Answer this?

[Dillon Hunt]

Carroll v. US allowed for warrant less searches

Carroll v. US is Obsolete in 2007. An Officer can't say there is no time to get a warrant, like in 1925. There is no need for a warrant less arrest or search.

An Officer can phone in a request for a warrant or have one faxed if he has access to a printer. The mobile issue is not relevant anymore. There can be a warrant waiting at the police station, I will gladly wait at the station with my car, if you like.

Let the Magistrate (the Judicial Branch do their Job) why should the Officer have to be Liable in case he made a judgment in bad faith? The Officer has an obligation to Protect my Rights.

Also it would be good for the Citizen to have the Officer as the one making the Complaint and thereby be the Plaintiff. As Flesh and Blood Man/Woman to accuse me in court. I mean he/she saw me commit the crime.

I wonder if a Citizen, who saw me commit the crime of expired registration could file a complaint in court and have me arrested and save the officer the time?

Can anyone answer this for me?

All Rights Reverved as always

[Ownmaster]

Originally Posted by Dillon Hunt

I wonder if a Citizen, who saw me commit the crime of expired registration could file a complaint in court and have me arrested and save the officer the time?

Can anyone answer this for me?

All Rights Reverved as always

No. Registration is a state civil claim. You do not have standing as civil case is private matter and concerns you as a "citizen" not at all.

If someone did try this against me and I ever "felt" it, I would sue their private pants off for abuse of process.

Secondly the constitution only protects against "unreasonable" seizures, it does nothing to protect against reasonable yet "unwarranted" seizures.

[Ownmaster]

Originally Posted by Dillon Hunt

Also it would be good for the Citizen to have the Officer as the one making the Complaint and thereby be the Plaintiff. As Flesh and Blood Man/Woman to accuse me in court. I mean he/she saw me commit the crime.

Virtually 99% of all traffic violations are not "crimes".

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by Ownmaster

Virtually 99% of all traffic violations are not "crimes".

ALL so called crimes are actually 2 things in one.
Breach of contract and an economic infringement/crime/breach.
So, ALL crime is actually civil.

[Dillon Hunt]

How can any Officer justify any warrantless (criminal or civil) arrest or search anymore in light of the fact that the reason for them being allowed in the first place (Carroll v. US) is no longer valid. The Reason being the Court in 1925 said that they the Officers don't have time to get a warrant because the person might drive away?

[Dillon Hunt]

The constitution only protects against "unreasonable" seizures, it does nothing to protect against reasonable yet "unwarranted" seizures.

Do any search or arrest, just get a warrant where the Officer is the plaintiff and not the State. Now the Officer is just considered only a witness. A judge needs to decide if it is reasonalbe or not, not the Officer. (Now the Officer has time to get a Warrant)

There needs to be a separation of powers, where the Judge does his job and the Officer does his to enforce the Judges Order.

Then 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.

[drewenterprises]

From http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussi...4;title=AP FN
A pdf of the full article http://www.suijuris.net/forum/attach...f?d=1196987765
Harmon L. Taylor

...So, now, let's look at the "no-knock" warrant cases. Do you knock before you enter into a building that you feel, in good conscience, that you own? Ok, so why should anyone else? Thus, where a "city," or a "county," or a "state," or the "feds," feel, in good conscience, based on competent analysis by their attorney(s), that they do, in fact, own sufficient interest in the land or the improvement on that land (house, building, etc.), as to constitute a "possessory" or "access" right to that property, why in the world do we expect representatives of that entity to knock before coming right on in? Really?! Why do we expect them to behave any differently that we do? The law is not different depending on who or what owns the land. It's called private property. No one held a gun to our heads to give them that part of our property. We did it freely. We may have done it unknowingly, and we may feel that we've been defrauded. But, it's still the agreement that is being enforced. For now, what we need to come to terms with is that fair is fair. If "they" own sufficient interest in the land, WHY should they have to knock?! If we're paying a "property tax," there very well may be sufficient ownership in that land by that "county" entity to justify that entity's giving consent to no-knock access to our property. This has NOTHING to do with the Fourth Amendment. It has everything to do with private property and what has and what has not already been agreed to.


Let's look at another case. Why are the welfare recipients subject to unannounced searches of their property? There'll be one of two reasons. One, the "city," or "county," or "state," or the "feds," who have a sufficient ownership interest in that property, which may be the case for all property run through HUD, or any of the bankruptcy management agencies, e.g., the RTC, have already given their consent to such access. Two, in the application for those benefits, the applicant has agreed to it. It'll be along these lines, and it'll be one or the other, or both.

Agreement, agreement, agreement. We are vexed by our own signatures.


Ok. Why is all this not fraud? Because "they've" given us full disclosure! No, of course they didn't bring it specifically to our attention! "We're with the 'government, and we're here to scam you. Please sign here." However, with all the indicia of the legal reality, starting with the "best evidence" that LITERALLY SCREAMS AT US EVERY DAY, namely the "funny money" scam, there is no other legal mechanism by which any of that "stuff" CAN, ever in a million years, operate.

We can get as bent out of shape on this fact as we want, but arguing that in court will be, largely, a complete waste of time, "money," and energy, and that's just the up side. There's a down side, too. To know that we're dealing with private obligations is to know to demand the agreement that was signed by which that claim existed. If it's their claim, and if there's no proof of any agreement, then fraud, you see, is rather much irrelevant, for there is no evidence of any agreement in the first place. If all that is argued is fraud, then that may subtly confess the existence of the agreement, and so one screws himself by arguing fraud. (Properly done, it may be pled "in the alternative," which is a pleadings style matter.) Fraud is an affirmative defense, meaning that it becomes relevant if and only if there exists an agreement in the first place. Thus, by "knowing that it's fraud" going into it is, basically, to confess the agreement into existence, which may tend to give the farm away, right there in the court proceedings.

This is just one more example as to why it matters that we approach these things systematically and logically, not emotionally. Just compel "them" to prove up their case, one step at a time. If we get too far ahead of ourselves in our own thinking, then we may presume into existence the very fact or set of facts that will then be used to justify the decision that runs against us.


"Federal" means "federal." It doesn't mean "national," and it most certainly doesn't mean "constitutional." "Federal" means "federal." At the level of a body politic, "federal" means "by compact," or "by treaty." However, at the level of the individual, "federal" means "by private obligation."


There are two generic forms of private obligations: contracts and trusts.


Trusts are found in Scripture, which is the basis for the Common Law of Great Britain, which is the basis for the Common Law recognized in America (which is a different "place" from "United States," which is another topic for another time). In its current recognition and use, the law of trusts started several centuries ago in Great Britain. It's not accidental that the world banking activities are based out of London. It's not accidental that trusts are a very common mechanism used to vex us. And, there's a direct connection between all of these "non-accidents."....
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas

[Dillon Hunt]

The Government thinks the own property becasue they have title but possession belong to God himself. The Government owns nothing !!!

[Dillon Hunt]

Maybe I am not making myself clear.

Next time I am pulled over for anything by a cop I need to tell the officer to get a warrant or let me go.

He will say he does not need a warrant.

I will say you are physical control of the car now. I am can't go anywhere so you have time to call in for a warrant. In the past you could says there is no time and I might drive away, but not anymore.

There is no excuse for the officer not to get a warrant like in 1925.

Get It.

[Ownmaster]

Originally Posted by Dillon Hunt

There is no excuse for the officer not to get a warrant like in 1925.

There is no requirement for him to get a warrant that you have established.

Good luck. I see you getting your ass kicked by a cop and then doing time for making his job difficult.