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 POLICE CONTACT: SILENCE IS GOLDEN

Discuss the citizen right and remedy etc.

THE POLICE CONTACT: SILENCE IS GOLDEN

Postby Shuftin » Fri Jul 08, 2011 3:45 pm

THE POLICE CONTACT: SILENCE IS GOLDEN

By Carl F. Worden

I have debated writing this article for months.

I am a strong supporter of law enforcement, and I have an extensive background in law enforcement. Even now, I have a number of conflicts which cause me great concern with how the information I am about to impart to you will be used. I do not want to enable the criminals in our society to thwart justice, but I am committed to protecting the innocent from what appears to be an explosion of police abuse. In a case like this, I choose to protect the citizens.

I will start with law enforcement contacts with regard to traffic stops for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

The Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights states that we are not to be forced to incriminate ourselves. The actual wording is that you cannot be "compelled" to be a witness against yourself. If you are stopped for suspicion of DUI, these are your rights, regardless of the laws of your state.

First, you are to deny having consumed any alcoholic beverages whatsoever. You are never to admit to having one or two drinks. If you admit to consuming even one drop of alcohol, you open the door to probable cause, allowing the police officer to search your vehicle for open containers. Next, you are never to submit to a field sobriety test. You are to refuse to do so. They cannot make you walk the line, balance or anything else. If arrested, you are to refuse to allow a blood or breath test, regardless of what state law requires, such as revocation of driving privileges for a period of time. That is an attempt to compel you to be a witness against yourself. Supreme Court decisions in this area are quite specific with regard to your rights as follows:

Lefkowitz v. Turley, 94 S. Ct. 316, 414 U.S. 70 (19 73).

"The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. The Amendment not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding civil or criminal formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings.”

McCarthy v. Arndstein 266 U.S. 34, 40, 45 S. Ct. 16, 17, 69 L.Ed 158 (1924), squarely held that "the privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is a party defendant." Maness v. Myers, 95 S Ct. 584, 419 US 449 (1975). "...where the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is Involved ... This Court has always construed its protection to ensure that an individual is not compelled to produce evidence which later may be used against him as an accused in a criminal action... The protection does not merely encompass evidence which may lead to criminal conviction, but includes information which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence that could lead to prosecution, as well as evidence which an individual reasonably believes could be used against him in a criminal prosecution. Hoffman v. United States, 341 US. 479, 486, 71 S. Ct. 814, 818, 95 L. Ed. 1] 18 (1951). "

"In Kastigar v. United States, 406 U S 441, 92 S Ct. 1653, 32 LEd. 212 (1972), we recently reaffirmed the principle that the privilege against self incrimination can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory. Id., at 444, 92 S.Ct., at 1656; Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 US. 70, 77, 94 S. Ct. 316, 322, 38 L.Ed. 2d 274 (1973)...

Miranda v. Arizona, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 384 US 436 (1966).

"We have recently noted that the privilege against self-incrimination --- the essential mainstay of our adversary system-is founded on a complex of values ... To maintain a fair state individual balance, to require the government to shoulder the entire load ... to respect the inviolability of the human personality, our accusatory system of criminal justice demands that the government seeking to punish an individual produce the' evidence against him by its own independent labors, rather than by the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it from his own mouth... ln sum, the privilege is fulfilled only when the person is guaranteed the right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will."

"...there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside. of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves."

Please also note: The above, as stated by the Supreme Court, are rights and privileges as guaranteed by the Constitution, and anyone (including judges) who knowingly violates those rights may be civilly and criminally liable under several federal statutes. Please see: United States Code, Title 18 Section 241 (Conspiracy against rights), and Section 242 (Deprivation of rights under color of law); Title 42 Section 1983 - Section 1986 (Civil Rights). Most attempts to pursue action under these laws fail, but very skilled litigators with good factual circumstances can sometimes get some satisfaction. However, if more individuals were to understand the above rights and exercise them at the appropriate times, more successful litigation could be the outcome.

Okay, you got that? You cannot be forced to provide evidence against yourself, therefore you must not allow any tests whatsoever, be it field sobriety "walking the line", or a blood or breath test. Period. If you will follow these instructions, they have no case against you and they are also barred from taking away your driving privileges under the same Supreme Court rulings.

