"Legal Expert" Gets His Mom ARRESTED For This
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 авг 2023
- Go to tryfum.com/AUDIT and use code AUDIT to save an additional 10% off your order today.
Second Channel: / @johnlang6593
Spotify: spoti.fi/439TpHT
Patreon: / audittheaudit
Twitter: / audittheaudit
Submit your videos here: auditheaudit@gmail.com
Sponsorship inquiries: audit@ellify.com
Welcome to Audit the Audit, where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions. Help us grow and educate more citizens and officers on the proper officer interaction conduct by liking this video and/or subscribing.
This video is for educational purposes and is in no way intended to provoke, incite, or shock the viewer. This video was created to educate citizens on constitutionally protected activities and emphasize the importance that legal action plays in constitutional activism.
Bear in mind that the facts presented in my videos are not indicative of my personal opinion, and I do not always agree with the outcome, people, or judgements of any interaction. My videos should not be construed as legal advice, they are merely a presentation of facts as I understand them.
FAIR USE
This video falls under fair use protection as it has been manipulated for educational purposes with the addition of commentary. This video is complementary to illustrate the educational value of the information being delivered through the commentary and has inherently changed the value, audience and intention of the original video.
Original video: • 'You Piece of Sh*t!': ...
Law&Crime Network’s channel: / @lawandcrime
Traveling vs. Driving AtA and Second Channel Episodes-
• She THOUGHT She Knew H...
• Cop Pulls Over "Legal ...
• Surprise Ending To An ...
• Response to John Filax
Sources:
Articles-
bit.ly/3O9HFyq
bit.ly/3QaOWAN
bit.ly/3Qb9jxH
bit.ly/452BdQZ
Booking details (Booking numbers- Derek: B23-01905; Karen: B23-02049; Lance- B23-02904)- bit.ly/3O8yBdc
United States v. Beene- bit.ly/3Os3Lxy
Tex. Pen. Code § 38.15- bit.ly/3rH0ku2
Carney v. State- bit.ly/44URzuM
Freeman v. Gore- bit.ly/3Q9nNhC
Duncantell v. State- bit.ly/3Y3QJcM
Turner v. Driver- bit.ly/44Vw4Kg
Mesa v. Prejean- bit.ly/3K8Cj5u
Tex. Pen. Code § 38.04- bit.ly/3q4HQ6n
Tex. Pen. Code § 38.03- bit.ly/44EFvhp
Ramirez v. Martinez- bit.ly/44AQpoo
Clement v. State- bit.ly/3rH8H94
Lange v. California- bit.ly/3pFFJCj
Go to tryfum.com/AUDIT and use code AUDIT to save an additional 10% off your order today
This ad I was genuinely interested in
No grade for the guy in the initial stop?
You have the cops a C- because they dude was clearly interrupting the services of a peace officer. Wow you do really hate cops and are very biased. You might want to re-examine your life choices.
Moral Busy Bodies are gonna ban this too.
I don't know what JoystickJester is even saying, bu
-The cops deserve an F
-You didn't rate the person who *pulled over and detained.*
-You barely talk about the PD later detaining the mother of the friend.
-You barely talk about the legality of them bursting into the home and give them a C-, a passing grade, after clearly violating the 4th Amendment rights of both the friend and the mother.
- I'm be watching copycat channels. I'm tired of this channel that seems like it's paid off by police but isn't, they've just become *this biased* while cherry picking case law and ignoring half the important stuff going on in the interaction.
Overall, ATA gets an F.
Again.
-on the streets-
"I'm not a US Citizen, your laws don't apply to me."
-in court-
"you violated my 1st Amendment rights as a US Citizen."
Well put !
I get your point, but the rights also apply to non-citizens
Woke ideology) as well as 150 millions, G why not give him the Alaska for his sufferings 😅
@@blakebranvold1571As do the laws. But sov-cits like to pick and choose which apply to them at any given time
Picking and choosing whether you're a citizen is asinine, but most civil rights in the US do apply to non-citizens.
It isn't accidental that many of the amendments that are part of the Bill of Rights are written as prohibitions to the government's authority, not allowances of rights to individuals
There's a big difference between auditors and sovereign citizens. The whole "I'm not driving, I'm traveling" kills me every time.
That argument can only hold water if he was riding in a full self driving vehicle
Honestly if we held the law to how it should be, traveling is different. The founders never imagined we'd have the web of nonsense laws. They would have never believed the taxes, fees, and penalties would fall apon the citizens to mearly travel.
But they wrote in a system for that to be possible.
It pisses me off, like, bitch you were traveling in a car aka driving
@@georgeschnakenberg7808well, no, only if we held ourselves to some quasi legal system in an imaginary gap between the articles of confederation and the ratification of the constitution.
@@broobit7540It's called STATE'S RIGHTS !!!
When I hear “I’m not driving, I’m traveling” I know I’m in for a treat.
AUTOMOBILE AND MOTOR VEHICLE
There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:
"The word 'automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways." American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200.
While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated:
"A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received." International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120.
The term 'motor vehicle' is different and broader than the word automobile.'"; City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.
The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:
"Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.
"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.
TRAVEL
The term "travel" is a significant term and is defined as:
"The term 'travel' and 'traveler' are usually construed in their broad and general sense...so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure." [emphasis added] 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, p.717.
"Traveler: One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health." Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3309.
"Travel: To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey." Century Dictionary, p.2034.
Therefore, the term "travel" or "traveler" refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from one place to another, and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right.
