Originally posted by freetree64
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
So is it possible to make a broad sweeping rights statement, and have it recorded, to be used in the event I am unable to assert my right to the
It should first be noted that I am in no way qualified to give legal advice. It should secondly be noted that ignorance of the law excuses no one.
That said, you ask a great question! Whenever confronted by an LEO, it is impossible to both remain silent, and assert your rights. It is imperative
to understand that anything you do say, can and will be used against you in a court of law, so prudence is always the better part of valor in such
If you are confronted by an LEO, pay close attention to what they are saying before responding to anything at all. If an LEO is asking for your
permission to talk to you, this is strong evidence, indeed prima facie evidence they have no jurisdiction to question you without your permission.
They have no legal jurisdiction by Constitution or otherwise, but you my friend are one of the people, and at all times hold the inherent political
power. Thus, when granting permission to an LEO to talk to you, you have just given them the jurisdiction they need to act as a government does.
If you are confronted by an LEO and that government official has not asked permission to talk to you and has clearly assumed such jurisdiction exists
to make demands of you, this does not necessarily make it true. This is why it is imperative you not only know your rights, but understand fully the
jurisdictional bounds of any LEO. Often times a person is confronted by an LEO who has not asked permission to detain that person based upon some
legislation or ordinance that serves as evidence of law.
It is important to understand that legislation is not law, but merely evidence of law. It may give an LEO a pretext by which to detain a person, but
if that legislation abrogates and derogates a persons right, then the legislation is not valid, nor is any jurisdiction by the police officer. Take
for example the regulation of "jay walking". The ordinance says you have no right to cross the street where ever you decide and must abide by the
rules of traffic regulations. If you have a driver license, or state issued I.D. from the DMV, and you offer this form of identification to the
officer detaining you for this so called "crime" of "jay walking", this becomes further evidence that the regulation is valid because you have
signed a contract stating it is so.
The primary evidence that "jay walking" has no legal weight lies in the fact that if you challenge the regulation, you will be doing so in a
"traffic court" where no stenographer exists and all too often the judge acts as prosecutor as well. This is what is known as your typical kangaroo
court. It is not due process of law, and if you enter into this court and make a plea, you have further accepted the validity of this kangaroo court,
by establishing jurisdiction where none exists.
Are you beginning to understand the problem here, and why it is so important you know the law? If an LEO has no jurisdiction to detain you, then it
is important to challenge this jurisdiction. Of course, jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, but the sooner one challenges it, the better off
they are. One can not both challenge jurisdiction and remain silent. However, the key to challenging jurisdiction lies in turning the tables on the
LEO who is confronting you. Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven that it exists, and that burden of prove lies with the person
asserting jurisdiction. Thus, challenging jurisdiction means not answering any questions, and insisting no questions can be answered until
jurisdiction has been answered, and proven.
When confronting LEO's in return to their confrontation, it is always best to have some sort of recording device available to keep the record clear.
Never agree to any form of questioning, or enter a court that does not have a proper method of recording what is asked and stated as a matter of
public record. Challenging jurisdiction also, and often times, encourages LEO's to construe such challenges as "violence" and no one should be
surprised at all if by challenging jurisdiction brute force is used to subdue those challenges. However, if brute force is used as a tactic of
intimidation, and there never was any jurisdiction, the action construed as "violence" was misinterpreted, and a mistake of fact.
If an LEO acts beyond the scope of their jurisdiction, they have no immunity to protect them from the law, and their actions are criminal, including
"acting under color of law", "impersonating a government official", "simulation of legal process", and "obstruction of justice" to name a few
crimes. Each state varies on what crimes committed are codified into legislation, but that an officer acting beyond the scope of jurisdiction
committed a crime should not be in doubt. The open challenges of jurisdiction incriminate that LEO further, and if there is a verifiable record of
these challenges of jurisdiction, that case is cemented against the LEO.
It is not necessary to know the more than 600,000 acts, bills, regulations, and ordinances on the book, but it is imperative one knows the law.
Short answer to your question: No, there are no blanket magical words that will protect you from tyranny. I wish there were, but there isn't, and
the battle for freedom continues each and every day.