Now to more serious matters:

If you are contacted as a possible suspect, or even a witness, in any other law enforcement investigation, you are to say nothing. You are to say nothing even when your attorney is present. You are to say nothing, regardless of evidence of your guilt as presented by the law enforcement officers. You are not to try to explain away the circumstances of the evidence they present to you. You are to say absolutely nothing. No matter how tempted you are to try to talk your way out of the situation, you are to give them absolutely NOTHING to verify. If they ask you if the sky is blue on a clear day, you are to say nothing. You are to give them nothing whatsoever. Whatever evidence or witness information they have, you are to say nothing. Even denying any of their allegations can be used against you in a prosecution if it is determined later that you obviously lied. You are to stay MUTE.

The reason for this is quite simple: The evidence the law enforcement officers have is all they must be required to work with. Don't give them anything more. The only time you should consider the option of telling your side of the story is to your attorney in privacy, or in a court of law if prosecuted.

Because you have stayed mute, giving law enforcement nothing in addition to the extrinsic evidence and witness information at hand, the burden of proof available to the district attorney is severely limited and will most often result in a dismissal of charges unless their evidence and witness input is overwhelming and compelling enough for a grand jury to return a bill of indictment. And even if bound over for trial, the jury will be limited to consider only that evidence and witness input.

When you are given your Miranda Rights wherein you are informed that anything you say can and will be used against you, take it to heart: If you say absolutely nothing, NOTHING can and will be used against you in a court of law.

There are literally thousands of people behind bars today who tried to talk their way out of a law enforcement contact. Don't fall for the ploy. Law enforcement officers are trained to bluff you into making denials or statements. They will appear friendly and reasonable. They will appear willing to help resolve the matter. They will tempt you to talk about it and appear sympathetic. Don't fall for it. Say nothing. Give them nothing. Deny nothing. Give them NOTHING. Stick your tongue between your teeth and bite down - HARD. You are to be a marble statue. You do not exist. You have no past, you have no address, you have no name, you have no social security number. You are to give them nothing whatsoever to work with.
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus, Roman senator and historian (A.D. c.56-c.115)

The Government is the People, by the People, just not ---- YOU People. - Unknown

When neither their property nor their honor is touched, the majority of men live content. - Niccolo Machiavelli

The old police motto of TOprotect and servehas been replaced with YOU "comply or die.”

Better ten innocent Sheeple in jail than one guilty Person on the street! Blue Wall Of Modus Operandi
User avatar
Shuftin
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 3844
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:06 am
Has thanked: 186 time
Have thanks: 370 time

 

Re: THE POLICE CONTACT: SILENCE IS GOLDEN

Postby palani » Fri Jul 08, 2011 4:38 pm

Take this guys opening statement to heart

I am a strong supporter of law enforcement, and I have an extensive background in law enforcement.


and then question exactly WHY he wants you to remain silent. To stand mute is acceptance. Silent acceptance. Anytime you receive a NOTICE and choose to remain silent when you have been given the opportunity to INQUIRE then you lose the right to INQUIRE. The dual concepts of NOTICE and RIGHT TO INQUIRE form due process. You stay silent and you have been given due process and thrown away the opportunity. After DUE PROCESS is complete the next stage is hearing where you get to remain silent (according to Carl) in front of a judge. In medieval times going mute in front of a judge resulted in you being hauled to the lowest part of the dungeon, being placed face down on the floor (so you could draw sustenance from the liquids found there) and have 500 lbs of armor placed on you till you expire. They didn't care much for moot people in medieval times either.

Your remedy to all this. Definitely DO NOT remain silent. Neither do you make a single statement. Instead you use your RIGHT TO INQUIRE provided you by NOTICE. You ask questions like a 3 year old. Continuously. Non-stop. You are bound to lie when you make a statement so don't do it. Your RIGHT TO INQUIRE is terminated by the first statement you make so don't do it. When you are hauled in front of a judge at HEARING you ask him if you received due process if your questions go unanswered. Be creative. Wouldn't you like to know where Jimmy Hoffa is? How about whether there were other shooters behind the grassy knoll? Ask for the definition of a dollar. Ask why the sky is blue. Ask why the cop turned his emergency lights on when there appears to be no emergency. Ask where the corpus delecti is. Ask if you pay the fine will the debt be extinguished or discharged. Ask if the cop is operating as part of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of government. Ask if the ticket he is planning on giving you derived from a bill of attainder or a bill of pains and punishment. Ask if administrative law combines executive, legislative and judicial functions. Ask if administrative law is a violation of separation of powers of government.

