Welcome
Welcome to SuiJurisForum.com --- You are currently viewing our boards as a guest. Members of this FREE Community are able to gain access to write capabilities, private messaging, a chat room, extra forums, and more!

***If you decide to Join our FREE Community... then DON'T FORGET to PASS/SKIP the multiple ADVERTISEMENTS during Registration that ask for Phone Numbers!! ***

The public servant questionaire

Discuss legal theories and the merit thereof

The public servant questionaire

Postby country_hick » Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:02 pm

Is this based on solid law or is it flawed?

http://freedom-school.com/law/public-se ... nnaire.pdf

This looks like it may be solid. It may not be. What do you think?
There is a reason that LEO has a new meaning: Legally Entitled to Oppress. Thanks to Bob Livingston for this one.

Williams v. United States, 341 US 97 - Supreme Court 1951
It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 US 54 - Supreme Court 1795
Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied
User avatar
country_hick
Freeman
 
Posts: 751
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 45 time

 

Re: The public servant questionaire

Postby Shoonra » Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:53 pm

It has no foundation in law. It asks questions which are improper if they were asked by a federal agency. And it cannot be validly used by a civilian to impede a public officer in the performance of his duties.
/ Shoonra
"Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft."
First Samuel 15:23
User avatar
Shoonra
Statist
 
Posts: 5030
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:14 am
Location: suburban Maryland
Has thanked: 20 time
Have thanks: 205 time

Re: The public servant questionaire

Postby country_hick » Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:04 pm

What is wrong with asking a police officer to be honest in his communications?

What is wrong with placing an officer trained to lie at virtually all times under oath? He can give false RAS and probable cause per the supreme court if not under oath. If a cop can legally lie about RAS how can I ever know he tells the truth about anything including his department, name, and badge number?

28 CFR 35.130, 35.150, 35.160, and 35.164 require clear and effective communications from which I can obtain a benefit. I can not benefit from being lied to can I? To obtain that legally required benefit from a cop they must be put under oath or at least legal notice.
There is a reason that LEO has a new meaning: Legally Entitled to Oppress. Thanks to Bob Livingston for this one.

Williams v. United States, 341 US 97 - Supreme Court 1951
It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 US 54 - Supreme Court 1795
Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied
User avatar
country_hick
Freeman
 
Posts: 751
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 45 time

Re: The public servant questionaire

Postby Shoonra » Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:13 pm

from my compilation:


Scofflaw stopped by traffic cop in uniform refused to produce his (non-existent) license or proof of insurance and instead tried to insist that cop first fill out his “Public Servant’s Questionnaire” (PSQ), which asks a great many personal questions of the civil servant that would be useful for identity theft or other vexations, and also asks about informants for any criminal investigation. US v. J. Degaule (ND Ga 4/22/11), footnote 31, adopted (ND Ga 6/24/11) 797 F.Supp.2d 1332 at 1365; described as “irrelevant and invasive”. US v. Scott (7th Cir 7/19/99) 191 F3d 457(t), 84 AFTR2d 5342, 99 USTC 50745 cert.den 528 US 1160; and “harassing.” US v. J.E. Davis (11th Cir 12/16/13) 549 Fed.Appx 924; convicted of obstructing a police officer. City of Billings v. Skurdal (1986) 224 Mont 84, 730 P2d 371 cert.den 481 US 1020; ditto (charged with barratry for handing traffic policemen copies of a PSQ titled “Demand for Particulars” which was captioned in capitals “This is legal process, you are compelled to respond”, but charge of barratry was dismissed because the court concluded that the PSQ could not fool an ordinary person) State v. K.R. Sullivan (2001) 143 Wash.2d 162, 19 P3d 1012; (twit tried to sue traffic policeman for failing to fill out his PSQ) Ahmed A. Ahmed v. City of Dearborn Heights (ED Mich 4/4/13); the same sort of PSQ was held an improper attempt at discovery, and could not be used during litigation under the Fed Rules of Civil Procedure (the PSQ included questions about govt employee’s Social Security Numbers, home phone numbers and addresses, and details about spouses - all explicitly beyond the scope of the Freedom of Information Act or the Privacy Act of 1974, even though two versions of the PSQ on the internet refer to the FOIA [PL 93-502] or the Privacy Act [PL 93-579] as their source of authority), and it would not have been proper for him to ask such questions about the prosecuting attorney or the individual IRS agent involved in his audit (the perp had asked the court to put the IRS agent in jail for a year for not filling out his PSQ). US v. Scott (ND Ind 2/4/98) 81 AFTR2d 1076, and his subsequent attempt to appeal on the grounds that the court should have compelled the govt employees to answer his PSQs was fined heavily as “frivolous squared”. US v. Scott (7th Cir 7/19/99) 191 F3d 457(t), 84 AFTR2d 5342, 99 USTC 50745 cert.den 528 US 1160; [trying to include the spouses of public officials or govt employees as a target for vexation is strong evidence of an intent to intimidate the govt employees in their official duties, and court referred case to federal prosecutor for investigation. Stout v. Robnett (D S.C 1999) 107 F.Supp.2d 699]; not an acceptable alternative to a Freedom of Information or Privacy Act request, and could not sue fed govt employees for not filling out his PSQ. Murdock v. Kay (ED Mich 7/23/96) 96 USTC 50517, 78 AFTR2d 6117 affd 124 F3d 198(t), 97 USTC 50776, 80 AFTR2d 6485; ditto (“Plaintiff has cited no authority supporting his right to have these questionnaires completed, and we are aware of none.”) Allen v. Cantrell (D Kan 12/27/78) 79 USTC 9171, 43 AFTR2d 710; similarly (presented traffic cop with a “Notice to arresting officer with Miranda warning” - it did not prevent the cop from ticketing and arresting him) State v. Booher (Tenn.Crim.App 1997) 978 SW2d 953; similarly (will not prevent the IRS from enforcing the tax laws) Lorenzen v. US (D.Wyo 2/8/06) 236 FRD 553, 97 AFTR2d 1366; similarly (when stopped by police, refused to present his DL and proof of insurance and instead tried to insist they fill out his PSQ - convicted of obstructing a police officer) City of Billings v. Skurdal (1986) 224 Mont 84, 730 P2d 371 cert.den 481 US 1020; when this stunt was tried by a Canadian tax dodger who refused to submit his tax returns unless the Canadian tax authorities first filled out his lengthy PSQ, which included questions about the revenue agent’s home address and the names of everyone who provided information about the defendant, the Saskatoon Queen’s Bench convicted him of tax evasion, noting, “To put it mildly, the questionnaire was offensive in many respects. Clearly there was no legal obligation on Revenue Canada to complete it.” Queen v. D.M. Voth (Sask.Q.B. 10/22/01) 2001 SKQB 469, 52 WCB2d 288, 2002 Sask.D.Crim.J. 76.

Quizzing officer and generally impeding search for fugitives convicted as obstructing justice. People v. Krum (1965) 374 Mich 356, 132 NW2d 69 cert.den 381 US 935; or obstructing of a policeman (driver refused to produce his license and proof of insurance, argued with the cop about his authority to ask for them, refused to get out of his car, and was arrested and handcuffed) J.A. Johnson v. State (1998) 234 Ga.App 218, 507 SE2d 13 app.den (Ga.Supm. 1/15/99); similarly Triemert v. Washington County (D.Minn 8/16/13), same case (D.Minn 11/18/13) affd 571 Fed.Appx 509; and a particularly unhelpful litigant, Watkins v. Matarazzo (SDNY 9/22/15).

Social Security numbers and birth dates are personal data exempt from discovery via the FOIA. Oliva v. US (EDNY 1991) 756 F.Supp 105; Swisher v. Dept of the Air Force (8th Cir 1981) 660 F2d 369; similarly, the home addresses of govt employees, except for discovery by a labor union seeking to recruit them. FLRA v. US Dept of Navy (3d Cir 1992) 966 F2d 747; FOIA could not be used to pry loose internal IRS documents relating to a former IRS agent’s disagreement with agency policy. Laughlin v. CIR (3/23/00) 85 AFTR2d 1628; specifically, 26 USC sec. 7852(e), adopted in 1976, explicitly exempts IRS records relating to a taxpayer’s case from the FOIA or the Privacy Act, and provides under 26 USC sec. 6103 for an equivalent method of requesting information from the IRS. T.H. Lake v. Rubin (1998) 333 US App DC 223, 162 F3d 113 cert.den 526 US 1070; the information available to a taxpayer under 26 USC 6103 is specific to the taxpayer making the request, is an exception provided by the FOIA, and uses slightly different procedures than the FOIA. Maxwell v. Snow (2005) 366 US App DC 84, 409 F3d 354; similarly any information whose disclosure would endanger law enforcement personnel and their confidential sources. New England Apple Council v. Donovan (1st Cir 1984) 725 F2d 139; it appears that some troublemakers want to use this information for filing bogus liens or tax documents against the govt employees who have displeased them. US v. Pansier (7th Cir 2009) 576 F3d 726; where the city govt released personal data (including their SSNs and home addresses and phone numbers) about undercover policemen to the lawyers representing some very dangerous gangsters, the policemen had a valid lawsuit against the city for violating their privacy and endangering their families. Kallstrom v. City of Columbus (6th Cir 1998) 136 F3d 1055.

See, generally, that quizzing, blocking, or refusing to identify oneself to a policeman constitutes obstruction or resisting arrest, C. Hall, What Constitutes Obstructing or Resisting Officer in absence of actual force, 66 ALR-5th 397 (1999 & suppl.); a driver stopped by a policeman may be convicted under this law even though the policeman was from the next town. Lashley v. State (Ind.App 2001) 745 NE2d 254 transfer den. (Ind.Supm. 6/14/01) 753 NE2d 15; the sentence upon conviction may be enhanced if the defendant deliberately misidentified himself to the authorities, thereby sending them on a wild goose chase. US v. Verdin (9th Cir 2001) 243 F3d 1174.

FOIA, unlike the Privacy Act, does not provide for monetary damages. G. Davis v. Attorney-General (DDC 2008) 562 F.Supp.2d 156; the FOIA provides for only injunctive relief. Johnson v. Executive Office of the US Attorneys (2002) 354 US App DC 49, 310 F3d 771. The federal FOIA applies only to federal, not state, agencies. Stoianoff v. Comm’r of the DMV (2d Cir 5/25/01) 12 Fed.Appx 33 cert.den 534 US 954.

/ Shoonra
"Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft."
First Samuel 15:23
User avatar
Shoonra
Statist
 
Posts: 5030
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:14 am
Location: suburban Maryland
Has thanked: 20 time
Have thanks: 205 time

Re: The public servant questionaire

Postby country_hick » Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:31 pm

Shoonra, thank you for the reply. There are many faulty concepts online. It is not easy to know what is good or bad.

I am thinking about having a traffic stop acting as a deaf mute. There is no reason to speak out loud. Performing the entire stop in writing should be legally acceptable. That would give the benefit of creating a record for court. No doubt as to what was "said" would exist.

Officer, under 28 CFR 35.130, 150, 160, and 164 you must be honest with me at all times. Do you understand this legal requirement to be honest with me? Please write yes or no.

Why did you stop me? What was your RAS and PC? (and so on until the stop ends)
When the officer is finished and starting to leave the time has come to speak out loud and say "Have a nice day officer".
There is a reason that LEO has a new meaning: Legally Entitled to Oppress. Thanks to Bob Livingston for this one.

Williams v. United States, 341 US 97 - Supreme Court 1951
It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 US 54 - Supreme Court 1795
Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied
User avatar
country_hick
Freeman
 
Posts: 751
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 45 time

Re: The public servant questionaire

Postby Shoonra » Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:24 pm

I don't favor pretending to be deaf. With your luck, you'd encounter a cop who knows the Sign Language. Also, a deaf driver is usually restricted to a car with additional rearview mirrors, and his driver's license would say that he is deaf. If you pretend to be deaf but you hand him a DL that doesn't say that, the cop is going to assume that you are a deaf person with someone else's DL, and arrest you. At that point, if you reveal that you were trying to hoax the cop you may well end up with a serious handicap.
/ Shoonra
"Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft."
First Samuel 15:23
User avatar
Shoonra
Statist
 
Posts: 5030
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:14 am
Location: suburban Maryland
Has thanked: 20 time
Have thanks: 205 time

Re: The public servant questionaire

Postby country_hick » Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:25 am

Shoonra wrote:I don't favor pretending to be deaf. At that point, if you reveal that you were trying to hoax the cop you may well end up with a serious handicap.

If necessary I would explain I was exercising my right to remain silent. :D

Choosing to communicate exclusively in writing is legal isn't it? Say I am a mime...or took an oath of silence for a time... That is the only way to create a record without excuses or claims that something else was said or heard.
No serious miscommunications can exist when writing is used. The faulty memory excuse will not work when the entire situation was done in writing. The cop can not claim something was said that is not on paper.
Do I lack the right to communicate exclusively in writing if I choose to communicate that way? If I lack that right why do I not have it? This would be effective communication with the police as writing is effective.
There is a reason that LEO has a new meaning: Legally Entitled to Oppress. Thanks to Bob Livingston for this one.

Williams v. United States, 341 US 97 - Supreme Court 1951
It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 US 54 - Supreme Court 1795
Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied
User avatar
country_hick
Freeman
 
Posts: 751
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 45 time


Return to Legal Theory Analysis

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

suspicion-preferred