Police Tracking Your Every Move With License Plate Readers

[Paul Revered]

Ok, good start, thanks.

He drives with an unofficial plate? Is his vehicle registered? Can he prove he owns it other than possession? (I'd love to know if he cannot)
What states and what streets I wonder?

I'm having trouble finding information that I have read in the past regarding Badnarik's encounters; but here is another interesting one:

Pulled over today with no license, license plate, or registration
Submitted by juliusbragg on Fri, 04/30/2010 - 22:44
in

* Daily Paul Liberty Forum

2 votes

A CHP officer came up behind me today on 680N and turned his lights on, because I dont have a plate, I knew he didnt have a warrant, I know I didnt commit any Crime, so if I pulled over, it would be considered an "Arrest by Consent". I continued to my exit, about 3/4 of a mile. On the exit the officer said "Pull over right here" through his loud speaker, I ignored him and continued to the light, turned my blinker, and turned. He repeated "pull over right now", I continued on, and took a right and pulled into a church parking lot.

The officer came to my passenger window, I immediately asked "Am I under arrest?", he said "No", I said, "So Im free to go?", he said "no", I said "So Im under arrest", this time he said "yes". I told him that I did not consent to this arrest, and asked him if he had a warrant. He said no, and asked for my drivers license.

I handed him my notarized secured party declaration, a copy of the title to the truck, and my proof of insurance.

He went back to his car for about 5 minutes. A sergeant showed up and took over. I asked him if I was arrested and he said "no". I again said "So I can leave?" he said "no, you're detained". He started talking about arresting me and towing the truck and I asked under what authority. I told him I was on private property and I have not committed a crime. He agreed, but was playing tough guy.

He started asking me what was going on with my license, asked if I was ever licensed in California, and why the truck wasnt registered. I explained all of my info, we read through the case law and cvc together, and both officers admitted that they were fascinated by this. Turns out they were anti-obama, anti-health care, and 'tea partiers' (who knows what type) but either way we made a connection.

I repeated that I have conviction and respect for the Constitution, and that I understand the codes and definitions. I reminded the officers that ALL ROADS in the United States have been deemed "channels of Interstate commerce" by the Supreme Court, and because of that, local and State laws are trumped by Federal Laws, and that in the Federal Laws a "Motor Vehicle" was a "Commercial Vehicle"...we were waiting for almost 30 minutes while they waited for word from their supervisors.

Eventually, they hand me a citation with "none" marked in the DL location, and "none" in the License Plate location. I asked him if I was required to sign it, and he said "yes, otherwise we have to take you to jail." This now made the signature "under duress". I wrote "under duress" and signed my name next to the ticket.

This is where I was surprised, the Officer said "hey, we never read you your Miranda rights, so anything we use against you in court is not admissible."
Im not sure if this is true, but I was intrigued.

I have written "refused for fraud" across the original ticket, and sent it to the Court and the CHP with the letter below attached. I have done this in the past, and never heard another word, I had wondered if there were any warrants, apparently not!
*************************************

NOTICE and DEMAND

ATTN: Certified Mail 7009 2820 0003 2274 8185
California Highway Patrol Golden Gate Division
Officer B. Knudsen
DUBLIN (390)
4999 Gleason Road
Dublin, CA 94568-3310

CC: Certified Mail 7009 2820 0003 2274 8192
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, THE
Also Traded as ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
5672 Stoneridge Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588-8559

RE: CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
Violation Number: 60435 LJ

This notice to appear was signed UNDER DURESS as evidenced by the original citation in possession of, or submitted by Officer B. Knudsen.

Because this notice to appear was signed UNDER DURESS;
1) Statements made therein shall not be considered admissible evidence,
2) As a party to this action, I hereby void this contract and notice to appear, and
3) Any perceived consent or promise to appear is hereby withdrawn.

If you, or any Officer of the court or Officer of the CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL disagrees with the facts or statements stated above, you must refute those items point by point within 10 days of receipt of this Notice, via sworn affidavit, under your full commercial liability, signing under penalty of perjury that the facts contained therein are true, correct, complete and not misleading. Mere declarations are an insufficient response, as declarations permit lying by omission and hearsay, which no honorable draft may contain. If an extension of time is needed to properly answer, please request it in writing. Failure to respond will be deemed agreement with the facts stated above and an inability to prove your claim.

