lawful versus legal

The Pope wrote:noone can understand the complete web of lies . But I have a basic gist.
I don't read minds, so I don't know why I wasn't put in prison.
I'm pretty sure the police all know the difference between the law and policy.
What used to be acting on your oath as opposed to enforcing policy.

Habeus corpus says that fines cannot be issued without a jury's order.
And as all police seem to do is issue fines, I'm guessing they know they need the consent of the poor sap they're parasiting off, or they're breaking the law.
'I'm going to fine you under the traffic act for such and such (unlawful policy) Do you understand?
Now please sign here to confirm your consent to be fucked up the arse, so I don't go to prison for violating habeus corpus and a dozen other laws.'
No problem occiffer, give me that pen.

Not to discredit you on the fact it is unlawful for them to, say: "serve" you with a fine without your, or a jury of your peers consent; because your right.
I simply do not think that the active police officers are informed (to a level of 'understanding') the inalienable rights of the natural person, and are simply oblivious of where the 'authority' they 'claim' over you really stems from. I'd say they draw the line on your guilt and innocence on a legal matter, as though it was law, and that they (in essence "believe" due to their job "title" that they) are commanded with arresting you, for the courts to decide at a later date (if you stand up for your rights), based on what evidence they can provide to have you charged "guilty" or "not guilty" (but never 'innocent') on a legal matter, and treat you as work items to be "dealt with". unfortuantely their are so many ways they can trick you into committing a petty crime, out of frustration, that you might as well be placed infront of a 200 pound hungry tiger, theirs simply not much you can do unless your more powerful then them.
to be honest, i have never run into a police officer, under any circumstance, where i have been satisfied with their actions in response to their taking 'notice' of any information I've given them; nor their treatment of offenders or victims of crime, or of myself when i have been a "good or bad little citizen".

example: I was pulled over the other day (impossible to have mistaken for someone else), by officers doing speed checking outside a school zone, i was not speeding.
rather than dangerously open my car door into traffic and approch them i waited for them to come up to me and tell/ask me for my 'licence'....
waited 5 minutes, no approach. waited a little longer say @8 minutes, got out of car and approached officer who said.
"no, i didnt pull you over" and gave me a look of bother and impatience.
so i left. most people i tell this story too say "lucky you didnt get a fine, you should be gratefull."
i think "whytf pull somebody over, and when when theyre obviously waiting in their car, just do nothing."
i had an appointment to get xrays done, which I was late for, which consequently made me late for the chiropractors appointment directly afterwards, and also late for work.
is just 1 petty example... so many others.

The bad get away with a lot of unlawful and illegal activities, while the innocent cop the targeted actions of both the bad, and the "law enforcers", enforcing "regulations" meant to prevent the bad from prospering.

It's a real shame.

Next time you get pulled over for something or get a speed canera fine or what have you, write NO CONTRACT, please refer to HABEUS CORPUS
If that was ignored you'd likely have to issue a writ of Habeus Corpus on the RTA or police or whoever.

Some of you might be concerned to know that writs of Habeus Corpus have been refused by our courts for the last 2 or 3 years in Australia.
I do believe we are the first British colony to go that far into a police state. Even the USA honours Habeus Corpus as a fundamental part of the law of a free country. We do too apparently, but not anymore.

John Wilson is a crusader for accessing the real law in Sydney and he and his pals have issued Habeus Corpus writs that keep getting rejected by our corrupt courts.
No Habeus Corpus means no right to jury means we are back in the inquisition courts of the pope.
One day, you numpties will see the reality of this and wonder how we got in such a nightmarish police state.
The building blocks for it are being quietly laid now in our courts and the backrooms of the masonic lodges of Australia.

This is a mock conversation, for the purposes of analysis. open to any and all responses.

me : do you mind if i record our conversation? ( closed question, yes or no answer required for honorable response. )
cop: give me your license 'sir'./ open your bag 'sir'/ or any other non-answer formulated to get you to respond to them and ignore your question. ( no reply to your question equates to dishonor and acceptance right?, so start that recording, where as 'no' would be an acceptable answer, and would fall within the mans rights to say so? also is their comment "offensive" due to them ignoring you? Does replying to the offers question after calling you out as 'sir' mean you accept representing a legal fiction? since/because 'sir' is in fact a legal title? And since he is talking to 'sir' which is all he can lawfully do, and you are not sir, you do not have to reply to this, as its not you he is talking to? )
me: on the condition that you allow me to record this conversation, I will produce a license. ( proposing conditional request to contract, 'get it on tape' to avoid falling into what they would consider dishonor, via no response, which it is not because they are not talking to you anyhow, but to avoid conflict, and to re-propose contract, so you have evidence of your exact words and intentions. )
cop:excuse me 'sir' but if you do not produce a valid drivers license I will have to arrest you for (insert anything they have a charge for) {or they are simply fed up at this stage and begin the intimidation routine leading to "resisting arrest" or the phone book treatment and confiscation of your property, 'stealing'.}

