919
936-436-4920 (Facsimile)

sechtler@co.walker.tx.us

County Court at Law Webpage"

>>>>>>>>>>>>

MY Reply:

OK

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - RULE AND CASE LAW

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 296 provides a party with the procedural right to request that the
trial court prepare written findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Tex.R.Civ.P. 296. Texas Rule of
Civil Procedure 297 makes the trial court's duty to make such findings in response to a timely request
mandatory. See Tex.R.Civ.P. 297; see also Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Magallanes, 763 S.W.2d 768, 772
(Tex. 1999). A trial court's failure to respond to a timely request is presumed to be harmful error
unless the appellate record affirmatively shows that the complaining party has suffered no harm.
Cherne Indus., Inc., 763 S.W.2d at 772.

One should consider the fact that jurisdiction was never established and proceeding in this court is as a harmful error.
1. The officer is not commissioned for the false psuedo-charge that was that was brought against the defendant.
2. The State (THE STATE, not the CITY OF HUNTSVILLE, as the ADA decided to change the charge mid Motions Trial, rather than addressee the obvious lack of law against the defendant!)
Also Judge T. Sorenson will not have immunity without first establishing jurisdiction.

http://www.txcourts.gov/…/Meetings/2010/supp…/sc12032010.pdf

Thank you,
S. C. ..."

>>>>>>>>
SMOKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course, “fact findings are not necessary when the matters in question are not disputed.” Barker v. Eckman, 213 S.W.3d 306, 310 (Tex. 2006) (citing Sullivan v. Barnett, 471 S.W.2d 39, 44 (Tex. 1971)). But if a court fails to file findings when the facts are disputed, the burden of rebutting every presumed finding can be so burdensome that it effectively “prevent[s the appellant] from properly presenting its case to the court of appeals or this Court.” Graham Cent. Station, Inc. v. Peña, 442 S.W.3d 261, 263 (Tex. 2014) (citing Tenery v. Tenery, 932 S.W.2d 29, 30 (Tex. 1996)(per curiam)); see also Fraser v. Goldberg, 552 S.W.2d 592, 594 (Tex. Civ. App.—Beaumont 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (“In factually complicated situations in which there are two or more possible grounds for recovery or defense, an undue burden would be placed upon an appellant.”). A trial court’s failure to file findings in response to a timely and proper request is thus “presumed harmful, unless ‘the record before the appellate court affirmatively shows that the complaining party has suffered no injury.’” Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Magallanes, 763 S.W.2d 768, 772 (Tex. 1989) (quoting Wagner v. Riske, 178 S.W.2d 117, 120 (Tex. 1944)).

When the trial court’s failure is harmful, the preferred remedy is for the appellate court to direct the trial court to file the missing findings. See id. at 772–73 (instructing court of appeals to direct trial court to correct its error by filing findings and conclusions); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 44.4 (requiring appellate courts to direct trial courts to correct any correctable error that prevents “the proper presentation of a case to the court of appeals”). If the trial court still fails to file the findings, the appellate court must reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case for a new trial. TEX. R. APP. P. 44.1(a)(2) (“No judgment may be reversed . . . [unless] the court of appeals concludes that the error complained of . . . prevented the appellant from properly presenting the case to the court of appeals.”); Brooks v. Hous. Auth. of El Paso, 926 S.W.2d 316, 321 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1996, no writ) (“If the trial court cannot forward findings and conclusions to the court of appeals due to loss of the record, problems with memory, passage of time, or other inescapable difficulties, reversal and remand for a new trial is a proper remedy.”); see also S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Stoot, 530 S.W.2d 930, 931 (Tex. 1975) (“If the facts are not fully and accurately determined, then the wisest judge cannot distinguish between merit and demerit. If we do not get the facts right, there is little chance for the judgment to be right.”).
(Source: http://www.txcourts.gov/media/1438109/160373.pdf)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
 

EO 11110

Posting from Epstein Island
Mother Lode
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
13,383
Likes
9,718
your constitutional rights are worth 3 dollars

http://www.texaspolicenews.com/defa...ry=News+1-2&newsletterid=71452&menugroup=Home

SCRANTON, Pa. — A federal jury ruled several state troopers violated the rights of a man arrested for driving too slowly on Interstate 84, but awarded him just $3 because it found their conduct did not harm him.

Joseph Watley, of Thomaston, Connecticut, filed suit in 2016, alleging he suffered emotional distress and other damages after he was jailed in connection with a May 11, 2016, traffic stop on the interstate in Pike County

According to court records, Cpl. Michael Felsman pulled Watley over near the Blooming Grove exit after he clocked him driving 48 mph in a 65 mph zone. Cpl. Daniel Nilon and Trooper James Sohns assisted at the scene and searched Watley’s vehicle, which was towed.

The normally routine encounter took an unusual turn when Watley refused to roll down his window or respond to any questions. Instead, he held up a sign that read, “I remain silent. No searches. I want my lawyer. Place ticket under wiper blade.”

Watley was charged with three traffic citations and taken into custody. He was lodged in Pike County Correctional Facility and released the next day.

The lawsuit, filed by Pittston attorney Cynthia Pollick,alleged Felsman was angry Watley refused to speak and retaliated against him by taking him to jail, as opposed to issuing a written citation and allowing him to go on his way. Watley was found not guilty of the citations.

Watley also alleged Nilon and Sohns illegally searched his vehicle during the initial traffic stop, and that Felsman used excessive force and violated his right to be free from illegal search and seizure when he transported a handcuffed Watley to his car after he was released from jail.

In a pretrial ruling, Senior U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo dismissed all claims against Felsman related to the initial traffic stop, but let stand claims against Nilon and Sohns related to the search. He also let stand Watley’s claims against Felsman relating to his actions in transporting Watley to retrieve his vehicle.

In court papers, attorneys for the state police maintained the search was legal and justified. They also argued Felsman did not violate Watley’s rights when gave him a “courtesy” ride to his vehicle because Watley consented and did not object to being handcuffed.

The trial before Caputo began last week. Jurors rendered their verdict Oct. 17.

The panel found Felsman did unlawfully seize Watley relating to the May 12, 2016, ride to his car and that he used excessive force. They awarded Watley nominal damages of $1 for each count because they found the conduct did not cause him actual harm or injury. Jurors rejected Watley’s claim that the excessive force amounted to assault and battery.

The jury also found Nilon wrongly searched Watley’s car, but cleared Sohns of any wrongdoing. It awarded him $1 for Nilon’s action, again finding the conduct did not harm Watley.

Contacted Monday, Watley said he views the verdict as a victory even though he was awarded just $3.

“We have to stand up and fight for our rights and protections or we lose them,” Watley said. “I’m hoping this experience will help others protect themselves.”

Pollick also said some good came out of the case.

“Although the jury did not award damages, the jury made sure that Corporal Nilon and Corporal Felsman were found liable for violating the constitutional rights of a citizen, thereby making sure we are safer,” Pollick said in an email.

The state attorney general’s office represented state police. In an email, Joe Grace, spokesman for the office, said: “We appreciate the jury’s service and are pleased that the plaintiff was awarded only $3 for ‘nominal’ damages.”
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
36,443
Likes
52,041
Location
Rocky Mountains
“I remain silent. No searches. I want my lawyer. Place ticket under wiper blade.”
What part of "You have the right to remain silent." did they not understand??
 

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
5,910
Likes
23,867
Location
third cove on the right
Hmmmm



Doesn't the government only have jurisdiction over commerce?

And isn't the government a corporation?

Is the officer an employee of a corporation?

Does submitting answers to the officers questions constitute a contract??

do you not have 72 hours to rescind your signature from any contract?
 

historyrepete

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Nov 24, 2013
Messages
1,656
Likes
2,102
Location
driving thru flyover
your constitutional rights are worth 3 dollars

http://www.texaspolicenews.com/defa...ry=News+1-2&newsletterid=71452&menugroup=Home

SCRANTON, Pa. — A federal jury ruled several state troopers violated the rights of a man arrested for driving too slowly on Interstate 84, but awarded him just $3 because it found their conduct did not harm him.

Joseph Watley, of Thomaston, Connecticut, filed suit in 2016, alleging he suffered emotional distress and other damages after he was jailed in connection with a May 11, 2016, traffic stop on the interstate in Pike County

According to court records, Cpl. Michael Felsman pulled Watley over near the Blooming Grove exit after he clocked him driving 48 mph in a 65 mph zone. Cpl. Daniel Nilon and Trooper James Sohns assisted at the scene and searched Watley’s vehicle, which was towed.

The normally routine encounter took an unusual turn when Watley refused to roll down his window or respond to any questions. Instead, he held up a sign that read, “I remain silent. No searches. I want my lawyer. Place ticket under wiper blade.”

Watley was charged with three traffic citations and taken into custody. He was lodged in Pike County Correctional Facility and released the next day.

The lawsuit, filed by Pittston attorney Cynthia Pollick,alleged Felsman was angry Watley refused to speak and retaliated against him by taking him to jail, as opposed to issuing a written citation and allowing him to go on his way. Watley was found not guilty of the citations.

Watley also alleged Nilon and Sohns illegally searched his vehicle during the initial traffic stop, and that Felsman used excessive force and violated his right to be free from illegal search and seizure when he transported a handcuffed Watley to his car after he was released from jail.

In a pretrial ruling, Senior U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo dismissed all claims against Felsman related to the initial traffic stop, but let stand claims against Nilon and Sohns related to the search. He also let stand Watley’s claims against Felsman relating to his actions in transporting Watley to retrieve his vehicle.

In court papers, attorneys for the state police maintained the search was legal and justified. They also argued Felsman did not violate Watley’s rights when gave him a “courtesy” ride to his vehicle because Watley consented and did not object to being handcuffed.

The trial before Caputo began last week. Jurors rendered their verdict Oct. 17.

The panel found Felsman did unlawfully seize Watley relating to the May 12, 2016, ride to his car and that he used excessive force. They awarded Watley nominal damages of $1 for each count because they found the conduct did not cause him actual harm or injury. Jurors rejected Watley’s claim that the excessive force amounted to assault and battery.

The jury also found Nilon wrongly searched Watley’s car, but cleared Sohns of any wrongdoing. It awarded him $1 for Nilon’s action, again finding the conduct did not harm Watley.

Contacted Monday, Watley said he views the verdict as a victory even though he was awarded just $3.

“We have to stand up and fight for our rights and protections or we lose them,” Watley said. “I’m hoping this experience will help others protect themselves.”

Pollick also said some good came out of the case.

“Although the jury did not award damages, the jury made sure that Corporal Nilon and Corporal Felsman were found liable for violating the constitutional rights of a citizen, thereby making sure we are safer,” Pollick said in an email.

The state attorney general’s office represented state police. In an email, Joe Grace, spokesman for the office, said: “We appreciate the jury’s service and are pleased that the plaintiff was awarded only $3 for ‘nominal’ damages.”
I hate to' 'like'this.
Pollick didn't win shit. He was detained and arrested. Ultimately harassed with court appearances. They police didn't lose anything., none terminated not incarcerated or fined.
He'd been better off using stand your ground defence. That's what more people are choosing. I'm not anti cop but they're pushing their luck. Imo
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,621
Likes
5,922
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
He also had 72 hours to file a motion to dismiss with the clerk of that particular court and list all his law cites that pertain to his case. It is these things that will make the judge err and it is these things that are appealable.

And, you do not have to do this from jail but within 72 hours from release. And, also hand out/mail notices of tort.

72 hours is a long short time/short long time to get something done.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
194
Likes
10
This is why 'snoop' gets lost in his argument. He's arguing a pear is an apple. He won't acknowledge that, while both are fruit, they are two entirely different things.


The "American People" and "U.S. citizens" are two different things.

A US citizen does not have any rights.

"...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;

"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957

"Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity."
Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.

“A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)

A US citizen is a corporation.

"...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300

This can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.
Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property. If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE.

The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is;

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,....."

The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended.

"The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the "citizenship" to the agencies of government."
City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

"Civil rights under the 14th amendment are for Federal citizens and not State Citizens; Federal citizens, as parents, have no right to the custody of their infant children except subject to the paramount right of the State." Wadleigh v. Newhall, Circuit Court N. Dist. Cal., Mar 13, 1905

and “US citizens” can even murder their unborn children by committing the common law crime of infanticide, and because the unborn are NOT “persons”, then they are by definition State Citizens, which means the BAR members (foreign agents of the Crown) in the so-called courts are engaged in genocide against the American sovereignty, and this is proof that it has nothing to do with race, and has everything to do with slavery;
"The unborn are not included within the definition of "person" as used in the 14th Amendment." Roe v. Wade, US Supreme Court, 410 US 13, 35L. Ed. 2d 147, 1973

"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957,

“...it is evident that they [US citizens] have not the political rights which are vested in citizens of the States. They are not constituents of any community in which is vested any sovereign power of government. Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens. They are subject to the laws of the United States, but have no voice in its management. If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the sanction of a Government in which they are not represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but the political rights of citizens they cannot enjoy…” People v. De La Guerra,40 Cal. 311, 342 (A.D. 1870) [emphasis added]

“SUBJECT. SUBJECT may imply a state of subjection to a person, such as a monarch, without much sense of membership in a political community or sharing in political rights … It may on the other hand simply indicate membership in a political community with a personal sovereign to whom allegiance is owed.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary, MERRIAM-WEBSTER INC., Publishers 1986

“[T]he term "citizen," in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law.” State vs Manual 20 NC 122, 14 C.J.S. 4, p 430

and a “US citizen” is a fictitious entity, and has no rights;
"Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity." Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L. Ed. 1143, 56 S. Ct. 773

“In our opinion, it was not the intent of the legislature to restrict the operation of the
statute to those only who were subjects of the United States government ...”
Prowd v. Gore (1922) 57 Cal. App. 458, 459-461 [emphasis added]
“Upon the other hand, the 14th Amendment, upon the subject of citizenship, Declares
only that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they
reside." Here there is a limitation to person born or naturalized in the United States,
which is not extended to person born in any place "subject to their jurisdiction."”
Downes v. Bidwell (1900) 182 U.S. 244, 249-251, 45 L. Ed. 1088, 1092, [emphasis added]

A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states. Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)

"The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90), and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment against abridgement by the states, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment." West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 258.

"The technical niceties of the common law are not regarded. . . .", 1 R.C.L. 31, p. 422. "A jury does not figure, ordinarily, in the trial of an admiralty suit. . . the verdict of the jury merely advisory, and may be disregarded by the court." 1 R.C.L. 40, p. 432. "[The] rules of practice may be altered whenever found to be inconvenient or likely to embarrass the business of the court." 1 R.C.L. 32, p. 423. "A court of admiralty. . . acts upon equitable principles." 1 R.C.L. 17, p. 416. "A libel of information [accusation] does not require all the technical precision of an indictment at common law. If the allegations describe the offense, it is all that is necessary; and if it is founded upon a statute, it is sufficient if it pursues the words of the law." The Emily v. The Caroline, 9 Wheat. 381

"...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states, which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;

"...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455; — Timeline Photos

There have always been 2 classes of citizens in America.

