Again, as with "Practical Individual Sovereignty" [a separate article], nothing below should be construed as legal advice. These are my opinions, and I assume no liability whatsoever for any errors or omissions.
Here is a brief guide to dealing with Peace Officers. This is a very tricky area; proceed with caution, and at your own risk. It all depends on how far you want to take things.
Peace Officers are, above all else, human beings. Some are “good”, some “bad”, and some are a mixture…like most of us. The tricky part is that they do have authority over us in certain circumstances…and they do have weapons on them everyday. Despite that, their authority has limits.
Following are some legitimate questions that can be asked of Peace Officers. Ask these questions either before or immediately after presenting your ID. [Some people refuse to present their ID until they have verified the Officer’s ID. I think that’s a good idea, but it’s risky…especially with an Officer who is out-of-sorts at the moment, or one who is on a power trip.] There are a few folks in the individual sovereignty movement who claim that a sovereign individual (who has done nothing illegal) does NOT have to present an ID when asked to by a Peace Officer. I agree that it should be that way, but I know for a fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.
Questions for Peace Officers [Except for the first one, these are not in any order. The remainder should be asked whenever you feel that it is appropriate for each one. That will require careful listening and not being intimidated by statements such as, "I'll arrest you for obstruction of justice!".]
1. Could I please see your badge number, ID, and business card? [Be certain that the badge number on the business card matches the one on the badge.]
2. Are you giving me an order? If the answer is “Yes”, and even though to your knowledge you’ve done nothing wrong but wish to comply to avoid conflict, state clearly that you are complying “under protest and duress, with all rights reserved”.
3. Who is your immediate supervisor?
4. Are you aware that gross negligence by a public servant is equal to fraud?
5. Are you violating my Fourth Amendment right to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects from search and seizure without a warrant? [If the answer is “No”, then ask, “Exactly what is it that you want?”.]
6. Are you violating my First Amendment right to free speech? [If the answer is “No”, then ask, “So I am free to speak, correct?”.]
7. Am I under arrest? [If you are, IMMEDIATELY ask for an attorney...and stop talking.]
Always remember that lying during interrogation is standard police procedure, and allowed by law. If you are not under arrest, you still have the choice to not answer questions. If the Officer states that though you are not under arrest, you should come to the police station to answer questions, ask, "Are you ordering me to go with you?". If the answer is "Yes" (which it shouldn't be), state clearly at that moment AND when you arrive at the station that you are doing so "under protest and duress, with all rights reserved".
Finally, exercise common sense: never physically resist, and always be polite and respectful.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Practical Individual Sovereignty
What is below should not be construed as legal advice. I am not an attorney or a para-legal. With some research and my past experience as a HazMat regulatory compliance inspector for a large California County, I have learned a few things relative to interacting with Government Representatives. What follows merely is the exercise of free speech and the opinion of a sovereign individual.
Unless you are a known lawbreaker, or there is a warrant for your arrest, or Martial Law has been declared, or you are blatantly and obviously breaking the law at the moment, a Government Representative (Rep) cannot force you to do anything. For example, when I went to inspect a business that fell under HazMat regulations, by law I had to ask permission to inspect the premises of that business. If the business owner/manager refused me permission, I then had a few options. 1) Return to the agency office, jump through some hoops, obtain an Inspection Warrant, snag a Peace Officer, and return to the business that refused my entry. 2) Come back another day; perhaps the owner/manager was merely in a bad mood. 3) Come back during the next inspection cycle for that area, which in the case of my employment was over a year away. Can you guess which option I chose in the rare case of being refused entry to a business? In seven years at that particular job, I NEVER obtained even one inspection warrant.
Contrary to popular opinion, regulatory Government Reps who work in the field have a tremendous workload. Their situation is made even worse by all the data that they have to enter into a computer each day. Although it does happen, in my opinion it would be a very rare instance in which a Government inspector would take the time to obtain an Inspection Warrant.
When it comes to Government Forms, here are some legitimate questions that can be asked by the individual being "required" to submit the Form---
1. Is the filling out of this Form required by Law or Regulation, or is it merely a procedure developed by your office? If it is required by Law or Regulation, can you please send me a copy of same with the appropriate section highlighted?
2. What Common Law rights am I waiving by signing this Form? [Whenever you sign ANY Government Form, directly beneath your signature write, "All Rights Reserved".]
3. What happens if I don't sign this Form?
4. . Is this a transaction involving a security interest? [It is, and your consent is required…unless a Court orders you to fill out the Form. You are providing information that it would be best to keep secure---address, date of birth, Social Security number, various types of business information, etc.]
5. Is your agency ordering me to fill out this Form?
Should you receive a copy of a specific Law or Regulation that supposedly applies to you or your business, and if you wish the discussion to continue, it can do so almost endlessly. That's because most all Statutory Laws (or Regulations, which are Administrative Laws) are extremely complex, convoluted, and technical. You have every right to ask, "What does this word mean?", or, "What does this sentence mean?".
There is nothing dishonorable about asking these questions. Government Representatives and Agencies often assume that citizens will view requests to fill out Forms as "orders", not what they really are---offers to avoid conflict. They make that assumption because most citizens DO see "requests" to fill out Forms as "orders". Unless you have broken the law already, or are obviously breaking it at the present moment, no Government Rep can order you to do anything...a Court can, but not a Rep. If a Rep does, and you wish to comply simply to avoid conflict, have the Representative put it in the Record that you are complying "under protest and duress, with all rights reserved".
Some may see all of the above as frivolous, but to anyone concerned with Liberty (and Government abuse of same) it is important to keep Government Reps---and the endless paper Forms of agencies---within proper bounds.
Dealing with Peace Officers really is a separate issue, and will be dealt with in a separate article.
Unless you are a known lawbreaker, or there is a warrant for your arrest, or Martial Law has been declared, or you are blatantly and obviously breaking the law at the moment, a Government Representative (Rep) cannot force you to do anything. For example, when I went to inspect a business that fell under HazMat regulations, by law I had to ask permission to inspect the premises of that business. If the business owner/manager refused me permission, I then had a few options. 1) Return to the agency office, jump through some hoops, obtain an Inspection Warrant, snag a Peace Officer, and return to the business that refused my entry. 2) Come back another day; perhaps the owner/manager was merely in a bad mood. 3) Come back during the next inspection cycle for that area, which in the case of my employment was over a year away. Can you guess which option I chose in the rare case of being refused entry to a business? In seven years at that particular job, I NEVER obtained even one inspection warrant.
Contrary to popular opinion, regulatory Government Reps who work in the field have a tremendous workload. Their situation is made even worse by all the data that they have to enter into a computer each day. Although it does happen, in my opinion it would be a very rare instance in which a Government inspector would take the time to obtain an Inspection Warrant.
When it comes to Government Forms, here are some legitimate questions that can be asked by the individual being "required" to submit the Form---
1. Is the filling out of this Form required by Law or Regulation, or is it merely a procedure developed by your office? If it is required by Law or Regulation, can you please send me a copy of same with the appropriate section highlighted?
2. What Common Law rights am I waiving by signing this Form? [Whenever you sign ANY Government Form, directly beneath your signature write, "All Rights Reserved".]
3. What happens if I don't sign this Form?
4. . Is this a transaction involving a security interest? [It is, and your consent is required…unless a Court orders you to fill out the Form. You are providing information that it would be best to keep secure---address, date of birth, Social Security number, various types of business information, etc.]
5. Is your agency ordering me to fill out this Form?
Should you receive a copy of a specific Law or Regulation that supposedly applies to you or your business, and if you wish the discussion to continue, it can do so almost endlessly. That's because most all Statutory Laws (or Regulations, which are Administrative Laws) are extremely complex, convoluted, and technical. You have every right to ask, "What does this word mean?", or, "What does this sentence mean?".
There is nothing dishonorable about asking these questions. Government Representatives and Agencies often assume that citizens will view requests to fill out Forms as "orders", not what they really are---offers to avoid conflict. They make that assumption because most citizens DO see "requests" to fill out Forms as "orders". Unless you have broken the law already, or are obviously breaking it at the present moment, no Government Rep can order you to do anything...a Court can, but not a Rep. If a Rep does, and you wish to comply simply to avoid conflict, have the Representative put it in the Record that you are complying "under protest and duress, with all rights reserved".
Some may see all of the above as frivolous, but to anyone concerned with Liberty (and Government abuse of same) it is important to keep Government Reps---and the endless paper Forms of agencies---within proper bounds.
Dealing with Peace Officers really is a separate issue, and will be dealt with in a separate article.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
How to Promote Statism in the U.S.