my question in relation to the above.
1- in reality, do you see the officers responses to 'me' to fit within your model for the actions of police in general in society today?
2- do you think that under common law the fact that you/'me' does not contract to the questioning under the admiralty jurisdiction the officer is proposing mean that they do not have the legal right to enforce the rules of (whatever) upon you, mostly in the context of determining if you are guilty of a crime, i.e. 'random' breath test/searches/questioning/etc.
3- is their an easier/ less confronting way to tell the officer that you are not willing to contract, and to bugger off unless they are arresting you for something, or actually asking you for your assistance, to get the confrontation over and done with without offending their 'feelings of superiority' so you can get on with living your life in a peacefully way?
4- have i got some basic fundamental premise wrong in the above, which makes my entire point moot and put me in the crazy bin with the tinfoil-hat group, rather than the alternative variety???

I'm simply afraid that one day they will ban pants and blue undies for no apparent reason (or just make one up ) and the fashion police will have me go to court naked, and i wake in a cold sweat.
but in all seriousness, is this the wrong way to approach this, or is it really that complicated to stand up for yourself?

1) ask tethlon, he would know better than me.

2) If you follow his orders he will assume you're in his jurisdiction from the get go. If they want to pull you over just keep driving sedately on, until they swerve in front of you and get excited.
Ive done this years ago and every cop in 3 towns came to get me, because i wouldnt follow orders. But why should I? Im not in the army, I dont take orders.
If you havent the gumption to just ignore their orders, I'd stop and then ask why he was indicating for you to stop? I dont know you do i ?
If he gives you some reason from the traffic act, ask him if he is on his oath to Her Most Excellent Majesty Queen of the United Kingdom. Be specific because an oath to the Queen of Australia wont establish common law.
If he says yes then you're in common law and traffic Act violates it. And you act accordingly.
If he sats no then say you're a british subject obeying the law, do you have a warrant, prima facie case of a crime in progress or have you mistakenly interupted my right to free use of the common roads?

You're going to get in strife. No 2 ways about it. But so what? The police are just dogs on a leash for higher powers. Sign nothing agree to nothing. Refute all presumptions. And eventually you will be free and clear of the bloodsuckers.
And next time they'll know who you are, believe me, and they wont walk all over you so readily.
Drink driving isnt a crime by the way. Thats why they spend so much on advertising telling us it is.You've hurt noone driving drunk.No common law violation. No harm, no intent- no crime.
Randombreath testing is against the law aswell, so is issuing fines. Everything they do is breaking the law, and once you know that you'll stand up for yourself. Enough of us stand up to them, they'll all be in prison and the tyranny ends.

3) Already answered.

4)you can complicate it by going into all the freemna strawman legal fiction stuff.
And most of their advise says to do that.
But I think its easier to do what ive said above. You're not the name on your license. You're a british subject taking advantage of his right to free use of the common roads. A right is just that.your license is immaterial.

If he asked me, after Id seen whether he was on his oath or not, id explain that he ws breaking the law, and if he didnt agree ID ask him to under what authoirty he can give me orders. Show me the law that relates to me as a man. (You're not a person- a person is a legal entity)
He wont be able to show it to you, so start your car and go.

also write out a stat dec or an affidavit immediately after the drama.
Your word of events is evidence, the police's word is not.
So when you get to court you put in your stat dec as a british subject and then thats what happened.

Thanks for that.
Its an interesting situation that they place us in, and as far as im concerned, until i've damaged somebody property, caused/affected injury, or effectively broken a contract i agree to, then i really should be left to my own devices. ( am avoiding signing any new contracts until i have gotten a better grasp of all this stuff. But i find verbal agreement is a little bit harder to resist. )

^^^^
Sorry to drift off topic but do you realise you have one ear bigger than the other????

? not really, but I guess the larger one is open to suggestions...
sorry tethlon, care to elaborate? i'm assuming you mean i'm only listening to one side of the story.

What do you think?
Is an attitude of officers being beyond reproach something that you think is common among public servants?
As i said earlier i have never once been happy with the job of officers i have encountered on the job so i know i have a biased opinion.

Ka wrote:

What do you think?
Is an attitude of officers being beyond reproach something that you think is common among public servants?

One glaringly obvious character trait of some public servants - is the need to tell others the "proper" way they should live. Take teachers, there are some who would have to be the biggest pains in the arse and get their jollies from telling other parents how to raise their children. Even when their own domestic situation has fallen apart.

Another thing that concerns me about public servants is that as humans, many of us have a desire to spend money in order to accumulate objects or complete projects. This gives us the riggies in our downstairs bits. Some public servants spend public money solely to get riggies in their downstairs bits.

What the fuck are you guys on about????????????????????????????????

Tethlon wrote:What the fuck are you guys on about????????????????????????????????

Mate, leave em alone. Let em talk. This is what this forum is about. Conspiracies, don't be dragging it down like those bastards on the other forum.

put simply, do you think that when your being spoken to by a cop, whether after being pulled over, on the street, or when you want into a station to to let them know somethings up, that they treat you as an equal, with respect, and with a friendly attitude, or do you find that for whatever their reason, that they seem to intimidate, judge, and if annoyed seak out something to do you for, or dismiss your claim, or become negative, simply because they are letting their ego's get the better of them?
and do you think that if you point out the obvious flaw being egotistical has on logic to them that they will accept it and get back to the point of their job? or call you a smart ass and prolong debate?

because you cannot know that something you say isnt going to get someones adrenaline going, and in general when people become excited mentally they make 'moves' based on the fight or flight response mechanisms.

and i've found that as a character trait, the police have quite a superiority complex.
i just wanted to see if i was/wasn't the only one.

Ka wrote:put simply, do you think that when your being spoken to by a cop, whether after being pulled over, on the street, or when you want into a station to to let them know somethings up, that they treat you as an equal, with respect, and with a friendly attitude, or do you find that for whatever their reason, that they seem to intimidate, judge, and if annoyed seak out something to do you for, or dismiss your claim, or become negative, simply because they are letting their ego's get the better of them?
and do you think that if you point out the obvious flaw being egotistical has on logic to them that they will accept it and get back to the point of their job? or call you a smart ass and prolong debate?

because you cannot know that something you say isnt going to get someones adrenaline going, and in general when people become excited mentally they make 'moves' based on the fight or flight response mechanisms.

and i've found that as a character trait, the police have quite a superiority complex.
i just wanted to see if i was/wasn't the only one.

Yeah I hear yer, I think its todays society the coppers just get so much shit it does imped their judgment.

In ye olden days we didnt have police and the world worked just fine.
I'd like to see a return to those days and a declaration that the experiment called a Police Force failed.
Id then like them all tarred and feathered and sent to live in Tasmania under Bob Brown's care.

[quote="The Pope"]In ye olden days we didnt have police and the world worked just fine.


Actually, we had the military doing that job.

no, we had a sherrif and a bailiff and if you had a problem with someone you went to court with your case and if the court liked it, they would send out the sheriff.
And it worked just fine.
And what's more -ordinary people were judges. Not lawyers.
And these included mine own forebears who worked as the first judges in Melbournetown, but had other occupations to earn their living.

Its amazing how little you need lawyers and police when you havent yet invented crimes and policy breaches to get men in trouble.

Its surprising how little people know about these mundane things from our own history.
This is what happens when you trust the state to your education.

Also when I suggest my forbears were ordinary men, I jest. They were mighty men of valour like myself.

The Pope wrote:Its surprising how little people know about these mundane things from our own history.
This is what happens when you trust the state to your education.

really? So which "olden days" do you refer to? Do you mean mean the merry old days in merry old london? Or do you mean the merry old days in merry old botany bay?

Port Phillip bay. As this was a free settlement. Whilst Sydney of course was a penal settlement,and is a poor example of our true law and the way it worked.
Paranoid, I appreciate that you've been to Olde Sydney Town and watched the re-enactments but this isn't the full picture

police were only invented in the 1850s or so
prior to that men waltzed about town dependant on their fellow men to respect their rights.
There was crime certainly, but obviously not anarchy.
3 generations after the introduction of police, they have evolved from respectful public servants to tyrants.
(as planned)
And they need to go. They never ended crime, in fact its got worse, plus we have them engineering most of it behind the scenes.
And worse than that , they have stopped becoming servants and now assume the role of masters .
Free men do not require masters. We have our conscience for that task.

The experiment failed.Disband them. Move on.

The Pope wrote:
Paranoid, I appreciate that you've been to Olde Sydney Town and watched the re-enactments but this isn't the full picture

Thank you. Yes i think I may have been there when I was 15. I recall watching a blacksmith, a town cryer and some buxom wench with a full chest lean over to serve me some Coca Cola and a hot dog.

I do not recall a re-enactment of a court of law.

Is that a run in your pantyhose Paranoid?

Tethlon wrote:Is that a run in your pantyhose Paranoid?

Fuck me dead tethlon, you must be straining your beady little, bald arsed eyes.

Oh sorry, just thought you'd want to know as its not always easy to see from behind.

Again, a kaleen saweep