Lauren kidnapped roadside by thugs Oct. 2nd, Part 1

[612Actual]

For those of you interested in what cops can do LEGALLY then maybe reading your Penal Code would be useful. 

The peace/police officer is a member of the Executive branch of government.  They have been authorized to apply the State's police power to CRIME.  They have NOT been authorized to apply the State's police power to NONcriminal conduct.   It's imperative to KNOW the NATURE of the allegation re an alleged violation of the Vehicle Code.

Here in California infractions are NONcriminal  The infraction was introduced into law in California in 1969.  The Judicial Council recommended that the Vehicle Code infraction was NONcriminal.  However, the dimwit Legislature hasn't provided that the rules of Civil Procedure are to be used to process a Vehicle Code infraction matter.

So what those of us who've discovered this truth are attempting to do is make the court take judicial notice of the history of the infraction.  Our contention is that that cops are applying the State's police power to NONcriminal conduct (breach of agreement), when they pull someone over and issue a NOTICE TO APPEAR for any VC infraction.  Maybe we did commit an infraction BUT the cop violated his oath of office, the Separation of Powers Doctrine, committed false imprisonment and a host of other things. 

The other principal issue is the WARRANTLESS ARREST.  The Legislature here in California has NOT used the terms "detention", "stop", "traffic stop", or "pull over" to identify the contact the peace officer makes when allegedly enforcing the Vehicle Code.  The Legislature HAS provided the term "ARREST" and also provided the RULES the peace officer is REQUIRED to follow when they make one.  IF there is NO AUTHORIZATION for the peace officer to make a WARRNTLESS ARREST for an expired tab or speeding then the officer's conduct is VOID and unconstitutional, or put another way, ILLEGAL. 

The cop is accusing you of not following the rules when they issue a NOTICE TO APPEAR, well, if there's no authorization for the cop to do what they did then who's not following the rules and who's the pot calling the kettle black?

Maybe you're guilty as hell for speeding but so what if the cop broke the rules he/she swore an oath to follow?  Do they get to break the law in order to enforce it?  And then where does it stop?  Do the traffic court commissioners get to break the rules they agreed to follow too? 

I'm going to court on Thursday to argue a demurrer that I filed in my case. I was "arrested" for no rear plate and a burned out stop light.  The legal basis of my argument is that the cop didn't FOLLOW THE RULES re pleadings.  The NOTICE TO APPEAR isn't a COMPLAINT and my theory is that the court hasn't acquired jurisdiction over the matter because the cop didn't follow the rules and the pleading is insufficient.  I fully anticipate the commissioner will cheat because I'm correct and they can not allow what I wrote to pass otherwise you'd do it too.  So they're gonna make it as difficult as possible for me.  I also anticipate having to disqualify the commissioner for bias.  Then I anticipate having to go to trial where I'm gonna ask the cop to specify the authorization for what he did.  If he can specify it then he wins and I'll pay, if he can't then I'm gonna I'm not gonna pay and I fully intend to bleed the city of tax dollars reading my paperwork.

But before I get to asking the cop questions I'll be asking the court questions about procedural due process and I anticipate they're not gonna like what I ask and bring to their attention.  I have a pretty decent understanding of what "they" are REQUIRED to do.  They don't like doing it so they cheat so I have to become more aware in order to stand a chance of not having a "fast one" pulled on me. 

The bottom line is that the cop AGREED to be "one down" to us.  The cop volunteered to be a servant and follow rules that don't apply to us.  If they didn't follow the rules and they don't have a waiver to disregard the rules they agreed to follow then the issue isn't speeding or no license or "lawful request".

[612Actual]

It doesn't really matter what the law says, or weather it was lawful or not.  Lauren does not recognize their authority, she only recognizes that they will hurt her if she doesn't comply.  But when she gets out, she will be freer than any person in nh. 

Well then I guess that's what she chooses. 

It matters a whole lot to me and a lot of people I study with what's written re the LAW. 

I don't know about you but I don't like paying for my servant's mistakes.  When they accuse me of some alleged violation of the Vehicle Code they're claiming I didn't follow a rule or rules.  Well how can I stand a snow balls chance in hell in traffic court if I don't know what my servants can and can't do?  By not knowing I'm gonna pay whether they complied with the rules they agreed to follow or they didn't.  It's simply not cost effective to pay for my servant's mistakes.

