Just let them know that you are a Living Soul (the corporate court hasn’t got standing with People), and squarely challenge the jurisdiction/authority of the court, as you are standing in the den of vipers, and they are completely stymied for what to do, besides commit more Treason against you. Right there in open court, in public, in front of you and your witnesses.

You will be surprised at how fast they will throw you out of their pretend court room, when you have properly challenged and discovered that they have absolutely no jurisdiction/authority with regard to you. That fact actually caused the matter to be VOID at the start, as soon as the dumb cop arrested you, without any Lawful Probable cause.

That fact will pay you handsomely, and they will give you all of the evidence you need to convict for the assault.

Corporate Government’s lack of Lawful jurisdiction is a Fatal flaw to all of the corporate revenue schemes.

Arrest without warrant is unlawful and a big reason this country was founded. The way the scam/racket of traffic arrests (that’s right) works, is that the arrest starts when the so-called officer turns on the emergency lights (doing so without an emergency is a felony violation) come on.
Then the so-called officer has seized you, and your automobile (private property), which is false arrest, and false imprisonment if he does not have evidence that you committed some sort of crime.
This is why the cop appears at your window demanding a license, registration, and proof of insurance.

The cop desperately needs evidence that you are a “driver”, operating a commercial vehicle (registration), and have acted like a “resident/slave”, having bought insurance, as commanded by the foreign jurisdiction operating your Republic state in your stead. To justify the “arrest”. Without any evidence, the cop has committed an assault upon a citizen.
A false imprisonment for all of the time you are harassed on the side of the road.

Some info on Municipal police making arrests etc::

The one arresting must immediately take the arrested party before a magistrate when demanded, and hold the party for no other purpose (no photographs, no fingerprinting);

A peace officer or private person may not subject a person arrested to greater restraint than is necessary and proper for the arrest and detention of the person. Alaska Statutes Title 12. Code of Criminal Procedure § 12.25.070. Limitation on restraint in arrest.

“An arrest causes injury whether or not it is prosecuted.” Buckley v. Fitzsimmons (91-7849), 509 U.S. 259 (1993).

“Compulsory fingerprinting before conviction is an unlawful encroachment…[and] involves prohibited compulsory self-incrimination.” People v. Helvern, 215 N.Y. Supp. 417 (1926).

“The power to arrest does not confer upon the arresting officer the power to detain a prisoner for other purposes.” Geldon v. Finnegan, 252 N.W. 372 (1934).

“The taking of the plaintiff’s picture before conviction was an illegal act.” Hawkins v. Kuhne, 137 NY Supp 1090, 153 App Div 216 (1912).

“To detain the person arrested in custody for any purpose other than that of taking him before a magistrate is illegal.” Kominsky v. Durand, 12 Atl.2d. 654 (1940).

***********************************************

A constable cannot justify handcuffing a prisoner unless he has attempted to escape, or unless it be necessary in order to prevent his doing so.” 51 L.R.A. 216;

“But a constable cannot justify handcuffing a prisoner unless he has attempted to escape, or unless it be necessary in order to prevent his doing so.” 51 L.R.A. 216.

“Denying officer’s motion for summary judgment where arrestee was treated by hand surgeon for over one year as a result of handcuffing” ESMONT v. CITY OF NEW YORK, 371 F. Supp.2d 202 (E.D.N.Y. 2005).

“Finding an officer was entitled to qualified immunity on excessive force claim “`after resolving all factual disputes in favor of the plaintiff, the officer’s use of force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.'”” VILLARI v. TOWNSHIP OF WALL, Civil Action No. 06-0004 (FLW). (D.N.J. Sep. 15, 2009); MIDDLEBROOKS v. ALBA, Civil Action No. 08-6291 (WJM). (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2011).

“Finding excessive force when handcuffs placed behind the back caused permanent nerve damage to plaintiff’s wrist” Young v. Brock, Civil Action No. 10-cv-01513-WJM-CBS (D. Colo. Jun. 4, 2014).

“Finding no qualified immunity where officer ignored plaintiff’s requests to loosen his handcuffs due to extreme pain when he was arrested for disorderly conduct” HAMMOCK v. BOROUGH OF UPPER DARBY, CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-CV-1006. (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007).

“Finding petitioner’s allegations and facts, if credited, would establish excessive force on a tight handcuffing claim, and holding that the right of an arrestee to be free from the use of excessive force “in the course of his handcuffing” was clearly established” FISHER v. CITY OF LAS CRUCES, 584 F.3d 888 (10th Cir. 2009).

“Finding summary judgment and qualified immunity unwarranted where plaintiff asserted that officer placed handcuffs on him that were excessively tight and failed for ten minutes to loosen them despite repeated requests” CASTRO v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, 739 F. Supp.2d 153 (E.D.N.Y. 2010).

“Finding that a claim for excessive force must involve a “seizure” that was unreasonable” BROWN v. CUSCINO, Civil Action No. 08-1224. (W.D. Pa. Mar. 21, 2011).

