OFF THE WIRE
By Rachelle Hruska
To contact the author of this post, email rachelle@guestofaguest.com
http://guestofaguest.com/instant-expert/the-original-one-percenter/
There's an undeniable camaraderie forming amongst the 99% and their supporters over a common joy of throwing the "one per-centers," (the upper 1% of Americans who control the majority of wealth), under the bus. And, it's left me wondering, "How do the original 'One Percenters' feel about sharing their title with a bunch of rich assholes?"

Protest groups across the country have no problem banding together in solidarity to protest outside of these new "1%'ers" houses. Nor do they feel remorse after tweeting witty slogans and slurs against these scumbags abundant and unfair wealth. This may fly in New York City, but, where I come from, the One-Percenters are the baddest of all the bad asses, and they are not the people you want to f*ck with....
I was taught in my DARE classes not to come in contact with anyone bearing a 1% tattoo on their body, and have found that many of my East Coast friends have never even heard of this group. Well, here are some:
Quick facts on the Original One-Percenters: (be careful who you f*ck with):

The clubs origins: Members wear this diamond shape patch over the hear of their leather jackets, the inspiration traced to 1947 when members of the "Pissed Off Bastards" (ha) and the "Boozefighters" motorcycle clubs showed up in Hollister, CA for an annual race which then got out of hand.
The Life Magazine story that followed provoked the American Motorcyclists Association to denounce the boozed-up bikers. It assured worried citizens that 99% of its members were law-abiding citizens, thereby marginalizing the remaining "1%" as outlaws. [Read More HERE]
More Facts:

They are a member of an Outlaw Motorcycle Club that has actually killed someone. (Translated: earning the "One Percenter" tattoo ain't easy.)
The most feared and respected riders roaming the blacktop, one percenters are a breed apart from all others. These individuals bow to no one, test the boundaries of all and give their devotion to few. [via SalemNews]
Could include a member from: The Hells Angels, Outlaws, Banditos, Pagans, Warlocks, etc.
How do you become a One-Percenter? "If you have to ask the question, you won't understand the answer. Only another one percenter can truly understand what belonging takes. [via]
They are outlaws of culture. [via]

More info on the "One percenter" on Wiki:

Some outlaw motorcycle clubs can be distinguished by a 1% patch worn on the colors. This is claimed to be a reference to a comment made by the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) in which they stated that 99% of motorcyclists were law-abiding citizens, implying that the last one percent were outlaws. The comment, supposedly a response to the Hollister riot in 1947,[24][25] is denied by the AMA—who claim to have no record of such a statement to the press, and that the story is a misquotation.[26] As a result, some outlaw motorcycle clubs used it to unite or express themselves and are commonly referred to as "one percenters". According to the ATF they are also known as Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs or OMGs.[27]

And some more reading for you:
[One Percenter, the outlaw biker]
[Understanding the 1%]
[Hell's Angels by Hunter S. Thompson]
[Motocycle Gangs, Missouri State]
[List of Bikers Clubs That Identify As "One Percenters"]
Now that you have all you have all the information you need on the Original "One Percenters," you may want to think twice before throwing out the insults this week.
To recap:
This "One Percenter" is okay to f*ck with:

This one isn't:

You can egg this guy's Park Ave townhouse...

...but stay away from throwing anything at these dudes:

↧

CALIFORNIA: SB-435 - Clearing Up The Misconceptions

May 27, 2013, 12:58 am

≫ Next: Snitches

≪ Previous: The Original One-Percenters,And Why You Do NOT Want To FUCK With Them

OFF THE WIRE
This is the future – WE WILL BE HUNTED AND HARESSED. All the BEACH CITIES in California do this already – so when funds are low – and they’re looking for ways to raise them – and the general public don’t care – we’re a TARGET. I see it as 2 sided – there’s dipshits that crank their pipes at 3am – get up to go to work and let the bike idle for 10 minutes with straight pipes. You know what? I don’t like that shit either – I barely sleep as it is. I coast my Thunderheader to the main street before 8am – I coast in late at night – some people are Fucking Stupid – and we’re all going to pay the PRICE........

ML&R
Screwdriver

After they originally put out somewhat incorrect information, I provided this to the MRF last month, and they are supposed to be running it in the current MRF Reports. Feel free to distribute as you see fit.
~Tony~

ABATE, of California
SB-435 - Clearing Up The Misconceptions
January 7, 2011
Due to the many false reports and misconceptions about SB-435, it looks like it is time to clear the misunderstandings and false impressions people have concerning SB-435 and ABATE of California’s role in shaping this bill. Contrary to all of the rumors, ABATE of California did not roll over on SB-435 and in fact, was the only major SMRO to oppose SB-435 until June 28, 2010 when it was heard in the Assembly Transportation Committee. At the hearing, last minute resistance was offered by other groups who showed up to testify in opposition, and a few other groups and individuals continued to oppose the bill as it made its way back to the Senate and Governor’s desk, where it was eventually signed.

So let’s look at what happened with SB-435, and how things really transpired. SB-435 was first introduced on February 26, 2009, by State Senator Fran Pavley, (D), Agoura Hills as a bill to institute biennial smog checks for motorcycles. After vigorous opposition to SB-435 by Jim Lombardo, ABATE of California’s lobbyist, SB-435 was turned into a two-year bill and allowed to pass out of the Senate with the provision that Senator Pavley amend the bill and remove the smog check language. In Senator Pavley’s own words, “ABATE’s lobbyist killed my smog bill on the Senate floor.” Accordingly, the record reflects several amendments, which were offered by the bill author before she amended it from a smog check bill into an EPA noise label match-up bill.

The bottom line here is that California’s motorcyclists will not be burdened with a unwarranted and restrictive smog check bill, thanks to the determined efforts of ABATE of California. Once again – NO SMOG CHECKS for motorcycles in California thanks to ABATE of California and Jim Lombardo. Moreover, in the final version of the bill, which was signed into law, all motorcycles currently on the road up to model year 2013 are grand-fathered in. That is a huge concession that ABATE of California was able to achieve on behalf of the over 800,000-registered motorcycle owners in the state. Just guessing, I would estimate that this will save the average owner with after market pipes at least $600 to $1,000.
On June 28, 2010, the version of SB-435 that passed out of the Assembly Transportation Committee is the one which basically was signed into law by the Governor. With just a few weeks prior notice, ABATE of California was able to mobilize to meet the threat posed by the amended bill. The amended SB-435 called for imposition of the 1983 EPA noise label match-up language that has been in effect at the Federal level for 27 years. In addition, it called for a $300 fine, a moving violation, a point on a driving record, and it would have allowed any law enforcement officer, including meter maids to cite motorcyclists, even if the motorcycle was parked. One of the amendments ABATE of California was apprehensive would be offered was the imposition of SAE J2825, developed by the AMA & MIC.

Incidentally, both the AMA and MIC were lobbying to get SAE J2825 introduced into SB-435, and that is a bullet that California’s motorcyclists were able to dodge. In a test performed by ABATE personnel certified in the J2825 testing procedure, virtually every after market set of pipes failed the test, which leads those of us in ABATE of California to have little faith in J2825’s objective standards. Moreover, J2825 would have led to roadside testing and every county and city with officers equipped with db meters would be pulling over and citing motorcyclists given the sorry state of the budget in California. ABATE of California urges all SMRO’s to take a hard look at J2825 before signing onto that program. ONE MORE TIME -- SAE J 2825 will lead to increased roadside checks! Is that really what we need or want?

While we dodged a bullet with J2825, SB-435 as amended contained plenty of anti-motorcycling language and as written, the bill would have affected all motorcycles from model year 2000 forward. Through the efforts of ABATE of California through our lobbyist, Jim Lombardo, several concessions were achieved that removed the most unfriendly and anti-motorcycle language from the bill. Through the joint efforts of ABATE’s Jim Lombardo and John Paliwoda of the California Motorcycle Dealer’s Association, the effective date of imposition of SB-435 was rolled back to 2013, and all motorcycles currently on the road are grand-fathered in. Additionally, due to ABATE’s efforts, violations were changed from a moving violation to a fix-it-ticket, it was dropped to a $50 fine from $300, and it is a secondary violation, meaning that it can’t be the primary reason for an enforcement stop.

As can be plainly seen, the final version of SB-435 was substantially altered by ABATE of California and while we would like to have seen the bill die in committee, we did not enjoy the same support against an anti-noise bill that we did against a smog check bill. Furthermore, the co-author of SB-435 was the Chairwoman of Assembly Transportation Committee, and we knew going into the bill hearing that we simply did not have the votes to kill this bill. While there were some in the ranks of the organization that wished to pursue a hard line stance, the vote from our Political Action Committee determined that we would pursue the course of seeking to modify the bill and in this we were successful given the concessions that were achieved. Had we followed a hard line approach and simply hoped we would defeat SB-435 in committee, we would today be facing a far different reality today than we are.

While there is much Monday morning quarterbacking going on regarding SB-435, ABATE of California is confident that we achieved the best possible outcome for the California motorcycling community that was possible given the difficult circumstances we faced. Two last items on the topic of SB-435 are that this bill is likely to have the unintended consequence of driving up the fair market price for pre-2013 used motorcycles due to the fact that they are grand-fathered in. Another consequence that other states facing similar legislation should be aware of is the 2013 date, which was extended to allow the manufacturers to comply. While we still have two years before SB-435 goes into effect, other states facing similar legislation will not have the same grace period if this legislation should come up in their respective states after January 2013.

Anthony Jaime
Executive Director
ABATE of California

↧

Snitches

May 27, 2013, 12:58 am

≫ Next: In the Pipeline: A resurrected Hells Angel

≪ Previous: CALIFORNIA: SB-435 - Clearing Up The Misconceptions

OFF THE WIRE

This post hosts resources related to the topic of snitches.
The perverse incentives inherent in today’s policing causes unintended consequences. When no real victim exists, the claimed providers of “justice” hire others – informants – to target those engaged in actions said to be “illegal” though without victim.
____________________

Rats! Your guide to protecting yourself against snitches, informers, informants, agents provocateurs, narcs, finks, and similar vermin”

by Claire Wolfe
Rats! is a free e-book written that aims to share info on how you can safeguard yourself from folks who have ulterior motives (often because they subsist on a salary or payoff of stolen money).

Graphicshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/115179222/Rats-by-Claire-Wolfe

by Davi Barker:

Videos

Some thoughts on a document published by CrimethInc. about the tactics used by those employed at the FBI outfit. From YouTube.com/TheCopBlock
And somewhat related video “Snitch” from Obie Trice and AKON

digg

About Pete Eyre

↧

In the Pipeline: A resurrected Hells Angel

May 29, 2013, 12:58 am

≫ Next: Babes of the Day - This is 18 and older. Rest assured I will offend you and rest assured I don't give a fuck! If you don't like crude hum or and think you will report me don't like my page. For those with the ability to laugh and take a joke welcome.

≪ Previous: Snitches

OFF THE WIRE
By Chris Epting

"A cement-covered marshmallow."
That's how Katherine Coones describes her husband Rusty, a 6-foot-5 biker bear of a man who, despite what some might consider to be an intimidating presence, is disarmingly warm and engaging.
On Goldenwest Street right near the 405 Freeway is Illusion Motorsports, the world this couple (along with Rusty's business partner, Rodrigo Requejo) has been building for more than a decade. They call it "the premier motorcycle customizing shop of Orange County," and after a tour, it's obvious why.
Though they'll do tune-ups and other bike maintenance here, it's the design and building that they're primarily focused on. Several dozen bikes in various stages of creation and design are on display, including one $80,000 beauty that Rusty is customizing for a local businessman.
Over the thundering, metallic roar of motorcycle engines, Rusty beams as he leads our tour, stopping to kid with his employees and answer questions about works in progress.

