"Border" checkpoint vs. Porcupine 411 (patrol, aliens)

Sponsor: http://EdgeAscension.com - Cooperation fails to prevent 40 minute detention at suspicionless checkpoint on I-91.

Music by: http://ccmixter.org/files/kthugha/14820

This video made possible by Porcupine 411, the Free Staters' info & emergency hotline in New Hampshire. Please consider donating at: http://Porcupine411.com

How you can have an ad of your own here on the Ridley Report:
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=15218.0

border patrol ridleyreport suspicionless checkpoint u.s.a. new hampshire usa ron paul edge ascension ascenders emergency hotline info free state project police state cops pullover traffic stop pastor tasered taser intimidation abuse passport illegal aliens citizens homeland security sobriety dave ridley report checkpointusa arizona

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• border
• patrol
• illegal
• aliens
• suspicionless
• checkpoint
• free
• state
• project
• police
• cops
• taser
• sobriety
• ron
• paul

[nilesmc]

Paperz pleaze!

Slaves, you are being trained like dogs to put up with this shit. Watch Peter Bressi's vids at CheckpointUSA channel.

If you find yourselves at one of these 'suspicionless stop' checkpoints (what is this, fucking East Germany?) DO NOT PULL OVER TO 'SECONDARY' FOR FURTHER INSPECTION (unless you're in the mood to get tasered)

it's Pavlovian

[RidleyReport]

what's the benefit of not pulling over to secondary

[CheckpointUSA]

I wouldn't call it a benefit but BP agents falsely claim the authority to indefinitely detain individuals at internal suspicionless checkpoints until they've proven their right to be in the country to the agent's satisfaction. They also use secondary as a place to coerce individuals into allowing searches. All of this despite clear guidance from SCOTUS to the contrary.

By not moving to secondary, it forces agents to consider whether they can justify taking further action in a court of law.

[roaringwaterbay]

where did this conversation come from?

[CheckpointUSA]

Actually, you're the one taking your favorite Martinez-Fuerte quote out of context chamsdropz24. I provided you the context in which the court ruled secondary referrals were permissible. That context involved the singular scenario where traffic is too heavy to stop everyone at primary. Under such circumstances, agents may selectively refer vehicles to secondary solely for the immigration question. Any other scenario involves an impermissible extended detention if there is no consent or pc.

[CheckpointUSA]

CBP has never been foolish enough to charge me directly chamsdropz24. Rather, they've gotten local cops to do their dirty work for them - just like in the Steven Anderson case.

I've documented all of my checkpoint cases in great detail on my website and blog. 2 of the case revolve around charges against me where I had them dismissed with prejudice, The 3rd case is an ongoing civil rights lawsuit stemming from 1 of the other cases with a recent win in the 9th & ongoing district court litigation.

[CheckpointUSA]

Give it a rest chamsdropz24. They did exactly that with Steven Anderson last year and got their butts kicked in court . They'll soon get their butts kicked again in the civil rights lawsuit that's been filed.

Agents don't refrain from busting windows because they're afraid of the paperwork involved. They refrain from breaking windows when they know their actions are being recorded and anything they say/do can be used against them in a court of law not to mention the court of public opinion.

[chamsdropz24]

@CheckpointUSA I have made no such mistake. I have in fact PROVEN my point, and the ONLY part of M-F you quote is the consent for extended detention...why is it you ignore ALL of the other parts of the case that do NOT support your thinking and in fact prove you are WRONG? I've provided that for you, from that very same case, so why do you refuse to acknowledge it? Because in reality, you have no case and would hate to look like the fool you are.

[chamsdropz24]

@CheckpointUSA please provide case numbers so that I verify your claims. From my understanding, you have never made headway in any lawsuit, and I would LOVE to be proven wrong by your showing me you have successfully won against CBP.

[CheckpointUSA]

You've made the foolish mistake of believing the authority you have at the border or its functional equivalent applies inside the country at internal immigration checkpoints as well chamsdropz24. It doesn't.

What you've forgotten is that in this country individuals have rights & regardless of how much you'd like to turn this country into just another tin pot dictatorship where armed federal agents can cherry pick whoever they want off the streets for any reason they want you can't Get over it.

[chamsdropz24]

@CheckpointUSA How the hell are the scenarios I provided based on consent??? These are not scenarios, they are quotes from LAW. Wow, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. Just because the agents do not exercise their authority over you because you're a pest doesn't mean it doesn't exist. They are thinking about the hazard you will create should they deal with you and the amount of paperwork that comes with busting your window and extracting you so they can move your car to secondary.

[chamsdropz24]

@CheckpointUSA You do not have the right to refuse a referral to secondary as evidenced by my post, even from your favorite Martinez-Fuerte case law. You take ONE portion of the law and apply it to EVERYTHING while not accepting there are EXCEPTIONS within those rules that you wish to ignore, because reading them and admitting that they exist blow your entire elementary, unfounded movement out of the water.

[CheckpointUSA]

You would be mistaken chamsdropz24. Every checkpoint case I've been involved in I've won. My current civil rights lawsuit was initially dismissed by the district court but was re-instated by the 9th circuit last year. We're now awaiting a scheduling conference for trial.

Regarding what the BP has been doing for years, this is what SCOTUS says:

"We understand, of course, that neither longstanding congressional authorization nor widely prevailing practice justifies a constitutional violation"