[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Pacific Palisades fire cleanup faked debris buried under homes
Senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal spent $814,806 on hotel expenses in Kyiv
Democrat Arizona Governor Hobbs Vetoes Bill Blocking Chinese Land Purchases Near Military Bases
South Koreas New President Says He Will Seek Talks With the North
Exclusive: US warns UK and France not to recognise Palestinian state
CH-AS-X-13 Air Launched Hypersonic Ballistic Missile (Mach 12)
Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson just made a chilling claim: the CIA was involved in Ukraine's surprise drone strike deep inside Russia.
So the Covid Vaccine damaged peoples brains too. Now it all makes sense.
800 Women Attend Matchmaking Event, No Men Showed Up! Leftover Women Panic
Retailers Bold Moves to OUTSMART Tariffs!
House Budget Chairman reveals one brutal truth about Americas debt that Democrats dont want to hear
Israel Has Been Sending U.S. Military Technology To China
Megyn Kelly SLAMS Angel Reese After Fake Racism Claims Against Caitlin Clark EXPOSED!
Everything we were told about Matthew Shepard 'hate crime' was a LIE
GET OUT NOW! 24 Italian Volcanoes about to EXPLODE and the government is hiding the truth
Cash Jordan: NYC is Collapsing…
EU Tech Laws Erect Digital Iron Curtain
Sling Blade, Squirt, 4um
OMG, it’s getting SCARY…
Elon Musk SLAMS Trump "You Did Wrong! You Know It!"
GOP Lawmakers Introduce Resolution To Replace "Pride Month" With "Family Month"
Pro Palestine Leftists STORM Navy Event, Protest Palantir & AI, Trump Big Beautiful Bill PROTECTS AI
30 Outstanding Castor Oil Uses and Benefits
FBI Expands Multi-City Probe Into COVID-19 Coverup, Origins, and Vaccine Approval Process [WATCH]
China’s J-36 Six Generation Fighter Jet – the Crown Jewel of Future Air Combats
What AI Can’t Do Faster, Better, or Cheaper Than Humans
The only snl skit that was banned.
Update US Approved Moderna's CARCINOGENIC Next-Gen COVID sa-mRNA Vaccine. FDA
Trump admin opens bombshell investigation into aging Biden's final days in office and prolific use of autopen
Deepfakes HIJACK Digital Banking!
Title: Cop to motorist: "You wanna go to jail for some ****ing reason I come up with?" (video) Source: , URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3GlEe1kCHA Published: Aug 3, 2008 Author: , Post Date: 2008-08-03 09:00:53 by Artisan Ping List: *Bilderberg and NWO Watch* Subscribe to *Bilderberg and NWO Watch* Keywords: brett darrowViews: 309 Comments: 16
Watch how cops go berzerk every time Brett Darrow invokes his God given rights and refuses to answer their meddling questions. The funy part is that Darrow gets them on video every time. The cop in this vid was fired for his actions in this case. Also, key to this story is the fact that police chief SCOTT UHRIG, who appears in the video at minute 2:00 condemning the officer's action, is himself an admitted pervert degenerate before being promoted to police chief; CNN does not mention these facts when interviewing him: ------------- [from http://libertyfight.741.com/brettdarrow.html ] WHO IS POLICE CHIEF SCOTT UHRIG? view this document from the state of Missouri from 2002! Why is he even allowed to be chief of police? Why isn't he in prison?? Excerpt from Before the Administrative Hearing Commission State of Missouri DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Petitionee, vs. SCOTT T. UHRIG http://www.oa.mo.gov/ahc/case/Uhrig01-0435PO.KAW.doc The Director argues that Uhrig's sexual advances are cause for discipline under section 590.135.2 (6), which allows discipline for: Gross misconduct indicating inability to function as a peace officer[.] (Emphasis added.) Misconduct means "the willful doing of an act with a wrongful intention[;] intentional wrongdoing". .... "We conclude that Uhrig's unwelcome sexual advances to a teenager, while