_____________________________________
Name, non resident, non licensed and non registered pursuant to CVC 4, 17459, 17460
See: Edwards v. California, 314 US 160 (1941), Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579., Hertado v. California, 110 US 516

(Enclosed) Copy of Notice to Appear

http://www.dailypaul.com/133248/pul...-license-license-plate-or-registration?page=1

 

[Paul Revered]

fair enough. And the law states government has a right to use superior force for defense of the nation, while citizens are not explicitly given the same firepower.

What exactly does, "shall not be infringed," mean to you?

 

[Paul Revered]

Ok. So let me rephrase, you have no problem calling my post fascist, and is it simply because I disagree with you?
Is my post allowed to disagree with you without being called fascist?

I have no problem with your post being called for what it is.

 

[Paul Revered]

if the alternative to anarchist, then yes.

False dichotomy. Your posts are just a treasure trove of logical fallacies.

 

[Paul Revered]

After reading 5 pages of your responses and "logical arguements", I would have to say. Do you realize your championing a man that ultimately wants to do away with regulation and these things you hold oh so dear?

I think he's a shill for the status quo, posing as a supporter for the message of liberty. Notice that he answered that he knows what Paul stands for; yet he didn't confirm that he supports Paul. He's made it clear that he stands for the antithesis of liberty.

 

[Becker]

Just because no one does it doesn't mean it's not possible or that it's morally or legally correct.

you have to show how its possible. I care less whether its morally and legally correct.

The idea that every government on the globe happens to be wrong is likely. Slavery was indeed legal for centuries, but that didn't make it moral now did it?

it was moral until the victors said otherwise.

Just because every government mandates permission to travel doesn't make it right or in accordance with freedom or the natural law.

what else does it mean if nobody is doing it.

I am smelling a troll heh. But to answer your point, then if you do, feel free to move to a nation that suits your needs and stop taking my liberties.

I love this country, I'm not the one complaining.

 

[Becker]

False dichotomy. Your posts are just a treasure trove of logical fallacies.

I said IF. I am willing to label myself as other things if they're asked.

 

[Becker]

What exactly does, "shall not be infringed," mean to you?

you didn't answer me first, does the constitution guarantee your right to own and use nuclear missiles?

 

[Paul Revered]

Can you explain to me why I pay property taxes, on "my" land, even the portion of "my" land which is paved with a "public" road?

::crickets::

 

[Becker]

::crickets::

because you don't actually own it. that's the short answer. we're just nice enough to say you own it.

 

[Paul Revered]

you didn't answer me first, does the constitution guarantee your right to own and use nuclear missiles?

You didn't ask a question.

Here is what I responded to:

"fair enough. And the law states government has a right to use superior force for defense of the nation, while citizens are not explicitly given the same firepower."

Please stay focused; and please answer my question. You won't be able to keep what I'm trying to teach you straight, if you can't even keep what you are asserting straight. I bet you don't even understand why the 2nd amendment was written.

 

[Paul Revered]

because you don't actually own it. that's the short answer. we're just nice enough to say you own it.

...and who, just exactly, are "we?" I think that it's time that "we the people" demand reclamation allodial title to our property.

 

[Becker]

You didn't ask a question.

yeah i did.

YAY, now we can play the Michael Moore tape. Sir, do you believe that according to the Constitution, you have a right to bear nucular missiles? Try to answer this without an if, and, or but.

Here is what I responded to:

Please stay focused; and please answer my question. You won't be able to keep what I'm trying to teach you straight, if you can't even keep what you are asserting straight. I bet you don't even understand why the 2nd amendment was written.

I have some idea why 2nd amendment was written. however, I am unaware citizens are allowed the same arms and equipment as military.

 

[Becker]

...and who, just exactly, are "we?" I think that it's time that "we the people" demand reclamation allodial title to our property.

everybody other than you is "we".

you can think that.

 

[Paul Revered]

yeah i did.

I have some idea why 2nd amendment was written. however, I am unaware citizens are allowed the same arms and equipment as military.

The 2nd amendment was written to help secure the right of an armed people, to throw off a tyrannical government. You should reread the DOI again.

Perhaps you can explain how your understanding of United States v. Miller supports your argument.

 

[Paul Revered]

everybody other than you is "we".

you can think that.

