NationStates Jolt Archive

everyone( that lives in the US) knows that pigs(police) are corrupt. to what extent is conditional depending on the area and there actually are a small percent(1-2%) that are actually doing good.

its reached the point where cops beat people at random without cause, and outright steal
Short Story (http://www.dwnrbbthole.blogspot.com/)
regardless if you believe in conspiracy theories and fake terrorism or not, this stuff is actually happening all of the time, the constitution means nothing anymore in america, and something has to be done.

everyone( that lives in the US) knows that pigs(police) are corrupt. to what extent is conditional depending on the area and there actually are a small percent(1-2%) that are actually doing good.

its reached the point where cops beat people at random without cause, and outright steal
Short Story (http://www.dwnrbbthole.blogspot.com/)
regardless if you believe in conspiracy theories and fake terrorism or not, this stuff is actually happening all of the time, the constitution means nothing anymore in america, and something has to be done.
Precisely. Over the entire country. Police beat people at random. In every state too, 99% percent of all policemen, I can tell from that one blog entry. Those filthy fascists.

More like 0.1 - 0.2% that are corrupt.

Your post reeks of bigotry and contempt.

Most of the time, I find that those who hate the police, hate them because the police prevent them from doing what they want to do, like busting them for taking drugs, writing speeding tickets etc.

So, what's your personal beef?

sarcasm...


anyways, its the opposite of what you say epsilon.
i have no personal beef with them, they are breaking the law simple as that.
speeding tickets are illegal btw. its not even a law, its commercial codes. which means nothing.
i dont hate anyone.

ginnoria, im not basing my percents on one blog entry, that would be idiotic. And i even said that it is circumstantial to the area if you bothered to read. I was just showing you one account of whats going on. everyone knows that cops are corrupt, they just fear them. the fact is that police have no real authority over us, they arnt part of the government, they are a business. sherriffs are the only ones who are even sworn to "protect and serve" these bogus local police claim that they are there to uphold the law, but all they do is enforce commercial codes to swindle money out of people.

sarcasm...


anyways, its the opposite of what you say epsilon.
i have no personal beef with them, they are breaking the law simple as that.
speeding tickets are illegal btw. its not even a law, its commercial codes. which means nothing.
i dont hate anyone.

ginnoria, im not basing my percents on one blog entry, that would be idiotic. And i even said that it is circumstantial to the area if you bothered to read. I was just showing you one account of whats going on. everyone knows that cops are corrupt, they just fear them. the fact is that police have no real authority over us, they arnt part of the government, they are a business. sherriffs are the only ones who are even sworn to "protect and serve" these bogus local police claim that they are there to uphold the law, but all they do is enforce commercial codes to swindle money out of people.
Wow, you really are talking out of an orifice other than your mouth.
Where do you get your ideas? Who is feeding you this crap... I would like to see.

sarcasm...


anyways, its the opposite of what you say epsilon.
i have no personal beef with them, they are breaking the law simple as that.
speeding tickets are illegal btw. its not even a law, its commercial codes. which means nothing.
i dont hate anyone.

ginnoria, im not basing my percents on one blog entry, that would be idiotic. And i even said that it is circumstantial to the area if you bothered to read. I was just showing you one account of whats going on. everyone knows that cops are corrupt, they just fear them. the fact is that police have no real authority over us, they arnt part of the government, they are a business. sherriffs are the only ones who are even sworn to "protect and serve" these bogus local police claim that they are there to uphold the law, but all they do is enforce commercial codes to swindle money out of people.
I agree with this. It is ridiculous for the police to enforce irrelevent rules such as speed limits and parking restrictions. I should be allowed to cruise through downtown and the residential area at 50 mph if I so desire. And these horrible fines are doing nothing for my government, the police officers pocket every dollar. I can say for certain that even though I live in Oregon and have never traveled to the east coast, the coppers in Maine are total sons of bitches.

so ginnoria, do you have an opinion or are you just going to continue on with the sarcasm?

im not talking , im typing (check it out i can be a smart ass too)
do some research buddy, ever heard of the constitution do you even knows what it means? what it covers? the right to travel? your car is your personal property, and you can do whatever the hell you want in it, including drive, wherever you want unless its private property. open your brain to ideas other than what you are told by the government themselves, theyll never admit it, bevause they would go broke.

pigs(police)

It pisses me off soo much when people call *cops pigs*. It is such a huge insult. How do you think our laws are enforced? Can you imagine the pandemoinm with out a police force?
And TPD is amazing.

Does the term 'Sworn Peace Officer' mean anything to you Trixizorz? Most police officers and deputies fall into this catagory, yes they do swear to uphold and enforce laws. Laws in the US fall into many catagories: federal, state, county, and city or local. All are still laws, the only difference is who punishes you for breaking them and how severe the penalty is.

Cops are people.

Some good people, some bad people... Pretty much just like the rest of the populace. Pretty much in the same percentages as the rest of the populace.

You'd be an idiot if you expected anything more... or less.

so ginnoria, do you have an opinion or are you just going to continue on with the sarcasm?

im not talking , im typing (check it out i can be a smart ass too)
do some research buddy, ever heard of the constitution do you even knows what it means? what it covers? the right to travel? your car is your personal property, and you can do whatever the hell you want in it, including drive, wherever you want unless its private property. open your brain to ideas other than what you are told by the government themselves, theyll never admit it, bevause they would go broke.
Ok, let me get this straight... you have the right (actually it's a privilige) to drive. Do you then have the right to drive 100 in a school zone? Do you have the right to drive over things like road signs, mail boxes or other forms of public property? How far does your "right" to drive go?

Also, you said since your car is your private property, "you can do whatever the hell you want in it". Does that include doing drugs? Abusing young children? Bribe public officials? How far does your "right to do whatever the hell you want in it" go?

so ginnoria, do you have an opinion or are you just going to continue on with the sarcasm?

im not talking , im typing (check it out i can be a smart ass too)
do some research buddy, ever heard of the constitution do you even knows what it means? what it covers? the right to travel? your car is your personal property, and you can do whatever the hell you want in it, including drive, wherever you want unless its private property. open your brain to ideas other than what you are told by the government themselves, theyll never admit it, bevause they would go broke.
Wait, I thought police weren't part of the government? Or did you just contradict yourself? :p

Yes, you are typing. If I may, allow me to draw your attention to the amazingly useful shift key. Incredibly enough, if pressed, it allows you to type captial letters!

I have a right to travel however the hell I want? YES! This is sounding better and better. Why the hell do I stop for red lights anyway? What good are they?

Has anyone actually read the blog? It just seems to me that the criminality in that thing might be overstated. I mean, from the start the person thinks the cops are trying to steal the car because they are thinking of towing her car because it lacks proper plates. I am not sure what the legal precedent is for this stuff but the person writing it was being very uncooperative with the cops and that always leads to trouble, they might be right but it is hard to tell because of the bias involved in this thing.

Wait, I thought police weren't part of the government? Or did you just contradict yourself? :p

Yes, you are typing. If I may, allow me to draw your attention to the amazingly useful shift key. Incredibly enough, if pressed, it allows you to type captial letters!

I have a right to travel however the hell I want? YES! This is sounding better and better. Why the hell do I stop for red lights anyway? What good are they?
I will test your theory of red lights.
HEY< THE SHIFT KEY WORKS

I will test your theory of red lights.
HEY< THE SHIFT KEY WORKS
Ah, now look what I've done ...
That theory is best left in the hypothesis stage. Don't try it at home.

I'm a cop and I steal cars all the time. If people cry about it, I punch their mouths. If you pussies had any balls, you'd become cops too.

I also don't pay for apples or haircuts.

I'm a cop and I steal cars all the time. If people cry about it, I punch their mouths. If you pussies had any balls, you'd become cops too.

I also don't pay for apples or haircuts.
How about donuts?

How about donuts?

Hand over the donuts, hippy. I have to have the lab check these out.

"In a letter to William C. Jarvis in 1820, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps… "

[I]Thanks Wikipedia


Now this may well not refer to police directly, but judges in many ways are in the same boat as judges since they are both agents of the legal system.


If we look closely, however, it is fairly easy to note that "the same passions" exist not greater nor lesser. Judges and Cops are going to be corrupt. There can be no doubting this. It would probably be easy to claim 90% or more of police have engaged in criminal activity at some point during their tour of duty, but to lump the few who do not ever engage in criminal activity or even those who are single offenders in the same boat as those who frequently engage in questionable conduct is illogical, demeaning, and speaks volumes of the original posters bias towards cops.



Just as easily as one can claim 90% or more of cops have engaged in criminal activity during their tour of duty, one could also claim that 90% or more of cops are doing more good for society and this nation in general than harm. Now I will admit that I don't like being pulled over (really who does), but I'm not about to assume bias on the part of the police just because the all important ME got pulled over...


My suggestion to everyone else is that if the OP proves resistant to persuasion in this matter that he is just a troll with a grudge. Let sleeping trolls lie.

NT

yes, you can go 100 in a school zone, and and they cant do anything about it, they have to provide a damaged party. you can run over mailboxes, but you might get sued by the person owning the mailbox. you cant get away with doing drugs in your car, but you can however get away with having drugs in your car, people have and are fighting this bullshit.
thats a good point about the shift key. but im lazy, which has nothing to do with police.
he proved that the car was his; therefore, they didnt have the right to tow it.
you are not required by law to have license plates or registration. ill say it again that is a commercial code.
you only need a license, license plates, and registration if you are using your car for commercial use. such as taxi, truckers, or a company vehicle.
the cops were being uncooperative. he has the right to do everything that he did. the cop had no right to assualt him, which is why he is going to be sued.

the cops arnt part of the government, but they like to say that they are, and they all fall under the same term: criminals.

im not sure about bribing public officials, because there is no point in doing that. your giving them money either way, paying the ticket, or the officer himself. if you want to get out of it, fight it.


The Lost Planet, you are right, they are people, whats worse is that they think they are doing good, when they are breaking the law according to the constitution. greed is the worst thing to happen to man since... greed. theres nothing worse than it.


["It pisses me off soo much when people call pigs cops. It is such a huge insult. How do you think our laws are enforced? Can you imagine the pandemoinm with out a police force?
And TPD is amazing."]

yea, i hate degrading pigs in that way.. .comparing them to criminals when they are just poor innocent animals.

I'm a cop and I steal cars all the time. If people cry about it, I punch their mouths. If you pussies had any balls, you'd become cops too.

I also don't pay for apples or haircuts.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5074243333008673242
So your'e like these guys?
Evil. Just plain, despicalbe evi.

["It pisses me off soo much when people call pigs cops. It is such a huge insult. How do you think our laws are enforced? Can you imagine the pandemoinm with out a police force?
And TPD is amazing."]

yea, i hate degrading pigs in that way.. .comparing them to criminals when they are just poor innocent animals.
Whoops....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5074243333008673242
So your'e like these guys?
Evil. Just plain, despicalbe evi.
A metal drink:eek: That surely can't be good for you?

NeoThalia, thats probably true that they are trying to do good, but the laws that they think they are upholding are violating our rights as americans, and humans. constitution is a long lost ideal. state,local laws and commercial codes seem to be the only thing that they enforce.

(snipped a bunch of ranting crap)
Ok, you don't know what you are talking about.

I'm sorry I'm feeding this troll... I'll stop now.

... you only need a license, license plates, and registration if you are using your car for commercial use. such as taxi, truckers, or a company vehicle...

I see you went to lawschool at Timothy McVeigh University. License plates are a Zionist Conspiracy.

NeoThalia, thats probably true that they are trying to do good, but the laws that they think they are upholding are violating our rights as americans, and humans. constitution is a long lost ideal. state,local laws and commercial codes seem to be the only thing that they enforce.
DUH.The FBI are federal investagators. Cops only enfocre local and state laws. ATF, NSA, FBI and the like are federal. Federal Prosecutors, Courts, the whole shebang. Local, State, and Federal law enoforcement are all diffenet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zp6ILYvzb4
Seems like police brutality to me...

Liasia']http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zp6ILYvzb4
Seems like police brutality to me...
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2458063
Chris Rock explains where Rodney went wrong.[or some other guy who the cops beat the shit out of.]

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2458063
Chris Rock explains where Rodney went wrong.[or some other guy who the cops beat the shit out of.]
Would it be 'dont be black' by any chance?
I hate chris rock, his whole act is how opressed black people are. He needs some new material.

I see you went to lawschool at Timothy McVeigh University. License plates are a Zionist Conspiracy.

has nothing to do with that. there are no LAWS that state that you must have those items when you are 'traveling'. its all commercial codes. cases have been won based on this. this isnt theory its fact.

I have a right to travel however the hell I want? YES! This is sounding better and better. Why the hell do I stop for red lights anyway? What good are they?

Well then, you want to know why "the hell" we have stop lights to begin with? Well let's see... for one, they stop you and anyone else from getting F*KIN DRILLED IN THE SIDE OF THE CAR BY A (insert any vehicle here)!!! Argue this all you want, but seriously! If everyone were in such a hurry driving 100 mph do you think they would stop at a corner to check to see if another car was coming? In large cities and even small towns where you cant see around corners or anything stop lights save lives more than any law put into action by any legislation.
Let's say that your laws were put into effect, eh? Accident rates would probably triple in one day, random pedestrians would get mowed down by moronic drivers, crime rates would quadruple, people would be going waaaay too fast around corners and crash into buildings/houses/trees/etc. Not very appetizing is it? Didn't think so...

Liasia']Would it be 'dont be black' by any chance?
I hate chris rock, his whole act is how opressed black people are. He needs some new material.
Haha, did you watch that? Its hilarous!

... cases have been won based on this. this isnt theory its fact.

Please cite a few cases.

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2458063
Chris Rock explains where Rodney went wrong.[or some other guy who the cops beat the shit out of.]

thats retarded, no matter what you do police brutality is illegal.

Haha, did you watch that? Its hilarous!
No. The link didn't work so i guessed, was i right?

Liasia']No. The link didn't work so i guessed, was i right?
No, you weren't...
synonpsis
1. Obey the law
2. Use common sense
3. Stop immediately
4. Turn that shit off
5. Be polite
6. Shut the fuck up
7. Get a white friend
8. Don't drive with a mad women
but all done in Chris Rock's own unique style.

Please cite a few cases.

Lawyerdude (http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/) is a lawyer who actually studied REAL LAW= constitutional law and common law. he was disbared because he was helping people. hes currently sueing the bar association. On his page are several cases that have been won.

Liasia']No. The link didn't work so i guessed, was i right?
Look two psots up!
"If the police have to come and chase you down, theyre bringin an ass kicking with them"

And the link does too work.

Well, sort of. Yea, you are. Kinda.
Thought i might be. I like Chapelle a lot more (mainly cause he was in half baked, officially the best film ever), at least he branches out a little in his comedy.

Look two psots up!
"If the police have to come and chase you down, theyre bringin an ass kicking with them"

And the link does too work.
Tink i've seen it. And what the hell is a psots?:p

Well then, you want to know why "the hell" we have stop lights to begin with? Well let's see... for one, they stop you and anyone else from getting F*KIN DRILLED IN THE SIDE OF THE CAR BY A (insert any vehicle here)!!! Argue this all you want, but seriously! If everyone were in such a hurry driving 100 mph do you think they would stop at a corner to check to see if another car was coming? In large cities and even small towns where you cant see around corners or anything stop lights save lives more than any law put into action by any legislation.
Let's say that your laws were put into effect, eh? Accident rates would probably triple in one day, random pedestrians would get mowed down by moronic drivers, crime rates would quadruple, people would be going waaaay too fast around corners and crash into buildings/houses/trees/etc. Not very appetizing is it? Didn't think so...

people would adapt. they would be forced to learn how to drive safely. its called natural selection.

Liasia']Tink i've seen it. And what the hell is a psots?:p
Check my sig! :)
post

I'm a cop and I steal cars all the time. If people cry about it, I punch their mouths. If you pussies had any balls, you'd become cops too.

I also don't pay for apples or haircuts.

You are my hero. May I show you my breasts?

everyone( that lives in the US) knows that pigs(police) are corrupt. to what extent is conditional depending on the area and there actually are a small percent(1-2%) that are actually doing good.

its reached the point where cops beat people at random without cause, and outright steal
Short Story (http://www.dwnrbbthole.blogspot.com/)
regardless if you believe in conspiracy theories and fake terrorism or not, this stuff is actually happening all of the time, the constitution means nothing anymore in america, and something has to be done.

I take exception to this statement. My son was a cop.

Until he quit....

Because he didn't know who to arrest first....

The criminals in the street....

Or his co-workers...

*hides head in confusion, runs from room*

Check my sig! :)
post
I know.. i was teasin

yes i know, my father was a chaplain. he worked with alot of cops.. most of the ones he knew retired as early as possible because they couldnt stand the young punk cops doing whatever the hell they wanted.

Lawyerdude (http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/) is a lawyer who actually studied REAL LAW= constitutional law and common law. he was disbared because he was helping people. hes currently sueing the bar association. On his page are several cases that have been won.
This is classic. Your source is a disbarred attorney named "Lawyerdude."

Liasia']I know.. i was teasin
Thought so....wasnt quite sure.

But what is your alternative, Trixinova? Should we abolish the police force? Its not like cops ever do anything useful. They just sit around, eat doughnuts, and steal apples and haircuts.

Lawyerdude (http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/) is a lawyer who actually studied REAL LAW= constitutional law and common law. he was disbared because he was helping people. hes currently sueing the bar association. On his page are several cases that have been won.

Show me where he won the right to not have license plates. You think license plates a big joke, don't you? You think because you're a hippy that somehow the law doesn't apply to you, that you're above the law?

Well, let me tell you something, funny boy. Y'know that little saying, the one that says "Protect and Serve"? Well that may not mean anything to you, but that means a lot to me. One whole hell of a lot. Sure, go ahead, laugh if you want to. I've seen your type before: Flashy, making the scene, flaunting convention. Yeah, I know what you're thinking. What's this guy making such a big stink about license plates? Cause it's the LAW.

Or: maybe law-breaking turns you on, hippy; maybe that's how y'get your kicks. You and your good-time buddies. Well I got a flash for ya, joy-boy: Party time is OVER. Now hand over the fucking donuts.

no, we need to get rid of all these bullshit commercial codes and laws that try to override the constitution. we still should have police to catch REAL criminals=murders, rapists, etc.

Show me where he won the right to not have license plates. You think license plates a big joke, don't you? You think because you're a hippy that somehow the law doesn't apply to you, that you're above the law?

Well, let me tell you something, funny boy. Y'know that little saying, the one that says "Protect and Serve"? Well that may not mean anything to you, but that means a lot to me. One whole hell of a lot. Sure, go ahead, laugh if you want to. I've seen your type before: Flashy, making the scene, flaunting convention. Yeah, I know what you're thinking. What's this guy making such a big stink about license plates? Cause it's the LAW.

Or: maybe law-breaking turns you on, hippy; maybe that's how y'get your kicks. You and your good-time buddies. Well I got a flash for ya, joy-boy: Party time is OVER. Now hand over the fucking donuts.


you just described yourself.

im not above any laws. im above commercial codes though, i never signed any contracts with the DMV, and even if i did the constitution would nullify that.
i like the term protect and serve, and im sad because it is only taken to heart by some.

This is classic. Your source is a disbarred attorney named "Lawyerdude."

source? my source is law. this is just a sight that one person made to showcase the fact that this shit is going on. he helps people.

no, we need to get rid of all these bullshit commercial codes and laws that try to override the constitution. we still should have police to catch REAL criminals=murders, rapists, etc.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the State and People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I'm about as oringinalist as one can be without being named Antonin Scalia, but your suggestion that these "commercial laws" are overriding the Constitution is total nonsense. If you don't like speed limits, lobby your state government to remove them.

you just described yourself.

im not above any laws. im above commercial codes though, i never signed any contracts with the DMV, and even if i did the constitution would nullify that.
i like the term protect and serve, and im sad because it is only taken to heart by some.

I have to admit, I laugh my ass off every time someone brings up the constitution to defend something like speeding.

This was apparently an amendment I missed: Amendment 327 to the US Constitution: The right to speed and refuse license plates.

See, that's what I get for falling asleep during the last State of the Union address.

I have to admit, I laugh my ass off every time someone brings up the constitution to defend something like speeding.

This was apparently an amendment I missed: Amendment 327 to the US Constitution: The right to speed and refuse license plates.

See, that's what I get for falling asleep during the last State of the Union address.

when did i say that there was an amendment? obviously you havnt been reading anything anyones been saying.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the State and People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I'm about as oringinalist as one can be without being named Antonin Scalia, but your suggestion that these "commercial laws" are overriding the Constitution is total nonsense. If you don't like speed limits, lobby your state government to remove them.

it will happen. one person isnt really gonna do jack shit, it has to become wide spread, which it already is, more and more people are realizing whats going on. even all of you who are lookin at this forum, even though you oppose it. it is still in your mind. if you want to research and REALLY Prove yourself wrong go ahead. im done for the night, tomorrow ill make some replies to people seriously posting( seems as though there arnt that many left).

it will happen. one person isnt really gonna do jack shit, it has to become wide spread, which it already is, more and more people are realizing whats going on. even all of you who are lookin at this forum, even though you oppose it. it is still in your mind.
I promise you I'll have completely forgotten about this by tomorrow morning.

if you want to research and REALLY Prove yourself wrong go ahead. im done for the night, tomorrow ill make some replies to people seriously posting( seems as though there arnt that many left).
Whatevs. Your central claim seems to be that these laws are in violation of the Constitution (you've repeated that numerous times), and that's simply not the case.

when did i say that there was an amendment? obviously you havnt been reading anything anyones been saying.

The Constitution says nothing about anyone's right to speed or even the right to refuse to obey state laws (whether civil, commercial or criminal).

This being the case, you must be arguing from the amendments.

Oh, wait, there's not an amendment giving those rights either.

Guess you're just wrong then.

Heres a book written by a pulitzer prize winning reporter about the way justice happens here.

http://www.edwardhumes.com/books/mean/


Just incidentally the DA Ed jagels ran unopposed largely because it would be dangerous to. All other unopposed candidates received between 70,000 and roughly 75000 votes while Jagels got about 57000 votes last Tuesday.

The Constitution says nothing about anyone's right to speed or even the right to refuse to obey state laws (whether civil, commercial or criminal).

This being the case, you must be arguing from the amendments.

Oh, wait, there's not an amendment giving those rights either.

Guess you're just wrong then.


you have the right to TRAVEL, i'll say it again, the right to TRAVEL.
this includes TRAVELING on your own property(your car) its not that complicated, there is nothing in the constitution, or the ammendments that directly says you can speed. the reason that you can speed is that in order to try your case and win, the burdon of proof is on the state. and they have to provide a damaged party.

you have the right to TRAVEL, i'll say it again, the right to TRAVEL.
this includes TRAVELING on your own property(your car) its not that complicated, there is nothing in the constitution, or the ammendments that directly says you can speed. the reason that you can speed is that in order to try your case and win, the burdon of proof is on the state. and they have to provide a damaged party.

Actually, the Constitution doesn't have much to say about travel, except:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

So, in 1888 this right was abridged. Even if you could make an argument from this statement that you have the right to speed, it was nullified over 100 years ago.

So, sorry, you're still wrong.

that is something totally different

that is something totally different

And yet, I notice you haven't popped right up and told us exactly where the Constitution gives you the right to speed.

I mean, seriously, if it's there, quote us the passage. Simply insisting it's there isn't terribly convincing.

Now I admit that I don't know what state you're living in, but...

NRS 482.255 Placement of certificate of registration; surrender upon demand of peace officer, justice of the peace or deputy of Department; limitation on conviction.

1. Upon receipt of a certificate of registration, the owner shall place it or a legible copy in the vehicle for which it is issued and keep it in the vehicle. If the vehicle is a motorcycle, trailer or semitrailer, he shall carry the certificate in the tool bag or other convenient receptacle attached to the vehicle.

2. The owner or operator of a motor vehicle shall, upon demand, surrender the certificate of registration or the copy for examination to any peace officer, justice of the peace or deputy of the Department.

3. No person charged with violating this section may be convicted if he produces in court a certificate of registration which was previously issued to him and was valid at the time of the demand.

[Part 10:202:1931; A 1947, 453; 1943 NCL § 4435.09]—(NRS A 1969, 139; 1983, 1030)

NRS 482.275 License plates: Display.

1. The license plates for a motor vehicle other than a motorcycle, power cycle or motor vehicle being transported by a licensed vehicle transporter must be attached thereto, one in the rear and, except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, one in the front. The license plate issued for all other vehicles required to be registered must be attached to the rear of the vehicle. The license plates must be so displayed during the current calendar year or registration period.

2. If the motor vehicle was not manufactured to include a bracket, device or other contrivance to display and secure a front license plate, and if the manufacturer of the motor vehicle provided no other means or method by which a front license plate may be displayed upon and secured to the motor vehicle:

(a) One license plate must be attached to the motor vehicle in the rear; and

(b) The other license plate may, at the option of the owner of the vehicle, be attached to the motor vehicle in the front.

3. The provisions of subsection 2 do not relieve the Department of the duty to issue a set of two license plates as otherwise required pursuant to NRS 482.265 or other applicable law and do not entitle the owner of a motor vehicle to pay a reduced tax or fee in connection with the registration or transfer of the motor vehicle. If the owner of a motor vehicle, in accordance with the provisions of subsection 2, exercises the option to attach a license plate only to the rear of the motor vehicle, the owner shall:

(a) Retain the other license plate; and

(b) Insofar as it may be practicable, return or surrender both plates to the Department as a set when required by law to do so.

4. Every license plate must at all times be securely fastened to the vehicle to which it is assigned so as to prevent the plate from swinging and at a height not less than 12 inches from the ground, measuring from the bottom of such plate, in a place and position to be clearly visible, and must be maintained free from foreign materials and in a condition to be clearly legible.

5. Any license plate which is issued to a vehicle transporter or a dealer, rebuilder or manufacturer may be attached to a vehicle owned or controlled by that person by a secure means. No license plate may be displayed loosely in the window or by any other unsecured method in any motor vehicle.

[13:202:1931; 1931 NCL § 4435.12]—(NRS A 1959, 863; 1963, 1127; 1969, 686; 1983, 1000; 1987, 2079; 2005, 983)

Said laws were written and voted on by the Nevada State Legislature and signed by the Govenor of the State of Nevada, both bodies empowered by the Constitution of the State of Nevada to enact said laws. That constitution was voted on and approved by the Congress of the United States and read by President Lincoln when Nevada was admited to the union, under the laws established to admit states to the US as written in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Now where the hell is it written that this isn't a law but a comercial code?

Trixizorz:

I have but 3 amendments to have you read and analyze:

9th, 10th, and 14th.

The 9th and 14th essentially mean your "fundamental rights" which most legal historians would list life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness as ones which would qualify are sacrosanct.

The 10th essentially makes you the state you live in's b****.


The federal constitution was designed to make it this way. The individual states were supposed to be autonomous entities distinct from the Federal Government and connected to the other states through the Federal Government.



That said: no where does recklessly endangering the lives of others get covered by the 9th or 14th amendments. You are just going to have to live with the fact that your state can tell you to not harm or endanger other people on threat of punishment.


And your arguments have extended far beyond the scope of your original premise of "cops being corrupt beyond the point of redemption." In order for this claim to really hold water you would have to being will to assert that most if not all people were similarly corrupt. And I don't buy that argument for one minute.

Having actually read the psychological case studies on the pathology of power and role theory I can safely say you won't find allies in the psychological community either. You might be able to find someone who will help you argue a preponderance, maybe even a majority of cops are corrupt, but you won't find anything to sustain your claim of total or near total corruption.

NT

yes, you can go 100 in a school zone, and and they cant do anything about it, they have to provide a damaged party.

So, theoretically, I could poison the water supply and if no one was injured from it I wouldn't have committed a crime? If I tried to shoot you and missed, I wouldn't be a criminal because I haven't injured anyone?

False.

Endangering others is just as much against the law as harming others. You receive a "lesser" charge in as much as your sentence involves less monetary damages/less prison time, but it is nonetheless against the law.


Reckless Endangerment.
Assault without Battery.
Inciting a Riot.
Attempted Murder.
Conspiracy to commit "X"
Conspiring with the enemy.


All of these things do not require actual harm to be done, merely the attempt, and all are against one set of laws or another.

NT

snip

Being sarcastic lol.

So, theoretically, I could poison the water supply and if no one was injured from it I wouldn't have committed a crime? If I tried to shoot you and missed, I wouldn't be a criminal because I haven't injured anyone?

attempted is still damaging a party.
if there is no one there and u rip through at 100 mph they cant do jack shit. if u serve out of the way of hitting a pedestrian ur gonna get screwed over in court.

Now I admit that I don't know what state you're living in, but...

NRS 482.255 Placement of certificate of registration; surrender upon demand of peace officer, justice of the peace or deputy of Department; limitation on conviction.

1. Upon receipt of a certificate of registration, the owner shall place it or a legible copy in the vehicle for which it is issued and keep it in the vehicle. If the vehicle is a motorcycle, trailer or semitrailer, he shall carry the certificate in the tool bag or other convenient receptacle attached to the vehicle.

2. The owner or operator of a motor vehicle shall, upon demand, surrender the certificate of registration or the copy for examination to any peace officer, justice of the peace or deputy of the Department.

3. No person charged with violating this section may be convicted if he produces in court a certificate of registration which was previously issued to him and was valid at the time of the demand.

[Part 10:202:1931; A 1947, 453; 1943 NCL § 4435.09]—(NRS A 1969, 139; 1983, 1030)

NRS 482.275 License plates: Display.

1. The license plates for a motor vehicle other than a motorcycle, power cycle or motor vehicle being transported by a licensed vehicle transporter must be attached thereto, one in the rear and, except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, one in the front. The license plate issued for all other vehicles required to be registered must be attached to the rear of the vehicle. The license plates must be so displayed during the current calendar year or registration period.

2. If the motor vehicle was not manufactured to include a bracket, device or other contrivance to display and secure a front license plate, and if the manufacturer of the motor vehicle provided no other means or method by which a front license plate may be displayed upon and secured to the motor vehicle:

(a) One license plate must be attached to the motor vehicle in the rear; and

(b) The other license plate may, at the option of the owner of the vehicle, be attached to the motor vehicle in the front.

3. The provisions of subsection 2 do not relieve the Department of the duty to issue a set of two license plates as otherwise required pursuant to NRS 482.265 or other applicable law and do not entitle the owner of a motor vehicle to pay a reduced tax or fee in connection with the registration or transfer of the motor vehicle. If the owner of a motor vehicle, in accordance with the provisions of subsection 2, exercises the option to attach a license plate only to the rear of the motor vehicle, the owner shall:

(a) Retain the other license plate; and

(b) Insofar as it may be practicable, return or surrender both plates to the Department as a set when required by law to do so.

4. Every license plate must at all times be securely fastened to the vehicle to which it is assigned so as to prevent the plate from swinging and at a height not less than 12 inches from the ground, measuring from the bottom of such plate, in a place and position to be clearly visible, and must be maintained free from foreign materials and in a condition to be clearly legible.

5. Any license plate which is issued to a vehicle transporter or a dealer, rebuilder or manufacturer may be attached to a vehicle owned or controlled by that person by a secure means. No license plate may be displayed loosely in the window or by any other unsecured method in any motor vehicle.

[13:202:1931; 1931 NCL § 4435.12]—(NRS A 1959, 863; 1963, 1127; 1969, 686; 1983, 1000; 1987, 2079; 2005, 983)

Said laws were written and voted on by the Nevada State Legislature and signed by the Govenor of the State of Nevada, both bodies empowered by the Constitution of the State of Nevada to enact said laws. That constitution was voted on and approved by the Congress of the United States and read by President Lincoln when Nevada was admited to the union, under the laws established to admit states to the US as written in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Now where the hell is it written that this isn't a law but a comercial code?

i live in california.

and your saying that these are actual nevada state laws?

state laws cannot override the constitution, only ammendments can.

These laws only apply to 'driving or operating' motor vehicles. not traveling.

the thing is, most people cant travel, because they dont actually own their car. if they registered and did all of that bullshit with the DMV, the dmv owns their car title.

Trixizorz:

I have but 3 amendments to have you read and analyze:

9th, 10th, and 14th.

The 9th and 14th essentially mean your "fundamental rights" which most legal historians would list life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness as ones which would qualify are sacrosanct.

The 10th essentially makes you the state you live in's b****.


The federal constitution was designed to make it this way. The individual states were supposed to be autonomous entities distinct from the Federal Government and connected to the other states through the Federal Government.



That said: no where does recklessly endangering the lives of others get covered by the 9th or 14th amendments. You are just going to have to live with the fact that your state can tell you to not harm or endanger other people on threat of punishment.


And your arguments have extended far beyond the scope of your original premise of "cops being corrupt beyond the point of redemption." In order for this claim to really hold water you would have to being will to assert that most if not all people were similarly corrupt. And I don't buy that argument for one minute.

Having actually read the psychological case studies on the pathology of power and role theory I can safely say you won't find allies in the psychological community either. You might be able to find someone who will help you argue a preponderance, maybe even a majority of cops are corrupt, but you won't find anything to sustain your claim of total or near total corruption.

NT


i never said anything about endangering other peoples constitutional rights, im talking about your individual rights. the right to travel.

i dont care if they are intentionally or not intentionally breaking the law. the fact is that they are breaking the law=corruption. alot do think they are doing good, which i cant tell wether that is worse than knowing.
i hate having to repeat myself, its only 5 pages. read them.

attempted is still damaging a party.
if there is no one there and u rip through at 100 mph they cant do jack shit. if u serve out of the way of hitting a pedestrian ur gonna get screwed over in court.

I still don't seem to see a post from you telling us where your right to speed is guarded by the Constitution. Speak up or shut up.

i never said anything about endangering other peoples constitutional rights, im talking about your individual rights. the right to travel.


I want you to do something:

Stand up. Lift your right foot off of the ground. Move it slightly foward. Put it down. Lift your left foot. Move it slightly past the right one. Put it down. Repeat.

Congratulations! You can travel! No one can infringe on your right to walk! :D

I want you to do something:

Stand up. Lift your right foot off of the ground. Move it slightly foward. Put it down. Lift your left foot. Move it slightly past the right one. Put it down. Repeat.

Congratulations! You can travel! No one can infringe on your right to walk! :D

yes, that is one example of traveling.

it took me 5 seconds on google to find this: Right To Travel (http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/travel.htm) as you may or may not know, as soon as one judge says something it is true for all court cases. all you have to do is bring these up, or any other cases about traveling, and the case is as good as won.

Quote="As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others."

speeding tickets are illegal btw.
Bull.

everyone knows that cops are corrupt, they just fear them. the fact is that police have no real authority over us, they arnt part of the government, they are a business. sherriffs are the only ones who are even sworn to "protect and serve" these bogus local police claim that they are there to uphold the law, but all they do is enforce commercial codes to swindle money out of people.


I again call bull.

Your premise is a wild generalization that anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together can judge on its merits, and your claims that they have no authority to enforce the law, and that the laws they enforce are illegal, is stupendously laughable.

i live in california.

and your saying that these are actual nevada state laws?
Yes, Nevada Revised Statutes, the laws of the state.

state laws cannot override the constitution, only ammendments can.
This is indeed true, but you have yet to show where the states cannot regulate motoring or trafic on state owned roads. The Constitution says that the federal government can only apply to interstate movement, not movement within the state. Congress itself has agreed that state plates shall be valid for those purposes due to the Constitution's good faith clause.

These laws only apply to 'driving or operating' motor vehicles. not traveling.
No one interfears with your right to travle, you can take a bus, or a plane, or a horse, or a train. You can go by bike, or boat, or taxi, rent a car, hitchike, surf, unicycle, walk like an Egyptian, hop one legged, jog, run, slide, or drive. There's nothing stopping you from doing all of these things to actually travle. The state CAN pass laws regarding the regulation of traffic on its roads and they can pass laws regarding operation of motor vehicles. If you happen to travle by motor vehicle, you fall under those laws.

Stopping travle would be locking you up somewhere to keep you from leaving and unless you have committed a crime and are imprisioned, the state cannot and has not done so.

the thing is, most people cant travel, because they dont actually own their car. if they registered and did all of that bullshit with the DMV, the dmv owns their car title.
何だHell? Ok, I know CA has interesting laws, but if your car is owned free and clear, you do retain title on it. My title lives at the DMV because I have yet to finish paying it off and the bank holds it until then. Once I do, the title is released to me so I have no idea what you're talking about.

it took me 5 seconds on google to find this: Right To Travel (http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/travel.htm) as you may or may not know, as soon as one judge says something it is true for all court cases. all you have to do is bring these up, or any other cases about traveling, and the case is as good as won.

Quote="As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others."
Try findlaw.com, they tend to know the actual law as opposed to wild speculation. You still have not shown where in the Constitution it states that you may travel on any roads as you will, or where it denies the right to regulate such travel within state to the states.

has nothing to do with that. there are no LAWS that state that you must have those items when you are 'traveling'. its all commercial codes. cases have been won based on this. this isnt theory its fact.

Source it. Credible sources, please, not blogs.

Lawyerdude (http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/) is a lawyer who actually studied REAL LAW= constitutional law and common law. he was disbared because he was helping people. hes currently sueing the bar association. On his page are several cases that have been won.

The fact that he was disbarred suggests that he in fact did something illegal. And that is hardly an unbiased source.

no, we need to get rid of all these bullshit commercial codes and laws that try to override the constitution. we still should have police to catch REAL criminals=murders, rapists, etc.

Ok. They do not override the constitution.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You're protected against UNREASONABLE search and seizure. If you are flying down the road swerving back and forth hitting mailboxes, they've got a reasonable cause for stopping you, for ticketing you, and depending on what happens at the traffic stop, arresting you.

Additionally:



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

See? Says right there that states 9and therefore the counties and municipalities within those states) have the right to make laws.

Your whole argument is fallacious.

This thread makes me laugh. Trixizorz apparently is bitter about getting in trouble for doing something stupid.

Lawyerdude (http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/) is a lawyer who actually studied REAL LAW= constitutional law and common law. he was disbared because he was helping people. hes currently sueing the bar association. On his page are several cases that have been won.

Lawyerdude. Bah. He tried to help a guy beat a relatively minor traffic charge in a local court. He was completely ineffective. On "lawyerdude's" advice, the guy actually dumped his court appointed lawyer the day before his jury trial...and bombed miserably.

Guess who's in jail? Not lawyerdude. The poor fool who was sucked into his BS.

it took me 5 seconds on google to find this: Right To Travel (http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/travel.htm) as you may or may not know, as soon as one judge says something it is true for all court cases. all you have to do is bring these up, or any other cases about traveling, and the case is as good as won.

Quote="As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others."

But, you know what, I'm still not seeing the right to speed in the Constitution. What one judge says may have a bearing on the decisions by another judge, but given the hundreds of thousands of cases out there, it's easy to come up with a counter example without even stretching yourself.

So, again, I say: Quote us FROM THE CONSTITUTION where you are given the right to speed. Until you can do that, you're just blowing smoke out of your ass.

Yes, Nevada Revised Statutes, the laws of the state.


This is indeed true, but you have yet to show where the states cannot regulate motoring or trafic on state owned roads. The Constitution says that the federal government can only apply to interstate movement, not movement within the state. Congress itself has agreed that state plates shall be valid for those purposes due to the Constitution's good faith clause.


No one interfears with your right to travle, you can take a bus, or a plane, or a horse, or a train. You can go by bike, or boat, or taxi, rent a car, hitchike, surf, unicycle, walk like an Egyptian, hop one legged, jog, run, slide, or drive. There's nothing stopping you from doing all of these things to actually travle. The state CAN pass laws regarding the regulation of traffic on its roads and they can pass laws regarding operation of motor vehicles. If you happen to travle by motor vehicle, you fall under those laws.

Stopping travle would be locking you up somewhere to keep you from leaving and unless you have committed a crime and are imprisioned, the state cannot and has not done so.


何だHell? Ok, I know CA has interesting laws, but if your car is owned free and clear, you do retain title on it. My title lives at the DMV because I have yet to finish paying it off and the bank holds it until then. Once I do, the title is released to me so I have no idea what you're talking about.

obviously you know exactly what im talking about then^

they are stopping you from traveling, unless you get a license. its still stopping.
are they going to start making up laws about walking now too? incase theres too much foottraffic?
interstate freeways count as interstate even if you arent going between states.

Lawyerdude. Bah. He tried to help a guy beat a relatively minor traffic charge in a local court. He was completely ineffective. On "lawyerdude's" advice, the guy actually dumped his court appointed lawyer the day before his jury trial...and bombed miserably.

Guess who's in jail? Not lawyerdude. The poor fool who was sucked into his BS.

having a state appointed attorney is a bad idea. the only law they know about is the traffic crap that he is a part of. state appointed attorneys, DAs, and judges are all friends. if you are actually gonna fight, defending yourself is best. that guy probably just didnt do his homework which is why he lost.

Ok. They do not override the constitution.



You're protected against UNREASONABLE search and seizure. If you are flying down the road swerving back and forth hitting mailboxes, they've got a reasonable cause for stopping you, for ticketing you, and depending on what happens at the traffic stop, arresting you.

Additionally:



See? Says right there that states 9and therefore the counties and municipalities within those states) have the right to make laws.

Your whole argument is fallacious.


no shit they have probably cause if you are driving like an idiot. i already said that. they cant however do anything (legally) about speeding if noone and noone's property is damaged.

This thread makes me laugh. Trixizorz apparently is bitter about getting in trouble for doing something stupid.
not bitter at all, just trying to make you people think about whats going on. i dont even own a car.

no shit they have probably cause if you are driving like an idiot. i already said that. they cant however do anything (legally) about speeding if noone and noone's property is damaged.

Incorrect. You pose a danger to property and to people, whether you hit them or not.

You pose a danger to yourself.

You pose a danger to the cop you blew by at 120 mph.

obviously you know exactly what im talking about then^
No, I don't because if a bank holds the title, it is because they gave you a loan for the car. The DMV has nothing to do with that. It's a transation between you and the bank.

they are stopping you from traveling, unless you get a license. its still stopping.
are they going to start making up laws about walking now too? incase theres too much foottraffic?
No, it is NOT stopping you from travel. You still have a number of options. It's like boarding the plane, you have the right to NOT submit to search, but the government also has the right to forbid you from boarding that plane. You still have the right to get from point A to point B by an alternative method. If you want to use that plane though, you fall under those laws.

Same with cars.

interstate freeways count as interstate even if you arent going between states.
Yes, and Congress deligated athority to patrol and maintain said roads to the various states. But that addresses US Highways, Routes, and Interstates. It does NOT address State, County, and City highways/routes/roads. Those are under the athority of the state or whomever the state has designated.

Again, all done through laws passed via the prossess set out in state and US constitutions.

And you STILL have not shown where the states are supposedly usurping Congress's athority.

Until you do, I will hold that states have the right to pass their own laws regarding traffic and can designate police to keep those laws.

Has anyone actually read the blog? It just seems to me that the criminality in that thing might be overstated. I mean, from the start the person thinks the cops are trying to steal the car because they are thinking of towing her car because it lacks proper plates. I am not sure what the legal precedent is for this stuff but the person writing it was being very uncooperative with the cops and that always leads to trouble, they might be right but it is hard to tell because of the bias involved in this thing.


some american laws are pathetic or unclear-meant to be defined by that county's task force..at least thats what i think. also, frequentlyin newspapers people read of policemen recieving suspensions and background checks and court dates for not doing their job.

i wouldnt want to be in the police force..i'd go straight for the FBI
Just Kidding

I don't think anyone here could argue that there is some corruption in various police forces (or other law enforcement agencies) in the US. Almost all of us here, however, will dispute that there is total or near total corruption within these various agencies.

People will be people. Some are good, some are bad, most are somewhere in between. It's the same whether you're in the United States or in any other country on this planet.