Driver license and registration please?

[rodman652]

I was pulled over by a female officer one night. upon first approach she demands "Drivers licence, registration and proof of insurance please." To which I responded "Do you have any identification?" ignoring my question she repeated her demand. Again I ask "Do you have any identification? As far as I know you are a woman wearing a costume with a stolen police car".
She then acknowledged my question with "If you give me your papers I will give you mine." I responded with "I guess I can live with that." I gave her my information and she proceeded to her squad car.
after a short period (maybe 6 minutes) in comes the back up.
This second officer hollered at me in a stern voice "Do you realize we can pull you out of your car and take your papers!!" Calmly I said "I know that, especially if I was a U.S. citizen." he replies "What are you talking about?!... All I know is is that she said you where giving her a hard time and being an ass about giving her your drivers license!" She said that? I asked. Well no, he said. actually those are my words.

Then I told him that I am fully aware that all U.S. citizens are required to identify themselves upon the request of a peace officer or they may face arrest for delaying an investigation or obstruction of justice, I am not a U.S. citizen. Suddenly his entire attitude changed and his voice calmed down as I continued to explain some of my knowledge of the relationship between WE THE PEOPLE and government and about the implied consent policy.

Without getting into too much length here I gave him a little tutoring about the basic concepts of the constitution, the Dredd Scott ruling, and implied consent/contracts. He respnded with "I never thought of it that way."

To finalize this story he told me that I was pulled over for not wearing a seat belt. I told him that I am exempt. He gave me my things and said "Have a good day."

The entire stop lasted about 20 minutes and I did not see her paper work. But I did get them thinking.

[Akira]

Rather than duplicate a very recent post, here's a link.

I love it when this happens...

I asked a LEO (law enforcement officer) the other day, if he understood the laws he was enforcing, and was told, "No, the PA is responsible for that, I just relay the circumstances and do what I'm told"

I promptly adviced him that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"

Even for Judges !

“Judge, you are deemed to know the law and are sworn to uphold it. You can hardly claim that you acted in good faith for willful deformation of a law and you certainly cannot plead ignorance of the law, for that would make the law look stupid for a knowledgeable judge to claim ignorance of a law, when a Citizen on the street cannot claim ignorance of the law. Therefore, there is no judicial immunity.”

If you haven't firmly established your soveregnty, and their lack of jurisdiction over you, in court, I DO NOT recommend saying that to the judge.


For HIS Glory,
Akira

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by rodman652

Without getting into too much length here I gave him a little tutoring about the basic concepts of the constitution, the Dredd Scott ruling, and implied consent/contracts. He respnded with "I never thought of it that way."

Rodman, could you please post an expository study on thiese concepts in the citizenship/jurisdiction thread. I believe all could benefit, even Judge Roy Bone

[SansRecours]

Alright! Someone is participating in answering my questions. Thanks. I also appreciate the comments. I have been reading all the posts and am not ignoring any one particularly, but I am trying to keep this going in a direction.

So far, many responding are doing something akin to assuming facts not in evidence. Like a "resident is a ward of the state." I would love to see the court case, law review, or history of that term. If you really want to know where I "reside" I will confidently tell you to read Ephesians Chapter 2. Also, a quick call to Progressive will show that that company does not insure unlicensed drivers. Next, I have had recently three instances, one in each of the past three years, where I received tickets. Before that, I have not gotten ticketed in over ten years. In those ten years, though, I have been studying. In all three incidents I did not get taken to jail and I was allowed to leave. This does not mean that I won't go at some future point, but I am on Jesus' time. If you can relate to that you can understand that while jail is a possibility, I am not bothered by it, and I do have a REALLY good issue.

The main thing that is my object at the roadside stop is to leave in the car I got stopped in. The second thing is to try and control what the police report will say.

What works is saying something to the effect of "I just do not feel comfortable with others having my personal information" and that "I do not have a social security number because of my faith. It is amazing how fast an officer will drope the social security number questioning when I tell him that I view the number akin to the mark of the beast spoken of in the book of Revelation. (Supreme Court will agree with me on that point. Stevens v. Berger)

What one says to the officer is not fact, evidence, or testimony by any stretch of the imagination.

So what the officer hears from me on the side of the road he must ASSUME that I am, or am not, telling him the truth. The objective reasonableness standard protects him (qualified immunity) in the making of that assumption. But nonetheless, an assumption of a fact does not make a fact. It requires more.

So he takes the writing on the pad of paper and goes to his "cruiser" (interesting word) to gather more information. He has a conversation with a dispatcher who helps him gather information.

NEXT QUESTION: Is the information that the police officer obtains from the police radio broadcast fact, evidence, or testimony?

Thanks for giving me an ear. Until next time....

[SansRecours]

Well, I guess no one wanted a piece of that discussion. I'll answer the question and keep rolling along.

For review, I am still developing toward answering to the question "What is a traffic ticket?" and secondly, "What is a driver license?" I choose this order of asking the questions but, if one is thinking about obtaining a driver license, then the second question is more important.

Some of the legal eagles herein might be viewing this thread as a little on the simplistic side, but a lot of us, and I am no exception, have a tendency to have to much "issues on the brain" and not enough first hand experience.

I am willing to bet that not one officer in ten knows the difference between a detention and an arrest. One time, a long time ago, I had a run in with a sheriff's department at a hospital, (a panic button on the wall of an observation room that I was installing furniture in became active sending the sheriff deputies responsible for security at the facility into a panic and unnatural need to identify). As I have no license and no SSN the deputies just did not want to believe that I was who I said I was. Well, to make the long intersting situation short. I got hauled into a room and an interrogation developed, culminating in the deputy saying "You are under arrest," and then the reading of my rights upon arrest (silent, attorney, etc.)
When that deputy asked me if I understood I said the only sensible thing at the time. "No, I do not understand," to which I was mocked about not having understanding. Imagine that. I told them that I did have the right to be told the nature and the cause of the accusation, and that if I am under arrest I would like to know why, and if they would please take me forthwith to a magistrate. The deputy then said that I was not under arrest but merely being detained.

The point is that 99% of the police officers out on the highways have NO expertise in the law let alone the nuances of the terminology associated with their daily functions. They do not know the difference between "driving" and "exercising one's inalienable right to ingress and egress." They do not know the difference between "citizen" "resident" or any other word of art. Furthermore, with the amount of, and varying degree of, definitions associated with the three words "person" "resident" and "citizen" and the complete disregard of the nuances of legal meaning by the courts, there is no way ANYONE can have a conversation using those terms and be ceratin of the meanoing the other is trying to convey. Let's be honest-- I have NO IDEA what those words mean any more. I thought I did, but I was speculating.

Oh yeah, I'm answering my own question----

Someone, somewhere entered informatioon on a computer somewhere. This computer information is then made available to a dispatcher, who then relays it to an officer.

To the officer, it is not a fact and he does not have first hand knowledge. At best he gets third hand knowledge. So as evidence, it is hearsay, and hearsay is inadmissible. Since one cannot testify (declare verbally under oath and cross examination) to something without knowledge, it is not testimony.


But hey, guess what ? The officer is going to write me a ticket anyway.

Now that officer can write whatever he wants on that ticket, it will not be a fact, it will not be evidence, and it will not be testimony.

However, he will write one thing on that ticket that will create a PRESUMPTION of the ticket being a FACT, EVIDENCE, AND TESTIMONY.

NEXT QUESTION (a two parter): What is it that the officer writes on the ticket that creates the presumption of fact evidence and testimony?
Why does it create that presumption?

[2501]

Is it a DL#? Or his signature?

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by SansRecours

"What is a traffic ticket?" and secondly,
"What is a driver license?"
: What is it that the officer writes on the ticket that creates the presumption of fact evidence and testimony?
Why does it create that presumption?

Just trying to keep things in perspective and do some thinking. Good Stuff

yep, if you cannot get them to put you down in their computer as a sovereign, they will haul you to jail. they dont know anything put procedure. i know, i used to be in law enforcement.

[SansRecours]

Thanks again for participating! I hope the readers realize that, so far, we have not gotten into any semantics like "driving" and "operating." We have not gotten into speculating as to my character on the roadway "resident," "sovereign," etc. We have just been investigating real events that happen all the time. Hopefully we can get to some real conclusions.


His signature under penalty of perjury creates the presumption of a fact.

Now it is impossible that anyone can swear under penalty of perjury to the truth of a matter that is hearsay. I am a Christian, and this is the definition of bearing false witness. This false witness is setting up a thief to steal. It is just unconscionable for me to participate in this anti-Christ madness!!

When one does not offer a license to the officer, there is just NO WAY he can swear under penalty of perjury as to a NAME (remember, I have never had a license). Therefore, the name and the character of the alleged defendant party is unknown.

The officer can swear as to an event happening (lets say Improper Lane Change), but the resulting No Operator License is baseless and false. Furthermore, as to the Improper Lane Change, he also cannot establish my NAME, therefore that is false. While he might be able to swear he saw a vehicle (whatever that word means) improperly change lanes. He can never swear WHO or (or mor importantly, WHAT), was behind the wheel.

There is a resulting constitutional problem arising from this matter (a future question I will ask).

Let's for the sake of argument say that the whole traffic ticket is completely false and that the officer maliciously made up the Improper Lane Change as a pretext. The only recourse that I have is to go to a prosecutor to file a claim in the nature of false swearing, perjury (which it isn't really) or something along those lines. Do you think that the prosecutor will exercise his discretion, and file charges against the officer??? (Rhetorical Question) Not on your life!


NEXT QUESTION: (This one is a doozy, sure to cause debate) Is that officer's signature under penalty of perjury an individual and personal act, or is it an official act??

Till Next Time...

[2501]

an individual and personal act. (Since I believe them to be outside the law knowingly or not.)