Notice that in all these definitions the phrase "for hire" never occurs. This term "travel" or "traveler" implies, by definition, one who uses the road as a means to move from one place to another.
Therefore, one who uses the road in the ordinary course of life and business for the purpose of travel and transportation is a traveler.
DRIVER
The term "driver" in contradistinction to "traveler" is defined as:
"Driver: One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.
Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this person could not be "travelling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.
OPERATOR
Today we assume that a "traveler" is a "driver," and a "driver" is an "operator." However, this is not the case.
"It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms 'operator' and 'driver'; the 'operator' of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the 'driver' is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both 'operator' and 'driver.'" Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658.
To further clarify the definition of an "operator" the court observed that this was a vehicle "for hire" and that it was in the business of carrying passengers.
This definition would seem to describe a person who is using the road as a place of business, or in other words, a person engaged in the "privilege" of using the road for gain.
This definition, then, is a further clarification of the distinction mentioned earlier, and therefore:
Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads as a matter of Right meets the definition of a traveler.
Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a driver or an operator or both.
TRAFFIC
Having defined the terms "automobile," "motor vehicle," "traveler," "driver," and "operator," the next term to define is "traffic":
"...Traffic thereon is to some extent destructive, therefore, the prevention of unnecessary duplication of auto transportation service will lengthen the life of the highways or reduce the cost of maintenance, the revenue derived by the state...will also tend toward the public welfare by producing at the expense of those operating for private gain, some small part of the cost of repairing the wear..." Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26.
Note: In the above, Justice Tolman expounded upon the key of raising revenue by taxing the "privilege" to use the public roads "at the expense of those operating for gain."
In this case, the word "traffic" is used in conjunction with the unnecessary Auto Transportation Service, or in other words, "vehicles for hire." The word "traffic" is another word which is to be strictly construed to the conducting of business.
"Traffic: Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money..."; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3307.
Here again, notice that this definition refers to one "conducting business." No mention is made of one who is traveling in his automobile. This definition is of one who is engaged in the passing of a commodity or goods in exchange for money, i.e.., vehicles for hire.
Furthermore, the word "traffic" and "travel" must have different meanings which the courts recognize. The difference is recognized in Ex Parte Dickey, supra:
"..in addition to this, cabs, hackney coaches, omnibuses, taxicabs, and hacks, when unnecessarily numerous, interfere with the ordinary traffic and travel and obstruct them."
The court, by using both terms, signified its recognition of a distinction between the two. But, what was the distinction? We have already defined both terms, but to clear up any doubt:
"The word 'traffic' is manifestly used here in secondary sense, and has reference to the business of transportation rather than to its primary meaning of interchange of commodities." Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18.
Here the Supreme Court of the State of Washington has defined the word "traffic" (in either its primary or secondary sense) in reference to business, and not to mere travel! So it is clear that the term "traffic" is business related and therefore, it is a "privilege." The net result being that "traffic" is brought under the (police) power of the legislature. The term has no application to one who is not using the roads as a place of business.
LICENSE
It seems only proper to define the word "license," as the definition of this word will be extremely important in understanding the statutes as they are properly applied:
"The permission, by competent authority to do an act which without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort." People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4.
"Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent." Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118.
In order for these two definitions to apply in this case, the state would have to take up the position that the exercise of a Constitutional Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life and business is illegal, a trespass, or a tort, which the state could then regulate or prevent.
This position, however, would raise magnitudinous Constitutional questions as this position would be diametrically opposed to fundamental Constitutional Law. (See "Conversion of a Right to a Crime," infra.)
In the instant case, the proper definition of a "license" is:
"a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police power." [emphasis added] Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203.
This definition would fall more in line with the "privilege" of carrying on business on the streets.
Most people tend to think that "licensing" is imposed by the state for the purpose of raising revenue, yet there may well be more subtle reasons contemplated; for when one seeks permission from someone to do something he invokes the jurisdiction of the "licensor" which, in this case, is the state. In essence, the licensee may well be seeking to be regulated by the "licensor."
"A license fee is a charge made primarily for regulation, with the fee to cover costs and expenses of supervision or regulation." State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc.2d 700; 211 NW.2d 480, 487.
The fee is the price; the regulation or control of the licensee is the real aim of the legislation.
Are these licenses really used to fund legitimate government, or are they nothing more than a subtle introduction of police power into every facet of our lives? Have our "enforcement agencies" been diverted from crime prevention, perhaps through no fault of their own, instead now busying themselves as they "check" our papers to see that all are properly endorsed by the state?
How much longer will it be before we are forced to get a license for our lawn mowers, or before our wives will need a license for her "blender" or "mixer?" They all have motors on them and the state can always use the revenue.
As a European I’m glad to learn that foreigners don’t have to oblige by US traffic laws. I’ll make sure to educate the officers on my next US trip 😆
"Enjoy your extended stay" 😂
It's crazy isn't it?
@@richs.7373 lol
@gerttopmuller be sure to tell the cops you’re European and have diplomatic immunity.
@@markseabolt5959Lethal Weapon 😂
It’s just another reason for America to be cast as the “world’s trailer park.”
sovereign citizens are the only people who can make me feel bad for a cop
ikr.
Agreed but the cops in this situation are out of control. Lol they arrest the brother because they didn’t like him talking shit and than the mother? Na
They arrested the brother because he repeatedly disobeyed their order to get back and then tried to flee once they tried to detain him to control him
Cops are great people and have a very difficult job. Show some respect
I am convinced that people become “sovereign citizens” because they have no comprehension of vehicle maintenance or the ability to change bulbs.
Does anyone else find it a bit ironic, that these kids subscribe to "sovereign citizen" ideology, yet both their parents work for the government? :D
Yep, consistence does not matter
These kids were WILD!!! And the fact that their parents work(ed) in government positions is even more crazy
common for kids to be rebellious against parents AND those parents happen to support one of the most corrupt systems in human history? (US gov as a whole.) Cringe but not ironic
Sovereign citizens are irritating. "We weren't driving, we were traveling." Has that ever worked with a traffic court judge?
@@jonstone9741 they were driving and now they are traveling to jail
"HELP! I'M BEING KIDNAPPED!"
Dude... the police are already there. Who are you expecting to help you? Wonder Woman?
I live in Smith County. This is pretty typical. And I had always wondered how a husband and wife can be County Commissioner and County Clerk without there being any impropriety... but corruption and nepotism are also pretty typical here.
oh so its like the small town of roseland here in the loosier state and the people named snyder they were a husband and wife team that were like this running the town if anyone tried to challenge them they would send the town marshalls after them to arrest them on fake charges i cant remember for sure but i think they finally left and the husband died or something
Are those both elected offices in your county? If so, how would that be nepotism? If it is nepotism, it would seem like the people there voted for it.
Man whipped out that dictionary quick, like he was challenging a word on scrabble
Not only whipped out the old Sov Cit Bible, a.k.a. Blacks Law Dictionary, he had a binder with a freaking presentation lol!
That was funny. He was ready to try his case right there and then.
Black’s Law Dictionary would be a wild ass game of Scrabble
Bro You never know when A scrabble game
Might arrive
Homeboy saw the police lights turn on and, while rubbing his hands together and licking his lips, said "I've waited my whole life for this moment." And then completely and embarassingly fucked it all up.
Imagine putting so much time and effort into learning the wrong information 😂
Happens everywhere, dude. It almost seems to be becoming the norm.
Beavis & Butthead, spoiled little boys-
Cops??? 😂😂😂
Good thing all of my hours of research showing that the earth is flat turned out to be true
Remember when we thought stupidity was caused by a lack of access to information?
Yeah, that wasn’t it. 😒
If that first Officer didnt get an A+ no one will
No joke. He was exceedingly patient while getting yelled at.
I’d love this guy to actually renounce his US citizenship at like an embassy or consulate or to the state department and then try to get a job
This video was so insane. I can't believe adults can get so far in life and be so wrong about things.
Generational money helps
In an older generation, these idiots would have won a Darwin award by now but society and the law has put too many rubber bumpers on the world. That's why idiots like this are allowed to live and thrive in our society.
@@Rumplesti1tskin I think you mean delusional coddling parents with money, helps.
It is scary how many LEO’s and indoctrinated lawyers are out there and in this thread. I guess the last few years have really shown us the saturation of idiots that run the system. You would think with all their years reading books and “learning” they would know some of the SUPREME COURT rulings. Here is just a “few”…
"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135
"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." -Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
"… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right" -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979)
“citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.” Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009
“The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .” Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963).
“The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.” Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966).
“A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.” Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41.
“The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.” Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236.
"The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts." People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971)
“The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.” House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166.
“The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles. Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666.
“The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.” Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468.
“A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159; Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670
“There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456
"The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways." -American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 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…"
10) The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. "A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received." -International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120
The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’" -City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232
"Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled" - Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20
"The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.
" Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). "...a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon...
" State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982; Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82
"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163
"the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all." - Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781
“Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210.
"No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways... transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances." Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22.
"Traffic infractions are not a crime." People v. Battle "Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right... may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right." Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969).
U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary. "The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation." Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83
"Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen." Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27
“RIGHT -- A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961.
“Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.” City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910.
“A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639.
You realize this is the USA right? Practically everyone is wrong about everything and they'll fight tooth and nail to defend it rather than confirm it. The entitlement these days is what's insane.
It's amazing how many people think if they just keep yelling enough points at a cop they'll suddenly concede.
Right, like the cop was just gonna walk over and take a look at the books and be like "Oh my God, you're so right! What am I doing!?"
The guy came across like a trained professional victim. We know he is a liar because he didn't end up with a broken arm/shoulder or dead of asphyxiation in the car. No surprise the whole family is trying to get rich off the experience they created.
It's a tactic sometimes referred to as a "bullshit avalanche."
yeah fo rreal. cops cant be reasoned with. it doesnt matter if youre a sovcit or not. cops cant be reasoned with
To be fair, it works for cops.
I'm an old punker, skater, formerly poor person who has received a healthy share of unwarranted police interaction. If I were an officer in that situation, due to the actions of the guy who ran into the house, I would have honestly thought that he was going to get a weapon thinking that he would be immune to consequence because of whatever sovereignty he'd convinced himself of, and that he also convinced himself that the police were breaking laws.
I've had this happen to me. I was pulled over he told me my lights were out made sure wasn't medical or alcohol issue and sent me on my way. Respect goes both ways people.
Lol I love that this dude keeps a thick dictionary in his truck as some kind of defense against cops. Like some kind of sovereign citizen shaman
It's almost like he's a dungeons & dragons master but he somehow warpedd that into constitutional law.
Bet it was Black's Law Dictionary too
Think he have the book as decoration in his truck since he dont seems to know how to read
@@JimDean002funny enough, he can’t read past a 2nd grade level. 😢
This guy: My mom is a government representative.
Also this guy: the government doesn’t apply to me
Yep.
The irony
Also this guy: I have constitutional rights from the government that doesn't apply to me
most likely born in america, "im not a us citizen" so deport him for being in the country illegally? stupid logic but hey, play stupid games win stupid prizes
@@straymusicAnd the hypocrisy. Flip the story to whatever suits the narrative of the moment. Lil punk really thinks he’s a hero, too.
Seeing that clip of him in the court room having to be dragged and carried like a sack of potatoes because he's committed to throwing a temper tantrum at every opportunity just further shoots himself in the foot by taking away his own last bit of dignity he could have. This kind of behavior doesn't make you look like some kind of hero standing up for your rights and/or the people's rights. It makes you look like you belong in a psychiatric ward.
If he believes he’s not a USA citizen then deport him!!
Get robac
Just once I'd love to see a LEO respond to a sovcit moron by asking them to produce a passort with a valid visa, then call them an illegal immigrant when they can't and threaten to call ICE.
That would teach him tbh
To where though? No country is going to accept another country just dumping their -citizen- problem on their land.
I love how this guy is like "I wasn't driving I was traveling!" but when the officer explains that he's not being arrested, he's being detained he says it's the same thing.
Instead of deliberately explaining to its viewers that the Constitution, is the restrictive barrier between inalienable rights of People and enumerated powers of limited jurisdiction, this channel cites civil codes, derived from statutory acts under civil power, by which once a license has been substantiated against ones legal person, and public surety is established, it becomes difficult to revoke . Although this material is not an accurate argument for fighting traffic stops as it is clear by the state plate on the car that a PRESUMPTION of law would be implied, The right to use ones private property on the highways without a commercial indemnity is definitely protected by the Constitution, unfortunately, there was enough implied evidence to allow for the presumption and not enough knowledge about third party privity when applied to private property. This channel uses the false premise of rules derived from within a forum of democratically legislated rule making and coupled with ignorant people who don't understand who they are, makes for a great monetization to the wrong ends. If your going to quote law in reference to a right, don't use rules or ordinances which only apply to those civil rights within limited congressional power. This channel receives a thumbs down.
@@nodemediocrecy That's a lot of text. Too bad for you I ain't reading none of it.
@@hardlogic3046Typical police mentality.
@@nodemediocrecy "anyone who doesn't agree with me is police" Lady you've got issues.
@@hardlogic3046That must be your hardlogic talkin.
I heard "he was travelling" and immediately groaned. Sovereign citizens are always...fun...to watch
Just Like the Nazis
🤮
They make me cringe…..when will they ever stop . They never win.
@@JustanotherLisa just like the old days when slave patrol did the same thing people do when
I truly can't wrap my head around how some people think this is the smart way to behave with a traffic stop.
It's so easy to handle this situation.
"Do you know why I pulled you over?"
"No, sir."
"I'm stopping you because both of your tail lights are out."
"Oh, I wasn't aware of that. I'll set up an appointment with my repair shop to get it taken care of."
You likely receive a citation for the busted lights. You rectify the situation, then contact your local law enforcement to inform them that it's been fixed. They'll tell you to either call a particular person (sorry, a similar situation happened to me and I can't remember who it was I had to contact) to have your court date dropped, or you can go to court and provide proof that you took care of it. I didn't have to pay any sort of fine after I fixed my dead light.
It's NOT a big deal. I just can't understand why these people make a mountain out of an anthill for themselves, just to be buried under their own mountain of misinformed gibberish.
Because some people have dignity and don't like to be messed with by criminals in costumes trying to make you bend over for them
@@pJ-us2vldignity is not how I would describe the guy yelling the whole time.
They have no clue why he was running back into his house. It’s plausible he was going to get a weapon considering his actions.
It's refreshing to see a cop who refuses to escalate, no matter how insufferable the suspect is. Kinda felt bad for his mom, her idiot son yelled himself into an arrest, she just seemed confused and stressed out.
don't feel bad for the women that raised this spawn.
@bradengle3491 she wasn't the one spewing all the Sovereign Citizen crap, so I doubt he learned that nonsense at home. Sounded like he can thank his "friend" for that. Maybe you've not raised teenagers, but do you remember how much YOU listened to your folks?
Most parents don't take the time to teach their kids how to interact with police or what to do if they're arrested because they never imagine they'll need that info.
@@tfgrrl2042 keep making excuses for these out of control kids. I'm sure it will turn out fine. 👍 Single mothers are cancer, and feminism created these monsters. If dad is around at all, he's not allowed to properly discipline; gurenteed. These are the results. Stop blaming kids for the inadequacies of the parents. Why are they living at home at that age with that attitude? Because mom is weak, that's why.
I've honestly seen a lot of those videos lately, mostly from Wisconsin.
Confused that a cop pulled over a car for having no taillights?
These two were so insufferable. This cop had the patience of a saint
Especially when they pulled out a whole dictionary.
* The first cop did, the second one showed up and demanded he "get over here" despite the first cop telling him to "stand back". 😒
This comment section is full of obnoxious acab idiots. Thank you for being one of the sensible ones.
In the initial dude's defense, he was trying to explain the situation to the officer and even while his friends was acting like a jackass, still remained calm. He may not have been cooperative but at least he wasn't acting a fool of himself and making the situation worse.
@@lissetteshadowenand?
How to get yourself arrested for something that with cooperation may have been a fix it ticket 101
The fact that he'd put his whole family through all that over a tail light is so infuriating. You can see, his mom was shaking, she was so scared. She didn't deserve to be caught up in all this.
The sheriff that hates her is who put her through this.
@SoylentGamer, Not even his vehicle's tailights, but those of his fellow 'traveller'.
"I'm suing under the law but refuse to follow the same law." Pretty much explains this type of idiocy.
Imagine cop: _I am not arresting you. My hand cuffs are traveling._
@@Dowlphin
Arresting != Detaining.
@@Dowlphinthis is hilarious 🤣
Instead of deliberately explaining to its viewers that the Constitution, is the restrictive barrier between inalienable rights of People and enumerated powers of limited jurisdiction, this channel cites civil codes, derived from statutory acts under civil power, by which once a license has been substantiated against ones legal person, and public surety is established, it becomes difficult to revoke . Although this material is not an accurate argument for fighting traffic stops as it is clear by the state plate on the car that a PRESUMPTION of law would be implied, The right to use ones private property on the highways without a commercial indemnity is definitely protected by the Constitution, unfortunately, there was enough implied evidence to allow for the presumption and not enough knowledge about third party privity when applied to private property. This channel uses the false premise of rules derived from within a forum of democratically legislated rule making and coupled with ignorant people who don't understand who they are, makes for a great monetization to the wrong ends. If your going to quote law in reference to a right, don't use rules or ordinances which only apply to those civil rights within limited congressional power. This channel receives a thumbs down.
It's pretty rare these days for me to have much sympathy for officers...but man these guys are insufferable.
You should understand the constitution
@@zzep69what? How does that pertain here?
@@zzep69
What does that have to do with this incident?
@@TrueMohax read it and then you'll educate yourself then you can understand
@@zzep69I think that's the most useless response I've seen on RUclips this month.
seriously appreciate the overviews in these videos of the specifics that the laws inquire. as someone that aspires to be an officer it really helps me get my first foot forward. love this channel
Mr phillips really sat down like a child in the courthouse when they told him hes under arrest. Lmaoooo
If I remember correctly, the guy that ran into his home, had threatened to "Get something to get them (the cops) off his property. Because your trespassing." So considering that the cops could conclude that the person was about to grab a weapon, which allows them to take action to protect themselves and others.
he did.
Correct and that is why they ran after him. I had previously seen this video and was going to say the say thing.
Agreed
This comment needs boosted
OK, this is a very important piece of information.
All of this over a brake light ticket... Props to the officers. They stayed so collected during this insanity.
Right? Like I seriously doubt he would have even cited him for it
@@ensanesaneat most he might have gotten a fix it ticket or their state’s equivalent and it would be easy to get it taken care of. At worst it would have taken maybe an hour/ hour and a half depending on how far away a store with what they need is
Right? I am ACAB as hell, but also a sociology major. Sovereign citizens make me sick because, between their stupidity and entitlement, make me feel bad for the cops that have to deal with them.
Regardless if they are insufferable sovereign citizens, you really think the cops needed to escalate the stop to this point? Was it justified to arrest them?
Really amazes me how 0-100 this case went lol
A simple, yes sir, thank you sir I will get this tail light corrected.
No cuffs, no court, no record
“Look at that, Mom!” Whoaaa, what a big boy! Such an independent citizen he still lives with his mommy.
Everyone is a sovereign citizen until it's time to file a lawsuit or receive that stimulus check 😂😂😂
It makes me smile to think he'll get a chance to watch this entire tantrum in court and have his lawyer explain it
They are pro se, meaning defending themselves like most "sovereign citizens" because no lawyer will agree to argue their delusional conception of law.
He won't hire a lawyer. They never do.
@@ajm5007 oh right, I forgot about that detail! He'll represent/embarass himself and get absolutely nowhere with it, except probably back on Yotube
@@ajm5007no way, they don’t? Ahaha they are so obnoxious
I would bet that even then, he'll STILL (and always) feel he was right regardless how many ways h's shown the legality of this. As others posted, I also think he won't get an attorney
I feel like he loses the 4th Amendment argument on the basis that he invited the officer in to his home. When the officer told him to come out, he said "no, you come to me."
Oof. I would be stunned in this isn’t brought up during his trial.
I thought the same thing
same, he literally invited the cop to come closer to him
I came here to say this. I’m surprised AtA didn’t mention it in the video. He clearly invited the cop to come to him.
@@ronaldpalma9812 🤣🤣🤣 AtA gets an A-
Has “I’m traveling not driving” ever worked in a court of law? Like, ever?
Your breakdowns are likely the best I've seen, sir. Kudos and a cookie/trophy my good man. Keep it up if you don't mind.
I hope he learns how to stay calm in situations like these and get rid of that "friend" who kept screaming over everyone and escalating the situation causing more confusion than anything. That guy is just gonna get him killed one day.
Wow. Imagine seeing yourself behave like these people did. A simple "get it fixed" ticket event turns into one where one has to hire an attorney and involves everyone in your family. Not sure that was a good idea.
As he stated before that they had a pending law suit, this is why they do it. its kind of a lottery for them that at some point they might actually win one.
Lol yeah that cop was totally gonna let
Them go with out a ticket.
@@camc8923I'm pretty sure it isn't lucrative to sue police departments and is actually probably one of the worst suggestions for making money I've ever heard.
@@faggianogeuiseppi5135 a fix it ticket is a ticket where you either fix it, or pay the fine, usually within 10 days.
@camc8923 not really long as they keep doing stuff like this cause even a day one DA will eat these dudes up like bacon.
this is my first time watching one of your videos.
i’ve heard of your channel, but i always figured it was just another police auditing channel.
im happy to be proven wrong! your content is amazing-well researched, entertaining, and seems perfectly fair to all parties.
instant sub from me!