1. Elect Democrats AND Republicans to Federal offices.
2. Expand the Federal Government, as the Republicans and Democrats both have done.
3. Increase the national debt exponentially.
4. Have the Government borrow money totally beyond its means.
5. For the most part, ignore the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
6. Spread fear amongst the populace---fear of terrorists, disease, contaminated food, mechanical failures, and anything else that might harm people.
7. Downplay the idea of individualism.
8. Constantly tell people that onerous taxes are for "the greater good".
9. Convince the populace that inflation is "normal".
10. Denigrate the concept of commodity-backed money, and promote the concept of fiat money.
11. Pass laws in areas in which Congress has no Constitutional authority, then claim that's legal because "times have changed" and the Constitution is "outdated" and "quaint".
12. Have the Federal Government infringe on States' Rights...for "the greater good".
13. Claim that State laws, such as medical marijuana (that infringe on no one's rights or property), are illegal.
14. Institute warrantless wiretapping...for "the greater good".
15. Claim that habeas corpus does not apply if one is accused of being a certain type of criminal---a "terrorist", or "enemy combatant".
16. Have the Federal Government completely ignore lawfully executed Petitions for Redress of Grievances.
17. Claim that the narrowly restricted Federal Firearms Act applies to everyone.
18. Launch a "War on Drugs".
19. Launch a "War on Poverty".
20. Become a health fascist.
Finally, condition the populace to believe that the Federal Government can best solve most all problems, be they in the area of health, or safety, or economics, or education, or crime, or... really, anything.
2. Expand the Federal Government, as the Republicans and Democrats both have done.
3. Increase the national debt exponentially.
4. Have the Government borrow money totally beyond its means.
5. For the most part, ignore the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
6. Spread fear amongst the populace---fear of terrorists, disease, contaminated food, mechanical failures, and anything else that might harm people.
7. Downplay the idea of individualism.
8. Constantly tell people that onerous taxes are for "the greater good".
9. Convince the populace that inflation is "normal".
10. Denigrate the concept of commodity-backed money, and promote the concept of fiat money.
11. Pass laws in areas in which Congress has no Constitutional authority, then claim that's legal because "times have changed" and the Constitution is "outdated" and "quaint".
12. Have the Federal Government infringe on States' Rights...for "the greater good".
13. Claim that State laws, such as medical marijuana (that infringe on no one's rights or property), are illegal.
14. Institute warrantless wiretapping...for "the greater good".
15. Claim that habeas corpus does not apply if one is accused of being a certain type of criminal---a "terrorist", or "enemy combatant".
16. Have the Federal Government completely ignore lawfully executed Petitions for Redress of Grievances.
17. Claim that the narrowly restricted Federal Firearms Act applies to everyone.
18. Launch a "War on Drugs".
19. Launch a "War on Poverty".
20. Become a health fascist.
Finally, condition the populace to believe that the Federal Government can best solve most all problems, be they in the area of health, or safety, or economics, or education, or crime, or... really, anything.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
The War and the Democrats
When the Democrats more or less swept into office in the 2006 election, most everyone agreed that the primary reason for their success was: the majority of the electorate wanted to see a major change in the direction of the Iraq war. There was a change---the war has been escalated. People can say that's not the fault of the Democrats, but let's examinine that proposition a bit further.
The Corporate Media, while covering the most recent war supplemental spending bill a short while ago, never explored the fact that the Democratic majority did not have to propose or pass ANY war spending bill---none whatsoever. There already was enough funding in the pipeline to bring the troops home in a safe manner as soon as possible. The fact is the Democrats could have stopped the war right in its tracks.
One has to ask, why didn't they? Several possibilities emerge.
1. They were afraid of the appearance of not supporting the troops. In other words, their main concern was getting re-elected in 2008.
2. Most of their constituents really didn't want to END the war right now. Instead, they wanted the execution of this misbegotten war to be more decisive...they wanted "victory", or an "honorable" resolution---whatever that means.
3. Large campaign contributors (and their lobbyists) convinced the Democrats that we need an "honorable" resolution, and so, funding of the war should continue. Such campaign contributors most likely are the folks making money from the war effort.
4. Democrats remember what happened to Wayne Morse back in the '60s. He voted against funding for the Vietnam War (as well as having been a vocal critic of that war)...and was not re-elected. [This is similar to # 1 above.]
5. A significant (but rarely heard) portion of the Democrats actually believe the NeoCon crap about the relationship of Iraq to the "War on Terror".
6. There is some other reason...not immediately apparent (at least, to me).
Take your pick. Whatever the reason, the failure of the Democrats to end this insane war is a travesty. The King George war has been a disaster from the beginning.
The Corporate Media, while covering the most recent war supplemental spending bill a short while ago, never explored the fact that the Democratic majority did not have to propose or pass ANY war spending bill---none whatsoever. There already was enough funding in the pipeline to bring the troops home in a safe manner as soon as possible. The fact is the Democrats could have stopped the war right in its tracks.
One has to ask, why didn't they? Several possibilities emerge.
1. They were afraid of the appearance of not supporting the troops. In other words, their main concern was getting re-elected in 2008.
2. Most of their constituents really didn't want to END the war right now. Instead, they wanted the execution of this misbegotten war to be more decisive...they wanted "victory", or an "honorable" resolution---whatever that means.
3. Large campaign contributors (and their lobbyists) convinced the Democrats that we need an "honorable" resolution, and so, funding of the war should continue. Such campaign contributors most likely are the folks making money from the war effort.
4. Democrats remember what happened to Wayne Morse back in the '60s. He voted against funding for the Vietnam War (as well as having been a vocal critic of that war)...and was not re-elected. [This is similar to # 1 above.]
5. A significant (but rarely heard) portion of the Democrats actually believe the NeoCon crap about the relationship of Iraq to the "War on Terror".
6. There is some other reason...not immediately apparent (at least, to me).
Take your pick. Whatever the reason, the failure of the Democrats to end this insane war is a travesty. The King George war has been a disaster from the beginning.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
97 Days in Hell
A fellow by the name of Vance was held in a U.S. secret military prison, in solitary, for 97 days. He was allowed no attorney, no contact with the outside world whatsoever...and was hooded & shackled at various times. [Try to put yourself in this guy's place---he had no idea if he would be held for 97 minutes, 97 days, 97 months, or 97 years!]
Vance is an American citizen, a Navy vet, who was working as a civilian in a private Iraqi security company. He noticed huge stockpiles of small arms at the company, and began to think they were being provided to promoters of Iraqi sectarian violence. He contacted the FBI, and became an informant for a few months...supplying the Agency with info.
Then one day he was arrested, told he was under suspicion of terrorist activities, and was spirited off to the secret prison. After 97 days of becoming emaciated and sleep deprived, they cleaned him up and dumped him at the Baghdad Airport. No explanation.
He is suing the Govt. [Some folks think that one cannot sue the Govt successfully. Randy Weaver sued and won...well, the Govt settled out-of-court.]
I guess my point in relaying this story (from NBC Nightly News netcast) is that suspecting someone of criminal activity is understandable, but denying the suspect access to an attorney and habeas corpus is not permitted in a free society. Claims that a "terrorist" is different from a criminal are nothing more than sleazy attempts to avoid due process. The whole thing is an outrage.
That whole generic procedure was probably engineered by the brilliant logician [:)], Dick Cheney, who claims that his office is not in the Executive Branch. [He not only acts as if he's psychotic...he is psychotic.]
Vance is an American citizen, a Navy vet, who was working as a civilian in a private Iraqi security company. He noticed huge stockpiles of small arms at the company, and began to think they were being provided to promoters of Iraqi sectarian violence. He contacted the FBI, and became an informant for a few months...supplying the Agency with info.
Then one day he was arrested, told he was under suspicion of terrorist activities, and was spirited off to the secret prison. After 97 days of becoming emaciated and sleep deprived, they cleaned him up and dumped him at the Baghdad Airport. No explanation.
He is suing the Govt. [Some folks think that one cannot sue the Govt successfully. Randy Weaver sued and won...well, the Govt settled out-of-court.]
I guess my point in relaying this story (from NBC Nightly News netcast) is that suspecting someone of criminal activity is understandable, but denying the suspect access to an attorney and habeas corpus is not permitted in a free society. Claims that a "terrorist" is different from a criminal are nothing more than sleazy attempts to avoid due process. The whole thing is an outrage.
That whole generic procedure was probably engineered by the brilliant logician [:)], Dick Cheney, who claims that his office is not in the Executive Branch. [He not only acts as if he's psychotic...he is psychotic.]
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Randy Weaver Joins the Browns
Please see: http://questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com/ ...scroll down a bit.