The Constitution for the United States of America talks about 2 classes of citizens.

Article IV, Section 2 Clause 1 says; "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

The courts have talked about the two classes of citizens as shown below.
"there is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." . US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542,

The Fourteenth Amendment, "....creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the States."
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition at pg 591;

"One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443."
Mc Donel v State, 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323;

"Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the U.S. in order to be a citizen of his State" Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, Baltimore, Md., 1966, 221 A. 2d 431 citing US Supreme Court Slaughter House Cases and U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542, 549, 23 L. Ed 588 1875

"There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter" Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. 155 (1909)

"Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other" Tashiro v. Jordan, 255 P. 545 California Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court quite thoroughly expanded on the two classes
of citizenship in the case Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, where it said:

"...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states,
which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested."
Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;

These two classes of citizenship continue to this day,
"Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. 14,§ 1."
Jones v Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1993);

Because there are 2 classes of citizens, and also because of circumstances that will become known below, it is necessary to assert your sovereignty. In order to understand how and why you assert your sovereignty, we need to have some background knowledge.

A state citizen is one of "We the People" found in the preamble to the constitution. You can be in a state without being in the United States. In fact, if you read their codes, the United States in the United States Code is the District of Columbia and the Territories. The Puerto Rico website even talks about it.

What is a US citizen?

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!


Goldhedge,

Thank you for your quotes and citations. You are correct in realizing that the one and only way to resolve a dispute about the correct status of the law is by reading the actual words of the real law itself (not amateur legal theories). You are one of only two people on this entire thread who realize that. For that, I applaud you.

The problem with cut and paste documents like the one you posted here (and which is posted on hundreds of other amateur legal theory websites) is that the quotes attributed to these cases are either entirely fabricated (entirely FAKE), partly fabricated (partly FAKE), taken entirely out of context and completely misunderstood. The purpose of such cut and paste documents like this one that you posted here is to trick the reader into believing something that is simply not true. See below.

1). Your claim: This is why 'snoop' gets lost in his argument. He's arguing a pear is an apple. He won't acknowledge that, while both are fruit, they are two entirely different things.
RESPONSE: Respectfully, this is not so. I am not lost in my argument. REAL law is REAL law and FAKE law is FAKE law. Respectfully, I do not get them confused. REAL law and FAKE law are two different (and opposite) things. Legal professionals / courts use one and amateurs / haters use the other.

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

2). Your cut and paste claim: The "American People" and "U.S. citizens" are two different things.
RESPONSE: Respectfully, this is not so. Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur nonsense.
For the REAL law on this very subject, CLICK HERE.
Dred Scott v. Sandford (rev'd other grounds). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3231372247892780026&q="Dred+Scott+v.+Sandford"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Chief Justice of The United States Supreme Court held that, "The words 'PEOPLE of the United States' and 'CITIZENS' [of the United States] ARE SYNOYMOUS TERMS, and MEAN THE SAME THING." (at the 24th paragraph at about 5% through the text). THUS, AS ALWAYS, THE REAL LAW AND AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES ARE EXACTLY OPPOSITE AND BACKWARDS TO ONE ANOTHER.

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

3. Your cut and paste claim: A US citizen does not have any rights.
RESPONSE: Respectfully, this is not so. Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur nonsense.

4. Your cut and paste claim: "...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include ALL [OF THE] RIGHTS protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE. Maxwell v. Dow, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17693509694446359639&q="Maxwell+v.+Dow"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a convicted robber appealed his Utah state conviction by claiming that his rights under the federal "privileges and immunities" clause were violated BECAUSE: 1). he was charged by information and not by indictment; 2). the jury had only 8 members rather than 12 members; and that; 3) such violated his federal right to due process. But, the court disagreed and wrote, "[T]here are certain privileges or immunities POSSESSED BY A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, because of his [U.S.] CITIZENSHIP... [WHICH]... CANNOT BE ABRIDGED BY ANY ACTION OF THE STATES... . The privileges and immunities of CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES... ARE INDEED PROTECTED by it [the "privileges and immunities" clause]; and... [such]...privileges and immunities [ARE]... GRANTED OR SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES... . [A]mong the privileges or immunities of a CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES are the right of trial by jury in a state court for a state offence and the right to be exempt from any trial for an infamous crime, unless upon presentment by a grand jury." (at about 35% through the text). But, the court held that merely being charged by information rather than indictment and having a jury of 8 members rather than 12 members DID NOT VIOLATE the defendant's rights under the "privileges and immunities" clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court provided a list of other cases which had made similar rulings and wrote, "We have cited these [other] cases for the purpose of showing that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include ALL [OF THE] RIGHTS protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution... . (at about 50% through the text). TRANSLATION: The "privileges and immunities" clause of the fourteenth amendment protects U.S Citizens against abridgment BY THE STATES of all "privileges and immunities" that are within the meaning of that clause, BUT NOT AGAINST OTHER "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITES" THAT ARE NOT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT CLAUSE. AND, SOME OF THE RIGHTS APPEARING IN THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE NOT "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT CLAUSE. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES" CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES A U.S. CITIZEN WITH NO PROTECTION FROM STATE ABRIDGEMENT AT ALL. THUS, THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT A U.S. CITIZEN HAS "NO RIGHTS" AT ALL. NOTE THAT THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT TWO ALLEGED CLASSES OF CITIZENSHIP. THIS CASE IS ABOUT TWO CLASSES OF "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES".

5. Your cut and paste claim: The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957
RESPONSE: CLICK HERE. For the WHOLE quote and context, CLICK HERE. US v. Valentine. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/288/957/1641873/. BACKGROUND: Puerto Rico is not a state. It is a U.S. territory. But, Puerto Rican citizens are nevertheless U.S. Citizens. FACTS: In this case, the United States indicted several Puerto Rican citizens for refusing to serve in the armed services of the United States. The Puerto Ricans raised several grounds for their refusing to serve, including that they were not represented in Congress and COULD NOT VOTE for the President. But, the court held that the absence of a RIGHT TO VOTE alone was not legal grounds for refusing to serve in the armed services of the United States, and wrote, "Defendants' [the Puerto Ricans'] error lies in assuming that THE RIGHT TO VOTE is an essential RIGHT OF [U.S] CITIZENSHIP. The proposition is beguiling, but it will not stand analysis." In trying to EMPHASIZE that the RIGHT TO VOTE is not necessarily an "ABSOLUTE" right of U.S. citizenship, the court admittedly makes the following OVERSTATEMENT, "The only absolute and unqualified right of [U.S.] citizenship is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States [not the RIGHT TO VOTE]... . The RIGHT TO VOTE is not... granted to [U.S.] citizens by the [U.S.] Constitution; to the contrary, the matter is left to the states... . [T]he Constitution does not make the franchise per se [meaning the RIGHT TO VOTE] a right of [U.S.] citizenship." Thus, in the context of the surrounding language, the quoted sentence simply means that the RIGHT TO VOTE is not an "ABSOLUTE" right of U.S. citizenship. THUS, THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT A U.S. CITIZEN HAS NO RIGHTS AT ALL.

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

6). Your cut and paste quote: "Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity. "Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.
RESPONSE: This quote is ENTIRELY FABRICATED. IT IS ENTIRELY FAKE. This quote (as a whole) does not appear anywhere in the case. Not only that, but no term or phrase contained within this FAKE quote appears within this case, including: "U.S. citizens", "District of Columbia", "residing in one of the states of the union", "are classified as property and franchises of", "the federal government", "as an individual entity". For the REAL language of this case, CLICK HERE. Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12239019745554918339&q="Wheeling+Steel+Corp.+v.++Fox"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a state assessed a property tax on property belonging to a corporation which did business (and had facilities) in several states. The dispute in the case centered around which state had the right to tax the corporation's property (the state where the corporation was incorporated, the state where its principal office was located or the states where its properties were located, etc.). The dispute also involved the question of whether certain property was even subject to the state property tax in the first place, like bank deposits in one state reflecting sales which took place in other states and like ships moving up and down the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers which did not have a fixed location in any one particular state, and so forth. THIS CASE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH "U.S. CITIZENS" OR WHETHER THEY WERE "CLASSIFIED AS PROPERTY" AND "FRANCHISES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" AS AN "INDIVIDUAL ENTITY". TRANSLATION: THIS QUOTE IS 100% FAKE LAW!

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

7). Your cut and paste claim: “A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)
RESPONSE: This quote is ENTIRELY FAKE. This quote (as a whole) does not appear anywhere in the case. Not only that, but many of the terms or phrases contained within this FAKE quote do not even appear within this case either, including: "U.S. citizen", "upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in interstate commerce", "a resident does not have a common law right to travel", "common law" and "right to travel". For the REAL language of this case, CLICK HERE. Hendrick v. Maryland, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13681451034893205402&q=%22Hendrick+v.+Maryland%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Supreme Court Of The United States actually held that "... A STATE MAY rightfully prescribe ["pass"] uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of ALL MOTOR VEHICLES- those moving in interstate commerce AS WELL AS OTHERS [NOT MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE]. And to this end it [THE STATE] MAY REQUIRE the registration of such vehicles and THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVERS... . This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized AS BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment]... ." (in the 8th full paragraph at about 70% through the text). THUS, THIS CASE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "U.S. CITIZENSHIP", THE "COMMON LAW" OR THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". THIS "LAW" IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

8). Your cut and paste claim: A US citizen is a corporation.
RESPONSE: This is not so. Note the glaring absence of a case in support of this amateur nonsense. For the REAL law on this very subject, CLICK HERE: Kowalchik v. Brohl, Kowalchik v. Brohl https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15082204100332672897&q="+person+is+not+a+corporation"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. "A natural person is not a corporation, partnership, estate, or trust." (at paragraph actually numbered 35 at about 65% through the text). For the REAL law on this very subject, CLICK HERE. U.S. v. Powell. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16437654944590370256&q="you're+an+individual"+"you're+not+a+corporation"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the defendant, an amateur legal theorist, sought to avoid a criminal conviction and sentencing by asking the court to treat him as a "corporation". In this regard, the court wrote, "Mr. Powell... [the defendant, claimed that] he was not a criminal defendant BUT RATHER A CORPORATION... . But, the court ruled otherwise and held, 'YOU'RE AN INDIVIDUAL... . YOU'RE NOT A CORPORATION.'" (in the 6th paragraph at about 40% through the text). See this video.
(at 3:20-4:30 and at 10:40-11:15). In this video, the INDIVIDUAL is actually trying to get the court to accept the amateur legal theory that he has a "split personality" and that one of his personalities, among many, is a "CORPORATION". The INDIVIDUAL wanted the court to convict his "CORPORATION" personality, but not his INDIVIDUAL personality. But, the court refuses and does not accept the INDIVIDUAL'S "split personality" defense and REFUSED TO TREAT HIM AS A "CORPORATION". Thus, contrary to the claims of amateur legal theorists, INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT CORPORATIONS AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM DOES NOT TREAT INDIVIDUALS AS CORPORATIONS. THUS, AS ALWAYS, THE REAL LAW AND AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES ARE EXACTLY OPPOSITE AND BACKWARDS TO ONE ANOTHER. THIS CLAIM IS ENTIRELY FAKE!

THE QUOTE BELOW IS REAL, BUT EDITED SO AS TO LEAD THE READER TO REACH THE OPPOSITE CONSLUSION REACHED BY THE COURT.

9). Your cut and paste claim: "...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote in this case, CLICK HERE. https://archive.org/stream/jstor-3301843/3301843_djvu.txt.
BACKGROUND: This case is almost a century and a half old. It arose after the formation of the confederacy at or about the time of the Civil War. FACTS: In this case, an alien in California sought to become a citizen of the United States and a dispute arose over whether such (becoming an American citizen) was governed by federal or state law. The state court held that becoming an American citizen was governed by state law, not by federal law and wrote in pertinent part, "In the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, enumerating the powers of Congress, is the following separate clause: 'To establish an uniform rule of naturalization [becoming a United States citizen] and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy throughout the United States.' BY METAPHYSICAL [CLICK HERE [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysical] REFINEMENT, in examining the form of our government, it MIGHT BE correctly said that [standing alone] there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States [without ALSO being a citizen of an individual state of the United States]. But constant usage — arising from convenience, and perhaps necessity, and dating from the formation of the Confederacy — has given substantial existence to the idea which the term conveys. A CITIZEN OF ANY ONE OF THE STATES OF THE UNITED STATES, IS ... A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, although technically and abstractly [CLICK HERE. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/technically] there is no such thing [standing alone]. [Meaning that in order to be a United States citizen, you must be a citizen of an individual state or territory of the United States]. To conceive a CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES WHO IS NOT A CITIZEN OF ONE OF THE STATES, IS A TOTALLY FOREIGN IDEA, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization [becoming a citizen of the United States], was TO MAKE [THEM] CITIZENS OF THE RESPECTIVE STATES." Translation: To make a person a citizen of the United States, simply make that person a citizen of any one of the individual states of the United States. THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AT ALL. IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT TO BE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, A PERSON MUST BE A CITIZEN OF AN INDIVIDUAL STATE IN THE UNITED STATES (and I would add "OR a U.S territory like Puerto Rico or Washington, D.C.").

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

10). Your cut and paste claim: This [the notion that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States] can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.
RESPONSE: This claim is ENTIRELY FAKE. That is why there is no subsection numbers provided (to make verification of this false claim all but impossible). For proof that this title provides no such "confirmation", CLICK HERE. Title 5 USC 8401: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/8401 (Be sure to read the very first words at the very top, "For the purposes of THIS CHAPTER [AND NOT FOR OTHER PURPOSES]". For proof that this title provides no such "confirmation", CLICK HERE. Title 26 USC 7701: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7701. (Be sure to read the very first words at the very top, "For the purposes of THIS CHAPTER [AND NOT FOR OTHER PURPOSES]". For proof that this title provides no such "confirmation", CLICK HERE. Title 1 USC 1-8: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/chapter-1. Not only do these foregoing statutory definitions not apply to anything outside their statutory context, they also provide no support whatsoever for the proposition that "there is no such thing as a U.S. citizen" even if they did apply.

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

11. Your cut and paste claim: Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property.
RESPONSE: This claim is ENTIRELY FAKE. Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur nonsense. For the REAL law on this subject, CLICK HERE. Maxwell v Garibay, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9472680608280446965&q=+"person+is+not+property"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. "As an initial matter, A PERSON IS NOT 'PROPERTY'... ." (in the 1st paragraph under "Discussion and Analysis" at about 50% through the text). For the REAL law on this subject, CLICK HERE. Equity Group, Ltd. v. Painewebber Inc., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3362407562672372523&q=%22persons+are+not+property%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "...PERSONS ARE NOT PROPERTY... ." (in the 11th paragraph at about 70% through the text).
THUS, AS ALWAYS, THE REAL LAW AND AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES ARE EXACTLY OPPOSITE AND BACKWARDS TO ONE ANOTHER.

12 (a). Your cut and paste claim: If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights,
RESPONSE: Ironically, this was actually true UNTIL THE THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS MADE SLAVERY (and the ownership of a human being as "property") UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Since the THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS WERE RATIFIED, ALL PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CITIZENS OF THE STATE [OR TERRITORY] IN WHICH THEY RESIDE. CLICK HERE. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fourteenth-Amendment. For the REAL law on this subject, CLICK HERE. Maxwell v Garibay, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9472680608280446965&q=+"person+is+not+property"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. "As an initial matter, A PERSON IS NOT 'PROPERTY'... ." (in the 1st paragraph under "Discussion and Analysis" at about 50% through the text). For the REAL law on this subject, CLICK HERE. Equity Group, Ltd. v. Painewebber Inc., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3362407562672372523&q=%22persons+are+not+property%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "...PERSONS ARE NOT PROPERTY... ." (in the 11th paragraph at about 70% through the text). THUS, AS ALWAYS, THE REAL LAW AND AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES ARE EXACTLY OPPOSITE AND BACKWARDS TO ONE ANOTHER.

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

12(b). Your cut and paste claim: Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property.
RESPONSE: This claim is ENTIRELY FAKE. Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur nonsense. For the REAL law on this subject, CLICK HERE. Maxwell v Garibay, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9472680608280446965&q=+"person+is+not+property"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. "As an initial matter, A PERSON IS NOT 'PROPERTY'... ." (in the 1st paragraph under "Discussion and Analysis" at about 50% through the text). For the REAL law on this subject, CLICK HERE. Equity Group, Ltd. v. Painewebber Inc., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3362407562672372523&q=%22persons+are+not+property%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "...PERSONS ARE NOT PROPERTY... ." (in the 11th paragraph at about 70% through the text). THUS, AS ALWAYS, THE REAL LAW AND AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES ARE EXACTLY OPPOSITE AND BACKWARDS TO ONE ANOTHER.

THE QUOTE BELOW IS REAL, BUT EDITED SO AS TO LEAD THE READER TO REACH THE OPPOSITE CONSLUSION

13. Your cut and paste claim: The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,....."
RESPONSE: This is true, BUT INCOMPLETE. The WHOLE text of this section is:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States AND [citizens] of the state [or territory] wherein they reside. (Note that is amateur author conveniently left these red words out of his quote.). No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Thus, the fourteenth amendment was designed and intended TO PROTECT against abuse BY THE INDIVIDUAL STATES (not by the United States).

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

14). Your cut and paste claim: The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended.
RESPONSE: Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur nonsense. Regardless, this claim is not so. The fourteenth amendment simply codified the common law (case law) that citizens of any state in the United States were also thereby citizens of the United States and it made former slaves (who were born or naturalized in the United States or in territories subject to its jurisdiction) citizens of BOTH the United States and citizens of the state in which they resided.

NOTE: THE PERSON WHO ORIGINALLY CITED THE CASE BELOW CASE DID NOT KNOW THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM, "CITIZENSHIP"

15). Your cut and paste claim: "The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the "citizenship" to the agencies of government."
City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE text of his case, CLICK HERE. https://casetext.com/case/city-of-dallas-v-mitchell-1. In this case, a property owner sought a building permit from the city to build a store on his property. The city commission wrongfully denied the permit despite that the proposed building complied with every single requirement of law. The property owner sued. The court was outraged by the city's wrongful denial of the building permit and wrote, "The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the CITIZENSHIP [A PLURAL TERM REFERRING TO ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE COLLECTIVELY] to the agencies of government [THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS]. This case does NOT mean the individual's rights are restricted only to the extent they have been surrendered BY THE INDIVIDUAL (because the INDIVIDUAL is not the same thing as the "CITIZENSHIP" OF THE STATE). THUS,THE PERSON WHO ORIGINALLY CITED THE CASE ABOVE DID NOT KNOW THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM, "CITIZENSHIP"

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

16). Your cut and paste claim: "Civil rights under the 14th amendment are for Federal citizens and not State Citizens; Federal citizens, as parents, have no right to the custody of their infant children except subject to the paramount right of the State." Wadleigh v. Newhall, Circuit Court N. Dist. Cal., Mar 13, 1905
RESPONSE: This quote is ENTIRELY FABRICATED. IT IS ENTIRELY FAKE.
The case cited in support of the FAKE law (above) is over a century old. So, no link to the entire original case text is available. But, the following link below provides several quotes (none of which have any similarity to the subject of the FAKE quote above. For these quotes, CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?about=17177824883859360056&q="Wadleigh++v.+Newhall"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. The following quotes indicate what this case is really about. A). "It has been held that in an action for divorce involving the parents of minor children the trial court must keep in mind that the right of the STATE, whose wards the infant children become, rises above and is superior to that of the parents." B). "The charge [the claim] that the statute violates the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States is hardly worthy of serious consideration." C). "[A California statute]... which authorizes proceedings for the appointment of guardians for the persons and estates of minor children having no guardian by will or deed, is a lawful exercise of the STATE'S power; and proceedings based thereon, by which parents are deprived of the custody of their children, do not give them a right of action [means "lawsuit"] against the persons instituting the …action. " D). "Courts before Meyer had generally been slow to extend Fourteenth Amendment PROTECTION to the parent's rights over the child." FACT: Every citizen of the United States is also a citizen of the individual state or territory in which he/she resides. This is called "DUAL CITIZENSHIP". CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15343542124860317253&q="dual+citizenship"+state+"United+States"+"fourteenth+amendment"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. "The 'privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States' concern THE DUAL CITIZENSHIP UNDER OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM." (in the 11th paragraph at about 35% through the text, Frankfurter concurring). Since this is so, every citizen of every state in the United States is also a citizen of the United States. Thus, the PROTECTIONS of the fourteenth amendment (against STATE abuse) apply to every STATE citizen. Thus, this case is NOT about "UNITED STATES" citizenship verses "STATE" citizenship (WHICH AMOUNTS TO THE SAME THING, except in the case of U.S territories like Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C.). FACT: the fourteenth amendment EXPANDS protections for the STATE citizen, not the other way around. THIS QUOTE IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

17) Your cut and paste claim: and “US citizens” can even murder their unborn children by committing the common law crime of infanticide,
RESPONSE: Every U.S. citizen is also a citizen of an individual state (or territory) of the United States citizen. So, state citizens (all of which are also U.S. citizens) can ALSO murder their unborn children by committing the alleged common law crime of infanticide too.

Your cut and paste claim: and because the unborn are NOT “persons”,
RESPONSE: This can be true. Regretfully, under much of the law, the unborn are "fetuses".

Your cut and paste claim: then they are by definition State Citizens,
RESPONSE: Then, by definition, they are ALSO United States citizens, because every citizen of any individual state in the United States is also a citizen of the United States. For proof, CLICK HERE. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Your cut and paste claim: which means the BAR members (foreign agents of the Crown) in the so-called courts are engaged in genocide against the American sovereignty,
RESPONSE: Let me get this straight. When a baby is born and thereby becomes a State citizen (and therefore also a U.S. citizen under the fourteenth amendment), such means that Bar members (who do not perform abortions) are killing the American government's (the "SOVEREIGN'S") ability to govern (called its "SOVEREIGNTY")? Note that the author of this amateur legal theory does not know the definition of "SOVEREIGNTY". For the truth about the SOVEREIGN, CLICK HERE. Lozano v. Bank of America Loans, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=175996315291348583&q="is+not+a+sovereign"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the plaintiff (an amateur legal theorist) sued a lender and claimed to be "SOVEREIGN". But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "First, SHE [the plaintiff] IS NOT A "SOVEREIGN". A SOVEREIGN IS THE GOVERNMENT, OR THE LEADER OF A GOVERNMENT [a Monarch]. SHE [the plaintiff] IS NIETHER [a government or a leader of a government]." TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT"). For the truth about the SOVEREIGN, CLICK HERE. Cooper v U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1788441780084038901&q="United+States+v.+Cooper+Corporation"+++&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "It is fundamental that THE UNITED STATES EXISTS AS A SOVEREIGN of delegated powers; DELEGATED TO IT BY THE "SOVEREIGNS" MAKING UP THE UNITED STATES, THE INDIVIDUAL STATES [not individual human beings]." (in the 3rd to last paragraph of this case). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT"). Thus, it is not the case that "BAR members (foreign agents of the Crown) in the so-called courts are engaged in genocide against American SOVEREIGNTY" (meaning the government's right to rule).

18). Your cut and paste claim: "The unborn are not included within the definition of "person" as used in the 14th Amendment." Roe v. Wade, US Supreme Court, 410 US 13, 35L. Ed. 2d 147, 1973.
RESPONSE: Correct. If a human being is born in any state of the United States, the fourteenth amendment provides that human being with United States citizenship, state citizenship and protection of the laws upon being born, but not before then.

THE QUOTE BELOW IS REAL, BUT EDITED SO AS TO LEAD THE READER TO REACH THE OPPOSITE CONSLUSION REACHED BY THE COURT.

19). Your cut and paste claim: “...it is evident that they [MEXICANS LIVING IN THE MEXICAN TERRITORIES CEDED TO THE UNITED STATES] have not the political rights which are vested in [the other] citizens of the States. They [MEXICANS] are not constituents of any community in which is vested any sovereign power of government. Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens. They [MEXICANS] are subject to the laws of the United States, but have no voice in its management. If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the sanction of a Government in which they are not represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but the political rights of citizens they cannot enjoy…” People v. De La Guerra,40 Cal. 311, 342 (A.D. 1870) [emphasis added]
RESPONSE: This case is almost a century and a half old. So, no link to this case is currently available to the entire text. But, we know what the case was actually about by reviewing the quotes in the following link. CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?about=5886807282023775403&q=+"People+v.+De+la+guerra"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. BACKGROUND: California and several other western states were once part of Mexico. This case was about the rights of Mexican citizens in the ceded territory during the transition from Mexico to the United States. In order to protect these Mexican citizens in the ceded territories during this transition, the United States and Mexico entered into the Treaty Of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This 1848 treaty effectively conferred United States citizenship upon all the Mexicans inhabitants of the ceded territory who did not, within a specified time, declare their intention to retain their Mexican citizenship, though they were not entitled to ALL the privileges of United States citizenship until the ceded territory was incorporated into a State of the United States. THUS, THE LIMITATION ON THE RIGHTS OF THESE MEXICANS [NOMINALLY ALSO U.S. CITIZENS] WAS TEMPORARY AND LASTED ONLY UNTIL THE CEDED TERRITORY ON WHICH THEY RESIDED WAS INCORPORATED INTO A STATE OF THE UNITED STATES. THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL UNITED STATES CITIZENS HAVE LESS RIGHTS THAN STATE CITIZENS.

How This Case Has Been Cited
"It was no violation of the ninth article of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that the qualifications of electors [voters], as prescribed in the constitution of California, were such as to [temporarily] exclude some of the [Mexican] inhabitants from certain political rights [until the ceded territory they occupied was incorporated into a state of the United States]."

"holding that [The] Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo directly conferred [United States] citizenship rights [to persons of Mexican ancestry] and rejecting [the] claim that [a] person of Mexican ancestry in California was not [a] US citizen, and thus was ineligible to serve as [a] judge, because Congress failed to specifically afford [provide] citizenship [in that treaty]."

"The treaty of 1848 seems to have conferred [United States] citizenship upon all the inhabitants of the ceded territory [formerly Mexico] who did not, within a specified time, declare their intention to retain their Mexican citizenship, though it has been held that they were not entitled to all the privileges of citizens of the United States until the ceded territory was incorporated into a State."

TRANSLATION: THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL UNITED STATES CITIZENS HAVE LESS RIGHTS THAN STATE CITIZENS.

20). Your cut and paste claim: “SUBJECT. SUBJECT may imply a state of subjection to a person, such as a monarch, without much sense of membership in a political community or sharing in political rights … It may on the other hand simply indicate membership in a political community with a personal sovereign [A MONARCH, LIKE KING OR QUEEN] to whom allegiance is owed.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary, MERRIAM-WEBSTER INC., Publishers 1986
RESPONSE: No response is required.

THE QUOTE BELOW IS REAL, BUT EDITED SO AS TO LEAD THE READER TO REACH THE OPPOSITE CONSLUSION REACHED BY THE COURT.

21). Your cut and paste claim: “[T]he term "citizen," in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law.” State vs Manual 20 NC 122, 14 C.J.S. 4, p 430
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...+v.+City+Services&hl=en&as_sdt=40006&as_vis=1. This case actually reads, "It might be that some distinction exists in Italy between a 'citizen''and a 'subject." This observation is prompted by the fact that the framers of the Constitution employed the phrase 'between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects.' It is to be remembered that the Colonials were 'subjects' until their independence was established. The word was doubtless opprobrious to them. They took the word 'citizen' from the Latin 'civis' which means 'freeman of a city.' [citations omitted). They recognized all aliens as 'citizens' or 'subjects.' The law of Italy is a question of fact and no proof has been offered by the defendant to establish whether there is a distinction between 'citizen' and 'subject.' Therefore, the decisions of our own courts must be applied. 'Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.' (citation omitted). 'The term `citizen,' as understood in our law, is precisely ANALOGOUS [CLICK HERE https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogous] to the term subject in the common law, AND THE CHANGE OF THE PHRASE has entirely resulted from the change of government. The SOVEREIGNTY has been transferred from one man [A KING/MONARCH] to the COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE PEOPLE [CALLED THE "STATE"] —and HE WHO BEFORE WAS A 'SUBJECT' OF A KING 'IS NOW A CITIZEN OF THE STATE.'" CLICK HERE http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/Sovereign.aspx; https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/...lish/sovereign]. THIS SIMPLY MEANS THAT SOVEREIGNTY (THE RIGHT TO RULE) HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM ONE MAN (A KING/MONARCH) TO THE COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE PEOPLE AS A WHOLE (CALLED THE "STATE") —AND HE WHO BEFORE WAS A "SUBJECT" OF A KING "IS NOW A CITIZEN OF THE STATE.'"

THE QUOTE BELOW IS REAL, BUT EDITED SO AS TO LEAD THE READER TO REACH THE OPPOSITE CONSLUSION REACHED BY THE COURT.

22). Your cut and paste claim: “In our opinion, it was not the intent of the legislature to restrict the operation of the
statute to those only who were subjects of the United States government ...”
Prowd v. Gore (1922) 57 Cal. App. 458, 459-461 [emphasis added]
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE: https://casetext.com/case/prowd-v-gore. In this case, a black man was denied a seat in a movie theater after having purchased a ticket that legally entitled him to a seat. The state had in force a statute that made it mandatory to treat all "CITIZENS" equally in terms of admission and seating to movie theaters, regardless of race. So, lawyers for the theater argued that while the black man had had established that he was a "RESIDENT" of the state, he had not established that he was a "CITIZEN" so as to be protected by the subject statute. The court responded to this silly argument by writing, "As employed [used] in [the applicable statute]... , the term "CITIZEN" is NOT USED in a restricted sense — that is, A CITIZEN OF A STATE OR CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES — but [IS USED] in the broad and unrestricted sense, implying that one is a RESIDENT of the state and as such entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of its courts to protect a right guaranteed to all, without reference to race or color, who reside within its jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would render the [subject] statute obnoxious to the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, UNDER WHICH A STATE MAY NOT 'DENY TO ANY PERSON [NOT CITIZEN] WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION EQUAL PROTECTION of THE LAWS.' In our opinion, it was not the intent of the legislature to restrict the operation of the [applicable] statute to those only who were subjects of the United States government and exclude therefrom unnaturalized residents of foreign birth, whether white or black. The evidence shows that plaintiff [the black man] was a RESIDENT of the state, which fact entitled him to maintain the action [file and continue the lawsuit against the theater owner]. Whether or not he was a CITIZEN of the United States, with all the rights implied by such term, is immaterial. THUS, THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE "SUBJECTS" OF THE UNITED STATES. It simply means that "EVERY PERSON" is entitled to equal protection of he law. Thus, the fourteenth amendment EXPANDS the rights and protections of the individual, not the other way around.

THE QUOTE BELOW IS REAL, BUT EDITED SO AS TO LEAD THE READER TO REACH THE OPPOSITE CONSLUSION REACHED BY THE COURT.

23). Your cut and paste claim: “Upon the other hand, the 14th Amendment, upon the subject of citizenship, Declares only that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they
reside."
Here there is a limitation to persons born or naturalized in the United States, which is not extended to person born in any place "subject to their jurisdiction." Downes v. Bidwell (1900) 182 U.S. 244, 249-251, 45 L. Ed. 1088, 1092, [emphasis added]
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE: Downes v. Bidwell, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9926302819023946834&q="Downes+v.+Bidwell"++&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case is over a century old. BACKGROUND: Puerto Rico is not a state. It is a territory of the United States. Nevertheless, the citizens of Puerto Rico are U.S. Citizens. FACTS: This case involved the question of whether goods shipped from Puerto Rico to New York were exempt from import duties (taxes). In attempting to explain the rights of Puerto Ricans as compared to other U.S. Citizens, the court wrote, "The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude 'within the United States, OR [this is the key word] in any place subject to their jurisdiction,' this [language] is also significant as showing that there may be places within the jurisdiction of the United States that are not part of the Union [like Puerto Rico]. [That is] [t]o say that the phraseology of this amendment was due to the fact that it was intended to prohibit slavery in the seceded States, under a possible interpretation [possible argument] that those States were no longer a part of the Union [and]... , if these States were not a part of the Union THEY WERE STILL SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES [making slavery illegal in those states anyway]. Upon the other hand, the Fourteenth Amendment, upon the subject of citizenship, declares only that "all persons born or naturalized IN THE UNITED STATES, AND [this is the key word] SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are CITIZENS of the United States, and of the STATE wherein they reside." Here [in the fourteenth amendment] there is a limitation [ON U.S. CITIZENSHIP] to persons born or naturalized IN THE UNITED STATES which is NOT extended to persons born in any place [that is merely] 'SUBJECT TO [ITS]... JURISDICTION [like Puerto Rico]' [drawing a contrast between language in the thirteenth and the fourteenth amendment and referring to the word "OR" in the thirteenth amendment as compared to the word "AND" in the fourteenth amendment]. (in the 8th and 9th paragraph at about 5%through the text). THUS, THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PLACES A "LIMITATION" ON THE "RIGHTS" OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS WHEN COMPARED TO STATE CITIZENS. INSTEAD, THIS CASE MEANS THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PLACES A "LIMITATION" ON "CITIZENSHIP" TO THOSE WHO WERE BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES "AND" WHO WERE SUBJECT THE JURISDICTION THEREOF WHILE THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT BANNED SLAVERY WITHIN THE UNITED STATES "OR" IN ANY PLACE SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION (drawing a contrast between language in the thirteenth and the fourteenth amendment and referring to the word "OR" in the thirteenth amendment as compared to the word "AND" in the fourteenth amendment). Nothing more.

24). Your cut and paste claim: "The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90), and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment against abridgement by the states, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment." West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 258.
RESPONSE: The forgoing semi quote actually comes from Twining v. New Jersey. For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7311310850311513299&q="the+right+of+trial+by+jury+in+civil+cases,+guaranteed+by+the+seventh+amendment"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. The case actually reads, "The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90), and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the States, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the Fifth Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the Sixth Amendment. West v. Louisiana, 194 U.S. 258. In Maxwell v. Dow, supra, where the plaintiff in error had been convicted in a state court of a felony upon an information, and by a jury of eight persons, it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the Fifth Amendment, and the trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, WERE NOT PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, AS THOSE WORDS WERE USED IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. The discussion in that case ought not to be repeated. All the arguments for the other view were considered and answered, the authorities were examined and analyzed, and the decision rested upon the ground that this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not forbid the States to abridge the personal rights enumerated in the first eight Amendments, BECAUSE THOSE RIGHTS WERE NOT [PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES] WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CLAUSE 'PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.'... . We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination IS NOT A PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY OF NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP GUARANTEED BY THIS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT against abridgment by the States." TRANSLATION: The "privileges and immunities" clause of the fourteenth amendment protects UNITED STATES Citizens against abridgment BY THE STATES of all "privileges and immunities" that are within the meaning of that clause, BUT NOT AGAINST OTHER "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITES" THAT ARE NOT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT CLAUSE. AND, SOME OF THE RIGHTS APPEARING IN THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE NOT "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT CLAUSE. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES" CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES A UNITED STATES CITIZEN WITH NO PROTECTION FROM STATE ABRIDGEMENT OF ANY "PRIVILEGE AND IMMUNITY"AT ALL.

NOTE: The following few cut and paste partial quotes come from an ancient legal encyclopedia that is more than a century old, not directly from the law itself. To see this ancient legal encyclopedia, CLICK HERE . https://books.google.com/books?id=xqbuJXW0utcC&dq="rules+of+practice+may+be+altered+whenever+found+to+be"&source=gbs_navlinks_s.

25). Your cut and paste claim: "The technical niceties of the common law are not regarded. . . .", 1 R.C.L. 31, p. 422.
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE: Kelly v. State, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12042195898940005215&q="the+technical+niceties+of+the+common+law"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case involved a dispute over the value of "improvements" that tenants made to school land that they leased. The case actually says, "McCOWN, Justice, concurring in part, and dissenting in part. [In criticizing a poorly written statute, the judge wrote,] THE LEGISLATIVE DEFINITIONS OF "IMPROVEMENTS" ON SCHOOL LANDS [contained in the subject statute] have had little regard for the technical niceties of the common law OR ITS DEFINITIONS. [In writing the statute,] [t]he Legislature has made no distinctions between "crops," for example, and "land leveling," nor between "IMPROVEMENTS" which are severable from the land and those which become or are an actual part of the land itself and could never be severed. Translation: The subject statute should have defined "improvements". Nothing more. THUS, THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE LAW (OR THE COURTS) DO NOT REGARD THE TECHNICAL NICETIES OF THE COMMON LAW. Notice how deceptive and manipulative this this carefully-edited quote actually is. This trickery speaks volumes about the character and integrity of the author of this document.

THE FOLLOWING FEW CASES WERE APPARENTLY CITED BECAUSE OF THEIR CONNECTION TO "ADMIRALTY" WHICH AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MISTAKENLY BELIEVE SECTRETLY GOVERNS EVERY CASE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.

26). Your cut and paste claim: "A jury does not figure, ordinarily, in the trial of an admiralty suit. . . the verdict of the jury merely advisory, and may be disregarded by the court." 1 R.C.L. 40, p. 432.
RESPONSE: For the whole quote, CLICK HERE: https://books.google.com/books?id=U3ZCAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA432&lpg=PA432&dq="a+jury+does+not+figure"&source=bl&ots=dYo4zJdna1&sig=BTRV_wYsHYpVNdQFPhhm81fEaFs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiOnZ7DjqDeAhXHuVMKHQPuBk8Q6AEwAXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q="a jury does not figure"&f=false. "A jury does not figure, ordinarily, in the trial of an admiralty suit. . . the verdict of the jury merely advisory, and may be disregarded by the court. In difficult cases depending on nautical experience, the judge may call to his aid experienced masters of vessels, whose report must necessarily be of great assistance in the arrival of the correct conclusion." Translation: Matters of admiralty, maritime, navigation, shipping and vessels on he high seas are so complex that courts may disregard he findings of lay person juries and may even consult with outside experts in when such is necessary to "arrive [at] the correct conclusion." CONTRARY TO WHAT AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MISTAKELY BELIEVE, THIS CASE DOES NOT DEPRIVE A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT TO A RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN A CRIMINAL CASE. THIS CASE APPLIES ONLY TO REAL ADMIRALTY CASES, NOT PRETEND ADMIRALTY CASES. THE CASE ABOVE WAS APPARENTLY CITED BECAUSE OF ITS CONNECTION TO "ADMIRALTY" WHICH AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MISTAKENLY BELIEVE SECTRETLY GOVERNS EVERY CASE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.

THE QUOTE BELOW IS REAL, BUT EDITED SO AS TO LEAD THE READER TO REACH THE OPPOSITE CONSLUSION REACHED BY THE COURT.

27). Your cut and paste claim: "[The] rules of practice may be altered whenever found to be inconvenient or likely to embarrass the business of the court." 1 R.C.L. 32, p. 423.
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote from this ancient legal encyclopedia, CLICK HERE. https://books.google.com/books?id=EvoUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA423&lpg=PA423&dq="Rules+of+practice+may+be+altered+whenever+found+to+be+inconvenient"&source=bl&ots=mcRR6b3Ls7&sig=MwOmJ8pOlbZXCEvJnGC1iwrtbTU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi7mO7ojK_eAhWui60KHaTiDZkQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q="Rules of practice may be altered whenever found to be inconvenient"&f=false. The WHOLE quote from this ancient legal encyclopedia reads, "The Act of May 8th, 1792 [more than two centuries ago] and by the Act of August 23rd, 1842 [almost two centuries ago], Congress conferred upon the Supreme Court [the] power to make rules from time to time to govern PROCEEDINGS [not the outcomes] in ADMIRALTY [not other types of cases]. Pursuant to these acts, a code of rules was announced, the rules being little more than a recognition of the previous practice of the courts of ADMIRALTY in this country and in England. These rules [that Congress authorized the Supreme Court to make "from time to time"] may be altered whenever found to be inconvenient or likely to embarrass THE BUSINESS of the court [NOT THE COURT ITSELF].... ." This ancient encyclopdia cites The Steamer St. Lawrence as its source. For the WHOLE quote from the source case, CLICK HERE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7217452950844649597&q=%22The+steamer+st.+lawrence%22+%27%271+black+522%27&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "But in the rules then adopted, this rule as well as the others are explicitly adopted as 'a rule of practice,' and, consequently, liable to be altered from time to time, whenever it was found to be inconvenient, or likely to embarrass THE LEGITIMATE BUSINESS of the court [NOT THE COURT ITSELF]." THEN, THE COURT EXPLAINED WHAT IT MEANT BY "THE LEGITIMATE BUSINESS OF THE COURT. "And there could be no embarrassing difficulties in using the ordinary process in rem, of the civil law, if the State law gave the lien in general terms, without specific conditions or limitations inconsistent with the rules and principles which governed implied maritime liens; and whenever this was the case, the process to enforce it promoted the convenience and facilities of trade and navigation by the promptness of its proceedings." THUS, THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL COURTS CAN CHANGE THEIR RULES OF PROCEDURE WHEN THEY THEMSELVES ARE "EMBARRASED".

28). your cut and paste claim: "A court of admiralty. . . acts upon equitable principles." 1 R.C.L. 17, p. 416.
RESPONSE: The author of this document found this language here. CLICK HERE. https://books.google.com/books?id=U3ZCAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA416&lpg=PA416&dq="a+court+of+admiralty"+"acts+upon+equitable+principles"&source=bl&ots=dYo4zK4m6X&sig=ml0Ejzw6SShbAqaEOOOEChj8s10&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiFo7nakaDeAhXD41MKHSbfAUYQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q="a court of admiralty" "acts upon equitable principles"&f=false.
RESPONSE: The link above cites as its source The Steamer Eclipse. For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12575409069322592345&q=%22the+steamer+Eclipse%22+&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006. That case reads, "While the court of admiralty exercises its jurisdiction upon equitable principles, it has not the characteristic powers of a court of equity. It cannot entertain a bill or libel for specific performance, or to correct a mistake (citation omitted) or declare or enforce a trust or an equitable title (citations omitted) or exercise jurisdiction in matters of account merely (citations omitted) or decree the sale of a ship for an unpaid mortgage, or declare her [the ship] to be the property of the mortgagees and direct possession of her [the ship] to be given to them. (citation omitted). The jurisdiction [of a court of admiralty] embraces all maritime contracts, torts, injuries or offences, and it depends, in cases of contract, upon the nature of the contract, and is limited to contracts, claims and services PURELY MARITIME, and touching rights and duties appertaining to commerce and NAVIGATION. THE CASE ABOVE WAS APPARENTLY CITED BECAUSE OF ITS CONNECTION TO "ADMIRALTY" WHICH AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MISTAKENLY BELIEVE SECTRETLY GOVERNS EVERY CASE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.

29). Your cut and paste claim; "A libel of information [accusation] does not require all the technical precision of an indictment at common law. If the allegations describe the offense, it is all that is necessary; and if it is founded upon a statute, it is sufficient if it pursues the words of the law." The Emily v. The Caroline, 9 Wheat. 381
RESPONSE: No direct link to this case is available. But, the alleged quote appears to be entirely fake. CLICK HERE. https://books.google.com/books?id=Olo8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA543&lpg=PA543&dq=%22the+emily+v.+the+caroline%22&source=bl&ots=WQqbcDzQSD&sig=IUBEu_Uzo3v-yQWyG4bdLX1YNzs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi64PCalqDeAhUP11MKHVNeD0cQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22the%20emily%20v.%20the%20caroline%22&f=false. CLICK HERE. https://books.google.com/books?id=V6hLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA543&lpg=PA543&dq="the+emily+v.+the+caroline"&source=bl&ots=0hXhN7XOby&sig=EAcllyTESHMrtBwfLjyv7cxbuyY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi64PCalqDeAhUP11MKHVNeD0cQ6AEwAXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q="the emily v. the caroline"&f=false.
CLICK HERE. https://books.google.com/books?id=etUaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq="the+emily+v.+the+caroline"&source=bl&ots=TTba1q1MHh&sig=9uy38gDZRhVZ5hYcwx6Iw7fKMOw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi64PCalqDeAhUP11MKHVNeD0cQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q="the emily v. the caroline"&f=false. CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006&q=+"9+wheat.+381"+Emily+Caroline&btnG=.

NOTE: This same ancient case is also cited in connection with several other imaginary holdings “…that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the republic 50 several states, ... . " CLICK HERE AND SCROLL DOWN TO THE AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY WEBISTES NEAR THE BOTTOM. https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=651&ei=v_PQW8XHJMPHzwKmvoewBA&q=%22the+emily+v.+the+caroline%22+&oq=%22the+emily+v.+the+caroline%22+&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0..13...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.PpYG3PS3j0g.

30). Your cut and paste claim: "...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states, which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE: Maxwell v. Dow, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17693509694446359639&q=%22Maxwell+v.+Dow%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case is over a century old. FACTS: In this case, a convicted robber appealed his Utah state conviction by claiming that his rights under the federal "privileges and immunities" clause were violated BECAUSE: 1). he was charged by information and not by indictment; 2). the jury had only 8 members rather than 12 members; and that; 3) such violated his federal right to due process. The court responded by writing, "[T]here are certain privileges or immunities POSSESSED BY A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, because of his [U.S.] CITIZENSHIP... [WHICH]... CANNOT BE ABRIDGED BY ANY ACTION OF THE STATES. In order to limit the powers which it was feared might be claimed or exercised by the Federal Government, under the provisions of the Constitution as it was when adopted, the first ten amendments to that instrument were proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the first Congress on the 25th of September, 1789. They were intended as restraints and limitations upon the powers of the General Government, and were not intended to and did not have any effect upon the powers of the respective States. (at about 35% through the text).

In the Slaughter-house cases, 16 Wall. 36, the subject of the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THOSE OF A PARTICULAR STATE, was treated by Mr. Justice Miller in delivering the opinion of the court. He stated that the argument in favor of the plaintiffs, claiming that the ordinance of the city of New Orleans was invalid, rested wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment are the same as to citizens of the United States and citizens of the several States. This he showed to be not well founded; that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the States, which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, AND THAT PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITES OF A CITIZEN OF A STATE, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the paragraph in question [the "privileges and immunities" clause of the fourteenth amendment], but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested [MEANING STATE LAW]. (at about 35% through the text). TRANSLATION: The "privileges and immunities" clause of the fourteenth amendment protects United States citizens against abridgment BY THE STATES of all "privileges and immunities" that are within the meaning of that clause, BUT IT DOES NOT PROTECT United States citizens AGAINST OTHER "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITES" THAT ARE GOVERNED BY STATE LAW. The court held that merely being charged by information rather than indictment and having a jury of 8 members rather than 12 members DID NOT VIOLATE the defendant's rights under the "privileges and immunities" clause of the U.S. Constitution . THUS, THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT STATE CITIZENS ARE NOT UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND VICE VERSA. NOTE THAT THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT TWO ALLEGED CLASSES OF CITIZENSHIP. THIS CASE IS ABOUT TWO CLASSES OF "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES".

31). Your cut and paste claim: "...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455; — Timeline Photos
RESPONSE: This is a duplicate of number 4 (above) which is explained in number 4 (above).

32). Your cut and paste claim: There have always been 2 classes of citizens in America.
RESPONSE: This was only true until the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments were ratified.

33). Your cut and paste claim: The Constitution for the United States of America talks about 2 classes of citizens.
RESPONSE: That "talk" was amended (effectively repealed) by the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments.

34). Your cut and paste claim: Article IV, Section 2 Clause 1 says; "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
RESPONSE: This is true. For that language CLICIK HERE. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv. But, this does not mean that every "right" in the first eight amendments of the U.S. Constitution is a "privilege and immunity" within the meaning of that clause. Some "privileges and immunities" come from STATE law, not from the U.S. Constitution.

35). Your cut and paste claim: The courts have talked about the two classes of citizens as shown below.
"there is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." . US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542,
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9699370891451726349&q=%22US+v+Cruikshank%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case is not about two classes of CITIZENS. Instead, it is about two classes of GOVERMENTS. The case reads, "We have in our political system A GOVERNMENT of the United States and A GOVERNMENT of each of the several States. Each one of these GOVERNMENTS is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect." Thus, this case is not about two classes of "CITIZENS". This case is about two classes of "GOVERMENTS" (federal and state).

36. Your cut and paste claim: The Fourteenth Amendment, "....creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the States."
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition at pg 591;
RESPONSE: This is not so. And, dictionaries do not have the force of law and are not binding on any court in any jurisdiction at any time.

THIS QUOTE BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE. GOOGLE this FAKE phrase in quotes. Not a single case comes up.

37). Your cut and paste claim: "One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443."Mc Donel v State, 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323;
RESPONSE: Not only is the quote above ENTIRELY FAKE, it is also EXACTLY BACKWARDS AND OPPOSITE to the REAL law on this very subject. For the REAL law on this subject, CLICK HERE:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11409994194895910402&q=%22a+citizen+of+a+state+and+not+a+citizen+of+the+United+States%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "Similarly, the court rejects Dr. Hansen's contentions that... he is a citizen of a state and not a citizen of the United States... . These arguments have no basis in the law." (in the second to last paragraph at about 95% through the text). THUS, AS ALWAYS, THE REAL LAW AND AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES ARE EXACTLY OPPOSITE AND BACKWARDS TO ONE ANOTHER.

THE QUOTE BELOW IS REAL, BUT EDITED SO AS TO LEAD THE READER TO REACH THE OPPOSITE CONSLUSION REACHED BY THE COURT.

38). Your cut and paste claim: "Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the U.S. in order to be a citizen of his State" Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, Baltimore, Md., 1966, 221 A. 2d 431 citing US Supreme Court Slaughter House Cases and U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542, 549, 23 L. Ed 588 1875
RESPONSE: This is true. But, read closely. The devil is in the details. CLICK HERE: United State v. Hansen, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15030024530808914170&q=%22Crosse+v.+Board+of+Supervisors%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a man born in another country applied with the state to run for sheriff. Under state law, a person can not run for sheriff until they have been a state citizen for five years. The case reads, "The court below held and the [election] Board contends that the appellant [the man who applied to run for sheriff] did not become a citizen of Maryland... until he became a citizen of the United States, and is therefore ineligible to be Sheriff... because he was not a United States citizen at least five years preceding the election. We disagree. Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state." TRANSLATION: Both before and after the fourteenth amendment to the federal Constitution, is has only been necessary for a person to be a citizen OF A STATE OF THE UNITED STATES in order to be a citizen OF THE UNITED STATES. THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT A PERSON CAN BE A CITIZEN OF A STATE OF THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT ALSO BEING A UNITED STATES CITIZEN.

THE QUOTE BELOW IS REAL, BUT EDITED SO AS TO LEAD THE READER TO REACH THE OPPOSITE CONSLUSION REACHED BY THE COURT.

39).Your cut and paste claim: "There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter" Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. 155 (1909)
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE. Gardina v. Board of Registrars, https://books.google.com/books?id=hcgKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq="gardina+v.+board+of+registrars"&source=bl&ots=zQnleMVJqr&sig=H6msWQmxdUlWH88OH0VEKHvE7D4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjw6-vj26zeAhVnhuAKHaT-DscQ6AEwAXoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q="gardina v. board of registrars"&f=false. The case actually says, "There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person without he other, AS IN THE CASE OF A RESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [or Puerto Rico]; BUT BOTH CLASSES USUALLY EXIST IN THE SAME PERSON [BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE LIVE IN STATES]." (in the final paragraph of this case at the very bottom). Notice how deceptive and manipulative this this carefully-edited quote is. This trickery speaks volumes about the character and integrity of the author of this document.

THIS QUOTE IS ENTITELY FAKE:

40). Your cut and paste claim: "Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other" Tashiro v. Jordan, 255 P. 545 California Supreme Court
RESPONSE: This quote is ENTIRELY FAKE. For proof of this fraud, CLICK HERE. Tashiro v. Jordan, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/278/123.html

THIS CLAIM IS ENTIRELY FAKE AND FABRICATED:

41). Your cut and paste claim: The United States Supreme Court quite thoroughly expanded on the two classes
of citizenship
in the case Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, where it said: "...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states, which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested."Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;
RESPONSE: Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this false claim. If this claim were actually true, then the author of this false claim would have provided a long list of Supreme Court cases showing proof that the Supreme Court had "quite thoroughly expanded on the [alleged] two classes of citizenship." But, this author did not do this. This is because The United States Supreme Court NEVER "thoroughly expanded on the [alleged] two classes of citizenship" in the Maxwell case. The Maxwell case was NOT about TWO ALLEGED CLASSES OF CITIZENSHIP. The Maxwell case was about TWO CLASSES OF "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES". (The Maxwell case itself is already explained above.).

42). Your cut and paste claim: These two classes of citizenship continue to this day,
"Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. 14,§ 1."
Jones v Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1993);
RESPONSE: First of all, this case was later vacated by 10th Circuit Court Of Appeals. For proof, CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3471263521112773139&q="Jones+v.+Temmer"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. Regardless in this case, certain foreigners who sought to open a new taxi cab service in Denver sued various government officials for enforcing state laws that made it difficult for new taxi cab services to enter the market place. The foreigners argued that the subject state laws violated their rights under the "privileges and immunities" clause and the "equal protection" clause of the fourteen amendment. In response, the court wrote, "By its terms, § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment [the "privileges and immunities" clause] protects only 'persons born or naturalized in the United States.' By his own admission, plaintiff Ebong is neither... . The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873). Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. Id. TRANSLATION: Our rights come from TWO DIFFERENT SOVEREIGNS at the same time, NOT ONE. Our rights come from BOTH the United States AND from the state of the United States in which we reside. The "privileges and immunities" clause of the fourteenth amendment DOES NOT PROTECT against abridgment BY THE STATES of those rights THAT COME FROM THE STATE. Instead, the "privileges and immunities" clause of the fourteenth amendment ONLY protects against abridgment BY THE STATES of all those "privileges and immunities" THAT COME FROM THE UNITED STATES. In order to enforce rights THAT COME FROM THE STATES, you must use STATE law, not FEDERAL law (of which the "privileges and immunities" clause is a part). Thus, this case does not mean that that fourteenth amendment does not protect citizens of the state in the United States where that citizen resides. To the contrary, it does. But, it ONLY protects against abridgement BY THE STATES of those rights THAT ACTUALLY COME FROM THE UNITED STATES, AND NOT THOSE RIGHTS THAT COME FROM THE STATE OF THE UNITED STATES IN WHICH THAT PERSON RESIDES. NOTE THAT THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT TWO ALLEGED CLASSES OF CITIZENS. THIS CASE IS ABOUT TWO CLASSES OF "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES".

THIS "LAW" IS ENTIRELY FAKE AND FABRICATED:

NOTE THAT THE AMATEUR AUTHOR OF THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT KNOW THAT "SOVEREIGNTY" IS A TERM THAT ONLY APPLIES TO "WE THE PEOPLE" COLLECTIVELY IN THE FORM OF THE GOVERNMENT OF "WE THE PEOPLE", NOT TO INDIVIDUALS

43). Your cut and paste claim: Because there are 2 classes of citizens, and also because of circumstances that will become known below, it is necessary to assert your sovereignty. In order to understand how and why you assert your sovereignty, we need to have some background knowledge.
RESPONSE: This amateur author mistakenly believes that a "SOVEREIGN" is an INDIVIDUAL and that the government of 'We the People" is the enemy of the "SOVEREIGN". But, this is exactly backwards. The "SOVEREIGN" is "We the People" COLLECTIVELY in the form of the government of "We the People". The INDIVIDUAL is not "SOVEREIGN" (a GOVERNMENT of "We the People"). CLICK HERE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...+v.+City+Services&hl=en&as_sdt=40006&as_vis=1. "The SOVEREIGNTY has been transferred from one man [A KING/MONARCH] to the COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE PEOPLE [CALLED THE "STATE"] —and HE WHO BEFORE WAS A "SUBJECT" OF A KING "IS NOW A CITIZEN OF THE STATE.'" CLICK HERE http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/Sovereign.aspx; https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/...lish/sovereign].

THIS "LAW" IS ENTIRELY FAKE AND FABRICATED:

44). Your cut and paste claim: A state citizen is one of "We the People" found in the preamble to the constitution.
RESPONSE: This is true. But, it is also true that "We the People" as found in the preamble to the United States Constitution are United States Citizens as well (under the principle of "dual sovereignty"). FACT: Every citizen of the United States is also a citizen of the individual state or territory in which he/she resides. This is called "DUAL CITIZENSHIP". CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...es"+"fourteenth+amendment"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006.

THIS "LAW" IS ENTIRELY FAKE AND FABRICATED:

45). Your cut and paste claim: You can be in a state without being in the United States.
RESPONSE: Not so. You CANNOT be a citizen of a state IN THE UNITED STATES, without also being a citizen of the UNION OF STATES in which that state is itself a member. FACT: Every citizen of the United States is also a citizen of the individual state or territory in which he/she resides. This is called "DUAL CITIZENSHIP". CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15343542124860317253&q="dual+citizenship"+state+"United+States"+"fourteenth+amendment"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006.

THIS "LAW" IS ENTIRELY FAKE AND FABRICATED:

Your cut-and-paste claim: In fact, if you read their codes, the United States in the United States Code is the District of Columbia and the Territories. The Puerto Rico website even talks about it.
RESPONSE: Not so, the territorial jurisdiction of the United States includes all of the territory of every state in the union, plus all U.S territories (such as Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S Virgin Islands), plus all navigable inland waters, plus all U.S. coastal waters within 12 miles of U.S. shore. The FEDERAL statutes are only limited to certain smaller territories IF, AND ONLY IF, THE ACTUAL WORDS OF THE SUBJECT STATUTE SAYS SO. Otherwise, the FEDERAL law applies to all STATE and FEDERAL territories WITHOUT LIMITATION.

46). What is a US citizen?
RESPONSE: A citizen of an individual state in the United States.