I carry a stack of cards with me for reminders of what questions I can ask. Turns out there are quite a lot of things I would like to have answered and, unhappily, the opportunity presents itself and is thrown away when you remain silent.

SILENCE IS GOLDEN .... for the cop ... NOT FOR YOU!!!!
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor
palani
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 5695
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am
Has thanked: 163 time
Have thanks: 468 time

Re: THE POLICE CONTACT: SILENCE IS GOLDEN

Postby Shoonra » Sat Jul 09, 2011 4:31 pm

Next, you are never to submit to a field sobriety test. You are to refuse to do so. They cannot make you walk the line, balance or anything else. If arrested, you are to refuse to allow a blood or breath test, regardless of what state law requires, such as revocation of driving privileges for a period of time. That is an attempt to compel you to be a witness against yourself. Supreme Court decisions in this area are quite specific with regard to your rights as follows:
Lefkowitz v. Turley, 94 S. Ct. 316, 414 U.S. 70 (1973).


Under the Implied Consent Law, which I think has been enacted in every state and upheld by the US Supreme Court, when you applied for a Drivers License or for its renewal, you promised in advance that you would cooperate with the police sobriety tests - or else surrender your license. See: Mackey v. Montrym (1979) 443 US 1, 61 L.Ed.2d 321, 99 S.Ct 2612; Illinois v. Batchelder (1983) 463 US 1112, 77 L.Ed.2d 1267, 103 S.Ct 3513; South Dakota v. Neville (1983) 459 US 553, 74 L.Ed.2d 748, 103 S.Ct 916; Nyflot v. Minn. Comm’r of Public Safety (1985) 474 US 1027, 88 L.Ed.2d 567, 106 S.Ct 586. So, when the cops pull you over, and suspect you are under the influence (whether it's booze, drugs, or prescribed medicine), and ask you to do a few gymnastics, breathe into a tube, etc., and you refuse, say goodbye on the spot to your DL because it's instantly and automatically suspended. Excuses about wanting to wait to have your lawyer with you or having religious scruples about the test or anything like that will not work. You already promised to be cooperative when you filled out papers for the DMV. At the very least the cops will not let you drive away, because you are no longer licensed to drive; but more likely they'll put the clinkers on you and you'll spend the next few hours at a police station.

The Lefkowitz case, by the way, had nothing to do with driving. It was whether govt contractors could be punished for not waiving legal immunity during an investigation - something that they hadn't agreed to do so in advance.

--- By the way, the usual cop response to someone who babbles questions like a 3 year old but refuses to answer the questions put to him is arrest for obstructing the functions of the police (the precise title of the offense varies).
Last edited by Shoonra on Sat Jul 09, 2011 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
/ 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: 206 time

Re: THE POLICE CONTACT: SILENCE IS GOLDEN

Postby palani » Sat Jul 09, 2011 4:58 pm

Shoonra wrote:--- By the way, the usual cop response to someone who babbles questions like a 3 year old but refuses to answer the questions put to him is arrest for obstructing the functions of the police (the precise title of the offense varies).


I suppose you slap 3 y.o. children too when they ask questions? Kindly point out your cite where asking questions is illegal.

When placed on NOTICE isn't due process received when SUBSTANTIVE answers are received to INQUIRY?

Is DUE PROCESS denied when questions are not answered?

You DO have a clue as to what elements are included in DUE PROCESS don't you? Maybe you have some case cites that point out what these elements are? Would you share with us?

Or perhaps you have some more mindless and pointless tidbits you would care to share at this time?
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor
palani
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 5695
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am
Has thanked: 163 time
Have thanks: 468 time

Re: THE POLICE CONTACT: SILENCE IS GOLDEN

Postby indio007 » Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:23 pm

This guy is exactly right. I ask one question if I have to interact with the police. Are you investigating a crime? The answer is always yes , even when they are lying. That means STFU. Don't say anything other than to demand due process rights and notify as to the legal effect of their actions.

indio007 has been thanked by:
indio007
Creditor In Commerce
 
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 3:14 am
Has thanked: 189 time
Have thanks: 237 time

Re: THE POLICE CONTACT: SILENCE IS GOLDEN

Postby Shoonra » Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:44 pm

Asking questions is one thing. Babbling "like a 3-year-old" to use Palani's phrase and still refusing to answer police questions is something else. Cops aren't so dumb that they don't know when they are being jerked around. Of course, if it's a traffic stop and you persist in babbling like a toddler, the cops could regard that as strong evidence that you're under the influence of something.
/ 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: 206 time

Re: THE POLICE CONTACT: SILENCE IS GOLDEN

Postby palani » Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:59 pm

Shoonra wrote:Asking questions is one thing. Babbling "like a 3-year-old" to use Palani's phrase and still refusing to answer police questions is something else. Cops aren't so dumb that they don't know when they are being jerked around. Of course, if it's a traffic stop and you persist in babbling like a toddler, the cops could regard that as strong evidence that you're under the influence of something.


I guess if you can't come up with anything truthful you are not above creating a lie.

Asking questions like a 3 year old is not "babbling" like a 3 year old.

I thought even a high priced retired ambulance chaser could detect the difference. I guess I would be wrong.
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor
palani
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 5695
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am
Has thanked: 163 time
Have thanks: 468 time

Re: THE POLICE CONTACT: SILENCE IS GOLDEN

Postby Joel Akira » Mon Jul 11, 2011 12:14 am

Most here have probably seen these?

DON'T TALK TO COPS - Part 1 - the Law Professor's perspective

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik




DON'T TALK TO COPS - Part 2 - the Cop's perspective

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE




For HIS Glory,
Akira

Person. "Person" means an individual, corporation, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, fiduciary, trust, estate or any other legal or commercial entity. - XXXXXXX Revised Statutes

Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. - Leviticus 19:15

But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. - James 2:9,10,12
User avatar
Joel Akira
Freeman
 
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:14 am
Has thanked: 45 time
Have thanks: 96 time

Re: THE POLICE CONTACT: SILENCE IS GOLDEN

Postby quasimodo » Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:52 am

Shoonra wrote: or else surrender your license.


Been there done that years ago. Don't want the implication I'm in any way engaged in commerce to become an issue.


Shoonra wrote:--- By the way, the usual cop response to someone who babbles questions like a 3 year old but refuses to answer the questions put to him is arrest for obstructing the functions of the police (the precise title of the offense varies).


Granted, like a 3 year old maybe not, but do we not have a right to be fully informed. Such as informed of what impact any work will have on our lives when coming from the mouths of those who speak to you and ask questions in a foreign language?

Webster's New World Dictionary of American English
3rd College Edition (A.D.1991) p. 771

le-gal-ese (lē’gəl ēz) n. the conventional language of legal forms, documents, etc., involving special vocabulary and formulations, often thought of as abstruse and incomprehensible to the layman.

[Emphasis mine]

For sake of argument;
Application for State Driver License, is it a legal form, or document?
Statutes allegedly consented to, are they legal forms, or documents?
Alleged Traffic Citation, is it a legal form, or document?

Can we, as members of the laity, understand every element in its context of every word in every sentence spoken, question asked, comment made, or allegation brought against us, or are they incomprehensible to us? I think I need a certified interpreter to interpret "legalese" back into American English so that I can have that understanding and thus form a response that will not have adverse effects on my life, my well being, or my finances.

I have reason to believe and do believe that it is an entitlement to have a certified interpreter present if you are being questioned in a language that is not your native tongue. My native tongue is American English, not legalese. The latter of which by the definition found in the book that defines the meanings of words used and spoken in my native tongue is incomprehensible to me, it is foreign to me.
Last edited by quasimodo on Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
quasimodo
Creditor In Commerce
 
Posts: 1718
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:12 pm
Location: Austin township, Republic of Texas
Has thanked: 115 time
Have thanks: 199 time

Re: THE POLICE CONTACT: SILENCE IS GOLDEN

Postby indio007 » Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:56 am

This belongs in this thread.

You can't sum it up any better than this. You have been warned.

THE BELLIGERENT CLAIMANT

“The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the man who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It can not be retained by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in the flesh.”
“The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. Once he testifies to part, he has waived his right and must on cross examination or otherwise, testify as to the whole transaction. He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus.”
– United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538, 540 (District Court, M.D. PA. 1947)

indio007 has been thanked by:
indio007
Creditor In Commerce
 
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 3:14 am
Has thanked: 189 time
Have thanks: 237 time

Next

Return to Citizenship & Jurisdiction

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

suspicion-preferred