[terry]

Introduction:

I've just finished putting together an email list consisting of individuals who have shown an interest in keeping up to date on the
roadblock incident that occurred on December 20th, 2002. I've received
several hundred emails from across the country and as far away as
Australia. With limited time to respond to each one individually, I
thought I'd setup up an email list to send out periodic updates. The vast
majority of responses have been very supportive & I'd like to thank
everyone for your interest, support and recommendations.

If you do not wish to receive email on this subject, let me know and I
will remove your address ASAP. On the flip side, feel free to forward/post
these emails wherever you deem appropriate. I will add email addresses on
demand & they will only appear in the blind carbon copy section of the
header to protect privacy. In the near future, I hope to have a website up
which will contain pertinent documentation, updates, links to related
websites, and a legal/philosophical discussion on these types of issues.
I'll pass on the web address once the site is up and running.

Update:

After a meeting in Mesa, Arizona last week, Marc Victor with the law firm
'Victor & Hall' has agreed to represent me while David Euchner, a local
Tucson lawyer, has agreed to assist with the case. I knew I liked Marc as
soon as I saw the Gadsden Flag hanging in his office. The flag has an
image of a rattlesnake with the motto, 'Don't Tread on Me' beneath it and
the back of his business card reads in part:

"I refuse to consent to any search whatsoever. As such, I do not
consent to a search of my premises, my person, my immediate location
or any vehicle or affects. I hereby exercise my rights as enumerated
by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution as well as Article Two of the Arizona
Constitution...".

This is definitely the mindset I want representing me in the court room.

My initial court appearance was scheduled for January 3rd. The law firm
filed a Notice of Appearance with the Ajo Justice court along with some
other paperwork to put the court on notice that I was being represented
and we would be seeking a jury trial along with full discovery. This
notice also served to stand in my place with regards to appearing. I
wasn't able to verify this with the court though until about 0830 Friday
morning - a short time before I was scheduled to appear.

I learned later in the day that the Tohono O'odham police had NOT filed
the required paperwork with the court by close of business on Friday. It
would seem that the police had plenty of time to illegally stop and detain
me, threaten me with lethal force, bodily drag me out of my vehicle, &
place me in a state of arrest for over three hours but couldn't find time
in over two weeks to file a copy of the complaint with the Justice Court.
This is curious considering that Arizona law at 28-1558A requires the
following:

"On issuing a traffic complaint to an alleged violator of any provision
of the motor vehicle laws of this state or of any traffic ordinance of
any city or town, each traffic enforcement officer shall deposit the
original or a copy of the traffic citation with a court having
jurisdiction over the alleged offense or with its traffic violations
bureau."

Further 28-1558C reads:

"It is unlawful and official misconduct for any traffic enforcement
officer or other officer or public employee to dispose of a traffic
complaint or copies of a traffic complaint or of the record of the
issuance of the complaint or copies in a manner other than as
required by this article."

The importance of such a statute becomes apparent when one considers the
amount of time, energy, resources and planning an individual must put into
preparing to go to court on the date established on an original traffic
complaint by the arresting officer. If a complaint that has been issued to
an alleged offender could be held indefinitely by the arresting officer -
issues surrounding due process and rights to a speedy & public trial
would be adversely affected not to mention the state of flux it leaves the
individual being charged.

At this stage, we are waiting for the judge to decide what to do about the
paperwork currently in his possession. According to the court clerk, the
judge was only in for half a day on Friday and hadn't reviewed the
paperwork associated with the case.

Discussion:

Any & all discussions I engage in regarding legal matters are based solely
on my own research and should not be construed as legal advice in any way.
I am not a lawyer but neither do I consider legal matters to be outside my
ability to grasp. If we are all expected to obey the law, we must by
necessity understand the obligations placed on us by the law. The law in
turn ultimately has to be understandable. With this said, I'd like to
point out a few aspects of Arizona law that seem to be applicable to this
situation. I'll start with sections from Article 2 of the Arizona
Constitution:

"Section 1. Fundamental principles, recurrence to

A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the
security of individual rights and the perpetuity of free government.

Section 2. Political Power; purpose of government

All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive
their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established
to protect and maintain individual rights.

Section 3. Supreme law of the land

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land."

What's important to note here is that the Arizona Constitution clearly
recognizes that the primary purpose of government is to protect and
maintain INDIVIDUAL rights & that to do this, frequent recurrence to
fundamental principles is necessary. I must then ask myself how stopping
an individual at a roadblock with neither probable cause nor ANY level of
suspicion of wrongdoing furthers government's legitimate goal of
protecting and maintaining individual rights?

When I look at Arizona's criminal code in title 13, I find the following
at ARS 13-101:

"It is declared that the public policy of this state and the general
purposes of the provisions of this title are:

1. To proscribe conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably causes or
threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests."

The statutes I was cited with are criminal in nature and carry a potential
jail term with them. I ask myself again how does driving home from work
while exhibiting no signs of wrongdoing rise to the level of unjustifiably
and inexcusably threatening substantial harm to either individual or
public interests? How does being threatened with the use of lethal force
while being physically assaulted for asking a few question in a respectful
manner NOT rise to the level of unjustifiably and inexcusably causing or
threatening substantial harm to individual or public interests?

The statutes I was cited with are criminal in nature and carry a potential
jail term with them. I ask myself again how does driving home from work
while exhibiting no signs of wrongdoing rise to the level of unjustifiably
and inexcusably threatening substantial harm to either individual or
public interests? How does being threatened with the use of lethal force
while being physically assaulted for asking a few question in a respectful
manner NOT rise to the level of unjustifiably and inexcusably causing or
threatening substantial harm to individual or public interests?

Surely there's something in the code that authorizes this type of
behaviour by law enforcement. Instead of finding something that lends
credence to their actions though, I find the following:

28-1594. Authority to detain persons

"A peace officer or duly authorized agent of a traffic enforcement agency
may stop and detain a person as is reasonably necessary to investigate
an actual or suspected violation of this title and to serve a copy of the
traffic complaint for an alleged civil or criminal violation of this
title."

and in the criminal code:

13-2883B Arrest by officer without warrant

"A peace officer may stop and detain a person as is reasonably necessary
to investigate an actual or suspected violation of any traffic law
committed in the officer's presence and may serve a copy of the traffic
complaint for any alleged civil or criminal traffic violation. A peace
officer who serves a copy of the traffic complaint shall do so within a
reasonable time of the alleged criminal or civil traffic violation."
Two seperate sections of State law clearly indicate that a stop by law
enforcement must be premised on some level of probable cause or reasonable
suspicion but yet my inquiries at this roadblock, where hundreds if not
thousands of people were detained, clearly show the officers had none. A
key word search throughout the code came back empty with regards to
exceptions associated with roadblocks, checkpoints, etc.

While I might be naive with regards to these matters, I'm a firm supporter
of our constitutional form of government. I don't think it's too much to
ask that our public servants obey the very laws they have been hired to
enforce. Nor do I think it is too much to ask to be free from unreasonable
search and seizure as I go about my lawful business.

I intend to pursue this matter as far as I can. If this incident serves to
do no more than start a dialogue with regards to where we are as well as
where we are headed as a country, I will consider it time well spent.

Related Links:

* Online Arizona Statutes - http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/ars.htm
* Supreme Court Case - http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1030.ZS.html
* Attorney's website - http://www.victorandhall.com/
* The Roadblock Registry - http://www.roadblock.org
* Right To Travel site - http://cryptome.org/freetotravel.htm
* Fed. Obs. article - http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=4833
* Devvy Kidd's article - http://www.devvy.com/200212300607.html
* Lance Brown - http://www.freedom2008.com/blog/archives/000110.html#000110

Thanks for your time.

[HS/LD]

Fantastic.

Are you setting up a fund where supporters can contribute to your defense?

HS/LD

[ahenry]

Good luck. I hope you loose at least the first round, and you will, be prepared for it. Time to take this particular legal but unconstitutional ability away from the gov’t.

[Tamara]

Bravo! :cool:

[KMKeller]

Very nice! Fight the good fight.

[Jeeper]

I think you have an uphill fight since SCOTUS recently ruled that random roadblocks were legal(I think).

Good luck.

(EDIT)
I dd a quick search and found that drug roadblocks were found to be illegal while DUI roadblocks were OK.

Interesting!!

[dfrog]

I may just have to go in and see some of this. :)

[Mustang]

I hope that your case is heard by someone who has an ear tuned to know an actual argument of law when it is presented. Some are predisposed to listen only to the LEOs "Because we're da Cops, your Honor, an he's supposed to do what we say!"

Good Luck!

[pax]

Terry,

Good for you. Stand firm.

pax

Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph. -- Haile Selassie

[labgrade]

FWIW,

Here's a link to The Roadblock Registry (http://www.roadblock.org/registry.htm)

Quick scan really didn't show anything worthy, but never can tell ....

(Duh! should prolly read a thread-post before adding extraneous info, no? .... )

[bronco61]

Great Job!

I know there's people on this board who hate seeing an individual exercise their Constitutional Rights (as evidenced in the last thread), but you're doing the right thing.

The govt. is so used to people saying "I'll just let them have their way so I won't have any hassles", that they have a hard time responding to people who stand up for themselves.

[Seminole]

Attaboy! Sick-em!

[Chaz]

Thank you, Sir for takin a stand against those who are enamored with thier own power. Give 'em hell!

[Atticus]

"I know there's people on this board who hate seeing an individual exercise their Constitutional Rights (as evidenced in the last thread), but you're doing the right thing."

Constitutional right to not produce a driver's license? John Jay would probably be one of those anti-freedom people of whom you speak.


http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed02.htm

“Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers. It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government.”


http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed03.htm

“Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their SAFETY seems to be the first. The SAFETY of the people doubtless has relation to a great variety of circumstances and considerations, and consequently affords great latitude to those who wish to define it precisely and comprehensively.”

[Ledbetter]

I look forward to hearing how this turns out (and how much it costs).

[sgtredleg]

My two cents:

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightly excercised over any member of a civilised community, AGAINST HIS WILL, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, IN THE OPINIONS OF OTHERS, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or entreating him, but not for COMPELLING him, or visiting with him ANY evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the coduct from which it is desired to deter him MUST be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, ABSOLUTE. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the INDIVIDUAL is SOVEREIGN."
John Stuart Mill:

I dont' see how an idividual can be " Forced" out of a vehicle and "held, detained, etc." for not showing their ID. Especially, when no positive "threat" to others existed.

Good Luck in your Court Case, Someone needs to re-establish the principle of "Individual Sovereignty" within the "Halls of Justice. It might begin here. :scrutiny:

[bronco61]

Sorry Atticus, I'll stick with Jefferson and Franklin over John Jay ANYDAY!

[DeltaElite]

If you win in justice court, which is doubtful, it will accomplish very little.
If you lose and it goes up the appeals chain, then that is where you can make decent case law and maybe even change something, assuming you can win on an appeal.

Roadblocks are useful for DUI enforcement, but othewise are pretty useless and a waste of time IMHO.
Then again, I don't waste time on the "drug war" like some others do. ;)

Good luck with your proceedings. :cool:

[clem]

I'm bias, so I'll be quite, but I believe that this is the same subject and individual that posted the same thing in "TimeBomb 2000" and there are over 380 responses. So, for those of you with a lot of spare time.....


http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52318&perpage=40&pagenumber=1


I only put this up because there are a whole lot of references and some very good comments, enjoy.