KNOWLEDGE IS POWER
RESPONSE: Yes, but knowledge of (and belief in) a falsehood IS A WEAKNESS.




Attachments area

Preview YouTube video Judge Hysterically Owns a Sovereign Citizen



Judge Hysterically Owns a Sovereign Citizen
 
Last edited:

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,190
Likes
5,703
Location
right here right now
:stfu:

More FAKE NEWS about FAKE LAW delivered in his moronic FAKE ad hominum nauseating SCREAMING DIALOG.

Go back to where you came from, HELL.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,621
Likes
5,922
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
You are correct in realizing that the one and only way to resolve a dispute about the correct status of the law is by reading the actual words of the real law itself (not amateur legal theories
Cool you actually agree in law by writing/using "...the actual words..."

Now may I direct your attention to the USA charter known as the constitution in Amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now I know you think you know what you know as truth but what you know as truth is a fraud as a car or any vehicle, what ever you want to call it, has a curtilage. As having a curtilage just as a house has a curtilage it needs a warrant based upon probable cause to enter and to search. The warrant will allow the cop to arrest the one behind the wheel and all those in the car. DO NOT CONFUSE ARREST WITH CUSTODY. Arrest is when your freedom of movement has been arrested and to be arrested is also being made to do something by some one that you do not want to do. What this means is when I am letting the cop go by and I pull over and he pulls over behind me is quint essentially a fact that I have been arrested already. AND, the big question is "Where is his warrant?"

First thing a cops says is "Do you know why I pulled you over?"
second is "Drivers license and registration and proof of insurance."

So what the cop is saying is I pulled over on my own accord and this is how the court looks at it but that is not what happened. Next when the cop asks for identification then this is proof that he did not get a warrant for the arrest and the search. And, you agree with this fraud?

You think you can legislate around a charter or a constitution? Well snoop U aren't for truth because if you were you would not have missed the 4th amendment but not you just skirted around it because its in your way to propagate fraud. Haven't you ever wondered why a cop swears to uphold the constitution and as a regular business procedure breaks his oath and commits fraud? I don't care about a fine or anything that is consequential as an after effect that that cop could call his regular duties, I am after the arrest.

As the arrest has been fraudulently applied then so is the rest of any proceeding that deals with that arrest a fraud. The impaired contract that results in that arrest is null because any contract that has fraud in it is a dead contract and for that contract to live the fraud must be extracted from said contract.

So there s4t: Unless you understand this 4th amendment, which you obviously don't, you would not be listing copious amounts of nothingness to further YOUR view of case law in support of some system of fraud that is perpetrated on the populace every day. AND, it really does not matter if you or I have a drivers license or not as the fact of the matter the cop has not obtained the warrant first for the arrest therefore every thing that follows is fruit of a poisoned tree. REMEMBER THESE WORDS: "Intent follows the bullet."

The cops intent was to BREAK THE LAW to obtain money so he can feed his face and purchase diapers for his baby. He is doing the same thing as a robber only the court considers the robber a more crude creature than the cop, in essence they are both the same along with the court. There is no difference when fraud is afoot.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
194
Likes
10
Snoop dogiee and I mean that in the most sincere way. Answer me this: "Have you ever received a ticket for a traffic infraction?"; "Did any of your traffic infractions carry a collateral consequence?"

These are loaded questions and you will learn the simple truth and you cannot copy and paste us all to death over these questions.

I don't care what ron class is doing neither do I care about any common law stuff, nope we be heading into charter and statute law and you are going to get schooled.
Cool you actually agree in law by writing/using "...the actual words..."

Now may I direct your attention to the USA charter known as the constitution in Amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now I know you think you know what you know as truth but what you know as truth is a fraud as a car or any vehicle, what ever you want to call it, has a curtilage. As having a curtilage just as a house has a curtilage it needs a warrant based upon probable cause to enter and to search. The warrant will allow the cop to arrest the one behind the wheel and all those in the car. DO NOT CONFUSE ARREST WITH CUSTODY. Arrest is when your freedom of movement has been arrested and to be arrested is also being made to do something by some one that you do not want to do. What this means is when I am letting the cop go by and I pull over and he pulls over behind me is quint essentially a fact that I have been arrested already. AND, the big question is "Where is his warrant?"

First thing a cops says is "Do you know why I pulled you over?"
second is "Drivers license and registration and proof of insurance."

So what the cop is saying is I pulled over on my own accord and this is how the court looks at it but that is not what happened. Next when the cop asks for identification then this is proof that he did not get a warrant for the arrest and the search. And, you agree with this fraud?

You think you can legislate around a charter or a constitution? Well snoop U aren't for truth because if you were you would not have missed the 4th amendment but not you just skirted around it because its in your way to propagate fraud. Haven't you ever wondered why a cop swears to uphold the constitution and as a regular business procedure breaks his oath and commits fraud? I don't care about a fine or anything that is consequential as an after effect that that cop could call his regular duties, I am after the arrest.

As the arrest has been fraudulently applied then so is the rest of any proceeding that deals with that arrest a fraud. The impaired contract that results in that arrest is null because any contract that has fraud in it is a dead contract and for that contract to live the fraud must be extracted from said contract.

So there s4t: Unless you understand this 4th amendment, which you obviously don't, you would not be listing copious amounts of nothingness to further YOUR view of case law in support of some system of fraud that is perpetrated on the populace every day. AND, it really does not matter if you or I have a drivers license or not as the fact of the matter the cop has not obtained the warrant first for the arrest therefore every thing that follows is fruit of a poisoned tree. REMEMBER THESE WORDS: "Intent follows the bullet."

The cops intent was to BREAK THE LAW to obtain money so he can feed his face and purchase diapers for his baby. He is doing the same thing as a robber only the court considers the robber a more crude creature than the cop, in essence they are both the same along with the court. There is no difference when fraud is afoot.
Hello Michael59,

This comment is, by far, the most intelligent, rational, logical, coherent and literate work you have ever posted.

1, Cool you actually agree in law by writing/using "...the actual words..."
RESPONSE: Yes.

2. Now may I direct your attention to the USA charter known as the constitution in Amendment IV:
RESPONSE: OK. Take note of the bold type below.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against UNREASONABLE [this is the most important word] searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

WHAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT SAY
But, note what the fourth amendment does not say. The fourth amendment does not say that every search and seizure requires a warrant. It only says that IF a search warrant is issued, it must be based upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The fourth amendment does not say every arrest (much less every traffic stop) requires a warrant.

3. Now I know you think you know what you know as truth but what you know as truth is a fraud as a car or any vehicle, what ever you want to call it, has a curtilage. As having a curtilage just as a house has a curtilage it needs a warrant based upon probable cause to enter and to search. The warrant will allow the cop to arrest the one behind the wheel and all those in the car.
RESPONSE: Whether or not the term, "curtilage", applies to motor vehicles, it is true that the fourth amendment applies to motor vehicles and their drivers. CLICK HERE and scroll down to the 4th paragraph. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3416424011044753637&q="fourth+amendment"+"traffic+violation"&hl=en&as_sdt=40003. That case reads, "The Fourth Amendment guarantees "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures." Temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a "seizure" of "persons" within the meaning of this provision. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 653 (1979); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, 556 (1976); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 878 (1975). An automobile stop is thus subject to the constitutional imperative that it NOT BE 'UNREASONABLE' under the circumstances. As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile IS REASONABLE where the police have PROBABLE CAUSE to believe that a TRAFFIC VIOLATION has occurred. See Prouse, supra, at 659; Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106, 109 (1977) (per curiam)."

DO NOT CONFUSE ARREST WITH CUSTODY. Arrest is when your freedom of movement has been arrested and to be arrested is also being made to do something by some one that you do not want to do. What this means is when I am letting the cop go by and I pull over and he pulls over behind me is quint essentially a fact that I have been arrested already. AND, the big question is "Where is his warrant?"
RESPONSE: He has no warrant. No warrant is required. For proof, CLICK HERE and scroll down to the final paragraph. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3416424011044753637&q="fourth+amendment"+"traffic+violation"&hl=en&as_sdt=40003. That case reads, "[T]he officers HAD PROBABLE CAUSE to believe that petitioners HAD VIOLATED THE TRAFFIC CODE. That [PROBABLE CAUSE] rendered the [traffic] stop REASONABLE under the Fourth Amendment [without a warrant]... ."

First thing a cops says is "Do you know why I pulled you over?"
second is "Drivers license and registration and proof of insurance."
RESPONSE: Agreed.

So what the cop is saying is I pulled over on my own accord and this is how the court looks at it but that is not what happened. Next when the cop asks for identification then this is proof that he did not get a warrant for the arrest and the search. And, you agree with this fraud?
RESPONSE: No. I do not agree that this is fraud. The officer knows the law and is following the law. You simply misunderstand the law.

You think you can legislate around a charter or a constitution?
RESPONSE: No, I do not think that. Legislation that violates the Constitution is stricken down by the courts. The courts will not put up with unconstitutional legislation. Courts protect the people from unconstitutional legislation. Thank God.

Well snoop U aren't for truth because if you were you would not have missed the 4th amendment but not you just skirted around it because its in your way to propagate fraud. Haven't you ever wondered why a cop swears to uphold the constitution and as a regular business procedure breaks his oath and commits fraud? I don't care about a fine or anything that is consequential as an after effect that that cop could call his regular duties, I am after the arrest.
RESPONSE: The reason that you mistakenly believe the cops violate their oaths and engage in fraud is that you have been misinformed about true status of the law. That is the REAL fraud in all of this. And, I intend to help stop it.

As the arrest has been fraudulently applied then so is the rest of any proceeding that deals with that arrest a fraud.
RESPONSE: If the initial stop REALLY WAS unconstitutional, then such is true. This is the old "Fruit Of A Poisonous Tree" Doctrine.

The impaired contract that results in that arrest is null because any contract that has fraud in it is a dead contract and for that contract to live the fraud must be extracted from said contract.
RESPONSE: There is no contract involved. That is just another amateur legal theory.

So there s4t: Unless you understand this 4th amendment, which you obviously don't,
RESPONSE: My understanding of the fourth amendment comes from the actual words of the fourth amendment itself and from the actual words of the Supreme Court Of The United States (quoted above).

you would not be listing copious amounts of nothingness to further YOUR view of case law in support of some system of fraud that is perpetrated on the populace every day.
RESPONSE: I did not write a single word of the REAL law to which I have provided you with links above. So, it is not "MY VIEW' of anything. It is the law, plain and simple. It is the truth.

AND, it really does not matter if you or I have a drivers license or not
RESPONSE: It matters to the REAL law.

as the fact of the matter the cop has not obtained the warrant first for the arrest therefore every thing that follows is fruit of a poisoned tree.
RESPONSE: Not so. No warrant is required.

REMEMBER THESE WORDS: "Intent follows the bullet."
RESPONSE: Sorry Michael. I don't get it. What is this supposed to mean?

The cops intent was to BREAK THE LAW
RESPONSE: Not so. The cop's intent was to follow the law in the course of enforcing the law.

to obtain money so he can feed his face and purchase diapers for his baby.
RESPONSE: The cop doesn't receive the money you pay in traffic fines. The state does.

He is doing the same thing as a robber only the court considers the robber a more crude creature than the cop, in essence they are both the same along with the court. There is no difference when fraud is afoot.
RESPONSE: No fraud on the part of the cop is afoot. The only fraud afoot is the fraud committed by those who peddle amateur legal theories as if they were the law. They are not. They are FAKE. They are the REAL FRAUD.

I hope this helps,

All The Best,
Snoop
 
Last edited:

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
36,443
Likes
52,041
Location
Rocky Mountains
see how simple this is? Concise and to the point.

18 U.S.C. § 31 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 31. Definitions
(a)Definitions.—In this chapter, the following definitions apply:

(1)Aircraft.—
The term “aircraft” means a civil, military, or public contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, fly, or travel in the air.​
(2)Aviation quality.—
The term “aviation quality”, with respect to a part of an aircraft or space vehicle, means the quality of having been manufactured, constructed, produced, maintained, repaired, overhauled, rebuilt, reconditioned, or restored in conformity with applicable standards specified by law (including applicable regulations).​
(3)Destructive substance.—
The term “destructive substance” means an explosive substance, flammable material, infernal machine, or other chemical, mechanical, or radioactive device or matter of a combustible, contaminative, corrosive, or explosive nature.​

(4)In flight.—The term “in flight” means—
(A)​
any time from the moment at which all the external doors of an aircraft are closed following embarkation until the moment when any such door is opened for disembarkation; and​

(B)​
in the case of a forced landing, until competent authorities take over the responsibility for the aircraft and the persons and property on board.​

(5)In service.—The term “in service” means—
(A)​
any time from the beginning of preflight preparation of an aircraft by ground personnel or by the crew for a specific flight until 24 hours after any landing; and​

(B)​
in any event includes the entire period during which the aircraft is in flight.​
(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.
(7)Part.—
The term “part” means a frame, assembly, component, appliance, engine, propeller, material, part, spare part, piece, section, or related integral or auxiliary equipment.​
(8)Space vehicle.—
The term “space vehicle” means a man-made device, either manned or unmanned, designed for operation beyond the Earth’s atmosphere.​
(9)State.—
The term “State” means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.​
(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.

(b)Terms Defined in Other Law.—
In this chapter, the terms “aircraft engine”, “air navigation facility”, “appliance”, “civil aircraft”, “foreign air commerce”, “interstate air commerce”, “landing area”, “overseas air commerce”, “propeller”, “spare part”, and “special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States” have the meanings given those terms in sections 40102(a) and 46501 of title 49.

(Added July 14, 1956, ch. 595, § 1, 70 Stat. 538; amended Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §§ 1010, 2013(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2141, 2187; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7015, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4395; Pub. L. 103–272, § 5(e)(1), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1373; Pub. L. 106–181, title V, § 506(b), Apr. 5, 2000, 114 Stat. 136.)

LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.
 
Last edited:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,621
Likes
5,922
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
This comment is, by far, the most intelligent, rational, logical, coherent and literate work you have ever posted.
Look bonehead if you want to go tell me to flip burgers then say it. Don't couch your words in ambiguities.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,621
Likes
5,922
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
shit snoop you missed the point. Tell me then oh grate one WTF is a reasonable search or arrest? OH YEAH it is one done with due process, its how the gumbyment covers their ass's. You make your first point in pointing out "unreasonable searches." AND, that is what a traffic stop is as you have already been arrested. As intent follows the bullet it is then that the intent of the cop is to NOT follow his oath. He the cop cannot go get a warrant to arrest and search because he has already arrested somebody for having the wrong paint schedule on their beater.

There is a couple things you should know.
ONE: any one can arrest whomevers for disturbing the peace.
TWO: any one can arrest whomevers for committing a felony in their presence.
THREE: any one can upon probable cause get a warrant for an arrest of anyone.
These are the three ways to get arrested inside the bounds of the 50.

