| PM | Quote | Reply | Full Topic |
Seasoned...
Joined: Sat Oct 21st, 2017
Location: Near The Pointy End , USA
Posts: 1299
Status:
Offline
Reputation: 
Reputation Points: $user_rep
I had to correct this: the policies job is to remind us of the law. Its the judge who's job it is to enforce the law. It's not the polices job to enforce the law. That's a common mistake. When you've had an experience with a police officer who acts like a judge and thinks it's his job to enforce the law that's usually when people get the f*** the police attitude. That's my 2cents
To be clear I am not a millenial or in the f*** the police group. I just dont like being judged without being able to explain the circumstances. Lol
Because my grandmother pulled me to the side when I used hate as an adjective when I was a child. I tend to strongly dislike things instead of hate.
I think there's a misunderstanding here.. boiled down to basics.
- The Police officer [Policy enforcer] job is to enforce the law, mostly COMMONLY Statutes set forth by legislation and bureaucrats alike. [BTW, if you really want to get into an open discussion based upon what is and isnt a "law" vs Statutes, ACTS, Ordinances, Rules, Codes, or any other "policy".. we should highlight it in great detail. I've established a rather fine collection of legal books, LAW books, Legal dictionaries and a slew of supporting case law and actual evidence that most often casts between dropped jaws and outright paradigm shifts in peoples thoughts under new information being presented. I wouldn't dare try to put a numerical percentage of even how MORE common disinformation is rattled around or just overtly wrong what people think they know.] my personal noted opinion for the record.
- The Judges job is to be a trier of the facts.., Only thing (s)he has the power to enforce is the conduct of the judiciary. Code of Judicial conduct Canon I
- The Pro Se, or Prosecuting attorneys roll is to bring forth a complaint.
And paraphrasing all of that from a legal dictionary but I'll go as far as betting my left nut on all of it. The judge(s) do it all the time, they try practicing law from the bench. thats against the Judge cannons. In fact the Judge actually has a financial interest in every case that comes across his desk, Yet according to the 2nd Cannon of Judicial code of conduct states:
A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All of the Judge's Activities
a. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself or herself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
b. A judge should not allow the judge's family, social or other relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of others; nor should a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.
Kind of hard to do when a $40 ticket fine in most States puts $18 in the judges pocket, or should I say retirement fund. Thats holding a financial interest, you cant get any more biased than that, making a decision based upon whether you're gonna make a few bucks if they're found guilty or not. THEY LOVE IT when people just come in and PAY their tickets. What most people dont know and understand is YOU can actually Bill a court for your time and efforts as well as anything you spent money on to defend yourself should you win. But not too many people are wise to that. But then the fairly larger part of the people still think you cant sue a police officer or a judge still to so that should go hand in hand. Available for facts by asking for a particular judges Judiciary Benefits under FOIA.. Be surprised what you can pull with FOIA for information.
BTW.., The judges in any given state are the FIRST to be paid. NOT even the governor gets a check before they do.
And what I think you're referring to as far as when "a police officer who acts like a judge".. You ARE right, this is where we all get into trouble, people get hurt or killed, cities and PD get sued for rights violations, people in some communities protest or riot in streets.. yea never goes over well and when you have a society raised on the premonitions of having to "feed their emotions" more so than deal with things with rationale or common sense & logic. Well, we all really know why that is. Someone else above stated a great but less than complete, yet accurate opinion of the lacking of a better class of people and or society in our culture. I wish I could have liked it twice TBH.
But without a F*** the police attitude, these guys are certainly human beings, and they certainly respond so. If you come off with an attitude or hot-headed they retort right back the same and actually escalate it because they're now trained to be "in control" of the situation which is another reason why they have a gang like or military like appearance to the community. Once the shouting begins they keep coming out more and more officers and next thing you know.. its a bit more than someone(s) just going to jail.
If you treat them with courtesy they respond equally. Granted you can often talk your way out of a ticket, but when you cant, its the same as shooting the messenger right? The guys doing his job, regardless whether we agree or disagree with it.. take your matters to the court, not the side of the road.
That being said.. A LOT of officers have an issue, it called overreach. They all think they can make you do all sorts of things and in the field they often get away with intimidation tactics and get exactly what they want. I mean lets face it, even the supreme court gives them the pass in court to lie to you legally {hate that word] to be able to get the necessary information from a suspect during an investigation. But then there's the part where all the mass majority of people are surely dumb, don't know how to invoke their rights, dont know they dont have to answer officers questions.. like "where ya headed tonight, where were you coming from..?" You leave yourself to self incrimination whether you think telling them like a prison snitch things thry wanna hear is gonna get you out of a ticket or whatever.. its not. Its a setup, most are too damn stupid to STFU when pulled over. I swear if a wife or GF had a badge and a gun and you told her everything you did like people do to cops, divorce rate would collapse the already 1:1 ratio it is now..!
Now, the most important thing is “While acts of defacto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law, an existing are often held to be binding from reasons of public policy. That‟s a very important point...Public Policy. You want to watch out for the term “Public Policy...†it‟s often confused with the state‟s right of eminent domain of police powers. Police powers and public policy are almost the same thing, except that one is done without law because they want to, and the other is done because they‟re claiming a police authority to do so.
When they‟re talking about public policy, the acts of the person assuming to fill and perform the duties of an office which does not exist can have no validity whatever in law. An unconstitutional act is not law, It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office, it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Now, if you take these basic cases that we have gone over so far, you will have gone a long way in getting your constitutional rights back.
Now that you‟ve won, and your rights have been violated, the next thing they will claim is “Well, we acted in good faith...We had good faith reliance that you broke the law...And that means you can‟t sue us. That‟s a lie. Since these two cases, Owen v. City Of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980) and Maine v Thiboutot, 448 U.S.1 (1980).
Basically what these two cases say “Where plain language of a statute supported by consistent judicial interpretation is strong, it is not necessary to look beyond the words of the statute.â€
These are both civil rights cases. “The right of action created by statute relating to deprivation under color of state law of a right secured by the constitution and the laws of the United States encompasses claims which are solely based on statutory violations of federal law, and applied to the claim that claimants had been deprived of their rights in some capacity, to which they were entitled.
Now when ever his happens, folks, you must understand something that goes for both of these cases: Owen was a police chief in the town of Independence, Mo. He got into a gripe with the city council and they fired him without just cause. Owen turned around and sued. They claimed that they acted in “good faithâ€.
The Supreme Court said “You are deemed to be officers of the law; you are to advise us of the law; you can hardly claim that you in good faith for willful deprivation of the law, and you certainly can‟t claim ignorance of the law, because a citizen out here on the street can‟t claim ignorance of the law. It makes the law look stupid if an officer of the court or some officer of government doesn‟t know the law and then they go ahead and abuse somebody‟s constitutional rights.
So in matters of constitutional rights both these cases uphold one point: Whenever they violate your constitutional rights they do so at their own peril. It even says that at Title 18 Sec 241, 242. It says that upon conviction you are subject to a $10,000 fine, 10 years in jail, or both, and if death results, life in prison. They‟re telling you “Don‟t violate somebody‟s rightsâ€.....
Last edited on Wed Jul 25th, 2018 04:31 am by Undrstm8ed
____________________
"Be never first, never last and never noticed." - Unknown
"The slave is held most securely when he is held by the chains of his own will and of his own fears, and when he is locked down by his own slavish desires for a comfortable life." - Michael Bunker
"Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur" - ~ attributed to Petronius (Gaius Petronius Arbiter (ca. 27–66 AD))
Roman courtier during the reign of Nero.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." - Thomas Paine
~ Undrstm8ed Truckumentry Write Up Pg.
~ Undrstm8ed Trailermentry Write Up Pg.
.