Police Arrest and Interview
Police Obtained Testimony
The three most common methods in obtaining testimony by police officers are through visitation, detainment and formal interviews.
The three arguments for detainment being, computer alert or the production from the machine of some warrant or argument for arrest and detainment; or the presence of probable cause; or finally the use of fishing expeditions to find probable cause and charge people.
The three key goals of police in such processes are namely to obtain confessions, apart from any incriminating evidence; to try and get contractual agreement in place for accepting any charges or liability; and finally in discrediting any future possible appeal or arguments of defense by exposing inconsistencies and falsities.
This is the same whether a Police Officer pulls you over on the side of the highway, or knocks politely and asks to be let inside, or comes visiting with high powered weapons and body armor at four o’clock in the morning. It is either because of some computer alert, or probable cause or even fishing.
The use of tactical response groups to terrorize suspects in the hope they drop the ball on something, is an increasing tactic by many government agencies, especially now that so many departments have their own private tactical response teams to undertake midnight raids. It doesn’t always mean that they have a good reason; and in many cases, the officers conducting the raid know it. Often, they are gambling on you making terrible mistakes that they can then use against you. When it comes to people who subscribe to notions of freedom, especially in countries where people are still permitted to have guns in their home, these midnight raids have been spectacularly successful in tricking defendants into creating all kinds of charges against themselves, such as resisting arrest, threatening police, unlicensed firearms and so on, because of the raid and not the primary reason for the raid.
Police Authority of Action
Police today claim two authorities of action to make arrests with force, the first and most common still is probable cause; and the second, and increasingly more prevalent, is “exigent circumstances” or the midnight SWAT raid.
The first reason remains Probable Cause and the argument that “A reasonable amount of suspicion exists, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong, to justify a prudent and cautious persons belief that, certain facts are probably true.” As vague as this definition of Probable Cause is, for the most part, Probable Cause needs Police to act as Police; and for Criminals to behave as criminals.
The minute someone is not belligerent, or arrogant, or resistant, or acting or actually engaging in criminal activity, the police have a problem when applying excessive force. In almost all cases, the defendant ultimately is responsible in some way in making the matter manifestly worse. For example, the term “commercial bailiffs” is a fancy name for “repo men” and are not the most famous for being honest and following the rules, that is why they are “repo men” in the first place. Calling the police on the “repo men” or “bailiffs” on an eviction will probably cause the defendant to get arrested and even roughed up, because neither side like it when such action is challenged. If you have not been granted an injunction or, a cease-and-desist order, or some other order is in place, then it is probably too late at that moment; and you will have to regroup down the road.
If someone is deeply immersed in much of the rubbish on the internet about resistance and open contempt for authority, even in writing dangerous letters to authority, then it is possible the Police will evoke the Exigent Circumstances argument when arresting you, namely the 4am wake-up call by a door bashing, window smashing SWAT team. In such a case, it is absolutely fundamental for the police that you play your role as the stupid criminal incapable of discernment or reasonable behavior.
Why is this so important? Because, despite probable cause and exigent circumstances as claimed authority, police departments now are nothing more than commercial businesses like courts and banks. They have no authority because the warrant from the commercial court isn’t worth the paper it is written on. Instead, they are gambling on the suspect being tricked into an array of charges resulting from the raid that financially justifies their own expenses, rather than having to pay for the damage to the home.
The most popular charges resulting from a raid are resisting arrest, threatening police, unlicensed firearms, followed by making false statements and even impeding a police investigation. The police conducting such high force, high threat raids desperately need the suspect to enable these charges to be generated; otherwise, the financial viability of such raids would be prohibitively expensive. YOU are expected to do YOUR part in playing along as the crazy, mentally unstable rebellious citizen. As soon as you are calm, unarmed, co-operative even at 4 in the morning, they have a problem.
Seeing if you are under Arrest
If you have been detained under probable cause or experienced a 4am in the morning wake-up call from a SWAT team, the first thing you will want to know is whether or not you are under arrest?
In fact, you will know pretty immediately if the warrant that was executed was an arrest warrant as they will pretty much put you in handcuffs and take you off in some transport to be processed. Otherwise, you are pretty much looking at a fishing expedition where they are hoping and praying they find something they can use to manufacture some charges or that you will do something stupid.
General Warrants are unlawful and immoral, yet most warrants for search issued by commercial courts that are not strictly arrest warrants are often now these insidious and morally repugnant notions that the police can pretty much use the search warrant to create whatever charges they like. This is why the Patriot Act remains arguably the worst and most morally repugnant, unlawful, unconstitutional law ever conceived in the world.
In any event, if you find yourself still sitting in your home while police officers ransack your property, at some point an investigator will come over and start talking. That is when you can calmly ask as per the slide “Am I under arrest?”
Arrest
Slide 13 is a repeat from three weeks ago when we spoke about the interaction when it is made clear you are under arrest. I won’t go through the details of this slide again, except to say that the point of outlining
such interaction is not to be a “smart-arse” or belligerent, but to make clear an arrest is not a consensual contract. You are not agreeing to waive your rights. Instead, the police officer has used his or her physical power of threat and violence to detain you and take you somewhere, typically a police station or in some cities now, one of the larger processing centers.
Police Station Processing
Being booked in at a police station or large processing center is not your agreement to a contract, particularly when they will not divulge and disclose all the facts. It is impossible. It doesn’t mean you behave as a “smart arse” or an angry person, but that you are calm and forthright and honest that nothing they demand from you is valid, until they themselves speak the truth and reveal all the facts. No one can reasonably expect you to promise a blank check in good faith, when the opposite party is being unreasonable and acting in bad faith and deception.
Police Station Processing Questions
Do not parrot off some memorized words, without any consideration for the context. It makes you look mad and like some kind of lunatic, because to parrot off words without knowing what it means, or without considering the context is the height of lunacy. Unless you have read and re-read this series on the Law Explained and truly comprehend this information, then simply memorizing pieces and mouthing them off like a parrot may actually cause more trouble. Be careful and be diligent then, please!
Police Interview Questions
When facing a Police Interview, regardless of how you came to be in a Police Interview Room, the assumption here is that the room set aside for the interview has some recording device to record the interview. Most, if not all Police Interview Rooms have such recording equipment and if the Police somehow want to speak with you “off camera” or “outside of radio range”, I strongly suggest you ask “will this interview be recorded” and even request that the interview be conducted in a room with recording equipment, so no false information or statements can be made up later.
Before you undertake any kind of police interview, there are two key questions you have the right to ask the Police and should ask the police:
Q.1. Will you be conducting this interview according to the law and in good faith and honesty, without any deception?
Yes. Continue to Q2.
No. Then before I answer any questions, I request a pen and paper so I may prepare a statement.
Q. 2. If so, before we start, will you first disclose to me all the claimed evidence you have and wish to discuss; and then provide me reasonable time to remember, so that I may answer honestly without any error?
Yes. Continue and review the information
No. Then before I answer any questions, I request a pen and paper so I may prepare a statement.
Police Interview Statement
Prepare a statement to be read onto the recording at the start of the interview. Do not be intimidated by the police officers that deny your ability to write a statement and to read it onto the recording. It is your primary right and they know it. So be courteous, forthright and clear. You have written a statement and you want to read it onto the record in light of their answers to your questions. Example:
I <name>, make the following declaration as proof of my will In Propria Persona, as my natural person; and as principal of the person named “<name>”; and not as an agent or as a beneficial holder or pro se.
On <date>, I was (arrested/detained against my will) and brought to (name of police station) to be interviewed by police.
Before commencing, I asked the interviewing police if they would be conducting the interview according to the law and in good faith and honesty, without any deception. They answered (yes/no).
As a result, I asked the interviewing police if they would first disclose to me all the claimed evidence they have and wish to discuss; and then provide me reasonable time to remember, so that I could answer honestly without any error.
Because the interviewing police are not prepared at this time to disclose to me the substance of their claim and so allow me to recall accurately the events surrounding such claims, any further answers to questions at this time would be both unfair and prejudicial against me, as I am presently prevented by these actions from providing consistent and accurate answers.
Therefore, I shall be answering “no comment” to any and all further questions and I reject completely any claimed agreement, or contract, or submission by understanding to the police or courts or to any fees, or charges or being further detained at this time.
This statement is critically important because later on, if you are formally charged with a felony and go to court, your police interview is normally key evidence for the prosecution. In this case, it will be key evidence for the defense, showing you were there to assist and not be evasive and in fact it was the detectives that were being evasive and deceptive. When finished, ask for a copy of the recording, before it magically gets lost. You may need it for later.
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Assuming the next stage in the legal journey is standing before a magistrate or judge of some description, it is time now to speak about the concept and nature of Jurisdiction.
There are always two parts to Jurisdiction being:
- The Authority of a Forum to Administer Justice.
- The Authority of a Jurist to sit and hear and interpret the Law in such a Forum.
Unfortunately, most people only focus on the second form of Jurisdiction, being the claimed judge or magistrate; and miss the primary Authority of jurisdiction altogether, being the actual Authority of the Forum to Administer Justice in the first place.
The word Jurisdiction comes from the Latin iurisdictio meaning “authority to administer justice”. The Latin word itself is a combination of iuris as “rights; or law” and dicio meaning “to speak”. So, Jurisdiction in its meaning should more actually be considered, the “right to speak of the law” more than simply raw power and authority. Contrary, to the elaborate image of robes and sometimes wigs and gowns as well as props of flags and wood paneled rooms, the most powerful ingredient of Jurisdiction is knowledge! Knowledge and competence of the law.
For some reason, many people are not prepared to earn this power by learning and studying this knowledge. They want it given instantly, again like some scene of Harry Potter and other shows of magic and wizardry. Unfortunately, there is no easy path to knowledge except clearing your mind of all the rubbish that many people speak about concerning the law and then learning the essentials, starting with the Golden Rule of Law – that all are equal before the true law of the Divine Creator- and that no one is above Divine Law.
In any event, the Jurisdiction being the Authority of Forum to Administer Justice can be broken down further into three components:
- Instrument of Authority = Constitution or Ecclesiastical/Royal Charter or Warrant or Certificate (of Incorporation)
- Operation of Authority = Original Roll containing name of person (not added later); or Consent (also related to Joinder)
- Assurance of Authority = Record of Public Liability and Professional Indemnity of Jurists.
Jurisdiction that is the Authority of a Judge or Magistrate as Jurist to interpret the Law can also be broken down into three essential components:
- Instrument of Authority = Warrant or Letter of Appointment
- Operation of Authority = Record of Statutory Oath as Fiduciary
- Assurance of Authority = Record of Bond
What are some types of Forum Jurisdiction
Because there are many terms thrown around concerning Jurisdiction, here is a brief outline of the most common types of descriptions of the Jurisdiction of the Forum:
Territorial Jurisdiction = The district or geographic limits of authority of the Forum, usually as expressed within the constituting document of its authority (i.e. constitution, charter, etc).
Personal Jurisdiction = The power of a Forum over the parties in a matter before it, by authority of Original Roll (not added later); or Consent or both. An absence of proper objection is presumed as consent.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction = The limits of exclusive or concurrent authority to administer certain subject matter of law (i.e. contracts, probate, admiralty, equity, tort, criminal, etc).
Original Jurisdiction = Also known as “first instance”, is whether a matter can be initiated first in a particular Forum, or whether it can only be heard after it has been adjudicated elsewhere (hence “Appellate Jurisdiction”).
Foreign Jurisdiction = Any jurisdiction that is foreign to the Forum.
Limited Jurisdiction = When the Forum is constrained by its constituting document as to the amount or value of property in dispute; or any other limit by virtue of Territorial, Personal, Subject-Matter, Original or Foreign. A Forum without restriction is a Court of General Jurisdiction.
Forum Jurisdiction – What is an Original Roll?
A particular element of Jurisdiction concerning the Forum,is the concept of what is an Original Roll concerning jurisdiction?
An Original Roll is “a Roll of Persons under the control and authority (jurisdiction) of the Forum enabling it to claim coercive powers to attend a particular matter or controversy”.
To put it another way, the concept of an “Original Roll” is the claim or right of a court to use a name similar to yours, followed by sending you documents such as a summons, or to issue arrest warrants for arrest you; and thus, force you to attend some court hearing. Given such scenarios, it is a pretty important concept to comprehend.
In the past, the courts did not really need your consent to issue arrest warrants or send summons demanding that you attend. That is because the court was a literal extension of the Body Corporate of the Lord of Manor or the Head of the Estate; and by Rights, tenants on the Manor Roll were as a matter of fact also on the court roll; hence their status as a tenant gave the court the right to compel them to appear on any matter of controversy.
This concept later evolved to the notion of the poor rolls and the indentured poor, particularly those in servitude as slaves receiving a pittance in compensation for their labor. The benefit of not being murdered by the rich was that the poor living in servitude as slaves could be compelled to attend any matter of controversy that the rich felt was important’ such as stealing a loaf of bread, or failing to pay enough rent to their master, or whatever other charges could be invented.
Later, this continued with the beginning of the concept of a “middle class”, paupers and peasants granted a few more privileges in exchange for keeping the rest of the slaves in perpetual servitude. Thus, was born the electoral roll with a large number of people required to pay poor law rates, in the form of the tax rolls.
By the way, the word Attend and Attendance that you see normally on summons of traffic citation tickets originates from the Latin attendere/attend meaning, “I submit to (being a slave); I serve (as a slave); I obey (as a slave); I come to (as a slave)”. The word is not hidden in legal dictionaries. It is admitted, sometimes blatantly, that any summons or court notice you receive with the word Attend or Attendance is a written acknowledgment from your political elite that you have no rights and that contrary to anything you think about a constitution, you are in practice nothing more than a slave to them.
However, the system has a problem. Because in creating a corporate overlay, particularly with courts being corporations themselves, they no longer have any statutory right to claim such Original Rolls, even if a Statutory Agency appoints them their agent or arbitrator to resolve the matter, all parties must agree by consent.
Yet this is not how modern corporate courts are operating. Instead, their computer systems are linked to original rolls, in direct breach of the rights of data and dozens of laws; and such courts create warrants and summons using language claiming absolute jurisdiction, when they have nothing of the sort; and then seek to trick defendants into granting consent. All these actions are a fraud; and in a strict sense should have rendered virtually every matter in the past seventy years across most Western nations null and void. The fact that neither the higher courts feel they have anything to worry about with such fraud, nor the politicians, nor the courts is an indication of just how broken justice is in most places.
Forum Jurisdiction – What is Joinder?
Before we have a look at some of the arguments that put us into the jurisdiction of most western courts by our own accidents or by being tricked, we need to review another key point of jurisdiction in the form of Joinder.
Joinder is a word full of mystery and intrigue in their system, yet is an essential concept to comprehend. As the word suggests, the concept of “Joinder” is joining parts together, in the case of a controversy, the various parts of the person, such as the example of J. Smith in earlier slides during this session. It also means joining records from different rolls together by consent, and thus overcoming the nexus of how a corporate court can still claim the power to charge the higher estate to recover costs.
There are primarily two critical forms of Joinder, the one at the beginning being the Joinder of parties at the very beginning of the case, that firmly establishes the claimed jurisdiction of the court; and the Joinder at Issue that reinforces jurisdiction and locks in the judge or magistrate to the matter.
Appearance
Now some of the most key concepts of Jurisdiction have been covered, we need to address the notion and importance of Appearance, both in challenging assumptions of Jurisdiction as well as how to ensure you have the best possible position to defend yourself.
What is Appearance?
There are many definitions floating around about appearance and almost all of them trick you into thinking of one part only, while ignoring the second part of the meaning.
There are two critical parts to Appearance, not just one. Appearance is:
- The Physical Presence.
- The Formal Capacity & Character of Defendant coming to a valid forum of law to resolve a Legal Argument.
Most people get point (1), but completely miss point (2). Let us have a brief look in more detail.
- Appearance as Physical Presence means the coming to court as a party to a suit. A Legal Argument needs a minimum of 3 parties, the Accuser, the Accused and the Witness to proceed, so this first meaning implies those three parts are present within a Forum of law to proceed.
- Appearance as formal Capacity & Character means a Defendant may appear by agent (solicitor/attorney); or by counsel (advocate/barrister/attorney); or without representation. Furthermore, a party as Defendant may choose to contest the accusation or not contest the accusation. Unless a formal written appearance is provided on the day, the assumption by the court is that a defendant agrees to the accusations, no matter what is subsequently said in court.
This formal written memorandum of Appearance on the Day is what most people fail to do. Moreover, even if people know about the importance of providing a written form on the day, once again there is so much deliberate white noise and confusion about the form, causing many people to submit false or ridiculous forms to the court that are openly rejected, causing even more damage to their position.
Now, as to the rule: All Appearance is presumed “General Appearance” unless stated at the beginning of the matter as a challenge of Jurisdiction. If this happens, then the Appearance is said to be by “Special Appearance”. General Appearance is unqualified and unrestricted submission to the court.
Appearance (1) Physical Presence of Parties
In the case of any legal argument, we need a minimum of 3 parties, the Accuser, the Accused and the Witness to proceed. In the case of a legal framework that hides the sacrament of penance and the concept of the tribunal of penance in plain sight, it means we need the three parts of “Mr Smith” in the court room at the same time, namely 1st person, 2nd person and 3rd person to make it work.
This elaborate “behind the scenes” masquerade starts to make sense when you consider that courts not only overlay trust law, but they overlay probate and estate law within almost every case, especially criminal cases. Why? Because it is the only way they can justify charging fees in criminal cases, when 200 years ago, such an act would have caused the judge or magistrate to have been thrown into prison for corruption.
It also the notion of the “joinder” of parties at the start of the case with the three parts, the judge pretending to be Mr Smith In Propria Persona, the prosecutor pretending to be Mr Smith, sui agens or sui juris and then you or your representative as Mr Smith the Beneficial Holder and the Res or property in question of the suit.
Appearance (2) Capacity & Character of Defendant
The difference between a Contentious or Non-Contentious Legal Argument. In a Non-Contentious Legal Argument, the Defendant admits the existence of a controversy in good conscience; and therefore, instantly becomes the highest of all the parties, as the grantor of the matter via a true tribunal of the court of conscience. However, this does not mean that the Defendant accepts claims that are not true. It is a fine line, with unfortunately, very few people having the character or capacity to stand in such a manner; as it requires a man or a woman to stand in the shoes of Christ, knowing the truths I have shown you in this series, that are replicated in the words of Jesus Christ within the New Testament.
For most of us, the only position we are capable of answering in a Legal Argument is Contention, where we reject and choose to fight against the system of pirates and thieves. Yet, this logically and legally places the lowest form of person as the accused as the subject of the matter, or the res. So, if we do not come to court, we inevitably will be arrested. But if we do come to court and think we can defend ourselves, the ONLY POSITION THAT WE CAN EVER HOLD IS PRO SE.
The only position you can hold as you within their court is Pro Se. Even the courts’ own computer systems have automated this fact. Either you are represented by an Attorney-In-Fact as an Agent, or by a more senior legal advocate or you are viewed only as Pro Se.
There is an answer, but you need to clear your mind of all the false claims, false statements and false remedies that so many people have flooded onto the internet in order to move forward.
Appearance (2) Form (Memorandum)
The first answer is making sure that from now on, whenever you are forced to go to court you will make absolutely certain that you lodge a Memorandum of Appearance on the day of the appearance. Normally you should take 2 copies (one stamped for your files) delivered to Court (Clerks) Office at very start of the Day of Appearance, or at worst, handed to clerk within the courtroom prior to matter being called in Court. Many courts have a formal form ID and will not accept an Appearance Memorandum unless it has the correct number and format that is already accepted by the court.
As to key information on the memorandum, every standard form of appearance will have the word APPEARANCE at the top; or in those rare occasions that someone is competent to argue a challenge to jurisdiction the words SPECIAL APPEARANCE, followed by the Court Details and Title of Proceedings. The memorandum of appearance then normally will show the Representation and Surety of Defendant Details. Note: if you plan to contest accusations without representation you CANNOT BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN PRO SE (IN REM) i.e. “a thing”, no matter how much you argue. The memorandum needs to state clearly that the accused appears, including the signature of the one making the appearance as proof.
A key point of question that many people have in the argument, what happens when I am competent and am capable of defending myself? Is there any way around this nexus of Pro Se? The answer is absolutely yes. Ucadia proves that if you have overcome the increasingly desperate chatter to stop people from redeeming their membership and getting their Live Borne Record, that your True Person in Ucadia is superior to any other possible person in the Western system, including all the fake claims by fake remedy gurus.
This is a completely separate person to your Roman Person. So absolutely you are able to represent your Roman person as an Attorney-In-Fact or as a Legal Advocate, so long as you are able to give proper notice with the proper paperwork ahead of time. So let us have a look at the three types of Appearances so that we can make more sense of this.
What are types of Appearance?
There are three types of Appearance you can have in terms of Capacity and Character. There are limitations and dangers of Appearance by Self. Instead, we can explore the notion of either Appearance by Agent such as by an Attorney-In-Fact; or Appearance by Advocate in more serious matters.
The existence of your Ucadia Membership and Ucadia True Person through your Live Borne Record is proof that the “physical-you” can represent more than one person. You do this already. So do not feel awkward or uncomfortable with the notion, that as the Attorney-In-Fact, that You may end up representing You, while having a very similar name to You; and may even look exactly like You.
The reason courts are able to deny certain appointments of Attorneys-In-Fact as Agents is multiple, but in virtually every case, is procedural. People fail to lodge proper Appearance; and such alleged Attorneys-In- fact, fail to lodge their Certificate of Appointment; and additionally, fail to present any form of bond or surety before the day of appearance. All these points are procedural and really have nothing to do with the built-in advantage of card-carrying members of the Private Bar Guilds. In fact, all “barriers” can be argued, are really “barriers” of our competence, more than deliberate bias of a closed shop actually enforcing prejudicial employment practices that are in breach of numerous international treaties and most laws in most Western nations.
The same applies to representation by an Advocate-of-Law. It is merely that the standards of competence are that much higher than was previously known. Unfortunately, if your head is full of much of the rubbish on the internet about law, then you may think you are capable of lodging papers as an advocate, but you will be found wanting within their scales of “justice”.
In many jurisdictions, not only does the court need time before the appearance date to be notified of a proposed Advocate, but they also need time whether to test the competence of the Advocate. This is in essence the nature of “passing the bar”, to see that one who may represent defendants in serious matters will, not through their own ignorance or lack of exemplary behavior, create further injury or controversy.
A McKenzie friend is not the same. A McKenzie friend may not speak in a court as an advocate and may only accompany the defendant and provide quiet advice, as they do not have the powers of an agent.
Similarly, an Amicus Curiae is not a counsel, or an advocate, but equivalent to a “McKenzie friend of the court”. Amicus Curiae exist to assist a court in difficult or sometimes technical cases and not necessarily for the benefit of any one party.
What is General and Special Appearance?
The ideas of Conditional Appearance and even Limited Appearance are merely variations of General Appearance, despite what some people may claim. Whereas Special Appearance is the restricted and qualified submission to the court for the sole purpose of hearing a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the court to rule on the first matter. Jurisdiction of the court, not the jurisdiction of the judge or magistrate. If Your arguments are about the judge or magistrate, then You are NOT in court by Special Appearance.
What then might be some valid arguments concerning Special Appearance? Some notions that are reasonable questions. PLEASE do not consider this a cut and paste laundry list as You will AUTOMATICALLY FAIL if you act so stupidly:
Non-Constitutional – If you have written evidence of a Court operating as a business and a corporation and therefore not the “de jure” court as stated in a constitution, then you may object via special appearance on the basis that the court has no constitutional basis to hear matters concerning your person, without your consent.
Non-Impartial– If you have evidence that the Court is operating as a contractor for other quasi-government agencies and that this is the claimed basis of jurisdiction over name, via existing contract with agency, then you may object via special appearance on the basis that the court cannot possibly be an impartial arbitrator as it has been appointed by one party; and has failed to divulge that interest in pursuing the matter, indicating not only bias but deceptive conduct.
Non-Legitimate – If you have evidence (this is a very serious allegation so be very careful) that trusts have been formed on fraudulent assumptions; and your name has been used without your consent; and the court has made presumptions of authority (i.e. the word attend) it does not have; and the court has failed to divulge vested interests with the accuser (hired to do a job); and you do not consent to this behavior, then you may challenge via special appearance that it is not a legitimate forum of law to hear such matters.