on duty and under the guise of enforcing the laws, indicate an especially egregious mental state, show that he cannot enforce the law, and are cause for discipline." Summary Uhrig is subject to discipline under section 590.135.2(6). SO ORDERED on February ____, 2002. KAREN A. WINN Commissioner From wikipedia: Sexual harassment allegations In 2000, St. George Police Chief Scott Uhrig, while serving as an Arnold, MO patrol officer, was accused of sexually harassing a 17 year old girl during a traffic stop. The State Administrative Hearing Commission found that Scott Uhrig called the teenager "beautiful, hot and tempting." Uhrig also allegedly asked the teen to come to his car for sex. Although Uhrig maintained his innocence, the Commission believed Uhrig acted outside the law. They said his unwarranted sexual advances showed he could not enforce the law and was cause for discipline. Uhrig was suspended for weeks without pay and put on probation. Several years later he took the helm at the St. George Police Department.[8] Also: The press later revealed that Sgt. Kuehnlein had been previously arrested for assault and stealing, and in late September, he was fired by the city's Board of Aldermen in a 5-0 vote.[7] Subscribe to *Bilderberg and NWO Watch*
Watch how cops go berzerk every time Brett Darrow invokes his God given rights and refuses to answer their meddling questions. The funy part is that Darrow gets them on video every time. The cop in this vid was fired for his actions in this case.
Also, key to this story is the fact that police chief SCOTT UHRIG, who appears in the video at minute 2:00 condemning the officer's action, is himself an admitted pervert degenerate before being promoted to police chief; CNN does not mention these facts when interviewing him:
------------- [from http://libertyfight.741.com/brettdarrow.html ] WHO IS POLICE CHIEF SCOTT UHRIG? view this document from the state of Missouri from 2002! Why is he even allowed to be chief of police? Why isn't he in prison?? Excerpt from Before the Administrative Hearing Commission State of Missouri DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Petitionee, vs. SCOTT T. UHRIG http://www.oa.mo.gov/ahc/case/Uhrig01-0435PO.KAW.doc
The Director argues that Uhrig's sexual advances are cause for discipline under section 590.135.2 (6), which allows discipline for: Gross misconduct indicating inability to function as a peace officer[.] (Emphasis added.) Misconduct means "the willful doing of an act with a wrongful intention[;] intentional wrongdoing".
.... "We conclude that Uhrig's unwelcome sexual advances to a teenager, while on duty and under the guise of enforcing the laws, indicate an especially egregious mental state, show that he cannot enforce the law, and are cause for discipline."
Summary Uhrig is subject to discipline under section 590.135.2(6). SO ORDERED on February ____, 2002.
From wikipedia:
Sexual harassment allegations In 2000, St. George Police Chief Scott Uhrig, while serving as an Arnold, MO patrol officer, was accused of sexually harassing a 17 year old girl during a traffic stop. The State Administrative Hearing Commission found that Scott Uhrig called the teenager "beautiful, hot and tempting." Uhrig also allegedly asked the teen to come to his car for sex. Although Uhrig maintained his innocence, the Commission believed Uhrig acted outside the law. They said his unwarranted sexual advances showed he could not enforce the law and was cause for discipline. Uhrig was suspended for weeks without pay and put on probation. Several years later he took the helm at the St. George Police Department.[8]
Also:
The press later revealed that Sgt. Kuehnlein had been previously arrested for assault and stealing, and in late September, he was fired by the city's Board of Aldermen in a 5-0 vote.[7]
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 10.
#1. To: Artisan, angle (#0) Our own takeover of the mass media... It has potential. But it's tricky. CNN could have ignored this story. Google could have pulled the videos. buckeye posted on 2008-08-03 9:14:13 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply #5. To: buckeye, Jethro Tull, christine, Ferret Mike, Artisan (#1) Our own takeover of the mass media... It has potential. But it's tricky. CNN could have ignored this story. Google could have pulled the videos. Obviously it's quicker and easier to win the case in the court of public opinion. But, if the news and You Tube don't cooperate there's nothing stopping aggrieved parties from showing the videos to juries of pissed off citizens who are equally sick of abusive cops, or, blissfully unaware of same. HOUNDDAWG posted on 2008-08-03 11:29:18 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply #7. To: HOUNDDAWG (#5) But, if the news and You Tube don't cooperate there's nothing stopping aggrieved parties from showing the videos to juries of pissed off citizens Except a judge that rules the evidence either insignificant or unfairly biased against the cop. Pinguinite posted on 2008-08-03 12:16:29 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply #10. To: Pinguinite (#7) Except a judge that rules the evidence either insignificant or unfairly biased against the cop. Assuming that the taping is lawful, a judge who runs interference to that extent would be exposing her/himself to disciplinary action. The cost/benefit analysis would be a bad bargain for any judge who wants to keep the seat on the bench. Also, the suit could then be refiled and with the judge's name added, (CONSPIRACY ENLARGED) and the next judge wouldn't dream of trying to suppress evidence. (Pro Se of course, because many attorneys are too career conscious to file against rogue judges) And, a fully informed juror can also demand to see that evidence, telling the court that the only way he/she could vote fairly is if that evidence is made available to the jury. The real problem with the system today is that lawyers/judges do their worst to keep people ignorant of our rights so they can better manipulate us. When it's all said and done there is no way that anyone could keep that evidence from a jury. How could a jury pass on a cop's compensable behavior in a civil trial unless they can review that behavior? Any finding that prevents that review would effectively elevate the police above us and render them untouchable regardless of how lawless or abusive they are. And, any judicial officer who dared to go there could find him or herself the target instead. This is where pro se litigants have the advantage. A lawyer will say, "Sorry can't do anything, the judge has ruled against us!" But, a pro se party has no oath to bow down to judges to uphold and they can legally attack judges for the crooks they really are. Lawyers seldom do that because the system is a hierarchy and no one defendant or case is worth damaging a promising career. And, one case is all it takes to be labeled a loose cannon and reduced to ambulance chasing because no "respectable law firm" (cough cough) will hire them and no one will nominate them for appointments to the bench. HOUNDDAWG posted on 2008-08-03 12:48:40 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply Replies to Comment # 10. #11. To: HOUNDDAWG (#10) good post, with points to consider. george gordon of wtprn recently was saying on his show that the lawyers and all members of BAR pledge loyalty to the state, so how could they honestly represent the person who in most cases is either being prosecuted by or going against the state civilly? Artisan posted on 2008-08-03 12:53:36 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply End Trace Mode for Comment # 10. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Our own takeover of the mass media... It has potential. But it's tricky. CNN could have ignored this story. Google could have pulled the videos.
buckeye posted on 2008-08-03 9:14:13 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Our own takeover of the mass media... It has potential. But it's tricky. CNN could have ignored this story. Google could have pulled the videos. Obviously it's quicker and easier to win the case in the court of public opinion. But, if the news and You Tube don't cooperate there's nothing stopping aggrieved parties from showing the videos to juries of pissed off citizens who are equally sick of abusive cops, or, blissfully unaware of same.
Obviously it's quicker and easier to win the case in the court of public opinion. But, if the news and You Tube don't cooperate there's nothing stopping aggrieved parties from showing the videos to juries of pissed off citizens who are equally sick of abusive cops, or, blissfully unaware of same.
HOUNDDAWG posted on 2008-08-03 11:29:18 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
But, if the news and You Tube don't cooperate there's nothing stopping aggrieved parties from showing the videos to juries of pissed off citizens Except a judge that rules the evidence either insignificant or unfairly biased against the cop.
