[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Tucker Carlson WARNS Trump that Neo-cons are trying to END his presidency by going to war with Iran
DR. IMMANUEL FURIOUSLY CLAIMS RFK JR. IS “DANCING AROUND” THE DANGERS OF COVID-19 MRNA VACCINES
AOC (& Bernie Sanders) Back Zohran After Cuomo Debate COLLAPSE
14 FOODS that SUCK the SUGAR from Your BLOOD
Musk 'Yes' On Trump Impeachment; Will 'Immediately' Decommission SpaceX Dragon & Doubles Down On Epstein Claims
Musk drops bombshell linking Trump to Epstein files, claims Epstein docs hidden to protect Trump
Musk To 'Immediately' Decommission SpaceX Dragon After Trump Threat, Doubles Down On Epstein Claims
Eye-opening device: Self-powered AI synapse mimics human vision, achieves 82% accuracy
This Is Israel
Rogan warns quantum breakthrough could wipe out encryption overnight, digital money vulnerable
Protesters Clash With Feds During Twin Cities Drug and Money Laundering Bust [WATCH]
A Warrior's Homecoming: Trumps Push to End Veteran Homelessness
Trump Administration Rescinds Biden-Era Guidance Forcing Hospitals To Perform Abortions
Supreme Court Dismisses Mexico Lawsuit Against U.S. Gun Manufacturers
YouTube has stopped working on 5 popular phones - so, is your device on the list?
POSOBIEC BOMBSHELL: U.S. INTEL HID UKRAINIAN DRONE ATTACK FROM THE PRESIDENT
Soldiers on US-Mexico border hunt drones with air defense radars typically used in combat
Pentagon Awards $5 Billion Virginia Sub Contract to Boost Production
Trump to Use Emergency Powers to Boost U.S. Critical Minerals Industry
Palestinian Red Crescent details medics account of 15 colleagues slaughter
Trump fires slew of pro-Israel officials in America First 'course correction'
British Airways cancels all flights to Israel until August
Majority of British people support arms embargo on Israel
Chaos at major airport as ground stop halts ALL planes just weeks after tech meltdown
Scott Ritter: Trump Needs to Decide Whether He Supports Russia or Terrorism
Texas moves to label popular snacks as unsafe for human consumption.
No radar can detect it. Mach 4.1 Mig-41..Jet Fighter
Russia Offers Su-57 With Source Codes to India – Full Control, No Strings
This Neutered Isle: Britain After Britain
NC High School Student Suspended for Saying "Illegal Alien" Will Receive Public Apology
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: 320 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 # 13.
#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 #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 #13. To: Artisan (#11) ...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? Of course. I've had a few testy exchanges with lawyers over this issue but the unflattering truth is this: If a judge rules against them they sometimes want their clients to believe that it's the end. But, for fearless and knowledgeable pro se litigants it's just the beginning. It's not unusual for a lawyer to ask for money to file a motion that has already been litigated just to fleece clients, and judges permit this because of their cozy brotherhood. "Gimme $10,000 and I'll file a writ of mandamus to order the IRS to return your life savings!" and then the poor client learns that the courts have already ruled against another on the same issue or writ, and his lawyer probably knew it. Then the lawyers says, "Well, your case is different so I was hoping....." We should be extremely leery whenever lawyers tell us that we can't win, or when they say, "You don't have to put up with that! Gimme $10,000 and I'll get started on it right away!" Until people understand that all parties of our "adversarial system of justice" consider clients, plaintiffs, defendants/respondents to be fodder for their money machine and their first loyalty is to the preservation of their lucrative system, we have no chance of rolling back these obscene power grabs they've seized through ignorance and by building on each other's erroneous opinions through the process known as stare decisis. (It really kills them that juries can ignore their holy writs and dogma and even the judges' instructions before deliberations! HAH) Each "binding legal opinion" rendered in your absence is another brick in the wall. If we permit this then every issue will be pre-decided and our rights will be lost through the process. Even now anti gunners point to adverse court decisions and suggest that the sheer weight of them all have effectively repealed the 2nd amendment. And, when the Supreme Court rules against them lawyers in cities like Chicago and DC say, "We don't like it and we ain't gonna honor it!" They believe that judges' opinions of what the laws say carry more weight than what legislatures who wrote the laws say, and when their religion is skewed in massive upsets they have the chutzpah to say, "We want to embrace the law that we cultivated over the years through the courts instead of the decision that overturned it!" "The Indirect Approach to Despotism Usually, however, these gentlemen — the reformers, the legislators, and the writers on public affairs — do not desire to impose direct despotism upon mankind. Oh no, they are too moderate and philanthropic for such direct action. Instead, they turn to the law for this despotism, this absolutism, this omnipotence. They desire only to make the laws." HOUNDDAWG posted on 2008-08-03 13:28:04 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply Replies to Comment # 13. There are no replies to Comment # 13. End Trace Mode for Comment # 13. 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
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
