Post details: Checkpoint USA WON In Court Today


Permalink 22:29:42, Categories: Privacy, Right to Travel, Checkpoints, 206 words   English (EU)

Checkpoint USA WON In Court Today

This is just a brief update regarding today's events in Pima County Justice Court related to this incident. Checkpoint USA won without uttering a word.

Tribal police officer Robert Carrasco arrived in court and presented his case in about five minutes or so. Normally, the defendant is then allowed to respond to the allegations but before I was allowed to speak, the judge dismissed the single charge of impeding traffic against me stating that the statute didn't apply.


This was one of several legal arguments I had prepared beforehand but wasn't given the opportunity to present. Not that I'm complaining mind you. The quick dismissal just caught me off guard - especially since I had prepared ten exhibits consisting of sixty pages in triplicate in support of my legal arguments.

This is now the second time the tribal police have initiated enforcement and legal action against me over the past several years only to have the charges dismissed (three times if you count the fact the judge dismissed the same charges twice in 2003).

I'll have a more in-depth writeup regarding today's events later but wanted to post a quick update sooner.

Thanks to all those who have offered their support and well wishes!

Checkpoint USA


Comment from: Guy Mac [Visitor]
Glad to hear it. Who was the judge?
Permalink 2009-04-10 @ 23:58
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] ·
Well done!
Permalink 2009-04-11 @ 08:35
Comment from: charley hardman [Visitor]
and yet — as always with the state and its moral hazard hogwash — you lost. after your comprehensive motion, "denied" or not — alone a subject worthy of a book — the court screwed you having you even show up (and thus prepare for hours). after many court cases, including a "concealed weapon charge" last monday, i've learned that often the best course is to intelligently under-prepare, just like the incompetent "prosecutors".

these fools get paid to run liberty advocates in circles. there is no justice in any process that may threaten you without full accountability while being paid all the while... with wealth stolen from you.

pro se all the way, sir. there's a golden nugget in there somewhere. a start.
Permalink 2009-04-11 @ 10:55
Comment from: Kirsten [Visitor] ·
CPUSA, good work keeping a dangerous person off the streets for a few hours!

P.S. Hi, Mr. Carrasco! I am sure you must be reading this. Kind of embarrassing to get schooled so quickly, isn't it? Know that many of us up here in Montana and around the country are laughing at you right now! :-)
Permalink 2009-04-11 @ 12:09
Comment from: Pafoofnik1 [Visitor]
I wish you could be awarded costs when you prevail in a court like this.

Something like small claims in my area. I have always collected the disputed amount as well as my time, mileage, and other costs when I win. Don't know what happens when I lose as it hasn't happened yet.

Maybe something to speak with my Senator about...
Permalink 2009-04-11 @ 13:34
Comment from: Jeremy Beckham [Visitor]
None of this is legal advice, as I'm not a lawyer, and so it should not be construed as such. But I've had my rights deprived similarly and have a bit of experience with these types of battles.

If your case was dismissed with prejudice, you may have a claim under Section 1983. You may not get much in damages personally (perhaps even only $1) but the issue of liability (as opposed to damages) appears reasonably straightforward. You were seized and under the Fourth Amendment they must have probable cause or other legitimate cause. As the court has now found no legal basis for the seizure, your rights were violated. Seems like a clear lawsuit victory.

So if you only get $1 - since you don't have any clear damages like medical bills, loss of job, etc.. - why pursue it? Well, Section 1983 claims also require that the government reimburse your legal expenses - which can be hefty in a claim like this. This acts as a sort of "fine" against the government for their bad behavior and may deter such acts in the future. I would start calling local attorneys and see if anyone does Section 1983 litigation.

Oh, and congrats :) You have many fans out there!

Permalink 2009-04-11 @ 22:23
Comment from: Jeremy Beckham [Visitor]
Forgot to mention:

Section 1983 is in the federal code so the lawsuit must be filed in a federal court and thus you must find a lawyer willing to take your case that is federally barred - not just in AZ.

And pro se doesn't work because then you won't have damages.

Permalink 2009-04-11 @ 22:27
Comment from: Checkpoint USA [Member]
Glad to hear it. Who was the judge?

