Anarchy … Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word Update Notes to the First Edition.
An ‘Audiobook’ version of the printed First Edition is being prepared. Access details will be presented here.
Executable links referred to in the First Edition:
Page 48 onwards - Handling the Roots of Evil in Public - In the hands of the Police: These notes apply especially in relation to Police Bail and Police Caution (Page53). There are some essential things to understand about being 'detained by the Police'. You will be located in one of three places (a) A reception area or (b) An Interview Room of (c) a Police Cell. Neither location is particularly 'comfortable', but that also works in your favour, as will be explained.
The most important aspect is that - the Police have a limited period of time in which to detain you. These are the rules that currently appertain to the United Kingdom:
"The police can hold you for up to 24 hours before they have to charge you with a crime or release you. They can apply to hold you for up to 36 or 96 hours if you're suspected of a serious crime, eg murder. You can be held without charge for up to 14 days If you're arrested under the Terrorism Act."
And there are sound, practical, reasons for that - reasons which work in your favour. (With the exception of being held under the Terrorism Act, which would mean that you would be held in a Detention Centre, not a Police Station) The 'facilities' available in a Police Station are totally INSUFFICIENT to provide for any 'detentions' in excess of the 36 or 96 hours. THE FACILITIES AVAILABLE IN A POLICE STATION ARE NOT THE SAME AS THOSE AVAILABLE IN A PRISON OR A DETENTION CENTRE. The facilities in a Police Station are ENTIRELY UNSUITABLE FOR ANY LONG-TERM 'STAY'.
This means that THEY WANT YOU AOUT ... just as much as you want 'out'!
They want you out ... BEFORE THEY WOULD HAVE ROOM TO BRING SOMEONE ELSE 'IN'.
That is all apart from the fact that - as explained in the main book - THEY SHOULD KNOW WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO CHARGE YOU WITH - BEFORE - THEY ARREST YOU. AND THEN, ONCE CHARGING YOU, THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO LET YOU GO. That's the way it was always supposed to work. And that's why the facilities can be limited - on the assumption that people will only spend a few hours under those facilities.
And besides ... anything else WOULD BE TOO EXPENSIVE!
So that is all in your favour.
So ... use it.
Use the knowledge that- if you just sit quietly - and keep to your Right to Remain Silent - then ... EVENTUALLY ... they won't beat 'the clock' ... the clock will beat them ... AND THEY WILL HAVE TO LET YOU GO.
You can actually tell them that. You can tell them that you are just going to sit quietly until they will - eventually - have to let you go ... BECAUSE THEY NEED THE SPACE you are occupying. They won't like you telling them that - in fact they will hate it - BUT UNLESS THEY CAN CHARGE YOU WITH SOMETHING ... THEY WILL EVENTUALLY HAVE TO LET YOU GO. YOU CAN'T 'LIVE' IN A POLICE STATION FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE!
They WILL charge you ... IF THEY CAN.
If they DON'T charge you ... IT'S BECAUSE THEY CAN'T!
DON'T SAY ANYTHING TO GIVE THEM ANYTHING TO CHARGE YOU WITH.
JUST LET THE CLOCK TICK AWAY.
JUST LET THE CLOCK RUN DOWN.
It may be 'inconvenient', at the time, but it would be CONSIDERABLY MORE INCONVENIENT if you inadvertently 'gave' them something to Charge you with ... because then you'd be dragged through the Court System.
And, by the way, that 'clock' started ticking when you were originally stopped from continuing with your normal day. It started ticking from the second that you were stopped in the street, or in your car. (It did not start when you enetered the Police Station. It was already ticking by then.)
DO NOT - UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES - SIGN ANYTHING.
Do not - under any circumstances - discuss in ANY WAY ... ANY matter that They want to discuss.
BUT DO discuss the matter YOU want to discuss - which is "Just how long is it going to be before they realise that they are going to get absolutely nowhere ... and are going to have to let you go?". And you can keep asking them that.
NO - You are NOT being 'obstructive'. Rice .vs. Connolly 1966, referred to in the book, was a judgement based on the precise role of the Police - which was the receive complaints about crimes, and GATHER EVIDENCE BEFORE MAKING ARRESTS AND DETAINING PEOPLE. IT WAS NEVER, IS NOT, AND NEVER WILL BE, THEIR JOB TO 'FISH' FOR CHARGES ... by 'simply trying to find something - anything - to hang around your neck once they have stopped you for some reason'.
Page 59 – Veronica Chapman’s Experiences: “There is no case to answer”. This is the way to push the ‘Bench’, in a Magistrate’s Court, to dismiss the case, rather than pass it to Crown Court. What will happen, unfortunately depends on circumstances. If the matter is ‘trivial’, and ‘tryable’ only in a Magistrate’s Court – which are most of the so-called offences Freemen-On-The-Land would be charged with, such as Speeding, Parking, TV Licence, Council Tax etc – then it is likely to mean that the case must be dismissed … if someone steadfastly refused to make a plea, and used the “Power of Attorney” refusal to prevent ‘a plea made on your behalf’.
If, however, the matter is non-trivial, and one is being accused under the Common Law, then the matter COULD be passed up to Crown Court. And, it should be noted that – while a Magistrate’s Court is limited to awarding a maximum prison sentence of 9 months and/or fine of £1,000 – for the same offence a Crown Court can award penalties that are seriously higher.
BUT … those penalties would only be ‘seriously higher’, from a Crown Court, IF a Common Law Jury of 12 ‘ordinary people’ had decided that the Accused was guilty.
If, however, that Jury decided that the Accused was innocent, then there would be no penalty whatsoever.
AND, what’s more, moving a case to the point of a Jury Trial is actually something the Court System DOESN’T WANT TO DO! Because … IT’S EXPENSIVE!!!!
Which means that, when the matter is first heard in the Crown Court, there will be no Jury, just a Crown Court Judge sitting. And he or she will be looking to the ‘prosecution’ (in England and Wales the Crown Prosecution Service), to ‘provide sufficient evidence for a Jury to assess’. Simply because the Crown Court Judge is not going to the expense of impanelling a Jury if that would be pointless. IT’S TOO EXPENSIVE!!! So, the Crown Court Judge will be looking to the Defence to give as many reasons as possible to reasonably dismiss the matter, there and then.
It’s is hard to imagine that any innocent person would be daunted by the fact that the Judge would like to dismiss the case, right at the start, if at all possible! Surely, if you are innocent, the Crown Prosecution Service will have no ‘substantial’ evidence against you?
So, in summary, using the phrase “There’s no case to answer” does risk a much higher penalty for someone found guilty of something substantial in the way of ‘criminal activity’, but the route through to that point is fraught with problems for the ‘prosecutors’ (largely because of a thing called ‘EXPENSE’). And that, dear Reader, is TO YOUR ADVANTAGE if you wish to assert your innate Sovereignty.
Page 62 - Mike Bridger’s Example 2: “I CAN NOT HEAR YOU” is a ‘legal joke’. It is a ‘Shakespearean joke’ i.e. a joke that isn’t particularly funny. Fundamentally, it is a ‘joke’ in this context because it was echoing back, to the ‘Court’, what the Court themselves tend to say when some Litigant-In-Person tries to assert their Rights via Common Sense. For example, if one tries to assert a Common Law Right (such as the Right to Free Speech) in a Magistrate’s Court. When said by a Judge, it actually means “I don’t intend to listen to what you say”.
Page 63 – Mike Bridger’s Example 3: In a Magistrate’s Court, “Before you could charge me with Contempt of Court you would first have to prove that this was a Court of Law”. As explained, Magistrate’s Courts call themselves ‘Courts of Law’ (*), but they are actually not – according to the British Constitution. They are actually ‘Centres of Arbitration’ … AND, BY THE WAY, INDEPENDENT COMPANIES, TRADING AT A PROFIT (this is all in the Author’s previous book Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word. A Constitutionally-convened Court, with a Jury, is often referred to as a “Court de Jure”. A Centre of Arbitration, such as a so-named Magistrate’s Court, is referred to as a ‘Court de Facto’).
(* Actually they call themselves ‘Courts of Criminal Justice’. Which is probably the most accurate description of the type of ‘justice’ they impart i.e. what they do, they way they operate, leads a kind of ‘justice’ that is, indeed, ‘criminal’.)
But a Centre of Arbitration is nothing more than a place where ‘arbitration’ can take place. However, coming back to the concept of Self-Ownership/Sovereignty, it can be seen that ‘arbitration’ is only valid, acceptable, and LEGITIMATE, if the following criteria are met:
1. A dispute has arisen, and BOTH sides want it resolved as equitably as possible, thus
2. BOTH sides CONSENT to ‘go to arbitration’, and
3. BOTH sides AGREE to the Arbitrator, and the location where the arbitration will take place, which, fundamentally, means BOTH sides agreeing to TRUST the Arbitrator, and
4. BOTH sides agreeing, beforehand, to respect and apply the Outcome of the arbitration, whatever that result turns out to be (otherwise the arbitration was pointless).
If any of those criteria are not met, then the ‘arbitration’ is INVALID and ILLEGITIMATE. Because it breaches the Principle of Self-Ownership/Sovereignty.
These criteria are NEVER met when someone receives a Summons to a Court de Facto, that one has never agreed to as ‘a place of arbitration’, by a Bench of Magistrates or a District Judge one does not know, and has no idea whether one can trust or not. It is not, therefore, unknown, for someone, in that situation, to declare “I do not grant the Arbiters here jurisdiction to judge any matter in which I am involved, and I NEVER WILL!”. It is not unknown for that statement to result in a cry of “Case dismissed!”.
But, there’s more. ‘Contempt of Court’ is a ‘Common Law misdemeanour, which must be assessed to Criminal standards’. See this link http://contempt.FMOTL.com.
That being the case, it must be assessed ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ (the ‘criminal standard’) that anyone Accused was in contempt, and only a Common Law Jury of 12 is capable of making such an assessment. So, again, when we consider the charge itself, we come back to the fact that the Magistrate’s Court contains no Jury Box, thus no possibility of ‘Common Law assessment to criminal standards’.
And, while on the subject of Juries, perhaps it may be worth noting that a Common Law Jury’s Verdict is NOT ‘democratic’. The only acceptable Verdicts are unanimous i.e. 12-0, or, if push comes to shove, 11-1; or, if push really comes to shove, 10-2. Whether or not a Judge will accept anything less than unanimous depends on circumstances, such as the length (and thus the cost) of the Trial, the amount of time that the Jury has deliberated, how close the Jury has become to reaching a Verdict, the complexity of the evidence presented, and thus whether declaring a mistrial would cost to much, and so on. That is what is meant by ‘push coming to shove’. Nevertheless, other ‘democratic majority’ Verdicts, such as 9-3, 8-4 or 7-5 are NEVER acceptable.