I've seen a few videos lately from First Amendment Auditors citing Pennsylvania versus Mims usually when people cite case law it should be something that works in their favor against the Agents of the state who are in the process of violating your rights relatively speaking there aren't a lot of cases or codes that support individual rights anyway some that do would be 18 USC 241 and 242 and 42 USC 1983 and you have to be careful because even the cases for example that look like they're working in your favor when you take a closer look at them they actually don't like Marbury versus Madison from 1803 which says any law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void now that sounds good until you read the whole case the 1803 Supreme Court in that case granted itself the power of judicial review you in other words they reserve for themselves the right to interpret the meaning and application of the Constitution and here we are today 220 years later with a bloated disgusting government stripping us of our rights every chance they get case in point Pennsylvania versus mims in 1970 two police officers from the Philadelphia Police Department pulled over a vehicle driven by Harry Mims for an expired license plate and this right here is a violation of an American right to travel without a license without registration and without forced insurances the officer instructs Mims to exit the vehicle when Mims complied an officer noticed a bulge in his pants under his jacket conducted a pat down which was granted to Cops under Terry V Ohio in 1968 in violation of the Fourth Amendment and they discovered a weapon the officer proceeded to arrest Mims for carrying a concealed deadly weapon and unlawfully carrying a firearm without a license charges for which Mims was later convicted which we all know is a clear violation of the Second Amendment the conviction was reversed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on March 31 1975 which ruled that the evidence should have been suppressed as the police violated Mims Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure which was absolutely the right judgment but the tyrants in the United States Supreme Court reversed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's reversal upholding the original conviction on the grounds that no violation of the Fourth Amendment had occurred in essence Mims was charged and convicted for exercising his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned the conviction and the Supreme Court said screw you Pennsylvania courts we will throw a man into a cage for exercising his Second Amendment right and then claim that the police didn't violate his Fourth Amendment right so here's some background the court in Terry V Ohio stated the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate therefore in the eyes of the Court the officer had the right to arrest Mims under the charges because he observed the Bulge under the jacket now there are two things going on here but the Mims case is only focusing on one of them that is the court says cops have the authority and the right to order any American out of a vehicle during a stop and conduct a pat down to check for weapons the court contends that this does not violate the Fourth Amendment so you tell me does searching a person who is not suspected of committing a crime violate the right to be secure in your person and effects if this is not a violation then I don't know what is the way the corporately controlled court system treats this is like traffic laws Trump constitutional rights it's almost like if you're traveling on the roadways you don't have any rights because Terry V Ohio says officer safety takes precedence over your rights and in Pennsylvania versus Mims a cops order to exit your vehicle takes precedent over your rights it's almost like the supreme law of the land is not actually the Constitution of the United States in the majority opinion the court stated quote the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security the reasonableness depends on on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by Law Officers so what did the court do they granted arbitrary interference powers to Law Officers the court said that unlike in Terry V Ohio the initial violation of Freedom was permissible because the driver was driving with an expired license plate in violation of the Pennsylvania Department of Motor Vehicles code and this shows you that the court deems the vehicle code AS of Greater significance and importance than your right to freely travel unmolested the court said the only thing to decide besides the pat down is whether the initial authorization by the officer to tell the respondent to exit the vehicle was allowed under the Fourth Amendment therefore the court must focus on the violation result melting from the officers telling the respondent to exit the vehicle once it was legally stopped and this right here the men who wear black dresses all day indirectly admitted that the supreme law of the land is the traffic code this gives local and state law enforcement a blank check for power to be filled in at will and by their discretion the state of Pennsylvania believes that the officer had no evidence to be suspicious of mems during the stop whether it was his behavior or unusual activity nothing was evident during the patrol the state discovered that the officer during every routine traffic stop ordered the drivers to exit their vehicles the state defends the officer saying that this practice was used to prevent anything from happening to the officer and that it could have been reasonable under those circumstances they contend that being in front to the officer makes it impossible to have something suspicious go unseen if the driver were to attempt something to harm the officer so here again we have officer safety trumping individual rights in the eyes of the corporately controlled court system it's a huge racket they say quote there is a huge risk for officers confronting a man seated in his vehicle under routine traffic stop well then what would be the solution to this just leave people alone if they're not endangering other people on the highways then there's no constitutional reason for you to stop and harass them they said according to a study approximately 30 percent of police shootings occurred when a police officer approached a suspect seated in an automobile maybe because people are tired of being messed with and extorted by badged costumed Road Pirates another reason for making the action taken by the office episode to ask the respondent to exit the vehicle more acceptable was that it could prevent an accidental mishap from oncoming cars instead of discussing the issue while standing on the road the officer may ask the driver to exit the car and move off to the side of the road for further discussion they say quote now the question at hand is whether there was an intrusion in the personal Liberty of the driver after the order to get out of the vehicle every bit of this is an intrusion on personal Liberty the conclusion was that it was D Minimus or low level of risk the officer has already decided that the driver is to be detained for the traffic summons now it is whether they should Converse while the driver is sitting in the car or standing alongside it the action to step out of the car is merely for the officer safety and is not a serious infraction on the liberty of the driver according to the courts the case of Terry V Ohio stated that quote the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or search warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate since the action the officer took to tell the driver to exit the vehicle was justified in the eyes of the state then the observation of the Bulge in the driver's jacket was thought to present danger to the officer and therefore he had quote reasonable caution to have conducted the pat down now there were dissenting opinions regarding this case but check this out Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote the Frisk that the officer proceeded to do to Mims could only be permissible under the Fourth Amendment if the search was the reason for the stop the reason Mims was pulled over was due to an expired license plate which in no way Marshall says has to do with carrying a concealed weapon even in his descent Marshall is speaking in an unconstitutional way there is never a reason to stop a man who is not violating the rights of others violations of arbitrary traffic laws constitute a law that is repugnant to the Constitution and therefore should be considered by everybody as null and void that is if the Supreme Court is truly the law of the land Justice John Paul Stevens and William Brennan wrote a different dissent stating that the court gave too much leeway in allowing the officers to search the defendant for any reason of concern the bottom line is that this is a big club and you and I aren't in it with traffic laws alone this cannot be considered the land of the free home of the brave if you like this video stick around maybe you'll like some of my others check out the most popular video section there's definitely a couple of videos in there you'll want to see leave your thoughts about this for the world and the global thought police in the comments section below if you haven't done so already subscribe to this channel hit the Bell notification icon give it a thumbs up share it with everybody know don't forget to subscribe to my private email list through my website highimpactflix.com if you want to support the channel further the links are in the description and you can buy a hard-hitting conversation starting design that you can put on any shirt hoodie mug cell phone case whatever you want I'll see you in the next video [Music]