Great content ,thank you. It is curious that conspiracy theorists fail to point out that 60 years ago we acheived better audio quality from the surface of the moon than what Zoom and other webinar software can offer us today.
This is my favorite Amendment also, how do we get Remedy when police violate our 4th Amendment, i was stopped for legal daytime running lights and the trooper made up interfearing with government operations, resisting arrest, led violation and no d.l. as i refused to give him any i.d. until he told me his probable cause to stop me, he arrested and impounded my private Automobile, i showed another trooper and attorney the lights he stopped me for and both said i cannot be stopped for those lights.
So I take it you're not an attorney, yet you know enough about the law to THINK you are? Well, smarmy mode off. There are many rulings and reasons that allow cops to ask the DRIVER of a vehicle for ID, registration, and proof of insurance without first telling you why they are asking ("probable cause"). In this case & specific example, Google and the internet are your friends, use them intelligently. Smarmy mode on. If you can't, then hire an honest to God legitimate attorney with traffic law experience.
Title 18 U.S.C. section 241 conspiracy against rights, title 18 U.S.C. section 242 deprivation of rights under color of law,42 1983,1985. Sue them personally and officially in a federal court.
@dragonf1092 I don't sue, I file against their Cesti Que vie trust account attached to your social security number held in the Department of Treasury for $6,000,000.00 each charge and against all parties involved.
I have not been able to get answer on the following , cops come into your house without a warrant , obtain your illegal items , then leave without arresting you or anything else , is this a violation and is there a consequence?
Why does the fourth amendment apply to the individual but according to you, the second amendment does not even Though they both use the same language, the right of the people
If law enforcement doesn't have a legal lawful search warrant don't ID. Your ID/license, insurance, registration are your papers, protected under the warrant clause.
Law enforcement searching anyone's person or vehicle without a legal lawful search warrant is a illegal unconstitutional search and seizure, your car/vehicle is your effects (your property personal property).
On a traffic stop, they can search your car if they “smell” marijuana or a drug dog “signals”. To prove a point to a blue line friend, I trained my lab to sit when I touch the side of my nose.
@@jonahansen consent exists nowhere in the 4th amendment warrant clause, they still need a legal lawful warrant signed by a judge giving them permission to search or seize someone or something.
5th amendment Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. 14th amendment section 1 Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law Due process of law is not law enforcement,due process of law is a trial by a judge and jury. Liberty The quality or state of being FREE. The power to do as one pleases. Free from physical restraint. Freedom from arbitrary or despotic control. The positive enjoyment of various socially, political, or economic rights and privileges. The power of choice. A right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant, privilege. Law enforcement (organizations, groups, associations) exist nowhere in the constitution of the united states of America.
The Katz decision was wrong. Even if you skate into a different interpretation that includes a person's expectation of privacy - the 4th clearly states "against unreasonable searches" there is no requirement in the 4th to obtain a warrant to search. Searching Katz via the phone booth was a reasonable search and by the by the way... the phone booth wasn't his
No warrant shall issue but upon probable cause. Clear as day. The right of the people to be secure in their person's, houses, papers,affects against unreasonable searches and seizures SHALL NOT BE violated. Clear as day.
You need to bone up on the history of interpretation of the Fourth Amendment by the Supreme Court. Clearly, you are not a law student. Did you watch the video?
@@jonahansen Law by interpretation is so King Edward. please READ the words and stop weaving in what you want to see or trying to ascertain what was gong on in someones mind 200 years ago.
Carpenter decision was also wrong. Once again, there was a reasonable motive to search the records and nothing in the 4th requires a warrant to do a search. Also, if this could be considered an unreasonable search - authorities never searched Carpenter's "person" i.e. they never actually physical touched him or rifled through his pockets etc. They obtained cellsite records which presumably did not belong to Carpenter so they were not his 'papers and effects' thus his 4A rights were not violated.
What's the point of having the 4rh amendment or other Bill of Rights, If judges do not uphold them and keep on making crazy ruling undermining the Bill of Rights . The government actors can pretend that every search is not unreasonable, and government judges always agree!
They rule under maritime jurisdiction ( law of the water)not Terra firma jurisdiction , common law ( law of the land). They are satanic courts wanting your bonds attached to your social security number held in the Department of Treasury.
Bradeis's argumenta was weak. He could be considered the quintessential woke leftist lawyer. Taft got it all the way right. If you want to extend privacy to conversations then make a new amendment or have Congress pass a law. Don"t "interpret" your way into the law books aka law by interpretation
love this channel
Great content ,thank you. It is curious that conspiracy theorists fail to point out that 60 years ago we acheived better audio quality from the surface of the moon than what Zoom and other webinar software can offer us today.
I need help in Alamosa with my amendment violated
This is my favorite Amendment also, how do we get Remedy when police violate our 4th Amendment, i was stopped for legal daytime running lights and the trooper made up interfearing with government operations, resisting arrest, led violation and no d.l. as i refused to give him any i.d. until he told me his probable cause to stop me, he arrested and impounded my private Automobile, i showed another trooper and attorney the lights he stopped me for and both said i cannot be stopped for those lights.
So I take it you're not an attorney, yet you know enough about the law to THINK you are? Well, smarmy mode off. There are many rulings and reasons that allow cops to ask the DRIVER of a vehicle for ID, registration, and proof of insurance without first telling you why they are asking ("probable cause"). In this case & specific example, Google and the internet are your friends, use them intelligently. Smarmy mode on. If you can't, then hire an honest to God legitimate attorney with traffic law experience.
Title 18 U.S.C. section 241 conspiracy against rights, title 18 U.S.C. section 242 deprivation of rights under color of law,42 1983,1985. Sue them personally and officially in a federal court.
@dragonf1092 I don't sue, I file against their Cesti Que vie trust account attached to your social security number held in the Department of Treasury for
$6,000,000.00 each charge and against all parties involved.
I have not been able to get answer on the following , cops come into your house without a warrant , obtain your illegal items , then leave without arresting you or anything else , is this a violation and is there a consequence?
Why does the fourth amendment apply to the individual but according to you, the second amendment does not even Though they both use the same language, the right of the people
Great question 🤔 👏
Don't forget without the 2nd the 1st doesn't mean a thing
If you're not part of a well-regulated militia, the amendment does not apply to you
If law enforcement doesn't have a legal lawful search warrant don't ID. Your ID/license, insurance, registration are your papers, protected under the warrant clause.
They really should overturn the third-party doctrine. It would introduce consistency in the interpretation of the Fourth.
Law enforcement searching anyone's person or vehicle without a legal lawful search warrant is a illegal unconstitutional search and seizure, your car/vehicle is your effects (your property personal property).
On a traffic stop, they can search your car if they “smell” marijuana or a drug dog “signals”. To prove a point to a blue line friend, I trained my lab to sit when I touch the side of my nose.
What if you consent?
@@jonahansen consent exists nowhere in the 4th amendment warrant clause, they still need a legal lawful warrant signed by a judge giving them permission to search or seize someone or something.
@@grannygear1001 k9 searches without a warrant are illegal unconstitutional.
If you have a license, then they can do what they want because you signed your rights away.
5th amendment
Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
14th amendment section 1
Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law
Due process of law is not law enforcement,due process of law is a trial by a judge and jury.
Liberty
The quality or state of being FREE.
The power to do as one pleases.
Free from physical restraint.
Freedom from arbitrary or despotic control.
The positive enjoyment of various socially, political, or economic rights and privileges.
The power of choice.
A right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant, privilege.
Law enforcement (organizations, groups, associations) exist nowhere in the constitution of the united states of America.
Boom!
The Katz decision was wrong. Even if you skate into a different interpretation that includes a person's expectation of privacy - the 4th clearly states "against unreasonable searches" there is no requirement in the 4th to obtain a warrant to search. Searching Katz via the phone booth was a reasonable search and by the by the way... the phone booth wasn't his
No warrant shall issue but upon probable cause. Clear as day. The right of the people to be secure in their person's, houses, papers,affects against unreasonable searches and seizures SHALL NOT BE violated. Clear as day.
You need to bone up on the history of interpretation of the Fourth Amendment by the Supreme Court. Clearly, you are not a law student. Did you watch the video?
@@jonahansen Law by interpretation is so King Edward. please READ the words and stop weaving in what you want to see or trying to ascertain what was gong on in someones mind 200 years ago.
Carpenter decision was also wrong. Once again, there was a reasonable motive to search the records and nothing in the 4th requires a warrant to do a search. Also, if this could be considered an unreasonable search - authorities never searched Carpenter's "person" i.e. they never actually physical touched him or rifled through his pockets etc. They obtained cellsite records which presumably did not belong to Carpenter so they were not his 'papers and effects' thus his 4A rights were not violated.
Unreasonable searches and seizures SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, and NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE.
You need to bone up on the history of interpretation of the Fourth Amendment by the Supreme Court. Clearly, you are not a lawyer.
Practically, the 4th is pro forma violated. Next to nothing is probable cause.
What's the point of having the 4rh amendment or other Bill of Rights, If judges do not uphold them and keep on making crazy ruling undermining the Bill of Rights .
The government actors can pretend that every search is not unreasonable, and government judges always agree!
They rule under maritime jurisdiction ( law of the water)not Terra firma jurisdiction , common law ( law of the land). They are satanic courts wanting your bonds attached to your social security number held in the Department of Treasury.
Bradeis's argumenta was weak. He could be considered the quintessential woke leftist lawyer. Taft got it all the way right. If you want to extend privacy to conversations then make a new amendment or have Congress pass a law. Don"t "interpret" your way into the law books aka law by interpretation