How to Handle a Traffic Stop – FIS Live No. 22

hiring you cost more than the ticket in most cases.

Will you ever go back to doing longer/livestreams?

Justice Marshal was an ardent drug warrior. I can't have much respect for anyone holding that position.

Makes you consider hiring a driver. Cabbies probably don't get stopped as much.

So what is the correct reply to, "Do you know how fast you were going?" Any answer, yes or no, would indicate something bad for you. If you say "Yes," and they clocked you over the speed limit, then you knowingly violated the law. If you say "No," then you weren't paying attention to your driving and were "distracted driving." If you say "I'm not answering questions," then they think you are a dick and hit you with bs citation(s).

Plain view… we look so we don’t get killed. I illuminate vehicles for weapons. Hide your drugs silly billy.

“United States Supreme Judge James Iredell Court Decision"
“That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.” Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Washington State: If I get pulled over by the police, I just hand them these 2 papers and I do not even utter 1 word to the police…….

Page#1
An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the government. U.S. Supreme Court in Write v. Georgia, 373 U.S. 284, 291-2

I “Require”, the following information, to be informed, it is policy and your fiduciary duty to do so, you are amendable to the public, by your Oath of Office.

RCW 46.61.020: “Any police officer shall on request produce evidence of his or her

authorization as such”. [Proof of Authority]

Officer, I “require” you and any other officer(s), that is participating, to

properly identify your person and your authority, I “require” you to present to I,

1) A proper personal identification [business] card which shall include:

i. the name of the officer,

ii. the name of the corporation for which he works,

iii. the officer’s enforcement classification,

iv. officer is bonded,

v. the bond (policy) number of the officer,

vi. the name of the bonding company which is bonding his enforcement,

vii. the address and/or telephone number of the bonding company,

2) Show me your and any other participating officer(s), department issued

“pictured” identification card. [Official office held/holder ID]

If you and any other participating officer(s), do not have a “proper” business card, “I Require”, for you and any other participating officer(s) to write down “required” information on a piece of paper and hand it to I.

Officer, “I Require”, that you, present/produce to I, “any” of the following:

a) Warrant for my arrest?

b) Warrant to seize/remove, I, from my property?

c) Warrant to search my property?

d) warrant to search I?

e) Warrant to seize my property?

f) Verifiable witness, that I, committed a crime or damaged property?

g) Verifiable affidavit, that I, committed a crime or damaged property?

h) Verifiable contract, that I have breached?

i) You or any other participating officer(s), to articulate the facts and evidence,

that supports your ass-sumption, witnessing I, committing or about to commit or

has committed in your presences, a crime or damaging property?

j) You or any other participating officer(s), to articulate the facts and evidence,

that supports your ass-sumption, that I or my property is in a commercial

activity, requiring drivers license, plates, tabs, ins., in which, is a

privilege, under government, limited delegated authority, of “Police Power”, to

regulate commercial activity upon the public owned roads.

If you do not have at least one of (a-j), You have “NO Authority” over I.

If you are detaining I, I require, demand, to be informed, of the Maranda Warning!

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.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————
AGO 1959 No. 88 – Dec 10 1959 Page#2
Attorney General John J. O'Connell Washington state

Dear Sir: [within]

“Any peace officer shall on request produce evidence of his authorization as such."(Emphasis supplied) But, inasmuch as the Washington statutes are penal in character and are in derogation of the common law they must be strictly construed. “, to the end that no citizen shall be deprived of his liberty under statutes that are malum prohibitum only.…"
As stated in 11 Am.Jur., Constitutional Law, § 329, p. 1135 wherein it is said: "The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty" See also, Teche Lines, Inc. v. Danforth, In Barbour v. Walker, the distinction between the right of a citizen to use the public highways for private, rather than commercial purposes is recognized: "In Ex parte Dickey (Dickey v. Davis) 76 W.Va. 576, L.R.A. 1915 F, 840, P.U.R. 1915 E, 93, 85 S.E. 781, we find this apt expression of the court: 'The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously [[Orig. Op. Page 11]] from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain, in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities:…" (As to the power of the legislature to prohibit or condition special or extraordinary uses of the highway, i.e., commercial use, as it sees fit, see: ….)

RCW 46.25.050

Commercial driver's license required—Exceptions, restrictions, reciprocity.

(1) Drivers of commercial motor vehicles must obtain a commercial driver's license as required under this chapter. Except when driving… < > …for the vehicle they are driving. However, this requirement does not apply to any person:

(c) Who is operating a recreational vehicle for noncommercial purposes. As used in this section, "recreational vehicle" includes a vehicle towing a horse trailer for a noncommercial purpose…

WAC 308-100-210

*Recreational vehicle—Definition.

For the purposes of RCW 46.25.050 (1)(c), the term "recreational vehicle" shall include vehicles used exclusively for noncommercial purposes which are:

(1) Primarily designed for recreational, camping, or travel use;

WAC 308-100-010

Vehicles requiring a commercial driver's license for their operation. (5) All public school buses, regardless of capacity. All persons driving such

vehicles, other than those exempt under RCW 46.25.050, must have a

commercial driver's license with the proper classification(s) and endorsements.

FACT: that RCW 46.25.080 is the one (1) and only license classification statute in title 46 of the motor vehicle code for the State of Washington and it is also undisputed that all three classes of licenses issued under this statute are: (Class A, Class B & Class C) and are ALL COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSES.

I INVOKE ALL MY GOD GIVEN, NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, RIGHTS AND WAIVE NONE.

“DUE PROCESS OF LAW” AND “EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW” SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED.

If the State, City, Towns, County, is the "Plaintiff" = No Standing in court = No Case… 🤣🤣🤣

Stratocaster👍👍

So in The Great Courses, Law School for Everyone they talked about Amendment 5 and the right to Remain Silent… wherein they tell of cases (I can't remember what ones) where the accused didn't speak at all or very little and that was used against the persons because, they didn't explicitly invoke the Fifth though, in the Miranda warning the phrase 'Remain Silent" presupposes one was already not speaking and or can immediately clam up for defense. How can that be so given the explicit verbiage of the Miranda warning? Is one required to say they are invoking the Fifth (thus breaking their silence) or be allowed to "remain silent"?

if you didn't already I was wondering if you could comment or make a brief video on uniform commercial code UCC 9-109 consumer goods. and the UCC 1-207/308 when signing contracts

(You may not be able to answer this) If you ask if you're being detained and they avoid the question. ie not answer the question. (assuming not a traffic stop) Can one just walk away until they answer the question or say the words your being detained?

suddenly we went from police to peace officers?

So what "law" for example would somebody be breaking when a cop pulls u over for a cracked windshield?

The police and attorneys have nothing to do with the law, just policy (the root word of police) and codes.

May we politely suggest the following de-escalation-for-remedy?
Them-`Can we search your car?
You-`YES, CERTAINLY (this removes the controversy) it`s just that we charge you $666 in-the-private to do that for you and because we have NO CONFIDENCE with you administrating OUR trust, payment must be with us immediately and any further communicating with us, is with you and your supervisor accepting the terms and conditions because notice-to-agent-is-notice-to-principal`
(This way, you are NOT resisting nor refusing to obey/comply with their orders/requests/policy)
Be the BUSINESS-man with your trustees/public-servants….NOT the victim, because there is nothing wrong with any system…..is it not our negligence with not using it for OUR benefit?

@The Civil Rights Lawyer Open carry is only legal in Florida while hunting, camping, fishing or target shooting or while traveling to or from those activities. It’s actually not out of the ordinary for citizens to not realize it’s legal. Where the problem seriously arises is when dispatchers are unaware or apathetic and don’t ask callers appropriate info to flesh out the facts and don’t educate callers when it’s determined the act is not illegal.

Instead they send out cops who also are unaware or looking for a chance to get a paid vacation and violate the "suspects" rights. Honestly I’m amazed no one has been executed doing those activities but then again once the person is dead it’s the cops version that the media reports so it could happen all the time for all we know.

Apparently if you drive a truck Delaware V Prouse doesn't apply. I get pulled over all the time for "random" checks. The cops have no trouble telling you that.

Hemp is now legal in NC.

In NC at least, it appears that when a police person buys a bond, they forfeit qualified immunity. Does this make sense?