“Cop-watching”
&
EXACTLY HOW
BEGAN
Embedded Files
Still work in progress...
Ricky Munday is a non-profit California Registered 501 (c)(3) organization offering charity for public benefits,
Los Angeles County Sheriff - Industry Dispatch/Walnut Dispatch (broadcastify.com) It's FREE TO LISTEN TO THIS BROADCAST, JUST DOWNLOAD BROADCASTIFY!
TikTok: @power_in_chamber
IT'S BEEN MY MISSION FOR Some time,
IT'S BEEN MY MISSION FOR Some time,
HAVING ATTAINED THE DESIRED TASTE FOR RIGHTEOUS RETRIBUTION; THE DESIRE BECAME THE SEASONING REQUIRED FOR FATE DESTINED IN MY FUTURE. ALONG THE WAY I WANT TO LEAVE MY STORY WRITTEN FOR OTHERS TO DISCOVER AND THAT STORY ENGRAVED A LASTING POSITIVE IMPRESSION THAT SEPARATES THE QUALITY RELATED TO MY INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS FROM EVERYONE ELSE IN THE CLONED COMMUNITY BLINDED BY THEIR DESIRE FOR COMFORT IN EXCHANGE FOR MY SUFFERING.
The field known as law and economics of development focuses its attention on the effects that well-functioning legal and judicial systems have on economic efficiency and development. Adam Smith states in his Lectures on Jurisprudence that a factor that "greatly retarded commerce was the imperfection of the law and the uncertainty in its application" (Smith, 528). Entrenched corrupt practices within the public sector (i.e., official systemic corruption) hamper the clear definition and enforcement of laws, and therefore, as Smith (1978) stated, commerce is impeded.
A scientific approach to the analysis of corruption is a necessary requirement in the fight against any social ill. Corruption is no exception. Systemic corruption deals with the use of public office for private benefit that is entrenched in such a way that, without it, an organization or institution cannot function as a supplier of a good or service.
The probability of detecting corruption decreases as corruption becomes more systemic. Therefore, as corruption becomes more systemic, enforcement measures of the traditional kind affecting the expected punishment of committing illicit acts become less effective and other preventive measures, such as organizational changes (e.g., reducing procedural complexities in the provision of public services), salary increases, and other measures, become much more effective.
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Brown v. Texas
No. 77-6673
Argued February 21, 1979
Decided June 25, 1979
443 U.S. 47
Syllabus
The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be “reasonable.” Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873. The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648. Here, the State does not contend that appellant was stopped pursuant to a practice embodying neutral criteria, and the officers' actions were not justified on the ground that they had a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that he was involved in criminal activity. Absent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellant's right to personal Page 443 U. S. 48security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference.
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Kolender v. Lawson
No. 81-1320
Argued November 8, 1982
Decided May 2, 1983
461 U.S. 352
Syllabus
A California statute requires persons who loiter or wander on the streets to identify themselves and to account for their presence when requested by a peace officer. The California Court of Appeal has construed the statute to require a person to provide “credible and reliable” identification when requested by a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to justify a stop under the standards of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1. The California court has defined “credible and reliable” identification as“carrying reasonable assurance that the identification is authentic and providing means for later getting in touch with the person who has identified himself.”
ISTEN TO THIS CASE BY FOLLOWING LINK : https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/461/352/
SYLLABUS
OCTOBER TERM, 2003
HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV., HUMBOLDT CTY.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al.
certiorari to the supreme court of Nevada
No. 03–5554. Argued March 22, 2004—Decided June 21, 2004
Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault. Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself. The state intermediate appellate court affirmed, rejecting Hiibel’s argument that the state law’s application to his case violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed.
Held: Petitioner’s conviction does not violate his Fourth Amendment rights or the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on self-incrimination. Pp. 3–13.
