search
top
Currently Browsing: Police

Understanding the Due Process Consequences of Entering a Plea

This bears repeating… and repeating… and repeating again…. I guess telling you that you NEVER enter a plea under ANY circumstances after you have opened your mouth and done so would be just a bit late and useless at this point, but it’s a fact nonetheless. By opening your mouth and entering a plea, you have royally screwed yourself by doing that one not-so-little thing. In the future, NEVER sign ANYTHING that is put in front of you in these cases, and NEVER enter a plea. However, that is NOT to be construed as being the same thing as REFUSING to enter a plea, because we NEVER do that either. So, let’s say you’ve been [falsely] accused of committing a “transportation” offense by some improperly informed, improperly educated, and improperly trained authoritarian statist funded robot that seized you at your liberty and held you in an unreasonable custodial arrest without a proper warrant of arrest or any articulable probable cause just so that s/he could issue you a “[un]uniform traffic citation” that you must now deal with. The citation tells you that you must appear on some future date and time before some particular magistrate presiding over some particular court named on the citation that allegedly has jurisdiction of the offense. Although, it should be clear to anyone that can read and comprehend constitutional language and principles that it is a direct violation of the separation of powers provision of Article 2 of the states Constitution and Penal Code Sec. 32.48 for a municipal or state police officer to issue an ‘order’ via a “transportation” citation that simulates a legal process such as a subpoena or summons. The basis for asserting that it’s a violation of the separation of powers and the law is that both municipal and state police officers are executive branch functionaries and agents, and the issuance of a summons or subpoena having the legal force of a full-fledged judicial order requiring an individual’s compliance is entirely a judicial branch power and function, which executive officers are constitutionally forbidden to exercise. When you eventually appear at the court named in the paperwork that accompanied the citation “on or before” the appointed date and time, as that phrase is typically printed on most of these citations, the magistrate is required by the Code of Criminal Procedure to perform the duties imposed upon him/her by Art. 15.17[5] of that code. And s/he is required to do so in... read more

Will you STAND for liberty, or will you be silent?

“So you’re a Constitutionalist?” My first thought was… As compared to what? Last month, the Feinman family was driving through a questionable interstate checkpoint. This checkpoint is not on the US/Mexican border; it is along Highway 395N between California and Nevada. When driving through these in-country checkpoints, you are not required to answer the agent’s questions (usually starting with “Are you a United States citizen?”). Nor are you required to consent to any searches. As the Feinman’s drove through, they refused to be unlawfully searched, citing their 4th Amendment right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. The agents, however, could have cared less about the Feinman’s rights, stating at one point that “this is my job.” When the family refuses to back down, government force is escalated, and police officers are called in to violate the Feinmans even further. As Mr. Feinman asserts his rights, he is threatened with being pulled out of the vehicle and having his children taken from him by CPS. Mr. Feinman says he’d like to go, but these officers are determined to extort money from him (issue a citation) for flexing his rights. When he asks the cops if they swore an oath to defend the constitution, the cop asks, “So you’re a Constitutionalist?” When Feinman confirms that he is a constitutionalist, the officer responds, “We’ve had problems with this before.” At around the 13-minute mark, Feinman is issued an ultimatum, submit or have your window broken and we kidnap your entire family. During the process, these officers acted as if it were Feinman’s fault when all he was doing was refusing an illegal search. Police acted as if some magical force compelled them to have to break the window and drag a family out of their vehicle. However, the fact of the matter is, they could have just let them travel freely. Eventually, the window is smashed out, and all occupants were arrested, and the child was taken by CPS. According to the Feinman’s, they were then given an excessive bail amount to get out of jail. This entire incident was over Mr. Feinman not wanting to be searched at the checkpoint. Referring to an illegal search as an “inspection” does not change the reality of the act. What this video below highlights is the only tool the state has to force you to comply with their revenue generating and rights-violating police state measures... read more

Does a 14 Year Old Know More About The Constitution Than You do?

This 14 year old is a lot smarter than most kids his age. He is certainly awake… are you? Are you awake Yet? As a reader you deserve to know the truth behind the disasters America and the rest of the world faces. If you want to learn more about what is going on in America then consider joining America’s Great Awakening Newsletter. These newsletters are free for a limited time.JOIN US TODAY If you are already a member you can, sign in... read more

Unlawful Arrest: Confrontation between a Dallas County Sheriff and a motorcyclist with a helmet cam.

Christopher Moore, who was riding southbound on Stemmons Freeway near Inwood Road when he was pulled over and eventually arrested by Deputy James Westbrook. Watch the video. It should make your blood boil. This happens everyday. However, not every one is caught on camera. “The reason you’re being pulled over is because I’m going to take your camera, and we’re going to use it as evidence in the crimes that have been committed by other bikers,” Westbrook told him. Moore, who said he wasn’t with the other bikers, responded: What crimes? Eventually Westbrook came up with one, accusing Moore of having a partially obscured license plate. “That was indeed a strange charge for [Westbrook] to make,” says the suit, “considering that before he stopped [Moore], he had radioed his police dispatcher telling the dispatcher the license plate number of [Moore’s] vehicle which means the license plate was obviously not obstructed.” Eventually a Dallas police officer showed up, they removed Moore’s helmet (with “unreasonable force and violence,” says the suit), and he was taken into custody. Moore spent eight hours in jail, though the charges against him were eventually dropped. Long story short, Westbrook violated Moore’s constitutional rights. And had it not been for the camera who know what lies they would have spun. Always record police. They cannot be trusted. Are you awake Yet? As a reader you deserve to know the truth behind the disasters America and the rest of the world faces. If you want to learn more about what is going on in America then consider joining America’s Great Awakening Newsletter. These newsletters are free for a limited time.JOIN US TODAY If you are already a member you can, sign in... read more

5 Reasons You Should Never Agree to a Police Search (Even if You Have Nothing to Hide)

5 Reasons You Should Never Agree to a Police Search (Even if You Have Nothing to Hide) Do you know what your rights are when a police officer asks to search you? If you’re like most people I’ve met , then you probably don’t. It’s a subject that a lot of people think they understand, but too often our perception of police power is distorted by fictional TV dramas, sensational media stories, silly urban myths, and the unfortunate fact that police themselves are legally allowed to lie to us. It wouldn’t even be such a big deal, I suppose, if our laws all made sense and our public servants always treated us as citizens first and suspects second. But thanks to the War on Drugs, nothing is ever that easy. When something as stupid as stopping people from possessing marijuana came to be considered a critical law enforcement function, innocence ceased to protect people against police harassment. From the streets of the Bronx to the suburbs of the Nation’s Capital, you never have to look hard to find victims of the bias, incompetence, and corruption that the drug war delivers on a daily basis. Whether or not you ever break the law, you should be prepared to protect yourself and your property just in case police become suspicious of you. Let’s take a look at one of the most commonly misunderstood legal situations a citizen can encounter: a police officer asking to search your belongings. Most people automatically give consent when police ask to perform a search. However, I recommend saying “no” to police searches, and here are some reasons why: 1. It’s your constitutional right. The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures. Unless police have strong evidence (probable cause) to believe you’re involved in criminal activity, they need your permission to perform a search of you or your property. You have the right to refuse random police searches anywhere and anytime, so long as you aren’t crossing a border checkpoint or entering a secure facility like an airport. Don’t be shy about standing up for your own privacy rights, especially when police are looking for evidence that could put you behind bars. 2. Refusing a search protects you if you end up in court. It’s always possible that police might search you anyway when you refuse to give consent, but that’s no reason to say “yes” to the search. Basically, if... read more
Page 1 of 812345678
top