So let me ask you a question: As the only way one can get arrested for treason is making war against the state does not, not following the traffic laws constitute war against the state? hahah sorry as I just had to point out that you cannot harm a fiction unless you make war against it and not having your boogers cleaned out of your nose just does not get anywhere close to making war against the state.

You know s4t I would read your whole post but I have a problem. My problem is when my shit detector starts clanging I veer the good ship obvious away from the obstruction.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
194
Likes
10
see how simple this is? Concise and to the point.

18 U.S.C. § 31 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 31. Definitions

(a)Definitions.—In this chapter, the following definitions apply:

(1)Aircraft.—
The term “aircraft” means a civil, military, or public contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, fly, or travel in the air.​

(2)Aviation quality.—
The term “aviation quality”, with respect to a part of an aircraft or space vehicle, means the quality of having been manufactured, constructed, produced, maintained, repaired, overhauled, rebuilt, reconditioned, or restored in conformity with applicable standards specified by law (including applicable regulations).​

(3)Destructive substance.—
The term “destructive substance” means an explosive substance, flammable material, infernal machine, or other chemical, mechanical, or radioactive device or matter of a combustible, contaminative, corrosive, or explosive nature.​

(4)In flight.—The term “in flight” means—
(A)​
any time from the moment at which all the external doors of an aircraft are closed following embarkation until the moment when any such door is opened for disembarkation; and​

(B)​
in the case of a forced landing, until competent authorities take over the responsibility for the aircraft and the persons and property on board.​


(5)In service.—The term “in service” means—
(A)​
any time from the beginning of preflight preparation of an aircraft by ground personnel or by the crew for a specific flight until 24 hours after any landing; and​

(B)​
in any event includes the entire period during which the aircraft is in flight.​


(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.

(7)Part.—
The term “part” means a frame, assembly, component, appliance, engine, propeller, material, part, spare part, piece, section, or related integral or auxiliary equipment.​

(8)Space vehicle.—
The term “space vehicle” means a man-made device, either manned or unmanned, designed for operation beyond the Earth’s atmosphere.​

(9)State.—
The term “State” means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.​

(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.


(b)Terms Defined in Other Law.—
In this chapter, the terms “aircraft engine”, “air navigation facility”, “appliance”, “civil aircraft”, “foreign air commerce”, “interstate air commerce”, “landing area”, “overseas air commerce”, “propeller”, “spare part”, and “special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States” have the meanings given those terms in sections 40102(a) and 46501 of title 49.

(Added July 14, 1956, ch. 595, § 1, 70 Stat. 538; amended Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §§ 1010, 2013(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2141, 2187; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7015, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4395; Pub. L. 103–272, § 5(e)(1), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1373; Pub. L. 106–181, title V, § 506(b), Apr. 5, 2000, 114 Stat. 136.)

LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.
Goldhedge,

RESPONSE: Note the very first words at the very top of these definitions. It reads, "(a)Definitions.—[As used] In THIS chapter, the following definitions apply:"

TRANSLATION: These definitions DO NOT APPLY to other chapters or to other laws, including STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE LAWS.

FACT: Other chapters, including state driver's license laws, HAVE THEIR OWN SEPARATE DEFINITIONS OF THESE TERMS and they are not limited vehicles or drivers engaged in "interstate commerce".

I.O. TEST: Got any idea why these federal definitions are limited to commerce?

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
194
Likes
10
shit snoop you missed the point. Tell me then oh grate one WTF is a reasonable search or arrest? OH YEAH it is one done with due process, its how the gumbyment covers their ass's. You make your first point in pointing out "unreasonable searches." AND, that is what a traffic stop is as you have already been arrested. As intent follows the bullet it is then that the intent of the cop is to NOT follow his oath. He the cop cannot go get a warrant to arrest and search because he has already arrested somebody for having the wrong paint schedule on their beater.

There is a couple things you should know.
ONE: any one can arrest whomevers for disturbing the peace.
TWO: any one can arrest whomevers for committing a felony in their presence.
THREE: any one can upon probable cause get a warrant for an arrest of anyone.
These are the three ways to get arrested inside the bounds of the 50.

So let me ask you a question: As the only way one can get arrested for treason is making war against the state does not, not following the traffic laws constitute war against the state? hahah sorry as I just had to point out that you cannot harm a fiction unless you make war against it and not having your boogers cleaned out of your nose just does not get anywhere close to making war against the state.

You know s4t I would read your whole post but I have a problem. My problem is when my shit detector starts clanging I veer the good ship obvious away from the obstruction.
Michael59,

Thank you for your comments.


1, shit snoop you missed the point.
RESPONSE: Not so. The law that I posted above was directly responsive to your questions on the same legal subject and the law that I posted answered your questions directly. So, if your questions were on point, then the law that answered your questions with was also on point.

2. Tell me then oh grate one WTF is a reasonable search or arrest?
RESPONSE: Under the law, it is a search or arrest that is reasonable under all the surrounding circumstances and one that complies with all the requirements of the law. NEWS FLASH: It is not a violation of the Constitution Of The United States for an officer to make a traffic stop and issue a traffic ticket without a warrant.

3. OH YEAH it is one done with due process, its how the gumbyment covers their ass's.
RESPONSE: The government of "We the People" does not need to cover its asses. It is not in violation of any law so as to need any cover. NEWS FLASH: It is not a violation of the Constitution Of The United States for an officer to make a traffic stop and issue a traffic ticket without a warrant.

4. You make your first point in pointing out "unreasonable searches."
RESPONSE: The word "reasonable" was not mine. It was an original word of the fourth amendment which was written by the Constitutional delegates who wrote the Constitution Of The United States. That word means what it means. I did not write it. I did not define it. The courts have defined it. I merely posted that law for you in direct response to your question about a warrantless traffic stop.

5. AND, that is what a traffic stop is as you have already been arrested.
RESPONSE: Do you have a case that says a traffic stop is an arrest or search which requires a warrant? If there is no case that says a traffic stop is an arrest or search which requires a warrant, then it is not an arrest or search which requires a warrant. It is that simple.

6. As intent follows the bullet it is then that the intent of the cop is to NOT follow his oath.
RESPONSE: Under the law (that I have already provided to you), no warrant is required. So, it is impossible for the officer to violate his oath by making a traffic stop without a warrant (which is not required by any law). NEWS FLASH: It is not a violation of the Constitution Of The United States for an officer to make a traffic stop and issue a traffic ticket without a warrant.

7. He the cop cannot go get a warrant to arrest and search because he has already arrested somebody for having the wrong paint schedule on their beater.
RESPONSE: Do you have a case that says a traffic stop is an arrest or search which requires a warrant? If there is no case that says a traffic stop is an arrest or search which requires a warrant, then it is not an arrest or search which requires a warrant. It is that simple.


8. There is a couple things you should know.
ONE: any one can arrest whomevers for disturbing the peace.
TWO: any one can arrest whomevers for committing a felony in their presence.
THREE: any one can upon probable cause get a warrant for an arrest of anyone.
These are the three ways to get arrested inside the bounds of the 50.
RESPONSE: I take no position on these claims. I have not looked up the law on these subjects.

So let me ask you a question: As the only way one can get arrested for treason is making war against the state does not, not following the traffic laws constitute war against the state? hahah sorry as I just had to point out that you cannot harm a fiction unless you make war against it and not having your boogers cleaned out of your nose just does not get anywhere close to making war against the state.
RESPONSE: To the extent that you contend a victim is required for there to be a traffic offense and the state cannot be a victim, you are mistaken. While a victim is required in tort law, no victim is required in criminal and traffic law. Indeed, a primary purpose of criminal and traffic law is to prevent there from being victims in the first place (requirement of a driver's license, requirement of obeying traffic control devices and speed limits, etc.).

You know s4t I would read your whole post but I have a problem. My problem is when my shit detector starts clanging I veer the good ship obvious away from the obstruction
RESPONSE: Respectfully, your shit detector needs to be serviced and re-calibrated. You are indeed being lied to. But, not by me.

All The Best,

Snoop
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
36,443
Likes
52,041
Location
Rocky Mountains

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,621
Likes
5,922
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Snoop you have just demonstrated that you know nothing about law, how sad for you. You say you do and you seem to try but the sad fact is you miss the point,

You seem to think that the constitution can be legislated around and this is just not so.
RESPONSE: Under the law, it is a search or arrest that is reasonable under all the surrounding circumstances and one that complies with all the requirements of the law.
now reread your statement and ask yourself "What does the fourth amendment leave for interpretation and whos interpretation will be used?"

The original law on arrest dictates verbatim that all arrests shall be made upon warrant based upon probable cause. You were given two common law ways to be arrested as "Disturbing the peace" and "Committing a felony." These two ways to get arrested are instantaneously as on the spot. The fourth amendment's "reasonableness and requirements" dictate warrant based upon probable cause."

You read it but rely on corporational statute law as a over riding truth that trumps original law. And, if you want a today's view of original law just look at the Trump trying to executive order that anchor babies will be done away with. He cannot beat down the original law which allows it ie. the fourteenth amendment and this is today now lets go to the 1700's; England. edited to add that it was most likely the 1600's.

There was this King and he made it law that all Protestant church buildings be boarded up and these people not be allowed to congregate and worship, but they did. While they never went inside the buildings they gathered in the street and two of this crowd were arrested. At their trial the judge coerced the jury to convict on the dictates as he seen them. These two men appealed and it was reasoned out that they had broke no law because the "Grate Charter" aka Magna Carta and the "Forest Charter" granted religious freedom and there fore these two men were not guilty of something that was allowed and the King could not make a law against something that is allowed.

Now here is where you are missing the point: The fourth amendment allows arrest on warrant based upon probable cause, that is all it allows. Yet you seem to think that cops and judges are some kind of mystical creatures that carry and have mystical power to circumvent what they themselves have sworn to uphold. To circumvent original law by statute law is a fraud and is over ruled. As the fraud is taken out of the impaired contract the contract cannot live and is therefore void of law as it was from the beginning.

So keep digging your boat out off the 4th amendment shoals because the waves of the constitution are going to beat it to death and if you cannot get off this shoal then you are going to have a lot of swimming to do in this sea of charter law.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
194
Likes
10
the Commerce Clause of Article I?
RESPONSE: CORRECT!!! Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution.
CLICK HERE.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause.

Under this clause, the FEDERAL government is expressly authorized to regulate motor vehicles insofar AND ONLY INSOFAR as those vehicles are engaged in INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Under the tenth amendment, THE STATES are empowered to regulate motor vehicles insofar as those vehicles ARE NOT ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. CLICK HERE. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment

A+

Congratulations,

Snoop
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
194
Likes
10
Snoop you have just demonstrated that you know nothing about law, how sad for you. You say you do and you seem to try but the sad fact is you miss the point,

You seem to think that the constitution can be legislated around and this is just not so.
now reread your statement and ask yourself "What does the fourth amendment leave for interpretation and whos interpretation will be used?"

The original law on arrest dictates verbatim that all arrests shall be made upon warrant based upon probable cause. You were given two common law ways to be arrested as "Disturbing the peace" and "Committing a felony." These two ways to get arrested are instantaneously as on the spot. The fourth amendment's "reasonableness and requirements" dictate warrant based upon probable cause."

You read it but rely on corporational statute law as a over riding truth that trumps original law. And, if you want a today's view of original law just look at the Trump trying to executive order that anchor babies will be done away with. He cannot beat down the original law which allows it ie. the fourteenth amendment and this is today now lets go to the 1700's; England. edited to add that it was most likely the 1600's.

There was this King and he made it law that all Protestant church buildings be boarded up and these people not be allowed to congregate and worship, but they did. While they never went inside the buildings they gathered in the street and two of this crowd were arrested. At their trial the judge coerced the jury to convict on the dictates as he seen them. These two men appealed and it was reasoned out that they had broke no law because the "Grate Charter" aka Magna Carta and the "Forest Charter" granted religious freedom and there fore these two men were not guilty of something that was allowed and the King could not make a law against something that is allowed.

Now here is where you are missing the point: The fourth amendment allows arrest on warrant based upon probable cause, that is all it allows. Yet you seem to think that cops and judges are some kind of mystical creatures that carry and have mystical power to circumvent what they themselves have sworn to uphold. To circumvent original law by statute law is a fraud and is over ruled. As the fraud is taken out of the impaired contract the contract cannot live and is therefore void of law as it was from the beginning.

So keep digging your boat out off the 4th amendment shoals because the waves of the constitution are going to beat it to death and if you cannot get off this shoal then you are going to have a lot of swimming to do in this sea of charter law.
1. You seem to think that the constitution can be legislated around and this is just not so.
RESPONSE: Not so. The decisions of the Supreme Court Of The United States are not "legislation".

2. now reread your statement and ask yourself "What does the fourth amendment leave for interpretation?
RESPONSE: a). the definition of "reasonable"; b). the definition of "arrest" (meaning whether and to what extent a traffic stop is a true arrest); c). whether the fourth amendment even requires a warrant for every arrest in the first place merely because it permits warrants; and d). whether the fourth amendment requires a warrant for every traffic stop (something that the Supreme Court Of The United States has already ruled is not required by the fourth amendment).

3. and whose interpretation will be used?"
RESPONSE: The Supreme Court Of The United States.

4. The original law on arrest dictates verbatim that all arrests shall be made upon warrant based upon probable cause.
RESPONSE: Got a case that says a traffic stop is an arrest which requires a warrant? If no such case exists, then a traffic stop is not an arrest which requires a warrant? It is that simple. Got a case which "dictates verbatim" that all arrests require a warrant? If no such case exists, then all arrests do not require a warrant. It is that simple.

5. You were given two common law ways to be arrested as "Disturbing the peace" and "Committing a felony." These two ways to get arrested are instantaneously as on the spot. The fourth amendment's "reasonableness and requirements" dictate warrant based upon probable cause."
RESPONSE: Got a case that says this? If no case says this, then it is not the law. It is that simple.

6. You read it but rely on corporational statute law as a over riding truth that trumps original law.
RESPONSE: Not so. I have NOT relied upon, cited or linked to a single "statute" in connection with this subject. I have only relied upon the common law (case law) when searching for definitions and answers.

7. And, if you want a today's view of original law just look at the Trump trying to executive order that anchor babies will be done away with. He cannot beat down the original law which allows it ie. the fourteenth amendment and this is today now lets go to the 1700's; England. edited to add that it was most likely the 1600's.

There was this King and he made it law that all Protestant church buildings be boarded up and these people not be allowed to congregate and worship, but they did. While they never went inside the buildings they gathered in the street and two of this crowd were arrested. At their trial the judge coerced the jury to convict on the dictates as he seen them. These two men appealed and it was reasoned out that they had broke no law because the "Grate Charter" aka Magna Carta and the "Forest Charter" granted religious freedom and there fore these two men were not guilty of something that was allowed and the King could not make a law against something that is allowed.

