Arizona travel

[scooterdog]

Livefire, I agree 100 percent!

AndyK: you ever been in jail? That is the point of having papers, so you don't. The only terrorists I see are in the government, plain and simple.

I find it amazing, in this country one would even argue that the law has RIGHT to demand I.D.! That is insane! Just tell them you got things to do and can't talk now, good bye. As long as you tell them who you are, and no crime has been comited, then why in gods name would I show them anything??? People died for these rights, and I will be damned if I'm going to give them up without a fight, or because someone brainwashed by the system tells me I'm going to jail for a night or two. I'll sue thier ass's for kidnapping, malicious prosecution, unlawfull restraint, ect.... Then I'll call the office of the FBI, and if they sat on thier hands, I would go to a Fed. Judge and file a criminal complaint. Would love to see the lil troopers face when he's sitting in jail, gets out kicking stones as he walks down the road wondering where his next pay check is comming from.

[scooterdog]

AndyK: here is something for you on I.D. --

I may refuse to provide the police with ID or information.
US vs. Brown, 731 F2d 1491 (1984)
Moya vs. US, 761 F2d 322 (1985)
Brown vs. Texas, 443 F2d 47 (1993)

The right to privacy includes "individual interest
in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.
Walden vs. Roe, 429 F2d 589 (1977)

I know, I know, your lil trooper doesn't understand any of this, hence it will be ignored. BUT-- thats what I'm counting on! The trooper isn't the Judge, the trooper isn't the Jury. I have only once had a cop take the stand against me, and he learned his lesson in a hurry. Cops are ALL TRAINED to be Liers, thieves, lower than the worst felon. Last but not least, they are PUBLIC SERVANTS! and that is how I treat them.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Livefire

I gotta shake my head at a lawyer who obtains "legal advice" from a cop! Nonethelss, the response is typical from one of the man's mindless minions who will resort to any tactic.....intimidation, arrest, torture and murder to get what he wants. Police are the enemy of the people in most cases. I can use lethal force against any thug or terrorist who may try to harm me or my family. The cops only show up AFTER the fact. They are in exisitence to enforce administratives codes of the state and dont give a damn about anything else.

My suggestion is to learn what the id laws require and then act accordingly. This country is little different from the Nazi regime.... Your papers please! and AndyK loves to have it so! Guess what....if your papers arent in order you get to have a trial, after which you will be taken out and shot...by friendly officers who are "just doing their job and following orders" like the good little defendants at Nuernberg.

I may be wrong Livefire, but I believe AndyK is a basic run-of-the-mill minion and not a licensed BAR minion.

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by scooterdog

Livefire, I agree 100 percent!

AndyK: you ever been in jail? That is the point of having papers, so you don't. The only terrorists I see are in the government, plain and simple.

I find it amazing, in this country one would even argue that the law has RIGHT to demand I.D.! That is insane! Just tell them your got things to do and can't talk now, good bye. As long as you tell them who you are, and no crime has been comited, then why in gods name would I show them anything??? People died for these rights, and I will be damned if I'm going to give them up without a fight, or because someone brainwashed by the system tells me I'm going to jail for a night or two. I'll sue thier ass's for kidnapping, malicious prosecution, unlawfull restraint, ect.... Then I'll call the office of the FBI, and if they sat on thier hands, I would go to a Fed. Judge and file a criminal complaint. Would love to see the lil troopers face when he's sitting in jail, gets out kicking stones as he walks down the road wondering where his next pay check is comming from.

Awesome response! Thanks for being an inspiration! Keep it up!

[Shoonra]

I believe that every state not only has laws restricting the operation of a motor vehicle on the public roads to holders of current valid drivers' licenses, but also requires them to have their licenses with them whenever they drive and to display it when requested by a policeman.

There is an article on this topic in 6 A.L.R.3d 506 (1966 and annual supplements).

[scooterdog]

Well, believe all you want. That ain't fact sunshine. The FACT IS THIS: I don't care about any city, county or state b.s. "law". I care about the Constitution, and what the Supreme's tell me. AND THAT IS, I HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL, Also, if you read that right, it(the state law) says "PERSON", 'DRIVING" ect. I am not a person, I am a sovereign white MAN, and I don't drive, I TRAVEL.

The only reason this issue looses, is because people try to argue what they don't have to. You or anyone on the net today, show me a LAW that says it is a PRIVILAGE TO TRAVEL. You can't! It is a privilege to drive, BUT NOT TO TRAVEL. Read your freagin law dict. and SEE there is a difference.

I may refuse to provide the police with ID or information.
US vs. Brown, 731 F2d 1491 (1984)
Moya vs. US, 761 F2d 322 (1985)
Brown vs. Texas, 443 F2d 47 (1993)

With that, the "STATE" CAN STICK IT WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE!!!!

[scooterdog]

Christ weeping on the cross! If he wasn't, he's got to be now!!!

ALL MATTERS OF VEHICLE CODE ARE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

TRAFFIC TICKETS ARE VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS
TRAFFIC TICKETS ARE VIOLATIONS OF BILL OF RIGHTS
TRAFFIC TICKETS ARE FALSE ARREST
TRAFFIC TICKETS ARE FALSE IMPRISONMENT
TRAFFIC TICKETS ARE UNLAWFUL TAKING OF MONEY

ARRESTS FOR D.U.I ARE ADMINISTRATIVE SCHEMES UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER
BILL OF RIGHTS AND USC ARTICLE ONE, SECTION EIGHT - THREE, 14TH
AMENDMENT, CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE ONE

MAILING OF BENCH WARRANTS FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR ARE FRAUDULENT USE
OF MAIL TO EXTORT MONEY

TWENTY EIGHT CHAPTERS OF KNOWLEDGE AND HOW TO USE IT
EIGHT YEARS OF COURT ROOM EXPERIENCE AND THE GROUNDS FOR A CIVIL
RIGHTS ACTION WHEN APPLIED TO THE MOTORISTS, TRAVELERS AND DRIVERS
ON THE PUBLIC'S COMMON HIGHWAYS

Anyone who wants it, except Shoonra, as you just keep "BELIEVING", PM me, will send you the works, all 800 pages plus, for FREE! Thats the last and final answere to TRAVEL.

[UGA Lawdog]

Originally Posted by scooterdog

I may refuse to provide the police with ID or information.
US vs. Brown, 731 F2d 1491 (1984)
Moya vs. US, 761 F2d 322 (1985)
Brown vs. Texas, 443 F2d 47 (1993)

No, you may NOT refuse to identify yourself if a cop has a valid reason for stopping you.

Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault. Nevada's "stop and identify" statute requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself. The state intermediate appellate court affirmed, rejecting Hiibel's argument that the state law's application to his case violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed.

Held: Petitioner's conviction does not violate his Fourth Amendment rights or the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on self-incrimination. Pp. 3-13.

- Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, U.S. Supreme Court (2004), No. 03-5554

You're such an amateur.

[scooterdog]

Well, I don't identify myself, and I'm not in jail. Further, just because you found a case that says you have to, it was prob. argued wrong to begin with, most are.

Also, which part of "PERSON" DID YOU MISS LAWDOG???? I'm no person that they mention, I AM A SOVEREIGN WHITE MAN. I could call you names as well, but whats the point. I'll prove a point to you--

"Since in common usage, the term person does not include the Sovereign, statutes not employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it." U.S. v. Fox 94 U.S. 315. Justice Holmes explained: "A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349. "At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country," Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440

Taken from my travel papers---"It is an undisputed fact that MAN is excluded as a person in the MCA. "The word "person" includes a corporation as well as a natural person." Montana Code Annotated 1-1-201(1)(b). The Accused is a Sovereign MAN, a holder of the inherent political power, and not any such "person" as defined in statutes"

---"It is an undisputed fact that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that any crime for which a person may be incarcerated is an Infamous Crime, Mackin v. U.S. 117 U.S. 348 et al. The Fifth Amendment provides for indictment in all infamous crimes. The Accused understands that any attempt at prosecution of this free and natural Sovereign in the absence of said indictment constitutes a willful violation of Rights by the court, and/or its officers. The Accused will demand that the instructions to the Show Cause/Grand and Trial jury include: "The jury has an unreviewable and unreversible power.. to acquit in disregard of the instructions given by the trial judge." U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F 2d 113

The California Supreme Court's recent idiocy regarding identification, I offer the following federal Supreme Court case. Federal beats State every time, when the subject matter is the derogation of rights secured by the Constitution.

Brown v. Texas,443 U.S. 47 (1979): "Two police officers, while cruising near noon in a patrol car, observed appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an area that had a high incidence of drug traffic. They stopped and asked appellant to identify himself and explain what he was doing. One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation 'looked suspicious and we had never seen that subject in that area before.' The officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any reason to believe that he was armed. When appellant refused
to identify himself, he was arrested for violation of a Texas statute which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer 'who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information.' Appellant's motion to set aside information charging him with violation of the statute on the ground that the statute violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth amendments was denied, and he was convicted and fined."

"HELD: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require
him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers
lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had
engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify
himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the
Fourth Amendment that the seizure be 'reasonable.' Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S.
1; ... Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648. Here, the state does not contend that
appellant was stopped pursuant to a practice embodying neutral criteria, and
the officer's actions were not justified on the ground that they had a
reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that he was involved in
criminal activity. Absent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct,
the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellant's
right to personal security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police
interference.

Pp. 50-53. - Mr. Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion of the court. -
"This appeal presents the question whether appellant was validly convicted for
refusing to comply with a policeman's demand that he identify himself pursuant
to a provision of the Texas Penal Code which makes it a crime to refuse such
identification on request." - "Appellant refused to identify himself and
angrily asserted that the officers had no right to stop him." - "The Fourth
Amendment, of course, 'applies to all seizures of the person, including
seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest.
Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16-19
(1968). '[W]henever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his
freedom to walk away, he has 'seized' that person...and the fourth Amendment
requires that the seizure be 'reasonable' U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S.
873, 878 (1975)" - "We need not decide whether an individual may be punished
for refusing to identify himself in the context of a lawful investigatory stop
which satisfies Fourth Amendment requirements. See Dunaway v. New York, 442
U.S. 200,210 n.12 (1979); Terry v. Ohio ... the county judge who convicted
appellant was troubled by this question, as shown by the colloquy set out in
the appendix to this opinion." - "Accordingly, appellant may not be punished
for refusing to identify himself, and the conviction is Reversed."


"APPENDIX TO THE OPINION OF THE COURT

"THE COURT:...What do you think about if you stop a person lawfully, and then
if he doesn't want to talk to you, you put him in jail for committing a
crime?"

"MR. PATTON [prosecutor]: Well first of all, I would question the defendant's
statement in his motion that the first amendment gives an individual the right
to silence."

"THE COURT:...I'm asking you why should the State put you in jail because you
don't want to say anything?"

"MR. PATTON: Well, I think there's certain interests that have to be viewed."

"THE COURT: Okay, I'd like you to tell me what those are."

"MR. PATTON: Well, the Governmental interest to maintain the safety and
security of the society and the citizens to live in the society, and there are
certainly strong Governmental interests in that direction and because of that,
these interests outweigh the interests of an individual for a certain amount
of intrusion upon his personal liberty. I think these Governmental interests
outweigh the individual's interests in this respect, as far as simply asking
an individual for his name and address under the proper circumstances."

"THE COURT: But why should it be a crime to not answer?"

"MR. PATTON: Again, I can only contend that if an answer is not given, it
tends to disrupt."

"THE COURT: What does it disrupt?"

"MR. PATTON: I think it tends to disrupt the goal of this society to maintain
security over its citizens to make sure they are secure in their gains and
their homes."

"THE COURT: How does that secure anybody by forcing them, under penalty of
being prosecuted, to giving their name and address, even though they are
lawfully stopped?"

"MR. PATTON: Well I, you know, under the circumstances in which some
individuals would be lawfully stopped, it's presumed that perhaps this
individual is up to something, and the officer is doing his duty simply to
find out the individual's name and address, and to determine exactly what is
going on."

"THE COURT: I'm not questioning, I'm not asking whether the officer shouldn't
ask questions. I'm sure they should ask everything they possibly could find
out. What I'm asking is what's the State's interest in putting a man in jail
because he doesn't want to answer something. I realize lots of times an
officer will give a defendant a Miranda warning which means a defendant
doesn't have to make a statement. Lots of defendants go ahead and confess,
which is fine if they want to do that. But if they don't confess, you can't
put them in jail, can you, for refusing to confess to a crime?"

[Shoonra]

text of: Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (June 21, 2004)
542 U.S. 177, 124 S.Ct. 2451, 159 L.Ed.2d 292

can be gotten from:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...df/03-5554.pdf