You can think whatever you want. You're entitled to your own personal opinion. However, you are not entitled to your own personal facts. Maybe you should start with some real facts. Who knows? Maybe soon you'll be well on your way to making a logical argument.

 

[GuerrillaXXI]

Police Tracking Your Every Move With License Plate Readers
Is a law enforcement aid worth sacrificing personal liberties?

http://www.webpronews.com/police-tracking-your-every-move-with-license-plate-readers-2011-11

Absolutely NOT.

What's next? Microchip everyone at birth? Install surveillance cameras in each room of everyone's home? Doing those things could foil a lot of crimes, too. So why not do them? If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about, right?

Well, the problem with that asinine question becomes apparent when we answer it with another question: Who gets to decide what's "wrong"? Maybe someday corrupt, power-mad politicians will decide it's "wrong" just to criticize them, and will demand that their enforcers round up all political dissidents. Or maybe it will become "wrong" to be of the wrong ethnic background or religion. The goal of mass surveillance, of course, is to make resistance to such a tyrannical regime far more difficult.

Even if government were absolutely trustworthy -- something only a born idiot with zero knowledge of history could possibly believe -- no one with an iota of self-respect would EVER consent to being tracked like a head of cattle in a pen. This is especially the case when those who are being tracked can't equally watch those who are watching them.

The police state is coming faster than most of us expected, and it will be FAR worse than anything Orwell could have envisioned. Even regimes like the USSR and Nazi Germany didn't have nearly this much power over their citizens. "Die on my feet or live on my knees?" I really fear that every man and woman is going to be forced to make that choice within our lifetimes.

 

[Created4]

I find this debate interesting, but perhaps both Becker and Paul Revered could state plainly their primary premises and where they see the points of disagreement are for the rest of us trying to catch up here?

Also, Paul Revered, I think your points would be more forceful if you would dispense with the personal attacks and condescending remarks - just my opinion. The logic of your case should be sufficient to prove your points. I think there is much to learn here from hearing both sides.

 

[GuerrillaXXI]

I have some idea why 2nd amendment was written. however, I am unaware citizens are allowed the same arms and equipment as military.

The Second Amendment was written to ensure "government by the consent of the governed," i.e., to prevent tyranny. Obviously such a situation can't be ensured unless citizens have the physical ability to overthrow their government if they are forced into that position. This doesn't require citizens to have the same arms as the military, but simply enough armed force to wage an effective guerrilla war. Sheer force of numbers and stealth can take care of any remaining imbalances of power.

That's where all this new surveillance technology is coming into play. Most surveillance tech that can be used to foil common crimes can also be used to deny stealth to those who are legitimately resisting a tyrannical government. It can also be used against peaceful dissidents. That is unacceptable to any sensible person. Any major imbalance of power in the world that allows some to do as they please to others is an extremely dangerous thing, and history has shown this again and again.

 

[Becker]

I find this debate interesting, but perhaps both Becker and Paul Revered could state plainly their primary premises and where they see the points of disagreement are for the rest of us trying to catch up here?

Also, Paul Revered, I think your points would be more forceful if you would dispense with the personal attacks and condescending remarks - just my opinion. The logic of your case should be sufficient to prove your points. I think there is much to learn here from hearing both sides.

My belief is that humans have no rights, and those who have power, whether corporations, criminals or government, create privileges.
I define rights as, that which society owes to protect, without exception. And rights do not exist unless they are practiced. Therefore, a baby cannot say he has a right to drive, unless he can show how he can. I do not care what the Constitution or DoI say, I care what has been done and what can be done.
I started in this thread saying "You do not have such a liberty, to drive without being noticed, and to hide your license plate" because driving on a public road is a privilege, not a right. (personally I do not make such a distinction for practical purposes).

Even if I granted the claim that humans have a right to travel, I believe there are reasonable exceptions, namely, when there is private property, or when safety of the public is at risk.
I asked this guy whether he knows how other countries operate and how he is so convinced his system would work, he does not have an answer.
I further asked him whether the Constitution guarantees his right to keep and bear nucular missiles, he has refused to answer because he knows how absurd it sounds.
He also cannot tell me whether it is right for governments to have superior firepower to the average citizen for use to military defense.
He responds only by citing Franklin's quote, older than the first license plate, and tells me his lawn mower take gasoline. Completely ignoring the FACTS of how the world works.