-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Terry Stop
- Thread starter yotetrapper
- Start date
gmijackso
Regular Member
I would double check all of this property info if I were you. As far as I know, property in Nevada isn't legal to sell if it is "land locked" by other private property, which by your description sounds like yours would be. If it IS "land locked" there would have needed to be an official permanent easement of use, which I would suspect may be the case and may be what caused the road sign to exist. If I had to guess, your "driveway" is in fact a road created by easement, and it was probably done as it was the only legal way to have the two properties sale-able.
yotetrapper
Regular Member
I suppose I could have been a total jerk like that and just let her wonder off thru the desert but that's just not who I am.
The alcohol I had consumed was minimal, 0.028. I was definitely not concerned of a DUI, especially on my driveway.
Also I had no way to know she would call the sheriffs. When most people want a ride they call a cab, not the cops.I'm actually surprised they gave her a ride. I've heard the sheriffs tell people before, "We are But a taxi service! "
I was more asking about the LEO interaction and not the social situation leading up to it. Which your other posts do touch on. Thanks for your replys.
yotetrapper
Regular Member
28kfps- Thank for that reply. You pretty much nailed my question. I definitely think, if there's a next time, I'll get that window down and just keep my hands on the wheel.
Last edited:
yotetrapper
Regular Member
Thanks. I will definitely look into this.
MilProGuy
Regular Member
You are most welcome!
It was my unmitigated pleasure to do so.
:banana::banana::monkey
:monkey:banana::monkey
yotetrapper
Regular Member
I really wasn't that worried about the drink I had... BAC limit to drive is .08 where to carry is .10, I knew I was well under both.
Also there Are mountain lions in the area, be it Far and Few. Had the 1 in a BILLION chance arose our "guest" been assaulted by wildlife, I would've needed something bigger than the .22 that is always in my truck.
So far from everyone's input, if there's a next time but I hope there's not, I need to get that window down and keep my hands on the wheel. I also need to get the property thing figured out and probably put up a few signs if applicable.
On a side note: we should get an OC/Reno4x4 trail run together sometime this spring/summer
Also there Are mountain lions in the area, be it Far and Few. Had the 1 in a BILLION chance arose our "guest" been assaulted by wildlife, I would've needed something bigger than the .22 that is always in my truck.
So far from everyone's input, if there's a next time but I hope there's not, I need to get that window down and keep my hands on the wheel. I also need to get the property thing figured out and probably put up a few signs if applicable.
On a side note: we should get an OC/Reno4x4 trail run together sometime this spring/summer
ed2276
Regular Member
I would add that you also need to not admit to drinking alcohol when questioned by LE.
yotetrapper
Regular Member
Yes that too, but how without lieing to them?
Motofixxer
Regular Member
As your defense attorney would tell you...don't answer. Don't answer anything that could even potentially be used against you.
I strongly suggest you watch this video.
[video=youtube;6wXkI4t7nuc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc[/video]
Then click on the FAQ link in my Sig, and scroll down to the videos and watch some of them. You will quickly find out what answering questions can do. When asked a question you don't want to answer just smile and say I don't want to answer that question. They will continue to badger you, simply say, you don't want to answer that question. Repeat as many times as needed. I'm not gonna lie...it's not easy to keep your mouth shut when they are making accusations and statements to and about you. But in the end, your better off. Because remember ANYTHING YOU SAY, WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU!!!
I strongly suggest you watch this video.
[video=youtube;6wXkI4t7nuc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc[/video]
Then click on the FAQ link in my Sig, and scroll down to the videos and watch some of them. You will quickly find out what answering questions can do. When asked a question you don't want to answer just smile and say I don't want to answer that question. They will continue to badger you, simply say, you don't want to answer that question. Repeat as many times as needed. I'm not gonna lie...it's not easy to keep your mouth shut when they are making accusations and statements to and about you. But in the end, your better off. Because remember ANYTHING YOU SAY, WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU!!!
yotetrapper
Regular Member
Thank you, that was Very informative
FallonJeeper
Regular Member
Always remember this - Law Enforcement can and will lie to you. They can do it and there is nothing to stop them. If you decide to lie, it's a crime. Keep your mouth shut.
Motofixxer
Regular Member
Yep, sit down and watch it with each of your kids, and close friends or relatives. It really is an eye opener. You will pick out more... each time you watch it. As I mentioned watch some of the other vids and review some of the info I have at This Link
You have a 5th amendment right to not incriminate yourself. So ask yourself if any of the material that I am about to offer be used to incriminate me? If yes...you may not want to offer that info. That may be details, answers, or a breathalyzer. Now in many states it's a statutorily required to submit as a part of your DL. But in many, that's the only instance you are required. So if your asked as a part of a normal incident investigation, why would you??? The only rights you have are the ones you fight for and defend. But don't take my word for it. Listen to a judge...
A Belligerent Claimant
by Michael H. Keehn
November 22, 2006
I have a friend who was recently charged with numerous misdemeanors. He was charged
because he had the audacity to confront County Government and government officials with
doing their jobs and answering some basic questions1. In the world of legal issues, there is this
rule called tacit admission. Which government uses against ‘we the people’ on a regular basis.
The rule works as follows:
Government, or more likely one of its agents, accuses us of a wrong doing, perhaps
speeding or driving without a valid drivers license. If we do not contest or dispute this
accusation, in writing, signed under penalty of perjury, and file it with the court clerk
under our case number, then the accusation against us stands by virtue of our silence...
TACIT ADMISSION.
In my friends many written communications (sent certified mail, return receipt requested), with
government officials, they were given 30 days with which to respond to the questions and legal
determinations that were asserted. A legal determination asserted would be no different than a
policeman writing you a ticket for speeding. The officer has asserted a legal determination that
you were speeding. It is no different. You can make legal determinations and assert them, same
as they do.
And if government officials do not contest nor dispute the legal determinations you’ve asserted,
then under the rule of Tacit Admission, the asserted legal determination is accepted as fact. This
is how it would work if government and its courts did not operate criminally. In my friends case,
they excluded all such cases of Tacit Admission, the court excluded his affidavit of facts on the
matter which had been signed under penalty of perjury and filed with the court clerk on his case.
Then the court, item by item, excluded the foundations of his defense.
the question here proposed is ‘what to do if faced with a similar experience?’ Fortunately we
occasionally have a judge that is on our side. We don’t always see them as such, but, at times,
they are truly trying to help us. Such is the case of Federal Judge James Alger Fee. In U.S. vs.
JOHNSON (76 Fed, Supp. 538), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that...
"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, not
to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one who is indifferent thereto. It is a
FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be
claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT
claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkle, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671;
Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am. Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App.
171, 175 N.E. 876.
In this ruling the judge has just instructed you how to proceed. He has said that rights are not
accorded the passive resistant. Rights are not available to the individual who is ignorant of his
rights. Nor are rights available to a person who is indifferent, or in other words, a person who
simply doesn’t care. And further, judge Fee has clearly informed you that your attorney can not
claim your rights for you. Which is another way of saying that your attorney can not truly
represent you. Judge Fee tells you that rights are only available to a belligerent claimant in
person. He further stated that to claim your rights in a court of this country, you must be willing
to engage in sustained combat.
There you have it. You are charged with negligent homicide for shooting a crazed drug addict
who entered your home and nearly hacked the arm off your wife with a machete and was going
after your child with the same machete when you shot and killed him. And in a pre-trial motion
hearing the judge rules that you can not mention the machete nor the injury to your wife. That
you can not mention the fact that this crazed individual drove his car into the front room of your
home. Nor can you mention that he set fire to your house. While this might seem a reach to
you, if the crazed drug addict is actually a government agent acting to take your money, then
this is the type of logic you can expect. It is the type of logic that was applied to my friend in the
structuring of his defense. Anything that makes your case, anything that enhances your defense,
anything that works against the government case against you, WILL NOT BE ALLOWED if at
all possible.
While the judge may rule that these matters are not allowed, the fact is that you and your family
have paid for time in court. You would proceed as though the motions that limit your defense
were never heard or approved. And when you are ruled in contempt you still don’t give up.
Even if the judge puts you in jail for contempt, you don’t give up... remember, sustained
combat. You’ve paid the price to be here, its your defense, not the courts. You become that
Belligerent Claimant in person that Judge James Alger Fee told you to become in order to
secure your rights. Not the courts rights, not the prosecutions rights... your rights.
It’s your life. You can lay down and play dead, be passive, ignorant or indifferent and go to jail
or pay the fine, or you can stand up like an adult and make your case.
This info is an opinion and a reference only and is not legal advice.
You have a 5th amendment right to not incriminate yourself. So ask yourself if any of the material that I am about to offer be used to incriminate me? If yes...you may not want to offer that info. That may be details, answers, or a breathalyzer. Now in many states it's a statutorily required to submit as a part of your DL. But in many, that's the only instance you are required. So if your asked as a part of a normal incident investigation, why would you??? The only rights you have are the ones you fight for and defend. But don't take my word for it. Listen to a judge...
A Belligerent Claimant
by Michael H. Keehn
November 22, 2006
I have a friend who was recently charged with numerous misdemeanors. He was charged
because he had the audacity to confront County Government and government officials with
doing their jobs and answering some basic questions1. In the world of legal issues, there is this
rule called tacit admission. Which government uses against ‘we the people’ on a regular basis.
The rule works as follows:
Government, or more likely one of its agents, accuses us of a wrong doing, perhaps
speeding or driving without a valid drivers license. If we do not contest or dispute this
accusation, in writing, signed under penalty of perjury, and file it with the court clerk
under our case number, then the accusation against us stands by virtue of our silence...
TACIT ADMISSION.
In my friends many written communications (sent certified mail, return receipt requested), with
government officials, they were given 30 days with which to respond to the questions and legal
determinations that were asserted. A legal determination asserted would be no different than a
policeman writing you a ticket for speeding. The officer has asserted a legal determination that
you were speeding. It is no different. You can make legal determinations and assert them, same
as they do.
And if government officials do not contest nor dispute the legal determinations you’ve asserted,
then under the rule of Tacit Admission, the asserted legal determination is accepted as fact. This
is how it would work if government and its courts did not operate criminally. In my friends case,
they excluded all such cases of Tacit Admission, the court excluded his affidavit of facts on the
matter which had been signed under penalty of perjury and filed with the court clerk on his case.
Then the court, item by item, excluded the foundations of his defense.
the question here proposed is ‘what to do if faced with a similar experience?’ Fortunately we
occasionally have a judge that is on our side. We don’t always see them as such, but, at times,
they are truly trying to help us. Such is the case of Federal Judge James Alger Fee. In U.S. vs.
JOHNSON (76 Fed, Supp. 538), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that...
"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, not
to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one who is indifferent thereto. It is a
FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be
claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT
claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkle, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671;
Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am. Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App.
171, 175 N.E. 876.
In this ruling the judge has just instructed you how to proceed. He has said that rights are not
accorded the passive resistant. Rights are not available to the individual who is ignorant of his
rights. Nor are rights available to a person who is indifferent, or in other words, a person who
simply doesn’t care. And further, judge Fee has clearly informed you that your attorney can not
claim your rights for you. Which is another way of saying that your attorney can not truly
represent you. Judge Fee tells you that rights are only available to a belligerent claimant in
person. He further stated that to claim your rights in a court of this country, you must be willing
to engage in sustained combat.
There you have it. You are charged with negligent homicide for shooting a crazed drug addict
who entered your home and nearly hacked the arm off your wife with a machete and was going
after your child with the same machete when you shot and killed him. And in a pre-trial motion
hearing the judge rules that you can not mention the machete nor the injury to your wife. That
you can not mention the fact that this crazed individual drove his car into the front room of your
home. Nor can you mention that he set fire to your house. While this might seem a reach to
you, if the crazed drug addict is actually a government agent acting to take your money, then
this is the type of logic you can expect. It is the type of logic that was applied to my friend in the
structuring of his defense. Anything that makes your case, anything that enhances your defense,
anything that works against the government case against you, WILL NOT BE ALLOWED if at
all possible.
While the judge may rule that these matters are not allowed, the fact is that you and your family
have paid for time in court. You would proceed as though the motions that limit your defense
were never heard or approved. And when you are ruled in contempt you still don’t give up.
Even if the judge puts you in jail for contempt, you don’t give up... remember, sustained
combat. You’ve paid the price to be here, its your defense, not the courts. You become that
Belligerent Claimant in person that Judge James Alger Fee told you to become in order to
secure your rights. Not the courts rights, not the prosecutions rights... your rights.
It’s your life. You can lay down and play dead, be passive, ignorant or indifferent and go to jail
or pay the fine, or you can stand up like an adult and make your case.
This info is an opinion and a reference only and is not legal advice.
Last edited: