Law Enforcement Officers, LEOs, the municipal and territorial employees sent to “project” the statutes and ordinances by which the corporate government generates some of its revenue are likely accessories to multiple crimes associated with uttering fictitious securities¹ and commit others² just in pulling you over.
The average person doesn’t realize it; and I fully expect the average law enforcement officer doesn’t realize it either because they haven’t been afforded the correct information for the task they perform. Policy enforcement (polic-e) is simply not the same as the “peace keeping” mission performed by “peace officers”, and these two different tasks serve different masters.
* * * Under Construction * * *
REFERENCES: AVR#150, 577, The…Right to Travel, Cornell Legal Information Institute, AVR Constitutional Case Law, Chan Robles Virtual Law Library, Jurisdiction Brief, CaseMine.com, US Department of State concerning Foreign Nationals,
Please visit our sponsors and merch sites on the [RECOMENDATIONS] page.
²47 CFR §11.45 – Prohibition of false or deceptive EAS transmissions
²18 USC §242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
²18 USC §514: Fictitious Obligations
²18 USC §912: Officer or employee of the United States
²18 USC §913: Impersonator making arrest or search
²18 USC, §1951: Interference with Commerce by Threats or Violence
on Arizona:
ARS 13-1303: Unlawful Imprisonment
ARS 12-541: Malicious Prosecution; False Imprisonment
ARS 13-1202: Threatening, Intimidating
ARS 13-1304: Kidnapping, restraining
ARS 13-1003: Conspiracy
ARS 13-2406: Impersonating a Peace Officer
ARS 13-2006: Criminal Impersonation
ARS 38-423: Making or Giving False Certificate
Arizona Article 2, §8: Right to Privacy
…and others if cited:
¹18 USC §472: Uttering Counterfeit Obligations or Securities
¹18 USC §473: Dealing in Counterfeit Obligations or Securities
¹18 USC §513: Securities of the States and Private Entities
18 USC §872: Extortion by Officers or Employees of the United States
18 USC §1346: Scheme to artifice to defraud, by false or fraudulent pretenses,
18 USC §1348: Securities and Commodities Fraud
18 USC §1661: Robbery Ashore
25 CFR § 11.440 – Tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.
Title 42, §1983: deprivation of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution and Laws
U.S. Department of State: “Foreign Nationals”
The 50 several states are “foreign” to the United States, therefore, it falls to this State Department agency to “look to our treaty agreements”. The US Bureau of Consular Affairs offers Training and Outreach to “federal, state, and local law enforcement, corrections and criminal justice” including the CALEA Standard:
CALEA Standard:
The Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc., published a consular notification and access (CNA) standard in their Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies. The CNA standard requires all law enforcement agencies to implement a written directive governing procedures for ensuring compliance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the other consular notification treaties. Law enforcement may use the State Department’s model CNA SOP as a template for drafting the required directive. CALEA members represent approximately 80 percent of the law enforcement profession in the U.S. The Commission derives its accreditation authority from those agencies that voluntarily participate in the accreditation program. For more information about CALEA accreditation, please visit the CALEA website.
The Unvarnished Truth of the Matter:
- Probable Cause: for interruption of right to travel
- a warrant for my arrest (judge’s wet-ink signature)
- IV Amendment:
- “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,”
- “supported by oath or affirmation…” (signed affidavit WITH warrant)
- a witness with standing, to testify under penalty of perjury
- from personal knowledge: trespass or damage to property
- the LEO
- witnessed; can speak from own knowledge
- has evidence to establish intent
- Code Infraction is not “crime”
- LEOs cannot establish jurisdiction; only contractual agreement
- State Nationals or State Citizens (man) is not responsible for code (paper)
- “Law Enforcement Officers” – a misnomer, incorrect label
- LEOs are employees of a municipal or territorial corporation
- in court, “not qualified to make legal determination”; executive: follows-orders
- LEO testimony is subject to strike
- citation subject to strike (a legal determination)
- Issue of Citation:
- Executive branch employee made “legal determination” for ticket
- Use of State National (c) Copyright Trade Name
- All Caps fictitious entity is misaddressing and crime of “personage”
- ticket document is riddled with fraudulent misrepresentations
- an “offer to contract” easily rescinded within 72 hours
- Arrest or Detainment:
- No authority to approach or address
- no warrant or probable cause; no crime
- habeas corpus claim; immediate hearing on validity of arrest
- U.S. state of emergency, uniformed, armed force: peaceful civilian
- argument for war crimes (?)
Like sending troops into Iraq and Afghanistan and leaving them there for over 30 years with no exit strategy, exposed to dangers unforeseen, the average LEO (law enforcement officer) is also sent out as a “segmented” operative, one functioning part of a larger criminal syndicate (literally) who is “just doing their job”. The concept is called “constructive fraud” and that cancer infects our entire culture, especially so with “government” agencies. It’s likely that 1 in 20 understand their role in the process, if that many.
Sadly, often such patriots believe they are serving their community and keeping their fellow Americans safe. I believe they are deliberately uninformed if not purposely mislead. Why? Because “net retentions”, monetary rewards for felony convictions, within a court system run by the BAR Guild may very well line the pockets of judges, prosecutors, and defenders alike.
I believe officers largely deserve better consideration than afforded by those who hire and send them out to do the job. These men and women accept the responsibility and risk that “today may be the day I must place myself bodily between the community and my fellow Americans and the danger…“, and they get dressed and head to work anyway; morning after morning.
Education: A civil effort is desperately needed to bring valid, resourced information to the attention of those in our community who have willingly accepted the risk that comes with their selected occupation.
Citation
In response to a “code violation”, not a collision or other situation involving damage to property or other people… You have 72 hours to respond:
“Your offer to contract is not accepted. While traveling in my private automobile, you project statutes without jurisdiction under color of law in violation of 18 USC §242.”
- Write the response on the ticket
- in red ink at a 45-degree angle.
- Autograph, date, and apply your seal to it (?)
- Scan or copy the ticket (front and back).
- Mail it back to response address on it
- with an invoice of civil penalties
- or a more complete declaration of trespass.
Also: “Your offer to contract is not accepted as I was traveling in my private automobile. Per 18 USC §241 & §242 you have deprived me of my rights under color of law.”
Notes and Comments:
David Straight on Arkansas Sept. 2019 @ 1:57:00
[dp]
A declaration of trespass more specifically outlines trespasses against you.; Matched with an affidavit of status, an itemized invoice, and fee schedule.
Your Rights and Freedom:
“Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment.”
Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147. [on CaseMine.com]
“If ever a judge understood the public’s right to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington…” [stated at left]
freedom.school.com
“The acceptance of a license, in whatever form, will not impose upon the licensee an
obligation to respect or to comply with any provision of the statute or with the
regulations prescribed that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.”
W. W. CARGILL CO. v. STATE OF MINNESOTA, 180 U.S. 452 (1901) 180 U.S. 452
“Speeding, running stop signs, traveling without license plates, or registration are not
threats to the public safety, and thus are not arrestable offenses.”
Christy v. Elliot, 216 I 131, 74 HE 1035, LRA NS 1905-1910
“For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or
penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.”
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.
State National Status:
If you’ve completed and recorded the proper paperwork as recommended, you should understand that no employee of the corporate entities illegally occupying the seat of government has any authority to approach let alone address a “State National” [term reference 8 USC 1101(a)(21)] [928 Doc: FSIA Mandatory Notice]
If you need more information on that topic, click the menu above, choose HOME on this site, click the LEARN MORE button, and follow the breadcrumbs.
US v Minker, 350 US 179 at 187(1956)
Supreme Court of the United States 1795 “Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.”
“Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose.”
(Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75) [Jurisdiction Brief]
Learn the Terminology:
The STATE and Municipality confuse “commercial” with “private” use.
49 USC §31301: – Definitions
49 USC §31102: Motor carrier safety assistance program; (b) specifies “motor carrier, commercial motor vehicle, and driver(s)” as the audience in question, adding “commercial motor vehicle” as the topic of discussion under (1), (2) and (3).
49 USC §31701: Definitions: specifically addresses “commercial motor vehicle”, and at (4) addresses a “International Registration Plan” as an interstate agreement on apportioning vehicle registration fees paid by motor carriers.
49 USC §31704: Vehicle registration; addresses enforcing a commercial motor vehicle registration law
49 USC §32304: Passenger motor vehicle country of origin labeling; includes definition for “STATE” at (a)(14) …a State of the United States [a foreign jurisdiction and corporation per 28 USC §3002 (15)(A) and UCC 9-307 (h)], the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands.
49 CFR §390.5: non-numbered, clear definitions for:
“driver” ..any person who operates any commercial motor vehicle.
“motor carrier” – “…a for-hire motor carrier …as “engaged in the transportation of goods or passengers for compensation” or a private motor carrier
“private motor carrier” (three definitions on page) as [1] commercial motor vehicle but not for hire [2] transport of goods or passengers with commercial enterprise but not available to the public, or [3] transports goods or passengers, but available to the public as a non-commercial enterprise (?)
49 CFR §130.5: Definitions; see “person“
On Arizona, the following definitions hold interest and establish a defense:
ARS 28-101: Definitions; (25) Driver: a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. (26) Driver license: a license issued by a state… authorizes the individual to drive a motor vehicle. (35) foreign vehicle: “… brought into this state other than in the ordinary course of business…” (42) livery vehicle: (b) passenger services for a fare… (c) for hire (50) Motor Vehicle (b) does not include… personal [private] delivery device, personal [private] mobile cargo carrying device…” (87) Vehicle: (b) does not include (iii) personal [private] delivery devices (v) personal [private] mobile cargo carrying devices
see: Cornerstone Definitions for “person” and “individual”.
In contrast, you are “a traveler in a privately owned automobile”:
Condensed: “The Priviledge to Drive/Operate a Motor Vehicle vs. The Right to Travel“
February 27, 2016, by: David-William, TLB Staff Writer [archive .txt]
- automobile – a pleasure vehicle designed for
the transportation[travel] ofpersons[people] on highways.” (American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200.) Also: private property in use for private purposes; transportation and persons each have commercial application and meaning. - traveler – one who uses a conveyance to go from one place to another, and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right. Notice that in all these definitions the phrase “for hire” never occurs: to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure.” [emphasis added] 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, p.717. commercial term: conveyance
- “Traveler: One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health.” Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45; Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3309.
It is likely that you are NOT a driver, operating a motor vehicle commercially, in traffic, also likely NOT for hire:
- motor vehicle – “Motor vehicle” means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property. Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. 18 USC 31: Definitions (a)(6)
- driver – Notice that this definition includes one who is “employed” in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this person could not be “travelling” on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business. The term “driver” in contradistinction to “traveler” is defined as:“One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle…” (Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.)
- operator – an “operator” the court observed that this was a vehicle “for hire” and that it was in the business of carrying passengers. “It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms ‘operator’ and ‘driver’; the ‘operator’ of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the ‘driver’ is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both ‘operator’ and ‘driver.’” (Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658.)
- driver, operator, and other definitions can be associated with strictly commercial actions with 49 USC §31301: Definitions
- traffic – In this case, the word “traffic” is used in conjunction with the unnecessary Auto Transportation Service, or in other words, “vehicles for hire.” The word “traffic” is another word which is to be strictly construed to the conducting of business. Here again, notice that this definition refers to one “conducting business.” No mention is made of one who is travelling in his automobile.“Traffic: Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money…”; (Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3307.)
Redefining Your Auto-Relationship:
Excerpt from: “The Priviledge to Drive/Operate a Motor Vehicle vs. The Right to Travel“
February 27, 2016, by: David-William, TLB Staff Writer [archive .txt]
[open quote]
Sovereign; Not a Citizen: Officer told my friend in secret that if you are traveling and get pulled over we are suppose to let you go as soon as you announce that you are not for hire. He said that every state legislature has early bills that clearly state the “for hire” requirement to invoke the motor vehicle code. He then added that the statutes, which are not law, just reference to law, has conveniently removed /dropped the “offered to the public for hire” language. (emphasis added)
The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31: “Motor vehicle” means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property. “Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.
[close quote]
Right to Travel
Premise:
“Freedom for oneself comes with a price tag– respecting the equal freedom of others.”
Notes & Comments:
AVR#150 pg3 p2
“It is well-established matter of fact that you have the right to travel and use your private car or truck to do so. You cannot however invoke such “right to travel” while causing harm including reckless endangerment to anyone else… whether judged by Common Law or Statutory Law will be balanced against the responsibility that goes with that right to not harm or recklessly endanger others who have an equal right to use the public roads.”
AVR#150 pg1 p5-6
“…the right of an individual who has proven competent to travel using a car or truck to get from Point A to Point B is not subject to licensing or other requirement or harassment or presumption.”
AVR#150 pg2 p5
“The mission of peacekeeping officers should be turned away from statutory enforcement and back to the real issues at hand– helping people get where they are going safely and in one piece…”
AVR#150 pg2 p12
SHAPIRO vs. THOMSON, 394 U. S. 618 April 21, 1969. Further, the Right to TRAVEL by private conveyance for private purposes upon the Common way can NOT BE INFRINGED. No license or permission is required for TRAVEL when such TRAVEL IS NOT for the purpose of [COMMERCIAL] PROFIT OR GAIN on the open highways operating under license IN COMMERCE. “The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government.”
(5) “In moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction appellees were exercising a constitutional right, and any classification which penalizes the exercise of that right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional,” Justice Brennan explained. [Overview: Constitutional Law Reporter]
AVR, “Constitutional Case Law“
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618
Chan Robles
Virtual Law Library
[Brief][Full Listing]
“Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property … and is regarded as inalienable.”
16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987
The long list of what they can project upon you:
23 CFR Appendix A to Part 1327 – Abridged Listing of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators Violations Exchange Code, Used by the NDR for Recording Driver License Denials, Withdrawals, and Convictions of Motor Vehicle-Related Offenses
ARS 28-622: Failure to comply with police officer; classification
A. A person shall not wilfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of a police officer invested by law with authority to direct, control or regulate traffic.
B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
NOTE: i am a man, not a person. i do not traffic, a commercial term.
ARS 28-3151: Driver license requirement
A. Unless exempt…a person shall not drive a motor vehicle or vehicle combination on a highway without a valid driver license and proper endorsement…
B. A person who is licensed under this chapter is entitled to exercise the privilege granted by this chapter…
NOTE: two supreme court cases resist this with travel and private property:
1) SHAPIRO vs. THOMSON, 394 U. S. 618 April 21, 1969. synopsis: The right to travel by private conveyance for private purposes upon the Common way can not be infringed. No license or permission is required for travel when such travel is not for the purpose of [commercial] profit or gain on the open highways operating under license in commerce. (verified)
[Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the court and used the phrase “right to travel” therein thirty-two (32) times.]
2) Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, synopsis: No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.
LEO Traffic Stop Notice:
[MSWord file download]
This four-page document can be printed in Microsoft Word in “booklet” format so that it can be printed on one page of letter paper (US) and folded once for presentation. It establishes in a written statement to a restraining officer who has interrupted your free travel:
- your wish for “no contract / no consent”
- status: man or woman exclusive of their jurisdiction
- that you do not intend to answer their questions
- that you challenge their lack of “probable cause”
- a public document, state officer notary, that confirms your identity (copy, pg2)
- are aware of trespasses they have, are in process of, or may likely commit (pp3-4)
- and that you have every right and intention of holding them accountable
Traffic Stop –
Most so-called “traffic stops” result in several crimes committed by the officer; a false arrest of your right to travel freely, committed in ignorance by police officers who are kept less-than-fully-informed. The following set of questions, while untested, are the result of discussions, experience, and analysis of the statutes cited. Some are a reflection of those who have been stopped and have successfully negotiated their rights during the encounter. Note that questions are accompanied by the rationale and a few references for such question in the column to the right.
Pay particular attention to the order in which questions are asked as some points are grounded on the admissions of the officer in response to preceding questions. I recommend that you turn on your video or audio recorder prior to beginning any interaction with municipal or territorial employees.
Question:
For the record, would you agree, officer [Smith], that today is [Day], [Month and Year] and the time is approximately [time].
What county is this? (locate sheriff contact)
What is your full, lawful name and rank?
Are you under the impression that I do NOT have the right to know the full lawful name of the municipal or territorial employee standing at my window, uniformed, armed, and having interrupted by free travel?
Have I stopped in response to your flashing emergency lights and sounds, am detained, and am now speaking with you?
or… Am I free to leave?
Under what authority and probable cause have you detained me today?
Rationale:
If your recorder is running and the officer is compliant in answering the questions, you have in their own voice when, where, precisely who is addressing you., and under what authority. If they are non-compliant, they are not cooperating with their “employer” and those to whom they owe their “service”.
You’ll need to know what county you’re in to contact the correct sheriff’s department for help. Counties and contact information should be collected and posted on your states “trespass” page here on the WTP site. If not, perhaps nobody has volunteered to create it.
Question:
Are you aware, officer [Smith], that I do not answer questions, yet I have several questions for you?
Are you aware that if you expect me to respond to “orders”, that I charge handsomely to “fill orders”?
Rationale:
Anything you say can and will be held against you; as verbal contract… but you can usually ask questions all day long, or as long as the officer will stand there.
The “policy officer” is looking for opportunities to “charge you”; don’t feel bad about returning the favor.
Question:
I note your use of emergency lights on your police vehicle officer [Smith]; for what emergency have you interrupted my travel and detained me?
[OPTIONAL:]
Are you aware officer Smith that having been coerced from free travel, that I am feeling duress and threat with a uniformed and armed municipal or territorial employee at my window?
Am I free to leave?
Rationale:
Law Enforcement will usually pull over a traveler with flashing emergency lights. Lacking a viable emergency, constitutes threat, duress, and coercion with an armed municipal or territorial employee at your window.
Question:
Are you in possession of a warrant for my arrest issued by a judge supported by information constituting “probable cause”?
“Yes”
Do you have a copy of such warrant that I can review?
Do you affirm at this time that you can produce a witness to testify under penalty of perjury of their own knowledge of trespasses or damage I have caused them? (probable cause, habeas corpus)
With no trespassed or damaged witness who can speak of their own knowledge under penalty of perjury, no warrant for my arrest, are you aware that in contrast to “acting in good faith in the lawful performance of your duty” I believe you are rather violating ARS 13-1303 Unlawful Imprisonment?
Or… Am I free to leave?
Rationale:
Lacking the personal knowledge (observation) or suspicion that you are likely to commit a crime (probable cause), a crime under law involves the trespass of property (including rights) or harm of another person who can speak to such act from their own knowledge which gives them “standing”. A police officer enforcing statutes and ordinances is neither enforcing law nor proceeding under probable cause to arrest anyone for the commission of a crime.
Code Infraction is NOT a crime!
ARS 13-1303 – Unlawful Imprisonment
A. A person commits unlawful imprisonment by knowingly restraining another person.
B(1) – by a peace or detention officer acting in good faith in the lawful performance of his duty.
Question:
Are you aware, officer [Smith], it is likely you have committed more than one state and federal offense in pulling behind me with flashing lights coercing me to pull off the road?
Beginning with:
47 CFR §11.45 – Prohibition of false or deceptive EAS transmissions
18 USC §242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law,
18 USC §514: Fictitious Obligations.
Rationale:
Arizona Article 2: §8 Right to privacy
ARS 13-1303: Unlawful imprisonment
ARS 13-1202: Threatening or Intimidating
ARS 13-1304: Kidnapping… restraining
ARS 13-3850: habeas corpus; legality…
ARS 13-1003: Conspiracy
ARS 13-2406: Impersonating Peace Officer
18 USC §1951: Interference with Commerce
(like pulling behind you with red/blue flashing lights in a corporate war wagon)
Question:
Is it true that “anything I say or do can be held against me in a court of law” officer [Smith]?
“Yes” –
Are you aware that at any point I feel threatened that under such duress I reserve the right to stop speaking with you?
Am I free to leave?
Rationale:
Some choose to lead with this and say nothing at all.
If you have nothing to say, they cannot contract or trick you into verbal contract with them. Feel free to sit there all day long. The conversation and encounter could very well end here. At any point in the conversation where the officer isn’t cooperative, this is an effective end.
Question:
Are you aware that as a municipal or territorial employee that your jurisdiction limits your authority and that, as a Arizona State National and Sovereign American, I stand outside your jurisdiction?
Rationale:
As a State National, a sovereign American, municipal (air) and territorial (sea) employees owe you service respecting your rights as listed in the Mandatory Notice FSIA who otherwise have no permission to approach or address you. US v Minker, 350 US 179 at 187(1956) Corp. fiction (paper) cannot interact with living soul (man).
Question:
Are you aware that attempts to project such statutes and ordinances onto a State National can expose you to both criminal and civil penalties including financial penalties in lien against your private property?
Are you aware of the difference between a “policy officer” and a “peace officer”?
Rationale:
Since the officer(s) have no permission to approach or address you yet already have, this is a good time to present them with your FSIA Mandatory Notice, attached to your Fee Schedule and Notice of Intent, and let them know they have exposed themselves to lawful reproach, claim, and remedy.
Question:
Are you aware that I recognize you as a public servant, a municipal or territorial employee, and that I do not require your help or services at this time?
Rationale:
As a State National, a sovereign American, municipal and territorial employees owe you service respecting your rights as listed in the Mandatory Notice FSIA who otherwise have no permission to approach or address you.
Question:
Are you aware that stopping my free travel constitutes a trespass of Title 18, §242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law lacking probable cause, with no emergency, and without a warrant issued by a judge and bears criminal penalties which may include imprisonment of any number of years including life in prison and the death penalty?
Rationale:
Two (2) Federal statutes under Title 18 list including a use, attempted use, or threat of use of dangerous weapons, injury, oppression, or intimidation bear criminal penalties of “any number of years, life, or death penalties” as §242 (single offender, each) and §241 (multiple offenders) as a conspiracy.
Question:
Are you aware that my time, my freedom to travel, my private automobile are my property and I have the right to file a civil claim that requires that you return my property or compensate me financially in remedy for a trespass of my property which cannot be returned?
Rationale:
Your time, skills, freedoms, and information provided in education are all your property. As long as you are held there, or any of your property is spent (time & freedom), or your private property is held, confiscated, or impounded that you have claim to have the property or the value of such returned to you.
Having a Fee Schedule and Notice previously prepared and entered to the public record obviously supports this supposition.
Question:
Are you aware that I do not consent to this detention, AND I have no desire to contract with you, AND I have no need of your services at this time, AND with no valid emergency NOR warrant issued for my arrest, that I see no reason to continue to speak with you?
Am I free to leave?
Do you intend to trespass my private property or worse “commit assault and battery” upon me OR
Am I free to leave?
(If they don’t tell you to have a nice day, tell them you’re conversation is over, roll up the window, and call the sheriff for help, press charges, and file a claim for every cent you can justify.)
Rationale:
Lacking the personal knowledge (observation) or suspicion that you are likely to commit a crime (probable cause), a crime under law involves the trespass of property (including rights) or harm of another person who can speak to such act from their own knowledge which gives them “standing”. A police officer enforcing statutes and ordinances is neither enforcing law nor proceeding under probable cause to make arrest for the commission of a crime.
At this point, there’s a lot of cents that can be justified.
IACP Law Enforcement Oath of Honor
“On my honor, I will never betray my integrity, my character, or the public trust. I will treat all individuals with dignity and respect and ensure that my actions are dedicated to ensuring the safety of my community and the preservation of human life. I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions. I will always maintain the highest ethical standards and uphold the values of my community, and the agency I serve. “
IACP – International Association of Chiefs of Police
At first blush this oath reflects some admirable qualities of those who choose to willingly place themselves between their fellow Americans and “the danger”. That level of commitment is not lost on me. These people do a job I know I could not do.
However, depending upon which perspective you read this from, words coming across the corporate divide very often bear different meanings. Here are a few questions I would ask the Police Chief panel if I had the community representative seat at the table:
Food for thought:
- Describe this “public trust”:
- Describe who comprises your community:
- Articulate these community values:
- Do you serve the agency, or the people?
- Do you view law enforcement and peace officers as having the same job?
David, if someone comes straight to this page, not all might know what LEO means, so might be good to expand it on instance of its appearance on this page. Thanks
A [Ctrl+F] search of that page showed no use of “LEO” on the page, the closest reference being “Law Enforcement” in paragraph 2. Just in case I expanded the reference and clarified “LEO”, just in case it illuminates the reading for someone.