He's fantastic...
I think I've watched his full back log when I found him last year.
Much better than some auditors who are just anti-police
I think there's another channel this guy owns.
There's definitely 2, people that work on this channel, some of the early videos have another commentator
Wow, I learned more about the law in this one video than I have from many other sources. Great breakdown of the episode! Newly subscribed 😊
Less than 30 seconds into the police interaction, I'm just:
"Oh, F#$k NO!! Not one of these guys. "
Oh snap! This is my county 😂. This lady is always there during jury selection and surprisingly very good at instructing everyone. I would have never known her son was this horrible before this.
Yeah dude I was surprised to hear them say tyler 😂
@@jimharrington6300it doesn't surprise me much that this fella was raised by " Karen".. 🤦♀️
Now the whole county knows…
I lived there for a couple years back in 2010-2012. I can't say that I miss it lol
I got into an argument with her son, and he is the biggest fkn clown I have EVER met.
"Get your supervisor here for lying on the record"
😂😂😂
They already looking for a problem to sue the police ...😂😂
6:41 this man is literally crying for his mommy to save his friend from a police officer. 😂😂😂
* kid not man
The patience this cop had is absolutely amazing.
Right? If the guy was black he would've been pretzeled and tased
It’s how they all should behave. They’re public servants.
@@Zenny916 stop trolling
It's almost as though he were dealing with a child. 😂
@@Zenny916exactly! When black men yell the cops reply with violence
As much as I hate to see police brutality caught on tape... In this case, I could make an exception.
Caught on tape that's the problem. Yep ok
“HE CANT SEE!!!” is my favorite part LOL
They don't want to follow the law but they want to use the law.
Damn these people are the world's worst/ greatest magicians. They turned a simple ticket into a felony.
Cops and courts are still better magicians, they're more powerful than Jesus, they can convert literally nothing into a crime then multiply it like tribbles.
As soon as his little sidekick said “He’s also not driving, he’s traveling”, I knew it was a lost cause.
there should be an criminal offense called "Excessive annoyance".
They could call it Karen’s law
Speaking with sovereign citizens, is like speaking with a six year old child.
I was thinking more like a two year old.
Not even close. 6 year olds are so much easier to deal with.
The 6 year old might change their mind.
yeah, sorry man. A six year old has way more morals and common sense.
I've had more intellectual conversations with my 2 year old nephew than I saw from those guys. And he only said "Hi there, Dada, Mama, Uh Oooh" and spouted gibberish.
Clearly a case where a spoiled, crybaby, loudmouth has never been made to have consequences for his actions! Let’s hope the courts hold him accountable now! His parents should be ashamed of themselves as well as him!
Abysmal behavior!
I'm with you on this one.
two of em! its a two-for-one special lmfao
The officers' actions were abysmal, too.
@@puddingtame3483How's that?
@@TOShepardRebornLead eaters make no sense.
I love watching your videos. Excellent content
He’s been waiting for this moment, his entire life along with his friend
“I wish you would talk to me like a man.”
“Mom! Mom! Help!”
Am I the only person who noticed he invited him into his home? He literally said "I'm not coming over there. Come over here then" while he was inside his house. How in the hell is that not an invitation into the house?
This
exactly
The whole family is nuts. The saying the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree is so true in this case
His mum taught him everything he knows.
What a big cry baby he is.
Help I'm being kidnapped instead of I'm being arrested I'll see you when I get out in the morning. 😂
Imagine all this issue over a probable blown fuse in the car. I've been stopped for having no tail lights and it was a relatively peaceful exchange and thanked the officer for letting me know. Then I fixed the lights.
Same here
Same happened to me. Loose wire, thanked the cop for letting know and parted ways without a ticket. Easy.
What a boot licker! Yes officer, I’ll do everything you ask!! Do you also shine apples for your teachertoo?
-sov citz ( probably)
Well that's where you messed up. You're supposed to whip out your two-foot-thick dictionary and explain to the officer that all of the terminology he is using is wrong.
@@michealwilliams472 I'll brush up on that for next time. See how that ends....hahahaha!
In the military we call this guy the barracks lawyer. Equally misinformed
My Dad served in the Marines during the Korean War, and used the term "sea lawyer".
Jailhouse lawyer is another good one
First one at the smoke Pitt and first to be picked for working party
If they declare they are not ‘citizens’ & don't believe the law applies to them, can they file a lawsuit?
yes, you don't have to be a US citizen to sue
What it is he "thinks" he knows his rights and was just looking for any reason to sue someone
What annoys me about people like this is they give people who are against auditors and think everyone who knows their rights are delusional more ammunition
No, you freaks do that yourself. You’re coping right now.
I always watch these and think this was a nothing situation that got escalated to a ridiculous level for what? Now they just look like idiots on the internet
They don’t know their rights which makes them a great example of what not to do. Who is against people knowing their rights and calling them delusional?
@@TheSCPStudio wtf are you on about
@@sailormaryn read my comment again. Why does audit the audits fans always so quickly jump the gun
I always tell sovereign citizens that their legal arguments even if 100% correct will not win over cops on the side of the road . Roadside court is a perilous situation.
There's also another element: As a libertarian, there are a number of areas in which I actually agree with SovCits about what the law _should_ be (as well as a number of others in which I do not). But the fact that the law _should_ be a certain way doesn't necessarily mean that it _is_ . And SovCit "logic" about why the law secretly says what they want it to say, but only if you know the right secret codewords, is barking mad.