In a second-story loft, a band rehearsal stage is set up with amps, drums and guitars. The name Attika 7 is emblazoned on a banner.
This is where our story starts to come together. Rusty Coones is a guitar player in a heavy metal band. He's also a Hells Angel, founder of the Orange County chapter and current head of the San Fernando chapter.
He's been an Angel for about 17 years, but we don't talk a lot about the Angels because there's a code about that. And that's fine.
In 1999, Rusty went to prison for conspiracy to distribute ephedrine. He was looking at two life sentences, but was sentenced to eight years and ended up serving six.
Rusty told me he could have had it a lot easier if he'd named names, but he wouldn't do that. Because that's not what Angels do. "I don't tell on anybody, ever," he said. "That's just not how I am."
While in jail — including a stint at New York's notorious Attica prison — Rusty said he thought about "all the stupid things I'd done, along with all the good things I'd done. I read a ton of books. And I decided when I was in there, if I ever got another shot at freedom, that I was going to do it the right way and never put my freedom on the line again."
He missed his kids (now 29 and 30) and his wife while he was in. And he rediscovered his childhood love of making music, so he started writing songs on guitar. Soon, he was playing concerts for the inmates, featuring his raw, heavy metal-based songs that reflected his two intense years in solitary confinement.

Just last week, the band Rusty created once he got out of prison, Attika 7, released its debut album, "Blood of My Enemies." The loft at Illusion Motorsports is the band's headquarters, where they practice, hang out and even play occasional shows for fans.
You may have already heard some of the band's music featured in the popular TV show "Sons of Anarchy."
Now, they're heading out on tour, in yet another improbable chapter in the life of Rusty Coones.
"I'm making the most of this second chance I have," he said. "Freedom, with honor, is worth more than anything, and I'm now running my life as honorably as I can.
"Hard work is what I live by now. Here in my shop, in my marriage and in my music. And any friends or family with drug issues, I try to help them. But I've learned that the key is, people have to want help before you can really get anything done."

Katherine told me that just before Rusty got arrested, they had started their bike business, and that she had to keep everything alive while he was in.
But at first, she could not even visit him in prison because they were not married yet. So they found a biker minister who performed the service over the phone — with Rusty on a prison pay phone — with permission from the judge.
She also said she knew he was worth waiting and fighting for, and that when she looked up at the sun and the moon and pictured him under those same bodies in the sky, it gave her hope.
She abstained from doing many things she liked doing until Rusty was free so they could enjoy them together, and today she's a very active partner at the shop.
"I was truly in love," she said, "and I still am. I glow when I am with him."
Katherine and her "cement-covered marshmallow" work hard as a couple to run their business. Rusty, also a former general contractor, actually built the loft his band plays in, and he's proud of how handy he is.
"I love to create things," he said. "This space for the band, and especially motorcycles. I look at every bike as a canvas."
Before I left the shop, Rusty stressed again, "If you're going to be free, you've got to be legit."
And for all he puts into his marriage, the shop and his music, he may just dedicate the most energy to that: being legit.
CHRIS EPTING is the author of 19 books, including the new "Baseball in Orange County" from Arcadia Publishing. You can chat with him on Twitter @chrisepting or follow his column at http://www.facebook.com/hbindependent.

http://articles.hbindependent.

com/2012-08-06/entertainment/tn-hbi-0809-pipeline-20120806_1_hells-angel-life-sentences-
rodrigo-requejo#.UCFwsekQ9ag.

↧

Babes of the Day - This is 18 and older. Rest assured I will offend you and rest assured I don't give a fuck! If you don't like crude hum or and think you will report me don't like my page. For those with the ability to laugh and take a joke welcome.

May 29, 2013, 12:58 am

≫ Next: Bumper sticker now probable cause?

≪ Previous: In the Pipeline: A resurrected Hells Angel

OFF THE WIRE

Photo: LIKE if you think she's hot! Like and Share Hottest Girls Alive

Photo: Like and Share Hottest Girls Alive

Photo: Like if you want to go for a ride! LIKE and SHARE Hottest Girls Alive

Photo: Hot or Not? More at Hottest Girls Alive

Photo: Who's hungry? I'm sure this hottie will cook something for u! Share Hottest Girls Alive

Photo: Like if you want to join her on the bed? Like and Share Hottest Girls Alive

Photo: WOW! Like if you think this is so hot! Like: Hottest Girls Alive

Photo: Give this hottie as many likes as you can!

Photo: What is your first thought when seeing this hottie?

↧

Bumper sticker now probable cause?

May 29, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: AMA - Protect your privacy from event data recorders

≪ Previous: Babes of the Day - This is 18 and older. Rest assured I will offend you and rest assured I don't give a fuck! If you don't like crude hum or and think you will report me don't like my page. For those with the ability to laugh and take a joke welcome.

OFF THE WIRE

Not one fucking word about a lack of probable cause. If these cops had pulled me over for a bumper sticker, shit would have gotten real ugly.

"Bonnie Jonas-Boggioni, 65, and her husband were driving home to Plano, Texas from Columbus after attending her mother-in-law’s funeral when a pair of black police SUV’s stopped the couple a few miles outside of Memphis.

“Knowing I wasn’t speeding, I couldn’t imagine why,” Jonas-Boggioni told the Columbus Dispatch. “They were very serious. They had the body armor and the guns.”

On the back of Jonas-Boggioni’s car was a Buckeye leaf decal, similar to the one players’ have on their helmets, and cops mistakenly thought it was marijuana leaf.

Yes, really.

“What are you doing with a marijuana sticker on your bumper?” one of the cops asked Jonas-Boggioni."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-domestic-drones-20130216,0,3374671.story

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace."

Thomas Paine

↧

AMA - Protect your privacy from event data recorders

May 29, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: What makes a police officer powerless? When citizens know their rights

≪ Previous: Bumper sticker now probable cause?

OFF THE WIRE

Protect your privacy from event data recorders	Take Action!
Urge your representative to support federal legislation!

U.S. Reps. Mike Capuano (D-Mass.) and Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) will introduce the Black Box Privacy Protection Act soon and are currently seeking to add original cosponsors.The bill will protect motorcyclists’ rights by requiring dealers to prominently disclose to consumers if an event data recorder, known as a black box, is installed in their motorcycle, the data collection capabilities of such a device, and how such data may be used. The bill clarifies that the owner of the motorcycle owns the data and it may not be accessed without the permission of the owner. Furthermore, this bill requires that manufacturers provide consumers with the option of controlling the recording function in future automobiles or motorcycles that are equipped with black boxes. In other words, the ability to turn the black box on or off. Currently, no federal law exists that clarifies the rights of vehicle owners to ownership of the recorded data. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking requiring black boxes in all cars manufactured after Sept. 1, 2014. The NHTSA already has disclosure requirements, but the Black Box Privacy Protection Act would make the disclosure more prominent and give consumers even greater choice and privacy protections. The American Motorcyclist Association protects motorcyclists’ freedom to ride and we support this bipartisan bill. If you are worried that your insurer will use data from a black box to increase your rates or have the ability to record data that can be used against you in a civil or criminal proceeding, then you—the motorcyclist—should urge your representative to become an original cosponsor to the Black Box Privacy Protection Act. Just follow the "Take Action" option to send a pre-written email directly to your representative. Please become a member of the AMA to help us protect your freedom to ride. More members means more clout against our opponents, and your support will help the AMA fight for your rights – on the road, trail, racetrack, and in the halls of government. To join, go to AmericanMotorcyclist.Com/membership/join. Be sure to forward this to your motorcycling friends! Permalink: http://www.capwiz.com/amacycle/issues/alert/?alertid=62672646&type=CO

↧

What makes a police officer powerless? When citizens know their rights

May 29, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: USA - Allowing our government to have this much "prying power"

≪ Previous: AMA - Protect your privacy from event data recorders

OFF THE WIRE

Police officers hate to hear these words:

"Am I free to go?"

"I'm going to remain silent."

"I don't consent to a search."

You have rights during a traffic stop or during any police encounter. Learn what your rights are and use them!

1. Your Safety -Start by putting the police officer at ease. Pull over to a safe place, turn off your ignition, stay in the car and keep your hands on the steering wheel. At night turn on the interior light. Keep your license, registration and proof of insurance close by like in your "sun visor."

Be courteous, stay calm, smile and don't complain. Show respect and say things like "sir and no sir." Never bad-mouth a police officer, stay in control of your words, body language and your emotions. Keep your hands where the police officer can see them. Never touch a police officer and never run away!

2. Never Talk To A Police Officer -The only questions you need to answer is your name, address, date of birth, sometimes your social security number but NOTHING else! "In some states you can refuse to give your I.D. card to a police officer, know the laws of your state." Instead of telling the police officer who you are, give him your driver's license or your I.D. card. All the information the police officer needs to know about you, can be found on your i.d. card or drivers license. If you can keep your mouth shut, you just might come out ahead more than you expected.

I'm Going to Remain Silent- The Supreme Court says you should never talk to a police officereven if you're not under arrest, without an attorney. The Supreme Court ruled you must speak up and SAY to the police officer "I'm going to remain silent" and then keep your mouth shut even if you're not under arrest. How can you be falsely accused and charged with a crime, if you don't say anything? Never talk to a police officer before or after you get arrested. Anything you say or do, can and will be used against you at anytime by the police.

3. Just Say NO to Police Searches! -If a police officer didn't need your permission to search you, he wouldn't be asking you. Never give permission for a police officer to search you, your car or your home. If a police officer does search you, don't resist and just keep saying "I don't consent to this search."

4.Am I Free to Go? -As soon as the police officer ask you a question ask him, "Am I free to go?"You have to ask if you're "free to go," otherwise the police officer will think that you're voluntarily staying around to talk with him. If the police officer says that you're being detained or arrested tell the police officer, "I'm going to remain silent."

Anything You Say Can And Will Be Used Against You!

Silence is not an admission of guilt and can't be used against you in court.

Police officers will be videotaping or audio recording you and this is why you must NEVER talk to the police officer. You have every right NOT to talk to a police officer and you should NOT talk to a police officer unless you have first consulted with a lawyer and the lawyer has advised you differently. Police officers depend on fear and intimidation to get what they want from you and this includes giving up your rights. The government made a law that allows police officers to lie to American citizens. That's another reason not to trust the police or the Federal government.

Never voluntarily talk to a police officer, there's no such thing as a "friendly chat." Let the police officer do all the talking and you stay silent. The Supreme Court has recently ruled that you should NOT talk to a police officer if you have NOT been arrestedand you must say out loud "I'm going to remain silent." It can be very dangerous to talk to a police officer or a Federal Agent. Innocent people have talked to a police officer and ended up in jail and prison all because they spoke to a police officer without an attorney.

Police officers have the same right as you, "Freedom of Speech." Police may ask you anything they want, but you should never answer any of their questions. Don't let the police officer try and persuade you to talk! Say something like "I'm sorry, I don't have time to talk right now." If the cop insists on talking to you, ask him "Am I free to go?" The police officer may not like when you refuse to talk to him and challenge you with words like, "If you have anything to hide, why won't you speak to me? Say to the officer again "I told you I don't have time to talk to you right now, Am I free to go?" If you forget or the police officer tricks you into talking, it's okay just start over again and tell the police officer "I'm going to remain silent."

The Supreme Court has ruled that if a police officer doesn't force you to do something, then you're doing it "voluntarily." That means if the police officer starts being intimidating and you do what he "ask" because you're "afraid," you still have done it voluntarily. (Florida v. Bostick, 1991) If you do what the police officer "ask" you to do such as allowing him to search your car or answer any of his questions, you are "voluntarily" complying with his "requests."So don't comply, just keep your mouth shut unless you say "Am I Free to Go?"or "I don't consent to a search."

Be as nice as possible to the police officer, but stand your ground on your rights! Where do some of your rights come from? Read the Fourth and Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Traffic Stops and Your Rights

Keep your license, registration and proof of insurance in an easily accessible place, like your sun visor. When pulled over by a police officer stay in the car, turn on the interior lights and keep your hands on the steering wheel. Sit still, relax and wait for the officer to come to you. Any sudden movements, ducking down, looking nervous or appearing to be searching for something under your seat could get you shot.

Don't forget during traffic stops the police are videotaping you, this is why you must NOT talk to the police officer. Police officers like to ask the first question and that's usually, "do you know why I stopped you? Do you know how fast you were going?" The police officer is trying to get you to do two things, admit that you committed a traffic violation and to get you to "voluntarily" start a conversation with him.Remember the police officer is not your friend and should not be trusted! The only thing you need to say is "I'm going to remain silent or am I free to go?"

The police officer might start asking you personal questions such as "where are you going, where have you been and who did you see, ect." At that point it's the perfect time to exercise your rights by asking the police officer "AM I FREE TO GO?" There's NO legal requirement that American citizens provide information about their comings and goings to a police officer. It's none of the police officers damn business! Keep asking the police officer "AM I FREE TO GO?" You have to speak up and verbally ask the police officer if you're allowed to leave, otherwise the courts will assume that you wanted to stay and talk to the police officer on your own free will.

Passengers in your vehicle need to know their rights as well. They have the same right NOT to talk to a police officer and the right to refuse a search "unless it's a 'pat down' for weapons." The police will usually separate the passengers from each other and ask questions to see if their stories match. All passengers should always give the same answer and say, "I'm going to remain silent and am I free to go?" Remember you have to tell the police officer that you don't want to talk to him. It's the law

How long can a police officer keep you pulled over "detained" during a traffic stop? The Supreme Court has made mention that no more than 15-20 minutes is a reasonable amount of time for a police officer to conduct his investigation and allow you to go FREE on your way. But you have to keep asking the police officer "AM I FREE TO GO?"

During a traffic stop a good time to ask "AM I FREE TO GO," is after the police officer has given you a "warning or a ticket" and you have signed it. Once you have signed the ticket the traffic stop is legally over says the U.S. Supreme Court. There's no law that requires you to stay and talk to the police officer or answer any questions. After you have signed the ticket and got your license back you may roll up your window, start your car and leave. If you're outside the car ask the police officer, "AM I FREE TO GO?" If he says yes then get in your car and leave.

Car Searches and Body Searches

Remember the police officer wouldn't be asking you, if he didn't need your permission to search! "The right to be free from unreasonable searches is one of America's most precious First Liberties."

Police officers swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and not to violate your rights against unreasonable search and seizure Fourth Amendment. Denying a police officers request to search you or your car is not an admission of guilt, it's your American right! Some police officers might say, "if you have nothing to hide, you should allow me to search." Politely say to the police officer "I don't consent to a search, am I FREE to go?"

For the safety of police officers the government allows the police to pat down your outer clothing to see if you have any weapons. If the police officer feels something that he believes is a weapon, then he can go into your pockets and pull out the item he believes is a weapon.

A police officer may ask you or even demand that you empty your pockets, but you have the right to say "NO! AM I FREE TO GO?"There's NO law that requires you to empty your pockets when a police officer tells you to do so. The only time a police officer are allowed to be taking your personal property out of your pockets is after you have been arrested.

The police officer is allowed to handcuff you and/or detain you in his police car. Don't resist or you will be arrested! There's a big difference between being detained and being arrested. Say nothing in the police car! Police will be recording your conversation inside the police car, say nothing to your friend and don't talk to the police officers inside the car!

If you are arrested and your car is towed, the police are allowed to take an "inventory" of the items in your car. If anything is found illegal in your vehicle, the police will get a warrant from a judge and then charge you with another crime.

Don't Open Your Door At Home If A Police Officer Knocks!

If the police knock on your door at home, there's no law that says you have to open your door to police officers. "Don't worry if they do have a search warrant, they'll kick down your door before they knock." * There is NO law that requires you to open your door to a police officer.* Don't open your door with the chain-lock on either, police officers will shove their way in. Simply shout to the police officers "I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY" or just don't say anything at all.

Guest and roommates staying in your home/apartment/dorm need to be told of their rights and not to open the door to a police officer or invite police officer into your home without your permission. Police officers are like vampires, they need your permission to come into your home.

Never agree to go to the police station if the police want to question you. Just say, "I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY."

* In some emergency situations (for example when a someone is screaming for help from inside your home, police are chasing someone into your home, police see a felony being committed or if someone has called 911 from inside your house) police officers are allowed to enter and search your home without a warrant.

Teenagers have rights also, if you're under 18 click here. If your children don't know their rights and they go talking to a teacher, school principal, police officer or a Federal agent without an attorney, it could cost your family dearly and change the lives of your family forever!

Dealing With a Police Officer In Public

NEVER give consent to a police officer and allow for a conversation to start. If a police officer stops you and ask to speak with you, you're perfectly within your rights to say "I do not wish to speak with you," then say good-bye. At this point you should be free to leave, but the police officer might ask for your identification. If you have identification on you, tell the officer where it's at and ask permission to reach for it. "In some states you're not required to show an I.D. unless the police officer has reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime, know the laws of your state!"

The police officer might start asking you questions, at this point you may ask the officer "Am I Free to Go?"The police officer may not like this and may challenge you with words like, "If you have nothing to hide, why won't you speak to me?" Just like the first question, you don't have to answer this question either.
Police officers need your permission to have a conversation. There is NO law that says you have tell a police officer where you are going or where you have been, so keep your mouth shut and say nothing! Don't answer any questions (except name, address and age) until you have a lawyer.

Probable Cause

A police officer has no right to detain you unless there exist reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime or traffic violation. However a police officer is always allowed to initiate a "voluntary" conversation with you. You always have the right not to talk or answer any questions a police officer might ask you. Just tell the police officer, "I'm going to remain silent."
Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, police may engage in "reasonable" searches and seizures. To prove that a search is reasonable the police generally must show that it's more likely than not that a crime has occurred and that if a search is conducted it's probable that the police officer will find evidence of the crime. This is called "probable cause."

Police may use first hand information or tips from an informant "snitch" to justify the need to search your property or you. If an informant's information is used, the police must prove that the information is reliable under the circumstances to a judge.

Here's a case when several police officers took the word of a "snitch," claiming he knew where a "drug dealer" lived. Corrupt police officers in Houston Texas took it upon themselves to go to this house that the snitch had "picked at random" and the officers kicked in the front door at 1:30 in the morning. Police never bothered to get a warrant from a judge. The aftermath was... Police Officers In Texas Are Allowed to Murder Innocent People and Get Away With It

Should We Trust Police Officers?

Are police officers allowed to lie to you? Yes the Supreme Court has ruledpolice officers can lie to the American people. Police officers are trained at lying, twisting words and being manipulative. Police officers and other law enforcement agents are very skilled at getting information from people. So don't try to "out smart" a police officer and don't try being a "smooth talker" because you will loose! If you can keep your mouth shut, you just might come out ahead more than you expected.

Teach your children that they must call a parent for permission before they're allowed to talk to police officer. Remember police officers are trained to put your child at ease and build trust. A police officers job is to find, arrest and help convict a suspect and that suspect could be your child!

Although police officers may seem nice and pretend to be on your side theywant to learn your habits, opinions, and affiliations of other people not suspected of wrongdoing. Don't try to answer a police officers questions, it can be very dangerous! You can never tell how a seemingly harmless bit of information that you give to a police officer might be used and misconstrued to hurt you or someone else. Also keep in mind that lying to a federal agent is a Federal crime. "That's why Martha Stewart went to prison, not for insider trading but for lying to a Federal Agent."

Lies Police Officers Will Say To Get You to Talk

There'smany ways a police officer can LIE and trick you into talking. It's always safe to say the Magic Words: "Am I free to leave? I'm going to remain silent and I want a lawyer."

The following are common lie's the police use when they're trying to get you to talk:

* "You will have to stay here and answer my questions" or "You're not leaving until I find out what I want to know."

* "I have evidence on you, so tell me what I want to know or else." (Police can fabricate fake evidence to convince you to tell them what they want to know.)

* "You're not a suspect, were simply investigating here. Help us understand what happened and then you may leave."

* "If you don't answer my questions, I won't have any choice but to take you to jail."

* "If you don't answer these questions, you'll be charged with resisting arrest."

* "Your friend has told his side of the story and it's not looking good for you, anything you want to tell me?

If The Police Arrest You

"I WILL NOT TALK UNTIL I HAVE A LAWYER!"

* Don't answer any questions the police ask you, (except for your name, address and age.) Any other questions the police officer ask you, just say I want to talk to my lawyer.

* Police officers don't always have to read to you the Miranda Rights after you've been arrested. If you "voluntarily" talk a police officer, the police officer doesn't have to read your Miranda Rights. Talking to a police officer at anytime can be very dangerous!

* Never talk to other jail inmates about your case.

* Within a reasonable time after your arrest or booking, you have the right to make a local phone call to a lawyer, bail bondsman, relative or any other person you choose. The police can't listen to you your phone call if you're talking to your lawyer.

* The longest you can be held in jail is 72 hours. If you get arrested on a 3 day weekend you may not see the judge until Tuesday morning. Otherwise youwill usuallyget out of jail in 4 to 24 hours if you can make bond.

* If you're on probation or parole tell your P.O. you've been arrested and say nothing else to him!

↧

USA - Allowing our government to have this much "prying power"

May 29, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: MOTORCYCLE "CHECKPOINTS"

≪ Previous: What makes a police officer powerless? When citizens know their rights

OFF THE WIRE

Screwdriver, 

Shocked! Angry! Worried! 

That's how I felt when I watched Ron Paul's new video about the  statists' National ID scheme that's currently making its way through the  U.S. Senate. 

If you haven't yet seen it, please take five minutes to watch it IMMEDIATELY. 

In this video, Ron Paul warns about the dangers behind a National ID  card - and gives you a detailed plan of what YOU can do to help DEFEAT  it. 

As Ron Paul says in his video, this is the most dangerous National ID scheme he's ever seen. 

Allowing our government to have this much "prying power" in our lives will ultimately result in the TOTAL loss of freedom. 

So please take five minutes and watch the critical video. 

After you watch it, be sure to sign the petition putting yourself squarely on record AGAINST the statists' National ID scheme. 

In Liberty, 

Erica D. 

Dear Erica, 

It's critical you take a moment to watch my exclusive video below about how you can help DEFEAT the statists' National ID scheme. 

In Liberty, 

Ron Paul
Chairman

Because of Campaign For Liberty's tax-exempt status under IRC Sec. 501(C)(4) and its state and federal legislative activities, contributions are not tax deductible as charitable contributions (IRC § 170) or as business deductions (IRC § 162(e)(1)).

www.CampaignForLiberty.org

↧

MOTORCYCLE "CHECKPOINTS"

May 29, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: Know Your Rights When Dealing With Police Officers - 2013 Update

≪ Previous: USA - Allowing our government to have this much "prying power"

OFF THE WIRE

John Del Santo

This is an FYI regarding "Motorcycle Checkpoint" information, and an attempt to correct some of the rumors that are flying about.     A checkpoint, such as in DUI checkpoints are to be held in safe, visible, well-lighted areas where one out of five vehicles are pulled over and checked.

The Motorcycle Safety Enforcement Operations being funded by NHTSA and by CA OTS with NHTSA money, are supposed to be held in areas where there is a lot of motorcycle activity and where motorcyclists are often hurt or injured
These are NOT "Checkpoints".   They are just normal patroling situations where police are supposed to pull over ANY vehicle that may be doing primary collision factor violations.   This includes motorcycles driving poorly, AND cars that are making unsafe lane changes, tailgating motorcycles, etc.     Shown below is a template that is issued by the Office of Traffic Safety OTS to police departments who are receiving NHTSA or CA OTS money. What happens sometimes, is that the police department will issue press releases to local newspapers who then improperly list the action as "Checkpoints" , and misuse the info, as shown on the Hemet newspaper report shown below. .    In theory, if a police department then stops 96 motorcycles and one car, they would be following the letter of the law, but that is not the intent that CA OTS is funding them for. The intent is to lower motorcyclists being hurt and killed by anyone's mistakes.

ABATE will be sponsoring a bill later on this year, intending to prohibit any agency,   Federal, State, or Local, from conducting Motorcycle Only Checkpoints. much like the Federal ban that is being attempted by Rep. JIm Sensenbrenner (R. Wis).

John,
Contrary to the Subject line of this email, the Hemet Police Department operation described in the news story is not a “checkpoint.” A checkpoint is a stationary, high visibility roadblock, with warning signs, lights and cones funneling vehicles to a lane where all vehicles (or a set, objective formula such as every fifth vehicle) are stopped briefly. The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) funds DUI and DUI/Driver License checkpoints. We do not fund motorcycle-only checkpoints and we do not fund driver license-only checkpoints.

Here (pasted below) is the press release template that we provide to police departments who are conducting OTS grant-funded Motorcycle Safety Enforcement Operations.   These operations involve police officers driving around conducting regular traffic enforcement. If they see a violation, they make and enforcement stop of the vehicle (car, truck, motorcycle) and issue a warning, citation or make an arrest.

In order to increase public awareness about motorcycle safety, we require police departments to issue a press release that not only highlights the grant-funded enforcement operation, but also offers other information about motorcycle safety, licensing and training. This way the effort and resources reach beyond the few people who are actually stopped during the enforcement operation.

If you compare the press release template to the Hemet PD news story, you will see some information in the news article was pulled directly from the press release, however the part saying “as well as other vehicle drivers” was not included. We provide the information, but we cannot control exactly what the media reports. It is our intention that these motorcycle operations target the traffic violations that contribute to motorcycle crashes, whether the violation is made by a motorcycle rider or any other road user.

PRESS RELEASE
(from CA Office of Traffic Safety OTS)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
<City> Police Department Working To Reduce Motorcycle Fatalities

Police to increase enforcement aimed at dangerous riders and careless motorists

The <city> Police Department will be conducting a specialized Motorcycle Safety Enforcement Operation on <date> in an effort to continue lowering deaths and injuries. Extra officers will be on duty patrolling areas frequented by motorcyclists and where motorcycle crashes occur. Officers will cracking down on traffic violations made by motorcyclists as well as other vehicle drivers that can lead to motorcycle collisions, injuries and fatalities.
[for ALCOHOL /(DUI) grants, insert the following] <looking for drivers and riders who are under the influence of drug or alcohol and>

Motorcycle fatalities had been on the rise in California, increasing 175 percent in 11 years, from 204 killed in 1998 to 560 killed in 2008. That trend has stopped and data shows a 30 percent decrease, to 394 motorcyclists killed in 2009. Despite this dramatic improvement, California remains one of three states that lead the nation in motorcyclist’s deaths.

<Insert your local Motorcycle Crash/Fatality/Injury data>.

California collision data reveals that primary causes of motorcycle-involved crashes include speeding, unsafe turning and impairment due to alcohol and other drugs. The <city> Police Department is also reminding all motorists to always be alert and watch out for motorcycles, especially when turning and changing lanes.

Another major factor leading to motorcycle crashes is inexperience. Between 2006 and 2008, 58 percent of motorcycle operators killed under age 25 were not properly licensed. Riders, young and old, are encouraged to be properly licensed and to seek training and safety information.

“Motorcyclists are much more vulnerable than others sharing the road,” said California Office of Traffic Safety Director, Christopher J. Murphy. “Motorcyclists require special skills and abilities to reduce their risk of being involved in a crash.”

Rider’s can get training through the California Motorcyclist Safety Program. Information and training locations are available at http://www.ca-msp.org/ or 1-877 RIDE 411 or 1-877-743-3411.

Funding for this program is provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

# # #
Motorcycle Safety Tips

Tips for drivers to help keep motorcyclists safe on our roadways:

* Always make a visual check for motorcycles by checking mirrors and blind spots before entering or leaving a lane of traffic and at intersections;

* Always signal your intentions before changing lanes or merging with traffic;

* Don’t be fooled by a flashing turn signal on a motorcycle – motorcycle signals are often not self-canceling and riders sometimes forget to turn them off. Wait to be sure the motorcycle is going to turn before you proceed;

* Allow more following distance, three or four seconds, when behind a motorcycle so the motorcyclist has enough time to maneuver or stop in an emergency. And don’t tailgate. In dry conditions, motorcycles can stop more quickly than cars.

*Never drive while distracted.

Motorcyclists can increase their safety by:

* Positioning themselves in the lane where they will be most visible to other drivers.

*Never driving while impaired.

* Wearing a DOT-compliant helmet;

* Use your motorcycle’s turn signals; it is California law. Combine hand signals and turn signals to draw more attention to yourself.

* Combining hand signals and turn signals to draw more attention to themselves;

* Avoiding riding in poor weather conditions;

* Wearing brightly colored protective gear;

* Using reflective tape and stickers to increase conspicuity; and

The message to all drivers and motorcyclists is: Help to share in the responsibility and do your part by safely “sharing the road.”
HEMET NEWSPAPER REPORT MISTAKENLY LISTING THE UPCOMING ACTION AS   "MOTORCYCLE ONLY"
http://www.swrnn.com/2011/06/11/hemet-police-to-target-motorcycle-safety-next-week/
Hemet police to target motorcycle safety next week

By City News Service, on June 11th, 2011 Motorcyclists with a need for speed and a penchant for taking dangerous shortcuts will be on the Hemet Police Department’s radar next week.
The Hemet Police Department will conduct a specialized “Motorcycle Safety Enforcement Operation” on Tuesday in an effort to continue lowering deaths and injuries, said Hemet police Lt. Dean Evans.
Hemet police will be focusing on motorcycle safety next week. Credit: oregonDOT/Flickr.com/Creative Commons “Extra officers will be on duty patrolling areas frequented by motorcyclists and where motorcycle crashes occur,” Evans said.
He cited speeding, unsafe turning and impairment due to alcohol and other drugs as leading factors in motorcycle crashes. Evans also cited inexperience as a major factor in motorcycle crashes.
“Between 2006 and 2008, 58 percent of motorcycle operators killed under age 25 were not properly licensed,” he said. “Riders, young and old, are encouraged to be properly licensed and to seek training and safety information.”
California Office of Traffic Safety data show that over the past three years, fatal motorcycle crashes have declined by 30 percent. However, California is still ranked in the top three states in the nation for motorcycle fatalities.
“Motorcyclists are much more vulnerable than others sharing the road,” said OTS Director Christopher Murphy. “Motorcyclists require special skills and abilities to reduce the risk of being involved in a crash.”
He said the California Motorcyclist Safety program provides extensive training to riders. More information is available at http://www.ca-msp.org/ or (877) 743-3411.
Tuesday’s crackdown is being funded through a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration grant.

↧

Know Your Rights When Dealing With Police Officers - 2013 Update

May 29, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: USA - NDAA: Open Season for the Police State, How the New Indefinite Detention Provisions can be used on Americans

≪ Previous: MOTORCYCLE "CHECKPOINTS"

OFF THE WIRE

A Police Officers Worst Enemy Is A Well Informed Citizen Who Knows Their Rights!

Police officers hate to hear these words:
"Am I free to go?"
"I don't consent a search."
"I'm going to remain silent."

When a Police Officer Stops You

To stop you a police officer must have a specific reason to suspect your involvement in a specific crime and should be able to tell you that reason when you ask. This is known as reasonable suspicion. A police officer usually will pull you over for some type of "traffic violation," such as speeding or maybe not using your blinker. Throwing a cigarette butt or a gum wrapper out your car window is reason enough for the police to pull you over, ticket you for littering and start asking you all sorts of personal questions.

Your Rights During a Traffic Stop. Top Five (5) Things to Know About Protecting Yourself from the Police:

#1 - Safety. The first thing is your safety! You want to put the police officer at ease. Pull over to a safe place, turn off your ignition, stay in the car and keep your hands on the steering wheel. At night turn on the interior lights. Keep your license, registration, and proof of insurance always close by.
Build a trust with the police officer be a "good citizen" be courteous, stay calm, smile and don't complain. Show respect and say things like "sir and no sir." Never bad-mouth a police officer, stay in control of your words, body language and your emotions. "All this takes practice, try practicing with a friend." The idea is to get the police officer to understand that you're just an average ordinary citizen and let you get on your way down the road. Never touch a police officer and don't run away!

#2 - Never Talk To A Police Officer. The only questions you need to answer is your name, address and date of birth and nothing else! Instead of telling the police officer who you are, simply give him your drivers license or I.D. card. All the information the police officer needs to know about you can be found on your drivers license. Don't volunteer any more information to the police officer, if he ask you any other questions politely say "Am I free to go?" and then don't say another word.
#3 - I'm Going to Remain Silent. The Supreme Court has made a new ruling that you should Never Talk to a Police Officer without an attorney, but there's a CATCH! New Ruling Before you're allowed NOT to talk to a police officer, you must TELL the police officer "I'm Going to Remain Silent" and then keep your mouth shut! (How can you be falsely accused and charged if you don't say anything?) Anything you say or do can and will be used against you at any time by the police.

#4 - Just Say NO to Police Searches! If a police officer didn't need your permission to search, he wouldn't be asking. Never give permission to a police officer to search you, your car or your home. If a police officer does search you, don't resist and keep saying "I don't consent to this search."
#5 - "Am I Free to Go?" As soon as the police officer ask you a question ask him "Am I free to go?" You have to ask if you're "free to go," otherwise the police officer will think you are voluntarily staying. If the police officer says that you're are being detained or arrested, say to the police officer"I'm Going to Remain Silent"

Anything You Say Can And Will Be Used Against You!

Police officers need your permission to have a conversation, never give it to them!

Never voluntarily talk to a police officer, there's no such thing as a "friendly chat" with a police officer. The Supreme Court has recently ruled that you should NOT talk to a police officer without a lawyer and you must say "I'm going to remain silent." It can be very dangerous to talk to a police officer or a Federal Agent. Innocent people have talked to a police officer and ended up in jail and prison, because they spoke to a police officer without an attorney.

Police officers have the same right as you "Freedom of Speech," they can ask you anything they want, but you should never answer any of their questions. Don't let the police officer try and persuade you to talk! Say something like "I'm sorry, I don't have time to talk to you right now." If the cop insists on talking to you, ask him "Am I free to go?" The police officer may not like when you refuse to talk to him and challenge you with words like, "If you have nothing to hide, why won't you speak to me? Say again "I told you I don't have time to talk to you right now, Am I free to go?" If you forget or the police officer tricks you into talking, it's okay just start over again and tell the police officer "I'm going to remain silent."

The Supreme Court has ruled that if a police officer doesn't force you to do something, then you're doing "voluntarily." That means if the police officer starts being intimidating and you do what he ask because you're "afraid," you still have done it voluntarily. (Florida v. Bostick, 1991) If you do what the police officer ask you to do such as allowing him to search your car or answer any of his questions, you are 'voluntarily' complying with his 'requests.'So don't comply, just keep your mouth shut unless you say "Am I Free to Go?" or "I don't consent to a search."

You have every right NOT to talk to a police officer and you should NOT speak to a police officer unless you have first consulted with a lawyer who has advised you differently. Police officers depend on fear and intimidation to get what they want from you. Police officers might say they will "go easy" on you if you talk to them, but they're LIARS! The government has made a law that allows police officers to lie to the American public. Another reason not to trust the police! So be as nice as possible, but stand your ground on your rights! Where do some of your rights come from? Read the Fourth and Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Traffic Stops and Your Rights

First of all keep your license, registration and proof of insurance in an easily accessible place such as attached to your sun visor. The less time it takes for you to get to these items, the less time the officer has to look through your windows and snoop. When pulled over by a police officer stay in the car, turn on the cab lights and keep your hands on the steering wheel. Sit still, relax and wait for the officer to come to you. Any sudden movements, ducking down, looking nervous or appearing to be searching for something under your seat is dangerous! Just sit up naturally be still and try to put the officer at ease."

Police officers like to ask the first question and that usually is, "do you know the reason I pulled you over?" The police officer is trying to get you to do two things, admit that you committed a traffic violation and to get you to "voluntarily" start a conversation with him. Remember the police officer is not your friend and should not be trusted! The only thing you should say is "I'm going to remain silent and am I free to go?"

The police officer might start asking you personal questions such as "where are you going, where have you been and who did you see, ect." At that point it's the perfect time to exercise your rights by asking the police officer "AM I FREE TO GO?" There is NO legal requirement that American citizens provide information about their comings and goings to a police officer. It's none of their damn business! Keep asking the police officers "AM I FREE TO GO?" You have to speak up and verbally ask the police officer if your allowed to leave, otherwise the courts will presume that you wanted to stay and talk to the cops on your own free will.

Passengers in your vehicle need to know their rights as well. They have the same right not to talk to a police officer and the right to refuse a search "unless it's a 'pat down' for weapons." The police will usually separate the passengers from each other and ask questions to see if their stories match. All passengers should always give the same answer and say, "I'm going to remain silent and am I free to go?" Remember you have to tell the police officer that you don't want to talk to him. It's the law

How long can a police officer keep you pulled over "detained" during a traffic stop? The Supreme Court has said no more than 15 minutes is a reasonable amount of time for a police officer to conduct his investigation and allow you to go FREE. Just keep asking the police officer "AM I FREE TO GO?"

A good time to ask "AM I FREE TO GO," is after the police officer has given you a "warning or a ticket" and you have signed it. Once you have signed that ticket the traffic stop is legally over says the U.S. Supreme Court. There's no law that requires you to stay and talk to the police officer or answer any questions. After you have signed the ticket and got your license back you may roll up your window, start your car and leave. If you're outside the car ask the police officer, "AM I FREE TO GO?" If he says yes then get in your car and leave.

Car Searches And Body Searches

Remember the police officer wouldn't be asking you, if he didn't need your permission to search! "The right to be free from unreasonable searches is one of America's most precious First Liberties."

Just because you're stopped for a traffic violation does NOT allow a police officer to search your car. However if you go riding around smoking a blunt and get pulled over, the police officer smells marijuana, sees a weapon or drugs in plain view he now has "probable cause" to search you car and that's your own stupid fault!
Police officers swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and not to violate your rights against unreasonable search and seizure Fourth Amendment. Denying a police officers request to search you or your car is not an admission of guilt, it's your American right! Some police officers might say, "if you have nothing to hide, you should allow me to search." Politely say to the police officer "I don't consent to a search and am I free to go?"

The police officer is allowed to handcuff you and/or detain and even put you in his police car for his safety. Don't resist or you will be arrested! There's a big difference between being detained and being arrested. Say nothing in the police car! Police will record your conversation inside the police car, say nothing to your friend and don't talk to the police officers!

If you are arrested and your car is towed, the police are allowed to take an "inventory" of the items in your car. If anything is found that's illegal, the police will get a warrant and then charge you with another crime.

Police Pat Downs...

For the safety of police officers the law allows the police to pat down your outer clothing to see if you have any weapons. If the police officer feels something that he believes is a weapon, then he can go into your pockets and pull out the item he believes is a weapon.

A police officer may ask you or even demand that you empty your pockets, but you have the right to say "NO, AM I FREE TO GO?" There's NO law that requires you to empty your pockets when a police officer "ask you." The only time a police officer should be taking your personal property out of your pockets is after you have been arrested.

If a Police Officer Knocks at Your Door at Home-You Don't Have to Open the Door!

If the police knock and ask to enter your home, you DON'T have to open the door unless they have a warrant signed by a judge. "If the police have a warrant they won't be knocking, they'll be kicking in your door!" There is NO law that requires you to open your door to a police officer.* Don't open your door with the chain-lock on either, the police will shove their way in. Simply shout to the police officers "I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY" or just don't say anything at all.

Guest and roommates staying in your home/apartment/dorm need to be aware of their rights specially "college students" and told not to open the door to a police officer or invite police officers into your home without your permission. Police officers are like vampires, they need your permission to come into your home. Never invite a police officer into your home, such an invitation not only gives police officers an opportunity to look around for clues to your lifestyle, habits, friends, reading material, etc; but also tends to prolong the conversation.

If you are arrested outside your home the police officer might ask if you would like to go inside and get your shoes or a shirt? He might even be nice and let you tell your wife or friend goodbye, but it's a trick! Don't let the police officer into your house!

Never agree to go to the police station if the police want to question you. Just say, "I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY."

* In some emergency situations (for example when a someone is screaming for help from inside your home, police are chasing someone into your home, police see a felony being committed or if someone has called 911 from inside your house) police officers are then allowed to enter and search your home without a warrant.

Children have rights also, if you're under 18 click here. If your children don't know their rights and go talking to a teacher, school principal, police officer or a Federal agent without an attorney could cost your family dearly and change the lives of your family forever!

If a Police Officer Stops You On The Sidewalk...

NEVER give consent to talk to a police officer. If a police officer stops you and ask to speak with you, you're perfectly within your rights to say to the police officer "I do not wish to speak with you, good-bye. "New Law At this point you should be free to leave. The next step the police officer might take is to ask you for identification. If you have identification on you, tell the officer where it is and ask permission to reach for it. "Some states you're not required to show an I.D. unless the police officer has reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime." Know the laws in your state!

The police officer will start asking you questions again, at this point you may ask the officer "Am I Free to Go?" The police officer may not like this and may challenge you with words like, "If you have nothing to hide, why won't you speak to me?" Just like the first question, you do not have to answer this question either. Just ask "Am I Free to Go?"
Police officers need your permission to have a conversation, never give it to them. There is NO law that says you must tell a police officer where you are going or where you have been, so keep your mouth shut and say nothing! Don't answer any question (except name, address and age) until you have a lawyer.

Probable Cause...

A police officer has no right to detain you unless there exists reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime or traffic violation. However a police officer is always allowed to initiate a "voluntary" conversation with you. You always have the right not to talk or answer any questions a police officer ask you. Just tell the police officer "I'm going to remain silent."

Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, police may engage in "reasonable" searches and seizures. To prove that a search is reasonable, the police must generally show that it's more likely than not that a crime has occurred and that if a search is conducted it is probable that the police officer will find evidence of the crime. This is called "probable cause."

Police may use first hand information or tips from an informant "snitch" to justify the need to search your property or you. If an informant's information is used, the police must prove that the information is reliable under the circumstances to a judge.

Here's a case when police officers took the word of a "snitch," claiming he knew where a "drug dealer" lived. The police officers took it upon themselves to go to this house that the snitch had "picked at random" and kick in the door at 1:30 in the morning ,without obtaining a search warrant from a judge. The aftermath was six police officers firing over 30 shots and shooting an innocent man 9 times in the back as he laid on the ground. Read How Police In Texas Are Allowed to Murder Innocent People and Get Away With It

Can We Trust Police Officers?

Are police officers allowed to lie to you? Yes the Supreme Court has ruled that police officers can lie to the American public. Police officers are trained at lying, twisting words and to be manipulative. Police officers and other law enforcement agents are very skilled at getting information from people. So don't try to "out smart" the police officer or try being a "smooth talker" because you will loose! If you can keep your mouth shut, you just might come out ahead more than you expected.

Teach your children that police officers are not always their friend and police officers must contact a parent for permission before they ask your child any questions. Remember police officers are trained to put you at ease and to gain your trust. Their job is to find, arrest and help convict a suspect and that suspect is you!

The federal government created a law that says citizens can't lie to Federal Agents and yet the government can lie to American Citizens. Makes perfect since doesn't it? The best thing you can do is ask for a lawyer and keep your mouth shut. How can you be charged with something if you haven't said anything?

Although police officers may seem nice and pretend to be on your side they are wanting to learn your habits, opinions, and affiliations of other people not suspected of wrongdoing. Don't try to answer a police officers questions, it can be very dangerous! You can never tell how a seemingly harmless bit of information that you give to a police officer might be used and misconstrued to hurt you or someone else. Keep in mind that lying to a federal agent is a crime. "This why Martha Stewart went to prison, not for insider trading but for lying to a Federal Agent."

Police officers may promise shorter sentences and other deals for statements or confessions from you. The police cannot legally make deals with people they arrest, but they can and will lie to you. The only person who can make a deal that can be enforced is the prosecutor and he should not talk with you without a lawyer present.

Lies That Police Officers Use To Get You To Talk...

There are many ways a police officer will try to trick you into talking. It's always safe to say the Magic Words: "Am I free to leave, if not I'm going to remain silent and I want a lawyer."

The following are common lie's the police use when they're trying to get you to talk to them:
* "You will have to stay here and answer my questions" or "You're not leaving until I find out what I want to know."
* "I have evidence on you, so tell me what I want to know or else." (They can fabricate fake evidence to convince you to tell them what they want to know.)
* "You're not a suspect, were simply investigating here. Just help us understand what happened and then you can go."
* "If you don't answer my questions, I won't have any choice but to take you to jail."
* "If you don't answer these questions, you'll be charged with resisting arrest."
* "Your friend has told his side of the story and it's not looking good for you, anything you want to say in your defense?"
If The Police Arrest You...

"I DON'T WANT TO TALK UNTIL MY LAWYER IS PRESENT"
* Don't answer questions the police ask you, (except name, address and age)until you have a lawyer.
* Even if the police don't read your Miranda Rights to you, refuse to say anything until your lawyer/public defender arrives. If you "voluntarily" talk to the police , then they don't have to read your Miranda Rights.
* If you're arrested and can not afford an attorney, you have the right to a public defender. If you get a public defender always make it clear to the judge that the public defender is not representing you, but merely is serving as your counsel.
* Do not talk to other jail inmates about your case.
* Within a reasonable time after your arrest or booking, you have the right to make a local phone call to a lawyer, bail bondsman, relative or any other person. The police may not listen to the call to the lawyer.
* If you're on probation or parole tell your P.O. you've been arrested and say nothing else!

↧

USA - NDAA: Open Season for the Police State, How the New Indefinite Detention Provisions can be used on Americans

May 29, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: WHAT HAPPENS AT A DUI STOP?

≪ Previous: Know Your Rights When Dealing With Police Officers - 2013 Update

OFF THE WIRE

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 7:08 — 6.5MB)

via DownsizeDC
How the New Indefinite Detention Provisions can be used on Americans
Congress just passed, and the President just signed, a bill that gives legal authority to the President to kidnap and perpetually imprison persons, including American citizens, without the benefit of due process.
Members of Congress, in the days leading up to the vote, tried to assure their constituents that they have nothing to fear — that the bill doesn’t apply to Americans.
Some were lying. Most were deceived.
Now, I don’t want to imply that Barack Obama plans to sweep up every one of his critics (or even a select few) because of statements they’ve uttered publicly. That is overstatement. The law doesn’t permit that. But consider the following scenario…
You object to the way the Federal Leviathan State is run. You gather, every other Tuesday, with others who share your values. We’ll call your fictional group the Constitution League (CL).
One night, a new fellow shows up. He’s frustrated and outspoken. He complains that the time for meetings is over. Something must be done — something that will “get their attention.” You’re uncomfortable with his remarks but unsure how to respond.
You hope he never returns, and he doesn’t.
What you don’t know, until months later, is that one of our CL colleagues, the chapter Vice President, followed the vocal man out to the parking lot. The two exchanged email addresses and phone numbers. Then, your local VP reached out to a third man, a member of a CL chapter in the nearest big city. The three met regularly. They plotted and executed their own terrorist plot on a U.S. Government facility.
Now, your group meeting was the place they met. The Vice President used his CL email account. CL is all over the news. CL is now, for all intents and purposes, a terrorist group.
And you? Well, you’ve donated to the terrorist organization. You’ve participated in its meetings. The night this angry man walked in, you didn’t call the authorities.
* Can the President have the military come and arrest you? Yes!
* Can he (or she) send you to a military tribunal for trial or just hold you indefinitely in a military facility, without charges? Yes!
Even the bill co-sponsor, Senator McCain, appears to agree with this assessment. Senator Rand Paul asked John McCain, on the Senate floor, “…under the provisions, would it be possible that an American citizen could be declared an ‘enemy combatant’ and sent to Guantanamo Bay, and detained indefinitely?” McCain responded, “I think that as long as that individual, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE, if they POSE A THREAT to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue the threat.” {Emphasis Added}
Wait a minute. Wasn’t there a provision in this bill that exempted Americans?
Despite what your Congressional office may have told you (if you called during the debate over this bill) the answer to that question is an emphatic NO!
The relevant sections of the bill are 1021 and 1022.
* Section 1021 asserts the President’s authority to arrest suspected (not convicted) terrorists and gives him the option to choose whether or not they even get a trial, and if so, what kind of trial.
* Section 1022 requires that a certain class of terrorist get no trial. Instead they must be held in military prisons, for as long as this President, or any future President desires.
SECTION 1021
Section 1021 is very expansive in its reach. It “includ[es] any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”
* Who is “any person?”
* What is a “belligerent act?”
* What is “direct support?”
One could be safe in assuming these words mean whatever a creatively-minded prosecutor, a flexible judge, and an ignorant jury define them to mean — EXCEPT THAT, UNDER THIS ACT, ONE MIGHT NEVER GET AS FAR AS A COURT HEARING.
These terms will be defined by the bureaucrats in power.
They could be used against political opponents.
1021 has NO exceptions. There’s not even a hint of an exception. Remember, that section gave the President the authority to arrest you and a set of options on how you were to be handled. These choices are completely divorced from the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments, as well as the Treason provisions of Article III. The President’s new alternatives are…
1. Detention without trial by the military
2. Trial by a military commission
3. Trial by some other court of the President’s choosing
4. Shipping you off to a foreign jurisdiction (info here)
SECTION 1022
1022 is a REQUIREMENT — a binding mandate upon the President. President Obama threatened to veto the bill, but only because he feared 1022 would restrict his power too much. http://gawker.com/5866210/jon-stewart-bashes-obama-for-backing-indefinite-detention-bill
This section is for your fellow CL members/plotters. Whereas, you got snatched up for “support” or “aid” to the plot, they actually carried out an attack, or as the section itself indicates…
“…participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.”
Section 1022 requires the President to go with option #1 above — the other three options are off the table. In other words, no trial, either in a civilian court or military tribunal.
In the final version of the bill, after a public storm started to erupt, the title of the section was changed to indicate that it only applied to “foreign al-Qaeda terrorists.” However, titles are not normally considered part of the law but merely summary descriptions to the reader of a bill.
But this title is especially IRONIC, because it’s this section that includes the so-called exemption for American citizens. Why would you need to exempt American citizens from a section of law that applies to “foreign al-Qaeda terrorists?”
The answer is because the section applies to any kind of “terrorist,” domestic or foreign, no matter what the title says.
And here’s the so-called exemption, with the key word highlighted…

The REQUIREMENT to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

That means that military custody, without a trial, is mandated by law, but that the President, at his discretion or by written policy, may issue a waiver on the basis that a person is an American citizen.
If this provision was a true safeguard for American citizens, then the line would’ve been written like this…

Military custody of citizens of the United States is still prohibited under this act.

See the difference? It’s a requirement that can be waived at discretion, as opposed to a prohibition.

Become a member and support the TAC!

Now, do you realize Congress has given the Federal State the power to use military detention on its own citizens? And that they’ve made it possible to wage a war on peaceful activists, if they can just incite someone in your group to attempt something violent?
Don’t worry. It’s not like the FBI is busy infiltrating meetings, entrapping some dullard into a plot, equipping and financing his efforts, and then claiming credit for stopping another terrorist attack! Oh wait, that’s happened about 40 times since 9/11.
Thus, to complete our story, the angry man who showed up at the CL meeting might’ve work for the FBI. And he duped two idiots in your group, who put you and your fellow members in legal jeopardy.
This new law is that serious. President Obama has claimed he won’t use this power. All that needs to happen now is a provocative incident. Then, all bets are off. Since these nearly unlimited, un-constitutional powers are now law, this President, or a future one, will be able to kidnap and disappear Americans. It could very easily be open season for the police state.
—–
Jim Babka is the President of Downsize DC Foundation and DownsizeDC.org, Inc.. DownsizeDC.org will soon launch a campaign to repeal these sections from the law.
Copyright © 2012 by Jim Babka. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit to the author, DownsizeDC.org and TenthAmendmentCenter.com is given.

COMMENT

I charge that Barack Obama has not done the duties required of the President of the USA as defined by the US Constitution, actively and knowingly went against the duties of the POTUS; and needs to be impeached. Then he needs to be charged, arrested, and held for prosecution, as he is a flight risk.
The Constitution of the United States specifies that an officer is to be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors"; experts agree that impeachment is permitted for noncriminal misconduct (e.g., violation of the Constitution), and can include criminal/civil actions.
It has invited considerable debate, but it is generally read to mean both indictable offenses and other serious noncriminal misconduct. The latter has included corruption, dereliction of constitutional duty, and violation of limitations on the power of an office
Actions he committed against our laws require prosecution.
Few of those who currently serve within the three branches of our federal government have been performing their duties as required by our US Constitution, which they knew before taking those offices and positions defined the way those offices and positions defined the exact way those offices/positions operated.

That Obama:
(1) Actively and knowingly went against the US Constitutional and the citizens of the United States. (impeachable)
Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office
NDAA
Patriot Act extensions and additions to
Warrantless Search and Seizures
TSA warrantless searches
Denial of First Amendment Rights
Denial of Second Amendment Rights
Maladministration
Misapplication
Mandate to make us all buy health insurance
Using our military for UN war efforts
(2) Did not keep the oath required of him by the US Constitution. (impeachable)
President Obama had/has taken an oath to uphold all the laws and he had/has violated his duties as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. (*Clinton Impeachment)
Took the Oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the US Constitution” (prosecutable, as he is a domestic enemy attacking us from the inside.)
Oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”

↧

WHAT HAPPENS AT A DUI STOP?

May 29, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: USA - Stop granting special privileges to the police

≪ Previous: USA - NDAA: Open Season for the Police State, How the New Indefinite Detention Provisions can be used on Americans

OFF THE WIRE

Rocklin Attorney, Terry L. Gilbeau

WHAT HAPPENS AT A DUI STOP? In the United States, “probable cause” is the standard by which an officer of the law has grounds to make an arrest, to conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest. In the context of a DUI stop, which often happens late at night, from the moment the officer turns on the red-and- blue lights, he is looking for information that will provide him with the requisite probable cause to make a DUI arrest. Perhaps, the officer was on patrol and he saw your vehicle leave an establishment where liquor is served. For whatever reason, he may feel that your driving was less than perfect – perhaps you swerved, crossed a painted line on the road, or drove too slowly or too quickly. Already, the probable cause for a stop and eventual arrest is starting to build. The officer approaches your car, and soon he asks if you have had anything to drink tonight. If you answer yes, even if you state that it was just a small amount hours ago, it still adds to the growing “collection” of information needed for an arrest. The officer may then ask you to perform some field sobriety tests – perhaps you have seen some of these in movies or on TV, such as walking a line, standing on one foot, or touching the tip of your nose. Many of these tests are difficult for ANYONE to perform, sober or not, and since they are often conducted when you are tired and scared, often in less-than-optimum conditions (by the side of a busy highway), it is a foregone conclusion that the officer will deem that you have performed poorly on the tests. In California, there is no requirement, whatsoever, to perform the field sobriety tests – quite simply, they will not help you and in the vast majority of cases, they will simply provide the officer with more probable cause to decide that you are DUI. Finally, the officer may ask you to provide a breath sample in a small, hand-held preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) unit. Again, in California, there is generally no requirement that you provide a breath sample for a PAS unit. If you have been drinking, even a very modest amount, there is simply no advantage to agreeing to provide a breath sample. However, most people do so, and it adds yet another bit of evidence to the growing list being compiled by the officer. Now consider your situation – the officer alleges that he observed you driving erratically, you admitted that you consumed alcohol that evening, you performed poorly with regard to the field sobriety tests (according to the officer), and finally, the PAS device shows that you have recently consumed alcohol. Does the officer have probable cause to place you under arrest for DUI? – in most cases, absolutely! No one is advocating that you drink and drive – in fact, just the opposite. PLEASE, DO NOT DRINK AND DRIVE! However, in California, keep in mind that you are not required to answer the officer’s questions with regard to where you have been or if you have consumed any alcohol. You are not required to perform the field sobriety tests, and in most cases, you are not required to provide a breath sample for a PAS unit. If you choose to do otherwise, even if your blood alcohol content is below the legal limit, you may be setting the stage for a DUI arrest which could prove unpleasant and costly to resolve.

If you are placed under arrest, then you must submit to a chemical test, either breath or blood. If you are over the legal limit, you will be charged with DUI. Also, once arrested, the officer generally can search your vehicle. However, probable cause will still be important to your case. Even if you were over limit, if there was insufficient probable cause, the case should be dismissed. Thus, the prosecution must prove every element of the case against you.

Then, if you arrested and charged with DUI, probable cause will likely play an important role in your defense. Did the officer have sufficient grounds to stop you, and later arrest you? If not, your case must be dismissed.

Unless we are planning to scrap the Constitution, and adopt the policies of some of the most repressive regimes in the world, we are entitled to certain rights afforded to us in all criminal matters. No one is advocating drinking and driving - just the opposite. However, it is critical that people understand their rights and that the authorities build their cases properly, while respecting these rights.

Any time you are driving, a peace officer is generally permitted to inspect your license, registration and proof of insurance. These documents are generally requested at sobriety checkpoints simply because the officer is permitted to do so - it may also identify "problem" situations (a stolen vehicle, driving without a license, lack of insurance, etc.). But, another important, and perhaps unstated, reason is that people who are under the influence often have difficulty focusing their attention on more than one task. That is the reason why at a DUI stop, the officer may pose a question on one topic, and then "switch gears" and pose another question (or ask you to do something) in a completely different vein. For example, the officer may ask you why you are travelling that particular route, and midway through your response, he may ask you to produce your documents. Becoming confused, fumbling with your documents, not being able to locate your documents, etc., all add to the officer's probable cause that you are driving under the influence.

↧

USA - Stop granting special privileges to the police

May 29, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: The Police Officer Impeachment Act – Petition

≪ Previous: WHAT HAPPENS AT A DUI STOP?

OFF THE WIRE.
COMMENT
Slappy you won’t be happy until you own no guns, your in a FEMA camp, micro chipped like a pet, and government will be your master. And you will be silenced by people the you sit here and defend. You fail to realize that activist have done more to change corrupt government policy than you have ever done. All you do is type your stupid pro cop comments believing your right and everybody else is wrong. The war on drugs is a failure, and LEAP is all law enforcement are you going to piss on them?

by Steven Greenhut.

The horrific Boston bombings already have led to irrational calls for more security cameras and more police officers, with some Democrats absurdly using this tragedy as a reason to stop the slight sequester-mandated cuts in federal spending growth.
Never mind that police spending primarily is a local matter. The bigger questions that Americans have rarely asked, especially following the 9/11 attacks: Do we really want the government to hire new armies of police officers? Do we really want to pay the price for this?
Knowing my views on the growing public-pension crisis, most readers probably think the “price” I’m worried about the nation’s multi-trillion-dollar unfunded pension liabilities driven largely by the “3 percent at 50” pension deals that cost taxpayers millions of dollars for each “first responder” who retires at 50 after 30 years of service.
That’s a huge problem — the result in part of Americans’ irrational embrace of the “more police” logic after the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. But that’s not the main source of my concern. My real concern involves our safety and civil liberties given that police officers, and other groups of public employees, have become a protected class that does not have to follow the same rules as the average citizen.
A few years ago the Orange County Register reported on California’s special-license plate program that puts the addresses and license information of many public employees and their family members in a special database that shields them from getting tickets when they drive on the toll roads without paying the toll. That’s somewhat infuriating.
But a series from the Sun Sentinel newspaper in Florida found that “professional courtesy” — i.e., the way police allow other police officers to speed, drive drunk, and violate every manner of traffic law provided they are members of the law-enforcement caste — also has dangerous consequences for the general public.
The newspaper series, announced as a winner of a Pulitzer Prize the same week as the Boston bombing, details the tragedies of essentially giving one group free rein to drive in any manner its members choose. In one incident documented by the newspaper, a 21-year-old girl was driving with her 14-year-old step sister and a deputy accelerated from 24 to 87 miles per hour in 24 seconds as he rushed to aid a fellow officer who had pulled over a driver with — get this — a broken tail light. He T-boned the car, injured the driver, and killed the passenger. The 14-year-old girl’s body was found 37 feet from the accident.
The newspaper found police speeding routinely in excess of 120 miles per hour — not on emergency calls, but simply to get to work or for the fun of it. We’ve all seen it on the highways and there are news stories of tragic accidents with police killing citizens throughout the nation. Many times, off-duty officers drive in the same dangerous manner knowing that fellow officers will give them a pass at the sight of a badge.
Here’s the Sun Sentinel, which reported that 21 Floridians have been killed or maimed by speeding cops since 2004: “Speeding cops are often spared severe punishment in the criminal justice system. Cops found at fault for fatal wrecks caused by speeding have faced consequences ranging from no criminal charges to a maximum of 60 days in jail. Inside many police agencies, speeding isn’t taken seriously until it results in tragedy. Even then, some cops are disciplined but stay on the job — and the road. The dead include seven police officers who crashed at speeds up to 61 mph over the legal limit.”
On the last point: Police unions often point to the dangers of their job. But about half of the police on-the-job fatalities are due to traffic accidents, and a large portion of them are no doubt the result of reckless driving by the officers themselves.
Recently, the Sacramento County sheriff was pulled over for a speeding ticket and he made a big deal of telling the public the police do get tickets. Maybe on occasion, but the “professional courtesy” problem is real and it applies not just to speeding but to every sort of police misbehavior.
Meanwhile, in California in particular, police unions have exempted police disciplinary records of misbehaving cops from the state’s public records law so the public never learns about the bad actors in police agencies — the ones who routinely abuse the public or who are involved in multiple car accidents due to their own speeding.
Police unions continue to push for special privileges — not just higher benefit levels, expanded disability pay, and other such benefits, but exemptions from every manner of oversight. Given the power of the police unions among union-friendly Democrats and law-and-order-supporting Republicans, there is no powerful civil-liberties lobby to stand up against this endless drive for more “protections” for those who patrol our communities.
The nation’s crime rates are at 40-year lows. Many studies have been done on the link between more police officers and crime rates and there’s little if any connection between the two. We cannot create a society that is entirely safe — especially from attacks on “soft” targets such as marathons and other such public events.
And we should not blindly embrace the call for more police without first reading the Sun Sentinel series about the potential downside.
_____________________
This write-up was first published to WatchDog.org by Steven Greenhut, the vice president of journalism at the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. Contact Greenhut at steven.greenhut@franklincenterhq.org.

↧

The Police Officer Impeachment Act – Petition

May 29, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: California Has Custodial Limits for Infractions

≪ Previous: USA - Stop granting special privileges to the police

OFF THE WIRE
This is an effort to bring an additional layer of accountability to police officers and push back against the ‘police brotherhood’ that protects them. I’m hoping this could create a system where police officers could literally be ‘voted off the island’ so to speak.
more here: The Police Officer Impeachment Act (Petition)
Submitted by Trevor Lyman
I welcome any feedback or suggestions at my email address, lyman.trevor@gmail.com. Thank you for your consideration.

↧

California Has Custodial Limits for Infractions

May 29, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: Covering the Supremacy Clause

≪ Previous: The Police Officer Impeachment Act – Petition

OFF THE WIRE
By TIM HULL

(CN) - Siding with a man who says his trespassing arrest got him strip-searched, the 9th Circuit explained Wednesday when police can take suspects downtown.
     The case began in 2000, when San Francisco police officers John Conefrey and David Goff arrested Erris Edgerly at the Martin Luther King/Marcus Garvey Housing Cooperative.
     Edgerly, who was not a resident of the housing project, told the cops that he was just "hanging out" in a fenced-in playground that bore several "No Trespassing" signs.
     He says the officers searched him and then took him to the station for a strip-search, but the police deny that the strip-search ever occurred. Failing to find anything illegal on Edgerly, they cited him and let him go. He was not prosecuted for trespassing or for any other offense.
     Edgerly later sued Goff, Conefrey and their supervisor, along with the city and county of San Francisco, alleging illegal search under the Fourth Amendment, state-level false arrest and various other claims.
     U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco sided with the defendants on the false-arrest claim, finding that the officers had had probable cause.
     A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit reversed in 2010, citing the general prohibition in California against custodial arrests for minor infractions. Noting that the law provides only a few exceptions, the panel said probable cause here did not authorize the officers to placed Edgerly in custody.
     The panel also found that a strip search, if proven, would have violated Edgerly's constitutional rights.
     On remand, the defense came up with a new justification for the arrest, claiming it was legal under the state's misdemeanor code. Judge Breyer agreed, finding that the laws governing when a person can be arrested and placed in custody for a misdemeanor also applied in some cases to infractions. Allowed now to consider this new theory, a jury ruled for the defendants on the false arrest claim.
     Edgerly took another trip to the 9th Circuit and found sympathy again Wednesday.
     The San Francisco-based panel unanimously reversed the jury's ruling, finding no evidence or precedent to back up the defendants' claims.
     It noted that Section 853.5(a) provides just three instances when custody is permitted for an infraction in California: if "the arrestee refuses to sign a written promise to appear; the arrestee is unable to produce satisfactory identification; or the arrestee refuses to provide a thumbprint or fingerprint."
     Based on "the statute's plain language, the rule against superfluity and other persuasive authority, we hold that Penal Code § 853.5 provides the exclusive grounds for custodial arrest of a person arrested for an infraction," Judge Raymond Fisher wrote for the three-judge panel.
     The panel vacated the judgment on the state-law false arrest claim and sent the case once again back to District Court.
     "If there are no further issues pertaining to liability on this claim, the District Court should enter judgment in favor of Edgerly and proceed to a trial on damages," Fisher wrote.

↧

Covering the Supremacy Clause

May 29, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: 14 tickets that can raise your rates

≪ Previous: California Has Custodial Limits for Infractions

OFF THE WIRE
Posted by Mike Maharrey

Predictable.
Like a thunderstorm on a summer day in central Florida.
Or boasting out of the mouth of a New York Yankees fan.
Whenever I read an article about nullification from a “mainstream” news source, I know I will find the cookie-cutter constitutional law professor from some university parroting establishment approved nonsense about the principle’s illegitimacy because of the Supremacy Cause written into the constitution.
A recent AP article by Jeff Barnard on state efforts to block unconstitutional gun-grabs didn’t defy the odds. Barnard trotted out some academic hack from the University of Denver, who, despite his title of “constitutional law professor,” demonstrates freshman-level constitutional ignorance.
“The legislature can pass anything it wants,” Kamin said. “The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes that clearly unconstitutional. Where there’s a conflict between state and federal law, the federal government is supreme.”
It appears Kamin believes the Constitution empowers the federal government to do whatever it wants, and if its whims conflict with a state law, the federal government gets its way. Kind of like a big brother who trumps every desire of the little brother, backed up with noogie threats.
Ummm, yeah. Doesn’t say that.
Let’s read the Supremacy Clause, shall we?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

Sometimes I think they make law students drink an elixir that renders basic English comprehension impossible. Note the key words in the clause: in Pursuance thereof. And note what it does not say:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and any other old act Congress, in its infinite wisdom, decides to pass…shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

By definition, an unconstitutional act is not a law, but a violation of the supreme law – the Constitution. It is illegal, void and unauthoritative. Therefore, it cannot stand supreme. The mere fact that the federal government does something does not confer supremacy. It must find roots in the enumerated powers delegated in the Constitution and not violate the Bill of Rights.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. – 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

Alexander Hamilton put it succinctly in Federalist 78.

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the constitution, can be valid.

Get the new book today!

Not content to merely put constitutional ignorance on display, our intrepid reporter uses Kamin to cherry-pick history for a little race-baiting.

Kamin and other legal experts said such disdain of Obama’s proposals is reminiscent of former Confederate states’ refusal to comply with federal law extending equal rights for blacks after the Civil War.

The implication: nullifiers hang white, hooded robes in the back of their closets.
Here’s a question: why can’t reporters like Barnard ever find a source who will make the following equally historically accurate statement.

“Such disdain of Obama’s proposals is reminiscent of northern states’ refusal to comply with federal law requiring them to send any black person accused of being a slave back south without due process.”

Maybe those vehemently opposing nullification are the ones with the hooded robes hanging deep in their closets.
Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of '98 - Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He also maintains the blog, Tenther Gleanings.

↧

14 tickets that can raise your rates

May 29, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: USA - Call the Cops at Your Own Risk

≪ Previous: Covering the Supremacy Clause

OFF THE WIRE
Some traffic tickets can raise your auto insurance premiums by 22% or even more. Here's how various violations could affect your rates.

By MSN Money Partner

This post comes from Angela Colley at partner site Money Talks News.

Getting pulled over is a funny thing. No matter how old you are, you still feel like a teenager behind the wheel when those blue lights come on.

But after you get a ticket and the squad car is pulling away, you have two very adult thoughts: "I wonder how much this is going to cost?" and "Oh no! What is this going to do to my insurance rates?"
From reckless driving to not wearing your seat belt, a recent study shows just how much that ticket will raise your insurance rates.

Tickets and your insurance rates
A study by Insurance.com analyzed 490,000 insurance quotes to figure out how different violations affect your car insurance rates. Here are their findings for 14 different violations:

Reckless driving -- 22% increase.
DUI (first offense) -- 19%.
Driving without a license -- 18%.
Careless driving -- 16%.
Failure to stop -- 15%.
Driving 30 mph or more over the speed limit -- 15%.
Improper turn -- 14%.
Improper pass -- 14%.
Following too closely -- 13%.
Driving 15 to 29 mph over the speed limit -- 12%.
Driving 1 to 14 mph over the speed limit -- 11%.
Failure to yield -- 9%.
Driving without insurance -- 6%.
Seat belt infractions -- 3%.

It could be even worse; those are just averages. Your actual rate will depend on a variety of factors, including your age, sex, where you live, your marital status, and how long you've been with your carrier. You can calculate your own results on Insurance.com.

How to prevent a rate hike
Traffic violations show up on your state driving record, which is accessed periodically by your insurance company. There are a few things you can do to keep a ticket from appearing on your driving record or minimize the impact on your insurance rate.

Go to court. If you go to court, you may end up getting the ticket reduced to a lesser offense or having the case dismissed entirely. There are several reasons why a judge might dismiss your case. Among them:

The officer who issued the ticket didn't appear in court.
The ticket contains inaccurate information.
You can prove you did not commit the offense.

Hire a lawyer. A lawyer could help your case. You'll have to pay, but probably not much. A lawyer we interviewed charges $80 to handle a basic traffic case.

Attend traffic school. Some states allow you to keep a violation off your record by attending traffic school. You can attend traffic school in person (many have night and weekend classes) or online and you'll have to pass a test, but it shouldn't be difficult if you were paying attention. The fee to attend the school is usually small.

If you end up paying the fine, here are some steps to take going forward:

Avoid getting pulled over again. This seems obvious, but more violations will further increase your insurance rates. Keep your car maintained -- no broken or malfunctioning lights -- wear your seat belt, drive safely and defensively, and renew your registration on time.
Be patient. Some insurance companies will reduce your rate after a year with no violations. Many moving violations will no longer affect your rate after three years.
Comparison-shop for new insurance. Insurance companies treat violations differently, so another company may offer you a better rate. But don't lie about past infractions. The company will be reviewing your driving record, even if you've moved to another state.

↧

USA - Call the Cops at Your Own Risk

May 30, 2013, 12:57 am

≫ Next: Five Tips for Spotting an Undercover Cop.......

≪ Previous: 14 tickets that can raise your rates

OFF THE WIRE
By Jeff Berwick at LewRockwell.com

Would you dial up a known criminal, like a murderer or rapist, to come help you after you’ve been the victim of a crime? No? Then why in the world would you call the police after you’ve been assaulted, robbed or otherwise violated?
The police do not consider their job to protect you. They used to at least pay lip service to “keeping the peace”, but nowadays in the USSA it is clear their job is to enforce the law. In fasco-communist America, the law stopped being about your protection decades ago. The law is about the expansion of state power and control. That’s why there are so many of them, with more coming all the time.
There are literally thousands upon thousands of reasons in the Federal Code for the police to arrest you. That’s the very essence of a police state. Everything is literally a crime. As Lao Tsu said in the 6^th century, BC: “The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished…The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be…”
In an environment like this, police cannot merely be keepers of the peace. They must be enforcers of the law. And enforcers use force, of course – intimidation and sudden and shocking violence in order to make you obey. And compliance is exactly what the police expect. They long ago stopped being “public servants” and became more akin to plantation overseers. Rapper and philosopher KRS One pointed out the similarities in his track, “Sound of da Police”:

“The overseer rode around the plantationThe officer is off patrolling all the nationThe overseer could stop you what you’re doingThe officer will pull you over just when he’s pursuingThe overseer had the right to get illAnd if you fought back, the overseer had the right to killThe officer has the right to arrestAnd if you fight back they put a hole in your chest!”

The most egregious example of this switch from protection to abuse is the so-called War on Drugs. The heightened prosecution of drug use (which was entirely legal a century ago in the US and in fact widely used in many products) has been right at the heart of the state’s increased monitoring and intrusion into personal life.
Do you want protection from theft and physical aggression? Or do you want “law enforcement”? Law enforcement is what allows the police to bust down your door and arrest you on suspicion that you may be using a plant that the state doesn’t like. Protection from theft and physical aggression is something that could be much better provided by free market transactions. You could simply buy yourself an alarm system or weapon. Or you could pay for bodyguards and remote ’round-the-clock monitoring and dispatch from a firm who will send people to actually help you and not gun you down. These people would also never bust down your door, kill your pets and hold automatic weapons to the heads of your children on suspicion that you might own plants that some politicians and voters don’t like. In every way, the private market protection option seems much better than the public option.
An 83-year-old grandmother recently learned the hard way of the dangers of calling the police. Debra Towler of Altavista, Virginia, called 9-1-1 and hung up without making a report. This triggered an automatic officer dispatch to her home. The police claim to have heard gunshots from inside Mrs. Towler’s home. But even if that’s true – and police regularly lie to cover up their mistakes – odds are that Mrs. Towler fired those shots for the same reason she called the police: she thought her home was being invaded. That would explain why she ran out the back door to her sister’s house when officers tried to get in the front door. It would also explain why this church-going octogenarian wouldn’t drop her gun when the police started barking orders at her from afar. They responded by gunning her down.

CALL THE COPS AT YOUR OWN RISK
This woman would have been alive if she’d simply defended herself instead of calling the publicly funded police. If there really had been intruders, she probably frightened them off by being armed. In any case the police would not have arrived in time to save her from being robbed or assaulted. All the police can do is show up to ask a few questions and interrogate the victim or some witnesses in case the victim is dead. Sometimes, apparently, the police themselves cause the victims death.
If just one private protection company did this one time, the typical statist would be calling for that company to be shut down with the murderers jailed. Yet when the publicly funded police botch things up this badly, the typical person finds a reason to blame the victim. A free market protection company – perhaps provided by the same company that insured Mrs. Towler’s home – would have treated Mrs. Towler like a customer whose harm they are paid to prevent. The publicly funded police force is under no such pressure to provide customer service. Their priorities are to enforce whatever nonsense laws are on the books and to use whatever lethal violence they deem necessary to keep themselves out of harm’s way.
Why do people put up with a monopolistic police force? Think about it. You are forced to pay (with taxes) for police who aggress against you for personal behavior that’s not anybody else’s business.

I HAVE NOT NOR WILL EVER CALL THE PUBLIC POLICE
Again, the police cannot stop a criminal from harming you or from stealing your property. They can only show up to “investigate” the crime after it’s been committed. The only way police can be truly proactive is when it comes to enforcing intrusive laws about personal behavior that doesn’t harm anyone else, like driving faster than the ridiculously low posted speed limits, or not wearing a seat belt or bicycle helmet, or using plants that politicians and your neighbors don’t like.
In my 41 years I have never once called the government (9-1-1) for any type of emergency. I’ve always instinctively known it was immoral and, in most cases, useless. Here in Mexico no one would ever consider calling the cops for anything – they know what the Americans are now learning. Here, the police are far more like tipsy Barney Fifes than they are like robocops.
A month ago my wife called. She was with our $10-a-day bodyguard, but he didn’t have his pistol on him that day and she said three very large men were following her in Walmart. I told her to go to the very back of the store and tell some staff what was happening and wait for me.
I arrived in less than 5 minutes on my scooter with my gun and sprinted to the back of the store. I saw my wife and bodyguard safely standing there and was relieved. We then went to the kitchen area of the store and got both my wife and my bodyguard some sharp butcher knives. We then went through the checkout and cautiously exited the store, with everyone well-armed (not to mention my bodyguard is a professional boxer and my wife takes kickboxing and Kung Fu lessons each week and is a powerlifter – and I’m a former amateur boxer).
By that point the three men had left. Whether it was a real threat or not is anyone’s guess. But this form of self-protection beats government protection any day. Not only was my response time certainly faster, and my “skin in the game” meant I’d fight anyone to the death to protect my wife, whereas government police will almost always choose their own safety over yours. But a really interesting thing happens when you stand up for yourself and don’t depend on others for your protection. It feels great.
Plus, there is the fact that the government police who we could have called likely would have tried to beat, rob or kill us. This happens all the time, worldwide – not just in the USSA. In Tunisia, for example, women are charged with indecency for being raped by cops. In the US, beatings and shootings by cops are the issue, not rapes (usually). Look at this recent thug scrum in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, New York. After watching police pile on and abuse this young man, even the guy who called the police wishes he hadn’t called to report the young man sleeping in the community center.
“I regret making the call,” says the caller, “I should have let him sleep.”
Call the Cops at Your Own Risk

by Jeff Berwick
The Dollar Vigilante

Previously by Jeff Berwick: Land of the Free

Would you dial up a known criminal, like a murderer or rapist, to come help you after you've been the victim of a crime? No? Then why in the world would you call the police after you've been assaulted, robbed or otherwise violated?
The police do not consider their job to protect you. They used to at least pay lip service to "keeping the peace", but nowadays in the USSA it is clear their job is to enforce the law. In fasco-communist America, the law stopped being about your protection decades ago. The law is about the expansion of state power and control. That's why there are so many of them, with more coming all the time.
There are literally thousands upon thousands of reasons in the Federal Code for the police to arrest you. That's the very essence of a police state. Everything is literally a crime. As Lao Tsu said in the 6^th century, BC: "The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished...The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be..."
In an environment like this, police cannot merely be keepers of the peace. They must be enforcers of the law. And enforcers use force, of course – intimidation and sudden and shocking violence in order to make you obey. And compliance is exactly what the police expect. They long ago stopped being "public servants" and became more akin to plantation overseers. Rapper and philosopher KRS One pointed out the similarities in his track, "Sound of da Police":

"The overseer rode around the plantationThe officer is off patrolling all the nationThe overseer could stop you what you're doingThe officer will pull you over just when he's pursuingThe overseer had the right to get illAnd if you fought back, the overseer had the right to killThe officer has the right to arrestAnd if you fight back they put a hole in your chest!"

CALL THE COPS AT YOUR OWN RISK
An 83-year-old grandmother recently learned the hard way of the dangers of calling the police. Debra Towler of Altavista, Virginia, called 9-1-1 and hung up without making a report. This triggered an automatic officer dispatch to her home. The police claim to have heard gunshots from inside Mrs. Towler's home. But even if that's true – and police regularly lie to cover up their mistakes – odds are that Mrs. Towler fired those shots for the same reason she called the police: she thought her home was being invaded. That would explain why she ran out the back door to her sister's house when officers tried to get in the front door. It would also explain why this church-going octogenarian wouldn't drop her gun when the police started barking orders at her from afar. They responded by gunning her down.
This woman would have been alive if she'd simply defended herself instead of calling the publicly funded police. If there really had been intruders, she probably frightened them off by being armed. In any case the police would not have arrived in time to save her from being robbed or assaulted. All the police can do is show up to ask a few questions and interrogate the victim or some witnesses in case the victim is dead. Sometimes, apparently, the police themselves cause the victims death.
If just one private protection company did this one time, the typical statist would be calling for that company to be shut down with the murderers jailed. Yet when the publicly funded police botch things up this badly, the typical person finds a reason to blame the victim. A free market protection company – perhaps provided by the same company that insured Mrs. Towler's home – would have treated Mrs. Towler like a customer whose harm they are paid to prevent. The publicly funded police force is under no such pressure to provide customer service. Their priorities are to enforce whatever nonsense laws are on the books and to use whatever lethal violence they deem necessary to keep themselves out of harm's way.
Why do people put up with a monopolistic police force? Think about it. You are forced to pay (with taxes) for police who aggress against you for personal behavior that's not anybody else's business.

Again, the police cannot stop a criminal from harming you or from stealing your property. They can only show up to "investigate" the crime after it's been committed. The only way police can be truly proactive is when it comes to enforcing intrusive laws about personal behavior that doesn't harm anyone else, like driving faster than the ridiculously low posted speed limits, or not wearing a seat belt or bicycle helmet, or using plants that politicians and your neighbors don't like.
I HAVE NOT NOR WILL EVER CALL THE PUBLIC POLICE
In my 41 years I have never once called the government (9-1-1) for any type of emergency. I've always instinctively known it was immoral and, in most cases, useless. Here in Mexico no one would ever consider calling the cops for anything – they know what the Americans are now learning. Here, the police are far more like tipsy Barney Fifes than they are like robocops.
A month ago my wife called. She was with our $10-a-day bodyguard, but he didn't have his pistol on him that day and she said three very large men were following her in Walmart. I told her to go to the very back of the store and tell some staff what was happening and wait for me.
I arrived in less than 5 minutes on my scooter with my gun and sprinted to the back of the store. I saw my wife and bodyguard safely standing there and was relieved. We then went to the kitchen area of the store and got both my wife and my bodyguard some sharp butcher knives. We then went through the checkout and cautiously exited the store, with everyone well-armed (not to mention my bodyguard is a professional boxer and my wife takes kickboxing and Kung Fu lessons each week and is a powerlifter – and I'm a former amateur boxer).
By that point the three men had left. Whether it was a real threat or not is anyone's guess. But this form of self-protection beats government protection any day. Not only was my response time certainly faster, and my "skin in the game" meant I'd fight anyone to the death to protect my wife, whereas government police will almost always choose their own safety over yours. But a really interesting thing happens when you stand up for yourself and don't depend on others for your protection. It feels great.
Plus, there is the fact that the government police who we could have called likely would have tried to beat, rob or kill us. This happens all the time, worldwide – not just in the USSA. In Tunisia, for example, women are charged with indecency for being raped by cops. In the US, beatings and shootings by cops are the issue, not rapes (usually). Look at this recent thug scrum in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, New York. After watching police pile on and abuse this young man, even the guy who called the police wishes he hadn't called to report the young man sleeping in the community center.
VIDEO, http://youtu.be/BnF2rq74Zqo

"I regret making the call," says the caller, "I should have let him sleep." I believe a lot more Americans are going to be expressing similar sentiments in coming years. They will learn the hard way that calling the cops is most likely to make a bad situation worse. Your average person in the USSA still probably labors under the illusion that the police are actually there to help them, and that the public police option actually is superior to the customer-service based private options. That's a very dangerous illusion. In fact, it could easily cost you your life. Just ask Mrs. Towler. If you're stuck in the dangerous USSA police state, then TDV Homegrown can help you understand how to survive unscathed.

Rule #1: Never call the cops. Just like with health, prevention is a far best treatment for criminal acts. Check out TDV Homegrown for more details. (If you have the option of getting free of the USSA police state entirely, then try out a TDV Weekly Basic subscription for some great insights on expatriating.)

DON'T EVEN TALK TO THE POLICE
VIDEO, http://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc
The police cannot help one bit once the crime is committed. They are unlikely to figure out who committed the crime. And they care more about somebody getting convicted for the crime than they are about the right person getting convicted for the crime. Police will lie in court. They don't care about finding the culprit. They just want a conviction. And any patsy will do. So don't talk to them. Ever. They will happily see innocents carted off to jail as long as they get to look like they're doing their jobs.

Their own safety is far more important to them than your safety. After all, they are the sacred praetorian class, defenders of the law and the lawmakers, while you're just a subject who is forced at gunpoint to pay for their salaries. You'd be far better off being a voluntarily paying customer.

Jeff Berwick [send him mail] is an anarcho-capitalist freedom fighter and Chief Editor of the libertarian, Austrian economics grounded newsletter, The Dollar Vigilante. The Dollar Vigilante focuses on strategies, investments and expatriation opportunities to survive & prosper during and after the US dollar collapse.

↧