(a) State stop and identify statutes often combine elements of traditional vagrancy laws with provisions intended to regulate police behavior in the course of investigatory stops. They vary from State to State, but all permit an officer to ask or require a suspect to disclose his identity. In Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 167–171, this Court invalidated a traditional vagrancy law for vagueness because of its broad scope and imprecise terms. The Court recognized similar constitutional limitations in Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47, 52, where it invalidated a conviction for violating a Texas stop and identify statute on Fourth Amendment grounds, and in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352, where it invalidated on vagueness grounds California’s modified stop and identify statute that required a suspect to give an officer “credible and reliable” identification when asked to identify himself, id., at 360. This case begins where those cases left off. Here, the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion, satisfying the Fourth Amendment requirements noted in Brown. Further, Hiibel has not alleged that the Nevada statute is unconstitutionally vague, as in Kolender. This statute is narrower and more precise. In contrast to the “credible and reliable” identification requirement in Kolender, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the instant statute to require only that a suspect disclose his name. It apparently does not require him to produce a driver’s license or any other document. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs. Pp. 3–6.
(b) The officer’s conduct did not violate Hiibel’s Fourth Amendment rights. Ordinarily, an investigating officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Amendment. INS v. Delgado, 466 U. S. 210, 216. Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, the Court has recognized that an officer’s reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further. Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop, see, e.g., United States v. Hensley, 469 U. S. 221, 229, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer, see Brown, supra, at 53, n. 3. The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. Terry, supra, at 34. The Nevada statute is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures because it properly balances the intrusion on the individual’s interests against the promotion of legitimate government interests. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 654. An identity request has an immediate relation to the Terry stop’s purpose, rationale, and practical demands, and the threat of criminal sanction helps ensure that the request does not become a legal nullity. On the other hand, the statute does not alter the nature of the stop itself, changing neither its duration nor its location. Hiibel argues unpersuasively that the statute circumvents the probable-cause requirement by allowing an officer to arrest a person for being suspicious, thereby creating an impermissible risk of arbitrary police conduct. These familiar concerns underlay Kolender, Brown, and Papachristou. They are met by the requirement that a Terry stop be justified at its inception and be “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified” the initial stop. Terry, 392 U. S., at 20. Under those principles, an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the identification request is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop. Cf. Hayes v. Florida, 470 U. S. 811, 817. The request in this case was a commonsense inquiry, not an effort to obtain an arrest for failure to identify after a Terry stop yielded insufficient evidence. The stop, the request, and the State’s requirement of a response did not contravene the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 6–10.
(c) Hiibel’s contention that his conviction violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on self-incrimination fails because disclosure of his name and identity presented no reasonable danger of incrimination. The Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating, see Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 598, and protects only against disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used, Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441, 445. Hiibel’s refusal to disclose was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it would furnish evidence needed to prosecute him. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U. S. 479, 486. It appears he refused to identify himself only because he thought his name was none of the officer’s business. While the Court recognizes his strong belief that he should not have to disclose his identity, the Fifth Amendment does not override the Nevada Legislature’s judgment to the contrary absent a reasonable belief that the disclosure would tend to incriminate him. Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances. See, e.g., Baltimore City Dept. of Social Servs. v. Bouknight, 493 U. S. 549, 555. If a case arises where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense, the court can then consider whether the Fifth Amendment privilege applies, whether it has been violated, and what remedy must follow. Those questions need not be resolved here. 10–13.
118 Nev. 868, 59 P.2d 1201, affirmed.
Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor, Scalia, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.
What is an “obligation” by the legal definition? What exactly does it mean in the legal field? Take a look at the definition found in the California Civil Code of Procedure. An obligation is a legal duty, by which a person is bound to do or not to do a certain thing. (1872.) Check this video out, I speak of this subject!
Understanding this information is crucial to understanding your position as relating to interacting with law enforcement and how court proceedings are created, and understanding the right not to contract or to contract and the principals of the right to be left alone. That information can be found in
Hiibel v. Nevada 6th Judicial, (2004) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/542/177#:~:text=HIIBEL%20v.%20SIXTH%20JUDICIAL%20DISTRICT%20COURT%20OF%20NEVADA%2C,during%20an%20investigative%20stop%20involving%20a%20reported%20assault.
This court case is related to the right to remain silent and that a minimum intrusion into an individual's privacy is unconstitutional.
Another Supreme Court Case can be found in Kolender v. Lawson, (1983) is also a previous sited case Supreme Court decision related to the 4th and the 5th Amendment subject matters. Listen to the case summary here:
concerning the constitutionality of vague laws that allow police to demand that” loiterers “and “wanderers” provide “credible and reliable” identification. Edward Lawson was a law-abiding black man with suitable knowledge of the U.S. Constitution. LISTEN TO THIS CASE BY FOLLOWING LINK : Listen to the case at this link.
Also cited along with Miranda v. Arizona (1966) The Court summarized its holding as thus: “the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.” In this way, the Court held that not only is the individual made aware of their rights, but of the consequences of foregoing them. Furthermore, these rights exist throughout the questioning process. Even where an individual voluntarily, knowingly waives these rights, they may still exercise them later in the process, if they wish. If such a waiver occurs, the burden of proof rests on the government to demonstrate it was made within the bounds of the law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/miranda_v._arizona_%281966%29
Terry v. Ohio (1968) [LISTEN TO COURT CASE BY LINK BELOW] 'No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.' Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251, 11 S.Ct. 1000, 1001, 35 L.Ed. 734 (1891).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), [LISTEN TO COURT CASE BY LINK BELOW] was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that the defendant's arrest in El Paso, Texas, for a refusal to identify himself, after being seen and questioned in a high crime area, was not based on a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and thus violated the Fourth Amendment. Citations: 443 U.S.47 (more)99 S. Ct. 2637; 61 L. Ed. 2d 357
What is a “Political subdivision” ? The legislative body for a city or city and county. Don't just take my word for this stuff. This #wordsalad #game is a huge mess. The legal system loves to use complex syntax that they think only their qualified professionals are the only ones who understand their proceedings being performed in the maritime jurisdictional territory. The term “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States”, as used in this title, includes: 18 U.S. Code § 7 - Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu) Here's a PDF file by a legal scholar for you written by Clive Schofield e Schofield School of Surveying and Spatial Information School of Surveying and Spatial Information.
What is a “citizen” ? This is the tough part to understand. I took me more than 20 years before I truly grasp the concept of jurisdiction and how it exactly relates to a citizen of the federal corporation to which you are acting in partnership with, and you don't even know it! The constitution, the latter of the original first 10 Amendments, the 14th Amendment states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. “
Citizenship is in fact a privilege being attached at birth granting the rights over “property” that was created in or within a STATE. Citizenship is the common thread that connects all Americans. We are a nation bound by the shared values of freedom, liberty, and equality. Citizenship is the common thread that connects all Americans. We are a nation bound by the shared values of freedom, liberty, and equality. Explore some rights and responsibilities you will gain as a citizen. IT SEEMS AS IF only foreigners are granted the privilege of citizenship. So why are they applying this to the people who are born on the soil?
This is how the state acquires jurisdiction over you (the chattel property of the state), most Americans are oblivious of the facts surrounding this subject. The state sees the citizen as the eminent domain, also known as a member of the public. That member of the public is identified by the internal Revenue Code as a taxpayer subject to paying the fee associated with their lawful permanent residence, or L.P.R. This is also related to accepting responsibilities as an exchange of duty for obligations which are owed for the violations which may occur. “ The term “person” as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs. “ [26 U.S. Code §§ 7343.] (Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 872.) That's right, you have to pay your share. Freedom was never free, it has always been a scam.
“The power to create [false] presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions,” [New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)] In this country, a franchise is a privilege or immunity of a public nature, which cannot be legally exercised without legislative grant. To be a corporation is a franchise. The various powers conferred on corporations are franchises. The execution of a policy of insurance by an insurance company [e.g., Social Insurance/Socialist Security], and the issuing a banknote by an incorporated bank [such as a Federal Reserve NOTE], are franchises. People v. Utica Ins. Co., 15 Johns. (N.Y.) 387, 8 Am. Dec. 243. But it does not embrace the property acquired by the exercise of the franchise. “In a legal or narrower sense, the term “franchise” is more often used to designate a right or privilege conferred by law, and the view taken in a number of cases is that to be a franchise, the right possessed must be such as cannot be exercised without the express permission of the sovereign power–that is, a privilege or immunity of a public nature which cannot be legally exercised without legislative grant. It is a privilege conferred by government on an individual or a corporation to do that “which does not belong to the citizens of the country generally by common right.” For example, a right to lay rail or pipes, or to string wires or poles along a public street, is not an ordinary use which everyone may make of the streets, but is a special privilege, or franchise, to be granted for the accomplishment of public objects which, except for the grant, would be a trespass. In this connection, the term “franchise” has sometimes been construed as meaning a grant of a right to use public property, or at least the property over which the granting authority has control.” [American Jurisprudence 2d, Franchises, §1: Definitions (1999)]
THE LEGAL UNDERSTANDING IS VITAL AND IMPORTANT TO ASSERTING YOURSELF IN A COURT DEFENDING YOUR LIBERTY FOR SOME UNJUSTIFIED STATUTORY ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION A ENFORCEMENT AGENT BROUGHT AGAINST YOU IN A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION CREATING A [CHARGE] FOR SERVICE ISSUING A [TICKET OF THE CHARGE(S)] TO A COURT IN THAT JURISDICTION. THEY KNOW DAMN WELL YOU DO NOT COMPREHEND THE CHARGES BEING DEDUCTED FROM YOUR BENEFICIARY ACCOUNT. THE ACCOUNT IS CONTROLLED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE YOU RESIDE IN; HE IS ACTING AS THE “FIDUCIARY” FOR THE ESTATE/TRUSTEE FOR THE BENEFICIARY. WE WILL GET INTO THIS SUBJECT. [63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247] “As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer. Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts. That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves and owes a fiduciary duty to the public. It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual. Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official which tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy.”
Under Standing the Fiction
Under Standing the Fiction
Effort 2
Effort 2
UNDERSTANDING THE LANGUAGE OF THE COURTS IS NOT SOMETHING THE AVERAGE INDIVIDUAL UNDERSTANDS OR COMPREHENDS. THE SAME GRAMMAR RULES APPLY IN THE BASICS OF WRITING A "WRIT" TO FILE IN FEDERAL OR STATE POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS. IT IS IMPERATIVE TO REALIZE THAT STATE LAW IS JUST AS APPLICABLE AS FEDERAL LAWS; EXCEPT THE OBVIOUS STATUTORY LAWS THAT CLEARLY IMPEDE OUR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES AND HINDER DUE PROCESS.
The existence of official corruption distorts market systems by introducing uncertainty in social and economic interactions (Andvig 1991). Moreover, official corruption is an essential input for the growth of organized criminal groups with the capacity to pose a significant international security threat through the illicit traffic of, among other things, narcotics, nuclear, chemical, and biological materials, alien smuggling, and international money laundering operations (Leiken, 1996). Systemic corruption deals with the use of public office for private benefit that is entrenched in such a way that, without it, an organization or institution cannot function as a supplier of a good or service. The probability of detecting corruption decreases as corruption becomes more systemic.
Effort 3
So the ultimate goal is to give back the public benefit and "escheat:” [a]ny claim and bring a demand to satisfy on the record proof of any claim or [charge] against your property, PRIMA FACIE evidence of Property and real property entitlement, 'tangible' and 'intangible', are [subject] to proof of claim as it applies to the definitions within the legislative California Civil Code of Procedures. There's the concept of inverse condemnation of private property.
This gives you the ability to assert violations and to bring a redress of grievances for trespass or infringement of a PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL without probable cause.
Having full enjoyment of all fundamental rights of man on earth in the likeness of all equality, and having made such record filed before the Los Angeles County Recorders /Registar Office, in the county where you find your vessel in a state within the definition of contiguous travel within the geographical insular territory.
effort 4
If you are interested in understanding more about this subject and how to divorce any contract or association to and with the United States Corporation, feel free to text or email me for ultimate packets of PDF files of information that I've discovered hidden in the Internet Time Machine and the Library of Congress.
I will be updating this site on a regular basis. I seem to like the idea of using this site for all official RMFM interactions and fan engagement. Plus uncensored broadcast which are not subject to MOST OF THE disclosed terms of service issued to YouTube and the continued censorship on many subjects by YouTube against its account members and content creators.
The whole issue is simple to see, it's a government issue because only the government is the anarchist. Only does the government demand protection money from their militants.
The average individual's perception of how equitable a social system is has a pronounced effect on that individual's incentives to engage in productive activities (Buscaglia 1997a). The literature has delved into many of the negative impacts that corruption has on the efficient allocation of resources. Yet, previous work does not pay attention to the effects that corruption has on the individual's perception of how equitable a social system is. First, in all developing countries, a vast majority of the population is not able to offer illicit payoffs to government officials, even when they are willing to do so (Buscaglia 1997a), and, second, legalizing illicit payoffs may have no impact on social behavior in societies where most social interactions are ruled not by modern laws but by multiple layers of customary and religious codes of behavior.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse