To Invoke Your God Given Rights, You Must Know Them
The story of a family made to pay the gratuity in a Houston restaurant while police stood by as witness, judge and jury... but served no justice nor held any jurisdiction. Please first go to the article ( here's an excerpt ) and or video prior to reading the rest further below:
---
“She was like, ‘You have an unsettled bill and ya’ll can’t leave until you pay it,’” Marks said. “We paid our bill for what we ate, we paid the bill.”
Marks said it was only the 17 percent tip they were questioning.
“She said, ‘That’s fine. If you don’t want to pay the gratuity we have HPD outside,’” Marks said. “I asked the police officer twice, maybe three times, is it against the law if we don’t pay the gratuity and he never gave me a straight answer.”
The on-duty manager at La Fisherman Restaurant told KPRC Local 2 they usually don’t have a problem with people paying their gratuity, it but admitted they have called police for this type of issue before.
- the article -
- a non copyrighted video / with actual news audio track )
----
She did say the police officer failed to give an answer to her question. That was the 'tell' which slipped through in the media story, yet did anyone catch it?
Or were you like most folks focused on the issue and the people and not the underlying laws and reality of the matrix which is the real issue at-hand, before considering the supposed 'breaking of laws?'
What transpired is a civil contract between the patrons and the business owner. The police officer had no say-so in the matter ( no jurisdiction ). The battle between paying further for gratuity / service in not a criminal violation nor act ( not warranting arrest ) but merely a statutory / civil infraction which can only be settled in a court of law, not at the doorstep of a business. Police are not supposed to be involved or used for such civil matters and disputes.
The moment they ordered the food without further issue, they entered into an agreement to what was stated at the bottom of the menu. Then after consuming it and receiving the bill, the issue of not paying extra is the argument which is debatable and can only be done so in a court of law, not at the place of business by a police officer, for no criminal act was committed nor was in the process of being committed, only a civil dispute ( disputing contract of money for food and service ) which held a clause in the menu about gratuities added to the final bill.
"If" they would have walked out by only leaving the amount for the food and such but not the additional gratuity, this 'foul' or 'dishonor' falls under the category of statutory infraction ( which is not categorized as criminal and is an entire different category of law ) and thus doesn't warrant arrest by any law enforcement agency.
It is purely a private matter between two private parties.
Only criminal issues warrant the state / public involvement.
If an arrest arises solely based on non payment of gratuity alone, that is a rights violation and the officer is liable for criminal charges under his employer and then civil charges directly... yet the people do not know their rights and are ignorant of the law and their position over it, not under it.
Back to the point made that the officer failed to answer directly: this is because he truly could not enforce the patrons to pay gratuity on demand, for that is not his function.
"If" they would have left without paying anything, then that is a criminal act and falls under his jurisdiction and now is something different altogether from a dispute between paying extra for gratuity / tip / a customary notion.
The issue actually is / was to be settled in a civil court.
The issue actually cannot be judged at this point since the issue was never resolved according to the law but in coercion and under duress. The 'infraction' never even occurred due to the intervention of the public servant. The intimidation was used to compel the patrons to action.
The police officer could not have arrested them if they would have left the bill amount less the gratuity. Yer his role was well played as an intimidating third party agent ( which was siding with the plaintiff ). He had no jurisdiction nor actual weight other more than a witness to a civil dispute.
Reserve your rights my family and friends. And in order to do that, you must KNOW them. You cannot not be 'made to pay' anything since the money ceased to function years ago, but that's another matter.'
Let's take one rabbit hole at a time.. now for the one which should break your faith in the golden calf worshiping of today, go here.
---
“She was like, ‘You have an unsettled bill and ya’ll can’t leave until you pay it,’” Marks said. “We paid our bill for what we ate, we paid the bill.”
Marks said it was only the 17 percent tip they were questioning.
“She said, ‘That’s fine. If you don’t want to pay the gratuity we have HPD outside,’” Marks said. “I asked the police officer twice, maybe three times, is it against the law if we don’t pay the gratuity and he never gave me a straight answer.”
The on-duty manager at La Fisherman Restaurant told KPRC Local 2 they usually don’t have a problem with people paying their gratuity, it but admitted they have called police for this type of issue before.
- the article -
- a non copyrighted video / with actual news audio track )
----
She did say the police officer failed to give an answer to her question. That was the 'tell' which slipped through in the media story, yet did anyone catch it?
Or were you like most folks focused on the issue and the people and not the underlying laws and reality of the matrix which is the real issue at-hand, before considering the supposed 'breaking of laws?'
What transpired is a civil contract between the patrons and the business owner. The police officer had no say-so in the matter ( no jurisdiction ). The battle between paying further for gratuity / service in not a criminal violation nor act ( not warranting arrest ) but merely a statutory / civil infraction which can only be settled in a court of law, not at the doorstep of a business. Police are not supposed to be involved or used for such civil matters and disputes.
The moment they ordered the food without further issue, they entered into an agreement to what was stated at the bottom of the menu. Then after consuming it and receiving the bill, the issue of not paying extra is the argument which is debatable and can only be done so in a court of law, not at the place of business by a police officer, for no criminal act was committed nor was in the process of being committed, only a civil dispute ( disputing contract of money for food and service ) which held a clause in the menu about gratuities added to the final bill.
"If" they would have walked out by only leaving the amount for the food and such but not the additional gratuity, this 'foul' or 'dishonor' falls under the category of statutory infraction ( which is not categorized as criminal and is an entire different category of law ) and thus doesn't warrant arrest by any law enforcement agency.
It is purely a private matter between two private parties.
Only criminal issues warrant the state / public involvement.
If an arrest arises solely based on non payment of gratuity alone, that is a rights violation and the officer is liable for criminal charges under his employer and then civil charges directly... yet the people do not know their rights and are ignorant of the law and their position over it, not under it.
Back to the point made that the officer failed to answer directly: this is because he truly could not enforce the patrons to pay gratuity on demand, for that is not his function.
"If" they would have left without paying anything, then that is a criminal act and falls under his jurisdiction and now is something different altogether from a dispute between paying extra for gratuity / tip / a customary notion.
The issue actually is / was to be settled in a civil court.
The issue actually cannot be judged at this point since the issue was never resolved according to the law but in coercion and under duress. The 'infraction' never even occurred due to the intervention of the public servant. The intimidation was used to compel the patrons to action.
The police officer could not have arrested them if they would have left the bill amount less the gratuity. Yer his role was well played as an intimidating third party agent ( which was siding with the plaintiff ). He had no jurisdiction nor actual weight other more than a witness to a civil dispute.
Reserve your rights my family and friends. And in order to do that, you must KNOW them. You cannot not be 'made to pay' anything since the money ceased to function years ago, but that's another matter.'
Let's take one rabbit hole at a time.. now for the one which should break your faith in the golden calf worshiping of today, go here.
Comments