...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? Of course. I've had a few testy exchanges with lawyers over this issue but the unflattering truth is this: If a judge rules against them they sometimes want their clients to believe that it's the end. But, for fearless and knowledgeable pro se litigants it's just the beginning. It's not unusual for a lawyer to ask for money to file a motion that has already been litigated just to fleece clients, and judges permit this because of their cozy brotherhood. "Gimme $10,000 and I'll file a writ of mandamus to order the IRS to return your life savings!" and then the poor client learns that the courts have already ruled against another on the same issue or writ, and his lawyer probably knew it. Then the lawyers says, "Well, your case is different so I was hoping....." We should be extremely leery whenever lawyers tell us that we can't win, or when they say, "You don't have to put up with that! Gimme $10,000 and I'll get started on it right away!" Until people understand that all parties of our "adversarial system of justice" consider clients, plaintiffs, defendants/respondents to be fodder for their money machine and their first loyalty is to the preservation of their lucrative system, we have no chance of rolling back these obscene power grabs they've seized through ignorance and by building on each other's erroneous opinions through the process known as stare decisis. (It really kills them that juries can ignore their holy writs and dogma and even the judges' instructions before deliberations! HAH) Each "binding legal opinion" rendered in your absence is another brick in the wall. If we permit this then every issue will be pre-decided and our rights will be lost through the process. Even now anti gunners point to adverse court decisions and suggest that the sheer weight of them all have effectively repealed the 2nd amendment. And, when the Supreme Court rules against them lawyers in cities like Chicago and DC say, "We don't like it and we ain't gonna honor it!" They believe that judges' opinions of what the laws say carry more weight than what legislatures who wrote the laws say, and when their religion is skewed in massive upsets they have the chutzpah to say, "We want to embrace the law that we cultivated over the years through the courts instead of the decision that overturned it!" "The Indirect Approach to Despotism Usually, however, these gentlemen — the reformers, the legislators, and the writers on public affairs — do not desire to impose direct despotism upon mankind. Oh no, they are too moderate and philanthropic for such direct action. Instead, they turn to the law for this despotism, this absolutism, this omnipotence. They desire only to make the laws."
...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?
Of course.
I've had a few testy exchanges with lawyers over this issue but the unflattering truth is this: If a judge rules against them they sometimes want their clients to believe that it's the end. But, for fearless and knowledgeable pro se litigants it's just the beginning.
It's not unusual for a lawyer to ask for money to file a motion that has already been litigated just to fleece clients, and judges permit this because of their cozy brotherhood. "Gimme $10,000 and I'll file a writ of mandamus to order the IRS to return your life savings!" and then the poor client learns that the courts have already ruled against another on the same issue or writ, and his lawyer probably knew it. Then the lawyers says, "Well, your case is different so I was hoping....."
We should be extremely leery whenever lawyers tell us that we can't win, or when they say, "You don't have to put up with that! Gimme $10,000 and I'll get started on it right away!"
Until people understand that all parties of our "adversarial system of justice" consider clients, plaintiffs, defendants/respondents to be fodder for their money machine and their first loyalty is to the preservation of their lucrative system, we have no chance of rolling back these obscene power grabs they've seized through ignorance and by building on each other's erroneous opinions through the process known as stare decisis. (It really kills them that juries can ignore their holy writs and dogma and even the judges' instructions before deliberations! HAH)
Each "binding legal opinion" rendered in your absence is another brick in the wall. If we permit this then every issue will be pre-decided and our rights will be lost through the process.
Even now anti gunners point to adverse court decisions and suggest that the sheer weight of them all have effectively repealed the 2nd amendment. And, when the Supreme Court rules against them lawyers in cities like Chicago and DC say, "We don't like it and we ain't gonna honor it!"
They believe that judges' opinions of what the laws say carry more weight than what legislatures who wrote the laws say, and when their religion is skewed in massive upsets they have the chutzpah to say, "We want to embrace the law that we cultivated over the years through the courts instead of the decision that overturned it!"
"The Indirect Approach to Despotism Usually, however, these gentlemen — the reformers, the legislators, and the writers on public affairs — do not desire to impose direct despotism upon mankind. Oh no, they are too moderate and philanthropic for such direct action. Instead, they turn to the law for this despotism, this absolutism, this omnipotence. They desire only to make the laws."
Usually, however, these gentlemen — the reformers, the legislators, and the writers on public affairs — do not desire to impose direct despotism upon mankind. Oh no, they are too moderate and philanthropic for such direct action. Instead, they turn to the law for this despotism, this absolutism, this omnipotence. They desire only to make the laws."
HOUNDDAWG posted on 2008-08-03 13:28:04 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
There are no replies to Comment # 13.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 13.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest