Cop Pulls Over “Legal Expert” And SCHOOLS HIM On The Law

1. Get Surfshark VPN at https://surfshark.deals/audit – Enter promo code AUDIT for 85% off and 3 extra months for free on their exclusive Holiday Sale!

2. Lack of insurance destroys the lives of people this chucklehead might hit. The officer abdicated his duty to every other driver on that road because he didn’t feel like getting into it with a completely deluded Sovereign Citizen.

3. I can’t believe all of the comments praising this officer. The title of the video is wrong. He did not “school” this driver about the law. He let this SovCit cultist go on his way when he knew the guy was unlicensed and operating an unregistered and uninsured vehicle. The cop was “polite” only in the sense that he let this idiot walk all over him. At the very least he should have issued those 3 citations. In my view, he should have had the vehicle towed. He was being lazy, passed this fool off to be someone else’s problem. I give him an F.

4. You have multiple supreme court rulings that say the opposite, that requiring a license, tags, and insurance is unconstitutional. so how do you get around that? Because you are restricting a person's right to travel if they are required to have the above and if they don't have it, they could be legally persecuted.

5. Traffic Cop 101, no license means no drive.

6. Yet you ignored several cases ruled on AFTER 1915 that the states cannot license a protected right. Such as the right to travel. Yes, there is case law that says this.

7. The cop wished him safe travels, wow!!! I agree with A.A. here. He should not have just let him drove off!!

8. Cops are the real sovereign citizen

9. This is an abnormally. There was another viral video of an old white dude in Wyoming who pulled the whole I don’t need plates, a license and registration because I’m not contracted with them to practice commerce commercially.

   I have found in most cases when you pull this stuff most police are so baffled because they are so used to the average person rolling over, so in most cases your average officer would just rip you out of your car, and then cuff and stuff you all while ruffing you up! The minute you start refusing to give documentation over to them in their minds you are resisting and so in 99.9% of instances they would detain you.

10. 30 years ago this guy would have caught a beating and a half.

11. There Is No Actual “Motor Vehicle” In This Video To Begin With!!!

    The Private Citizen Is In An AUTOMOBILE!!!

    Worlds Apart!!!

12. NO! Ordinances Are “Color Of Law”!
    That Means That Policies Statutes Codes Rules Ordinances Mandates Orders Etc. Are NOT REAL LAW!
    They Are “COMMERCIAL”!

    Man (The People) Exist And Live By “Common Law”
    (Law Of The Sovereign People , Law Of The Land).
    “Constitution Law”
    (Law Of The Republic)!

    Also. Each State, Being A Nation, Has It’s Own Constitution Law, Which Overpowers “Color Of Law”…

    “Ignorance Of The Law Is No Excuse”… Etc. This Means That The UNITED STATES And The Corrupt In The Individual States Will Continue SCREWING The State Nationals And American Citizens As If We The Sovereign American Private Citizens Were Actually UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CITIZENS!!!
    Each And Every Time They Screw You, They Know Exactly Well That They Are Committing TREASON Against You! And Many People Have No Idea That UNITED STATES CITIZENS Are Not American Citizens!!! This Is Where One Must File Lawsuits!!! Take Lawsuits As Far Up As One Must Take Them To!!!

    Learn REAL LAW.

13. If the definition of "motor vehicle" is 'anything that is self-propelled', then you would necessarily need a license to ride things like electric scooters, segways, children's toy cars, hoverboards, and anything else that has a self-propelled motor. But that is obviously absurd. No cop ever holds to that definition in practice. We don't see little kids getting pulled over by cops in virtue of the fact that they don't have licenses. So that literally can't be how the term "motor vehicle" is used, at least in practice.

14. according to legal definitions for DECADES, all references to driving, operator, motor vehicle, transportation, etc. are equated with COMMERCIAL traffic. Car and truck engines are measures in HORSE POWER, driving is a commercial term meaning matched horses used to haul goods for profit by means of a driver of a team. The term "trucking" has the horse drawn commercial use reference. Even the eventual rise of the union covering trucking industry is called the "TEAMSTERS" which refers to horse and wagon commercial hauling of goods for profit. As a common sense argument the question comes up as what laws said you needed a license to bring your horse drawn buckboard, to town to buy feed, coffee, sugar and flour? What makes a "motor vehicle different from such means of travel? Also, not ALL "motor vehicles" are subject to license and registration requirements. Small sized electric and fuel fed scooters are exempt from such requirements. What makes someone's PERSONAL car any different? License and registration requirements are nothing more than a money grab by the state governments. Just because there are laws that say you need a license and register your vehicle, does NOT mean they are Constitutional. The Constitution DOES, however expressly state that the states have the right to control COMMERCIAL Traffic but does NOT include PERSONAL TRAVEL because BEFORE cars, people TRAVELED by horseback, buggy, or buckboard (if a farmer) as a means to get from A to B and did NOT need a license to do so. The licensing and registration of personal vehicles is a scam perpetuated by a court system that FAILS to apply the same reasoning of protecting modern day AR-15's and camera phones when there were none before to cars vs horse as a means of personal travel compared to commercial enterprises.

15. Mr traveler is hilarious

16. Yeah I'm usually all four of these videos but do drive-ins are privilege this idiot's going to go right the f**** jail

17. Poorly trained officer and should be reported for training. He should know and stop with this Brother crap!

18. I love your channel but I think you missed the point here. I've seen videos like this where the cop lets them go after they cite their rights after much back and forth. My point is this: the cop let him go because the cop knew the guy was right. Not even a ticket. What a cop says and believes are 2 different things. This cop tries citing state law but ultimately knows the traveler wins.

19. He is using commonlaw which is apparently all constitution law, they just know it so well that everyone else doesn't. There's lots of stories of people paying their fines etc with promissory notes, it's all crazy complicated that 99.9% of people will never use it to their advantage it seems

20. I fail to see how not paying hundreds of dollars for a piece of paper that you have to renew every 12 months endangers anyone, it's all about the money they don't give a crap about safety it's about how much money that they can extort from you! PERIOD!!

21. Im kind of disgusted how dumb and arrogant the driver is. How did this guy get away with this. How can you think you only need a driver's license if your driving commercially. I rarely take the cops side in these videos but this driver needs some tough love.

22. That coo just passed the buck so another cop could deal with it the cops mistake

23. Fake legal eggspert or YT lawyers cracks me up everytime, lol

24. Got out of ticket: A+

25. rember kids you have no rights the state made them into privlages

26. Where is the driver of that vehicle? A passenger is not required to have those documents.

27. Wow this cop was awesome. Despite being wrong, he was simply just trying to do his job, and not abuse it. It’s not the badge I’ve ever disliked. But possibly the person behind it.

28. What exactly did you sort out, if anything? It would be better if you hired an attorney to supply your channel's watchers with legal analysis, if that's your aim.

29. What a disappointment, he should have gone to jail. Wow.

30. Victimless crime though. I don’t understand it.

31. Can’t give the cop this high a grade here.

32. Cop finally finds someone actually breaking the laws and can't be bothered. He's gotta go find someone innocent to arrest.

33. Constitutional law trumps state law every time – although as long as state law doesn’t violate constitutional law – then it is legal to enforce

34. I fully support the efforts all Auditors perform in educating the Police and general public with our Constitutional rights given to us by our forefathers. Today (May 27th) we marl Memorial Day on the calendar. Many of us see this day as the beginning of the summer… yet we MUST never forget this day is much mor important as it marks a day of remembrance for all the Brave Men and women who temporarily gave up their freedom to protect the freedoms, we all enjoy.
    
    I ask each Auditor and person reading this comment to take a minute… lower your head and ask your God to hold each of our Veterans close, while forgiving any and all of their sins as thanks for the sacrifice they gave to protect each of us and the rights we now enjoy. Thank You.

35. The officer should get an F. You don't let someone without insurance drive off. Dick move.

36. A- ARE YOU KIDDING ME????!!!! He deserves an F for not doing his JOB and protecting everybody else. The problem is this cop doesn't know the law any better than any of the other ones. And he believed his Sovereign Citizen NONSENSE, because of Mr. Traveler's confident demeanor, which helps NO ONE!!!. His humility was very good (and UNUSUAL for a cop), but allowing him to get back on the road. In that car deserves an F. Of course, he's uninsured!!! He can't be insured if he doesn't have a valid license or registration.

    "I don't need a license if it's not a commercial vehicle, " is an ERRONEOUS Sovereign Citizen belief based on misreading the statute. They misread a semi-colon (I read the statute thst a SC website referred to). But they may have misread that other portion mentioned in the video, too. Then they pass this erroneous belief on to many, MANY others who will get their car towed normally if they are caught by police.

    It was very nice for the policeman to listen to him, HOWEVER he should be towing that car. If he actually allows him to get back in that car and drive away without a proper registration or a license (like it appears he's going to), he is not doing his job. He shouldn't be getting a ticket. He should be getting the car towed AND a ticket.

37. On top of allowing him to be a hazard to other drivers, he also took responsibility for anything the driver does after the stop. Meaning, if the guy was drunk and let go, and 5 minutes later hits a car and kills someone, the cop is accountable for criminal negligence.

38. 28.101 defines a motor vehicle as a "self-propelled vehicle". I would argue that a car cannot propel itself. It requires fuel, without which the engine will not operate, and an operator, without which it cannot start itself, control its own direction or speed nor stop itself. I would absolutely get out of the definition of motor vehicle in court. What a poorly written law.

39. "Sovereign citizen" is an oxymoron. You're wrong. He's right. You're quoting "codes" and "statutes" that don't apply to someone operating under the Constitution and the Constitution trumps all state codes and statutes. A "MOTOR VEHICLE" is a commercial term and uses semantic deceit to make people believe that means "all automobiles, cars, trucks, etc." But personal conveyances change over time and the right to travel is granted using the "ordinary and usual conveyances of the day." DRIVING itself is a commercial endeavor. Always has been, even going back to the time of "DRIVING cattle." Traveling is not a commercial endeavor. Semantics matter when dealing with codes and statutes. The act of "licensing" even in a general sense has to do with commerce generally.

    In Kent v. Dulles, the "…as well as others" in the decision has to do with INTRA-state commercial travel, because INTERstate commercial travel was mentioned. It's still COMMERCIAL.
    In Bismarck vs. Stuart, its not an infringement on the right to travel, because it only applies to DRIVERS and OPERATORS of MOTOR VEHICLES (commercial), not "travelers" using their "personal conveyance of the day." Semantics matter.

    You're right, he would need a DRIVER'S LICENSE to DRIVE LEGALLY, but that's not what he was doing, as those are commercial endeavors.

    Thompson v. Smith (1930): "STREETS AND HIGHWAYS — Right of Citizen to Travel and Transport Property — Use of Ordinary Vehicles. — The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day. This right is not a mere privilege which a city may permit or prohibit at will."

40. This encounter is going to be funny.

41. I’m more concerned with homie’s dog shit dash cam placement. Looks like it’s right in the center of his view and has cords running down. Dude probably put in about as much research into proper setup as he did DoT laws.

42. police towted my car. can i get some help on this.

43. Mr. Traveler is part of the sovereign citizen movement, which has been proven in court time and time again to be a farce.

44. I hate sovereign citizens and I’m not even american

Comments are closed.