Frauditors & SovCits - Vince Pinto

Please enable JavaScript to view the full PDF

1 1st Amendment Auditors, Karens, Sovereign Citizens, and Moors. Version 2.0 (Prepared by Vince Pinto) GENERAL What is "reasonable" / "unreasonable" in this document? As the Supreme Court noted in Mapp v. Ohio, there is no fixed test for reasonableness, so Courts must determine reasonableness on a case-by-case basis. What's your name and badge number? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held in Catlin v. City of Wheaton “it is far from clearly established that the Fourth Amendment requires police officers to identify themselves in the course of carrying out an arrest in a public place.” Of course, Police officers usually display that information on their uniform. However, they're not required to read the information aloud, even if you falsely declare that you cannot read. What do you mean it's on your chest??? Is that what you tell the Judge? Unlike you, standing within an arm's length of a police officer, the Judge is sitting on an elevated bench, much further away. In any case, you simply don't have the same standing in the community as a Judge (Can you preside over trials? Can you sentence people to prison? Can you issue warrants?). What is your full legal name, including your first name and middle name? Police officers are not required to provide such information, only their rank, surname and agency or department. I object to the blue line on your badge, and I demand that you remove it! Your objection is noted, but no. It's not your call. I demand to see a supervisor! You have no constitutional right to demand that a superior official attend a scene. Local agency policy will dictate local procedure. If the supervisor supports the actions of his officers, you cannot keep demanding to see the next higher ranking officer. You only get to play the Karen card once, not repeatedly until you reach the Chief of Police or the Mayor! 2 Show me the law! Police are under no obligation to show you written evidence of a law. They are not a mobile law library. I am not under arrest! It's not subject to negotiation, or a vote. It's solely the police officer's call, and he does not need your consent. You can argue the merits of the arrest in court. Besides, the handcuffs you're wearing would suggest that you're wrong!. I'm not resisting arrest! By refusing to cooperate, such as by going limp, you're still passively resisting arrest. If you arrest me, that's kidnapping! A lawful arrest is not kidnapping. You're being held to face a Judge, not for a ransom. 1ST AMENDMENT AUDITORS I have a First Amendment right to video any police interaction with the public! True. However, bear in mind that if you also record the citizen's side of the conversation, and the personal information they give police, a court may decide that you've unlawfully obtained information to which you are not entitled. You might also be breaching wiretapping laws. A policy is not law! Building or business policies only apply to a particular property or business, so they're not as broad as laws. However, they are nonetheless still valid if issued by the person in charge of that building or business authorised to issue such policies. For example, operating hours, and off limits areas, are policies. If you accept those, then you accept the right of policies to exist and be enforced. Moreover, officials have power to issue emergency and other orders, as may be necessary, to deal with unusual issues or specific circumstances. A statute is not a law! Wrong. A statute is a law enacted by a legislature. Statutes are also called acts, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Where is the sign? There are unlikely to be signs saying "no horses" or "no cooking" or "no busking". However, the absence of a sign does not mean that those activities are acceptable. In any case, once you've been verbally informed of a policy, you have no excuse whatsoever for not complying. A verbal notice has the same standing as a written notice. P2 3 That sign is unconstitutional! Make up your mind. It's childish to demand that a sign be posted, then object to a sign when one is posted. You can't have it both ways! I object to this sign, and I demand that you remove it. You do not have the authority to make such a demand. However, you're free to file another written complaint. U.S. Postal Service Poster 7 allows video photography! Apparently you failed to keep reading beyond the first dozen words to reach the part that says "except where prohibited by security force personnel or other authorized personnel". Also see the sub-heading "Disturbances", and the text "which otherwise tends to impede or disturb the public or employees in the performance of their duties, or which otherwise impedes or disturbs the general public". Failure to comply is a federal offence. I came to buy a stamp! Fine. Once you've done that, your business is concluded. Loitering afterwards to continue taking videos, and to generally annoy people, is a different matter entirely. Local police have no jurisdiction in a Post Office! Incorrect. The standard USPS instruction is for postal staff to firstly call their local police or Sheriff concerning any incident in their branch. Also see "Enforcement" on Poster 7. This is a public building! So is the White House, the Pentagon, Fort Knox and CIA