At the time the Fourth Amendment was written "papers" were records of business, ideas, and identity. It is quite clear from the context that the intent was and is to keep those records secret from "petty officers" regardless of what medium is used to remember them. As technology increases, we MUST continue to protect our citizens' "papers" from all spiteful "petty officers'" prying eyes.
Excellent. Many people, today, use their cell phones to keep information that would have been on paper, not so long ago. Therefore, if you can be secure in your papers, as in the constitution, then you should also be secure with your cell phone.
Talk about the difference between Maritime Law and Common Law. We know they practice maritime law in the judicial system. We need to bring back Common Law practices in the judicial system.
The 4th Amendment is perfectly clear on it's own merit and does not required explanation. The government requires a search warrant to inquire into your privacy.
The Declaration of Independence states all these rights we have to protect us from the government also protects us from other citizens that violate these rights and the government is supposed to protect us from other citizens. Of course this is common sense others may be friends or such as riding together.
Why can't I mark receive all notifications for this channel? States request is unvalid! Though a subbed with the bell and its marked as such, the bell Icon has a line through it. 🤔🙄 Does this channel not send notifications or what's going on? Thanks
Did you get the 🔕 for the notification figured out? Yes there was a line through the 🔕 just now. Looked because of your comment, So thx. If you see that in the notification Icon, looking greyed out like that in the future. It usually means notifications for RUclips is turned off. At the operating system level. Just click on 🔕even if it is great out It should bring you right to the OS level. where you can turn it on again. Don't know why or how. But mysteriously the 🔕 notifications gets turned off 🔕System-wide. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Also curious, have you run into this being unsubscribed from RUclips channels that you know for a fact you were subscribed to? Thought that was a myth, but no.
When stopped by police, it violates 4th, 5th and 6th, Amendments, would that be correct, and if so, they would be violating their oath and the Constitution.
It does not, if a Police Officer is walking down the street and say hi to you and you engage in conversation with that Officer it is a consensual conversation between two people. If you walk away that is you right to do so. If an Officer stops you for a investigatory stop based on Reasonable Suspicion to conduct an external frisk of your outer garments to search for weapons, and only weapons because the Officer believes crime is afoot, meaning the Officer believes you were casing out a store, or something to the nature they can under Terry vs Ohio. Now a traffic stop for a violation of a traffic infraction with is a civil matter, the state vs you, then you must stop, and if asked to get out of you vehicle the you must, again Supreme Court decides that Penn. vs Mimms. Now if you are believed to be involved in a crime and Police Officers orders you to stop and refuse and run, or refuse to comply then the whole interaction can go from bad to worse very quickly. If you have done nothing wrong then you have no reason to argue with the Officer, just go to court and tell it to the Judge, then you always have the opportunity to sue the Officer civilly if you feel you were wronged, but arguing with a Officer on the side of the road, or arguing with a Officer in general is no advised. Argue/Resist if you want, and let me know how that works out for you, or you can be patient with the Officer if they are acting like they eat crayons, then go to court with a lawyer and sue the crap out of them if they have done you wrong. That is a much better route to go then arguing with a Officer and creating a Rapidly changing, tense, uncertain environment where they may have to defend themselves and you may at the least end up injured, or at the worst dead.
@@avnmech the whole system is corrupt, police, judge, prosecutor, they all get a cut from extorting money from the people, police are part of the Executive branch of government which cannot generate revenue or taxes without violating the separation of powers doctrine, police = policy enforcers, i have been railroaded by the system that is suposed to protect the people from the very same thing that violated me, i don't trust any public servants, their 👹👹👹
@@avnmech giving the police the right to lie to the people is one of the worst decisions the court has ever made. Since lying is a sign of disrespect, the police have less respect for the people.
@@randal_gibbons Less respect for criminals, not people in general. Police are not walking around simply lying. A few perhaps, but nowhere even close to the majority. Criminal activity is a sign of disrespect. Lying to a criminal in order to trick them into telling on themselves is not disrespectful. Those who believe it is are more than likely basing that incorrect belief upon their own actions of the past or present. Lying to a criminal in order to obtain information relevant to an investigation is simply a "game of minds". Blame the criminal for telling on themselves, not the law for utilizing legal means of obtaining information. I would rather police lie to a murderer than to have yet another victim lose their life. I would rather police lie to a heroin dealer LONG before having yet another person fall into the inescapable pit of hell and eventual early death.
Does this de-legitimise Conscription? Or conversely, legitimise victims claims for compensation?, as suggested by successful claims against intrusion in private lives against this law?
We all have the right to have weapons on us at all times and the pat down to search for weapons should be a violation because it should be assumed that every American has weapons and without a crime it's a violation to be secure in your person
No one reads APP agreement conditions. Privacy is an open conduit. Another pit fall, is loosely cloaked in many agreements, 'we only share you information, with our affiliates'. Any entity that enters into a simple contract of a sale, is an affiliate. Our government's LE, does not need a warrant, any more than any other entity. They buy information as they see fit.
@10:14 Brandeis was partially wrong here. The founders were well aware of the concept of "eavesdropping" and the potential harm it could cause. So to use the argument "the founders couldn't have imagined such a thing" is preposterous. The Supreme Court decided correctly in the case against Olmstead. What should have happened (if members of govt intended to align the total privacy concept to the 4th) was to create a new amendment further detailing extended privacy protection. However Brandeis' argument is a little off - the founders never banned eavesdropping or spying.
Now I'm with the snow white I'm with you I read the report last night.... But my theories are different than yours... Mr. Snowden Should have his fair day in court in the United States or virtual....
People are allowed to post whatever they want to but anything that is not posted and gathered illegally is against all right... So you are continue living your Facebook.... Or maybe myspace will come back.. Can you imagine myspace coming back in overpowering Facebook is that website still up... Anything that is posted in private should be protected.... And it's the authority of the people that make these websites to keep it protected.. But once these websites sell this information they just got themselves in trouble.... Now you're gonna tell me about about agreements when people signed up... You can gonna agree to do whatever but you still cannot violate somebody's 4th ...
I agree that these companies should not do this, but the Constitution is in regards to government, not private entities. It does not protect you in those circumstances. If the government is retrieving your information from a company like that, then it would, but good luck having the courts follow the Constitution.
That's why in most user agreements it says The Company's are allowed to share in some of them say allow to share and or sell data to third parties But these LLC company's user agreements never states who or what what the third party are. Therefore binding the end user. An agreement most otlt even aware of or have access to that information. Third parties is a purposely vague term. So it could share the llend users data with a data broker that data broker could have contracts with government entities, therefore bypassing that. If there is any legal or logical fallacies, please Point them out.
The 11th word persons doesn't mean ones self. One of the people is not a person that would be dumb. All other persons counted as three fifths is the persons its referring to. People didn't want their "means of production" seized by the government without cause. Yes they knew the way the king rolled.
You should not say show me the money... You should say show me the warrant... And what type of warrant is this being executed by enforcement? For what reason
So the question is how can we Sue TikTok for collecting private information So TikTok should not be operating in America or we need to see its code ..Ccp Keep your dirty hands off my private information
Let's attempt some critical thought here. How about this... Be responsible for where and with whom you offer your private information. Never offer private information until AFTER you understand to whom and/or what you are considering offering such information. That is Life Lessons 1;01. The INDIVIDUAL is responsible for what they do with their private information. Tik tok forced NO ONE to sign up NOR divulge ANYTHING. EVERY user made that decision on their own without EVER investigating what the moronic app was going to do with anything of which they offered. Intentional ignorance is the DIRECT fault of the individual. More so now than ever considering the insane amount of knowledge literally at their fingertips every second of every day. Imagine... An "app" designed to lessen users' attention spans, manages to obtain personal data while NO USER ANYWHERE made any effort to focus upon what would be done with the data before offering it. Sounds like every user failed themselves. Blame the actual guilty parties for once. I realize that would mean you and countless others would be forced to accept responsibility for their own actions, but that is what civilized society is SUPPOSED to do. SUPPOSED to be responsible for obtaining the minimum education deemed compulsory under federal law which enables one to make educated decisions later in life based upon critical thought and basic level common sense. If today's generations would have obtained that vital education, they would understand that their refusal and failure to investigate does NOT imply guilt upon tik tok. They did not state what would be done with offered private information and users blindly signed up in mass, not even once thinking about what they were doing. The user and only the user is at fault here.
Let's attempt some really critical thought here... If you're really that concerned about you're whereabouts and being tracked and your data being sold then maybe you should just put your phone down, leave it at home perhaps... Fun fact human civilization has survived for literally thousands of years without a phone attached to them... It's really going on about two decades that we have this bizarre obsession to have our phone with us at all times and be looking at it at all times... If TikTok bothers you that much don't use it that's about as far as your freedom goes You're freedom to choose whether you use an app or not
@@lexannaamnell6593 I’d love to go without internet and leave my phone at home, and stay off my laptop, sadly our society is completely ingrained in our current digital technology, how about you try and get a job without being in contact with the internet, or try and succeed in our times without missing an important opportunity like an important phone call, as most communication is done almost entirely by time sensitive phone notifications. Yeah, you can act like we’re addicted and it’s our fault that we’re being tracked and monitored and manipulated, the truth is, opportunities are entirely dependent on how up to date you are therefore the only way to truly be apart of our society rn without living off the scraps is to be a constant digital consumer. There’s a reason even homeless people have smartphones these days. A company did something illegal and unethical and you’re defending them for what? A signal of virtue?
It seems that the concept and probably the technology of the television being a two-way device without the use of a camera existed very soon after the invention of the television itself. Quite possibly justice brandy's wasn't very far off base.
Thxs Northshore pay sme fees n only ben to jail one time thn working ING mostly. Finding steady housing yes police wrk with us to we need a friend but why not side by side idont see thr anymore Luke b4
Why should people follow the rules when police are not following the hmmm God bless The Honorable cops forget the ones are corrupt and collecting Street taxes 🤬🤬🤬
This is a right given by God and not the government... enough to flame a civil... God given right vs Government action. This will become one of the action that lead to civil...... lawsuit OR.🤔
Crazy how a police dog wagging it's tail, can act as a substitute to an oath of affirmation to seek a search warrant based on reason probably cause ,when searching a vehicle !
Yap, I agree with you sir, to question about all issues of privacy about digital information. That reminds me one question, why the government doesn't look up for international security system in regulate all online private app businesses/ programming services operation? It inhibits any individual employee would share the access path without respect customer privacy to overseas' third party which creates a risk and crisis of scam business or opening online gambling activities, right? Another question is, why the lawyer in our country holds the unlimited power to protect any sued crime case, and let it free to go easily? Does that also create anther path for individual law enforcement service/company to empower its services in privatize a favor to private providers from escape ( or to extend time to erase) personal illegal activities when the state of spring court looks up any evidence or information during the time that a case is in investigation period?
The passage of the 13th, 14th, and fifteenth amendments marked the end of the "Old Republic", established by the Founders, and the beginning of the "New Central Government" established at the point of a gun, done under military occupation of the Southern States. It required the Southern States to ratify these amendments as a condition to rejoin the Union, while under military occupation. The very idea that a State "not in the union" could ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is absurd on it's face. This video and the National Constitution Center simply perpetuates the burying of the facts and reals truths to hide the fact the Republic ended in the period between 1860 - 1870. This could have only happened at the point of a gun under military occupation. This was not done democratically, because these amendments would've never been ratified without the unconstitutional Reconstruction Acts, the military occupation, and limitations put on the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. This kind of whitewashed history continues to date as reflected in this video, which fails to tell the "WHOLE" story.
I believe the government should be allowed to use some data as long as it remains anonymous. It can be of benefit to track numbers of people but not specific people.
![Lethal Company Music Video 🎵 "Follow The Orders" [VERSION A]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QeooZB4Z7RA/mqdefault.jpg)
At the time the Fourth Amendment was written "papers" were records of business, ideas, and identity. It is quite clear from the context that the intent was and is to keep those records secret from "petty officers" regardless of what medium is used to remember them. As technology increases, we MUST continue to protect our citizens' "papers" from all spiteful "petty officers'" prying eyes.
Can a cop or guard take my wallet when I enter a courthouse?
Excellent. Many people, today, use their cell phones to keep information that would have been on paper, not so long ago. Therefore, if you can be secure in your papers, as in the constitution, then you should also be secure with your cell phone.
Always interesting too learn about our laws!
Shut up!
Well I learned something today. Thanks!
The words "It's none of the Governments business" come to mind.
I appreciate louis Brandise. Sounds like a very reasonable man.
The term "Drop a dime" came from old public phones.
Excellent basic explanation of 4th amendment.
Talk about the difference between Maritime Law and Common Law. We know they practice maritime law in the judicial system. We need to bring back Common Law practices in the judicial system.
Watching for pretrial in this years Mock Trial case!
7.07 wow ....this is very important
The 4th Amendment is perfectly clear on it's own merit and does not required explanation. The government requires a search warrant to inquire into your privacy.
the fourth amendment says IF a magistrate issues a search warrant, it must be based on PC. it does not say that such warrants are ever required.
Blowing the dust off my typewriter now. ;O)-
The Declaration of Independence states all these rights we have to protect us from the government also protects us from other citizens that violate these rights and the government is supposed to protect us from other citizens. Of course this is common sense others may be friends or such as riding together.
Thanks
Good to know....
4th vs Patriot act of George Bush...
Why can't I mark receive all notifications for this channel? States request is unvalid! Though a subbed with the bell and its marked as such, the bell Icon has a line through it. 🤔🙄 Does this channel not send notifications or what's going on? Thanks
Did you get the 🔕 for the notification figured out?
Yes there was a line through the 🔕 just now.
Looked because of your comment,
So thx.
If you see that in the notification Icon, looking greyed out like that in the future.
It usually means notifications for RUclips is turned off.
At the operating system level.
Just click on 🔕even if it is great out
It should bring you right to the OS level.
where you can turn it on again.
Don't know why or how.
But mysteriously the 🔕 notifications gets turned off 🔕System-wide. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Also curious, have you run into this
being unsubscribed from RUclips channels that you know for a fact you were subscribed to?
Thought that was a myth, but no.
So funny! Thanks for the laughs, J-L.
Carpenter vs United States 2018 SCOTUS.
24:40- encapsulation of the 4th Amendment. ❤❤❤
To keep an oath...to fight foreign and domestictoria's including corruption...... Men of honor ....
How about a paper no trespassing sign in Eugene Oregon
When stopped by police, it violates 4th, 5th and 6th, Amendments, would that be correct, and if so, they would be violating their oath and the Constitution.
It does not, if a Police Officer is walking down the street and say hi to you and you engage in conversation with that Officer it is a consensual conversation between two people. If you walk away that is you right to do so. If an Officer stops you for a investigatory stop based on Reasonable Suspicion to conduct an external frisk of your outer garments to search for weapons, and only weapons because the Officer believes crime is afoot, meaning the Officer believes you were casing out a store, or something to the nature they can under Terry vs Ohio. Now a traffic stop for a violation of a traffic infraction with is a civil matter, the state vs you, then you must stop, and if asked to get out of you vehicle the you must, again Supreme Court decides that Penn. vs Mimms. Now if you are believed to be involved in a crime and Police Officers orders you to stop and refuse and run, or refuse to comply then the whole interaction can go from bad to worse very quickly. If you have done nothing wrong then you have no reason to argue with the Officer, just go to court and tell it to the Judge, then you always have the opportunity to sue the Officer civilly if you feel you were wronged, but arguing with a Officer on the side of the road, or arguing with a Officer in general is no advised. Argue/Resist if you want, and let me know how that works out for you, or you can be patient with the Officer if they are acting like they eat crayons, then go to court with a lawyer and sue the crap out of them if they have done you wrong. That is a much better route to go then arguing with a Officer and creating a Rapidly changing, tense, uncertain environment where they may have to defend themselves and you may at the least end up injured, or at the worst dead.