Now here is where you are missing the point: The fourth amendment allows arrest on warrant based upon probable cause, that is all it allows. Yet you seem to think that cops and judges are some kind of mystical creatures that carry and have mystical power to circumvent what they themselves have sworn to uphold.
RESPONSE: Cops are not empowered to interpret anything. The Supreme Court is. Your interpretation of the fourteenth amendment is just different than the that of the United States Supreme Court. That does not make the Supreme Court wrong.

8. To circumvent original law by statute law is a fraud and is over ruled.
RESPONSE: The decisions of the Supreme Court Of The United States are not "legislation". The decisions of the Supreme Court Of The United States do not "circumvent" anything. They reinforce they original intent of the original words of the Constitution. The mere fact that you have a different interpretation does not make your interpretation legally correct. The justices on the Supreme Court Of The United State are in a far better position to know the original intent of the Constitutional framers than you are. They have spent a life time studying that original intent.

9. As the fraud is taken out of the impaired contract the contract cannot live and is therefore void of law as it was from the beginning.
RESPONSE: There is no fraud. There is no contract. Both are imaginary and the result of misunderstanding or fraud themselves.

WHAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT SAY
The fourth amendment does not say that every search and seizure requires a warrant. It only says that IF a search warrant is issued, it must be based upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The fourth amendment does not say every arrest (much less every traffic stop) requires a warrant.


All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,621
Likes
5,922
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
You know I do think I seen a lot of it's just that simples.

First of all, restriction of movement is an arrest if it wasn't there would be no car chases. Yes and "It's just that simple." So yes the forth amendment applies to traffic stops.

And, how you got supreme court out of a statement about the constitution is kind of strange.

number five is common law and for some reason you just posted that, that is where you get all your info....reallyo_O

and, you number seven reply? I stated they circumvent the constitution and for some reason you think I ment interpretation?:tongue:

and, here you go again with interpretation when the intent of the statement is about circumventing the forth amendment which is the whole gist of the reply.:oops:

and, number nine? Do you not know what an impaired contract is at all? Your drivers license is an impaired contract, your tax bill is an impaired contract in fact anything issuing out of the STATE is an impaired contract. Going to court and getting fined is an impaired contract even a death sentence is an impaired contract. As all these things are impaired contracts they can have no fraud in them to be viable.

Look get what you think I am saying out of your head and pay attention to the actual words I am using. I don't care about what the sitting crows have ruled on as my whole intent is and has been on the fourth amendment and you are just going off on what you think I mean. I'll come up with the law cites and cases as I have them somewhere.
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,190
Likes
5,703
Location
right here right now
All you guys are doing is feeding this moron troll.

He will never see the truth, too blinded by all the vested interest public policy money lawyers steal from society.
 

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
5,910
Likes
23,867
Location
third cove on the right
All you guys are doing is feeding this moron troll.

He will never see the truth, too blinded by all the vested interest public policy money lawyers steal from society.

FTFY

He will never stop muddying the waters because that is what he is paid to do
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
194
Likes
10
You know I do think I seen a lot of it's just that simples.

First of all, restriction of movement is an arrest if it wasn't there would be no car chases. Yes and "It's just that simple." So yes the forth amendment applies to traffic stops.

And, how you got supreme court out of a statement about the constitution is kind of strange.

number five is common law and for some reason you just posted that, that is where you get all your info....reallyo_O

and, you number seven reply? I stated they circumvent the constitution and for some reason you think I ment interpretation?:tongue:

and, here you go again with interpretation when the intent of the statement is about circumventing the forth amendment which is the whole gist of the reply.:oops:

and, number nine? Do you not know what an impaired contract is at all? Your drivers license is an impaired contract, your tax bill is an impaired contract in fact anything issuing out of the STATE is an impaired contract. Going to court and getting fined is an impaired contract even a death sentence is an impaired contract. As all these things are impaired contracts they can have no fraud in them to be viable.

Look get what you think I am saying out of your head and pay attention to the actual words I am using. I don't care about what the sitting crows have ruled on as my whole intent is and has been on the fourth amendment and you are just going off on what you think I mean. I'll come up with the law cites and cases as I have them somewhere.
Michael59,

1. You know I do think I seen a lot of it's just that simples.
RESPONSE: If a legal proposition is written in the actual words of the law, then it is the law. If a legal proposition is not written in the actual written words of the law, then it is not he law. So, it really is that simple. The law is the law. You can argue that you do not like the law. You can argue that you would like the warrant provision in the fourth amendment to be expanded to apply to all traffic stops. But, you cannot pretend that the law is not the law. It is.

2. First of all, restriction of movement is an arrest if it wasn't there would be no car chases.
RESPONSE: An arrest is what the law says it is, not what you say it is. If there is a case that says any restriction of movement (including a traffic stop) is an arrest which requires a warrant, then a traffic stop is an arrest which requires a warrant. But, if there is no case that says any restriction of movement (including a traffic stop) is an arrest which requires a warrant, then a traffic stop is not an arrest which requires a warrant. An arrest is what the actual written words of the law says it is, not what you say it is.

3. Yes and "It's just that simple." So yes the forth amendment applies to traffic stops.
RESPONSE: Because the law (that I provided to you yesterday) says that that the fourth amendment applies to traffic stops, then the fourth amendment applies to traffic stops. Not because you say so, but because the actual written words law itself says so.

4. And, how you got supreme court out of a statement about the constitution is kind of strange.
RESPONSE: It was in direct response to your question as to whose interpretation of the fourth amendment is used. Is a direct answer to your own question really strange to you?

5. number five is common law and for some reason you just posted that, that is where you get all your info....reallyo_O
RESPONSE: When it comes to the common law (case law), if there is a case that says something is the law, then it is the law. When it comes to the common law (case law), if there is no case that says something is the law, then it is not the law. Yes. Most answers to legal questions are found in the common law (case law). So, yes, that is where I get most of my information.

6. and, you number seven reply? I stated they circumvent the constitution and for some reason you think I meant interpretation?:tongue:
RESPONSE: Cops and judges do not circumvent anything. They enforce the law as it is actually written in the written words of the law itself. Its just that you do not know the law, so you mistakenly believe the cops and the judges circumvent the law. But, they do not.

7. and, here you go again with interpretation when the intent of the statement is about circumventing the forth amendment which is the whole gist of the reply.:oops:
RESPONSE: Cops and judges do not circumvent anything. They enforce the law as it is actually written in the written words of the law itself. Its just that you do not know the law, so you mistakenly believe the cops and the judges circumvent the law. But, they do not.

8. and, number nine? Do you not know what an impaired contract is at all? Your drivers license is an impaired contract, your tax bill is an impaired contract in fact anything issuing out of the STATE is an impaired contract. Going to court and getting fined is an impaired contract even a death sentence is an impaired contract. As all these things are impaired contracts they can have no fraud in them to be viable.
RESPONSE: Yes. I know what an impaired contract is. But, under the actual written words of the law itself, a driver's license is not a contract, much less an impaired contract. CLICK HERE and then CLCIK ON the cases provided.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=40006&q="A+driver's+license+is+not+a+contract"&btnG=. If there is no case that says a tax bill is an impaired contract, then it is not an impaired contract. If there is no case that says everything issued by the state is an impaired contract, then everything issued by state it is not an impaired contract. If there is no case that says going to court and getting fined is an impaired contract, then going to court and getting fined is not an impaired contract. If there is no case that a death sentence is an impaired contract, then a death sentence not an impaired contract. It is that simple. It is true that fraud vitiates contracts, but that rule only applies to REAL contracts, not imaginary ones of the type you have listed above.

9. Look get what you think I am saying out of your head and pay attention to the actual words I am using. I don't care about what the sitting crows have ruled on as my whole intent is and has been on the fourth amendment and you are just going off on what you think I mean. I'll come up with the law cites and cases as I have them somewhere
RESPONSE: You should care about what he sitting crows have ruled, because they have already ruled on how the fourth amendment applies to traffic stops and they have already ruled that no warrant is required. I sent you that law yesterday. That law is called "precedent" and it will be followed by all other courts in the United States. So, unless you have a cite to a new Supreme Court case that overturned the decision that I posted for you yesterday, your cites are worthless. The Supreme Court is the final word on the law. The Supreme Court has already ruled on the matter. So, you are beating a dead horse.

WHAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT SAY
The fourth amendment does not say that every search and seizure (much less a traffic stop) requires a warrant. It only says that IF a warrant is issued, it must be based upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The fourth amendment does not say every arrest (much less every traffic stop) requires a warrant.


All The Best,

Snoop.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
194
Likes
10
Hmmmm



Doesn't the government only have jurisdiction over commerce?

And isn't the government a corporation?

Is the officer an employee of a corporation?

Does submitting answers to the officers questions constitute a contract??

do you not have 72 hours to rescind your signature from any contract?
TRYNEIN,

Doesn't the government only have jurisdiction over commerce?
RESPONSE: No. Between the FEDERAL and STATE governments combined, government has jurisdiction over all persons and all things within their respective borders, no matter what they are. Under Article 1, section 8 provides a list of what legal subjects Congress has jurisdiction to regulate. Only one of the things on that list is INTERSTATE COMMERCE (not all commerce). Under the tenth amendment, the STATES have jurisdiction to regulate EVERYTHING not delegated to the FEDERAL government in the U.S. Constitution (thousands of legal subjects). My first two comments on this thread explain this division of jurisdiction based on subject matter perfectly. I will not duplicate that explanation here.

And isn't the government a corporation?
RESPONSE: No.

Is the officer an employee of a corporation?
RESPONSE: No.

Does submitting answers to the officers questions constitute a contract??
RESPONSE: No.

do you not have 72 hours to rescind your signature from any contract
RESPONSE: No.

All The Best,
Snoop
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,621
Likes
5,922
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
a driver's license is not a contract,
was just scanning your reply and *DOOOT* a drivers license is not an impaired contract?
sorry I farted on that one. YOU obviously do not know of that which you write.

edjumakate yourself.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
194
Likes
10
What part of "You have the right to remain silent." did they not understand??
Goldhedge,

There are TWO different types of stops involving law enforcement officers and motor vehicles. One type is a CRIMINAL stop and one type of stop is a TRAFFIC stop. CRIMINAL stops involve CRIMES (like selling drugs or possessing stolen property) WHICH ARE NOT MERE TRAFFIC OFFENSES. TRAFFIC stops involve mere TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS (like speeding or having expired tags) WHICH ARE NOT CRIMES.

CRIMINAL stops are governed by CRIMINAL law, NOT by TRAFFIC LAW. TRAFFIC stops are governed by TRAFFIC LAW, NOT by CRIMINAL LAW. They do not mix.

To make a lawful CRIMINAL stop, the officer must have probable cause to believe the occupants of the motor vehicle are engaged in CRIMINAL activity. To make a lawful TRAFFIC stop, the officer must have probable cause to believe that the driver has violated a TRAFFIC law. (Note the difference.).

But, because BOTH types of stops involved officers and motor vehicles, amateur legal theorists get them confused and mistakenly believe that CRIMINAL law applies to TRAFFIC stops and mistakenly believe that TRAFFIC law applies to CRIMINAL stops.

Thus, some amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that in order for an officer to make a lawful TRAFFIC stop, he must have actually witnessed a CRIME (indicating how they confuse TRAFFIC law with CRIMINAL law).

Your comment above reflects the same type of mistake (confusing CRIMINAL law with TRAFFIC law). The "right to remain silent" comes from the famous Miranda case and is derived from the "right against self-incrimination" of the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution. By its own terms, that right ONLY APPLIES IN CRIMINAL CASES, not in traffic cases. That right reads, "nor shall [a person] be compelled IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE to be a witness against himself... ."

Translation: You have no right to remain silent in a TRAFFIC stop.

I hope this helps.

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Mujahideen

Black Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
10,297
Likes
18,105
Location
Wakanda
Goldhedge,

There are TWO different types of stops involving law enforcement officers and motor vehicles. One type is a CRIMINAL stop and one type of stop is a TRAFFIC stop. CRIMINAL stops involve CRIMES (like selling drugs or possessing stolen property) WHICH ARE NOT MERE TRAFFIC OFFENSES. TRAFFIC stops involve mere TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS (like speeding or having expired tags) WHICH ARE NOT CRIMES.

CRIMINAL stops are governed by CRIMINAL law, NOT by TRAFFIC LAW. TRAFFIC stops are governed by TRAFFIC LAW, NOT by CRIMINAL LAW. They do not mix.

To make a lawful CRIMINAL stop, the officer must have probable cause to believe the occupants on the motor vehicle are engaged in CRIMINAL activity. To make a lawful TRAFFIC stop, the officer must have probable cause to believe that the driver has violated a TRAFFIC law. (Note the difference.).

But, because BOTH types of stops involved officers and motor vehicles, amateur legal theorists get them confused and mistakenly believe that CRIMINAL law applies to TRAFFIC stops and mistakenly believe that TRAFFIC law applies to CRIMINAL stops.

Thus, some amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that in order for an officer to make a lawful TRAFFIC stop, he must have actually witnessed a CRIME (indicating how they confuse TRAFFIC law with CRIMINAL law).

Your comment above reflects the same type of mistake (confusing CRIMINAL law with TRAFFIC law). The "right to remain silent" comes from the famous Miranda case and is derived from the "right against self-incrimination" of the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution. By its own terms, that right ONLY APPLIES IN CRIMINAL CASES, not in traffic cases. That right reads, "nor shall [a person] be compelled IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE to be a witness against himself... ."

Translation: You have no right to remain silent in a TRAFFIC stop.

I hope this helps.

Snoop
Anything you say to a cop can be used against you, potentially in a criminal case.

A cop can not force you to talk, however, a judge may compel you. Short of a subpoena, they can kick rocks.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,621
Likes
5,922
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
s4t: what an inverted....OH I just can't though I should.

s4t thinks the government is not a corporation....GHEHAWDDD. Now that shows the depths of your understandings there snoop. The most basic definition of a corporation is that when the leader dies or is replaced the thing continues on doing the same thing under the same name.
corporations:
chatholic church
any church of any kind
schools
municipal corporations defined as citys, counites, states, and the USA.

s4t: You haven't read much have you. edjumakate yourself. I can see the public school system has failed you miserably.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,621
Likes
5,922
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Thank you for your contribution. This illustration proves the point that I just made above. It illustrates the very mistake that amateur legal theorists make by confusing TRAFFIC stops with CRIMINAL stops
So? You do not think there is a due process here inside the bounds of the 50?

Look skippie there is no arrest other than arrest. Its like being pregnant; you either are or you are not. Then there is the process that goes about one b-ing arrested. You need to edjumakate yourself.