But, if the news and You Tube don't cooperate there's nothing stopping aggrieved parties from showing the videos to juries of pissed off citizens
Except a judge that rules the evidence either insignificant or unfairly biased against the cop.
Pinguinite posted on 2008-08-03 12:16:29 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Except a judge that rules the evidence either insignificant or unfairly biased against the cop. Assuming that the taping is lawful, a judge who runs interference to that extent would be exposing her/himself to disciplinary action. The cost/benefit analysis would be a bad bargain for any judge who wants to keep the seat on the bench. Also, the suit could then be refiled and with the judge's name added, (CONSPIRACY ENLARGED) and the next judge wouldn't dream of trying to suppress evidence. (Pro Se of course, because many attorneys are too career conscious to file against rogue judges) And, a fully informed juror can also demand to see that evidence, telling the court that the only way he/she could vote fairly is if that evidence is made available to the jury. The real problem with the system today is that lawyers/judges do their worst to keep people ignorant of our rights so they can better manipulate us. When it's all said and done there is no way that anyone could keep that evidence from a jury. How could a jury pass on a cop's compensable behavior in a civil trial unless they can review that behavior? Any finding that prevents that review would effectively elevate the police above us and render them untouchable regardless of how lawless or abusive they are. And, any judicial officer who dared to go there could find him or herself the target instead. This is where pro se litigants have the advantage. A lawyer will say, "Sorry can't do anything, the judge has ruled against us!" But, a pro se party has no oath to bow down to judges to uphold and they can legally attack judges for the crooks they really are. Lawyers seldom do that because the system is a hierarchy and no one defendant or case is worth damaging a promising career. And, one case is all it takes to be labeled a loose cannon and reduced to ambulance chasing because no "respectable law firm" (cough cough) will hire them and no one will nominate them for appointments to the bench.
Assuming that the taping is lawful, a judge who runs interference to that extent would be exposing her/himself to disciplinary action.
The cost/benefit analysis would be a bad bargain for any judge who wants to keep the seat on the bench.
Also, the suit could then be refiled and with the judge's name added, (CONSPIRACY ENLARGED) and the next judge wouldn't dream of trying to suppress evidence. (Pro Se of course, because many attorneys are too career conscious to file against rogue judges)
And, a fully informed juror can also demand to see that evidence, telling the court that the only way he/she could vote fairly is if that evidence is made available to the jury. The real problem with the system today is that lawyers/judges do their worst to keep people ignorant of our rights so they can better manipulate us.
When it's all said and done there is no way that anyone could keep that evidence from a jury. How could a jury pass on a cop's compensable behavior in a civil trial unless they can review that behavior? Any finding that prevents that review would effectively elevate the police above us and render them untouchable regardless of how lawless or abusive they are. And, any judicial officer who dared to go there could find him or herself the target instead.
This is where pro se litigants have the advantage. A lawyer will say, "Sorry can't do anything, the judge has ruled against us!" But, a pro se party has no oath to bow down to judges to uphold and they can legally attack judges for the crooks they really are. Lawyers seldom do that because the system is a hierarchy and no one defendant or case is worth damaging a promising career. And, one case is all it takes to be labeled a loose cannon and reduced to ambulance chasing because no "respectable law firm" (cough cough) will hire them and no one will nominate them for appointments to the bench.
HOUNDDAWG posted on 2008-08-03 12:48:40 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#11. To: HOUNDDAWG (#10) good post, with points to consider. george gordon of wtprn recently was saying on his show that the lawyers and all members of BAR pledge loyalty to the state, so how could they honestly represent the person who in most cases is either being prosecuted by or going against the state civilly? Artisan posted on 2008-08-03 12:53:36 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply End Trace Mode for Comment # 10. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
good post, with points to consider. george gordon of wtprn recently was saying on his show that the lawyers and all members of BAR pledge loyalty to the state, so how could they honestly represent the person who in most cases is either being prosecuted by or going against the state civilly?
Artisan posted on 2008-08-03 12:53:36 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest