by iamani » Fri Mar 20, 2020 10:44 pm
Greetings
With common-law still on my mind, i was wondering...
Is it possible to establish common-law jurisdiction at point of contact with police?
i believe so - maybe - if one ask's the right questions at the right time and on record (video! Switch it on AS SOON AS THEY APPROACH! i would not say a word until it's on). Bear in mind that if one has caused harm damage or loss, none of this will help; and that if one's attitude is of anything other than a calm and confident demeanour one will achieve nothing; and that as ever, this is all merely my opinion. It is up to each one of us how far we wish to go in the pursuit of the exercise of right. Evidently some prefer the exercise of 'rut'. Good luck to them...
Whereas dealing with common-law is (provably) not what police are paid for, these are the kind of questions i would ask if i wished to establish common-law jurisdiction in an uninvited/unwanted encounter with the thin-blue-line, eg perhaps while performing acts of photography in a public place:
First one needs to establish (for the record) the thin-blue-line's credentials, and their intent...
Strictly for the purists this one:
"Halt who goes there - friend or foe...?"
...and for everyone else:
1} "Is your body-cam recording?"
2} "Would you care to address me as '(first-name)'?"
3} "Do you intend to abuse or deprive me of my rights?"
4} "Do you understand that the video evidence of this encounter may be used against you in a court of law?"
5} "What is your name, address and D.O.B.?"
(They obviously won't give those details, but may ask why one ask's. One would be asking for the same reason they ask us for those details - to ascertain identity for a claim against a certain person's bond. One might now jump to Q49 through to Q57 and see if they get the idea...)
6} "What is your name, collar number and station?"
7} "What is the name of your inspector?"
8} "Are you currently engaged in the performance of a sworn duty?"
9} "Is it not considered dereliction of duty to go fishing whilst on-duty?"
10} "Do you know who i am?"
11} "So you are not looking for me?"
12} "Do you have lawful reason for impeding my progress?"
13} "Do you suspect me of a crime?"
14} "Do you require my assistance in the ongoing investigation of a crime?"
15} "So you are just fishing?"
16} "Are you aware that any impedance of my progress by yourselves may, in a court of law, be perceived as an arrest?"
17} "Am i being lawfully detained?"
(If they say anything other than 'yes' to Q17 one has the right to just turn and (SLOWLY!) walk away. Their words no longer count (unless their words are "STOP OR I'LL SHOOT!"). If no physical effort is made to stop you going on your way, you know you have achieved common-law jurisdiction. If one doesnt walk, then one is consenting to the encounter under their jurisdiction. If one does walk and then is physically touched by them - do not resist, do not express anger. Just stop. Smile. Ask some more questions...)
18} "Are you currently acting under the authority of a warrant-card?"
19} "Are you obligated to produce said warrant-card for inspection upon request of those with whom you seek to engage?"
20} "Do you seek to engage with myself?"
21} "Are you willing to produce said warrant-card for my thorough inspection?"
22} "Do you seek controversy?"
At some point, one might wish to deal with their questions...
23} "Is it possible i might incriminate myself by answering your questions?"
24} "Am i obliged to incriminate myself?"
25} "So i am not obliged to answer your questions?"
26} "Am i obliged to answer your questions?"
27} "Do you recognise the right to silence?"
28} "So i am not obliged to answer your questions?"
Eventually one will be asked to identify oneself...
29} "Am i obliged to have a name and address and D.O.B.?"
30} "Is a D.O.B. not hearsay in this instance?"
31} "Did i already indicate that you should address myself as '(first-name)'?"
32} "i have been known to use several names, which name would you like?"
33} "If a name appears under Crown copyright (birth certificate), does it not legally belong to the Crown?"
34} "If i don't own such, how can i lawfully give those details to you?"
35} "Doesn't a birth certificate legally advise us that it is not to be used for identification purposes?"
36} "Does the Crown have more authority than you?"
37} "Do you legally advise myself to ignore the prior legal advice of your employer, the Crown?"
38} "Were i to claim such a name as my own despite the clear legal advice from the copyright holder (the Crown), would i not be committing copyright fraud?"
39} "Do you incite myself to commit fraud against your employer?"
40} "Do you intend to bear false witness against myself?"
41} "Do you intend to falsely represent myself?"
...and now onto issues of language and style and financial impropriety:
42} "Are we on English soil?"
43} "Do you agree that we are speaking the English language?"
44} "Do you agree to record in English language and style, the details you request from myself?"
45} "Are you able to guarantee that said details will be henceforth recorded styled according to the rules of English language and grammar?"
46} "If you can't guarantee that, how do i know that the data you gather here won't be converted to unlawful use?"
47} "Does current legislation and regulation prohibit persons from sharing personal data if they suspect it may be used unlawfully by the proposed recipient of said personal data?"
48} "Are you legally qualified to determine which statute takes precedence over another statute?"
49} "Is it possible to create a financial instrument from the personal details you do request?"
50 } "Does the law still require consent of all parties involved in the creation of such an instrument?"
51} "Do you intend to create a financial instrument from the personal details you request?"
52} "Do you intend to make any kind of gain from doing so?"
53} "Were you aware that it is a crime to profit from crime?"
54} "Do you have work-related-performance targets to achieve?"
55} "If you log this encounter and/or issue an instrument do you gain credit towards your work-related-performance targets?"
56} "So you do intend to make gain from this encounter?"
57} "Do you consider myself to be a consenting party to this transaction?"
To expose the international fraud:
58} "As an English-man do i not have the right to be dealt with under English law?"
59} "Were you aware that the statutes you promote, quote and favour are not English law but private international administrative law?"
60} "Were you aware that Halsbury's Laws of England states that there is no place in English law for the foreign administrative courts you do collaborate with, and no act of legislation can change that?"
61} "Were you aware that private international administrative law applies only to those that are a consenting party to an international contract?"
62} "Do you have evidence that i am party to such a contract?"
63} "Were you aware that writing in block-capital letters is not considered in law to be English language style but rather a foreign/international language style?"
64} "Were you aware that in ignoring my express will to record in English the details i may give you, and then recording said details in a foreign style to make fiscal gain for yourself or others to my detriment, you do bear false witness; and misrepresent both yourself and myself; and commit the trespass of converting property of another to your own use?"
...and here's a couple for those who consider themselves Christians:
65} "Do you seek to lead me into temptation?"
66} "Do you seek to deliver me unto evil?"
...although i suspect these last two (very powerful) questions would be much better used in a court setting.
After all that (kudos to anyone who makes it through the whole list!), if they insist on writing a ticket, when they hand it over for a signature one will notice they have marked the signature line with an 'x'. This is a signature in itself. One might like to ask them:
67} "Why do you sign a ticket that you say is for myself?"
68} "Do you claim to legally represent the person who's data you have recorded on this instrument?"
69} "Am i obliged to sign this?"
...and should they walk away - no personal details taken nor ticket issued - congratulations! One has just established common-law jurisdiction, you little legend you! If you DO get a ticket then it's just an opportunity to ask more questions via correspondence. Ask enough of the right questions and you might be left alone...
Ok it's just a bit of fun to suggest one would get through all those questions - but it's not too hard to remember some of them. The point is: question everything - EVERYTHING! To question is the answer to all problems. A claim may bring you blame, a statement just the same, but to question shows you sane... (and competent!).
Btw, please feel free to add or ask your own questions...
Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law