Showing posts with label Police. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Police. Show all posts

Friday, April 3, 2015

Fighting Illegal Traffic Tickets - Virginia (Secrets of the Courts)

Rule 3A:4. Arrest Warrant or Summons.

(a) Issuance. More than one warrant or summons may issue on the same complaint. A warrant may be issued by a judicial officer if the accused fails to appear in response to a summons.

(b) Form of Summons. A summons, whether issued by a magistrate or a law-enforcement officer, shall command the accused to appear at a stated time and place before a court of appropriate jurisdiction in the county, city or town in which the summons is issued. It shall (i) state the name of the accused or, if his name is unknown, set forth a description by which he can be identified with reasonable certainty, (ii) describe the offense charged and state whether the offense is a violation of state, county, city or town law, and (iii) be signed by the magistrate or the law-enforcement office, as the case may be.

(c) Execution and Return. If a warrant has been issued but the officer does not have the warrant in his possession at the time of the arrest, he shall (i) inform the accused of the offense charged and that a warrant has been issued, and (ii) deliver a copy of the warrant to the accused as soon thereafter as practicable.


(Legal definition of an officer:  An individual with the responsibility of performing the duties and functions of an office, that is a duty or charge, a position of trust, or a right to exercise a public or private employment. - Why we are adding this:  arguments can be made about the phrase in the yellow highlighted area saying that the officer is NOT required to sign the ticket.  As you can see, yes he is when you know what the term officer means.  My opinion though.)


Above is one of many traffic tickets that has come across my desk.  The above ticket is not properly executed by the trooper who issued it and that makes the ticket invalid.  Problem is, getting the judge to recognize such and having the judge throw the ticket out.  Anyone have any idea how much the courts pull in each week through these bogus scams called traffic infractions?  Go sit in one of these courts one day and watch how many people go up to the bench before the judge and just give their money away as well as their rights and freedoms.

  I have sat through plenty of these just to watch in horror how many people are doing what I just described.  No one wants to fight the system that is robbing you blind.  Now lets take a really good look at this.  Just under the picture of the illegal traffic ticket are the rules of the court.  Now these rules are for criminal practice and procedure, exactly what a traffic ticket falls under.  Please note very carefully, RULE   3A:4 (b) (iii) clearly shows that the trooper or law enforcement must sign the summons.  I have at least 8 that have come across my desk in the last few weeks where not one have been signed by the trooper or law enforcement officer and they are from 4 different people.

  Look at the light red highlighted area where the trooper, M B Pope put his name.  That is not his signature.  I have a copy of his signature on file.  That makes this summons invalid.  That is just one area.  Also, a common ploy that law enforcement uses is they pull your copy out before you sign their copy and they then hand you your copy after you have signed theirs.  They count on you thinking that since the summons does not have your name on it, you do not have to show up.  Automatic ruling against you if you do not show up in court and a higher fee for the court.

  When law enforcement does not sign the summons it is a due process violation.  You have to argue the exact rule above with the judge.  If the judge rules against you anyway, you want to make sure you get that judge recused for failing to uphold the canons of judicial procedure that the judge is bound by.

  You also want to know where the Commonwealth's independent witness is against you in order to have the 4 legs of the table up for a proper case against you in a criminal traffic ticket.  If the Commonwealth does not have one?  They do not have a proper case against you.  But most of you have no clue about this and need a very serious education about your real rights.  Again, I have watched hundreds of people march up and just give the courts their money not even realizing the court had no case against them and your insurance goes through the roof causing you a great deal of financial harm.

  Hey here is a wonderful idea: spend a fortune and get an attorney who will sell you down the river.  We have seen this at least a dozen times in the past several months.  You do not end up much better off on the traffic charge, but at least you can rest assured, your attorney is happy because now he has your money in his pocket.   There were a couple of times we were asking questions as to what side the attorney was on when he was supposed to be defending his client.  If that was defense in a few of the cases we saw then run like hell in the other direction if you are thinking of hiring an attorney for traffic court.