I don't believe that an unjust law has any moral force. But again, there's a big difference between saying "you have no right to command me not to do X, and the law that says you can is damnable tyranny that I am right to resist" and saying "actually, the law that seemingly says that you can command me not to do X only has authority over me if I agree that it does, by accepting that my name in all capital letters refers to the same person as my name with normal capitalization!"
A company going out and kidnapping people for not buying a service is outrageous
@@logitimate
Let’s simplify this. They are idiots to act in this manner. Duke it out in court not by being a fool during a simple stop that can only get you a ticket. They escalated this unnecessarily. WOW!!!
Love how a moment ago that traveling and driving aren’t the same thing. Yet when the officer cuffs him then he argues that detaining and arresting are the same. 😂
This cop could not have been more calm and professional.
Frankly, I couldn't get very far before I had to stop watching this. These guys were (are) making points that are so idiotic that there is a very small chance that I'll learn anything at all. As another commenter pointed out, these guys accomplished something very difficult: they made me sympathize with the police.
So a cop rushing into a school where there’s an active shooter and getting shot and killed by the shooter isn’t worthy of empathy as a human being?
Exactly. I’ve seen and dealt with too many bullies with badges that I rarely sympathize with police, but this officer has remained so calm, and these guys are such I D I O T S. I mean I would have arrested the other guy already for interference. Shut him away in the car to put him out of my misery.
@@jeremyroland5602 So, I'm supposed to generalize that onto all policeman? Seriously? You really think most of them are that brave and honorable? Unfortunately, I know over two dozen of them, and may be 2 or 3 are that brave, and they even those ones treat others like crap. I don't empathize with them because such a large percentage of them take that job because they enjoy carrying a gun and bossing others around. Sometimes it's worse and they just got out the military and are still suffering from undiagnosed PTSD and are just really angry. Sorry, your example is rare enough to be useless for this type of general point.
@@jeremyroland5602 What-about-ism is beyond pathetic. Go away.
@@jeremyroland5602that’s their job. Doesn’t make them a good person.
It's so often on this channel it's brought up that officers are bad at de-escalation or actively make situations worse, but man this officer is keeping his cool remarkably well while everyone's trying their hardest to escalate the situation.
Also he’s all by himself right? I’d be extremely nervous because they both seem very unstable and potentially violent. There should have been more officers there asap
This channel often makes the mistake of claiming that officers escalate the situation.
This family has been making humongous fools of themselves since this happened.
I can only imagine.
“Get off of me I can’t breathe” continues to shout and talk 😂
I bet this family has very nice, quiet holidays. No chaos or drama.
They most likely do. They seem like an extremely calm bunch and are able to discuss topics, at length, without any yelling or shouting.
"Dad! Pass the corn!" "You can't claim ownership over this corn!" Lol
^^^ "You can't detain the corn! I wasn't taking it from you, it was traveling across the table!"
Police: "I need to give you a ticket for not having tail lights"
Suspect: *Dramatically escalates the situation*
Police: "Okay you're detained"
*Shocked Pikachu*
Also, "who is the victim?" Every person who has to drive behind you at night and doesn't get notified when you're breaking.
For real, do they think that “travelling not driving“ means they can endanger others with no repercussions?
Braking*
@@ryanm.3393 UMMM I think he may have the spelling right in this one case.
@@sailormaryn i've already seen a sov cit answer this question in another video before: "It's not my problem"
@@ghz24no he is correct. the dictionary is free.
Way to go, mommy’s boy. Someone’s getting grounded once she’s out of jail
Oh Lord.. the moment he said "I was not driving I was traveling" I knew what to expect.
Cop: "Driving"
Them: "Traveling"
Cop: "Detained, not arrested"
Them: "It's the same thing!"
Kudos for that cop being as patient as he was.
“Traveling” in a car by himself. 😂😂
How in their minds is operating a moter vehicle not driving?? 😂🤦♀️
@@geekgirl616 Look up Sovereign citizens. They believe they have all the rights of the land but do not have to follow any of its laws...
Both are unlawful seizure
@@geekgirl616they're sovereign citizens, they think arguing semantics makes them above laws even though it never holds up in court.
"He's not driving, he's travelling" must've been one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard
I can't see how they think that, myself.
Respect to the officer keeping it cool during that absurd argument.
@@MrBeevee5 they don't understand synonyms, for example "I'm not watching this video. I am Viewing it"
@@MrBeevee5It has to do with misunderstanding the way laws and rights are written. They read one thing and then take others words that this is the way it works without realizing case law completely disagrees with them.
Sovereign Citizens love that line. I have no idea why. It never ever ever works. But it is fun watching them try.
These two are a perfect example of what NOT to do on a traffic stop
Lol the traveling vs driving arguement is classic 👌
I watch this and think to myself: This is what happens when you let your grown son continue to live in your basement. Everything about this situation screams that his Mommy has been bailing him out and fighting his battles for him throughout life.
Chris Chan is a perfect example.
That's a speciously garbage comment. 😒 This has zero bearing on living with family. North Americans want to get their own place as soon as they turn 18 because there's so much room in the continent. In the rest of the world where space is at a premium, most people live at home well into adulthood until they have a compelling reason to move out like getting married or having kids or getting a job in another city. Living with your family doesn't cause this, being trailer-trash does. 🙄
@@davidbenjamin8265 Yikes, I had to google that name, absolutely disgusting
They should be charged with felony stupidity
Exactly. The mother should be ashamed for raising dumb-asses.
This was probably one of the most painful traffic stops I've ever watched. Dude, this was probably a warning or a fix it ticket at best.
It shouldn't be a ticket, that's just less money to fix it. And it might not have been, it might indeed have just been a notice or at most, a citation to fix it. But I guess we'll never know. 🤷
probably a bit more since was already contesting a different traffic violation on the basis of sovereign BS, but I think it'sstill unlikely to have resulted in more than an unusually high fine. these people are so dumb! but you need to be to buy into what they believe.
These 2 kids were losers, boy
The way the officer spoke at the start was very reasonable and sounded like it was a friendly "hey btw you have a tail-light out". These dorks just wanted to own someone so badly they talked themselves into a ticket.
@@foehammer5047 *into jail.
That second guy is THE WORST kind of "friend"
Went to fast forward through the ad and accidentally became intrigued.
Its surprising to me how often these encounters are completely one sided. Its usually one party being a super douche and the other is just a normal person going about their day. Sometimes its the cop who sucks and sometimes its a civilian but usually just one of them is causing all the trouble.
Wouldn't be much of a video to analyze if everything went by the books and there wasn't any conflict
Thats social media selection bias for you
He has a few that both sides flip out on each other and get Fs. If you think about it, if nothing happened, then that isn't worth a breakdown and/or post.
This is definitely one where it is clear who was in the right and who was wrong.
Yup I’ve noticed that too
When it's both, it only ends one way. 💀
I hope that guy got a better friend; all he did was escalate the entire situation.
I think they’re brothers!
@@360entertainment2 Np they aren't but even if he was my brother I would have told him to STFU I'll handle this it doesn't concern you. and worse to just a friend.
With friends like him...
This video perfectly illustrates something I tell people all of the time. Cooperate with police during a stop and if they do something wrong, challenge it in court.
If all cops were this, calm and respectful, will be much better off. Much respect to him.
I will never understand why people feel the need to act like this and make things get to this point. It's absolutely ridiculous and they deserve anything they get.
It is scary how many LEO’s and indoctrinated lawyers are out there and in this thread. I guess the last few years have really shown us the saturation of idiots that run the system. You would think with all their years reading books and “learning” they would know some of the SUPREME COURT rulings. Here is just a “few”…
"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135
"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." -Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
"… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right" -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979)
“citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.” Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009
“The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .” Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963).
“The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.” Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966).
“A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.” Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41.
“The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.” Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236.
"The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts." People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971)
“The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.” House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166.
“The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles. Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666.
“The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.” Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468.
“A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159; Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670
“There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456
"The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways." -American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 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…"
10) The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. "A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received." -International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120
The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’" -City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232
"Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled" - Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20
"The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.
" Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). "...a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon...
" State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982; Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82
"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163
"the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all." - Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781
“Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210.
"No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways... transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances." Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22.
"Traffic infractions are not a crime." People v. Battle "Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right... may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right." Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969).
U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary. "The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation." Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83
"Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen." Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27
“RIGHT -- A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961.
“Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.” City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910.
“A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639.
Your welcome to check them and then it will really sink in,ether way your welcome.
Let's hope they dont get anything by suing the state.. how likely is it actually?
@@-Timur1214 zero no lawyer in their right mind would take it. even if they do the judge would mostly dismiss it
Officer was probably just going to give the dude a warning for the taillights too
@@flamekiller3338 they filed pro se. They are representing their very smart selves.
These sovereign citizens are the most obnoxious people on the planet. Since they think they are not subject to laws, they should not be given the benefit of law.
I never thought of it like that it’s like if you don’t operate within the law of the land then you don’t have any rights afforded to you and protected by the constitution😂
Exactly. They only agree with the law when it benefits them. But when they do something wrong suddenly it doesn’t apply to them🥴
It's also an oxymoron. To be sovereign means to not be ruled by a government while a citizen is one ruled by a government. It contradicts itself.
@@wutflexRight, if you don't think you're subject to the law then you have no recourse if the police operate outside the law against you. They want all of the benefits of the constitution (and then some) with none of the responsibilities.
I'd love see the look on a sovereign citizen's face when an officer finally says, "Oh, is that so? Well guess what, I'm a sovereign citizen too," while donning a set of brass knuckles.
I've been playing a game trying to find people more annoying that "sovereign citizens."
Drunk people play a distant second.
Wowzers - my head hurts
Regardless of actual law, this was completely preventable on the part of the citizens. All this should’ve been as a $25 fix-it ticket. They made it into a federal case. Not only should their lawsuits be thrown out, they should get to pay all legal fees.
Nothing like a sovereign citizen to make me almost feel bad for the cops! 🤣 🤣
…..almost!🤣😂✌️
Only almost.
Almost, but not quite.
Corey, how those boots taste?
@@pjbiggleswerth8903you tell us! If you agree with these idiots, you're obviously the one who enjoys the boot. The rest of us know the law (& our rights) & try to avoid the cops as much as possible.
These dudes were clearly never told "no" or disciplined as kids.
Actually they received many MANY headshots that leads to this type of behavior. 😂
They probably were, but the encyclopedia guy bring in that book on a forklift every time and scream for 5 hours probably
@@gusterccYeah, I'm more inclined to believe some form of abuse (including neglect) would lead to behavior like this. The way kids develop in response to their environment is fascinating and complicated.
I understand that the son was arrested but going after the mom seems like revenge.
It was same thing with going after his brother. And Lance being arrested for stimulating the legal process and held for $655,000 bond