@@avnmech the whole system is corrupt, police, judge, prosecutor, they all get a cut from extorting money from the people, police are part of the Executive branch of government which cannot generate revenue or taxes without violating the separation of powers doctrine, police = policy enforcers, i have been railroaded by the system that is suposed to protect the people from the very same thing that violated me, i don't trust any public servants, their 👹👹👹
@@avnmech giving the police the right to lie to the people is one of the worst decisions the court has ever made. Since lying is a sign of disrespect, the police have less respect for the people.
@@randal_gibbons
Less respect for criminals, not people in general. Police are not walking around simply lying.
A few perhaps, but nowhere even close to the majority.
Criminal activity is a sign of disrespect. Lying to a criminal in order to trick them into telling on themselves is not disrespectful. Those who believe it is are more than likely basing that incorrect belief upon their own actions of the past or present.
Lying to a criminal in order to obtain information relevant to an investigation is simply a "game of minds". Blame the criminal for telling on themselves, not the law for utilizing legal means of obtaining information.
I would rather police lie to a murderer than to have yet another victim lose their life. I would rather police lie to a heroin dealer LONG before having yet another person fall into the inescapable pit of hell and eventual early death.
Does this de-legitimise Conscription?
Or conversely, legitimise victims claims for compensation?, as suggested by successful claims against intrusion in private lives against this law?
Do Maryland v King fourth amendment protections and DNA collection
We all have the right to have weapons on us at all times and the pat down to search for weapons should be a violation because it should be assumed that every American has weapons and without a crime it's a violation to be secure in your person
No one reads APP agreement conditions.
Privacy is an open conduit.
Another pit fall, is loosely cloaked in many agreements, 'we only share you information, with our affiliates'.
Any entity that enters into a simple contract of a sale, is an affiliate.
Our government's LE, does not need a warrant, any more than any other entity.
They buy information as they see fit.
Got ya
I know it
I thought it was very interesting 🤔 and I can agree with what he says.
How about cameras all over- and issuing tickets due to cameras
@10:14 Brandeis was partially wrong here. The founders were well aware of the concept of "eavesdropping" and the potential harm it could cause. So to use the argument "the founders couldn't have imagined such a thing" is preposterous. The Supreme Court decided correctly in the case against Olmstead. What should have happened (if members of govt intended to align the total privacy concept to the 4th) was to create a new amendment further detailing extended privacy protection. However Brandeis' argument is a little off - the founders never banned eavesdropping or spying.
Now I'm with the snow white I'm with you I read the report last night.... But my theories are different than yours... Mr. Snowden Should have his fair day in court in the United States or virtual....
But wht is great to wht istin hot water
Ya wrkin sme how thougu
But I've lost smethongs besides feeling don't knw , frm Lee the one day
Oh my name is Lee by the way thy call me by many names but I'm just 31
People are allowed to post whatever they want to but anything that is not posted and gathered illegally is against all right... So you are continue living your Facebook.... Or maybe myspace will come back.. Can you imagine myspace coming back in overpowering Facebook is that website still up... Anything that is posted in private should be protected.... And it's the authority of the people that make these websites to keep it protected.. But once these websites sell this information they just got themselves in trouble.... Now you're gonna tell me about about agreements when people signed up... You can gonna agree to do whatever but you still cannot violate somebody's 4th ...
I agree that these companies should not do this, but the Constitution is in regards to government, not private entities. It does not protect you in those circumstances. If the government is retrieving your information from a company like that, then it would, but good luck having the courts follow the Constitution.
That's why in most user agreements it says The Company's are allowed to share in some of them say allow to share and or sell data to third parties
But these LLC company's user agreements never states who or what what the third party are.
Therefore binding the end user.
An agreement most otlt even aware of or have access to that information. Third parties is a purposely vague term.
So it could share the llend users data with a data broker that data broker could have contracts with government entities, therefore bypassing that.
If there is any legal or logical fallacies, please Point them out.
🙏🙏🙏🌎
What about if a Peace Officer violáceo my 4th can I Sue?
The 11th word persons doesn't mean ones self. One of the people is not a person that would be dumb. All other persons counted as three fifths is the persons its referring to. People didn't want their "means of production" seized by the government without cause. Yes they knew the way the king rolled.
You should not say show me the money... You should say show me the warrant... And what type of warrant is this being executed by enforcement? For what reason
Researching about types of warrant
Who says I can't use this RUclips as personal notes... Public personal notes.. I also have secret notes...
@@jonhseven133shut up pls
So the question is how can we Sue TikTok for collecting private information So TikTok should not be operating in America or we need to see its code ..Ccp Keep your dirty hands off my private information
and the US government doesn't buy your data from tech companies and sell it to them anyways?
Let's attempt some critical thought here. How about this... Be responsible for where and with whom you offer your private information.
Never offer private information until AFTER you understand to whom and/or what you are considering offering such information. That is Life Lessons 1;01.
The INDIVIDUAL is responsible for what they do with their private information. Tik tok forced NO ONE to sign up NOR divulge ANYTHING. EVERY user made that decision on their own without EVER investigating what the moronic app was going to do with anything of which they offered.
Intentional ignorance is the DIRECT fault of the individual. More so now than ever considering the insane amount of knowledge literally at their fingertips every second of every day.
Imagine... An "app" designed to lessen users' attention spans, manages to obtain personal data while NO USER ANYWHERE made any effort to focus upon what would be done with the data before offering it.
Sounds like every user failed themselves. Blame the actual guilty parties for once. I realize that would mean you and countless others would be forced to accept responsibility for their own actions, but that is what civilized society is SUPPOSED to do. SUPPOSED to be responsible for obtaining the minimum education deemed compulsory under federal law which enables one to make educated decisions later in life based upon critical thought and basic level common sense.
If today's generations would have obtained that vital education, they would understand that their refusal and failure to investigate does NOT imply guilt upon tik tok. They did not state what would be done with offered private information and users blindly signed up in mass, not even once thinking about what they were doing.
The user and only the user is at fault here.
Let's attempt some really critical thought here... If you're really that concerned about you're whereabouts and being tracked and your data being sold then maybe you should just put your phone down, leave it at home perhaps... Fun fact human civilization has survived for literally thousands of years without a phone attached to them... It's really going on about two decades that we have this bizarre obsession to have our phone with us at all times and be looking at it at all times... If TikTok bothers you that much don't use it that's about as far as your freedom goes You're freedom to choose whether you use an app or not
You're all missing the point it's against the Constitution.... So is the Patriot act...
@@lexannaamnell6593 I’d love to go without internet and leave my phone at home, and stay off my laptop, sadly our society is completely ingrained in our current digital technology, how about you try and get a job without being in contact with the internet, or try and succeed in our times without missing an important opportunity like an important phone call, as most communication is done almost entirely by time sensitive phone notifications. Yeah, you can act like we’re addicted and it’s our fault that we’re being tracked and monitored and manipulated, the truth is, opportunities are entirely dependent on how up to date you are therefore the only way to truly be apart of our society rn without living off the scraps is to be a constant digital consumer. There’s a reason even homeless people have smartphones these days. A company did something illegal and unethical and you’re defending them for what? A signal of virtue?
It seems that the concept and probably the technology of the television being a two-way device without the use of a camera existed very soon after the invention of the television itself. Quite possibly justice brandy's wasn't very far off base.
Minority report
Is taking a person wallet a violation of?
Igot to find how to ypund
And don't forget Korea and Japan
Is age of the Internet
Move my court date and move my court setting location
@16:48 this is why congress was given authority to make laws - however this could have been codified in the constitution, maybe.
Can we hire International attorneys from all over the world from the United States to Russia for Argentina to Canada
Why do they never talk about the Bill of Rights which is the supreme unalienable law of this land
?
This video is about the Bill of rights !
.the first 10 amendments….
This is 4 of 10.
I knw
Thxs Northshore pay sme fees n only ben to jail one time thn working ING mostly. Finding steady housing yes police wrk with us to we need a friend but why not side by side idont see thr anymore Luke b4
Why should people follow the rules when police are not following the hmmm God bless The Honorable cops forget the ones are corrupt and collecting Street taxes 🤬🤬🤬
You should of heard my po officer ... and I'm f sick and my leg hurt and I can't sleep.... wtf ... I'm pissed of this f corruption
This is a right given by God and not the government... enough to flame a civil...
God given right vs Government action. This will become one of the action that lead to civil...... lawsuit OR.🤔
Crazy how a police dog wagging it's tail, can act as a substitute to an oath of affirmation to seek a search warrant based on reason probably cause ,when searching a vehicle !
Theyre pleading the 4th after abusing it to steal what i didnt know i had?
Shocking.
Yap, I agree with you sir, to question about all issues of privacy about digital information. That reminds me one question, why the government doesn't look up for international security system in regulate all online private app businesses/ programming services operation? It inhibits any individual employee would share the access path without respect customer privacy to overseas' third party which creates a risk and crisis of scam business or opening online gambling activities, right?
Another question is, why the lawyer in our country holds the unlimited power to protect any sued crime case, and let it free to go easily?
Does that also create anther path for individual law enforcement service/company to empower its services in privatize a favor to private providers from escape ( or to extend time to erase) personal illegal activities when the state of spring court looks up any evidence or information during the time that a case is in investigation period?
Can my wallet be taking away from me when I enter a courthouse in the u.s.a?
If you want privacy, stop using the internet. Throw away your cell phone.
Otherwise, you dont have privacy now.
The passage of the 13th, 14th, and fifteenth amendments marked the end of the "Old Republic", established by the Founders, and the beginning of the "New Central Government" established at the point of a gun, done under military occupation of the Southern States. It required the Southern States to ratify these amendments as a condition to rejoin the Union, while under military occupation. The very idea that a State "not in the union" could ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is absurd on it's face. This video and the National Constitution Center simply perpetuates the burying of the facts and reals truths to hide the fact the Republic ended in the period between 1860 - 1870. This could have only happened at the point of a gun under military occupation. This was not done democratically, because these amendments would've never been ratified without the unconstitutional Reconstruction Acts, the military occupation, and limitations put on the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. This kind of whitewashed history continues to date as reflected in this video, which fails to tell the "WHOLE" story.
And the mobile phone was developed for this very reason
Class law suit again let go against Google and more
MY WIFE..... MAMI.... SAYANG KU.... KAI MADISON TRUMP GANDHIJI..... MAHATMA ERWIN DULMIN GANDHIJI..... MAHATMA ERWIN DULMIN GANDHIJI......
How do people sleep at night ya hearts are so damn routine... hmmm and the world know it
Hello Google and t mobile and police and nsa hmmm plus
I REALLY LIKE TO HEAR THIS CAUSE OUR 4TH IS BEIING VIOLENED ALL OVER THIS LANDA WHY .🇺🇸🙏💅👀
Because we allow it
Jan 6 protesters
I believe the government should be allowed to use some data as long as it remains anonymous. It can be of benefit to track numbers of people but not specific people.
Not legally but they have been for decades
MY WIFE..... MAMI.... SAYANG KU.... KAI MADISON TRUMP GANDHIJI..... MAHATMA ERWIN DULMIN GANDHIJI..... MAHATMA ERWIN DULMIN GANDHIJI.....