Post details: Pre-hearing Discovery Motion Submitted

2009-02-15

Permalink 22:53:28, Categories: Privacy, Right to Travel, Homeland Security?, Checkpoints, 228 words   English (EU)

Pre-hearing Discovery Motion Submitted

This is a quick update regarding the December 20, 2008 U.S. Border Patrol/tribal police encounter I previously discussed here.

Tribal police officer Robert Carrasco, Badge #166, with the Tohono O'odham Police Department worked closely with U.S. Border Patrol Agents to maliciously cite me for impeding traffic while I was being seized by armed federal agents in front of two stop signs at a Homeland Security checkpoint.

Officer Carrasco appears to the right in the photo above while the two Border Patrol agents who left their checkpoint posts to assist Officer Carrasco with impeding my right to travel after waving me through the DHS checkpoint appear to the left.

[More:]

The initial court date on the citation was set for January 16, 2009 but was delayed until February 17th. In lieu of appearing, I submitted a written plea of "not responsible" along with a Motion for Pre-Hearing Discovery. I'm now waiting for a new hearing date to be set by the Pima County Justice Court along with the court's ruling on the discovery motion.

Normally, pre-hearing discovery isn't allowed for civil traffic infractions but court rules make an exception for extraordinary circumstances. The extraordinary circumstance justifying discovery in this case are discussed in the motion and if granted, will enable me to pursue discovery through the tribal police and U.S. Border Patrol.

Further information will be posted as it becomes available.

Comments:

Comment from: charley hardman [Visitor]
very much interested in this case, which i assume they'll attempt to drop once they've flung enough extra aggravation your way.

this indian/fedgoon tyranny tag team complicates the usual setup exponentially. don't envy you any of these cases.
Permalink 2009-02-17 @ 22:37
Comment from: James Weston [Visitor]
If you need money, I am willing to send you a donation towards your costs.
Permalink 2009-02-28 @ 16:53
Comment from: peyton [Visitor]
stick it to 'em
these bastards need to be stood up to
or we won't have a country much longer
homeland security is a fucking joke
Permalink 2009-03-07 @ 03:20
Comment from: American Citizen [Visitor]
Go git 'em...

These Third Reich Storm Troopers along with 2nd AMD Violators of the F.E.M.A. assholes are out of there mind terrorists.

The legal location of the "United States" is found in Uniform Commercial Code 9-307 - "The United States is located in the District of Columbia"

The legal definition of "citizen of the United States [U.S.] is found in 26CFR31.3121(e)-1 "Puerto Rican, Virgin Islander, Guam and American Samoan" nuff said there.

Commercial Space Opportunites and Transportation Service "Space Travel" ONLY=42USC14701(7) State includes the "several States of the Union" nuff said there too....

4USC141= "States of the United States" means only Territories, Possessions and the District of Columbia" NOT the 50 states of the Union - NEVER

U.S. Dept of Transportation [a Federal Agency, with limited powers who you gave permission to govern you when you got a drivers' license, duh] 49CFR171 "State" means [only] State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico [remember RICO Act], the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, or any other territory or possession of the United States as ditect by the Secretary [of the United States].
DOES NOT INCLUDE THE UNION STATES, NEVER DID. HELLO, McFLY?!?

So for the Summary,
Are they in the United States or the United States of America [which are the "foreign" states of the Union] in regaurds to the U.S. not the U.S.A. in Federal Law? Think there's no difference? Look at Section 1746 of title 28 of the United States Code, AFFIRMATIONS

Then look at the extrodiction law when a prisoner is transfered from the United States of America (State Jail) to the United States (Federal Jail)? Hmmmmm [OPI: CPD, NUMBER 5140.34, DATE 9/21/2000, SUBJECT: Transfer of Offenders to and from Foreign Countries]
and i quote from the report ver badum; ""receive custody of offenders and to transfer offenders to and from the "United States of America" under a treaty as refered to in Public Law 95-144; to make arrangements with the States [District of Columbia] and to receive offenderes from the States for transfer to a foreign country; to act as an agent of the United States to receive the delivery from a foreign government of any person being transfered to the "United States" under such treaty"

[[Think about that after you read it 2 or 3 times, [transfer of prisoners between United States and United States of America under a foreign treaty]] Helo, what's wrong with this picture?

Second, Q. If they are with you in the United States of America, where do they think they are? A. The District of Columbia. Hmmm, make sense? UCC 9-307?

Third, Constitution limits the power of the government. So "Remind them when you pull out the Constitution that their powers are limited in scope and location too" and Pull Out a Constitution that states on top "Constitution of the United States of AMERICA!" NOT the United States. For obvious reasons...

Finally, if the U.S. Dirvers' License is NOT for the States of the Union, then WHY do YOU have one?

Every application states the term [not words] "U.S. license" That's because you American Citizens don't need a license to transport your person [You] or your personality [your private property]. Unless you are making money on the public streets for a gain in profit [more on that next time]

any questions let me know...
Permalink 2009-03-25 @ 00:20
Comment from: amy [Visitor] · http://top3moneymakingprograms3.com/

what an excellent discussion.
Permalink 2009-04-08 @ 18:44
Comment from: unknown [Visitor]
i was also stopped about an hour from Laredo texas on the way to corpus, christi by border patrol agents, I had no drivers licence so they let me go n about 10 minutes later i was stopped by the sheriff dept n they told me the border patrol had notify them of me driving without a licence. Does that have something in common with what u talk about the checkpoint usa neglected my freedom to roam the country on a 1996 ford mustang
Permalink 2009-05-13 @ 04:02
Comment from: PdfoK FilE [Visitor] · http://www.pdfok.com
Thank you for the discuttion. It's very interesting post and I hope that non of you won't have problems with patrol and won't lose licence :)
Permalink 2010-08-19 @ 06:59

Comments are closed for this post.

Roadblock Revelations

Welcome to Checkpoint USA's blog. Here you'll find general information and discussions regarding growing threats to our right to privacy & travel.

While I refer to court cases along with state and federal law frequently in this blog, nothing written here should be construed as legal advice. I am not an attorney. Rather, I'm someone concerned about the growing disregard for individual rights present at all levels of government.

My conclusions are my own based upon personal experience and research. The law is made purposely complex however and varies significantly from place to place and circumstance to circumstance.

December 2018
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
<<  <   >  >>
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

Search

Categories


Misc

Syndicate this blog XML

What is RSS?

powered by
b2evolution