25th November 2014                                                                                                                                                        
Home / Breaking News / Police Chief Defends Ticketing Man Who Stopped At Stop Sign, Says Law Requires Multiple Stops At Same Sign

Police Chief Defends Ticketing Man Who Stopped At Stop Sign, Says Law Requires Multiple Stops At Same Sign

Chris | InformationLiberation
Reprinted with permission 


After video surfaced showing Jefferson Hills, Pennsylvania police were completely in the wrong when they ticketed an innocent man for not stopping at a stop sign despite his coming to a complete stop, Jefferson Hills Police Chief Gene Roach refused to admit the ticket was in error. 

Despite withdrawing the ticket after the fraud was completely exposed, the chief defending his officer saying saying, “technically…the law says you stop at the stop sign, you move forward, stop again, until you can see that the intersection is clear and then you go.”

According to the chief stopping at a stop sign is not enough, you have to stop at a stop sign multiple times, and don’t you dare think of lurching! To think no one takes cops seriously these days!

Chris runs the website InformationLiberation.com, you can read more of his writings here. Follow infolib on twitter here.

  • fred54

    In my state the law on stop signs is that you have to stop only once up to
    the third car. In other words, if three cars stop, the second and third car can
    go without stopping again once the first car goes.

  • Joe

    He wasn’t “driving” in the first place. Driving is a commercial activity, carrying
    for hire a passenger or cargo, for payment.
    Look it up in Blacks Law Dictionary, then check for case cites. So there was no lawful basis for the ticket, under any circumstances. When did the cop see this man take payment for hauling?

    The cops and lawyers and judges all know that the driver’s license is a SCAM. But they all profit $$. The lawyer will take your money to “represent” you at a hearing and then plead you guilty to “driving” too fast, not stopping or some other “driving” offense. He knows you were never driving in the first place and so the judge has NO
    jurisdiction because there was NO commercial activity. The lawyers have kept this secret, along with lots of other info, so they can profit at your expense. Lawyers are such great people, aren’t they?

    • fatwillie

      yes sir Joe but the fools will not listen to you, they are sheep fools and blind. But I am so happy to see your not one of them keep up the good work putting the info out there so perhaps one head might be turned.

  • mikrat

    “A “Statute’ is not a Law,” (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248),

    A “Code’ is not a Law,” (In Re Self v Rhay Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law,)
    A concurrent or ‘joint resolution’of legislature is not “Law,” (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N. E. 705, 707; Ward v State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165).

    All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accord with God’s Laws.

    “All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process of Law..”
(Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F.2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); ”

    “…an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void…” -Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)

    • William

      Got more?
      We need a whole course of this information. One that is well documented and presented in an easy-to-learn format. We also need to learn what to do when the judge ignores the law and previous court holdings, and when the prejudice judge won’t allow evidence, testimony or exhibits so that you are prevented from presenting your case or having a fair hearing.

      • mikrat

        http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

        Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

        “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking
        an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136
        Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in
        the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated:
        “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally
        accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very
        different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the
        arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in
        the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the
        facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

        “An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without
        affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one
        who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting
        officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than
        an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491;
        reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan.
        245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v.
        Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

        “When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a
        right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by
        force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his
        assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80;
        Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

        “These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an
        arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use
        of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who
        unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex.
        App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93,
        903.

        “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so
        attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in
        defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.”
        (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

        “Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a
        case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer
        and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State
        v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

        “One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just
        as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it
        is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even
        though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.”
        (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

        “Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held
        illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could
        arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various
        branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no
        usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution,
        should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be
        any remedy at all … it is a remedy never provided for by human
        institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in
        extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous
        injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones,
        Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the
        case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

        As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet,
        peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a
        breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the
        peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed.,
        Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197).

        You are also within your rights not to answer any questions without a
        lawyer present, and if possible, to demand a video recording be made of
        the entire encounter that you or your lawyer keep as evidence, so that
        federal prosecutors can’t get away with charging you with making false
        statements to a government investigator and testilying about what you said. See this article.

  • Michael L Bollman

    someone needs to take the law into there own hands with these fucking cockroaches

    • mikrat

      Not someone – We the People need to.

      They are so outnumbered and out gunned its just ridicules that it has come to this level.

      Stop being Nice and Law Abiding.

  • Joe B

    The stop sign is misplaced . It should be closer to the intersection where stopping will provide a clear view of any oncoming traffic not 100 feet away.

  • http://bigdanblogger.blogspot.com/ Big Dan

    the chief defending his officer saying saying, “technically…the law says you stop at the stop sign, you move forward, stop again, until you can see that the intersection is clear and then you go.”

    That just might be THE biggest hunk of bullshit I ever heard in my life.

    • mikrat

      Here’s some bigger hunks:
      “Your Vote Counts”
      “They Work For You”
      “Write Your Congressman”

  • Ryan

    Where is PORKY’s MENTAL SCREENING?

  • BoboSixx II

    This is one on the main problems with the public servants that are employed in law enforcement.
    Interpreting the law their own way for a specific situation to CREATE the infraction or felony to justify a citation and/or arrest.
    Every officer that does this, will be held accountable when we have had enough of their blatant misuse of the law and constantly violating our Rights.
    They must be very stupid to think that we will forget.
    No excuses will be accepted from them.
    They are doing this with full knowledge of their violating our Rights with INTENTIONS.
    They better get their loyalty back on the side of the people and stop their crimes against the citizens.
    Or God help their Souls because we will arrest them one day real soon.
    And prosecute them in a court of law that represents the “Republic of the U.S.A.”
    Namaste.

    • William

      Yes, the infractions are created. Numerous videos show that the cops lied on their reports. Filing a false police report is a crime, but cops don’t get prosecuted. The judges protect them.

  • Rob Gonzalez

    This type of behavior will be the downfall of police as we know them now. They are forcing chanced especially with all the brutality cases being brought up. Social change is going to hit them hard.

  • https://www.youtube.com/user/loveunderlaw Loveunderlaw

    WHAT A WORTHLESS BUNCH OF CROOKS !

Why RINF is different... And why you need to watch this...

RINF not only delivers the info you're not supposed to know, but also provides 100% free solution based videos and articles designed to help you to :

  • Improve your overall health
  • Get more financial independence
  • Stay informed & ahead of the curve
  • Become less dependent on corporations