Black Man Detained for Public Solicitation on a Private Lot and Unregistered Firearm for Possessing a Licensed Gun Still Clings to Legal Truths: Cops Serve Him, Rights Exist and Compliance is Optional

Noted 4th Amendment legal scholar Wayne LaFave explained "The essence of the fourth amendment has never been better stated than in the oft-quoted dissent of Justice Brandeis in Olmstead v. U.S.

"The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect, that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.”

"Central to the protection of that right is the concept of `probable cause,' for under the Fourth Amendment the police may not make an arrest or search unless they have probable cause to do so." 2 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure, A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment, § 3.1 at 2.

BLACK CITIZEN HOLDING HIS ‘CELL PHONE” while attempting to communicate with public rulers in the free range prison who decide to listen. DURING THE STOP HE YELLED OUT FOR HELP BUT NO ONE CAME B/C THE GOVT HAS A MONOPOLY ON THE USE OF FORCE. .

Such legal truths must give way to reality on the street as all truths should only be measured by reality. In real life you have no right to be left the fuck alone by the Government.

FUNKTIONARY explains

"rights" - useful fictions declared in order to make agents of another type of fiction ("government") have to play along in their deadly theatrical (tragicomedy) game. 2) mere fictions, the contemplation of which leads only to a progressive social, personal, racial and jurisprudential separation from reality. Discussion and debates about "rights" merely evades the FAQ, i.e., the frequently avoided question of who is to enforce any "right" and who will benefit from the pretense. "Rights" are separated into two categories—those flowing from "negative liberties" and those flowing from "positive liberties." In law, rights are remedies and if a person is without a remedy (as is with citizens of the United States) he is without a right, and only a 'thing' is without rights. (See: Negative Liberties, Positive Liberties, Bill of Rights, Civil Rights, Human Rights, Ma'at & Justice)

rights - fantasmatic or fictitious objects having no reality in actuality by those imagining as an identity being in possession of them. Rights are cultural gratuities perceived through various fantasy frames, recognized, and sometimes even created, by man's system of law to provide a modicum or pretense of civility under a system whereby their very undermining and violation is vouchsafed. Rights are merely rites unless you know how to assert and defend them in order to enjoy them. 2) things people are free to do whether they are able to or not. 3) conditions of existence required by hue-man's nature for their potential survival (primarily against the cartoon that kills, i.e., the wholly unconscionable entity called the "State"). It is a mistaken notion that rights are enjoyed by one at the expense of the many—that is the realm of privilege. Enjoyment of rights in a neo-imperialistic world controlled by Yurugu through the Greater System (Symbolic Order), paradoxically, entails not only a recognition of their inevitability but, equally, their impossibility. How can we be endowed with rights, or even know what rights are when they are based on binary considerations? Rights, as ontological ephemera, cannot be universally observed, recognized, realized or, enforced—and paradoxically, act also as its own eternal source for its assertion and vessel for its fulfillment in our imaginary enjoyment of them. While the law reads rights referentially, what is universally needed in the praxis of rights discourse today is a particular re-inscription, demystification or reontologising of rights (revivified and convivial) by the pan-gendered subject-citizen-decoder—taken symptomatically rather than seriously. Most people rarely experience the cognizance of being property of corporate fictions because as long as you don't violate the rules of society your real status as feudal-property-slave is not involved or revealed. If there is no 'I,' to what and to whom do rights as objects accrue? Those who are confused by suffering (and the subject of same) require a re-onotoligisation of rights through the trajectory of meaning independent of their existence. Rights and even 'lefts' (i.e., what remains after all of our imaginary rights are traced to their inception as figment) for that matter, like good and evil, are human inventions which humans treat as non-human realities. While fantasy frames invent rights, romanticism reinvents them. Enjoy your symptoms and play with your syndrome—the symptom is the solution. Read carefully the holding in the supreme Court case of U.S. v. Babcock. Rights are myths—obedience to servitude or jail is the reality. (See: Abilities, Bill of Rights, Monoright, Servitude, Fantasy, Jurisdiction, Human Resources, Citizenship, Frankenstein, Autonomy. Rule of Law, Surrogate Power, Indigenous Power, Yurugu, Jouissance, Privilege, Disobedience, Duty & Willpower)

JEREMEY LOCKE states: There is no such thing as a right. All people are inherently free. The idea of right was created by men who sought to free people from some of the burdens of government, but who still believed that governments were supreme over men.

The problem with rights, is that they offer certain delineated permissions, granted to men by government. After these, government can still dispose of you as it pleases. Even in measures of restriction, this still teaches people that they have less value than law.

The truth is that you are free, and there is no authority that has any claim upon you, ever. You are, by your nature, already free. This is the value of a human being.