Reasonable suspicion, where the "reasonable" part is absurdly subjective here, is not probable cause.

These detentions, even for the majority who have documented in writing a full assent to adhere to vehicle codes under public policy, are not legal.

Those who aren't well-educated in law can stop reading here.

A custodial arrest of someone who went to sufficent lengths to opt for not assenting in writing to adhere to vehicle codes, based on reasonable suspicion, would be unlawful, and in addition to the involved false declaration of an emergency on the road (which is a felony) would ipso facto be criminal in nature.

Documentation of dishonor has value in the public space. Blockchains for the win.

▲ gverrilla 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> even for the majority who have documented in writing a full assent to adhere to vehicle codes under public policy

hello sovcit. are you writing this from jail?

▲ jon128 5 hours ago | parent [-]

No. Absolutely not.

I am not whatever internet meme you think it is you're thinking about.

I am in harmony with "the system".

I am a national as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22)(B).

  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101

My literacy is not an excuse for your bigotry.

You should have stopped reading at the line that indicated you should stop reading, as you are not well-educated in law.

So arrogant bigotry, at that.

▲ gverrilla 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Please show me a single valid court ruling that favours the 'state national' claim.

	▲	jon128 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		See the section 5.22, Nationalities and 5.23 "designating the natives of the States". For example, Texan, Californian, etc. Note that the URL has a Top-Level Domain of .gov `https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2008/html/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2008-7.htm`
	▲	jon128 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		"The governments of the United States and one of each of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other". Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935) "That there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, and the privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other is well established by the decisions of the courts of this country." Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927) "The only absolute and unqualified right of a United State citizen (federal citizen) is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States." U.S. v. Valentine, 288 F. Supp. 957