Famous Rapper Catches LYING Cop

1. Head on over to https://www.establishedtitles.com/ata to get 10% OFF your entire order! Thanks again to Established Titles for sponsoring this episode!

2. Anyone else notice that so many of these episodes come out of Pasco? I realize this is a widespread problem, but Pasco seems to be a hotspot.

3. UPDATE: We have submitted our final brief to the United States Supreme Court and are optimistic that our case will be heard. If we are successful this case will could eliminate qualified immunity in the USA. Below is Section IV of our brief which outlines our argument that qualified immunity is not, and has never been constitutional, nor was it ever written into the laws of the land. Thank you to everyone who has supported us in this fight over the last 6 years and for those that wish to see this unfair doctrine dismantled, I ask for your continued support
   
   IV. THIS COURT SHOULD OVERRULE OR
   
   LIMIT QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
   
   There is another, more fundamental reason the
   
   Court should grant this petition: It presents an
   
   opportunity to reexamine modern qualified immunity
   
   jurisprudence, which derives neither from the text of
   
   § 1983 nor the common law of official immunity.
   
   The doctrine of qualified immunity and the clearly
   
   established test do not appear in the text of the section
   
   1983, the Constitution, or any other statute. As
   
   Justice Thomas has observed, the clearly established
   
   test “cannot be located in §1983 text.” Hoggard v.
   
   Rhodes, 141 S. Ct. 2421, 2421 (2021) (Thomas, J.,
   
   respecting the denial of certiorari).
   
   Rather, qualified immunity derives from the
   
   premise that there is “no evidence that Congress
   
   intended to abrogate the traditional common law”

   35

   immunities in Section 1983 actions. Briscoe v. LaHue,
   
   460 U.S. 325, 337 (1983). But Section 1983, as
   
   originally enacted in 1871, contained express
   
   language abrogating state common law immunities
   
   which was mistakenly omitted during codification;
   
   the provision imposed liability “any … law, statute,
   
   ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of the State to
   
   the contrary notwithstanding.” These counter-textual
   
   problems with qualified immunity have been
   
   highlighted by Professor Alexander Reinert and
   
   others, like Judge Willett in Rogers v. Jarrett, 63
   
   F.4th 971, 980 (5th Cir. 2023) (Willett, J., concurring).
   
   Reinert’s research suggests that the original text of
   
   the section 1983 explicitly displaced common law
   
   defenses through the use of the “Notwithstanding
   
   Clause,” but that part of the text was omitted in later
   
   compilations. Id. As noted by Judge Willett,
   
   [n]ot all Supreme Court Justices have overlooked
   
   the Notwithstanding Clause. In Butz v. Economu,
   
   the Court quoted the as passed statutory
   
   language, including the Notwithstanding Clause,
   
   yet, in the same breath, remarked that §1983’s
   
   originally enacted text “said nothing about
   
   immunity for state officials.” Indeed, members of
   
   the Supreme Court have often noted the
   
   Notwithstanding Clause’s existence and omission
   
   from the U.S. Code.
   
   Rogers, 63 F.4th at 981, fn. 11 (citations omitted).

   36

   Members of this Court have expressed strong
   
   reservations with the lack of a basis for the clearly
   
   established analysis. Baxter v. Bracey, 140 S. Ct.
   
   1862, at 1864 (2020) (Thomas, J. dissenting from
   
   denial of certiorari) (“There likely is no basis for the
   
   objective inquiry into clearly established law that our
   
   modern cases prescribe.”).
   
   In addition, Justice Sotomayor recently wrote that
   
   the time may have come to “reexamine its judge-made
   
   doctrine of qualified immunity writ large,” based upon
   
   her concerns with the clearly established standard.
   
   N. S., only child of decedent Stokes v. Kansas City Bd.
   
   of Police Commissioners, 143 S. Ct. 2422, 2424 (2023)
   
   (Sotomayor, J. dissenting from denial of certiorari).
   
   One of the problems of qualified immunity
   
   jurisprudence—the failure to enforce constitutional
   
   norms unless they are clearly established—is on full
   
   display in this case. On one side of the equation are
   
   16 United States Courts of Appeals judges,4 the
   
   District Court judge, and the Florida trial court judge
   
   in this case, all of whom conclude that the text of the
   
   Fourth Amendment, Hiibel, Brown and other cases
   
   squarely dispose of this case. On the other side is a
   
   single Court of Appeals judge. In the concurrence,
   
   Judge Branch then relies on this single judge’s refusal
   
   to acknowledge binding Supreme Court precedent to
   
   render a right not “clearly established” for one of the
   
   most populous sections of the country. For Petitioner,
   
   and now any passenger in Florida, Georgia, and
   
   Alabama, what was a clearly established right to be
   
   free from arrest for refusing to produce identification
   
   has been upended by a single judge.
   
   This demonstrates how the concept of clearly
   
   established law as it currently functions creates an
   
   arbitrary and unpredictable standard. Constitutional
   
   rights should not hinge on a single judge’s subjective
   
   interpretation of what constitutes clearly established
   
   law. This approach results in a patchwork of
   
   protections, where an individual’s rights are
   
   recognized in one jurisdiction but denied in another.
   
   The variability in judicial determinations of clearly
   
   established law undermines the uniformity and
   
   predictability essential to the rule of law and this case
   
   highlights the problem in a very direct manner.
   
   By reexamining and clarifying the doctrine of
   
   qualified immunity, the Supreme Court can ensure
   
   that constitutional rights are not dependent on the
   
   unpredictable and varied interpretations of lower
   
   courts. A more objective and consistent standard is

   38

   necessary to protect individuals’ rights uniformly and
   
   to maintain public confidence in the justice system.

4. Everybody my age knows that in school every other notebook had the Wu Tang "W" drawn in the notebook.

5. TAKE ALL THEY MONEY!!!!

6. The sad part of this is, no natter if he wins his LS, they still will have his info forever, and that's what the wanted, and got at no penalty to them

7. LOLOLOL ESTABLISHED TITLES

8. How can you possibly be arrested for not answering questions, yet have a 5th amendment right not to self incriminate?

9. Money grows on taxpayers not trees, according to the police. The police don’t care if you sue them and win. You might want to attend city meetings and let the citizens know where their money is going .

10. I'm amused, the son is trying to teach his father the laws…

11. It's quite possible that cop is just ignorant and honestly believe the crap he's spewing. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

12. I hope you cancelled your partnership with established titles. They're a scam amd have been outed as such.

13. Dad is a dirty rat.

14. What a bunch of losers, law enforcement will hire anybody.

15. These cops are total scumbags!!! Why the heck don’t these cops know the law?

16. Here we go retaliating to a person cause there egos got hurt

17. Dad just taught his son a bad lesson. Moral character is the base of a person, small matters.

18. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that police do not have to identify passengers when they stop a car.

19. His dad literally sold him out. That conversation later had to be intense. Idk if I could forgive my dad for doing that.

20. Sue

21. I happened to notice Pasco County Sheriff's Office has turned off comments on their facebook page and does not allow for messenger either. I guess the overwhelming amount of negative videos outraged people enough to cause this. This is so disgusting that the people who actually SWEAR AN OATH TO PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS are the very same people VIOLATING THEM!!!

22. the aggressive stairs and flash lights.

23. Can you do one excessive force

24. Hi– Subscribed- Liked- Follow- Your Land ad is bullshit and not legit. Thank you for your vids though!

25. Why do these Dirty Low Down Racist Cops always think they have the right to abuse and unlawfully arrest Black Men???? Racist Amerikkka will never change!

Comments are closed.