Liberal Thinks She Knows The Law But Officer Made Legal Arrest

[mudwhistle]

'I have seen this video before. Here is what this stupid, uneducated bitch and other like her doesn't realize: 1. It is very obvious that she is totally unaware that the Articles of Confederation were and are superseded by the US constitution (since 1789). 2. This village idiot obviously is also unaware that "free inhabitant" is literally referencing people who are not slaves. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not reference a protected super-class of people. Recapping this... Article IV basically says that free inhabitants, who were not homeless (vagabonds), extremely poor so as to be on state welfare (paupers), or criminals, could travel freely between the several states and be protected in each as if they were a citizen of that state. But, there is a catch (this is the part this stupid ass must have missed) and that is that this protection came with a duty to follow the laws of that state (eg needing a driving licence in order to drive in Missouri, Illinois, ect.). 4, Apparently, said village idiot is very obviously extremely unaware that the Articles of Confederation are not part of US code at all. And finally, the said village idiot is extremely unaware of the definition of rape. Until next time. Class dismissed."

​

 

[mudwhistle]

The reason she insisted on wearing her bag is because she had a video going in it to entrap the officer, but instead it basically proved to be all the officer needed to have this nut locked up.

 

[Pogo]

'I have seen this video before. Here is what this stupid, uneducated bitch and other like her doesn't realize: 1. It is very obvious that she is totally unaware that the Articles of Confederation were and are superseded by the US constitution (since 1789). 2. This village idiot obviously is also unaware that "free inhabitant" is literally referencing people who are not slaves. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not reference a protected super-class of people. Recapping this... Article IV basically says that free inhabitants, who were not homeless (vagabonds), extremely poor so as to be on state welfare (paupers), or criminals, could travel freely between the several states and be protected in each as if they were a citizen of that state. But, there is a catch (this is the part this stupid ass must have missed) and that is that this protection came with a duty to follow the laws of that state (eg needing a driving licence in order to drive in Missouri, Illinois, ect.). 4, Apparently, said village idiot is very obviously extremely unaware that the Articles of Confederation are not part of US code at all. And finally, the said village idiot is extremely unaware of the definition of rape. Until next time. Class dismissed."

​

Where does it say she's a "Liberal"?

There we go -- one word into the thread. My work is done.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

What a loon.

 

[1stRambo]

Yo, the only idiot in this Country who tries to Cheat Justice is a Commie!

"GTP"

 

[elektra]

Liberal schools, I think they are failing, not enough of them are fighting for their rights.

 

[my2¢]

She sounds absolutely right, not liberal.

 

[mudwhistle]

She sounds absolutely right, not liberal.

She's wrong....which is why she talks like a liberal.

 

[mudwhistle]

What a loon.

This is a product of a society that spoils it's children so much they aren't able to function without causing trouble for everyone around them.

Kurt HyllestedKurt Hyllested, Ex cop
83k Views • Kurt has 210+ answers in Legal Issues and Law in Everyday Life


I ran into the situation several times as a cop. The free inhabitant, sovereign person and freedom of movement issues have long ago been decided by the courts. A driver's license is a privilege, not a right. While you may freely move throughout the United States, you have no right to do it by car without complying with insurance, licensing and registration laws. Those people were cited or arrested and their cars were towed. Most people who claim the statuses don't really believe in them. They are just trying to find a loophole to avoid paying fees.
Written 27 Feb • View Upvotes • Answer requested by Erik White

Are free inhabitants a real thing in the United States? Do they have any legitimate legal claims? - Quora​

 

[Iceweasel]

Where does it say she's a "Liberal"?

Smug. Superior. Special. Stubborn. Shit stirrer. Not too bright. Yep, she's a liberal.

 

[NightFox]

OOPS, she forget to inform the officer that the Star Fleet Prime Directive prohibits officers from providing knowledge of other inhabited worlds to primitive aliens like herself.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This woman is a registered Republican.

 

[Pogo]

Where does it say she's a "Liberal"?

Smug. Superior. Special. Stubborn. Shit stirrer. Not too bright.

So that's YOU in the video?

 

[Iceweasel]

Where does it say she's a "Liberal"?

Smug. Superior. Special. Stubborn. Shit stirrer. Not too bright.

So that's YOU in the video?

I'm not a liberal.

 

[Pogo]

Where does it say she's a "Liberal"?

Smug. Superior. Special. Stubborn. Shit stirrer. Not too bright.

So that's YOU in the video?

I'm not a liberal.

Agreed. That's why I removed it; you're clearly all those other attributes. None of which emotional alliteration-laden diaper-rash have jack squat to do with politics anyway.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

'I have seen this video before. Here is what this stupid, uneducated bitch and other like her doesn't realize: 1. It is very obvious that she is totally unaware that the Articles of Confederation were and are superseded by the US constitution (since 1789). 2. This village idiot obviously is also unaware that "free inhabitant" is literally referencing people who are not slaves. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not reference a protected super-class of people. Recapping this... Article IV basically says that free inhabitants, who were not homeless (vagabonds), extremely poor so as to be on state welfare (paupers), or criminals, could travel freely between the several states and be protected in each as if they were a citizen of that state. But, there is a catch (this is the part this stupid ass must have missed) and that is that this protection came with a duty to follow the laws of that state (eg needing a driving licence in order to drive in Missouri, Illinois, ect.). 4, Apparently, said village idiot is very obviously extremely unaware that the Articles of Confederation are not part of US code at all. And finally, the said village idiot is extremely unaware of the definition of rape. Until next time. Class dismissed."

​

Where does it say she's a "Liberal"?

There we go -- one word into the thread. My work is done.

Her behavior gives her away. Libtard!!!

 

[mudwhistle]

'I have seen this video before. Here is what this stupid, uneducated bitch and other like her doesn't realize: 1. It is very obvious that she is totally unaware that the Articles of Confederation were and are superseded by the US constitution (since 1789). 2. This village idiot obviously is also unaware that "free inhabitant" is literally referencing people who are not slaves. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not reference a protected super-class of people. Recapping this... Article IV basically says that free inhabitants, who were not homeless (vagabonds), extremely poor so as to be on state welfare (paupers), or criminals, could travel freely between the several states and be protected in each as if they were a citizen of that state. But, there is a catch (this is the part this stupid ass must have missed) and that is that this protection came with a duty to follow the laws of that state (eg needing a driving licence in order to drive in Missouri, Illinois, ect.). 4, Apparently, said village idiot is very obviously extremely unaware that the Articles of Confederation are not part of US code at all. And finally, the said village idiot is extremely unaware of the definition of rape. Until next time. Class dismissed."

​

Where does it say she's a "Liberal"?

There we go -- one word into the thread. My work is done.

Her behavior gives her away. Libtard!!!

Here rhetoric firmly established it before she started being a potty-mouth.

 

[Pogo]

'I have seen this video before. Here is what this stupid, uneducated bitch and other like her doesn't realize: 1. It is very obvious that she is totally unaware that the Articles of Confederation were and are superseded by the US constitution (since 1789). 2. This village idiot obviously is also unaware that "free inhabitant" is literally referencing people who are not slaves. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not reference a protected super-class of people. Recapping this... Article IV basically says that free inhabitants, who were not homeless (vagabonds), extremely poor so as to be on state welfare (paupers), or criminals, could travel freely between the several states and be protected in each as if they were a citizen of that state. But, there is a catch (this is the part this stupid ass must have missed) and that is that this protection came with a duty to follow the laws of that state (eg needing a driving licence in order to drive in Missouri, Illinois, ect.). 4, Apparently, said village idiot is very obviously extremely unaware that the Articles of Confederation are not part of US code at all. And finally, the said village idiot is extremely unaware of the definition of rape. Until next time. Class dismissed."

​

Where does it say she's a "Liberal"?

There we go -- one word into the thread. My work is done.

Her behavior gives her away. Libtard!!!

Here rhetoric firmly established it before she started being a potty-mouth.

Got a time stamp?

Quote?

Copy of her op-eds?

Interview?

Dissertation?

Anything with more substance than your own proctology results?

 

[bucs90]

Oh boy....this is a classic. On the surface she resembles a far right sovereign citizen. But no.....upon further review.....she's a "Free Inhabitant". Like some Avatar blue people shit.

She says they "get all of the rights" of a citizen but "Dont have to follow any of the laws". Holy shit who does she think she is....Hillary????

 

[bucs90]

She sounds like 90% of millenials. Get all the rights and privileges but don't have to follow any of the rules.