The judge was Anne Segal. She was recently elected as a jp. More info about her is available in the more recent April 12th post.
Permalink 2009-04-12 @ 23:39
Comment from: Checkpoint USA [Member]
"Section 1983 is in the federal code so the lawsuit must be filed in a federal court and thus you must find a lawyer willing to take your case that is federally barred - not just in AZ."

I'm familiar with Section 1983 and currently have such a lawsuit in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stemming from a 2002 roadblock incident involving the tribal police, Border Patrol & U.S. Customs.
Permalink 2009-04-13 @ 08:04
Comment from: tony_cheek [Visitor] ·
Congratulations on your win! Now maybe we can get some of these draconian checkpoints dismantled.
Permalink 2009-04-15 @ 00:52
Comment from: dan [Visitor] ·
Someone should write up a flowchart of what to say at a checkpoint like this so citizens know they're in the right.
Permalink 2009-04-16 @ 18:05
Comment from: Ana [Visitor]
Hello. This is very interesting and informative. I think there's a lot of really good points here. Very true.
Our freedoms are being taken away.
The boarder patrolmen are just doing their job and I would surmise that the majority of them are uninformed concerning the deeper purpose of their job.
The court let you "win" because they didn't want it to delve too deep before they are ready. They don't want the general population to suspect anything, which they would if the case was pursued.
I do wonder though what the purpose of this is. Yes, we do have constitutional rights, but we might as well be against the checkpoints if we aren't willing to answer the simple question that we are an American citizen.
Personally, this seems very rude. Are they asking us to do something against the Bible and God at these checkpoints? No. Why suffer for our own faults and not for being a Christian. There is no eternal purpose for suffering for any other purpose.
It looks to me like Satan is getting a laugh out of this on both sides.
"If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." Romans 12:18.
Are we walking in the flesh or in the spirit?
I believe in patriotism, and I must say that many may be angry with me for the next comment, but where does God say we should fight for our rights? Did Jesus?
I'm very disturbed about the loss of our freedoms, but our resistance will not help. God's judgement is coming.
Read Jeremiah in Scripture.
May Jesus receive the reward of His suffering!
Permalink 2009-04-17 @ 16:03
Comment from: poster [Visitor]
One may seek damages without an attorney by performing a Notorial Protest (google). It is a powerful common law method without the cost of an attorney or having to share the retrieved damages.

As far as what one may say when stopped..."I do not consent to being detained and reserve all rights."
For more discussion;
Permalink 2009-04-20 @ 00:11
Comment from: Blessedone333` [Visitor] ·
THIS IS A RESPONSE to the Comment from: Ana [Visitor]
THE BIBLE IS VERY CLEAR ON THESE POINTS and you are following a false grace idea of the bible WATCH:

Psalm 94:16
Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?

2 Chronicles 20:9
' Should evil come upon us, the sword, or judgment, or pestilence, or famine, we will stand before this house and before You (for Your name is in this house) and cry to You in our distress, and You will hear and deliver us.'

Ephesians 6:13
Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.

Galatians 2:4
But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.


James 2:12
So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.

James 1:25
But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.


Permalink 2009-04-21 @ 07:34
Comment from: Kneverr [Visitor]
Congrats! One small victory at a time. Thank you for spending so much time fighting these unConstitutional CP's... you fight for all Americans and our founding fathers would be proud!
Permalink 2009-04-22 @ 18:34
Comment from: kb reynolds(aka seadoggiedog) [Visitor]
good job check, keep you the good work!
Permalink 2009-04-23 @ 15:18
Comment from: anonymous [Visitor]
more power to ya. Is there any way you can get an injunction against them bringing these baseless charges against you, as you dont want to spend your life in court becuase of this kind of crap?

For example, if someone accuses you repeatedly and repeatedly you prove that they are wrong, surely the judge has to stop them from continuing to harass you?
Permalink 2009-05-02 @ 04:33
Comment from: Race4Christ [Visitor]
I want a pamphlet (I would pay for this)that is short and to the point showing us what to say, and not to say at these check points. A legal pamphlet that we could show the checkpoint guys through our window to show them that they better think twice before they detain us, or even have these checkpoints.
Permalink 2009-05-04 @ 16:43

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 2019
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
<<  <   >  >>
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          




Syndicate this blog XML

What is RSS?

powered by