• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Did I get my rights violated?

Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

I'd prefer to be left alone to secure my OWN rights, thank you. What others do (unless they violate me) is their concern only.

As for your "minimal government" comment, I'd like to share a gem of wisdom from the even smarter, late Nathan Earl Miller. "Some people live and learn, others just live." Oh, how true.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
I'd prefer to be left alone to secure my OWN rights, thank you. What others do (unless they violate me) is their concern only.

As for your "minimal government" comment, I'd like to share a gem of wisdom from the even smarter, late Nathan Earl Miller. "Some people live and learn, others just live." Oh, how true.
I guess I'll just end this discussion by assuming that you've read history, have seen that anarchy is the quickest way to tyranny and have figured a way around that. If you feel a desire to share this world changing revelation with someone, I sure would like to be included in the audience.
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

To have tyranny requires the masses entrust/allow someone/some group to rule over them. Unless/until the masses "catch on" to that scheme, we're all screwed, some more than others.

Anarchy merely means the ABSENCE of government which, at least to me, equates with freedom.

It's hard to take anyone seriously when they hide behind the name of a cartoon character.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
imported post

Anarchy quickly evolves into tyranny because there are people that will take advantage of the lack of defensive organization. So what you get are warlords paying armies to run around taking what they want and then the people fight back (by organizing) and then etc... it still happens to this day. Anarchy CANNOT be maintained for any lenght of time and history has proven this.

Anonymity is important when you work for a large high profile corporation. I use that name so that people KNOW its an alias.
 

codename_47

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
376
Location
, ,
imported post

2. the search violation
as soon as I was at the back of my Jeep the officer informed me that the reason he stopped me was because "when I ran your plates, they came back expired in January, but I can see the sticker on the plate says November". With a bit closer look we both could see that the tiny renewal sticker had my same plate numbers matching my plates and has NOV in lager letters.


The stop should have ended at this point, period. They aren't going to find any additional evidence of your car being registered or not in your glove box. Knowles v Iowa


At this point the officer asked for my drivers license and if I had any weapons, guns or knifes. I said "yes I have 2 knifes on me and a gun in the vehicle" first thing he had me do was turn and face his car, hands on the hood, and did a quick pat down removing one knife from its belt holder and a pat down of my left front pocket.

You need to learn the fine art of silence. Unless state law requires you to say that you had a gun in the car, you should have asked if you were free to go. In any case, you should have stated that you didn't consent to a search. That said, he didn't ask, so I'd presume the warrant less search to be unreasonable.

He asked for me to give him my keys. At this time I said "I do not consent to any search of my vehicle." I don’t remember at this point if he asked me anything else before he radio for back-up, but within a minute he stepped to the back of his car and made a 2-3 minute cell phone call. He returned to me, asking several "stall questions". "where you coming from, where you going", ect.

I would like a lawyer, why am I being detained? would be nice at this point...Good job objecting to the search.

At this point had my rights been violated? did he need to ask permission even before going in my backseat to get the gun case? had I given him any probable cause? NO! had I given him any implied consent?(is there even such a thing?) He never asked, and was never granted verbal permission to go into any of the 3 doors he opened.

Consent has to be given. He asked for the keys and you refused, game over. What crime are you being suspected of at this point?

Without going over the rest, somehow a non-criminal offense at best (no registration) that was quickly resolved turned into a drug investigation based on what? Their hunches? You need to sue them.

The OCer in New Mexico got 21k for his trouble, and it might be worth your while to go after them.

I'd say you were illegally detained, arrested, and searched.
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Okay, I get it. You don't want anyone who does business with your employer to be offended by your comments for fear of possibly losing your job. Yep, exactly one of the many problems plaguing this country today. NObody wants to stand up for fear of reprisal.

Since you and others choose to argue instead of learn, I'll point you to a higher source of knowledge. Go read 1st Samuel chapter 8, let me know what you think of it.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
imported post

Without going over the rest, somehow a non-criminal offense at best (no registration)

There are only 3 types of law here in La. Civil, Criminal and Administrative. While a case can be made that "expired registration" is in fact administrative, state law requires that the LEO file the "ticket" with the court of competent jurisdiction and in this case would have been the 22nd judicial district court. It would be in criminal court and criminal rules would apply.
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

georg jetson wrote:
Without going over the rest, somehow a non-criminal offense at best (no registration)

There are only 3 types of law here in La. Civil, Criminal and Administrative. While a case can be made that "expired registration" is in fact administrative, state law requires that the LEO file the "ticket" with the court of competent jurisdiction and in this case would have been the 22nd judicial district court. It would be in criminal court and criminal rules would apply.
Where does Admiralty or Maritime law fit in?
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote
Where does Admiralty or Maritime law fit in?
It doesn't... unless he was at sea...

Using admiralty law, maritime law, commercial law and all the other similar idiotic theories as a defense to criminal charges have LONG been proven CRAP in court. All they've done is make the huge gap between those that know the law and those that don't wider.

See http://www.buildfreedom.com/fiscal/key_issues.html
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

The fact this question was even asked speaks volumes.

For a truly free, sovereign citizen to be stopped while he's going about his private business IS a violation. But, since most Amerikans have been soooooooo brainwashed to accept this type behavior, they are unable to understand it.
 

IDAHO COWBOY

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
298
Location
, ,
imported post

Slidell Jim wrote:
one thing I was advised on was this, First thing she advised me was to write every detail down, every piece of conversation you can remember, and do it tonight, don't sleep on it, then call someone else in the morning

From a "knowledgeable friend" in Montana:

Since I don't know Louisiana laws, it's difficult to comment
specifically on this case, or what latitude LEOs may have in Louisiana.
They have some odd state laws that began not with English common law but
with the Napoleonic Code. Under the federal /Terry/ standard and
subsequent redefining case law, an LEO may not disarm a citizen unless
he can specifically articulate reasonable suspicion (not probable cause
- a lesser bar than probable cause) that the person is an imminent
threat to themselves, another person, or the officer. And, although the
LEOs were certainly fixing to disarm this citizen, but they didn't actually.

He should consult a local civil rights attorney (specifically an
attorney who specializes in civil rights or maybe criminal defense) who
knows Louisiana law. The attorney will probably tell him that since he
was only inconvenienced and was not cited, arrested or assaulted it's
not worth pursuing in a legal way. So, there's probably no affordable
mechanism of litigation to correct the bad behavior of the LEOs.

In that case, if the guy wishes to follow up on this, he needs to take
it up with the entity that controls the budget for the LEOs. In Montana
that would be the Legislature for the State Trooper and the local county
commissioners for the sheriffs deputy.

This guy now has the motivation to learn more about how to assert his
rights. He should have declined the initial search, as he did later.
Plus, he should have asked earlier if he was free to go or under arrest.

However, if a citizen properly asserts rights in the face of bullying
police, he's likely to find himself arrested. Then, numerous charges
will be filed to justify the arrest, including but not limited to
obstructing a police officer, resisting arrest, making false statements,
and more. The purpose of the multiple charges is to make the encounter
painful and expensive for the citizen, to improve the chances that one
of the charges will stick, and to leverage the citizen into a plea
bargain where the citizen pleads guilty to something to make the rest go
away. This is the risk a person runs when standing up for his or her
rights in the face of badge-heavy police. And, Louisiana has earned a
reputation as having badge-heavy police.

BTW, the LEO's check of the citizen's plate will have been recorded, so
whether or not a "mistake" was made by the LEO can be verified.
However, if the LEO was lying about the mistake, such recordings have a
way of getting lost.
 

4sooth

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
126
Location
, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Everyone who feels this man was only "inconvenienced" hence "no harm done" should be aware of the 10th circuit decision in New Mexico were an open carrier was removed from a movie theatre, escorted outside, disarmed briefly and released. This event lasted about 10 minutes. His vehicle was not searched, he was not handcuffed nor was he put on the ground.

All that is necessary for you to prevail in a USC:1983 action is to show that 1. Your rights were violated, 2. This was done under color of law.

In the above the 10th circuit found this to be the case. OC is not illegal in New Mexico so the police had no RAS to interface with this man.

No RAS-- the officers have no qualified immunity.$20000 plus from the dept. and he is suing the officers individually.

Harlow vs Fitzgerald tells us that public officials are required as a matter of law to personally know the law governing their actions. The court cited a 30 YEAR OLD case as being sufficient indication their actions were illegal!

Recent Georgia, State vs Jones,289 Ga. App. 176 (2008) case law
relative to the illegal seizure of a firearm from the interior of an auto relative to a "traffic" stop. In this one the officer explained it was his personal policy to search vehicles at his whim and seize any firearms he found. How long (and with dept. approval) had this officer been willfully violating the rights of the citizens? Possibly for years!

Summary motion for dismissal granted. Hope he is suing.

What happened to our local guy is far more egregious and with a good attorney he will probably win a judgement in his favor.
 

turbodog

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
566
Location
Independence, Louisiana, USA
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
Okay, I get it. You don't want anyone who does business with your employer to be offended by your comments for fear of possibly losing your job. Yep, exactly one of the many problems plaguing this country today. NObody wants to stand up for fear of reprisal.

Since you and others choose to argue instead of learn, I'll point you to a higher source of knowledge. Go read 1st Samuel chapter 8, let me know what you think of it.
Pay no attention to him georg he's a hypocrite. $500.00 ... school zone...still on the table mark

Hey, mark, the way you bitch and moan about CC questions on an OC forum it kinda surprises me the way your always preachin here. This ain't no religious forum either.

You want to peddle Jesus, go put on your white shirt and dark pants and walk door to door. Oh yeah, carry your gun while ya do it too. :lol:
 

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
892
Location
Michigan, USA
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
Actually, it IS a judge's duty to educate you in his courtroom. 

It is HIS duty to ensure your rights are not violated. 



Oh really, so how many judges inform a juror of his or her rights to jury nullification????
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
imported post

Jared wrote:
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
Actually, it IS a judge's duty to educate you in his courtroom.

It is HIS duty to ensure your rights are not violated.



Oh really, so how many judges inform a juror of his or her rights to jury nullification????
I don't think MEM was saying that they DO inform anyone, but that they should... He is incorrect of course. Also, the judges duty to a jury is different than it is to the parties of a case. Instead of continuing this off topic type discussion, just look here...

http://www.lasc.org/rules/supreme/cjc.asp

...what was that topic again??? oh yeah... Jim's rights... sorry Jim.
 
Top