Reasonable suspicion is the reason for detention.Originally Posted by David Merrill
Probable cause is the criteria for an arrest.
The provision of a name upon inquiry by a policy enforcement officer is something different.
Detention is civil arrest.
An apprehension is criminal arrest.
Last edited by shikamaru; 05-17-12 at 10:34 PM.
Thank you for clarifying that!
I can assure you, there is no difference in the terms at street level. If an officer uses any force or threatens force to stop you, it is an arrest, try resisting a 'civil detention' and you will be charged with 'resisting arrest' or 'aggravated assault on a police officer', the officer on the scene has nearly total discretion in such matters.
In the vast majority of cases, if an officer can articulate a reason for whatever he/she does or has done, it is supported by the department, that is how I was trained and I know it is the same today.
My point is, standing face to face with an armed and usually ignorant policy officer is NOT the time nor place to be discussing the finer points of legal terms. Give them a name if requested. You have done everything required of you, proceed then according to your own knowledge and skill from there.
As for the main question of this thread, it is pretty clear to me, they consider a legal name (all CAPS) their property.
They may consider a legal name (all CAPS) their property until they are properly informed that the FIRST MIDDLE LAST has been redeemed and claimed by the proper heir (True Name) as a landed estate of inheritance.
Provide the True Name, in my case it is Anthony Joseph, and no other information whatsoever.
"I do not understand the legal nature of your questions or requests."
"I am absent your claimed jurisdiction."
"I am absent your claimed controversy."
If they present you with a "Commercial Instrument", do not argue; you have 72 hours to timely and honorably exercise your inherent right of refusal to contract. Form and keep the proper and lawful record of your refusal. Be sure to send copies of your lawful clerical process to the clerk of court where the "Commercial Instrument" will be entered as a "case".
Attachment 836
Page 4 and page 9 of the attached file shows the result of my latest encounter. I was impeded on the right of ways by a county deputy sheriff. I was presented a commercial instrument claiming "DRIVER NOT BELTED". I refused for cause timely, also furnishing the attached MEMORANDUM (page 4), and sent this evidence to my evidence repository (LoR case jacket) in the US District Court near my area. Page 9 shows the result - NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN AT THIS TIME.
THAT is Knowledge and skill right there! What amazing break throughs have been made with the redemption of lawful money! Thank for the excellent write up Anthony!
Thank you AJ!
Here is another example of redemption with a used car purchase.
Thank you martin earl. Your commentary, coming from a former law enforcement officer, is not only appreciated but lends some credence and jusification to the stance and approach I utilized during my latest encounter.
I have already acknowledged how much of an asset it is to have you here among our cyberspace gathering and I wish to further thank you for your insight and contributions as a former "insider" who can provide us with knowledge into the psyche of the roving law enforcement officer's "mentality" we may encounter in our daily lives.
I again wish to give proper credit where it is due and it always starts with David Merrill as he is the one who cured me of my "schitzophrenia" or "psuedonomania" as he calls it. I have expressed that in the past many times and I thank him again for being God's "conduit of truth" regarding one's "True Name", redeeming lawful money and proper record forming.
I am in the midst of redeeming and claiming my inheritance and naming the chief judicial probate officer as my "master of the bench" and "privy counsellor" regarding any attempted claims against my declared private estate property (FIRST MIDDLE LAST).
So far, it seems to be working in my favor; why else would a desperate court system starving for revenue decide to "TAKE NO ACTION AT THIS TIME" just because some "joe schmoe" decided to send a MEMORANDUM along with his timely Refusal for Cause of their "Commercial Instrument Traffic Ticket"? There is revenue there waiting to be collected and yet they decide to "TAKE NO ACTION..."???
When I was in a Messianic Jewish congregation I began to study the Jewish tradition of Bible Study down at the federal repository, as I call it. Which is to say rather than Government Documents being a part of the campus library, I think of it as a Government Document library with a whole slew of tangential material, so much so that the campus utilizes it to teach a wider curriculum.
One thing I recall encountering was that the Talmud is Oral Law. That confused me at first because the Talmud is in book form. For a long time though, the teachings found in the Talmud were passed down from generation to generation orally. This was Jewish Bible Study and around the time of CHRIST the rabbis felt this tradition was in danger so they began to immortalize it by putting it to book form.
This is what common law has become - case law. Stare decisis. In some discussions and conversation this is becoming more clear to me. The action of drawing upon the written law (Laws of Moses) through a written constitution (Nehemiah 10) was an oral tradition - the constitution-forming itself, put into written form, like the Talmud that followed.
Legislation follows the same form. The 'saving to suitors' clause is the reason that redemption had to be written into the elastic currency of 1913. The 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789 follows written tradition:
A false balance is an abomination to the LORD but a just weight is His delight. Proverbs 11:1
That is what the 'saving to suitors' clause says. Whenever men on the land can form jural society enough to run self-government, that self-government prevails and brings them (home rule) out of the laws of the sea. When men are incompetent to do so, then the law of the sea shall govern.
The first consitution in America is recognized as the Fundamental Orders of 1639:
Last edited by David Merrill; 05-19-12 at 07:37 AM.
When providing identity information and other personal and private information to organizations and entities, it is done contingent upon certain expectations about how that information will be used. It is generally taken completely for granted that the basic rights and guaranteed protections of law afforded to individuals and their identity information will be respected by credible organizations.
The NCIDP has found that this trust is misplaced more often than not.
The Identity Information User License Agreement (IIULA), as the NCIDP has standardized it, puts into legal terms and written legal contract those expectations. It also serves formal notice of the laws to anyone handling the identity information, depriving them of claims of ignorance of those laws and the protections that those laws guarantee.
The IIULA gives notices of the rule of law as applicable across the entire United States, dealing with Federal court case law and other nationally applicable law. State laws may vary and may offer additional protections (which are generically invoked by the IIULA wherever they exist and offer such additional protections), but State laws cannot contravene any of the nationally applicable legal standards noticed in the IIULA. Moreover, the relevant case law is largely well-settled Constitutional law establishing rights that cannot be infringed even by acts of the Federal Congress, and that are significantly protected against all but amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
http://ncidpolicy.org/iiula.html I haven't had the need to use this but it makes sense to me. It might be the right thing to take to the locals and have them sign one before any other chance encounters.
Curbstone court ??
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote