PDA

View Full Version : Bike Rider Refusal DUI Check



Nanoo Nanoo
30th July 2013, 00:05
fast forward to 4.40

very interesting use of words and manner.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG7niM9PzeE

RunningDeer
30th July 2013, 00:43
The count is = 4,056,593 since July 4, 2013

They use deceit and trickery on this video. As payback, they get the dog to scratch up the vehicle @ 3:38.


4th of July DUI Checkpoint - Drug Dogs, Searched without Consent, while Innocent


“At a DUI stop, the police are only supposed to stop people for a short period of time to see if they are driving impaired. They are NOT supposed to be issuing citations to people.


Another reason why I disagree with checkpoints: In America, you are innocent until proven guilty. At checkpoints, that is pretty much reversed. In the future, I recommend that all motorists record their encounters with law enforcement.’


w-WMn_zHCVo
Published on Jul 4, 2013

The purpose of this video is to show that having certain rights counts to many police officers as being suspicious nowadays. This video was not meant to go after anybody's job or to sue anyone. In the end, I was let go with no charges. The officer later on tried to lie and say that I had "pot residue" in my car yet no evidence was obtained/tested to prove it. This video is not saying that all cops are bad or that all cops want to use their power to take away Constitutional rights from citizens. Cops are also not "pigs." I very much respect law enforcement. All that I want is for citizens to have respect from police.


Here are the numbers from the checkpoint that night: 


250 vehicles passed through the checkpoint

20 vehicles were detained that required further investigation

Three vehicles were searched

One misdemeanor arrest was made

32 citations were issued: Two child restraint device citations, one DUI, 10 citations for violations of the registration law, four citations for violation of the light law, one revoked/suspended driver's license, six financial responsibility (no insurance), six other driver's license law violations, and two safety belt law violations.

Only one DUI arrest was made. One out of 250. That's less than one percent. It seems to me that these police checkpoints are nothing more than just fund raisers for themselves.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/10/1089.asp

At a DUI stop, the police are only supposed to stop people for a short period of time to see if they are driving impaired. They are NOT supposed to be issuing citations to people.

Another reason why I disagree with checkpoints: In America, you are innocent until proven guilty. At checkpoints, that is pretty much reversed. In the future, I recommend that all motorists record their encounters with law enforcement.

ghostrider
30th July 2013, 01:45
the police state in action, the citizens have no rights, the police do whatever they want... can we stop them ? or search them ? hold them until we decide their not quilty of something ???

Nanoo Nanoo
30th July 2013, 02:40
This guy is obviously well trained and rehearsed so please do not use this as an incitement to act .. just look and learn .. use your intuition in such cases. He could have easily said he had nothing to drink ,done a test and been on his way. So in that its possibly a good idea just to comply as they are generally keeping drunk drivers off the road and that is a good thing.

Why do i bring this to us to view ? Because of his wording. That is paramount as he is not contracting.

When a police officer calls you up he / she will usually ask a question of you .. the question is a challenge of an opinion. The opinion is that of the officer. If you challenge his / her opinion with an answer, then you have enetered in contract and under Admiralty Law this puts you under their corporate juristiction for further questioning.

What should you do ?

If an officer asks you

Do you realise you were speeding ?

You normally say , No i was not ! this contradicts their " Opinion " and then you enter a contract verbally

What you should say is this

Officer : Do you realise you were speeding ?


Answer " Do you think i was speeding ?

Officer : How fast do you think you were going ?

Answer : I have absolutely no idea. and repeat this every single time they repeat the question , they will brow beat you till you admit or give reference! don ot give in the answer is " I have absolutely no Idea "

You do not want to engage in contract. thats the only way they can go further and fine you .. sometimes you can trap them and they will pretend to respond to your objection... and then later state your answer was not audible on tape IF you try to go it in court.. but whats the chances ?>

Later if you get a ticket. You write to the chamber magistrate and state the following.

You believe the officer was doing their job and was polite and curteous. You do not want this letter to reflect negatively on their record. Then you state it is impossible for you to lawfully plead guily or not guilty as you do not have a frame of reference at the moment you were tagged by the speed reading device.

Its impossible for you to know that and its completely plausible. If you do not enter a plea they cannot lawfully go ahead with the charge.

Merry Christmans !


N
N

Nanoo Nanoo
30th July 2013, 03:06
http://www.proctorlaw.com.au/dui-offences/random-breath-testing.html

more info

n

turiya
30th July 2013, 03:24
Why do i bring this to us to view ? Because of his wording. That is paramount as he is not contracting.
When a police officer calls you up he / she will usually ask a question of you .. the question is a challenge of an opinion. The opinion is that of the officer. If you challenge his / her opinion with an answer, then you have enetered in contract and under Admiralty Law this puts you under their corporate juristiction for further questioning.

You do not want to engage in contract. thats the only way they can go further and fine you .. sometimes you can trap them and they will pretend to respond to your objection... and then later state your answer was not audible on tape IF you try to go it in court.. but whats the chances ?


The 10 Biggest Errors most people make when facing the Pirates and Privateers of the Private Bar Guilds: (http://blog.ucadia.com/2012/11/the-10-biggest-errors-most-people-make.html)

Error #4 – Believing that Pirates and Privateers will follow their own “rules”
[35] The fourth, most frequent error committed by those facing the Private Bar Guilds and their private commercial courts is that the Pirates and Privateers will follow their own rules. This error may also be called the lack of preparation error. It occurs when people have reached a level of competence in which to submit timely and relevant documents as demanded by the Private Bar Guild only to find such documents are ignored and due process is ignored; and

[36] Unfortunately, the lawless and parlous state of affairs in most jurisdictions and with most courts means a competent litigant must now expect the private courts and Pirates and Privateers not to follow their own laws, rather than honor their own procedures. This is especially the case with foreclosures, bankruptcies and other commercial matters carrying profitable bonds as “booty” and “prizes”; and

[37] In recent months, there appears the smallest glimmer of hope via the High Court of the United Kingdom connected to the Inner and Middle Temple reaffirming the existence of the principle of equity in Chancery. However, such relief remains narrow, available to only a few and fails to address the wholesale mutiny of justices and magistrates across the world in openly defying their own procedures; and

[38] Instead, the competent litigant must anticipate that justices and magistrates will openly break their own rules and have prepared the necessary paperwork to follow up such open corruption. This may include orders to recuse a judge, orders to have a matter reheard in a public forum, formal complaints to the United Nations and the International Court of Justice, motions to High Court Chancery Division, formal complaints and charges of mail fraud by justices or magistrates, formal complaints and lodgments of securities fraud (on account of false bonds) by justices and magistrates as examples.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_xXzaEZoZ8

Excerpt from a University of Ucadia Talkshoe Conference Call Episode105. Lecture given by Frank O'Collins. From Ucadia Blogspot: "(xxviii) The completion of admiralty law replacing common law within the courts to "mimic" as pseudo law that believed as common law was largely completed with the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1868 c. 71 which was followed up by Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879 c. 49 that established the framework of the modern admiralty courts in operation throughout the Western-Roman law operating pseudo-legal form of admiralty, masquerading as common law... - http://ucadia.blogspot.com/ University of Ucadia website: http://university.ucadia.info/news.php University of Ucadia Blogspot: http://ucadia.blogspot.com/ Listen to the entire 11/21/2012 lecture at: http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/90342

If a man in prison is at any time to have a chance of escape, then he must first of all realize that he is in prison. So long as he fails to realize this, so long as he thinks he is free, he has no chance whatever. ~ George Gurdjieff

turiya :cool:

meeradas
30th July 2013, 06:42
The second vid urged me to consider carrying a 120 litre fecal duffle bag in the trunk at all times during my next north american trip.

Conaire
30th July 2013, 07:13
Thanks for that response Nanoo Nanoo. Good to know, if ever I get into such a situation ( touch wood) I'll know what to say.

Nanoo Nanoo
30th July 2013, 09:34
Thanks for that response Nanoo Nanoo. Good to know, if ever I get into such a situation ( touch wood) I'll know what to say.

This is something i learned by trial and error. Theres nothing harmul or objective about it. The officer cant get upset at you for not having your eyes glued to the speedo. In fact its dangerous to even take your eyes off the road.

Officers usually have no responce for that tact. They are trained to get you into contract with anything else you say. But when you say " I have no idea " Then they are left with a situation to try to prove you had an " Idea " in your private mental state, which unless you admit to it by staing a speed or obgecting to the insinuation of speeding, which in other words means you must know how fast you were going in order to object to an insinuation, then they cannot contract with you and put you under their law. They can coerse you by making an offer of concent which is usually a trick..

Just keep repeating .. "I have absolutely noooo idea" do not offer a reason , do not expand on it , do not try to negotiate or argue .. Just repeat these words
" I have absolutely nooo idea "

Naniu

RunningDeer
30th July 2013, 21:08
What should you do?

Thanks, Nanoo Nanoo. I put a sticky note in my car that's disguised as a message to "John". (a back up system)

Dear John,
"Do you think I was?"
"I have absolutely no idea."
Paula xo