Cop gives ticket in my own driveway then crosses out under duress in signature

I can't believe it. This cop just gave me a seat belt ticket in my own driveway and then he crossed out the "under duress" I had written by my signature. Sorry for the terrible sound and incredibly boring video. I wish somebody would enhance it and edit out all the dead time where nothing is happening. I'm so tired of being trampled under the guise of our protection. Is there anything I can charge this guy with? He's a public official and he just altered a document after I signed it on tape. This is not how our police should be protecting us. Somebody needs to put a stop to this. If this cop is willing to alter my signature for a lousy seat belt ticket what would he do for a serious crime? Isn't it a felony for a public official to alter a public document? Somebody please. Help me get this guy off our streets! I don't even feel safe in my own driveway anymore.

Surfsteve.

Edit: Yes the car was parked two houses down before I pulled it into my driveway. Still the paragraph about the infraction 27315 (d) that I was given is applicable to the driver while transporting employees. How is that applicable to me? I wasn't transporting anybody.

Edit 1/18/2012

Let me see if I can make this perfectly clear.

The day I uploaded this video I was cited with California's VC 27315 (d). The section contains three paragraphs but I am only going to quote paragraph 1 because nobody is saying any of the others apply to me.

Quote:
(d) (1) A person shall not operate a motor vehicle on a highway unless that person and all passengers 16 years of age or over are properly restrained by a safety belt. This paragraph does not apply to the operator of a taxicab, as defined in Section 27908, when the taxicab is driven on a city street and is engaged in the transportation of a fare-paying passenger. The safety belt requirement established by this paragraph is the minimum safety standard applicable to employees being transported in a motor vehicle. This paragraph does not preempt more stringent or restrictive standards imposed by the Labor Code or another state or federal regulation regarding the transportation of employees in a motor vehicle.
Un quote.

People are saying that the first sentence applies to me. I agree. But there are conditions. The second sentence states that it does not always apply to me while I am the operator of a taxi cab. Funny because I used to be a taxi cab driver while my leg was healing from a motor cycle accident. But that was a long time ago and I'm not claiming any exemption at the time. The third sentence states that THE REQUIREMENT ESTABLISHED IN THE PARAGRAPH is the minimum standard APPLICABLE TO employees being transported in a motor vehicle. HOW THEN IS THE REQUIREMENT "A person shall not operate a motor vehicle on a highway unless that person and all passengers 16 years of age or over are properly restrained by a safety belt." ESTABLISHED IN THE PARAGRAPH, APPLICABLE TO ME if no employees were "being transported"?

The fourth and final sentence in the paragraph says that other Code or regulation may apply which is irrelevant because section D (all three paragraphs) is all I was charged with.

Category:

Travel & Events

Tags:

• Trona

[CTMotorcop]

Part 2

Then why is it that people with more power, money, and influence then Ms. Dassenuff, hasn’t brought all of these VIOLATIONS to light and challenged them.

Don’t you think that someone with a lot more intelligence and legal experience hasn’t looked into this already? Hang in there Sunshine, one day they will name a ruling after you, it will probably be known as the “Dumbass Act”

[surfstev]

@CTMotorcop Maybe because people with more power and money are the ones responsible for the lies and corruption in the first place.

[surfstev]

YOUR QUESTION TO EVERYONE: If dassenuff is correct then why is that these very same laws that he claims that he has prven to be illegal, were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and are still in full effect today?

WHICH COURT CASE (S) ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

[CTMotorcop]

MY QUESTION TO EVERYONE: If dassenuff is correct then why is that these very same laws that he claims that he has prven to be illegal, were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and are still in full effect today?

He is a Fraud

[surfstev]

@CTMotorcop Which case or cases are you referring to, or are you making stuff up again?

[CTMotorcop]

@surfstev Title 49 (transportation) section 30102 (6) ``motor vehicle'' means a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

[MrRafaelblock]

nice boarded up house....

but you DID drive the vehicle w/o your seatbelt, right? So what's the problem?

[CTMotorcop]

@dalotel  HE LOST

[CTMotorcop]

@dasenuff Oh Ms. dassenuff, So what you are now saying is that the Supreme Court has ruled and yet every police department and lower court in the entire country is now in violation? Are you even listening to yourself or are you so engrossed in your fraudlent behavior that you are blind to the facts.

Yeap, Every jurtise and police officer is violation the "color of law"

Hang in there Sunshine I am sure your slinky will fall again

[CTMotorcop]

@surfstev (Maybe because people with more power and money are the ones responsible for the lies and corruption in the first place) So what you are saying is the organizations such as the ACLU which is a great defender of peoples rights is corrupt?

You really need to stop listening to Ms. Dassenuff, he is using you like a ten dollar whore. The only difference is that the whore knows she is being screwed

[CTMotorcop]

@surfstev 

[Auszug21]

@dasenuff list the supreme court case where is they specificially mention the definition of motor vehicle dumb ass and nothing else and title 18 even says in this chapter the following definitions apply learn to read ya dumb ass

[dasenuff]

@Auszug21 actualy asslug what i am claiming is not only 'definitions' but the supreme court says it very clearly..but your to retarde to understand or to much of a dmv trollt o want to accep the truth. the title 18 is DEFINITIONS of all that come after as well the SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL A SECURED LIBERTY..DUMBASS RETARD!

[dasenuff]

@CTMotorcop hey asshole..they have and the supreme court has ruled..i know its hard for you to accept that your not as powerful as you once thought you were but the FACT is that the right to travel is a secured liberty as the supreme court and the constitutions says. who the hell do you think you are to say different.? you keep saying its me posting ..well ,what am i posting? imposting the supreme law of the land not your illegal statutes ..those under color of law that violate our rights

[Auszug21]

@surfstev actually dasenuff is claiming that his definition is the supreme definition when in fact they all say in this chapter the following definition applies which means outside that chapter they do not apply. furthermore it's enough evidence to disprove his legal definition of motor vehicle. no to mention chapter 2 isnt a definition chapter there's 30 sections before section 31 which is a list of definitions used within chapter 2