for sale: sovereign citizen license plates

[cheka.]

http://www.foxla.com/news/local-news/255331221-story

(FOX 11) - "I do not need a license or any kind of identification," Trent Goodbaudy can be heard on video telling a police officer.

"Well I'm going to place you under arrest," is the officer's reply.

"No, you need to read that before my rights are violated," Goodbaudy says, handing him a card with an explanation of beliefs on it.

Goodbaudy is what some might call a modern day sovereign citizen, but he doesn't like that title.

"God is my authority, and He is the only sovereign that there is," Goodbaudy said.

The Riverside resident believes there is too much regulation in government, so he's taken his fight to the road. Goodbaudy travels without registration, without plates, without a license and without insurance.

"Insurance is a scam," he said.

Knowing police will pull him over, he's always ready with a camera. Goodbaudy posts all of his run-ins with the law on his YouTube Channel "Freedom from Government." His videos have racked up more than 18 million views.

He's now even selling what he uses in lieu of a license plate. The tag reads "Private" - "Not for commerce use - private mode of travel," and it often gets the attention of police on the road.

"If a cop comes up to me and asks me for my license, registration and insurance, I would ask him if he's planning on using any of those against me in court," Goodbaudy said.

Because he believes in his right to travel freely, he doesn't think he is breaking any laws and doesn't need to prove himself to police either. Goodbaudy isn't the only follower of this growing movement.

There are thousands of people with similar beliefs all across the country who defy what most of us believe is the law and then post their confrontation online. It's impossible to know how many like-minded people there are, however, because there's no centralized leadership.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, who would classify themselves as sovereigns, said the movement has been growing at a fast pace since 2000. Some estimates put numbers at several hundred thousand to half a million people.

"I think there's been a major awakening of consciousness, and I can't explain why I just feel like people are finally coming out of their fog," Goodbaudy said.

You might be surprised to learn Goodbaudy isn't anti-government, he's just sick of government using police as a way to make a buck off him.

"I feel like police have been misinformed to go out and generate revenue off the people they're supposed to be protecting and serving," he said.

He doesn't support building a wall, because that would represent government restricting people's travel.

"We didn't make this land. We came here, just like anybody else would," he said.

Goodbaudy just wants to be free with what he views as his natural born rights.

"As long I'm not doing any harm or causing any property damage, I should be able to do what I want," he said. "It's America. It's supposed to be a free country."

[crimethink]

Doesn't say if the tax collector aka police officer made good on the threat of arrest.

However, court records show he doesn't have a good history of defeating the System with his arguments. Here's an example:

https://web.courts.oregon.gov/SCA/WebMediaRel.nsf/Files/press_12-03-14.doc.pdf/$File/press_12-03-14.doc.pdf

The Court of Appeals affirmed these cases without opinion...State of Oregon v. James Trent Goodbaudy (A153116 - Clatsop County Circuit Court)

[Glass]

no such thing as a sovereign citizen. It's one or the other.

[Hitch]

Because he believes in his right to travel freely, he doesn't think he is breaking any laws and doesn't need to prove himself to police either. Goodbaudy isn't the only follower of this growing movement.


What is the definition of "travel freely"? I don't think that has been restricted in this case, as he can freely walk. He can travel by walking without a license or insurance. Driving, is another story, imo. Driving is not traveling as you are behind a several thousand pound vehicle, operating at a high speed, that can kill many people, so you choose.

Traveling hints to a journey. Journey's take time. Be a free man. Take your time and walk your journey. Walk to where you are going, and I'll bet nobody would stand in your way of "traveling freely".

[crimethink]

What is the definition of "travel freely"? I don't think that has been restricted in this case, as he can freely walk. He can travel by walking without a license or insurance. Driving, is another story, imo. Driving is not traveling as you are behind a several thousand pound vehicle, operating at a high speed, that can kill many people, so you choose.

Traveling hints to a journey. Journey's take time. Be a free man. Take your time and walk your journey. Walk to where you are going, and I'll bet nobody would stand in your way of "traveling freely".

Please read the Ninth Amendment. Then tell us what else the government has the supposed authority to license and regulate.

Driving is a right, and it should not be taken away except in cases of injury to another human being.

[Glass]

What is the definition of "travel freely"? I don't think that has been restricted in this case, as he can freely walk. He can travel by walking without a license or insurance. Driving, is another story, imo. Driving is not traveling as you are behind a several thousand pound vehicle, operating at a high speed, that can kill many people, so you choose.

Traveling hints to a journey. Journey's take time. Be a free man. Take your time and walk your journey. Walk to where you are going, and I'll bet nobody would stand in your way of "traveling freely".

I'd like to know under what laws or rules was he being accused? What do they say about things? What definitions do they use? Was he being accused under a "Traffic" law or rule? What are the definitions of "Traffic" they rely on?

You usually have to show "regis-stration" and "insurance" don't you? In theory these could be separate things.

[Hitch]

I'd like to know under what laws or rules was he being accused? What do they say about things? What definitions do they use? Was he being accused under a "Traffic" law or rule? What are the definitions of "Traffic" they rely on?

There's a Vehicle Code per state in the Union. Note the term "Vehicle". Nothing in the VC (Vehicle Code) applies to walking except for perhaps Jaywalking.

Riding a bike, driving a car...you are OPERATING. Not traveling, but operating equipment, or aptly termed operating a vehicle.

This is what these goons don't get. They can travel all they want and be free to do so. Load up a backpack, and walk. It's healthy, and the old way of doing things. You can even travel by horse, I believe, as a horse is not operating equipment.

[Hitch]

Please read the Ninth Amendment. Then tell us what else the government has the supposed authority to license and regulate.

Driving is a right, and it should not be taken away except in cases of injury to another human being.

It's not taken away, but regulated. Basically, without regulation and laws, anyone can run over a 10 year old girl playing hopscotch on the side walk and claim "she stood in his way of free travel".

The basis of laws stem from the 10 commandments, as they should be. Add in modern machinery and the potential for evil to inflict harm on others, they've been added to.

[ximmy]

Driving is a right... (insert rolly eyes here)

Dashcam video raises question: Why did officer let giggling, drugged Toni Anderson go?
Dash cam footage released Tuesday shows Toni Anderson giggling and apparently intoxicated during a Jan. 15 traffic stop before a police officer let her go and she ended up driving into the Missouri River and drowning about 7 miles away.
Police released the video the same day the Jackson County medical examiner ruled that drug intoxication contributed (http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article152116632.html) to Anderson’s accidental death.
The traffic stop came about 4:30 a.m., when a North Kansas City police officer pulled Anderson over and told her she was driving the wrong way on a two-way street.
The officer let the University of Missouri-Kansas City student (http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article145543029.html) go without a road sobriety test, never asking her to get out of her car. The officer told Anderson to go park and gather herself.
Soon after that encounter, Anderson disappeared, remaining missing for nearly two months while the mystery of what happened to her captivated the city and people across the country. Police believe she probably drowned within hours of leaving the traffic stop.
On March 10, Anderson’s body was found inside her car in the Missouri River (http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article138643138.html), near a boat ramp (http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article138088153.html) at Platte Landing Park in Parkville.
Anderson, a 20-year-old Wichita native, died from hypothermia and drowning, the medical examiner ruled, according to an autopsy report released Tuesday. Her death was ruled accidental.
Authorities said other factors contributing to Anderson’s death were ethanol, cocaine and amphetamine intoxication. Those drugs can cause confusion, leading to impaired driving.
“Cops don’t tell people they think are intoxicated to go collect themselves,” said Mary Gillespie, a friend of Anderson’s who has questioned how police handled the investigation. “No, they are going to perform a Breathalyzer test or other DUI testing and then determine if they need to take you in or not.”


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n4mU-0Zubk



Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article152189977.html#storylink=cpy


Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article152189977.html#storylink=cpy

[Hitch]

[SIZE=4][B]Driving is a right... (insert rolly eyes here)

Yup, a right until something goes wrong, than it's blame the cops for "not doing their job" or somehow stopping an unfortunate incident from happening.

A "right" means no blame. My opinion. You can't blame others for that right harming you.

[palani]

Walk to where you are going, and I'll bet nobody would stand in your way of "traveling freely".
When the military was dealing with all those suicide bombers in vehicles in Iraq I always wondered why the right to use a vehicle wasn't curtailed. After all without a vehicle a suicide bomber can only carry a small amount of explosives. 'Course if they only had camels I expect they could load quite a bit of bomb on one of them too.

[Hitch]

When the military was dealing with all those suicide bombers in vehicles in Iraq I always wondered why the right to use a vehicle wasn't curtailed. After all without a vehicle a suicide bomber can only carry a small amount of explosives. 'Course if they only had camels I expect they could load quite a bit of bomb on one of them too.

So you are suggesting Muslim Extremists should have a "right to travel" in the USA and blow us all up. Got it.

[crimethink]

There's a Vehicle Code per state in the Union. Note the term "Vehicle".

Is the government, or are the People, the sovereign?

What is the limit of governmental power to license and regulate? Anything? At any time? And how is that not total government?

[Hitch]

Is the government, or are the People, the sovereign?

What is the limit of governmental power to license and regulate? Anything? At any time? And how is that not total government?

The people of course. The government (should) work for us. I drive on the roads. I'm all for Vehicle Codes that protect me while doing so, in turn, I'll vote to have them enforced.

I drive responsibly and take note, I'm accountable for my actions. "Traveling" tells me a person does not want to be accountable for their actions. It tells me that person is looking for an excuse to NOT be accountable for the damage they do.

[crimethink]

It's not taken away, but regulated.


A license is permission from the government to do something that is illegal.

So, yes, it is taken away, and then "granted" by the government.




Basically, without regulation and laws, anyone can run over a 10 year old girl playing hopscotch on the side walk and claim "she stood in his way of free travel".


This is a moronic and bullshit "argument," and you know it.

Killing someone is a malum in se crime.




The basis of laws stem from the 10 commandments, as they should be. Add in modern machinery and the potential for evil to inflict harm on others, they've been added to.

Fire can burn down occupied buildings; it should be licensed.

Water can drown people; it should be licensed.

See where that mentality goes?

You and I both know that the "vehicle code" is much, much more about taxation, than safety. Let's just be honest about it.

[Hitch]

This is a moronic and bullshit "argument," and you know it.

Killing someone is a malum in se crime.

It's a valid point, and a realistic one. Take traveling on foot, walking. No license, no insurance, etc. You have to go out of your way, with intent, to harm another person. It has to be will full. That person seeks out, to harm another.

Driving, a several thousand pound vehicle, at high rates of speed...all it takes is a bit of negligence, or even a mistake, and you can kill that 10 year old playing hopscotch.

See the difference? The Vehicle Codes, hold people accountable for that. With out that, you have a bunch of Palanis thinking they can do whatever they feel they personally justify at the moment, regardless of the damage it causes other people.

You are being too idealistic. There's a lot of stupid people out there.

[crimethink]

The people of course. The government (should) work for us. I drive on the roads. I'm all for Vehicle Codes that protect me while doing so, in turn, I'll vote to have them enforced.


Neither you nor the government have the authority to "vote" away rights.

You and I both know the government is our ruler, not our servant. And the "vehicle code" is an example of this fact.




I drive responsibly and take note, I'm accountable for my actions. "Traveling" tells me a person does not want to be accountable for their actions. It tells me that person is looking for an excuse to NOT be accountable for the damage they do.

Oh, BS. Show me an example of someone committing vehicular manslaughter and then claiming they are not subject to a malum in se charge because they have a right to travel.

[palani]

So you are suggesting Muslim Extremists should have a "right to travel" in the USA and blow us all up. Got it.
Where did THAT come from? Go back and actually read what I posted. It is rather in the form of an inquiry "WHY DIDN'T THE U.S. ELIMINATE THE RIGHT OF ANYONE IN A WAR ZONE TO DRIVE ANYTHING?"

While we are on the subject why didn't the insurance of these suicide drivers cover the damages?

[Hitch]

Neither you nor the government have the authority to "vote" away rights.

The vehicle code gives me rights. It may take away rights from criminals, but it gives me rights to drive safely and be protected from idiots. Basically, my family and I are safer on the roadways. It's our right too, you know.

I'll always vote for rights for honest good people, and holding outlaws accountable for the damage they do.

[Hitch]

Where did THAT come from?

If you have a right to drive an uninsured vehicle with no license, undocumented, why shouldn't a muslim extremist be able to do the same thing you are doing?

Oh, double standard. :rolleyes:

[Hitch]

Furthermore...nobody can comment on this fact. Operating a vehicle is NOT traveling. If you want to travel, walk. Everyone has that right and that right will never go away.

[crimethink]

Take traveling on foot, walking. No license, no insurance, etc.


And denied:

The Department of Transportation and local authorities, by order, ordinance, or resolution, with respect to freeways, expressways, or designated portions thereof under their respective jurisdictions, to which vehicle access is completely or partially controlled, may prohibit or restrict the use of the freeways, expressways, or any portion thereof by pedestrians.

CVC 21960

So much for that argument...




Driving, a several thousand pound vehicle, at high rates of speed...all it takes is a bit of negligence, or even a mistake, and you can kill that 10 year old playing hopscotch.


This line of "thinking" is the same used by shysters to sue people for having swimming pools full of water, where a trespasser (including a burglar) falls in and drowns. It's a legislative version of prior restraint.

Should swimming pools, or even water itself, be "licensed and regulated" when used by any person?




The Vehicle Codes, hold people accountable for that. With out that, you have a bunch of Palanis thinking they can do whatever they feel they personally justify at the moment, regardless of the damage it causes other people.


Non-sequitur. The very moral code, originating in the time of Adam, you cited earlier makes killing without justification wrong and punishable. The vehicle code is man's substitution, nay, supplantation of God's law.

Running someone over with a car resulting in their death: wrong.

Punching someone resulting in their death: wrong.




You are being too idealistic.


Ideals mean something to me. And the Bill of Rights is among the greatest of enshrined ideals in history.





There's a lot of stupid people out there.

Including 95% of government...the very ones that tell us a new law is "needed" to "protect" us...and we get the "privilege" to pay hundreds of dollars for it.

But, perhaps you're right...we are but animals - Goyim - needing to be shepherded and "managed." Not men but beasts.

[crimethink]

The vehicle code gives me rights.


LOL. The vehicle code gives you privileges, taken away at the whim of lawyers in suits, or worse, bureaucrats appointed by those lawyers in suits.



it gives me rights to drive safely and be protected from idiots.


Awesome! The vehicle code has prevented damage of any kind being inflicted on you and your vehicle. Maybe I should try this magical vehicle code protection.




Basically, my family and I are safer on the roadways. It's our right too, you know.


I'm glad the vehicle code prevents damage and injury to you and yours, and prevents uninsured drivers. Oh, wait...




I'll always vote for rights for honest good people, and holding outlaws accountable for the damage they do.

Da, comrade!

"Rights" that are meaningless as these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Soviet_Constitution#Constitutional_rights

[palani]

If you have a right to drive an uninsured vehicle with no license, undocumented, why shouldn't a muslim extremist be able to do the same thing you are doing?

Oh, double standard. :rolleyes:
Duhhh ... WAR ZONE?

I am not surprised that you don't recognize you are in a war zone. For the same reason a frog can be dropped into tepid water and not recognize it is being slowly boiled.

[palani]

If you want to travel, walk. Everyone has that right and that right will never go away.
Pedestrians are contained to sidewalks and OK TO WALK signs. Does THAT sound like you have a right to walk?

Face it buddy. Everyplace you take a step you can be charged with TRESPASS. Slaves need control.

[crimethink]

Furthermore...nobody can comment on this fact. Operating a vehicle is NOT traveling. If you want to travel, walk. Everyone has that right and that right will never go away.

I thought you said you stopped being a cop?

Driving an automobile is...driving an automobile. Travelling in an automobile is...travelling in an automobile.

No shyster sophistry is needed, or wanted.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/travel

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/travel

2. To journey; to ride to a distant place in the same country; as, a man travels for his health; he is traveling to Virginia. A man traveled from London to Edinburgh in five days.

The definition has not been limited to walking.

[midnight rambler]

One would have to be a complete dolt not to comprehend the basics.

Traffic = commerce. Look it up yourself. There's no other definition.

'Drive', 'driving', and 'driver' are commercial terms.

The term 'transportation' is a commercial term, as is the term 'operate'.

18 U.S. Code § 31 - Definitions

(6)Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.

Merely exercising one's right to locomotion is NOT a commercial activity. One ONLY needs a 'license' if one is engaged in the business of transporting people and/or their goods/cargo/property on public property.

[Hitch]

Heh. Life's to short to point out the obvious to misguided folks. I'll leave you all to your delusions.

[Hitch]

Driving an automobile is...driving an automobile. Travelling in an automobile is...travelling in an automobile.

You can travel as a passenger in an automobile, sure. But driving the actual vehicle, is operating that vehicle. That's not traveling, that's operating.

Let's put it simply. If your hands are on the wheel and your foot on the gas, you are operating. Not traveling. If you are sitting in the back seat putting on lipstick, yes, you are traveling in an automobile.

[crimethink]

Heh. Life's to short to point out the obvious to misguided folks. I'll leave you all to your delusions.

You disappoint me. You prefer an authoritarian form of government. And have no interest in considering an alternative.

[crimethink]

You can travel as a passenger in an automobile, sure. But driving the actual vehicle, is operating that vehicle. That's not traveling, that's operating.

But the passenger can still be molested by "law enforcement" for doing nothing but "travelling." Based on that "vehicle code." The "privilege" of riding.

The "operators" that we should really worry about are in a big granite & marble building in Sacramento. Ironically, this is chiseled inside the Capitol: "Senatoris est civitatis libertatem tueri."

[midnight rambler]

Heh. Life's to short to point out the obvious to misguided folks. I'll leave you all to your delusions.

Pete, you're the most deluded poster on this thread. lol

[midnight rambler]

Passenger - one who compensates another for transportation.

If one is not compensating someone for transportation then that would make them a 'rider'. Recall those stickers on the windshields of commercial trucks that say 'NO RIDERS'?

Words have meanings.

[Hitch]

But the passenger can still be molested by "law enforcement" for doing nothing but "travelling." Based on that "vehicle code." The "privilege" of riding.

Well, passengers, by law are really not accountable for anything. I've never heard of any passenger being molested by LE, unless the vehicle and it's operator were doing something grossly negligent and illegal. What VC do you have to back this statement up?

A passenger can be detained under reasonable suspicion, but anyone could, so that's not unique to passengers in vehicles. Before searching for a VC to make a point, ask if that VC would apply to anyone, on the street, in public, etc. That would answer your question.

[palani]

A passenger can be detained under reasonable suspicion

Reasonable ARTICUABLE suspicion .... RAS ... aka "probable cause"


Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch'";[1] it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts",[2] and the suspicion must be associated with the specific individual.[3] If police additionally have reasonable suspicion that a person so detained is armed and dangerous, they may "frisk" the person for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard,[4] in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably suspect a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; it depends upon the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous.

For there to be a CAUSE there must be an injury somewhere.

[palani]

Pete, you're the most deluded poster on this thread. lol
Law enforcement personnel are not chosen from the sharpest or brightest.

[midnight rambler]

Law enforcement personnel are not chosen from the sharpest or brightest.

Generally they become cops 'cause they're unable to earn an honest living doing actual work.

[crimethink]

I've never heard of any passenger being molested by LE, unless the vehicle and it's operator were doing something grossly negligent and illegal.


How is the passenger responsible for the "operator" violating a statute?




Before searching for a VC to make a point, ask if that VC would apply to anyone, on the street, in public, etc.

Ah, so the "vehicle code" is not only for "vehicles" and "vehicle operators."

[Hitch]

Law enforcement personnel are not chosen from the sharpest or brightest.

Sounds like you ran out of common sense arguments.

[Hitch]

Generally they become cops 'cause they're unable to earn an honest living doing actual work.

The pension is pretty good.

[Hitch]

How is the passenger responsible for the "operator" violating a statute?




Ah, so the "vehicle code" is not only for "vehicles" and "vehicle operators."

The passenger isn't responsible for the operator, but could be an accessory to a crime...ie "aiding and abetting". The passenger however, is subject to the same search and seizure laws regarding detention and reasonable suspicion as the driver/operator. Hence, they are part of the investigation at hand.

That's something to think about, if you decide to travel as a passenger with someone you don't trust.

[Nomoss]

So I ask what is the definition of Driving or a Driver?
Is a code a law?
Lets not talk about what the USSC said in the 1920s about Driving and travel.
And what happen in 1933 and what happen to the USSC in 1938.

[crimethink]

The passenger isn't responsible for the operator, but could be an accessory to a crime...ie "aiding and abetting". The passenger however, is subject to the same search and seizure laws regarding detention and reasonable suspicion as the driver/operator. Hence, they are part of the investigation at hand.


The fact none of this disturbs you as wrong makes me sad.

Riding in a vehicle is not, ipso facto, "aiding and abetting" anything. But cops, the whores in black robes, and the thugs in suits in Excremento, etc., decree it so.

It's clear we live in a Police State.





That's something to think about, if you decide to travel as a passenger with someone you don't trust.

I don't trust cops, but it's not like we have a choice to refuse to deal with them.

[Hitch]

The fact none of this disturbs you as wrong makes me sad.

Riding in a vehicle is not, ipso facto, "aiding and abetting" anything. But cops, the whores in black robes, and the thugs in suits in Excremento, etc., decree it so..

I tend to leave my own personal opinion out of these discussions, whether it disturbs me or not. The fact is, is if you are a passenger in a car that commits a crime, especially a felony, you can be held as an accessory to that crime. Or, you were held simply against your will at the time.

My problem is really with drivers who choose to drive without a license and insurance. Well, you just fucked everyone else. They are never accountable for their actions and taxpayers (yes you Crimethink) help pay the bill, as I do to.

[Hitch]

So I ask what is the definition of Driving or a Driver?
Is a code a law?
Lets not talk about what the USSC said in the 1920s about Driving and travel.
And what happen in 1933 and what happen to the USSC in 1938.

None of that matters anymore, in real life. Say Palani rear ends you. He doesn't have a license or insurance. He caused 10K worth of damage to your vehicle. Honestly, what do you do? Palani aint going to pull out 10 gold eagles and say let's make this good.

No. You are fucked. YOU have to have the uninsured motorist coverage, to cover Palani. It's on you.

To top it off...all Palani needs to say is "you were restricting his right to travel".

These Sovereign morons have no accountability. None. They think they can do whatever they want, and let everyone else pay for it. It's BS.

[Nomoss]

Hitch I am asking YOU.
1. If YOU know the definition of a Driver or Driving and
2. What a Passenger is?

[Hitch]

Hitch I am asking YOU.
1. If YOU know the definition of a Driver or Driving and
2. What a Passenger is?

Read my posts in this thread. I've already answered both of those questions.

[Nomoss]

You D0 NOT KNOW!

[Hitch]

You D0 NOT KNOW!

Well, what do you know that I don't? Post what you've got, and I'll respond to it honestly.

[crimethink]

The fact is, is if you are a passenger in a car that commits a crime, especially a felony, you can be held as an accessory to that crime.

How is that justice? Did the passenger participate? Did the passenger assist? Did the passenger even know?



My problem is really with drivers who choose to drive without a license and insurance.

I sure am glad the vehicle code prevents that!

[StreetsOfGold]

Driving is a right

Everyone has TWO rights and two rights ONLY
1) You have a right to die
2) You have a right to face judgment

That's all you have a "right" to

[palani]

Sounds like you ran out of common sense arguments.
When digging for a root cause I find I get closer with every layer I peel off.

[palani]

It's clear we live in a Police State.

or WAR ZONE? Left over from the (un)civil war.

[crimethink]

Everyone has TWO rights and two rights ONLY
1) You have a right to die
2) You have a right to face judgment

That's all you have a "right" to

I thought I had the right to hear, daily, how the Jesuits and the Vatican gave me diarrhea and flatulence?

[Nomoss]

Read my posts in this thread. I've already answered both of those questions.


Well, what do you know that I don't? Post what you've got, and I'll respond to it honestly.
It is said that No One will educate you but yourself. I can’t do it for you.
When you know the definition of a Driver or Driving or is a code a law then you will know why I ask you.
(Article 1 or is it an Article 3 Court?)
Till then you are a idiot in the eyes of the court.
Then you will know HOW “THEY” are FUCKING YOU!

[Nomoss]

Why do they want to give Mexicans in the US drivers license?

[7th trump]

It is said that No One will educate you but yourself. I can’t do it for you.
When you know the definition of a Driver or Driving or is a code a law then you will know why I ask you.
(Article 1 or is it an Article 3 Court?)
Till then you are a idiot in the eyes of the court.
Then you will know HOW “THEY” are FUCKING YOU!Just say what "driving" is and be done with it!
Tired of this bullshit of
Tell me what you "believe" driving is and I can pretty much educate you in your errors.
And btw...they arent fucking you...you are fucking yourself.
We have a great system of government...you just arent educated enough to understand it.

Driving has always been a jurisdictional issue...as in what citizenship are you politically associated with.

[palani]

Driving has always been a jurisdictional issue...as in what citizenship are you politically associated with.
Idiot. Driving has always been an issue of MARTIAL LAW.

[7th trump]

Idiot. Driving has always been an issue of MARTIAL LAW.

Idiot!
Martial law has nothing to do with "driving".

Only "US citizens" require permission to drive. The sovereign "People" do not.
The "People" cannot get a drivers license......end of your usual pathetic lost in the law conspiracy bullshit argument!


Martial Law


Also found in: Dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Martial+Law), Thesaurus (http://www.freethesaurus.com/Martial+Law), Encyclopedia (http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Martial+Law), Wikipedia (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Martial+Law). Martial Law

The exercise of government and control by military authorities over the civilian population of a designated territory.
Martial law is an extreme and rare measure used to control society during war or periods of civil unrest or chaos. According to the Supreme Court, the term martial law carries no precise meaning (Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 66 S. Ct. 606, 90 L. Ed. 688 [1946]). However, most declarations of martial law have some common features. Generally, the institution of martial law contemplates some use of military force. To a varying extent, depending on the martial law order, government military personnel have the authority to make and enforce civil and criminal laws. Certain civil liberties may be suspended, such as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom of association, and freedom of movement. And the writ of Habeas Corpus (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/habeas+corpus) may be suspended (this writ allows persons who are unlawfully imprisoned to gain freedom through a court proceeding).

In the United States, martial law has been instituted on the national level only once, during the Civil War, and on a regional level only once, during World War II (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/World+War+II). Otherwise, it has been limited to the states. Uprisings, political protests, labor strikes, and riots have, at various times, caused several state governors to declare some measure of martial law.



If you think the civil war is still going on your dumber than the nigg noggs running the streets.
And you're gonna have to explain why my grandpa, for example, and many others his age drove freely on public roads with no license at the age of 12.
He wasnt required to get a drivers license nor pay federal and state taxes until he applied for a SSN.
Dumb fuck!

But thats ok if you like and enjoy lies and conspiracies...I just dont put up with your bullshit conspiracy nonsense.
Keep being stupid....it is a free country after all.

[Nomoss]

Palani now now..
To partake with a fool makes who the fool?

But to do it with a FUCKING IDIOT??

A book some may like The Real Lincoln ISBN# 978-0-7615-2646-9

For yes we have been under Martial law.

Why is the CA DMV on Dun & Bradstreet?

Why are the County Courts on Dun & Bradstreet?

1871???

Now with Hitch he’s a good guy still thinking like a cop but.. give him some time.

[7th trump]

Palani now now..
To partake with a fool makes who the fool?

But to do it with a FUCKING IDIOT??

A book some may like The Real Lincoln ISBN# 978-0-7615-2646-9

For yes we have been under Martial law.

Why is the CA DMV on Dun & Bradstreet?

Why are the County Courts on Dun & Bradstreet?

1871???

Now with Hitch he’s a good guy still thinking like a cop but.. give him some time.
Pa...leeese !
Don't try and educate anyone to your flavor of bullshit. We already know you're clueless as yyou didnt procure what "driving" is yourself.
If you werent clueless and intelligent you would have educated like a boss.....but you didnt. An act of being guilty of bullshit and appearing your something your not and never will be.
You played the bullshit game card instead.
We dont need anymore self educated no answer guru assholes on this board than whats already here.

[Nomoss]

Hitch. Midnight Rambler said it in post#27 and in post#33

A driver is for hire and Driving is commerce.
A Passenger Hires a Driver. (Commerce)
They can only regulate and license commerce not free private travel.
BUT whose Vehicle is it? Does it have a license on it? If so it’s not private travel it’s commerce.

[7th trump]

Hitch. Midnight Rambler said it in post#27 and in post#33

A driver is for hire and Driving is commerce.
A Passenger Hires a Driver. (Commerce)
They can only regulate and license commerce not free private travel.
BUT whose Vehicle is it? Does it have a license on it? If so it’s not private travel it’s commerce.

Bullshit!
You are a subject "US citizen" that is taxed and regulated...it has nothing at all to do with commerce except "US citizens" fall within the commerce jurisdiction of the federal government.
LMAO.......the passenger hires a driver bullshit commerce conspiracy!

[palani]

it has nothing at all to do with commerce except "US citizens" fall within the commerce jurisdiction of the federal government.
Thanks for reinforcing my belief that electricians should avoid all logic activities 'cause they really suck at it.

[Hitch]

Hitch. Midnight Rambler said it in post#27 and in post#33

A driver is for hire and Driving is commerce.
A Passenger Hires a Driver. (Commerce)
They can only regulate and license commerce not free private travel.
BUT whose Vehicle is it? Does it have a license on it? If so it’s not private travel it’s commerce.

Do you have a source for this? According to the vehicle code, definition of a driver (and driving):

Driver and Driving Defined. [A driver is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.] [A person drives a vehicle when he or she intentionally causes it to move by exercising actual physical control over it. The person must cause the vehicle to move, but the movement may be slight.]

Millions of Americans fall under this code, and it says nothing to do with commerce or being paid.

[midnight rambler]

A driver is a person...

Pete, a person* is strictly a creation of the state.

*the word person is derived from the word persona which means mask, as in a mask used or worn by an actor - so we're not talking about flesh and blood living souls here, we talking about phantasms, imaginary things which ONLY exist in the minds of men and women

[Hitch]

Pete, a person* is strictly a creation of the state.

*the word person is derived from the word persona which means mask, as in a mask used or worn by an actor - so we're not talking about flesh and blood living souls here, we talking about phantasms, imaginary things which ONLY exist in the minds of men and women

From a philosophical viewpoint, I agree. However, nothing in any of these arguments actually applies to reality.

The definition of driver, and passenger, is in the Vehicle Code. The Vehicle Code is what is enforced by LE. That is fact, not philosophy.

[midnight rambler]

From a philosophical viewpoint, I agree. However, nothing in any of these arguments actually applies to reality.

The definition of driver, and passenger, is in the Vehicle Code. The Vehicle Code is what is enforced by LE. That is fact, not philosophy.

If that is your belief system aka 'religion' then you worship Satan*, it's that simple.

*as does anyone else who thinks *the state* is sovereign over the people - either God is God or man is god..."Choose this day whom ye shall serve..."

[Hitch]

If that is your belief system aka 'religion' then you worship Satan*, it's that simple.

*as does anyone else who thinks *the state* is sovereign over the people - either God is God or man is god..."Choose this day whom ye shall serve..."

Well, I figure 99% of the vehicle code is actually common sense. Just simple safety. I don't believe people who abide by the laws and drive safely, are "worshiping satan".

Furthermore, I don't think God wants to wait on us to face him for judgement. We were granted this amazing gift of life, from him, and we should honor that and do the best we personally can, during life, to make him proud.

I don't think a vehicle code is a "belief system" and I don't think God would object to us laying some rules down for ourselves, to keep some of the wilder ones in line, so to speak.

[7th trump]

If that is your belief system aka 'religion' then you worship Satan*, it's that simple.

*as does anyone else who thinks *the state* is sovereign over the people - either God is God or man is god..."Choose this day whom ye shall serve..."


Its not a belief system you tard...its fact.

[crimethink]

Thanks for reinforcing my belief that electricians should avoid all logic activities 'cause they really suck at it.

I didn't know changing light bulbs counted as being an "electrician."

Real electricians are usually very smart men, sans "higher education." They are generally wiser without it.

[crimethink]

From a philosophical viewpoint, I agree. However, nothing in any of these arguments actually applies to reality.

The definition of driver, and passenger, is in the Vehicle Code. The Vehicle Code is what is enforced by LE. That is fact, not philosophy.

Emphasis on enFORCEd.

The government has power, but not authority, on this matter.

[crimethink]

Well, I figure 99% of the vehicle code is actually common sense. Just simple safety. I don't believe people who abide by the laws and drive safely, are "worshiping satan".


Much of the Vehicle Code exists not for "safety," but for "revenue enhancement." Perhaps 40%-50% of it can be attributed, rationally, to safety interests.




I don't think a vehicle code is a "belief system" and I don't think God would object to us laying some rules down for ourselves, to keep some of the wilder ones in line, so to speak.

Believing the government has the right to impose its will over the will of the People and/or their inherent rights is, indeed, a belief system. It's idolatry.

What you'll never see allowed in a California referendum: reducing the speeding tax to $10 flat, no fees. We are the government's subjects; our wishes do not matter. No one in their right mind would vote to support a $238.00 tax for driving 66 mph in a 65 mph zone. The same tax is applied to "failure to report address change to DMV within 10 days."

It's clearly for revenue, not "safety."

[Hitch]

Believing the government has the right to impose its will over the will of the People and/or their inherent rights is, indeed, a belief system. It's idolatry.

What you'll never see allowed in a California referendum: reducing the speeding tax to $10 flat, no fees. We are the government's subjects; our wishes do not matter. No one in their right mind would vote to support a $238.00 tax for driving 66 mph in a 65 mph zone. The same tax is applied to "failure to report address change to DMV within 10 days."

It's clearly for revenue, not "safety."

CT, I've only been pulled over once in the past 20 years. I've never been in an accident in close to 30 years of driving.

Why? Because I obey the traffic laws, aka...the vehicle code. It's really that simple (to me at least). I don't understand why everyone just doesn't follow these laws and be safe. I don't follow them for the laws, but for me, my safety.

I don't argue that revenue for the state is part of these laws, I know it is. But, if they keep me safe on the roads, yes ENFORCED, I'll all for it.

[7th trump]

Much of the Vehicle Code exists not for "safety," but for "revenue enhancement." Perhaps 40%-50% of it can be attributed, rationally, to safety interests.




Believing the government has the right to impose its will over the will of the People and/or their inherent rights is, indeed, a belief system. It's idolatry.

What you'll never see allowed in a California referendum: reducing the speeding tax to $10 flat, no fees. We are the government's subjects; our wishes do not matter. No one in their right mind would vote to support a $238.00 tax for driving 66 mph in a 65 mph zone. The same tax is applied to "failure to report address change to DMV within 10 days."

It's clearly for revenue, not "safety."More dumbthink FAKE NEWS from the biggest bullshitter this site has ever saw.

Know how I know this about you dumbthink?
Simple.....all the traffic statutes that warrant a citation ($$$) result in not following rules that are designed to make the roads safer (outside of parking tickets and registration fees. Which arent traffic violations).
Show me one (1) traffic statute that isnt designed to make the roads safer.
Bet your stupid ass you cant.

As Hitch pointed out.
If the traffic statutes were purely revenue generation then everyone would be imposed regardless....but the reality is...just the those who violate the traffic laws get imposed.

And one more thing you twit.
The government doesnt impose the "People"...it imposes the 14th amendment subject "US citizen".
Theres a clearly a difference you do not wish to recognize.

[crimethink]

CT, I've only been pulled over once in the past 20 years. I've never been in an accident in close to 30 years of driving.

Why? Because I obey the traffic laws, aka...the vehicle code. It's really that simple (to me at least). I don't understand why everyone just doesn't follow these laws and be safe. I don't follow them for the laws, but for me, my safety.

I don't argue that revenue for the state is part of these laws, I know it is. But, if they keep me safe on the roads, yes ENFORCED, I'll all for it.

Putting cameras in your bedroom and bathroom will "keep people safe." Are you ready to "obey the law" when that becomes law? Do you have something to hide?

You seem to not understand that government is the SERVANT OF THE PEOPLE, not vice-versa.

You and I both know that these "laws" do not apply to cops or their families. Countless times I've had credible people explain how KA-4993 license plate frames, CHP or other cop agency patches, and other similar trinkets are used as get out of a speeding tax bill free card. The cop that doesn't honor those is quickly ostracized by the "blue brotherhood," possibly endangering his safety when he needs backup. This reality exposes the "speed limits are 'for safety'" bullshit for what it is. Same goes for legislator-thugs with their DMV-issued "lawmaker" plates.

[Hitch]

Putting cameras in your bedroom and bathroom will "keep people safe." Are you ready to "obey the law" when that becomes law? Do you have something to hide?

CT, no need to put cameras in people's bedrooms and bathrooms. If everyone stayed in their bedrooms and bathrooms, there would be no crime and no need for any laws.

I follow the vehicle code, not because it's law, because it is safe driving. The VC is there to keep me safe from others, because if they drive recklessly, they are held accountable.

There is no need for a bedroom code (BC) because crimes to others, and accountability are non existent to third party people just going through life. I don't have to worry about what happens in the bedroom of some house I walk past during my day, basically.

[monty]

California woman who drives without a drivers license and tells how.



http://youtu.be/eQ6mqBZEzfo

​
https://youtu.be/eQ6mqBZEzfo


Published on Jun 16, 2017
You want to see courage? In this interview see Jacquie Figg take you through her personal battle with the State of California over whether we have a right to travel ... or not. The fraud perpetrated by the state is exposed by THEIR OWN CODES AND STATUTES. Every Law Enforcement Officer needs to see this, maybe more than once, until they realize the crimes they are committing. If you are law enforcement, your job is not to do what your Watch Commander tells you is "OK", it is to know, obey and uphold THE LAW and tell your Commanders and Supervisors THEY MUST DO THE SAME. The only thing that gives you authority is the oath you swore. When was thew last time you read it? Do you even understand it? If you do not know what is presented in this video, you have been BRAINWASHED. If you think you know differently, then post your reference below this video. I PROMISE YOU the woman in this video can show you the truth. Every day, more and more people are getting FED UP with the lies and violations OUR GOVERNMENT thinks they can perpetrate against the public!

Summary of Jacquie's reference below (for more information go to:
http://internallydisplacedpeople.org/. (This website is under construction; no information available)

CVC Section 21052The provisions of this code applicable to the drivers of vehicles upon the highways apply to the drivers of all vehicles while engaged in the course of employment by this State, any political subdivision thereof, any municipal corporation, or any district, including authorized emergency vehicles subject to those exemptions granted such authorized emergency vehicles in this code.

CVC 260. (a) A "commercial vehicle" is a motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property.(b) Passenger vehicles and house cars that are not used for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit are not commercial vehicles. This subdivision shall not apply to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3.

CVC 17460The acceptance or retention by a resident of this state of a driver's license issued pursuant to the provisions of this code, shall constitute the consent of the person that service of summons may be made upon him within or without this state, whether or not he is then a resident of this state, in any action brought in the courts of this state upon a cause of action arising in this state out of his operation of a motor vehicle anywhere within this state.

CVC 17459The acceptance by a resident of this state of a certificate of ownership or a certificate of registration of any motor vehicle or any renewal thereof, issued under the provisions of this code, shall constitute the consent by the person that service of summons may be made upon him within or without this state, whether or not he is then a resident of this state, in any action brought in the courts of this state upon a cause of action arising in this state out of the ownership or operation of the vehicle.

Definitions by corporate Federal "State" for "in the state", "in this state", "in the state", "within this state" and "this state"
CALIFORNIA (CCA) located in:
Aircraft assessment and taxation, Revenue and Taxation Code §5304
Beverage containers, Health and Safety Code §113200
Cigarette tax, Revenue and Taxation Code §30013
Corporate Securities Law of 1968, Corporations Code §25008
Diesel fuel tax, Revenue and Taxation Code §60017
Emergency Telephone Users Surcharge Law, Revenue and Taxation Code §41005
Energy resources surcharge, Revenue and Taxation Code §40006
Fractional interests, local agency obligations, Government Code §5950
Hazardous Substances Tax Law, Revenue and Taxation Code §43009
Integrated waste management fees, Revenue and Taxation Code §45008
Motor vehicle fuel license tax, Revenue and Taxation Code §7309
Private railroad car tax, Revenue and Taxation Code §11205
Residential mortgage lenders, Finance Code §50003
Sales and use tax, Revenue and Taxation Code §6017
Taxation, Revenue and Taxation Code §130(f)
Use fuel tax, Revenue and Taxation Code §8609
Revenue and Taxation §130(f) "In this state" means within the exterior limits of the State of California, and includes all territory within these limits owned by, or ceded to, the United States of America.
Revenue and Taxation §6017. "In this State" or "in the State" means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.

CASE MENTIONED: 7 Cal.App.2d 395, 46 P.2d 234JOHN J. O'NEIL, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL AND VOCATIONAL STANDARDS et al, Respondents. Civ. No. 10276. District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California. June 5, 1935.

[ximmy]

Super funny videos of sovereign citizens getting owned...

(I demand to speak to your supervisor)

(Here is my supervisor, [pulls out baton])


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOxBRmeYd7g

[Cebu_4_2]

^ That says a lot.

[Nomoss]

If you did NOT take the time to see the vid to bad for you.
How Much Criminalization Will You Tolerate From Your Government?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZTMKfTP6P0
jury nullification
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9kFgmeRUGA

have fun with this.

[monty]

A compelling reason not to be a 'driver'

New Device Allows Cops to Download All of Your Smartphone Activity in Seconds (http://theantimedia.org/textalyzer-cops-download-smartphone-activity/)

Anti-Media Team (http://theantimedia.org/author/antimedia/)June 26, 2017 at 4:07 pm

(ANTIMEDIA (http://theantimedia.org/)) New York — “Any person who operates a motor vehicle in the state shall be deemed to have given consent to field testing of his or her mobile telephone and/or personal electronic device for the purpose of determining the use thereof while operating a motor vehicle, provided that such testing is conducted by or at the direction of a police officer.”

That’s language from the text of a bill (https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/S2306) currently working its way through the New York state legislature. The legislation would allow cops to search through drivers’ cell phones following traffic incidents — even minor fender-benders — to determine if the person was using their phone while behind the wheel.

We're revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started. (http://theantimedia.org/welcome-home/?utm_source=release&utm_medium=NB)

Most states have laws banning the use of mobile devices while driving, though such laws are rarely enforced. This is largely because it’s nearly impossible to catch someone in the act. What person would admit to an officer that they broke the law, the argument goes, particularly when it’s after the fact? After all, cops don’t show up until after the accident occurs.

Now, technology exists (http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/04/27/525729013/textalyzer-aims-to-curb-distracted-driving-but-what-about-privacy) that would give police the power to plug drivers’ phones into tablet-like devices — being called “textalyzers” in the media — that tell officers exactly what they were doing on their phone and exactly when they were doing it. And if the readout shows a driver was texting while driving, for instance, the legal system will have an additional way to fine them.

“Recording your every click, tap or swipe, it would even know what apps you were using. Police officers could download the data, right on the spot,” Jeff Rossen of NBC News said (http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/how-to-drink-more-water-and-how-to-track-how-much-water-you-drink-974713411798) in a video report on the technology.

Proponents of the legislation point to the rise (http://fortune.com/2017/02/15/traffic-deadliest-year/) in traffic fatalities associated with using mobile devices while driving. But rights activists, such as Rashida Richardson of the New York Civil Liberties Union, says (http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/04/27/525729013/textalyzer-aims-to-curb-distracted-driving-but-what-about-privacy) it’s a societal issue and no excuse to violate an individual’s privacy:
“This is a concern because our phones have some of our most personal and private information — so we’re certain that if this law is enforced as it is proposed, it will not only violate people’s privacy rights, but also civil liberties.”

New York state isn’t alone. Currently, similar legislation is being considered (http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/04/27/525729013/textalyzer-aims-to-curb-distracted-driving-but-what-about-privacy) in Tennessee and New Jersey.

Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) / Anti-Media (http://theantimedia.org/textalyzer-cops-download-smartphone-activity) / Report a typo (edits@theantimedia.org)

[Dogman]

A compelling reason not to be a 'driver'

New Device Allows Cops to Download All of Your Smartphone Activity in Seconds (http://theantimedia.org/textalyzer-cops-download-smartphone-activity/)

Anti-Media Team (http://theantimedia.org/author/antimedia/)June 26, 2017 at 4:07 pm

(ANTIMEDIA (http://theantimedia.org/)) New York — “Any person who operates a motor vehicle in the state shall be deemed to have given consent to field testing of his or her mobile telephone and/or personal electronic device for the purpose of determining the use thereof while operating a motor vehicle, provided that such testing is conducted by or at the direction of a police officer.”

That’s language from the text of a bill (https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/S2306) currently working its way through the New York state legislature. The legislation would allow cops to search through drivers’ cell phones following traffic incidents — even minor fender-benders — to determine if the person was using their phone while behind the wheel.

We're revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started. (http://theantimedia.org/welcome-home/?utm_source=release&utm_medium=NB)

Most states have laws banning the use of mobile devices while driving, though such laws are rarely enforced. This is largely because it’s nearly impossible to catch someone in the act. What person would admit to an officer that they broke the law, the argument goes, particularly when it’s after the fact? After all, cops don’t show up until after the accident occurs.

Now, technology exists (http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/04/27/525729013/textalyzer-aims-to-curb-distracted-driving-but-what-about-privacy) that would give police the power to plug drivers’ phones into tablet-like devices — being called “textalyzers” in the media — that tell officers exactly what they were doing on their phone and exactly when they were doing it. And if the readout shows a driver was texting while driving, for instance, the legal system will have an additional way to fine them.

“Recording your every click, tap or swipe, it would even know what apps you were using. Police officers could download the data, right on the spot,” Jeff Rossen of NBC News said (http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/how-to-drink-more-water-and-how-to-track-how-much-water-you-drink-974713411798) in a video report on the technology.

Proponents of the legislation point to the rise (http://fortune.com/2017/02/15/traffic-deadliest-year/) in traffic fatalities associated with using mobile devices while driving. But rights activists, such as Rashida Richardson of the New York Civil Liberties Union, says (http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/04/27/525729013/textalyzer-aims-to-curb-distracted-driving-but-what-about-privacy) it’s a societal issue and no excuse to violate an individual’s privacy:
“This is a concern because our phones have some of our most personal and private information — so we’re certain that if this law is enforced as it is proposed, it will not only violate people’s privacy rights, but also civil liberties.”

New York state isn’t alone. Currently, similar legislation is being considered (http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/04/27/525729013/textalyzer-aims-to-curb-distracted-driving-but-what-about-privacy) in Tennessee and New Jersey.

Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) / Anti-Media (http://theantimedia.org/textalyzer-cops-download-smartphone-activity) / Report a typo (edits@theantimedia.org)

Humm?

My car has a hands off Bluetooth phone thingy, that I sometimes use. link the phone and all controls are on the steering wheel, and audio is through the cars sound system. But I have never texted and do not plan to do so, have seen enough idiots on the road looking down while driving,

Monty as you know cage drivers need to keep their eyes on the road, along with their brains or at least what could remotely pass as a brain.

[monty]

Humm?

My car has a hands off Bluetooth phone thingy, that I sometimes use. link the phone and all controls are on the steering wheel, and audio is through the cars sound system. But I have never texted and do not plan to do so, have seen enough idiots on the road looking down while driving,

Monty as you know cage drivers need to keep their eyes on the road, along with their brains or at least what could remotely pass as a brain.


My daughters car has the same stuff. I know about those cage drivers that don't pay attention. I have almost been run over a couple of times because they 'didn't see me'. Another time I actually saw a car make a left turn into the street where I lived off the Virginia City highway and hit a motorcyle coming down from Virginia City. The rider was killed, his wife survived with severe injuries.

[Dogman]

My daughters car has the same stuff. I know about those cage drivers that don't pay attention. I have almost been run over a couple of times because they 'didn't see me'. Another time I actually saw a car make a left turn into the street where I lived off the Virginia City highway and hit a motorcyle coming down from Virginia City. The rider was killed, his wife survived with severe injuries.Yep !

I have memory's of people that have done the left turn in front of me, then there are the pull outs.

I had total eye lock on one lady that did it, and major pissed off I was. I stopped her to cuss her out and she said she did not "see" me. We had fucking eye contact before she turned.. When I rode I had my eyes on a swivel, largish mirrors and never , never trusted cage drivers at all.

Survival.

[Santa]

Awesome woman. If only we were all so brave and determined.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ6mqBZEzfo

[crimethink]

A compelling reason not to be a 'driver'

Or a compelling reason to have a "one-click" erase (or encryption) app on the phone.

[cheka.]

https://www.policeone.com/police-products/traffic-enforcement/articles/380601006-1-simple-strategy-for-dealing-with-a-driver-who-refuses-to-give-you-their-license/

1 simple strategy for dealing with a driver who refuses to give you their license

Officers trained in this method indicate they achieve a high level of compliance in a short period of time

Today at 6:00 AM

What do you do when a driver refuses to give you their license during a traffic stop?

A variety of dash cam and cellphone videos posted on the internet show officers handling such refusals with varying levels of success. All too often we see car windows smashed and the driver dragged out by force. While the force and arrest may be legal, there is an easier way to achieve a safer outcome.

Trooper Kirk Hensley and members of the North Carolina State Patrol employ a strategy I have also used over the years.
Understand what is at stake
In order to understand the situation, you have to realize the overriding issue at hand is control. (Photo/Pixabay)
In order to understand the situation, you have to realize the overriding issue at hand is control. (Photo/Pixabay)

In order to understand the situation, you have to realize the overriding issue at hand is control.

The control begins with you. You take control the moment you turn on your lights and the driver pulls over. Your demeanor and word choice play a large part in determining the outcome of the stop. Polite professionalism should be your goal on all interactions unless or until the situation dictates another approach.

By mentally rehearsing and role-playing your response to a non-cooperative driver, you gain control by having a practiced response. The alternative is trying to develop a plan while under stress, which often leads to poor outcomes.

The driver may attempt to wrestle your control away by not cooperating, hoping to send you into a tail spin of poor choices and actions that will make them look like victims and you look like the aggressor.

Their refusal may include a demand for you to summon your supervisor. Again, this attempts to take away your control by suggesting you don’t have the ability, knowledge or authority to do what you are doing. This request can have a negative effect on officer demeanor. No officer likes the implication that they don’t know how to do their job. All too often when this request is made some officers become visibly agitated. The driver has now gained control because their actions have evoked a change in behavior and emotion in the officer.

Understanding this battle for control enables you to devise an appropriate response.
Your response to a refusal

When the driver refuses to provide the necessary documents or a full name and date of birth so you can run your checks, you can create the illusion the driver is in control. Do that by explaining you are required to obtain those documents. You then tell them you are going to go back to your squad car and, when they are ready, they can provide the requested information.

Return to your car and notify dispatch of the situation and request backup. The driver will realize the only thing keeping them on scene is their actions. In other words, they are in control of how long the stop takes. Officers trained in this method indicate they achieve a high level of compliance in a short period of time.

Note that backup is requested in case the strategy fails and you need to take the next step to get the driver to comply.
How a driver may respond

At this point, the driver can respond in several ways.

If they exit the vehicle, watch carefully to see if they have their documents in hand. If they do, you can make the decision as to whether you request they get back into their vehicle and approach them again, or direct them to the front of your squad where you can continue with the stop.

If the driver motions you up indicating they have the documents, you have the same two options, each has their advantages and disadvantages.

If the driver decides to drive off, you now have a pursuit and your policies will dictate how that is handled.

If the driver gets out without the documents in hand, you have to make a decision as to their intent. You can direct them to get back into their car and meet them as already discussed, or you have the option of putting your car into reverse and creating distance if the situation requires.

Remember, on every stop you have the P, D or R choice:

Park and deal with the situation;
Drive out or around the situation;
Reverse and create distance.

Too often we get locked into parking since it is our most used strategy.

Note: If you work in an area where backup may take time to get there and this approach doesn’t work, you will have to ascertain if it is better to wait for backup or attempt to take the driver out of the car yourself. Trying to extricate a driver next to a roadway presents all kinds of obvious hazards. Remember, when you work by yourself and no backup is available, you have the option of breaking contact with the driver and waiting for another day when the odds are in your favor.

To paraphrase Sun Tzu, the greatest warrior wins the battle without having to fight. By having this strategy ready to deploy, you take away the resistant driver’s control without them even realizing.
About the author
In February 2014, Duane Wolfe retired from his career as a Minnesota Peace Officer after more than 25 years of service (beginning in 1988). During his career he served as patrolman, sergeant, S.R.T., Use of Force and Firearms Instructor, and is currently employed by the Parkers Prairie Police Department. He is also a full-time instructor in the Law Enforcement Program at Alexandria Technical College, Alexandria, Minnesota. Duane has a Bachelor of Science Degree in Criminal Justice from Bemidji State University, and a Masters Degree in Education from Southwest State University.