  What we learned sitting in the court rooms?  The courts are nothing but banks.  You can only make deposits though.  Withdrawing money?  Not allowed.  Try and argue your case?  The judge is going to protect the law enforcement officer just about every time even though there is no valid case.  In order for a case to be valid there must be 4 legs to the case.  Two opposing parties are the first two legs.  Subject matter is third and forth is an independent witness.  The law enforcement officer who charges you is NOT an independent witness.  He or she is a pre-prejudiced party to the charge.

  Also lets take into consideration that the court is not going to give you a fair hearing anyway.  You are being charged by the Commonwealth and the judge works for the Commonwealth.  How is that fair and independent?  No independent witness and no independent party to hear your argument?  How are you going to get a fair hearing?  Its all a conflict of interest that is not in your favor.

  Now lets get into one of the secrets of the courts.  You have to read the canons of judicial procedure that judges are bound by in order to understand why most people do not succeed in court.  A judge must not independently investigate facts in a case and must consider only the evidence presented.      The highlighted area here comes from Canon 3.  So what you are being told here is that the judge can not use his or her own knowledge of law to help you win your case.  You must present the proper argument before the judge in order to win.  This is huge folks.  If you fail to understand this you are in trouble.  The judge knows the law very well but you are being told here that even if the judge knows you should not be found guilty of whatever charge or claim the judge can not rule in your favor unless and or until you provide the proper argument.

  So if you are trying to fight an illegal traffic ticket or whatever else your case may be unless you are presenting the facts and the law you are going to be ruled against.  THE JUDGE CAN ONLY CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED.  Most people convict themselves.  If you think you have done something wrong then you are going to do something to convict yourself in just about every case.

Let's look at a new ticket that just came in today.  Here is the charge:

   § 46.2-830. Uniform traffic control devices on highways; drivers to obey traffic control devices; enforcement of section.

The Commissioner of Highways may classify, designate, and mark state highways and provide a uniform system of traffic control devices for such highways under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. Such system of traffic control devices shall correlate with and, so far as possible, conform to the system adopted in other states.

All drivers of vehicles shall obey lawfully erected traffic control devices.
No provision of this section relating to the prohibition of disobeying traffic control devices or violating local traffic control devices shall be enforced against an alleged violator if, at the time and place of the alleged violation, any such traffic control device is not in proper position and sufficiently legible to be seen by an ordinarily observant person.

The driver was pulled over by law enforcement for no apparent reason and the above is the statute he was charged with.  The trooper did not sign the summons and pulled the usual trick of holding the copy of the summons out from the original so that the defendant's signature does not appear on his copy.  

But lets look at the statute that is a so called violation.  All drivers of vehicles shall obey:  wait and hold that concept right there.  Shall?  Anyone know what the definition of "SHALL" is?  It does not matter that the word is common, the word has at least 3 different meanings.  Shall can mean sometime in the future.  So sometime in the future anyone driving a vehicle will obey?  May obey?  Must obey?  Consider obeying?  What does shall mean here?  Legal codes and statutes that use ambiguous wording is not law.  Its garbage.  Look at the above statute very closely.  Read it numerous times.  The commissioner of highways "MAY"?  now what does may mean?  Must?  Can?  Will?  Might?  What are they really trying to convey here?  Now what are lawfully erected traffic control devices?  Toasters?  Radios?  Light poles?  You are only assuming you know what they are.  You convict yourself when you assume.

  Now lets dig a little deeper.  "Such system of traffic control devices shall correlate with and, so far as possible, conform to the system adopted in other states."  I'm sorry, but so far as possible, I shall, at sometime in the future, consider obeying some form of a traffic control device that may be put up by the commissioner of highways.  Court over.  Charges nullified.  

  Oh, and one more thing, if you do get a summons, you have been arrested and charged but you were released on your own recognizance.  Were you read your Miranda Rights?  No?  Why not?  That law enforcement officer is going to testify against you.  Can anyone say judge Dredd?  Roadside court?

All of the above are observations and research over the past several months.  None of this is legal advice in any form.  If you need legal advice, spend a ton of money on an attorney, and good luck as you are going to need it.  These are only my own opinion and that of a number of others.   I recommend everyone do their own research and learn as much as possible so you are no longer being made the bank to enrich the courts.  If everyone would fight against the so called charges, the courts would collapse and crumble into dust under the weight.  


Thursday, February 5, 2015

You Do Not Need A Driver's License For The Average Man or Woman

Here is yet another must watch video, showing that the average man or woman, does not need to have or posses a driver's license to travel down the road or highway.  That means when you get a ticket, they are robbing you at gunpoint.  That also means that the judges are also robbing you at gunpoint.  You need to be armed with the knowledge on how to stop these criminals from infringing on your rights.

  If you do not exercise your rights, then you have none.  So you must know and exercise them in order to actually have them.  Watch this video and understand it to the fullest.  Research the information.  We have been researching this for some time and now we are sharing as much as we can to help you protect yourself.

  This video shows you a number of illegal statutes that are in the what are called law books?  So called laws that you may be violating?  Codes, statutes and or ordinances are strictly the color of law and not actual law.  But they rob you with very nasty tricks they created for you to purposely not understand.  This is by design.

  Now the word is getting out.  You can legally ignore these statutes, codes and or ordinances with impunity according to the laws of the united states Constitution of America.  We will cover that in the future.  The criminals are wearing uniforms and or robs or suits.  They claim to be upholding the law, yet they violate it at every level.  And they wonder why we no longer trust any of them?  Really?

  Let's be fair.  There are some very decent people locked into this criminal system being used against us.  They are being forced to do their jobs in order to keep food on their own tables and roofs over their heads and their families.  They know what they are doing is wrong and try to do what they can to protect people.  But there are others who only view you as chattle and they want to take everything they can from you.

  If you are facing a traffic ticket and think you cannot defend yourself, you must realize that you can.  Everything you need is right here.  If you are saying to yourself that someone should do something about all of this, then why not be that somebody?  You be the somebody to do something about it.  We are fighting this everyday.  We can't be the only ones doing so.  The more people who fight these folks, the better we will all be.  We are all fighting for our rights.  If we do not stand up for our rights, then we have none.  You surrender them by your own inaction.  That means you can only blame yourself for the loss of your rights.

  Are you willing to keep paying these folks for crimes you have not committed but they have?  They are committing the crimes against you and you are letting them?  You deserve no rights if that is the case.

This of course is not legal advice.  If you want legal advice, you must contact a British Bar attorney who unlawfully practices a franchise within the borders of the united states of America against the laws of the united states Constitution and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia.  You are then free to pay them for advice that will not work in your favor for the most part.  You are then free to have that attorney cut some form of deal on your behalf that will not help you in most cases.  But at least you think you have gotten the best deal you could get.  Good luck with that.

Monday, January 19, 2015

Gloucester, Virginia Board of Supervisors Video With Notes On Law, Jan. 2015

Video from the January 7th, 2015 Board of Supervisors meeting.  This is where the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust begged the Board for money and the board approved giving them their pleading.  Your tax dollars now working against you as now that money will be used to get others to beg from the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust to give up some of that money to them.

  This is how government and others conspire against the people.  They turn everything into a begging contest.  Let me explain.  In order to be considered, you must submit an application for various benefits.  Let's break that down.  Submit, submission, submissive.  To be under.  You apply to be under.  Hence you are begging.  Bet you never looked at it this way.  What did you think it meant?  Bet you never even thought about it since you are told to beg everyday for pretty much everything.

  Now this money is supposed to be used to generate pre qualified entrepreneurs.  Amazing.  They want people to beg for stuff they already have a right to do.  How is that working for everyone?  It's the same with a business license.  If you already have the right to contract, why do you need a business license?  You don't no matter what they tell you.  Zoning permits?  You already have the right, why are you asking for permission?  When you ask for permission, they have the right to say no or charge you a fortune to tell you yes when you already had the right?

