Woman Screams Rape While Being Arrested After Claiming She Doesn’t Have to Follow Laws

[Jeffrey]

Yes America still has SovCits:


https://youtu.be/H24sLF3CkMo

[wserra]

That cop may be the most patient human being I've ever seen.

[Pottapaug1938]

Aw, you beat me to posting this here....

My favorite part is where she cites the Articles of Confederation as justification for the premise that the laws don't apply to her.

After she gets out on bail, her first stop ought to be the nearest butcher where she can buy some brains to fill up that empty void between her ears.

[Jeffrey]

Well there's still the dirty work of figuring out who she is and where the video was taken.

[fortinbras]

She doesn't even know that Article IV of the Art. of Confed., because it holds citizens of another state to the same "restrictions" of citizens of this state while they're here. Meaning that out-of-state motorists have to have drivers licenses too. Kudos for the cop's patience; if it had been me, I'd fill her up with mace and then zap her with a taser, and probably conclude by putting duct tape over her mouth once she's handcuffed.

Anybody know what the outcome of this traffic escapade was?

[noblepa]

Does anyone have any idea who this woman is, when/where this took place and what the disposition of her case was?

At the beginning of the video, her male friend, who apparently was driving, is being handcuffed after a traffic stop. Does anyone know why he was arrested?

This does seem like another case of a sovcit turning a simple traffic stop into jail time. The officer wasn't even going to arrest her. He just wanted her to get out of the car, so he could continue his investigation. IANAL, but I believe that after a legal traffic stop that involves taking the driver into custody, the officer is justified in searching the car, so he probably wanted her out of the way. He also told her that the car was going to be towed, and she couldn't be in the car while when that happened.

The stupid is strong with this one.

Why do these morons think that the articles of confederation still have any legal force?

[rogfulton]

Why do these morons think that the articles of confederation still have any legal force?

Because they don't think current laws apply to them.

[bmxninja357]

"Your under arrest"

"No I'm not!"

Gosh that just never gets old. Thick on comedic value.
Another win!

Ninj

[Jeffrey]

It was posted to reddit and youtube with that title with no information on source.

[fortinbras]

I am keenly aware that (a) it was posted on reddit with no info, and (b) it's a couple of years old already.

Please can someone with some knowhow find out who/what of this video. I am very curious about the aftermath.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Does anyone have any idea who this woman is, when/where this took place and what the disposition of her case was?

At the beginning of the video, her male friend, who apparently was driving, is being handcuffed after a traffic stop. Does anyone know why he was arrested?

This does seem like another case of a sovcit turning a simple traffic stop into jail time. The officer wasn't even going to arrest her. He just wanted her to get out of the car, so he could continue his investigation. IANAL, but I believe that after a legal traffic stop that involves taking the driver into custody, the officer is justified in searching the car, so he probably wanted her out of the way. He also told her that the car was going to be towed, and she couldn't be in the car while when that happened.

The stupid is strong with this one.

Why do these morons think that the articles of confederation still have any legal force?

Maybe because they are still law according to federal law.

Right at the beginning of the code, it states the four organic laws, all still in effect.

Besides the fact the AOC provides a perpetual union that could only be dismissed by every party to it.

Rhode island never voted to replace it.

Also the AOC is the organic law that created the United states of America, if it was dismissed, so was the union.

But feel free to check out the front matter and prove it's not still law.

[Patriotdiscussions]

You can download all four Organic Laws from the United States House of Representatives' Office of the Law Revision Counsel:

http://uscode.house.gov/download/annual ... index.html

[arayder]

God help the folks to whom you are selling legal advice, PD.

[Patriotdiscussions]

I don't sell advice.

[Famspear]

Maybe because they [the Articles of Confederation] are still law according to federal law.

No. Not in the sense in which you are thinking.

Right at the beginning of the code, it states the four organic laws, all still in effect.

The code? The code? You mean the Jethro Bodine Cement Pond Super Secret Double-Naught Spy Code?

Besides the fact the AOC [Articles of Confederation] provides a perpetual union that could only be dismissed by every party to it.

Yeah, right. Sure it does. Just like a provision in a written contracts that says "this written contract can be modified only in writing" -- a contract provision that generally is not legally binding if both parties later agree to modify the contract orally anyway.

Rhode island [sic] never voted to replace it.

And yet, Rhode Island ratified the U.S. Constitution and thereby replaced the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution anyway. So sorry.

Also the AOC is the organic law that created the United states of America, if it was dismissed, so was the union.

Unless the states agreed to continue the union -- by ratifying the Constitution. (Hint: That's what happened, Einstein.)

But feel free to check out the front matter and prove it's not still law.

Feel free to continue believing that you're competent to pontificate about these matters. Don't let REALITY get in your way!

[arayder]

Spare me the word games, Perry Mason. You have advertised your services and made it clear you take money for your teachings, or whatever you call it.

The fact that you don't grasp the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution should preclude anybody with half a brain from heeding any legal advice you give.

[Famspear]

Maybe because they [the Articles of Confederation] are still law according to federal law.

Right at the beginning of the code, it states the four organic laws, all still in effect....

To clarify for any new or occasional readers, "Patriotdiscussions" is referring to the fact that the Articles of Confederation are still published in such places as the U.S. House of Representatives web site, in the U.S. Code Annotated books, and other such places. He apparently believes that this means that the Articles of Confederation are "still in effect" for some purpose for which he would like to see the Articles BE effective (traffic stops, federal taxes, heaven knows what else maybe).

Now, for the benefit of Patriotdiscussions and any other non-lawyers who may be tax protester-tax denier-sovereign citizen idiot types, please read the following material carefully:


THE MERE FACT THAT SOMETHING IS PUBLISHED IN A LAW BOOK DOES NOT MAKE IT CURRENT LAW.

Statute books - even statute books published this year -- actually contain STATUTES THAT HAVE BEEN REPEALED.

Law books called "case reporters" that publish the verbatim texts of court opinions -- EVEN THOSE BOOKS CURRENTLY PUBLISHED -- do NOT DELETE OR IN ANY WAY MODIFY THE TEXTS OF DECISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN OVERRULED, REVERSED, VACATED, LIMITED, DISTINGUISHED, OR OTHERWISE MODIFIED. You will NOT be able to tell which court opinions have been overruled, reversed, vacated, limited, distinguished, or otherwise modified merely by reading that text.

In order to understand the legal standing of a particular text, a person LACKING EVEN THE COMMON SENSE possessed by my little sister's puppy dog PROBABLY SHOULD NOT BE TRYING TO READ, INTERPRET OR PONTIFICATE ON SUCH MATERIALS HIMSELF, and certainly should not be conducting his life according to his own interpretations of such materials.

Many people lacking such common sense -- or any useful memory of what they should have retained from a ninth grade civics class -- are what we now call tax protesters, sovereign citizens, or in some cases convicted felons.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Fan boy is correct, the AOC could have been repealed, in fact all fan boy has to show is that according to the law set out in it that it was in fact repealed.

[NYGman]

Fan boy is correct, the AOC could have been repealed, in fact all fan boy has to show is that according to the law set out in it that it was in fact repealed.

Doesn't the US Constitution effectively repeal the AOC by replacing then, in their entirety? No need to repeal the AOC once the Constitution was adopted, as adopting the constitution effectively ended the AOC.

[LPC]

Besides the fact the AOC provides a perpetual union that could only be dismissed by every party to it.

Rhode island never voted to replace it.

Rhode Island ratified the Constitution on May 29, 1790. So every party agreed.

Also the AOC is the organic law that created the United states of America,

Article I of the Articles stated that "The stile of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America." Capital S.