Protect Yourself, know your rights, DHS checkpoint refusals

There are plenty of checkstops all over Mexico of various authority, and there is a national ID that must be produced if requested. There is nothing in the Constitution about that. However, only Migracion can detain you if your residency status is delinquent...

Be nice to your fellow american and quit listening to the clown from austin tx

Please stay on topic. This thread is too important. Don't hijack it.

The point is to respect the Constitutional process, not authority. And you have no right to impose or expect submission on anyone else -- it is they who defend you and that trumps your contrived discomfort of others exercising their rights.

There is plenty of historical instances of civil disobedience to uphold rights -- in the US and Mexico -- and that always trumps your desire to meekly accept the status quo. If you prefer to write your political rep that's your way (though I doubt you care),,, others can define whatever process they see fit...

Loved it when one of the drivers asked, "didn't I cross the border already? How far away is the border sir?"
"50 miles back.. No, wait, we're at mile marker 20.. So.. Um.. the border is 30 miles back there"

LMAO... Love it

Everyone should see this thread. Thanks Von Mousetrap for posting it!

Well then keep your challenging of proceedures to yourselves and stop creating threads to incite others to be as deviant as you are.

At least you admit you are wantonly creating civil disobedience.

In the US do you not have to carry ID? if you drive do you not have to have your driving licence with you?

Also I notice there are no civilized americans going to these checkpoints and showing what happens when you do cooperate, why arent there compliarions of these types of video?

Trying to influnce people to rebel gets you and hour point absolutely nowhere and you should think about being more compliant.

If I lived in the US, I would make a counter video just to show being rebellious has no place in a civil society...... You are just showing what a bad sport you are, and that you are mouthy and rude, so why should the government take care of you if you respond so negatively towards it?

What a fucking riot. Cant they tell from his accent that he is an American?? Cant they just run his plates? WTF??

here is a map if you dont believe me they own half the country

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

not telling people what to do. these videos are of people who didn't find some dude fresh from Iraq or Afghanistan looking to bust some punks head in. just saying be careful out there.

The trucking weigh station between Anchorage and Palmer (Alaska) has had DHS signage on it for nearly 2 years, along with NAFTA signage and flags. It has not yet been used to funnel through all traffic leaving or going into Anchorage....... But, it is obviously been set up for that purpose.

There are no feeder streets in or out of Anchorage, except for the State Highway. When they are ready to start, the weigh stations will become citizen scrutiny check points. Unless of course they are looking for illegal Canadian or Russians!

An Air Force Base and an Army Base are the only thing between the weight station and Anchorage, on the Anchorage/Palmer end. Anchorage itself extends to the weigh station on the southern end of town. The city (the largest in the state) can effectively be sealed off in just a few minutes. No one in or out.

Like I said, haven't seen it done yet, don't doubt for a minute that it will happen in the near future.

You really dont have a point, do you? Name calling is about all you got: deviant, bad sport, rude, rebellious,,,, I get your point,,, But that behavior is completely unnecessary when being disobedient. Tempers can flare since the "working stiff" enforcer may be ill trained and threaten or intimidate, even though he doesnt have the law behind him or her.

As far as inciting goes, I didnt start this thread, though I do support and encourage individual and collective acts of civil disobedience -- if for the only reason that authorities need to get used to resistance to abusive tactics and chill out when faced with an informed citizenry that isnt compliant.

Now, obviously you are upset with civil disobedience,,, Well you too need to chill out, it isnt about your comfort level or your opinion. It is perfectly legal and noble...


fwiw and as far as I know, only a police officer can ask for a driver's license and that only when you are the driver of a motor vehicle...

checkpoints are not legal so if i ever get stopped at one i will not comply with whatever it is they are after and someone will be sued...

btw AND OFF TOPIC
I LOVE MY POPUPBLOCKERS!!!

Trolling the Law

I don't think "psyop" means what you think it means.

Privileges or Immunities Clause 14th Amendment:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” does not, in the opinion of the committee, refer to privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States other than those privileges and immunities embraced in the original text of the Constitution, article four, section two. The Fourteenth Amendment, it is believed, did not add to the privileges or immunities before mentioned, but was deemed necessary for the enforcement as an express limitation upon the powers of the States. It had been judicially determined that the first Eight Amendments of the Constitution were not limitations on the power of the States, and it was apprehended that the same might be held of the provision of the second section, fourth article.[2]

Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article Four of the United States Constitution.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Joseph Story also addressed this Clause of the Constitution, in 1833:[1]

"It is obvious, that, if the citizens of each state were to be deemed aliens to each other, they could not take, or hold real estate, or other privileges, except as other aliens. The intention of this clause was to confer on them, if one may so say, a general citizenship; and to communicate all the privileges and immunities, which the citizens of the same state would be entitled to under the like circumstances."


[link to en.wikipedia.org]

just drive off fuck them lol

This and your previous one are very good answers to the submissive bootlicker.

If the "authorities" never get resistance they rachet up the police state tactics until eventually they have a free hand.

Then it is to late to resist.

They have to be kept in check. They have to be reminded of ROL as often as possible.

Civil disobedience is a fine tradition and should always be encouraged.

In the 1999 case of Saenz v. Roe,[11] Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, said that the "right to travel" also has a component protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

Despite fundamentally differing views concerning the coverage of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, most notably expressed in the majority and dissenting opinions in the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), it has always been common ground that this Clause protects the third component of the right to travel. Writing for the majority in the Slaughter-House Cases, Justice Miller explained that one of the privileges conferred by this Clause "is that a citizen of the United States can, of his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bona fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State."


[link to en.wikipedia.org]

PIN: HOW TO DEAL WITH COPS - OPEN CARRY / UNLAWFUL DETENTION
Thread: PIN: HOW TO DEAL WITH COPS - OPEN CARRY / UNLAWFUL DETENTION

shill much?

BELLIGERENT


ONLY BELLIGERENTS HAVE RIGHTS !

In U.S. vs. JOHNSON (76 Fed, Supp. 538),

(speaking of YOUR 5th amendment protected right against self-incrimination...)

Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that,


"The privilege against self-incrimination is

neither accorded to the passive resistant,

not to the person who is ignorant of his rights,

nor to one who is indifferent thereto.

It is a fighting clause.

Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat.

It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor.

It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person."

The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion

to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand,

simply loses the protection. . . .


He must refuse to answer or produce,

and test the matter in contempt proceedings,

or by habeas corpus."

McAlister vs. Henkle, 201 U. S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671;
Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush . 594, 50 Am. Dec. 813;
Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876.

They donot have "jurisdiction" over interstate highways. They are Border Patrol. They only have "jurisdiction" with illegal immigration and since about 1986 illegal drugs.

It used to be they could exercise their "jurisdiction" 25 miles north of the border for checkpoints. That has grown to a 100 miles.

Last Edited by s. d. butler on 02/28/2013 05:59 PM

THIS!

The court ruled 7 to 2 that the internal checkpoints were not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but rather were consistent with the amendment. They went on to say that it would be impracticable for the officers to seek warrants for every vehicle searched and that to do so would eliminate any deterrent towards smuggling and illegal immigration. The court felt that any intrusion to motorists was a minimal one and that the government and public interest outweighed the constitutional rights of the individual.[1]

The court also ruled that the stops were Constitutional even if largely based on apparent Mexican ancestry.[2]

However the court added that restrictions still exist: "We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search" (though the court did hold that the probable cause bar was low for permanent checkpoints with limited impact on motorists). The Court also held, "our holding today is limited to the type of stops described in this opinion. -[A]ny further detention...must be based on consent or probable cause. Our prior cases have limited significantly the reach of this congressional authorization, requiring probable cause for any vehicle search in the interior and reasonable suspicion for inquiry stops by roving patrols [as opposed to permanent checkpoints]." 428 U.S. 543, 567 (1976).

well, for every freedom we were "given", there is a clause to take it away....

Federal laws apparently stretch the border 100 miles inland. But the Supreme Court apparently had originally said the border is, ... the border. See Wikipedia.

[link to scholar.google.com]