headquarters. However, visitors are restricted to certain areas, and they must comply with all conditions of entry, as specified by the relevant authority. I'm a taxpayer, so I own this building! Um, no. The expression "taxpayer funded" does not give title, management, or any other rights to individual members of the public. For example, can you sell the building? Ownership of public property is a collective, not an individual issue, so your demands and expectations do not necessarily match those of the majority. Moreover, the fact that all other taxpayers present vocally object to your activities is an ad hoc referendum. You should therefore have the decency and common courtesy to quietly leave, instead of arguing with everyone and continuing to be a nuisance. P3 4 I can't be trespassed from a public building or property unless I've committed a crime! Wrong. If you've committed a crime, that's automatically subject to an arrest, not merely ejection from the property with a warning or trespass notice. The person in charge of any building or property can trespass any person (except a police officer investigating a crime), at any time, for any reason. If you stay after being ordered to leave, you're guilty of criminal trespass, and that's a crime. Also see Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Watkins v. Miller. I'm not required to show my ID for the purposes of a written trespass notice! A written trespass notice must include the identity of the person being trespassed, otherwise an accurate record of the trespass cannot be made. If you refuse to ID, you can be arrested for obstruction, and held as a “John Doe” until you ID yourself. You cannot solicit a trespass warning! Verifying that a building or business has trespassed you is not solicitation. In any case, there is no such crime as "solicitation of trespass". As I'm representing myself, I'm entitled to the same access as lawyers! Wrong. Unlike you, lawyers are officers of the Court, with a law degree from a recognised university, and a Bar card, so that's why they get access. You're merely a pro se litigant with a huge ego. Note that YouTube University is not held in the same regard as Harvard, Cornell or Yale. I'm not a lawyer, but I've studied the law! I've repeatedly studied the movie Top Gun, but that does not make me a fighter pilot. You can't stop me from taking video or photographs inside a court. In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Estes v. Texas, "The television industry, like other institutions, has a proper area of activities and limitations beyond which it cannot go with its cameras. That area does not extend into an American courtroom. On entering that hallowed sanctuary, where the lives, liberty and property of people are in jeopardy, television representatives have only the rights of the general public, namely, to be present, to observe the proceedings, and thereafter, if they choose, to report them". Scanning my body and my belongings is a breach of my Fourth Amendment rights! The Fourth Amendment protects you against unreasonable searches. Multiple courts have ruled that electronic scans of people and their belongings, to ensure public safety, are not unreasonable. In fact, strip searches and visual body cavity searches, including anal or genital inspections, constitute reasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment, when supported by probable cause, and when conducted in a reasonable manner. P4 5 You work for me. You're a public servant. Wrong. Police and other public officials serve the public, but they work for a department or agency under a chain of command, which does not include members of the public. You work for me. I'm a taxpayer. As you always demand evidence, can you prove that you're a taxpayer? If so, is the tax you pay at least $40,000 annually for each police officer present at the scene? If not, then you only pay a minuscule percentage of their collective salaries. Arguing otherwise is as silly as owning one share in Microsoft, and declaring that the employees work for you, and take orders from you. In any case, police officers and other public officials also pay tax, so does that mean they employ each other, or does that make them self-employed? You have security cameras all over this place! True, but those videos are private, and are never uploaded to YouTube for monetization. You're dismissed! Go back to work! Members of the public have zero authority to issue instructions to police or other officials, no matter how powerful it makes you feel. If I'm free to go, I'm free to stay! If you insist on staying, you might be subject to arrest for loitering or another crime. I'm a member of the Press. No, you're not. In Green vs Pierce County, the Washington Supreme Court held that an individual with a YouTube channel does not meet the definition of news media. Your homemade Press ID is as worthless as a homemade passport. Someone with a cellphone or other camera makes them Press as much as having a tactical vest makes them a SWAT officer, or wearing a stethoscope makes them a surgeon. More importantly, genuine members of the Press have a college degree in journalism, they use professional recording equipment, they always comply with police directives, they do not use abusive language when dealing with police, they do not try to provoke them, they do not threaten their jobs, and they most certainly do not behave obnoxiously. But I'm an independent journalist gathering content for a story! Really? Do you have a degree in journalism? I thought you were here to provoke officials, and later the police, so that you could record their reactions to earn money for your YouTube channel. P5 6 I'm standing on an easement, so I'm allowed to video! You cannot "stand on" an easement, because it's not a physical thing. An easement is a "non possessory" property interest that allows the easement holder to have a right of way, or to use a property, that they do not own or possess. You therefore need written consent from the property owner to video from his property. I'm standing 10 feet away! There's no standard, mandated distance, so police have the authority to order you to stand as far away as they deem necessary, for their or your safety, on a case by case basis, and without the need for boundary tape (it's often difficult to erect tape in open areas). Also see the Tueller Drill, to understand why a 10 foot rule is unacceptable to police, who usually require an absolute minimum safety distance of 21 feet. Also see Buchanan v. City of San Jose, which specifically discusses distances. And when you inject yourself into a police activity, by loitering in close proximity to the police officers, you not only distract them by asking pointless questions, in respect of matters which are none of your business, you're also deemed to be a threat, because the police don't know your intentions, or if you're armed. What about Glik v. Cunniffe? That was about the act of recording police, not the fact that Glik was 10 feet away, which was an incidental part of the case. It did not establish10 feet as a standard or precedent. But I'm trying to help someone who is being detained by the police! In King v. Ambs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that free speech rights are not protected when a bystander is interfering with an arrest by instructing a suspect not to cooperate with police. It's also obstruction of Justice if your video recording is provoking either the arrestee or bystanders to become hostile or violent. Also note that the audio portion of your video may be considered wiretapping, under State or Federal laws. Do not switch off my camera! That's an order! That's illegal! You have no authority to issue orders to police at any time, but even less so when you're under arrest. In any case, police are justified in switching off your phone because it won't be with you in the jail cell, but in the general area of the police station. It will therefore most likely be in proximity to confidential police discussions, including the identity of minors, rape victims, domestic abuse victims, and so on. P6 7 Viewers of my live stream: flood NNN police station with calls to protest my arrest! Inciting people to flood emergency service telephone lines with nuisance calls can cause you (and your followers) to be charged with Obstructing Governmental Operations or Emergency Services by intentionally impairing or hindering their normal operation. You just lost your qualified immunity! That determination can only be made by a Judge if you can prove that the police officer has violated "clearly established law," by pointing to factually similar previous cases. P7 8 KARENS I can't be trespassed from, or be ordered to wear a mask inside, a business open to the public! Wrong. Every business has a right to dictate the conditions of entry into their business, and your behaviour while you're inside. And it's not discrimination when they demand that everyone wear a mask. Moreover, when you're on private property, the owner or tenant can prohibit photography, because the First Amendment restricts the government, not private businesses. But I have a medical exemption! If true, that still does not override the rights of a business to demand that everyone wear a mask. You're free to shop elsewhere. Your exemption applies to government mandates, not to private businesses. Similarly, if you have a carry permit for a firearm, that does not override a business's right to prohibit firearms on their premises. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires certain businesses, in certain circumstances, to provide reasonable accommodations to customers, such as curb-side pick-up, or no contact delivery, if such services are a standard option, not an undue burden. A business cannot demand proof of my exemption or vaccination status! Incorrect. The Fourth Amendment states that people have rights against unreasonable searches and seizures from the government, not from private businesses. While the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to all entities, and prohibits discimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin, it does not address issues of restrictions based upon a medical condition. And HIPAA only applies to “covered entities” such as health insurers and providers. It does not extend to most businesses outside a health-care setting. P8 9 SOVEREIGN CITIZENS A question for you: If there's no need for a driving licence, or motor vehicle registration and insurance, why isn't that front page news in every news outlet across the U.S., forcing all Departments of Motor Vehicles to cease to exist? You used your lights and siren, so where is the emergency? They're not used exclusively for emergencies.They are also used to indicate to the operator of a motor vehicle that they must pull over, due to an observed equipment or traffic infraction, or for another reason. What crime am I suspected of committing? At this point, you've only committed a traffic infraction. However, if you continue to refuse to comply with the lawful demands of a police officer, that in itself is a crime. What's the probable cause for stopping me? My observation of your failure to comply with the traffic code, or an equipment violation. What's the probable cause for running my plates? Probable cause is not required. Plates are checked as a matter of course. Where's your warrant? A warrant is not required for a traffic stop, nor for an arrest arising therefrom. Am I being detained? Am I free to go? You are being temporarily detained for the purpose of a traffic stop, so you're not free to go, no matter how many times you ask. I do not consent! Your consent is neither required nor sought in relation to a traffic stop. Where is your declaration / delegation of authority (signed by Congress)? The fact that the officer has been issued with a uniform, a badge, a squad car, a gun and various other police equipment, is prima facie evidence that the officer has been authorised to conduct police business. Who is the injured party? One is not required for a mere equipment or traffic violation. Where is the corpus delicti? Corpus Delicti is not required for a simple traffic violation. Observation of an equipment or traffic code violation by a police officer is sufficient. What is your bond claim / surety number? Such imaginary things do not exist, at least not for police officers. P9 10 Are you honouring your oath? Most certainly. I'm serving the public by taking steps to protect them from people who think that our laws don't apply to them. I'm travelling! Yes indeed, you are, by way of operating a motor vehicle, so you must be licensed, and the motor vehicle must be registered, insured and roadworthy. You must provide evidence of all three documents on demand of any police officer, as required by State law. I have a right to travel! Actually, you have a right of movement, but that only means you can freely move from State to State without needing anyone's permission, or an entry permit. Note that in Miller v. Reed, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that operating a motor vehicle is not a right. And in Crandall v. Nevada, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to travel does not imply a right to use any particular mode of travel, such as driving a motor vehicle. In order to operate a motor vehicle as a mode of travel, you must be licensed by a State, just like you need a pilot's license if you wish to fly your own aircraft. I'm not driving! The person in control of the movement of a motor vehicle is the driver. When the vehicle is in motion, you're driving. This is non-debatable with Sovereign Citizen word salad. I'm not for hire, or in commerce! Irrelevant. Traffic laws apply regardless of your reason for operating a motor vehicle. This isn't even my car! This automobile is owned by a (foreign) trust! Irrelevant. If the motor vehicle is stolen, you will be subject to additional charges for grand theft auto. However, you're in command and control of the vehicle, so you're responsible for it, just as if you were involved in a car accident with it. This is an automobile, not a motor vehicle. It's my personal conveyance! Under U.S. Code § 2311 Definitions, a motor vehicle is "an automobile, automobile truck, automobile wagon, motorcycle, or any other self-propelled vehicle designed for running on land, but not on rails". The Federal definition of motor vehicle specifies "commercial purposes"! That's irrelevant. This traffic stop is being conducted under State law, in accordance with the provisions of the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, so the State definition of "motor vehicle" applies. The Federal Government does not issue driving licences or motor vehicle registration documents, but it does ensure that everyone drives on the same side of the road, and that motor vehicles include federally mandated items such as seatbelts and airbags. P10 11 What about the Supremacy Clause? That only applies when State law is in conflict with Federal law, but that's not the case with traffic laws. This is a vessel! Under U.S. Code § 2311 Definitions, a vessel is "any watercraft or other contrivance used or designed for transportation or navigation on, under, or immediately above, water". Motor vehicle registration or licensing fees are unconstitutional! In Hendrick v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled "in the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a State may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles". My Affidavit of Truth has been confirmed by a Notary on this form! A Notary does not investigate or confirm any claimed facts. A Notary merely attests that the people signing a declaration are doing so of their own free will, and that he witnessed them doing so. I'll do as you ask, but only after you read my document / fill out this form! Police officers have no interest whatsoever in seeing any documents other than your driving licence, motor vehicle registration, and motor vehicle insurance. And Police are most definitely not required to complete your questionnaire. How do I know that you're giving me lawful orders? You can ask the Judge. You didn't read me my Miranda rights! They're not required when you're merely detained for a traffic stop, only if you're arrested. I don't understand my Miranda rights! We'll read them to you again, line by line, until you do understand. If necessary, we'll get you an interpreter to assist. Continuing to say you do not understand a simple line such as “you have the right to remain silent” will just be considered a refusal to cooperate, and obstruction.That will work against you in court. You can only detain me for 15 minutes! Incorrect. Police can detain you for as long as it takes to conduct their investigation, within reason. However, if you refuse to comply with lawful commands of a police officer, you're the party causing the delay, not the officers. P11 12 The courts have ruled that people falsely detained or arrested can charge police a fee of $1,000 a minute! Clearly, you've drawn the wrong conclusion from Trezevant v. City of Tampa. Although the plaintiff was awarded $25,000 for being incarcerated for just 23 minutes, the award was only made because the plaintiff was not under arrest when he was mistakenly put into a holding cell. When the police actually arrest you and take you to jail, that's an entirely different story. I'll show you my photo ID, if you show me yours! You are required by law to give your driving licence or other photo ID to a police officer on demand. He is not required to reciprocate. Officer, you're required to provide me with three forms of ID! No such requirement exists under the U.S. Constitution or any State Constitution. A passenger is not required to show ID! A passenger cannot be detained! Wrong. In Brendlin v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that passengers are "seized", within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, when the car in which they are riding is held at a law enforcement traffic stop. Also, in Stufflebeam v. Harris, a U.S. District Court ruled that a law enforcement officer may request any person to furnish information, or to otherwise cooperate, in an investigation. I'm a man of flesh and blood, under God's law! Apart from the constitutional separation of church and State, God has no jurisdiction over traffic stops. I'm a Sovereign Citizen! That's an oxymoron. A Sovereign is “a person who has supreme power or authority over his kingdom and its citizens (often called "subjects"). A Citizen is "a native or naturalised member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection". You can't simultaneously be a king and a subject, no more than you can simultaneously be a driver and a passenger. Under the United States book of codes, I'm an Article 4 Free Inhabitant! Article 4 merely gives visiting inhabitants of one State, the same rights and privileges as the inhabitants of the State they are visiting. However, everyone physically in a State is bound by the laws of that State. P12 13 I'm a Freeman of the Land, so I'm not subject to your laws or jurisdiction. Everyone, including non-Americans (unless they have diplomatic immunity recognised by the U.S. Department of State), is required to comply with the laws of each locality. I'm a Moor and beneficiary of the 1787 treaty between the United States and Morocco! That was a trade agreement, not a transfer of sovereignty. In any case, see John Jones Bey v. State of Indiana for a total repudiation of the nonsensical Moor arguments. Also note that the Moorish Science Temple of America issued a statement in July 2011 condemning sovereign citizen practices and denying any association whatsoever with radical or subversive Moorish sovereign groups. My Moorish Nation occupies United Nations Indigenous People’s Seat 215! No such seat exists. This is the Moroccan Empire. It's not the United States of America! The United Nations, and all of its 193 member nations (including the Kingdom of Morocco), disagree. However, you're free to submit a claim with the United Nations to seek redress of your grievances. I'm Native American / an indigenous Aboriginal / a member of the Washitaw Nation, so I'm not subject to your laws or jurisdiction! "Moors" and the "Washitaw Nation" are not federally recognised as Native American. Moreover, as United States citizens, Native Americans are still subject to all federal, state & local laws, except when on federal Indian reservations, where only federal and tribal laws apply to members of the tribe. In any case, the laws of the land apply to every person, regardless of nationality My name is now Beelzebub Bumblefoot El-Bey. I'm no longer Josiah Walker, so the charges no longer apply! A change of name, or a pseudonym, does not absolve you of any offenses committed under another name. Did you change your fingerprints? I don't have a name / that's my slave name! They are issued by the government. Um, no. Your legal name was decided by your parents, and it was registered by them with the government. Slavery ended in 1865, and you're not over 150 years of age. I'm not an American citizen. I'm an American national. Everyone, including non-Americans (unless they have diplomatic immunity recognised by the U.S. Department of State), is required to comply with the laws of each locality. In any case, people born or naturalized in the U.S. are both a citizen and a national. P13 14 However, some U.S. nationals may not be U.S. citizens. For example, people born in the Mariana Islands, Swains Island and American Samoa are U.S. nationals, but they do not hold U.S. citizenship. I'm a Sovereign Hebrew Israelite / citizen of (whatever) nation! If true, then you also need a visa or visa waiver from the U.S. Department of State to lawfully be in the country. We can contact the U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement Department (ICE) if you wish. In any case, the laws of the land apply to every person, regardless of nationality. I operate under Common Law jurisdiction! Common law (aka precedent or case law), is the body of law created by the judiciary by virtue of being stated in written opinions. However, Common Law is overruled when a statute exists, as is the case with traffic laws. I will file a lien against every person involved with this traffic stop / arrest. That's your prerogative, but you should probably investigate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (Rule 11), which imposes very heavy penalties and sanctions on people who file frivolous claims, such as against police officers lawfully performing their duties. I reject my name being all in capitals / not being in capitals / not in red! Your legal name is not affected by the case used to state it, or the colour. That name is a corporation, not me! Corporations must be registered with a State authority, and need to include in their name an identifier such as "corporation" or "limited" or "company" or "LLC", in which case they are issued a Certificate of Incorporation. Police are revenue agents for a corporation, but I don't have a contract with you! Traffic infractions occur when the operator of a motor vehicle fails to comply with the traffic code. It's irrelevant if an agency or city is incorporated, and a contract is not a prerequisite for the traffic code to apply to you. Are you an oath keeper or code enforcer or policy enforcer? Neither. I'm a law enforcement officer. . Who gave you authority over me? The State government with jurisdiction over your locality. The 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution refers. What right does one man have to tell another man what to do? When one of those men is a police officer operating under the law, he has the power to conduct investigations, and to detain and/or arrest people.. P14 15 Are you threatening me with violence? Absolutely not. I've merely stated that if you continue to refuse to produce the documents you're required by law to produce, you will be arrested, in accordance with the law. And if you refuse to exit your vehicle for the purpose of arrest, you leave us no choice but to physically assist you to exit from your motor vehicle, using as much vigorous persuasion as is reasonably necessary. I'm following your orders under duress! Duress is an unlawful threat or coercion used to induce someone to act in a manner that they otherwise would not. A police officer operating within the law is not guilty of duress. You cannot search my car without a warrant! My VIN is private! Under the "automobile exception" to the search warrant requirement, courts have recognized that individuals have a lower expectation of privacy when driving a car, than when they're in their homes. In United States v. Ross, the Supreme Court held that when a police officer could identify objective facts giving rise to a probable cause belief that the vehicle contained contraband, a warrantless search of the car, and containers therein capable of containing the contraband, is justifiable Police can also search your vehicle if the officer has probable cause to do so for their own protection (to see if there are any concealed weapons). Moreover, in Michigan v. Long, the Supreme Court ruled that car compartments could be constitutionally searched if an officer has reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous. This is known as "frisking the lunge area," as an officer may protect himself by searching any areas from which the suspect could grab a weapon. Finally, in New York v. Class, the Supreme Court ruled that police officers may now enter the interior of a vehicle during a traffic stop in order to search for a VIN (not otherwise visible from outside the motor vehicle), without articulating any reasonable justification for the intrusion other than an observed traffic violation. This traffic stop might be legal, but it's not lawful. That's a distinction without a difference. You cannot legally impound my motor vehicle! In United States v. Petty, the court ruled that once police have arrested a vehicle's occupant, police may take protective custody of the vehicle. I do not consent to a search of my impounded vehicle. In South Dakota v. Opperman, the Supreme Court held that upon impounding a vehicle, police may conduct an inventory search of the vehicle, in order to protect the police from potential danger and claims of lost or stolen property. P15 16 If you tow my vehicle that's carjacking. Lawfully towing an unregistered or uninsured vehicle is not carjacking Your drug-sniffing dog is an illegal search! In Illinois v. Caballes, the court ruled that the Fourth Amendment is not violated when drug-sniffing dogs are used during a routine traffic stop, so long as it does not take an unreasonable amount of time. This traffic stop infringes my 4th Amendment rights! Under U.S. v. Herrera-Gonzalez, a traffic stop is reasonable under the 4th Amendment if it is supported by either probable cause, or an articulable and reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation has occurred. Those criteria are met by observation of a police officer. And, under United States v. Jones, once a lawful traffic stop is made, a law enforcement officer may also order the driver to step out of the vehicle, demand that the driver wait in the patrol car, make computer inquiries to determine the validity of the license and registration, conduct computer searches to investigate the driver's criminal history and to determine if the driver has outstanding warrants, and make inquiries as to the motorist's destination and purpose. Traffic violations are not mentioned in the US Constitution! Neither are assault, murder, rape, kidnapping or arson. Only three crimes are stated in the U.S. Constitution, namely treason, piracy and counterfeiting. I'm invoking my 5th Amendment right to remain silent, and that includes the right not to produce documents! Producing your driver's license, registration and insurance, as required by law, is not an infringement of that right. See the Supreme Court decision in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Court of Nevada. And you must physically hand those items to the police officer, not merely hold them up to your car window. Remember that your licence and registration are State property! If I give you my licence, that can be used against me in court! The U.S. Court of Appeals in State v. Bajardi ruled that a driving licence is a matter of public record, and is only evidence of fact, not opinion. As a governmental entity prepares driver's licences, they contain facts of an obviously public nature, like your name and your photograph. And driver's licences contain basic facts, such as address, date of birth, height, weight, and eye color. I won't roll down my window / I'm staying inside my car, because I don't feel safe. Do you have bulletproof glass? If not, how will staying inside your motor vehicle offer you any protection from an assailant with a firearm? P16 17 I'm taking this matter to the Supreme Court! The SCOTUS only accepts a maximum of 150 of the 7,000 cases that are referred to it each year, and those are invariably cases which have already been handled by an Appeals Court. Good luck. Black's Law Dictionary This is a commercial product, not a definitive law "bible". Many items in it are outdated and obsolete. People v. Battle Sure, a traffic infraction is not (usually) a crime, but you are nonetheless required to comply with all traffic laws, including the requirement to produce your driving licence, registration and insurance, on demand of a police officer. Pennsylvania v. Mimms Is a U.S. Supreme Court criminal law decision that a police officer ordering a person out of a motor vehicle following a traffic stop, and/or conducting a pat-down to check for weapons, does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Maryland v. Wilson Is another U.S. Supreme Court decision that a police officer making a traffic stop may also order passengers to exit the vehicle, pending completion of the traffic stop. Terry v. Ohio A "Terry Stop" allows police to briefly detain a person based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause, which is needed for arrest. When police stop and search a pedestrian, this is commonly known as a "stop and frisk". You're in breach of the Bane Act! Firstly, that act only applies in California. Secondly, it's a civil (not criminal) code that deals with someone who interferes with your rights by using violence, intimidation and/or coercion. A lawful arrest arising from a traffic stop does not qualify. You're in breach of CFR Part 2635 Section 101. Failing to comply with your incessant and unreasonable demands is not a breach of ethics, but you're free to file a complaint. Stopping me is a breach of Title 18 US Code 241 / 242 / 1983 under color of law. A mere traffic stop and/or arrest, where the police officer operates within the law, and there's no serious injury or death, does not fall under that code. Note that the Department of Justice has long declined to prosecute Section 242 cases, at an extremely high rate, with "lack of criminal intent" being one of the primary reasons. P17 18 Silence means "yes". Not on this planet. On the record / for the record! Your video camera and my body camera are both recording devices, so everything being said by you, and by me, is on the record. There's no need to repeat yourself. . This is piracy! Piracy is defined as attacking and robbing ships at sea. We're on land. My name is on a "Do Not Detain" list! Such a list does not exist. I do not want to enter joinder with you! Noted, but I didn't invite you to do so. This is a crime against humanity! Very dramatic, but no. Crimes against humanity are specific crimes committed in the context of a large scale attack targeting civilians, such as murder, torture, sexual violence, enslavement, persecution, enforced disappearance, etc. See the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998 for details. FOOTNOTES: For outright rejection of all nonsensical claims made ad nauseum by Sovereign Citizens, see United U.S. Common Law Grand Jury v. U.S. Supreme Court. Also see Colorado v. Bruce Doucette. P18