How to Refuse a Police Search

[shadowstalker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyokKFIecIo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyokKFIecIo

MORE INFO ON DEALING WITH POLICE ......

Know-Your-Rights DVDs: ‪http://flexyourrights.org/our_DVDs‬

Got questions about dealing with cops? We got answers: ‪http://flexyourrights.org/faq‬

Official Facebook Page: ‪http://www.facebook.com/FlexYourRights‬

Twitter: ‪http://twitter.com/#!/FlexYourRights‬

Get Flex Your Rights Emails: ‪http://flexyourrights.org/subscribe‬

[Jeffrey]

shadowstalker, thanks for the links! I haven't even heard of this website. I'm currently sifting through the content and soaking it all up. The videos are very practical (and indispensable)!

A million thanks,

Vivek

***EDIT/UPDATE***

Sorry to be off topic, but I found this picture on the webpage link you posted!

12143

:rofl:

Luckily, the website offers better means of reducing stress during encounters with law enforcement.

[mojo]

Thanks for posting shadowstalker, but I wonder if that statement still holds up today? I mean it doesn't hurt to say that but will it stop an officer? I just dont think it will. Saying no to consent seems to imply your hiding something. Anyway, I hope we find out through the comments posted here...cheers

[Jonathon]

Personally don't like the information. By refusing you get into a contract, giving the officer personam jurisdiction, which DOES give the officer the right to perform the search - you will have just given it to him. The correct way to do it would be:

"Officer, is there some law that requires me to consent to a search?" - now you have thrown the ball in his court, compelling him to make positive statements. Should he say "No", then it's basically all over. If he says yes, then the reply would be "Will you please provide me with the source and a copy of this law along with evidence of this law's applicability to me?" (Choose whatever words you like). He may reply with something sassy like: "I don't have to provide you with jack-squat" and now you have multiple paths to take toward resolution, such as informed consent, full disclosure, rights and responsibilities of a peace officer, constitutional authority and so on - the list is numerous. You may also like to carry a printed copy of a document called "Public Servant Questionnaire" (will try to attach to this post). Remember never to refuse, make positive statements (assumes you are being deposed) or fall silent on any of their "offers" - even if said offer seems ridiculous (such as "I'll string you up by your short and curlies" or other apparent threats/insults - this is how they get you).

Should everything be done properly on your part and they dishonor you, remember to execute a contract and get their agreement (refusal or silence) on everything they force you to do, while disclosing your performance of any action under "protest and duress". For example - if they try to cuff you, agree under the condition that they will compensate you up to 1 million dollars for their doing so. This opens the door to file a lien or civil/criminal suit against their public hazard bond later on. This requires an administrative process of course.

[mesta0ptik]

Loving the Public Servant Questionaire, my trouble is it's for the United States.

Does anyone have any links to anything similar for the UK?

[Virgo]

Isn't consent already implied? If you have a driver’s license and travel on their interstate roads. I think you would be dealing in commerce and would fall under their jurisdiction?

[Mark]

That's why you shouldn't drive with a driver's license on your person, Virgo. Why you should also not have plates on your car. Don't put any #s or anything else where the plate is supposed to be either because, by law, that area of the car is for license plates and they can get you for that also. But, generally, if you begin to speak to an officer in this way and that officer is experienced, he or she will know immediately that you know what your true rights are and they may just walk away. It is generally not advisable to do this at all though unless you know exactly what you are doing. Just pay the ticket unless you're ready to go to that next level and find true sovereignty for self.

[Virgo]

I read somewhere that when you are given a citation for a traffic violation it's actually for copyright infringement because they control the statute, law, rules. It's their intellectual property?

[Virgo]

a buddy of mine was recently was stopped for speeding. the office wrote him up a citation/summons. when he asked if he could read what he was signing, the office said; sign this or you are going to jail.

[Mark]

I'm not sure about the copyright thing but if you sign anything you've made contract. If you do anything the officer says you've made contract. If you unroll your window cause he said so, if you step out of the car because he said so, if you say you under-stand anything, if you agree with anything, you've made contract. That is why you have to be polite, question the officer, keep your hands in sight and, in the best case scenario, you have a witness there to corroborate what you're doing, or set your phone to record and put it somewhere it can record the interaction. And never agree with the officer because it is all about jurisdiction, that seems to be the heart of it.

If you claim to be a free man or woman of the land, that means you are not a citizen of the USA and you are not conducting commerce by using your vehicle and so you do not need a drivers license or plates since you are not 'of' the country so the officer has no jurisdiction over you. By making contract with the officer you acknowledge his or her jurisdiction over you.

[Star Tsar]

What about those who live in the UK?

[karelia]

What about those who live in the UK?

TPUC (http://www.tpuc.org) and Lawful Rebellion (http://lawfulrebellion.org/) have a lot of info.

[Mark]

All of this is associated with any country that has a law system based upon a previous association with GB, which is currently within what is called the Commonwealth, the definition of which, generally, is as follows: a world organization of autonomous states that are united in allegiance to a central power but are not subordinate to it or to one another

The not-so-secret history has it that America was never de-colonized by the British. Canada is still under GB and of course you being in the UK fall under the protection of your natural birthright as a free man or woman of the land also. It is the natural state of all BEings so should be practicable anywhere in the world and to anybody anywhere in the world.

There are many misunderstandings about it, primarily stemming from a lack of understanding that this Commonwealth thing has really become world-wide and is practically applicable by anybody. In the States, for instance, there is a racist component to it where some on the Far Right claim that only white men can be Free Men (no Women allowed freedom) of the Land because the Founders of this country were white men. Hunde Schiza. It's the natural birthright of ALL humans.

[Guest]

I'm not sure about the copyright thing but if you sign anything you've made contract. If you do anything the officer says you've made contract. If you unroll your window cause he said so, if you step out of the car because he said so, if you say you under-stand anything, if you agree with anything, you've made contract. That is why you have to be polite, question the officer, keep your hands in sight and, in the best case scenario, you have a witness there to corroborate what you're doing, or set your phone to record and put it somewhere it can record the interaction. And never agree with the officer because it is all about jurisdiction, that seems to be the heart of it.

If you claim to be a free man or woman of the land, that means you are not a citizen of the USA and you are not conducting commerce by using your vehicle and so you do not need a drivers license or plates since you are not 'of' the country so the officer has no jurisdiction over you. By making contract with the officer you acknowledge his or her jurisdiction over you.


I have done the above with both local and federal police. Do not say anything..... or react

I'm about 5' & some change.... and not a threat either...

Usually after some waiting & interrogation intimidating tactics the officers usually say have a good day ma'am....

Nora

We are all related

[blake]

That's why you shouldn't drive with a driver's license on your person, Virgo. Why you should also not have plates on your car. Don't put any #s or anything else where the plate is supposed to be either because, by law, that area of the car is for license plates and they can get you for that also. But, generally, if you begin to speak to an officer in this way and that officer is experienced, he or she will know immediately that you know what your true rights are and they may just walk away. It is generally not advisable to do this at all though unless you know exactly what you are doing. Just pay the ticket unless you're ready to go to that next level and find true sovereignty for self.

Hello Rahkyt,


I agree what Jonathan said about asking the officer if there is a law in which he would have to consent to any search. I also agree that the best thing to do is to say you don't consent to any search but not a word more, just be a broken record, but that is all I agree with. Any experienced, good defense lawyer will tell you Not to talk to the police, or answer any of their questions. The more you talk, no matter how innocently, the more strike thay can use against you.
There is evidence that suggest we don't techniqically need plates on our cars. There is great evidence to suggest that we don't have to pay income taxes. Yet to actually take action and drive around without plates on your car is taking a huge risk.

I am not saying that what you and Jonathan write about the law is incorrect. But what seems not to be factored in, is that the courts DO NOT follow their own laws if it suits them. The legal system, the courts , the judges are NOT honest. So if anyone thinks that they can outsmart the judictional system becasue they understand how the law works that is not accepted by those who run the courtroom, then no matter how right you are YOU WILL GO TO JAIL. And if you get very good at what you do, they will follow you until you slip up, and slip up you will, even if its a sting, and you will go to jail where the key will be thrown away.

Just like the money lords don't like anyone fooling around with the money. The judicial system, doesn't like outsiders playing on their turf. Oh sure there are a few who are well read and who have schooled themselves to be quite the legal scholars to fight in legal arenas, but they are few and far between; and even they have slipped after many years. Many of those legal eagles are sitting in jail now or have lost their homes, or lives.

All this you both talk about has been experiemented with previous generations. It must have been a good twentyfive years ago when the right to drive movement was giivng seminars on the law. It is not that their information is incorrect. If we had an HONEST court system, it would work. But the key factor is that the JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS CORRUPT, and will only follow laws that they choose to follow, when they decide to follow them. Too many good honest people found out the hard way that innocense, truth, and what is right HAS NO PLACE AND NO POWER in the American Courts.

The cerified legal eagles I know will tell people thay care about is to STAY OUT OF COURT AT ALL COSTS BECAUSE IT IS NOTHING BETTER THAN A CRAP GAME.

So please be responsible when reading this material, and be realistic about who you are fighting. AVOID THE POLICE. DO NOT ANSwER ANY OF THEIR QUESTIONS EVEN OFF THE RECORD. ANY THING YOU SAY WILL BE HELD AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF LAW. THE POLICE CAN LIE TO YOU. YOU CAN NOT LIE TIO THE POLICE. THE POLICE HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO KILL YOU. IF YOU EVEN BREATH AIR ON A COP, YOU COULD GO DOWN A VERY SLIPPERY SLOP AND NEVER STAND UP AGAIN.

Sure you can play around with this material. ANd you might even get away with it for a short time. BUT I Guarantee YOU WILL EVENTUALLY GO TO JAIL. So be very cautious with what you do with this material. THE COURTS WERE NOT HONEST TWENTY OR THIRTY YEARS AGO WITH THIS INFORMATION, why would it be different now with even less rights acknowledge and protected then back then? The power of homeland security, TSA, etc etc, now exists and a whole lot more, do you really think some law that the courts can decide to ignore will have any power to create a safe zone for you? Think again!

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis

[Mark]

Hey there, Mr. Davis. As I said in my first post on this thread:


It is generally not advisable to do this at all though unless you know exactly what you are doing. Just pay the ticket unless you're ready to go to that next level and find true sovereignty for self.

So I agree with your warnings, 100%. I have learned about this kind of stuff 2nd hand, from a man who has the experience, has spent almost 2 years in jail being held illegally and without charges just because he actually lived and is living the life of a free man of the land and as a result he has the scars and the experience to prove it.

He fought the government of Canada against taxes and won, he has achieved his own personal sovereignty and lives it, he has fought against tickets and won, the cops where he lives won't even pull him over now because he will go after their bonds in a heartbeat. But not everybody has the knowledge to do these things and if you don't have it you really shouldn't try to go against the system that created it all.

So I know that it can work, IF you know what you're doing, IF you're willing to potentially risk EVERYTHING to do it. If you are not willing to pay the potential consequences by spending time in jail then don' t do it.

Not many are so willing. So yes, everyone has to think again, if they want to just cavalierly go about speaking to an "officer of the law" in this manner. Be very, very certain that it is what you want to and are ready to do.

[Mark]

I have done the above with both local and federal police. Do not say anything..... or react

I'm about 5' & some change.... and not a threat either...

Usually after some waiting & interrogation intimidating tactics the officers usually say have a good day ma'am....

Hey there, Nora, thanks for sharing your experience. Now see, this is where my problem is. I haven't had any run-ins with the law in recent years, since I've been learning about all of this stuff so it is pretty much all second-hand knowledge to me. My thing is that I'm a 6'5-6 (with boots on) Black Man and some say I can look very, very, very threatening, even when sitting down. The encounters I've had with the Law up till this point have always started out very confrontational from the officers every time, until I start speaking. LOL Then they generally calm down. Make of that what you will.

Soooooo, attempting this kind of sovereignty stuff without witnesses present can be very chancy for me, especially when it seems to often be easier for cops to just shoot a black dude and put some drugs on him and claim they were attacked rather than going through all of this stuff. Don't know what I'll do when the situation arises, but I will certainly be as non-threatening as I can be.

[Jonathon]

Loving the Public Servant Questionaire, my trouble is it's for the United States.

Does anyone have any links to anything similar for the UK?

I don't have the specific documents to quote, however the "law" is exactly the same - I believe everything on the questionnaire applies to the UK and any other western country.


1) Isn't consent already implied? If you have a driver’s license and travel on their interstate roads. I think you would be dealing in commerce and would fall under their jurisdiction? 2) I read somewhere that when you are given a citation for a traffic violation it's actually for copyright infringement because they control the statute, law, rules. It's their intellectual property? 3) a buddy of mine was recently was stopped for speeding. the office wrote him up a citation/summons. when he asked if he could read what he was signing, the office said; sign this or you are going to jail.

Some will actually put a sign on their car that says "private vessel, not in commerce" to rebut the presumption they are under statutory jurisdiction. To my knowledge there is no contract that requires you to depose yourself (show your papers). There is also no evidence that I am aware of that the roads belong to "them". The citation is an offer compelling you to perform. If you have some idea as to what you are doing (following the basic rules of contract law), you could sign "under protest and duress" and/or mark through anything on the citation you don't like and then sign (this is a counteroffer), or change the jurisdiction by placing a stamp on both sides (1st at top left, 2nd on bottom right of the back) then sign through the stamps at 45 degrees, thereby placing the contract under the international jurisdiction of the postal union with you as the post master. If all else fails, you can always take the ticket and A4V it to the court (banker's acceptance) - this worked in the past, but I haven't kept up with it in the past year.

Also important to pick your battles - may not be worth it for a $60 traffic ticket. There is always risk. With regard to number 3) - your buddy was made an offer. Just accept conditioned upon proof and disclosure of said law that forces a party to sign a contract - can a banker put you in jail for failing to sign a mortgage agreement? What is the force and effect of a contract that was signed by a party under duress? Nil!

Rahkyt is correct with regard to jurisdiction. Think of jurisdiction in terms of dimensions - you are a multi-jurisdictional being. All jurisdictions coexist at one time. Just because you "appear" to be within their statutory jurisdiction, doesn't mean that you are. They are compelling you to "enter" by way of contract. So you can hold a license, have a license plate and whatever else. There is nothing but your own fear and ignorance that may compel you to grant and convey your power/authority, identification or anything else within your possession. It's all up to you.


I agree what Jonathan said about asking the officer if there is a law in which he would have to consent to any search. I also agree that the best thing to do is to say you don't consent to any search but not a word more, just be a broken record, but that is all I agree with. Any experienced, good defense lawyer will tell you Not to talk to the police, or answer any of their questions. The more you talk, no matter how innocently, the more strike thay can use against you.
There is evidence that suggest we don't techniqically need plates on our cars. There is great evidence to suggest that we don't have to pay income taxes. Yet to actually take action and drive around without plates on your car is taking a huge risk.

That's correct blake - you don't answer questions or make statements - this is being Deposed. Any position you take conveys consent to contract. Everything must be in the form of a question. Most lawyers don't understand jack about the nature of contract. They tell you not to say anything because most people aren't smart enough to keep themselves out of deposition - this for good reason of course, as we are all conditioned from birth to obey/respect authority (the deposed/powerless spirit). This conditioning is extremely hard to break.

The plate issue is one of (if we want to step down into a paper jurisdiction that officers will understand) Constitutional authority -- your right to travel. Must be very careful with language in this situation however. The tax issue - if you have a social security, social insurance, green card or other documented "privileged" to engage in public commerce, you have become a "juristic person" - a fictitious corporate conduit. Every basis of man-made law allows for the taxation of corporations, and further, the Constitution "grants" your unlimited right to contract - your unlimited right to agree to enslaving yourself. There is the problem with disclosure, but as a beneficiary to the public trust, you don't have the right to know everything.


I am not saying that what you and Jonathan write about the law is incorrect. But what seems not to be factored in, is that the courts DO NOT follow their own laws if it suits them. The legal system, the courts , the judges are NOT honest. So if anyone thinks that they can outsmart the judictional system becasue they understand how the law works that is not accepted by those who run the courtroom, then no matter how right you are YOU WILL GO TO JAIL. And if you get very good at what you do, they will follow you until you slip up, and slip up you will, even if its a sting, and you will go to jail where the key will be thrown away.

Just like the money lords don't like anyone fooling around with the money. The judicial system, doesn't like outsiders playing on their turf. Oh sure there are a few who are well read and who have schooled themselves to be quite the legal scholars to fight in legal arenas, but they are few and far between; and even they have slipped after many years. Many of those legal eagles are sitting in jail now or have lost their homes, or lives.

All this you both talk about has been experiemented with previous generations. It must have been a good twentyfive years ago when the right to drive movement was giivng seminars on the law. It is not that their information is incorrect. If we had an HONEST court system, it would work. But the key factor is that the JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS CORRUPT, and will only follow laws that they choose to follow, when they decide to follow them. Too many good honest people found out the hard way that innocense, truth, and what is right HAS NO PLACE AND NO POWER in the American Courts.

The cerified legal eagles I know will tell people thay care about is to STAY OUT OF COURT AT ALL COSTS BECAUSE IT IS NOTHING BETTER THAN A CRAP GAME.

The place you are coming from I can understand well - completely understand what you are saying and why. Took me a while to be educated properly to this particular matter - and this is assuming I have it right now (who knows anything for sure?). Judges are not "bringers of judgment" - they are administrators. The only law they preside over is the law that is brought before them, meaning you (potentially) have all of the authority. All written "law" is hearsay until it is brought to bear. This is the same for jurisdiction (however may be presumed unless the presumption is rebutted). The only law is contract. Contract = law = contract. There is no evidence (necessarily) that any written law applies to you. The only evidence exists in what you say and what you do (in particular what you do). So the presumption of corruption is based upon the premise that the judge has the authority to "judge" in the 1st place, which they do not unless you give it to them, which almost everyone does because of this presumption. So the problem isn't corruption or dishonesty, it's ignorance. Judges (or anyone else) have no power over you that you don't give or allow. Judges do not hold your remedy - only you do. People are talking themselves into contracts they don't understand and it's not the judges job to tell them. You are presumed sovereign and competent the minute you enter the building, however are given a multitude of opportunities to prove that you aren't. Most depose themselves within the 1st few minutes.


So please be responsible when reading this material, and be realistic about who you are fighting. AVOID THE POLICE. DO NOT ANSwER ANY OF THEIR QUESTIONS EVEN OFF THE RECORD. ANY THING YOU SAY WILL BE HELD AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF LAW. THE POLICE CAN LIE TO YOU. YOU CAN NOT LIE TIO THE POLICE. THE POLICE HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO KILL YOU. IF YOU EVEN BREATH AIR ON A COP, YOU COULD GO DOWN A VERY SLIPPERY SLOP AND NEVER STAND UP AGAIN.

Definitely BE responsible and understand what that means. You are the creator. And you are NOT fighting anything and you have nothing to fear. Once again, starting from the premise of resistance and victimhood which is the wrong energy. Your brothers are coming to you with problems, seeking a solution. Help them peacefully, knowing that you are the creator.


Sure you can play around with this material. ANd you might even get away with it for a short time. BUT I Guarantee YOU WILL EVENTUALLY GO TO JAIL. So be very cautious with what you do with this material. THE COURTS WERE NOT HONEST TWENTY OR THIRTY YEARS AGO WITH THIS INFORMATION, why would it be different now with even less rights acknowledge and protected then back then? The power of homeland security, TSA, etc etc, now exists and a whole lot more, do you really think some law that the courts can decide to ignore will have any power to create a safe zone for you? Think again!

There is nothing to get way with. This assumes you are doing something wrong in the 2nd place and that you don't have the authority in the 1st place. Be the creditor/creator - it is all that you are. Stop acting like you are someone else! =) Reminds me of Allan Watt's story about the student and the master - if the student believes that he must suffer, the master will be sure that he does until which point the student wakes up and realizes he was whole and complete all along. ;) This is no different in my opinion. If you tell the "authorities" that you have no power by your words and actions, who are they to argue? Hehehe.

[blake]

Loving the Public Servant Questionaire, my trouble is it's for the United States.

Does anyone have any links to anything similar for the UK?

I don't have the specific documents to quote, however the "law" is exactly the same - I believe everything on the questionnaire applies to the UK and any other western country.


1) Isn't consent already implied? If you have a driver’s license and travel on their interstate roads. I think you would be dealing in commerce and would fall under their jurisdiction? 2) I read somewhere that when you are given a citation for a traffic violation it's actually for copyright infringement because they control the statute, law, rules. It's their intellectual property? 3) a buddy of mine was recently was stopped for speeding. the office wrote him up a citation/summons. when he asked if he could read what he was signing, the office said; sign this or you are going to jail.

Some will actually put a sign on their car that says "private vessel, not in commerce" to rebut the presumption they are under statutory jurisdiction. To my knowledge there is no contract that requires you to depose yourself (show your papers). There is also no evidence that I am aware of that the roads belong to "them". The citation is an offer compelling you to perform. If you have some idea as to what you are doing (following the basic rules of contract law), you could sign "under protest and duress" and/or mark through anything on the citation you don't like and then sign (this is a counteroffer), or change the jurisdiction by placing a stamp on both sides (1st at top left, 2nd on bottom right of the back) then sign through the stamps at 45 degrees, thereby placing the contract under the international jurisdiction of the postal union with you as the post master. If all else fails, you can always take the ticket and A4V it to the court (banker's acceptance) - this worked in the past, but I haven't kept up with it in the past year.

Also important to pick your battles - may not be worth it for a $60 traffic ticket. There is always risk. With regard to number 3) - your buddy was made an offer. Just accept conditioned upon proof and disclosure of said law that forces a party to sign a contract - can a banker put you in jail for failing to sign a mortgage agreement? What is the force and effect of a contract that was signed by a party under duress? Nil!

Rahkyt is correct with regard to jurisdiction. Think of jurisdiction in terms of dimensions - you are a multi-jurisdictional being. All jurisdictions coexist at one time. Just because you "appear" to be within their statutory jurisdiction, doesn't mean that you are. They are compelling you to "enter" by way of contract. So you can hold a license, have a license plate and whatever else. There is nothing but your own fear and ignorance that may compel you to grant and convey your power/authority, identification or anything else within your possession. It's all up to you.


I agree what Jonathan said about asking the officer if there is a law in which he would have to consent to any search. I also agree that the best thing to do is to say you don't consent to any search but not a word more, just be a broken record, but that is all I agree with. Any experienced, good defense lawyer will tell you Not to talk to the police, or answer any of their questions. The more you talk, no matter how innocently, the more strike thay can use against you.
There is evidence that suggest we don't techniqically need plates on our cars. There is great evidence to suggest that we don't have to pay income taxes. Yet to actually take action and drive around without plates on your car is taking a huge risk.

That's correct blake - you don't answer questions or make statements - this is being Deposed. Any position you take conveys consent to contract. Everything must be in the form of a question. Most lawyers don't understand jack about the nature of contract. They tell you not to say anything because most people aren't smart enough to keep themselves out of deposition - this for good reason of course, as we are all conditioned from birth to obey/respect authority (the deposed/powerless spirit). This conditioning is extremely hard to break.

The plate issue is one of (if we want to step down into a paper jurisdiction that officers will understand) Constitutional authority -- your right to travel. Must be very careful with language in this situation however. The tax issue - if you have a social security, social insurance, green card or other documented "privileged" to engage in public commerce, you have become a "juristic person" - a fictitious corporate conduit. Every basis of man-made law allows for the taxation of corporations, and further, the Constitution "grants" your unlimited right to contract - your unlimited right to agree to enslaving yourself. There is the problem with disclosure, but as a beneficiary to the public trust, you don't have the right to know everything.


I am not saying that what you and Jonathan write about the law is incorrect. But what seems not to be factored in, is that the courts DO NOT follow their own laws if it suits them. The legal system, the courts , the judges are NOT honest. So if anyone thinks that they can outsmart the judictional system becasue they understand how the law works that is not accepted by those who run the courtroom, then no matter how right you are YOU WILL GO TO JAIL. And if you get very good at what you do, they will follow you until you slip up, and slip up you will, even if its a sting, and you will go to jail where the key will be thrown away.

Just like the money lords don't like anyone fooling around with the money. The judicial system, doesn't like outsiders playing on their turf. Oh sure there are a few who are well read and who have schooled themselves to be quite the legal scholars to fight in legal arenas, but they are few and far between; and even they have slipped after many years. Many of those legal eagles are sitting in jail now or have lost their homes, or lives.

All this you both talk about has been experiemented with previous generations. It must have been a good twentyfive years ago when the right to drive movement was giivng seminars on the law. It is not that their information is incorrect. If we had an HONEST court system, it would work. But the key factor is that the JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS CORRUPT, and will only follow laws that they choose to follow, when they decide to follow them. Too many good honest people found out the hard way that innocense, truth, and what is right HAS NO PLACE AND NO POWER in the American Courts.

The cerified legal eagles I know will tell people thay care about is to STAY OUT OF COURT AT ALL COSTS BECAUSE IT IS NOTHING BETTER THAN A CRAP GAME.

The place you are coming from I can understand well - completely understand what you are saying and why. Took me a while to be educated properly to this particular matter - and this is assuming I have it right now (who knows anything for sure?). Judges are not "bringers of judgment" - they are administrators. The only law they preside over is the law that is brought before them, meaning you (potentially) have all of the authority. All written "law" is hearsay until it is brought to bear. This is the same for jurisdiction (however may be presumed unless the presumption is rebutted). The only law is contract. Contract = law = contract. There is no evidence (necessarily) that any written law applies to you. The only evidence exists in what you say and what you do (in particular what you do). So the presumption of corruption is based upon the premise that the judge has the authority to "judge" in the 1st place, which they do not unless you give it to them, which almost everyone does because of this presumption. So the problem isn't corruption or dishonesty, it's ignorance. Judges (or anyone else) have no power over you that you don't give or allow. Judges do not hold your remedy - only you do. People are talking themselves into contracts they don't understand and it's not the judges job to tell them. You are presumed sovereign and competent the minute you enter the building, however are given a multitude of opportunities to prove that you aren't. Most depose themselves within the 1st few minutes.


So please be responsible when reading this material, and be realistic about who you are fighting. AVOID THE POLICE. DO NOT ANSwER ANY OF THEIR QUESTIONS EVEN OFF THE RECORD. ANY THING YOU SAY WILL BE HELD AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF LAW. THE POLICE CAN LIE TO YOU. YOU CAN NOT LIE TIO THE POLICE. THE POLICE HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO KILL YOU. IF YOU EVEN BREATH AIR ON A COP, YOU COULD GO DOWN A VERY SLIPPERY SLOP AND NEVER STAND UP AGAIN.

Definitely BE responsible and understand what that means. You are the creator. And you are NOT fighting anything and you have nothing to fear. Once again, starting from the premise of resistance and victimhood which is the wrong energy. Your brothers are coming to you with problems, seeking a solution. Help them peacefully, knowing that you are the creator.


Sure you can play around with this material. ANd you might even get away with it for a short time. BUT I Guarantee YOU WILL EVENTUALLY GO TO JAIL. So be very cautious with what you do with this material. THE COURTS WERE NOT HONEST TWENTY OR THIRTY YEARS AGO WITH THIS INFORMATION, why would it be different now with even less rights acknowledge and protected then back then? The power of homeland security, TSA, etc etc, now exists and a whole lot more, do you really think some law that the courts can decide to ignore will have any power to create a safe zone for you? Think again!

There is nothing to get way with. This assumes you are doing something wrong in the 2nd place and that you don't have the authority in the 1st place. Be the creditor/creator - it is all that you are. Stop acting like you are someone else! =) Reminds me of Allan Watt's story about the student and the master - if the student believes that he must suffer, the master will be sure that he does until which point the student wakes up and realizes he was whole and complete all along. ;) This is no different in my opinion. If you tell the "authorities" that you have no power by your words and actions, who are they to argue? Hehehe.


Hello Jonathan,

I have listened to the same words you speak by many legal eagles over the decades. And I don't deny the truth behind them. But I am a realist. And I do pick the battles, in this war of liberty, and what I have learned from direct expereince is that playing legal eagle with this material is fun to read about and argue about, but its not so fun to watch people's lives being destroyed trying to put it into practice. Some of the very people who practiced what they spoke of were very brillinat legal scholars, that many certifiied lawyers would consult. Yet, as brilliant as these people were, the federal government eventually went after them becasue they became a "problem". Today with the news laws, it is even easier to become a "problem". I am glad you have devoted many hours to this intellectual game. Law school is also a fun and intelllectual game. But in the real world, the rules change like the wind in a tornado, or as directed by the PTB. As an intellectual chess play, your words are fun. On the street, they can be deadly to your freedom, your comfort and even get you killed. I say this becasue I have sadly watched it repeatedly happen over the years. People, like you, who studied, and thought they could pick the battles and win. ANd some did win some impressive battles. And those who did win, became silient targets. They eventually were taken out swiftly, some made homeless, some unofficially tortured in jail, some just died in jail.

Iif the legal scholars are picked up, or targeted eventaully, what do you think happens to those trying to use ths information without their expertise in these matters?
You say choose your battles? That is very wise. Do choose your battles, becasue the battle is not going to be won with legal eagle stuff no matter how true or right it is. Your battles will not be won in the courtroom or hiding behind any of this information without great tradegy. There is a huge difference between words and reality of how things are done.

I will not discuss this any more. People need to learn on their own. But over the years I have seen things first hand, assisted people beyond what I could afford, and sady watched one tradegy after another for ten years. To me trying to warn people about this is the same as trying to warn them ten years ago tha the economy falilng apart. Few would listen. Few will listen to my warning. All I can do is hope that some one thinking about acting on any of this material you speak of , will decide to stragtegize in a different way. So study the material, do your homework on the material, but also make part of your homework in studying the history of what happens to people that act out on the material. This material is not new. It's been circulating for years. Each new generation stumples upon it and finds the same fate as the previos generation.

There is an old saying: the more laws and rules a government has, the more corrupt they are. It amazes me that anyone thinks that becasue they are correct and right and honorable, that they can use words to outsmart the metaphorical, or literal dictator. When you outsmart the dictator, and they stlill are in control, they usually kill you. So be wise as a serpent and understand that the rules and laws are changing rapidly. And until Congressman Paul is able to "legalize the Consitution again, this material that you speak of is even more dangerous than it was twenty yeras ago.


Sincerely,

Mr. Davis

[Camilo]

Thanks for sharing. None of the pages from the liks you posted can be found or accessed.

[Jonathon]

Thanks for the response blake. You will get zero argument from me with anything you just said. I have seen and experienced the whiplash myself - this is not an easy game to learn, and unfortunately learning requires direct experience. You can't simply study some material and then hope for the best - that would be like reading about rock climbing and the assume you can go tackle a 600 foot cliff face. Freedom bears a great responsibility and great cost; and more times than not, you will be out there all alone facing hordes who have nothing but time and energy to waste while you work tirelessly around the clock. No, it's not pretty. There is no glamor in it. But that's not really what we're talking about here either.

From my perspective this isn't a "resistance" per se, but a journey to and within the deeper question of: Who Am I? With that in mind, there is no better place to cut you teeth and rub your antlers. Cost is relative, however assume you could lose everything from the 3D perspective while gaining a tremendous experience. Many lessons to learn regarding fear, will, love and resilience. Lots of conditioning to break in order to succeed on the many available layers of experience offered. I can say the most difficult to learn and meter would be intention - always asking: where am I coming from and what am I creating? Fear is such a hard driver - it takes tremendous will and focus to come from peace and love, and even more so to come from absolute responsibility.

Oddly enough, this wasn't a journey I intended. The window of opportunity was forecast in a dream I had written down approximately 6-7 months prior. Didn't realize it until about 3 months after I jumped in head first. That was a very strange day - realizing how closely the dream mirrored the actual experience. No wonder it resonated so much - I had already experienced it! So you might say I was called to it. Still not sure precisely why, but I can say it has been a life changing experience in many ways, and that's mostly for the good. Knowledge can also be a big headache - lots of responsibility.

If it's one you (that being anyone) wish to take, I'm happy to point you in the right direction. But realize, this is a way of being, not a couple of generic tricks and processes to "get one over" on "the man". This is an advanced spiritual journey with all of the potential pitfalls and rewards that come with it - an exercise in being. You will be tested.

[Belle]

Hey there, Nora, thanks for sharing your experience. Now see, this is where my problem is. I haven't had any run-ins with the law in recent years, since I've been learning about all of this stuff so it is pretty much all second-hand knowledge to me. My thing is that I'm a 6'5-6 (with boots on) Black Man and some say I can look very, very, very threatening, even when sitting down. The encounters I've had with the Law up till this point have always started out very confrontational from the officers every time, until I start speaking. LOL Then they generally calm down. Make of that what you will.

Soooooo, attempting this kind of sovereignty stuff without witnesses present can be very chancy for me, especially when it seems to often be easier for cops to just shoot a black dude and put some drugs on him and claim they were attacked rather than going through all of this stuff. Don't know what I'll do when the situation arises, but I will certainly be as non-threatening as I can be.

Profiling makes my blood boil!

My son has had a few run ins with police...he's a bohemian (artist/musician) with hair almost to his waist, paint on most of his clothes... yet such a gentle and peaceful soul, and extremely intelligent (IQ of 180). They take one look at him, figure he must be up to something, and start harassing him. He has had the unfortunate experience of having drugs planted in his car and being arrested for it.

On the other hand, I can be stopped for speeding without wearing a seatbelt and only get a warning by a very polite officer who will tell me to buckle up and wish me well. Once when they were hastling my son, I got right up in the officers' face asking for an explanation...he just firmly told me to step back. I'm 5'2" with wrinkles on my face and a bun in my hair (at my age (60, but don't tell anyone...shhhh) you're not supposed to have long hair you know, so I wear it in a bun when I go out)...he considered me to be no threat. Yet I'm the feisty one in the famliy...I have no fear of these people, which is not necessarily a good thing.

Appearances can be so deceiving.

[Mark]

On the other hand, I can be stopped for speeding without wearing a seatbelt and only get a warning by a very polite officer who will tell me to buckle up and wish me well. Once when they were hastling my son, I got right up in the officers' face asking for an explanation...he just firmly told me to step back. I'm 5'2" with wrinkles on my face and a bun in my hair (at my age (60, but don't tell anyone...shhhh) you're not supposed to have long hair you know, so I wear it in a bun when I go out)...he considered me to be no threat. Yet I'm the feisty one in the famliy...I have no fear of these people, which is not necessarily a good thing.

Appearances can be so deceiving.

Well appearances seem to be what it is all about. Considering that anger and aggressiveness are at heart an expression of fear, the conundrum these cops face is almost sad to consider. They are charged with protecting the interest of the system and far too many of them are deceived into thinking they are public servants. The rest don't care or are on the take or are in it for the power trip. I suppose when they make these choices all of their preconceived notions come into play, mixed with some misguided sense of the criminal versus the law-abiding in too many cases to count.

I've had my run-ins with the law and, for the most part, they've been more positive than negative. The institution itself and those who seek to personalize the impersonal in their interactions with the public are generally the ones that get me riled up. Any government servant who thinks that they are upholding an inviolate and upstanding system of governance and laws created with the best interests of the public in mind is, to me, a danger to everyone around them, including him or herself.

[Simonm]

What about those who live in the UK?

TPUC (http://www.tpuc.org) and Lawful Rebellion (http://lawfulrebellion.org/) have a lot of info.

This is a brilliant site. John Harris is a genius.

[Moondancer]

Thank You Shadowstalker, I've learned so much from your post. You have touched many with this important post.

[Unified Serenity]

I used to be into this stuff up to my eyeballs. It's very interesting stuff. The whole admiralty law, common law, law of the land, law of the sea (admiralty law), UPC law I think was another one, and the stuff goes in circles up moving floors, down sliding escalators and fifty rabbit holes and the by time you're done, if you did not dot the correct i or nodded your head when you should have stepped right YOUR GUILTY and "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS" is the cry.

Some have managed to play this out and won their freedom, live in their own small country here in the great USA. Just know that it is not for the faint of heart or the unable to focus and get it perfectly correct. Take a dozen lawyers and your own stenographer and maybe you will get out of jail in a decade.

Good luck all

[Unified Serenity]

On the other hand, I can be stopped for speeding without wearing a seatbelt and only get a warning by a very polite officer who will tell me to buckle up and wish me well. Once when they were hastling my son, I got right up in the officers' face asking for an explanation...he just firmly told me to step back. I'm 5'2" with wrinkles on my face and a bun in my hair (at my age (60, but don't tell anyone...shhhh) you're not supposed to have long hair you know, so I wear it in a bun when I go out)...he considered me to be no threat. Yet I'm the feisty one in the famliy...I have no fear of these people, which is not necessarily a good thing.

Appearances can be so deceiving.

Well appearances seem to be what it is all about. Considering that anger and aggressiveness are at heart an expression of fear, the conundrum these cops face is almost sad to consider. They are charged with protecting the interest of the system and far too many of them are deceived into thinking they are public servants. The rest don't care or are on the take or are in it for the power trip. I suppose when they make these choices all of their preconceived notions come into play, mixed with some misguided sense of the criminal versus the law-abiding in too many cases to count.

I've had my run-ins with the law and, for the most part, they've been more positive than negative. The institution itself and those who seek to personalize the impersonal in their interactions with the public are generally the ones that get me riled up. Any government servant who thinks that they are upholding an inviolate and upstanding system of governance and laws created with the best interests of the public in mind is, to me, a danger to everyone around them, including him or herself.

Hey Rahkyt,

Have you ever been stopped for DWB? I used to sell pre-paid legal insurance and one of it's very nice aspects was that for a small sum of 19.00 to 26.00 per month if you were ever stopped by an officer of the peace, no matter what time, as long as you were not DRUNK you could call a toll free number and get your A.V. rated lawyer on the phone who would talk with the officer. They'd also send a lawyer to court for you if you got a ticket. My clients always got the points dropped and just paid a fine. It's the points that ruin you really. I no longer sell it, but it is a great program, and sure is handy in small counties in Georgia where you don't want to get stopped for DWB at 2am.

[Mark]

Have you ever been stopped for DWB?

Hello US, I'm generally pulled over for speeding. Past tense really, I haven't been pulled over in years now. I learned to drive on the German Autobahn over a period of 4 years between the ages of 19 and 23. So when I came back to the States it was hard for me to drive under a speed limit. If I've been pulled over for DWB, they've had the excuse of speeding, which I probably provided for them by engaging in such. The only times I can think of that were overtly suspicious were times when I've been pulled over for driving 5-9 miles over the speed limit on the highway or times when I've supposedly broken some law of the road like switching lanes without signalling long enough, or crossing a solid line, or not stopping completely at a stop sign. Those are judgement calls that the cops have a choice in and there's no real way to tell what the real reason they pulled you over was, so I've never really worried about it. I just place my hands on the steering wheel, look them in the eyes and enunciate clearly.

[Mark]

Here's a video of interest. An old friend of mine, Djehuty Ma'at-Ra, discusses the Wesley Snipes case and brings some light to exactly how and why he went down. Relatively short and straight-forward with some interesting asides from his personal experiences, studies and unique perspective.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4Il-28rRrI&list=UUSKJhtwkn6uMUe9cCKy8akA&index=39&feature=plcp
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4Il-28rRrI&list=UUSKJhtwkn6uMUe9cCKy8akA&index=39&feature=plcp

And another more specifically on Sovereignty ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYicrbIXjGc&list=UUSKJhtwkn6uMUe9cCKy8akA&index=33&feature=plcp
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYicrbIXjGc&list=UUSKJhtwkn6uMUe9cCKy8akA&index=33&feature=plcp

[Belle]

I have only watched about 20 minutes of Djehuty's video for lack of time at this moment, but enjoy his clarity and can't wait to finish it. He expresses himself in a way that I find comfortable...like meeting an old friend I haven't come across before. Clicked to watch it on YouTube and found other videos of his that are of interest to me as well as this one.

Thanks, Rahkyt.