If she doesn't mind paying the cops for not following the rules then that's her business, but she's tolerating and tacitly approving of bad behavior on the part of her servants and they're gonna think they can do that to other people too. 

Look, government employees are our servants.  They're our employees.  We bear direct responsibility for their conduct.  If they're breaking the law then it makes sense to me that I need to step up and at the very least say something.

I can't think of a better place to ask a cop whether he/she followed the rules than in a court when we're on the record.  The cop is testifying under penalty of perjury and as the Defendant I don't have to testify at all.  But I do get to interrogate my accuser on the stand.  IF I can get the cop to admit that he didn't follow the rules then I can use the transcript against him in a civil suit for false imprisonment and the cop doesn't have immunity because they acted "beyond the scope" of their authorized duty.

[kola]

It would be advantageous to have Dave ridley do a video on Lauren and paste it on youtube.

Maybe request some interviews with the goons and have those videotaped as well.

kola

[Jim Johnson]

It would be advantageous to have Dave ridley do a video on Lauren and paste it on youtube.

Maybe request some interviews with the goons and have those videotaped as well.

kola

There are already many videos of Lauren on U-tube as well as those posted on this Forum.
The best ones, ones that actually capture Lauren's views as well as her character, where made by Roger.

[Kat Kanning]

Thanks for making that call, GraniteForge!

[612Actual]

For those of you interested in what cops can do LEGALLY then maybe reading your Penal Code would be useful. 

The peace/police officer is a member of the Executive branch of government.  They have been authorized to apply the State's police power to CRIME.  They have NOT been authorized to apply the State's police power to NONcriminal conduct.   It's imperative to KNOW the NATURE of the allegation re an alleged violation of the Vehicle Code.

Here in California infractions are NONcriminal  The infraction was introduced into law in California in 1969.  The Judicial Council recommended that the Vehicle Code infraction was NONcriminal.  However, the dimwit Legislature hasn't provided that the rules of Civil Procedure are to be used to process a Vehicle Code infraction matter.

I wonder, then, why I keep seeing California police make traffic stops.

What's wrong with you?  Of course they're gonna "make traffic stops", I never said nor implied that they don't or won't.  AND there's a growing body of people figuring out what's actually goin on.  Do your news papers report on traffic cases? 

There's over 35 million people here and it's gonna take time for the tide to turn.

[612Actual]

My point is that there are things that one can do when the cop makes a mistake.  But you can't do anything about it if you don't know what rules the cop is REQUIRED to follow. 

 

[Kat Kanning]

Lauren's page:  http://freelaurencanario.com

If you click on the Links from that page, you'll find all the videos.

[kola]

ty Jim and Kat!

Kola

[Russell Kanning]

I agree with Jim.

[Kat Kanning]

I took all the posts from Lauren's arrest by the feds 9/15 thread that were talking about this current arrest and put them in this thread.  Hope that doesn't confuse people! 

[EthanAllen]

"Lawful request" doesn't mean you have to answer nor can you be punished for remaining silent.  A REQUEST and DEMAND are two different things. 

The fact remains, the cop made a "WARRANTLESS ARREST".  Is speeding a crime, yes or no?  If it's not then the cop has a big problem.  Unless of course you want to focus on irrelevant issues like "lawful request".

Lauren was stopped for probable cause (speeding). She was asked to produce her license and registration (a lawful request). She refused to comply with the lawful request (which she is required by law to produce) because she does not recognize the authority of the local police to regulate the collectively owned roads. Anyone who doesn't produce their license or registration may be subject to arrest unless they can give a good reason as to why they don't.

The deal was sealed when she refused to talk to them and cooperate.

What part about "WARRANTLESS ARREST" aren't you grasping?  Does your Vehicle Code mandate that the "driver" produce their license on "request"?

Additionally, you continue to equate a DEMAND with a REQUEST.  If a cop ASKS you a question you're under NO OBLIGATION to answer it.  Say you're walking down the sidewalk and a cop approaches you and ASKS you what time it is, are you REQUIRED to answer under threat of arrest?

You used the terms "probable cause".  Those terms are only used in relation to CRIME.  Is speeding a CRIME where she lives?  If so then "probable cause" exists.  As for the "request" for information.  Apparently the Miranda warning isn't used back there but out here, and most other places, you have the RIGHT to remain silent.  You CAN NOT be compelled to provide evidence or testimony that can be used against you.  When the cop ASKS for ID or a driver license a question one could ask is:  "Officer, if I consent to provide what you ASKED for, can you use it against me in a court of law?".  We know the answer.  So another question one could ask after the cop answers could be:  "Officer, am I required to produce evidence that you can use against me in a court of law?" "Officer, will you punish me for exercising my right to remain silent?", "Officer, do you require my consent to inspect my personal documents?", "Officer, are you compelling me to consent to speak?".

If you feel that you SHOULD answer when a police officer REQUESTS information then a perfectly LEGAL response would be "NO COMMENT".  You answered the question and just because the cop may not like what he/she heard doesn't make it any less a LEGAL RESPONSE.

Perhaps you're aware of the dude Hibel out of Nevada.  He refused to produce his license to a cop and was taken to jail.  He appealed to the Nev Sup Ct and he won.  However, on appeal to the US Sup Ct he lost, why?  Because he used the WRONG ARGUMENT.  He claimed he didn't have to produce he license, but his agreement with the DMV required him to do so.  Had he used a different argument he might have faired a little better, like the one "I do not consent to speak" or "I'm exercising my right not to talk or produce information that can be used against me." 

Maybe re-reading Brown v. Texas 443 U.S. 47 (1979) would be useful.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/XXI/265/265-4.htm

TITLE XXI
MOTOR VEHICLES
CHAPTER 265
RULES OF THE ROAD
Obedience to and Effect of Traffic Laws
Section 265:4
    265:4 Disobeying an Officer. –
    I. No person, while driving or in charge of a vehicle, shall:
       (a) Refuse, when requested by a law enforcement officer, to give his name, address, date of birth, and the name and address of the owner of such vehicle;
       (b) Give a false name, date of birth, address, name and address of the owner of such vehicle, or any other false information to a law enforcement officer that would hinder the law enforcement officer from properly identifying the person in charge of such motor vehicle;
       (c) Purposely neglect to stop when signaled to stop by any law enforcement officer who is in uniform or who displays his badge conspicuously on the outside of his outer coat or garment, or who signals such person to stop by means of any authorized audible or visual emergency warning signals; or otherwise willfully attempt to elude pursuit by a law enforcement officer by increasing speed, extinguishing headlamps while still in motion or abandoning a vehicle while being pursued;
       (d) Refuse, on demand of such officer, to sign his name in the presence of such officer;
       (e) Refuse, on demand of such officer, to produce his license to drive such vehicle or his certificate of registration or to permit such officer to take the license or certificate in hand for the purpose of examination;
       (f) Refuse or neglect to produce his license when requested by a court or justice, or refuse to surrender to the director or to any authorized employee of the department or other authorized representative of the director any license, registration certificate or number plate upon demand after suspension or revocation of the same.
    II. Any person who violates any provision of paragraph I of this section may have his or her license or privilege to drive and any registrations issued in his or her name suspended. In addition, any person who violates the provisions of subparagraphs I (a), (b), (d), (e), or (f) of this section shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
    III. (a) In addition to the penalties listed in paragraph II, any person who violates the provisions of subparagraph I(c) shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor and shall be fined not less than $500.
       (b) Any person who violates the provisions of subparagraph I(c), and is involved in a motor vehicle accident which causes serious bodily injury as defined in RSA 625:11, VI while being pursued, shall be guilty of a class B felony.
       (c) Any person who violates the provisions of subparagraph I(c), and is involved in a motor vehicle accident which causes the death of another while being pursued, shall be guilty of a class A felony.

Source. 1911, 133:21. 1921, 119:20. PL 102:19. RL 118:21. RSA 262:26. 1955, 143:1. 1981, 146:1; 479:5, 27. 1987, 221:1. 2002, 213:1, 2, eff. Jan. 1, 2003.

[612Actual]

"Lawful request" doesn't mean you have to answer nor can you be punished for remaining silent.  A REQUEST and DEMAND are two different things. 

The fact remains, the cop made a "WARRANTLESS ARREST".  Is speeding a crime, yes or no?  If it's not then the cop has a big problem.  Unless of course you want to focus on irrelevant issues like "lawful request".

Lauren was stopped for probable cause (speeding). She was asked to produce her license and registration (a lawful request). She refused to comply with the lawful request (which she is required by law to produce) because she does not recognize the authority of the local police to regulate the collectively owned roads. Anyone who doesn't produce their license or registration may be subject to arrest unless they can give a good reason as to why they don't.

The deal was sealed when she refused to talk to them and cooperate.

What part about "WARRANTLESS ARREST" aren't you grasping?  Does your Vehicle Code mandate that the "driver" produce their license on "request"?

Additionally, you continue to equate a DEMAND with a REQUEST.  If a cop ASKS you a question you're under NO OBLIGATION to answer it.  Say you're walking down the sidewalk and a cop approaches you and ASKS you what time it is, are you REQUIRED to answer under threat of arrest?

You used the terms "probable cause".  Those terms are only used in relation to CRIME.  Is speeding a CRIME where she lives?  If so then "probable cause" exists.  As for the "request" for information.  Apparently the Miranda warning isn't used back there but out here, and most other places, you have the RIGHT to remain silent.  You CAN NOT be compelled to provide evidence or testimony that can be used against you.  When the cop ASKS for ID or a driver license a question one could ask is:  "Officer, if I consent to provide what you ASKED for, can you use it against me in a court of law?".  We know the answer.  So another question one could ask after the cop answers could be:  "Officer, am I required to produce evidence that you can use against me in a court of law?" "Officer, will you punish me for exercising my right to remain silent?", "Officer, do you require my consent to inspect my personal documents?", "Officer, are you compelling me to consent to speak?".

If you feel that you SHOULD answer when a police officer REQUESTS information then a perfectly LEGAL response would be "NO COMMENT".  You answered the question and just because the cop may not like what he/she heard doesn't make it any less a LEGAL RESPONSE.

Perhaps you're aware of the dude Hibel out of Nevada.  He refused to produce his license to a cop and was taken to jail.  He appealed to the Nev Sup Ct and he won.  However, on appeal to the US Sup Ct he lost, why?  Because he used the WRONG ARGUMENT.  He claimed he didn't have to produce he license, but his agreement with the DMV required him to do so.  Had he used a different argument he might have faired a little better, like the one "I do not consent to speak" or "I'm exercising my right not to talk or produce information that can be used against me." 

Maybe re-reading Brown v. Texas 443 U.S. 47 (1979) would be useful.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/XXI/265/265-4.htm

TITLE XXI
MOTOR VEHICLES
CHAPTER 265
RULES OF THE ROAD
Obedience to and Effect of Traffic Laws
Section 265:4
    265:4 Disobeying an Officer. –
    I. No person, while driving or in charge of a vehicle, shall:
       (a) Refuse, when requested by a law enforcement officer, to give his name, address, date of birth, and the name and address of the owner of such vehicle;
       (b) Give a false name, date of birth, address, name and address of the owner of such vehicle, or any other false information to a law enforcement officer that would hinder the law enforcement officer from properly identifying the person in charge of such motor vehicle;
       (c) Purposely neglect to stop when signaled to stop by any law enforcement officer who is in uniform or who displays his badge conspicuously on the outside of his outer coat or garment, or who signals such person to stop by means of any authorized audible or visual emergency warning signals; or otherwise willfully attempt to elude pursuit by a law enforcement officer by increasing speed, extinguishing headlamps while still in motion or abandoning a vehicle while being pursued;
       (d) Refuse, on demand of such officer, to sign his name in the presence of such officer;
       (e) Refuse, on demand of such officer, to produce his license to drive such vehicle or his certificate of registration or to permit such officer to take the license or certificate in hand for the purpose of examination;
       (f) Refuse or neglect to produce his license when requested by a court or justice, or refuse to surrender to the director or to any authorized employee of the department or other authorized representative of the director any license, registration certificate or number plate upon demand after suspension or revocation of the same.
    II. Any person who violates any provision of paragraph I of this section may have his or her license or privilege to drive and any registrations issued in his or her name suspended. In addition, any person who violates the provisions of subparagraphs I (a), (b), (d), (e), or (f) of this section shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
    III. (a) In addition to the penalties listed in paragraph II, any person who violates the provisions of subparagraph I(c) shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor and shall be fined not less than $500.
       (b) Any person who violates the provisions of subparagraph I(c), and is involved in a motor vehicle accident which causes serious bodily injury as defined in RSA 625:11, VI while being pursued, shall be guilty of a class B felony.
       (c) Any person who violates the provisions of subparagraph I(c), and is involved in a motor vehicle accident which causes the death of another while being pursued, shall be guilty of a class A felony.

Source. 1911, 133:21. 1921, 119:20. PL 102:19. RL 118:21. RSA 262:26. 1955, 143:1. 1981, 146:1; 479:5, 27. 1987, 221:1. 2002, 213:1, 2, eff. Jan. 1, 2003.

Ok, so you're stuck re the request/demand issue.  However, those sections ONLY APPLY if there's a VALID AGREEMENT with the DMV.  If you don't have an agreement with the DMV then those sections don't apply.  That "duty" arises from the party APPLYING for benefits from the DMV.  When the applicant signs the APPLICATION and the DMV accepts the $$$ and issues the license an agreement has been perfected and the applicant who is now the PRIVILEGE HOLDER must comply with the terms and conditions of the contract.  They can not force anyone to ASK for a privilege and then pay an annual fee to keep it.  Remember, DRIVING is a COMMERCIAL/BUSINESS ACTIVITY.  A MOTOR VEHICLE is a device used for BUSINESS purposes.

"The activity licensed by state DMVs and in connection with which individuals must submit personal information to the DMV - the operation of motor vehicles - is itself integrally related to interstate commerce".
Seth Waxman, Solicitor General
U.S. Department of Justice
BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS
Reno v. Condon, No. 98-1464, decided January 12, 2000
Supreme Court of the United States

        Title 18, USC Sec. 31
        PART I - CRIMES
        CHAPTER 2 - AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLES
        Sec. 31. Definitions
            When used in this chapter the term -

''Motor vehicle'' means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo;

TRAFFIC = COMMERCE

So the accuser MUST PROVE the accused was involved in commerce.

HOWEVER, you still have a WARRANTLESS ARREST issue you can use.  Remember, it's prima facie illegal to arrest without a warrant and IF, the operative term being IF, speeding isn't a misdemeanor and you don't get a jury trial, and there's no jail sanction upon conviction, and you don't get a Public Defender paid for at public expense, then you have a CIVIL TORT, not a CRIME.

[EthanAllen]

However, those sections ONLY APPLY if there's a VALID AGREEMENT with the DMV.  If you don't have an agreement with the DMV then those sections don't apply.

So which is it?

Previously you had said:

"Does your Vehicle Code mandate that the "driver" produce their license on "request"?"

The answer is "yes"

And previously you had said:

"If a cop ASKS you a question you're under NO OBLIGATION to answer it.  Say you're walking down the sidewalk and a cop approaches you and ASKS you what time it is, are you REQUIRED to answer under threat of arrest?"

The answer is that if you are driving a car and the officer has probable cause to stop you he can request that you produce your license and registration. If you refuse the lawful request by non-compliance, then you could be subject to arrest.

They can not force anyone to ASK for a privilege and then pay an annual fee to keep it.

Why not? Rights don't have to be purchased or gifted but privileges may to pay for the costs to administer.

Remember, DRIVING is a COMMERCIAL/BUSINESS ACTIVITY.  A MOTOR VEHICLE is a device used for BUSINESS purposes.

'Motor vehicle'' means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo;

TRAFFIC = COMMERCE

So the accuser MUST PROVE the accused was involved in commerce.

Can you cite anyone in NH winning in court on this argument?

It is kinda like the Brown's tax argument...we are not subject to the income tax because we don't live in a US protectorate and therefore the US federal Gov. has no jurisdiction in NH.

[David]

Hey guys, Lauren doesn't believe that the gov't has the moral right to restrict her.  She is a friendly person.  She could have said anything to the cop that she wanted to, but chose not to. 
I realize you are trying to help, but if her past actions are a guide to her current, she will not even participate in her own trial.  The gov't will spend hundreds of dollars trying to make her feel sorry, as though she did something evil.  They will fail, and she will eventually be released to be free.