  Your pocket is being picked and you are allowing it to happen to you.  Stop asking for permission for what you already have the right to do.  Those permits and licenses are for them, not for you.  Why are you paying?  Because you did not know any better.  When we challenged the county on all of this, they remained silent.  Why?  Because we already showed them through Federal Law we were right.

California Law prohibits Cities and Counties from enforcing City or County Codes and Ordinances upon property that is not OWNED by the City or County even if the property is within City limits.

California Penal Code: Chapter 5b CITATIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF COUNTY, CITY, OR CITY AND COUNTY ORDINANCES Sections 853.1through 853.4 was repealed in 1967.

The Supreme Court ruled that Municipalities cannot exert any acts of ownership and control over property that is not OWNED by them, see Palazzolo v. Rhode Island 533 US 606, 150 L.Ed. 2d 592, 121 S.Ct. ___(2001) (no expiration date on the taking clause for City's illegal enforcement of its Codes on the man's private property and restricting the man's business), affirming both Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 US 1003, 120 L.Ed. 2d 798 (1992).(butterfly activists and Code Enforcement cannot restrict development of the man's private swampland unless they lawfully acquire the land FIRST, surveying with binoculars constitutes a "takings"), and Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 US 687 (1999), 143 L.Ed. 2d 882 S.Ct.____ (1998).

In the Monterey case, the California private property owner was awarded $8 million for Code Enforcement's illegal trespass and restriction of his business, and another $1.45 million for the aggravation of a forced sale.

Federal Law also prohibits Cities and Counties from issuing citations against businesses, see Title 18 U.S.C.891-896, quoting Section 891 "An extortionate means is any means which involves the use, or an express or implicit threat of use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to the person, reputation, or property."

Black's Law Dictionary 5 th Edition (page 1140): Recaption. At Common Law, a retaking or taking back.

We do not have to make any of this up.  Here it is right from the law books.  The county has no right to get involved in your business at any time for any reason.  You may also want to look up Hale vs Henkel, the government does not even have a right to ask you about your business and if they do, you have a right to tell them to go very far away and never come back.

The above is a link to one of the interpretations of the case.

Now let's talk a bit more about government corruption shall we?  If you own a small business and are collecting and paying sales tax, the question that must be asked is why?  Is the county or the state paying you to do this?  If they are not, you have been tricked into doing so thinking it is required.  It is not.  In fact, if they are not paying you to do this, you have a right to sue them.  They are in violation of the 13th amendment of the US Constitution.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

  If you are not being paid to collect sales taxes, then what crime have you committed that makes you an involuntary slave to the government?  You can not just stop paying those taxes without penalties because you already agreed to a contract that you didn't understand.  It's called an adhesion contract.  But they will do everything to enforce that illegal contract down your throat.  You have to give them advanced notice that you will no longer be collecting or paying that sales tax.  You can sue them for back payments for your costs of collecting these taxes as well as not giving you full disclosure when they contracted you in their scheme.  Don't you just love the way the government operated these days?

  None of this is legal advice.  Only a Bar attorney can give you legal advice as they are franchised members of the franchised legal system having paid their annual franchise dues.  We discuss concepts of law here instead.  Everyone has a right to discuss concepts of law as it is an inherent right.

York Herald 2015 1-15, By Phil Bazzani 

The most recent issue of the York Herald by Phil Bazzani, York District Board of Supervisors for Gloucester County, Virginia.  Get his take on some of the issues or the avoidance thereof.  But most of them try to avoid many of the issues.  They have to or they end up with a great deal of liability.  Not that this is not already an issue anyway.  Just saying anything on the issues ups their liability however and they all know this so they all do everything they can to avoid it.


Thursday, December 18, 2014

Don't Talk To Police: Know Your Rights

Straight from Virginia Beach, you have to love these folks.  This is a law university professor speaking to his students and has a special investigator with him, giving equal time, and they both agree, never talk to the cops.  Plead the 5th at all times no matter what the circumstances.  Why?  Anything you say can be twisted and used against you.  You are never required at any time to testify against yourself which also includes giving your name or ID to the police, even during a traffic stop.

  Now we know this is going to anger law enforcement, but it goes to show, we do have rights and even Judges are now agreeing with this information.

  It is not our intention to give law enforcement a headache, these folks are out there doing a very tough job.  Many of these folks would risk their lives to try and save yours.  That deserves a lot of respect.  I do not envy anyone in law enforcement these days as they are being taught that the people are the enemy and how to prey on the people, taking away the rights of the people.

  Don't fight with them.  Don't give away your rights either.  Try to keep the conversation as calm as possible for both your safety and theirs.  They are only trying to do their job, but their training is pitted against you.  It isn't their fault.
They are playing Judge Dredd and they are holding court with you on the spot, but that is what they are told they must do.  So you must know your rights and how to handle the situation.   Should you get arrested, we will cover that in later segments on this site.  We will show you how to fight back there as well.

Friday, October 24, 2014

Gloucester, VA Animal Control and the Bena Feral Cats

As it should; the issue pertaining to the feral cats in BenaVirginia seems to be resolving itself without action by the Gloucester Board of Supervisors.  The most logical approach to such an issue is education, effective communication and public relation skills.  When a representative of animal control responds to such complaints it would be more productive if they act as a positive representative of the County, an educator and a mediator.  Presenting themselves as intimidating law enforcement officers who render inaccurate definitions of law only serves to cause confusion, animosity, distrust, paranoia and continuation or escalation of the issue at hand.
Upon first contact; the responding animal control officer should have spoken to all of the parties involved and provided the owner of the property/cats with handouts containing information on applicable law, the potential risks involved and options to mitigate the issue.  A time limit for the owner to contain the cats she claimed ownership of should have been established.  The animal control officer should have obtained permission from the owner to capture the cats she did not claim.  Animal control could have then turned the unclaimed cats over to the private entity the tax payers of Gloucester already pay to assume responsibility of abandoned cats and other animals.
Animal control readily utilizes private people and organizations when they conduct seizures; why did it take so long for private people and organizations to get involved in the feral cat issue? 
Animal control personnel are not law enforcement officers.  They are law officers with a very limited domain.  § 3.2-6555 of the Code of Virginia provides the following on the powers of animal control officers:  

When in uniform or upon displaying a badge or other credentials of office, animal control officers and deputy animal control officers shall have the power to issue a summons or obtain a felony warrant as necessary, providing the execution of such warrant shall be carried out by any law-enforcement officer as defined in § 9.1-101, to any person found in the act of violating any such law or any ordinance enacted pursuant to such law of the locality where the animal control officer or deputy animal control officer is employed.
The following is the applicable definition found in § 9.1-101:
" Law-enforcement officer " means any full-time or part-time employee of a police department or sheriff's office which is a part of or administered by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof, and who is responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the penal, traffic or highway laws of the Commonwealth, and shall include any (i) special agent of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; (ii) police agent appointed under the provisions of § 56-353; (iii) officer of the Virginia Marine Police; (iv) conservation police officer who is a full-time sworn member of the enforcement division of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries; (v) investigator who is a full-time sworn member of the security division of the Virginia Lottery; (vi) conservation officer of the Department of Conservation and Recreation commissioned pursuant to § 10.1-115; (vii) full-time sworn member of the enforcement division of the Department of Motor Vehicles appointed pursuant to § 46.2-217; (viii) animal protection police officer employed under § 15.2-632; or (ix) campus police officer appointed under Chapter 17 (§ 23-232 et seq.) of Title 23. Part-time employees are those compensated officers who are not full-time employees as defined by the employing police department or sheriff's office.
§ 9.1-101, (viii) includes animal protection police officers employed under the following:
§ 15.2-632. Department of public safety.
The department of public safety if and when established shall be under the supervision of a director of public safety appointed by the county manager. Such department shall consist of the following divisions:

1. Division of police, in charge of a chief of police and consisting of such other police officers and personnel as may be appointed, including an animal protection police officer who shall have all of the powers of an animal control officer conferred by general law and one or more deputy animal protection police officers to assist the animal protection police officer in the performance of his duties. In addition, the animal protection police officer and his deputies shall have all of the powers vested in law-enforcement officers as defined in § 9.1-101, provided they have met the minimum qualifications and have been certified under §§ 15.2-1705 and 15.2-1706.

2. Division of fire protection, in charge of a fire chief and consisting of such fire fighters, and other personnel as may be appointed.
Gloucester CountyVirginia does not have an animal protection police officer, therefore under Commonwealth law, Gloucester’s animal control officers must rely on law enforcement to perform criminal enforcement.  During the October 21, 2014 Board meeting Animal Control Officer Steve Baranek stated he would prosecute anyone caught shooting a companion animal.  Animal control officers do not have the power to prosecute.  In all essence they serve only as complainant or witness in criminal proceedings.  Arrogant statements such as the one Officer Baranek publicly made only further exemplifies the misunderstanding of duties and powers and the lack of public relation skills that exists in Gloucester’s Animal Control Department.  Government employees are not paid to provide arrogance and intimidation, they are paid to provide Public Service.  Had the Animal Control Department been operating properly the issue of the feral cats would not have wasted the Board of Supervisor’s and County staff’s time.
Kenneth E. Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester Point

Gloucester, Virginia Links and News, GVLN
Gloucester, Virginia's Best News Source

Friday, August 29, 2014

Gloucester, VA Illegal Park Regulations Violating 2nd Amendment Rights?

Unauthorized Persons Shall NOT Carry Concealed Weapons, Nor Shall They Have On Or About Their Person, Dangerous Or Deadly Weapons.

Can anyone say 2nd Amendment Violation here?  One question is who is an authorized person?  Only certain specific law enforcement?  Certain military as well?  All others even if you have a concealed weapons permit are not authorized?  The term is way to vague.  The rest also means open carry is a county violation?  That's what one attorney we contacted seems to believe.  Stick around for the rest of this story coming soon as it should prove to get very interesting.

  This sign is at the Gloucester Point Beach.

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

‘If Obama Doesn't Follow the Constitution, We Don’t Have To", Say's A Police Officer On Video

English: First page of Constitution of the Uni...
English: First page of Constitution of the United States  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A shocking video shows a New Jersey cop responding to a complaint about corruption by asserting that law enforcement officers no longer need to follow the Constitution because it has already been decimated by President Obama.

Seeking to file a complaint about the Helmetta Regional Animal Shelter, Steve Wronko visited the Helmetta Police Department to air his grievances about the shelter falling prey to nepotism and corruption as a result of Helmetta Mayor Nancy Martin appointing her son Brandon Metz to head up the facility.

“I’ve made objections about what’s going on at the shelter over there,” Wronko tells the police officer, adding, “My first and fourth amendment rights were violated, my civil rights were violated.”

“Obama just decimated the freakin’ Constitution, so I don’t give a damn. If he doesn’t follow the Constitution, we don’t have to,” responds the cop, brazenly violating the oath he swore to uphold the Constitution.

The comment is self-evidently shocking, but it also provides an insight as to how corruption from the very top reaches all the way down to the bottom, providing law enforcement with a twisted form of justification for their unconstitutional activities.

At the end of the video, other police officers arrive to kick Wronko out of the building, with the cop who doesn’t give a “damn” about constitutional rights stating, “Either you get out or you’re gonna get locked up.”

“Maybe this instance, captured on film for the whole world to see, will serve as a wake up call to those who may still be asleep,” writes Matt Agorist. “Please share this so that it can help others to see the leviathan for what it is, a gang of thieves writ large.”

The only question that remains is if police officers feel they no longer need to follow the Constitution, should Americans be expected to obey the law?  Link back to source story.  We normally do not get our news from Alex Jones, but even he sometimes gets some interesting news that should not be ignored.