Driver Pulled Over for Hanging an Air Freshener in His Car

[Serpo]

Joshua Krause
The Daily Sheeple (http://www.thedailysheeple.com/)
July 20th, 2015http://www.thedailysheeple.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/police-chase.png

It all started when Michigan resident Richard Houghton was driving through Wisconsin, where he was pulled over by a police officer. The reason? He apparently had an air freshener (http://www.copblock.org/132697/) hanging from his rear view mirror, and a GPS unit on his dash, which according to the police officer, were obstructing his view of the road and were thus illegal under state law. A subsequent search of the vehicle yielded a small amount of marijuana. Houghton was arrested and charged with 2 years of probation, and his car was seized under civil forfeiture laws.
Houghton tried to argue in court that the stop was illegal, and the marijuana evidence should be thrown out. The court agreed that the police can’t pull you over for having an air freshener, but said he could be pulled over for only having a rear license plate, which is legal in the state of Michigan, but not Wisconsin. His conviction was later overturned during an appeal, but Houghton won’t be getting his car back, nor will he be reimbursed in any way.
It just goes to show that in America, being proven right in court doesn’t necessarily mean you won’t go unpunished. The police can stop you for really arbitrary reasons, and once they have their way in court, the damage can be irreversible.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple (http://www.TheDailySheeple.com/)

[gunDriller]

an air freshener was a significant prop in the movie "Ocean's eleven".

Hanging from the rear view mirror it was - of the Swat Van !

[palani]

he could be pulled over for only having a rear license plate, which is legal in the state of Michigan, but not Wisconsin.... Houghton won’t be getting ]Michigan's car back, nor will he be reimbursed in any way.
Really? His car? When it clearly has displayed a MICHIGAN license plate.

The topic has to do with seizure of a foreign asset of one state by another. That is a federal case and doesn't belong in any state court.

[Spectrism]

Did he consent to a search?

[ximmy]

Tax paying Americans with jobs are targeted to keep state & federal coffers full. Remember that when you serve as a juror.

[7th trump]

Really? His car? When it clearly has displayed a MICHIGAN license plate.

The topic has to do with seizure of a foreign asset of one state by another. That is a federal case and doesn't belong in any state court.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha........

[midnight rambler]

Tax paying Americans with jobs are targeted to keep state & federal coffers full. Remember that when you serve as a juror.


Hahahahahahahahahahaha........




Sec. 501.004. APPLICABILITY. (a) Except as provided by this section, this chapter (Texas Transportation Code Chapter 501 entitled The Certificate of Title Act) applies to all motor vehicles, including a motor vehicle owned by the state or a political subdivision of the state.

(emphasis mine)
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.501.htm#501.004

For those slow on the uptake: IF a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE has been issued for a particular 'motor vehicle' then THAT motor vehicle is OWNED by the entity (corporate state OR 'political subdivision' of the corporate state) which issued the CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.

[7th trump]

For those slow on the uptake: IF a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE has been issued for a particular 'motor vehicle' then THAT motor vehicle is OWNED by the entity (corporate state OR 'political subdivision' of the corporate state) which issued the CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.

Hahahahahahahaha...........more stupid are those who believe palani.

You cant read statutes can you to comprehend them correctly.
Palani's disease of conspiracy delusion spreads like wildfire with the weak minded.

No where and I mean no where does that statute even remotely suggest, imply or say anything that has a title means its owned by the state.
All that you highlighted and underlined is that even vehicles owned by the state or a political subdivision will have a title.

Bahahahaha....its hilarious watching midnight show the whole forum that he has no clothes.

Go eat your hot dog midnight...the delusions of palani strikes again....lmao!

[midnight rambler]

Some people have a problem comprehending plain English. lol

[ximmy]

Hahahahahahahahahahaha........

Please refrain from using too many haha's in your retorts. Thank you.

[gunDriller]

well, i could come up with something ...

would the cops prefer something like this hanging from the rear view mirror ?

skatole (by-product of meat digestion)
indole (by-product of meat digestion)
methanethiol (a sulfur compound)
dimethyl sulfide (a sulfur compound)
hydrogen sulfide (rotten egg odor, flammable)
volatile amines
short chain fatty acids

[7th trump]

Some people have a problem comprehending plain English. lol

The problem with you is you have allowed your conspiracy mind set to make your mind up for you.
Again nowhere in that statute does it imply, suggest, indicate that having a title means the government owns any vehicle with a title. What you have underlined and highlighted says in simple English that even state and political subdivisions vehicles will be titled under that state law....that's it...nothing more! That simple!
Federal vehicles are exempt because they are titled under federal. So are out of state vehicles because those vehicles apply to the state they are titled under.

You prove your stance midnight...if you cant then you neutered yourself...you did it yourself. And of course Palani, your buddy conspiracy partner in crime, will not come to your side.

[midnight rambler]

indicate that having a title means the government owns any vehicle with a title.

Clearly you are a fucking moron.

The state does NOT(!) issue ANY 'title' documents, the state ONLY issues 'CERTIFICATES OF TITLE'. A 'certificate' is a document 'certifying' a thing or action however the certificate is NOT the thing or action itself. The original 'title' is the manufacturer's certificate aka MSO (manufacturer's statement of origin) and guess what - in order to receive the state's *protection* in the form of a 'license plate' one MUST 'deliver' (i.e. surrender or render) the MSO to the state in exchange for 'license plates' for one's automobile*. Bottomline is, if one is holding a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE on their automobile then they are NOT the 'owner' but they merely enjoy the 'beneficial use' while the automobile is held in a cestui que trust operated by the corporate state.

*I went through the entire process with TxDOT in pursuit of a 'license plate' for a new automobile I actually still held the manufacturers' certificate for. I specifically asked three different state actors at TxDOT: "Will you take a certified copy of the manufacturer's certificate?" The answer from all three was, "No, we must have the original." Each of those three state actors at TxDOT told me essentially the very same thing in describing the manufacturer's certificate:

Actor 1: "It (the manufacturer's certificate) is the evidence of ownership for the automobile."
Actor 2: "It is the negotiable instrument representing the automobile."
Actor 3: "It is the birth certificate for the automobile."

I don't have any issue whatsoever with any of those three descriptions 'cause they ALL amount to the very same thing: TITLE. So WHOMEVER holds the MSO owns the automobile listed on that document.

[palani]

The problem with you is you have allowed your conspiracy mind set to make your mind up for you.

Even more humorous is to watch an old communist explain how he can actually own anything in his communist world. You operate under the ten planks buddy ... not the ten commandments.... and don't even recognize it.

Did you think that when they said they were going to outlaw private property that somehow YOU were exempt?

[Serpo]

The cops still took the guys car and never gave it back , because , what, how.............................these cops have now become crooks.

[palani]

The cops still took the guys car and never gave it back , because , what, how.............................these cops have now become crooks.

Right. They stole the car from the State of Michigan who stole it to begin with.

In a liquid environment big fish eat little fish. It happens.

[Serpo]

Right. They stole the car from the State of Michigan who stole it to begin with.

In a liquid environment big fish eat little fish. It happens.

No they didnt take it from the state of whatever , they took it from a person.

[palani]

they took it from a person.
He was driving a stolen vehicle. It might even have been stolen from him.

[Serpo]

He was driving a stolen vehicle. It might even have been stolen from him.

Stolen?

[palani]

Stolen?

Sure. You don't believe he voluntarily relinquished the Manufacturers Certificate of Origin in exchange for a mere Certificate of Title do you?

A guy would have to be insane to give up property in exchange for a Title.

Since there is no indication that he is insane (ok ... may the MJ does indicate that) then the vehicle was stolen from him by the State of Michigan. Q.E.D.


So if theeves take a man, and compell him (by menace of killing) to sweare upon a booke to bring unto them a certaine summe of money, or other goods: and thereupon he goeth, and bringeth the same unto them: this is adjudged Robberie 44.E.3.14. and yet he was once at libertie and out of their hands, so as he might seeme to be freed of all the feare wherein he stood by them. But yet, who seeth not, that the same feare that made him to take the oath, did still follow him even to the performance of that which he had sworne and promised.

[7th trump]

Clearly you are a fucking moron.

The state does NOT(!) issue ANY 'title' documents, the state ONLY issues 'CERTIFICATES OF TITLE'. A 'certificate' is a document 'certifying' a thing or action however the certificate is NOT the thing or action itself. The original 'title' is the manufacturer's certificate aka MSO (manufacturer's statement of origin) and guess what - in order to receive the state's *protection* in the form of a 'license plate' one MUST 'deliver' (i.e. surrender or render) the MSO to the state in exchange for 'license plates' for one's automobile*. Bottomline is, if one is holding a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE on their automobile then they are NOT the 'owner' but they merely enjoy the 'beneficial use' while the automobile is held in a cestui que trust operated by the corporate state.

*I went through the entire process with TxDOT in pursuit of a 'license plate' for a new automobile I actually still held the manufacturers' certificate for. I specifically asked three different state actors at TxDOT: "Will you take a certified copy of the manufacturer's certificate?" The answer from all three was, "No, we must have the original." Each of those three state actors at TxDOT told me essentially the very same thing in describing the manufacturer's certificate:

Actor 1: "It (the manufacturer's certificate) is the evidence of ownership for the automobile."
Actor 2: "It is the negotiable instrument representing the automobile."
Actor 3: "It is the birth certificate for the automobile."

I don't have any issue whatsoever with any of those three descriptions 'cause they ALL amount to the very same thing: TITLE. So WHOMEVER holds the MSO owns the automobile listed on that document.

All hearsay........and you still haven't proven that statute even implies that a cert of title means the government owns the car.

When will you ever show proof?

[7th trump]

Even more humorous is to watch an old communist explain how he can actually own anything in his communist world. You operate under the ten planks buddy ... not the ten commandments.... and don't even recognize it.

Did you think that when they said they were going to outlaw private property that somehow YOU were exempt?

No I never tried to explain anything...all I ever said to you was prove what you explain.
I don't care what the ten planks say....all I said was prove your point ...and not with statutes that don't say shit or what you believe or interpret a statute says or a law for that matter.
To this day you haven't proven a damn thing!

[palani]

To this day you haven't proven a damn thing!
And why would you be holding me to a higher standard than you do your government?

[BrewTech]

well, i could come up with something ...

would the cops prefer something like this hanging from the rear view mirror ?

skatole (by-product of meat digestion)
indole (by-product of meat digestion)
methanethiol (a sulfur compound)
dimethyl sulfide (a sulfur compound)
hydrogen sulfide (rotten egg odor, flammable)
volatile amines
short chain fatty acids


Sounds like a fart recipe.

ETA : I was right!

[7th trump]

And why would you be holding me to a higher standard than you do your government?

So you're saying you shouldn't be trusted.....I think most here already know this about you.

I know what the law says....it doesn't need explaining...it's quite up front and forward.

[palani]

So you're saying you shouldn't be trusted
Why is it necessary for you to trust anyone?

I think most here already know this about you.
When the bailiff announced ALL RISE I thought to myself "I am not ALL and in fact am not even VERY MANY" so I remained seated. Here I always thought of you as SINGULAR and now I find you are a MULTITUDE.

I know what the law says....it doesn't need explaining...it's quite up front and forward.
There is no 'the law'. If you are a MULTITUDE then your law is MANY.

Frankly if you can't handle a concept so simple as singular and plural then you stand no chance understanding anything more complicated.

[midnight rambler]

All hearsay........and you still haven't proven that statute even implies that a cert of title means the government owns the car.

When will you ever show proof?

7th dumpster, you're every bit as clueless as one of the state actors at TxDOT I was conversing with. I advised him I had a fee simple title for the automobile signed by the seller (the owner of the small dealership where I purchased the new automobile) as well as the MSO. I tried to explain to him what that meant and he said back to me, "I'll have to ask our general counsel about that." He called me back after talking to the TxDOT general counsel/shyster and he said, "Our general counsel said a fee simple title has to do with absolute ownership*, but I don't see how that applies to this situation (with you wanting to retain the original MSO for your new automobile)."

*yes, that was precisely what he said, word for word, it was fucking surreal

[7th trump]

7th dumpster, you're every bit as clueless as one of the state actors at TxDOT I was conversing with. I advised him I had a fee simple title for the automobile signed by the seller (the owner of the small dealership where I purchased the new automobile) as well as the MSO. I tried to explain to him what that meant and he said back to me, "I'll have to ask our general counsel about that." He called me back after talking to the TxDOT general counsel/shyster and he said, "Our general counsel said a fee simple title has to do with absolute ownership*, but I don't see how that applies to this situation (with you wanting to retain the original MSO for your new automobile)."

*yes, that was precisely what he said, word for word, it was fucking surreal

And I'm the clueless one huh?
What are you doing in the state office asking for permission for them to own it?

[7th trump]

Why is it necessary for you to trust anyone?

When the bailiff announced ALL RISE I thought to myself "I am not ALL and in fact am not even VERY MANY" so I remained seated. Here I always thought of you as SINGULAR and now I find you are a MULTITUDE.

There is no 'the law'. If you are a MULTITUDE then your law is MANY.

Frankly if you can't handle a concept so simple as singular and plural then you stand no chance understanding anything more complicated.

Yep....people you are peering into the mind of the insane.

Never will anyone get a straight up answer from this fool.

Its Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown........lmao!

[palani]

Yep....people you are peering into the mind of the insane.

Quite true. When you check yourself into an asylum you never get to check yourself out. And you are gauging your reality by the reality of those around you.

Get over it ... but don't believe you will escape even if you can get over it.

Your reality is merely illusion.


Its Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown
Again .. illustrating my point. Your reality is gauged by a CARTOON SERIES?

[osoab]

Clearly you are a fucking moron.

The state does NOT(!) issue ANY 'title' documents, the state ONLY issues 'CERTIFICATES OF TITLE'. A 'certificate' is a document 'certifying' a thing or action however the certificate is NOT the thing or action itself. The original 'title' is the manufacturer's certificate aka MSO (manufacturer's statement of origin) and guess what - in order to receive the state's *protection* in the form of a 'license plate' one MUST 'deliver' (i.e. surrender or render) the MSO to the state in exchange for 'license plates' for one's automobile*. Bottomline is, if one is holding a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE on their automobile then they are NOT the 'owner' but they merely enjoy the 'beneficial use' while the automobile is held in a cestui que trust operated by the corporate state.

*I went through the entire process with TxDOT in pursuit of a 'license plate' for a new automobile I actually still held the manufacturers' certificate for. I specifically asked three different state actors at TxDOT: "Will you take a certified copy of the manufacturer's certificate?" The answer from all three was, "No, we must have the original." Each of those three state actors at TxDOT told me essentially the very same thing in describing the manufacturer's certificate:

Actor 1: "It (the manufacturer's certificate) is the evidence of ownership for the automobile."
Actor 2: "It is the negotiable instrument representing the automobile."
Actor 3: "It is the birth certificate for the automobile."

I don't have any issue whatsoever with any of those three descriptions 'cause they ALL amount to the very same thing: TITLE. So WHOMEVER holds the MSO owns the automobile listed on that document.

I was searching around and found this. Just started reading but this is copied from page 4 and 5.
http://www.rvbeypublications.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/mccarthymanufacturer.pdf




October 31, 1985 .

Missouri Department of Revenue
Motor Vehicle Bureau
P.O. Box 100
Jefferson City, MO 65105

Dear Mr. McCarthy:

This is in response to your letter of September 17, 1985 regarding questions pertaining to
Form DOR-108 - Application for Missouri Title and/or License.

A "title" as defined in Section 301.190 of the Revised Statutes of the State of Missouri, is a
certificate of ownership containing a complete description of the motor vehicle or trailer,
manufacturer's or other identifying number, together with a statement of any liens or
encumbrances on the motor vehicle or trailer.

Original titles are issued on motor vehicles, trailers, boats and motors.

A Missouri certificate of title issued in the owner's name is the only proof of ownership.

A properly assigned title must be surrendered with any application for Missouri title.

The applicant (purchaser) does not surrender any rights when applying for a Missouri
certificate of title.

A Missouri certificate of title is considered "open" until ownership is transferred. To
transfer ownership the assignment on the back of the title must be completed and signed by the
owner in the presence of a notary public.

A bill of sale is not considered an ownership document, but may be required to verify an
actual purchase price of a motor vehicle. The manufacturer's statement of origin is not proof of

ownership until an application for title is presented to the Department of Revenue's Motor
Vehicle Bureau along with all state and local taxes required and the appropriate title and
license fees.

I hope this information will be of help to you. Should you have any questions or need
additional information, please feel free to contact my office.

Sincerely,
Nancy K. Bemboom, Supervisor
Information and Maintenance Section
NKB:ss
_____________________________________

November 6, 1985

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION RE: TITLE, CERTIFICATE OF TITLE, ETC.

Dear Nancy Bemboom:

Thank you for responding to my follow-up inquiry of October 17th, and I certainly appreciate
your offer of assistance. The understanding of a subject necessitates comprehension of its
terms, made possible by isolating one from the other, examining each in a logical sequence.
This I'm attempting to do, and with your assistance should be able to grasp the subject at hand.
In furtherance of this goal, my seven (7) questions are reviewed herewith, along with your
correlative responses.

1. Re: Definition of 'title': "A title...is a CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
containing...description...identifying number...with a statement of any liens..."

[a.] A 'title' is a piece of paper. [Yes/No]

[b.] The MSO is a piece of paper, containing the description, identifying number...with
statement of any liens. [Yes/No]

2. Re: Kind/Type title issued in the original: "Original titles are issued...on motor vehicles,
trailers..."

The question did not seek the nature of the entity upon which the title is issued, but rather,
the nature of the title ITSELF - and evidently, from your response, "A Missouri
CERTIFICATE of title [is] issued..."

[a.] Is a Certificate of Title, the Title for which it is the Certificate? [Yes/No]

This is not circumlocution, but an essential question to unravel your confusing response.

For instance, a gold coin once deposited with a banker, entitled the depositor to a receipt,
or Certificate of Deposit. The paper receipt was obviously not the deposit (gold coin).

Likewise, a student, upon receiving an education, is entitled to a document certifying the
education was received. The Certificate (diploma) is not the education itself.

[midnight rambler]

The manufacturer's statement of origin is not proof of ownership until an application for title is presented to the Department of Revenue's Motor
Vehicle Bureau along with all state and local taxes required and the appropriate title and
license fees.

Yet another lying through the teeth state actor. The state actors at TxDOT told me the exact opposite which I consider correct. If it's 'not proof of ownership' then WHY do the state actors WANT THE ORIGINAL so badly??

ETA: after some thought perhaps the MSO is invisible to the state actors unless and until *an application* is presented.


until an application for title* is presented

*another bald-faced lie, the state does not issue any such document called or entitled a 'title'

[7th trump]

See that people?
I respond to Midnights post with the truth with my post #28 and he acts like I never said a damn thing.

He's no different than Palani. Corner them and they either change the subject or completely ignore you.

Way to go Midnight....you're a joke!
Just as I thought you always were.

[palani]

I respond to Midnights post with the truth with my post #28 and he acts like I never said a damn thing.

Your Statement in #28


And I'm the clueless one huh?
What are you doing in the state office asking for permission for them to own it?

Answer to issue 1 -- Yes ... you are clueless. If not then could you present any evidence that you have a clue?

Answer to issue 2 --- I don't see where he stated that he was asking for permission for anything. I believe he stated he was conversing. This is an example where you go off on a tangent of your own and then presume your statement is true. Here ... I'll give you another example:

7th ... Did you ever stop beating your wife? Yay or Nay ... no other answer is accepted. If you cannot answer affirmatively or negatively then you admit you are CLUELESS.

[gunDriller]

Sounds like a fart recipe.

ETA : I was right!

and i thought it was a list of Classic Coke ingredients ! :)

[7th trump]

Your Statement in #28



Answer to issue 1 -- Yes ... you are clueless. If not then could you present any evidence that you have a clue?

Answer to issue 2 --- I don't see where he stated that he was asking for permission for anything. I believe he stated he was conversing. This is an example where you go off on a tangent of your own and then presume your statement is true. Here ... I'll give you another example:

7th ... Did you ever stop beating your wife? Yay or Nay ... no other answer is accepted. If you cannot answer affirmatively or negatively then you admit you are CLUELESS.


Those questions werent posed for you to think your opinion is neccessary to answer for him. I think all you're doing is limiting damage control of your reputation.

The evidence he hasnt a clue is why is he at the state office asking for a slave title?
He tells a story where its presumed he wants to register the vehicle which is asking for permission.

We already went over this fallacy of yours to beleive I beat my wife from an prior discussion that I did not respond which you assumed it must be true.
Is it always that way with you? Do you make up a story and when its not refuted you beleive in your lie?
You made that story up. Why do you continue spreading that lie?
Did not you just say you are under the 10 commandments? Why then are you breaking the false witness commandment?
I've said this before about you and I'll say it again.......you're not a very honest person are you Palani...nope!
You have an agenda .....and its isnt an honest one.

You refuse to answer straight up questions about your theories, but will make up lies and then beleive them......wtf!
Kind of par for the course with you Palani

[palani]

Those questions werent posed for you

Then why would you have included reference to my username in your post?

And since you don't respond yea or nay that means you agree you are clueless.

[7th trump]

Then why would you have included reference to my username in your post?

And since you don't respond yea or nay that means you agree you are clueless.

Who's post was I quoting? Your's or midnights?
That should give you a clue shouldnt it?


Your bullshit about beating my wife is a theory.
You know very well I'm not married...so how does one respond to a question that really doesnt apply to them?
You play games Palani.
Tricky games.......shyster games......is your god satan?
Hes the master of all lies....do you have an alter to the fake god?

[palani]

Who's post was I quoting? Your's or midnights?
Did I misquote you? Why would you link my username with midnights?


beating my wife is a theory
Wouldn't that be the purpose of the question ... to determine if it is theory or fact... based upon a proper response?

[palani]

No response. He can dish it out but he can't take it.

[midnight rambler]

He can dish it out but he can't take it.

Tell us something we don't know.

[Blink]

Should have cracked his window, shown his "right to travel" document and carried on his way......

[crimethink]

Should have cracked his window, shown his "right to travel" document and carried on his way......


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p7lndGi-sI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQWe-Uc4CCo



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InyCNDZJOGA

This guy was not "operating" or "driving" the vehicle - just traveling, in every sense of the word.