Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

Vince1

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
4,684
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Aug 16, 2009

Vince is a guy in Bracebridge Ontario who while exercising his common law right to travel was assaulted, detained, falsely arrested, and told by Darrin Thompson of the OPP. Hear his story about how the officer told him the highways belong solely to him, the cop.

  • likes, 2 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Uploader Comments (mrmitee)

  • Rob, do you practice what you preach? Do you have a drivers license?

  • @lblmer Yes I do practice what I preach and no I do not have a DL.

  • The word "peace" means QUIET !

    Look it up. Now, if the police are there to ENFORCE the QUIET, then that starts making more sense, than what we FALSELY believe to be the meaning of "peace".

    Peace does NOT mean, hapiness, contentment, fairness, tranquility, or goodness.... it means QUIET.

    A man in a prison cell is at PEACE, whereas a man at a party is "breaking" the peace (quiet).

    It is therefore, the cops DUTY, to try and do anything he can, to get that offender jailed.

    Seriously, its SICK !

  • what about the term 'peace and quiet'? That implies two separate things. Plus what is and is not a breach of the peace is well defined, and does not include shouting or loud noise making, unless it is riotous.

    Sorry to burst your bubble.

  • The summons said - 'you are commanded to appear IN HER MAJESTY'S NAME'.

    That means, that the name on the summons, is OWNED by the queen. Are you her subject? I certainly hope not.

  • It did not say that at all. Look at it and it says 'therefore you are commanded in her majesty's name to appear...'.  That is very very different from what you think it said.

see all

All Comments (26)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • by the way, pre existing common law clearly states glasses can be bent if assholes drive without insurance and fight with cops...I'm surprised you haven't read that documentation. It all started in 120 BC, caveman A was acting like a selfish douchebag and refused to drive his rockmobile with a permit, caveman B bent the shit out of his glasses.

  • so before the criminal code existed are you saying we have the common law right to molest children and commit vicous acts against people? that's ur logic right? because according to your ridiculous beliefs, these "pre existing common law rights" must overule the criminal code....so raping and molesting and maiming is all legal according to you...you sick sick man

  • @geisterbahn1 I was pulled over by the traffic cops for INSPECTION OF VEHICLE .Then under arrest as I claimed Freemans rights ie,Im I free to go ! yes or no .Illigal arrest for 3 hours for nothing but driving my van.Iwas escorted by 2 traffic cars for DVLA inspection.The van was taxed ,MOT tested for 11 months ,Insured . The DVLA found a pin prick sized hole in the cab floor of the van issued issued me with a G9 (VAN IS ILLIGAL TO DRIVE UNTIL IT IS RETESTED)

  • Nice one Rob ! We in England are being continously pulled over by Traffic cops and local councils ,other agencys are on the spot like Department of work and pensions,driver vehicle agency and more, like the environmental agency .We the business community who generate the tax pounds to fund the terrorism used against us are having fines levied on the spot of for example , 300.00 pounds for not having a( waste carriers license)! why not look into it and post a Freemans view. uk! police state !

  • Coo coo, coo coo.

  • Where is the definition of "motor vehicle" found? I think I found one in the MVA but that only included a physical description and a description of use but nothing about something that has been registered.

    thanks a lot

  • OPP immature Bullies.

    Yes this is what the OPP are.

    This is not acceptable.

    But as a person who has been at the receiving end of this kind of treatment what can we do? You do anything about it, and they give it to you 10 times worse.

  • Gun control laws are part of statutes and as such only refer to persons...therefore they do not remove the right to have arms.

    Reread the criminal code and you will see that every single portion of it that refers to firearms ownership and possession only refer to persons. Of the times that it refers to individuals take not it also says "who without lawful excuse"

    A Claim of Right is Law and as such becomes lawful excuse. Claim the Right to "free unencumbered possession and use of arms"

    : )

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more