Remember Randy Weaver of Ruby Ridge fame? Government agents killed his son, and murdered (there's no other word for it) his unarmed wife while she was holding a baby. Agents also shot Weaver in the back...actually, in the shoulder from the back. He is now in New Hampshire at the home of Ed & Elaine Brown. [See my post, "A Nonresponsive Government", for a little background on the Browns.]
Weaver hopes to diffuse the situation at the Browns' home, and bring it to national attention before we have another Ruby Ridge. We wish them all the very best.
That situation could be ended peacefully if the Govt representatives would do ONE SIMPLE THING. Just show Ed & Elaine (and all of us) specifically where in USC Title 26---NOT in CFR Title 26, which was written by the IRS, and is a regulation, not a statute---the average American INDIVIDUAL is liable for a tax on his/her income. Ed has said repeatedly that if they will show him the law, he will pay the tax.
That's ALL the Govt has to do...why won't they? [Could it be because the cited law IS Constitutional precisely because nowhere does it levy such a tax?]
Come on, Govt...pony up. Just show me the LAW (not the regulation).
Remember Randy Weaver of Ruby Ridge fame? Government agents killed his son, and murdered (there's no other word for it) his unarmed wife while she was holding a baby. Agents also shot Weaver in the back...actually, in the shoulder from the back. He is now in New Hampshire at the home of Ed & Elaine Brown. [See my post, "A Nonresponsive Government", for a little background on the Browns.]
Weaver hopes to diffuse the situation at the Browns' home, and bring it to national attention before we have another Ruby Ridge. We wish them all the very best.
That situation could be ended peacefully if the Govt representatives would do ONE SIMPLE THING. Just show Ed & Elaine (and all of us) specifically where in USC Title 26---NOT in CFR Title 26, which was written by the IRS, and is a regulation, not a statute---the average American INDIVIDUAL is liable for a tax on his/her income. Ed has said repeatedly that if they will show him the law, he will pay the tax.
That's ALL the Govt has to do...why won't they? [Could it be because the cited law IS Constitutional precisely because nowhere does it levy such a tax?]
Come on, Govt...pony up. Just show me the LAW (not the regulation).
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Our Unaccountable President
Once again King George has been knocked down (rightfully so) by a court---the 4th Circuit in this case. The Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to hold a resident alien (here legally) in solitary confinement in a Navy brig for years...even though the Govt tagged him with the term "enemy combatant". Our King and his jackbooted minions were certain that it could be done through military procedures. The suspect will not go free, but now must be charged in criminal court, thus afforded habeas corpus. That is as it should be.
This is not the first time that a court has told the King, "No, you can't do that.", but he continues on anyway. [Remember the Jose Padilla mess?] Our King believes that in his expanded Unitary Presidency he is accountable to virtually no one.
It should be clear to the American public by now that the "War on Terror" is nothing but an attempt to grab unconstitutional power. Terrorists are not in an army; they are criminals, pure and simple. When suspects are caught, they should be charged and tried as criminals. Claiming that such trials would give away national secrets is nothing more than an attempt to avoid due process. Remember Julius and Ethel Rosenberg? National secrets were involved, but they were tried in a criminal court...and we all survived.
The hubris of the Bush Administration is offensive. King George, in particular, acts as though he is some sort of absolute ruler. Even his facial expressions betray him---half the time he looks out at his audience with disdain, superiority, and/or smugness. I think he tops Nixon in that regard. Luckily for us, he is more or less a Lame Duck...very lame.
This is not the first time that a court has told the King, "No, you can't do that.", but he continues on anyway. [Remember the Jose Padilla mess?] Our King believes that in his expanded Unitary Presidency he is accountable to virtually no one.
It should be clear to the American public by now that the "War on Terror" is nothing but an attempt to grab unconstitutional power. Terrorists are not in an army; they are criminals, pure and simple. When suspects are caught, they should be charged and tried as criminals. Claiming that such trials would give away national secrets is nothing more than an attempt to avoid due process. Remember Julius and Ethel Rosenberg? National secrets were involved, but they were tried in a criminal court...and we all survived.
The hubris of the Bush Administration is offensive. King George, in particular, acts as though he is some sort of absolute ruler. Even his facial expressions betray him---half the time he looks out at his audience with disdain, superiority, and/or smugness. I think he tops Nixon in that regard. Luckily for us, he is more or less a Lame Duck...very lame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)