“Finding that claim of excessive force presented jury question when officer accused of ignoring complaints that handcuffs were too tight “faced rather benign circumstances that hardly justified his failure to respond more promptly” to those complaints made by man accused of trespassing” RAMSEY v. CONNER, Case number 4:09cv1754 TCM. (E.D. Mo. Jan. 3, 2011).

“Finding that excessively tight handcuffs violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law despite lower court’s finding of no excessive force” SCHMIDT v. CREEDON, 639 F.3d 587 (3d Cir. 2011).

“Finding that placing needlessly tight handcuffs on arrestee, failing to respond to pleas to loosen them, which resulted in permanent never damage, stated claim of excessive force” JAMES v. YORK COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Civil Action No. 1:01-CV-1015. (M.D. Pa. May. 6, 2005).

“Finding that plaintiff’s alleged facts that an officer kept tight handcuffs on him and failed to respond to his pleas to loosen them, if proven, would establish excessive force” Geba v. Norris, ACTION NO. 2:14cv612 (E.D. Va. Apr. 4, 2016).

“Holding that police officers could be liable for a Fourth Amendment violation after employing excessive force in the course of handcuffing an arrestee, despite the fact that there had been no prior Supreme Court or Third Circuit ruling to that precise effect” Hinterberger v. Iroquois Sch. Dist., 898 F.Supp.2d 772 (W.D. Pa. 2012).

“Holding right to be free from excessive force in the course of handcuffing suspect was clearly established” Barnes v. Edwards, Civil Action No. 13-4239 (JBS-KMW) (D.N.J. Jun. 24, 2016).

“Holding that even though neither the Supreme Court nor the Third Circuit had addressed the issue, the right to be free from excessive force in the course of handcuffing was clearly established based on the case law of other circuits” KELLY v. BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, 622 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2010).

“Holding that first step of qualified immunity analysis satisfied, as plaintiff put forth facts sufficient, if proven, to establish Fourth Amendment excessive force violation” LYMAN v. LONG, CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-5303 (MLC). (D.N.J. Apr. 20, 2011).

“Holding that first step of qualified immunity analysis is satisfied by plaintiff asserting facts that if proven would establish an excessive force violation” HARMON v. CITY OF CAMDEN, CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-5074 (JEI/AMD). (D.N.J. Nov. 4, 2010).

“Holding that officer used excessive force by placing excessively tight handcuffs on the plaintiff and refusing to loosen *them for ten minutes” KENYON v. EDWARDS, 462 F.3d 802 (8th Cir. 2006).

“Holding that summary judgment is appropriate on excessive force claim where, after resolving all factual disputes in favor of plaintiff, district court concludes that use of force was objectively reasonable under circumstances” MORALES v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY, Civil Action No. 05-5423 (SRC). (D.N.J. Jul. 7, 2009).

“Holding that “the right of an arrestee to be free from the use of excessive force in the course of his handcuffing clearly was established” for purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry” GLASS v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, 455 F. Supp.2d 302 (E.D. Pa. 2006).

“Reversing grant of summary judgment for arresting officer, and holding that use of force was excessive in violation of the Fourth Amendment, where plaintiff alleged that officer excessively tightened handcuffs and ignored his repeated requests to loosen them for ten minutes and that he suffered permanent nerve damage” Mehr v. Atl. City, Civil No. 12-4499 (RBK/AMD) (D.N.J. Sep. 2, 2014).

“Reversing grant of summary judgment for arresting officer where plaintiff alleged that officer excessively tightened handcuffs and ignored his repeated requests to loosen them for ten minutes and that he suffered permanent nerve damage, and where court found that given lack of danger, delay in loosening handcuffs was not justified” CINCERELLA v. EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT, (Docket Entry Nos. 38, 39, 47, 51), Civil No. 06-1183 (RBK). (D.N.J. Mar. 23, 2009).

“Reversing summary judgment for defendant on excessive force claim because officer “faced rather benign circumstances” and “was not. . .in the midst of a dangerous situation involving a serious crime or armed criminals.“” Bannan v. City of Philadelphia, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-cv-04680 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 9, 2012).

“Reversing summary judgment for defendant where handcuffs caused plaintiff extreme pain and permanent nerve damages” Dormu v. Dist. of D.C., 795 F.Supp.2d 7 (D.D.C. 2011).

“Reversing summary judgment on excessive force claim where the plaintiff’s extreme pain from handcuffing would have been obvious to arresting officers, as he made repeated complaints about pain, fell to the ground and began to faint, and suffered permanent nerve damage in one wrist as a result of the handcuffing, for which he sought medical treatment” Pruchnic v. Wright, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-235 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 2016).

“The handcuffing was utterly unlawful.” Osborn v Veitch 1 Foster & Fin Eng Rep 317.

[mp_product_meta product_id=”55″ label=”Buy your Local News site, NOW!”]