How to evade or profit from every legal arrest....

[iamani]

Hi dreadlock

Thanks for the reply, it was very informative.

Will draft full response, but thought i'd answer your question first (re: 'competition').

The reason i asked was just to make sure we were not going to get involved in competing with each other and falling out over it, as i have enjoyed the interaction and hope for more. We might have different opinions but that doesn't mean we can't learn from each other, and i'm sure we're aiming for the same goal. As i said, i'm here to learn and share.

Will post my 'rebuttal ' a little later...

Cheers!

[iamani]

Hi dreadlock

Every word in that scenario was relevant to 'the case in hand'. At least it was to me. It's important to be exacting. If a picture paints a thousand words, a thousand words can paint a pretty picture.

If i was trying to hail a cab (as part of YOUR stated scenario) a 'reasonable presumption' would be that it would be done in an area of passing traffic - hence possible witnesses (although you're right, that would be irrelevant in light of the video evidence).

It was also a part of your stated scenario that i had a sports bag (you even put the pot in it, you b@$+@?d!). Now i don't know 'bout you, but i only unhand bag once seated - and if i didn't want it searched it would be welded to my hand until all hope was lost. As i was fingering my 'guardian angel' with the other hand i think it fair to say both hands were full.

At what point was john-james arrested? Having gone completely off-the-rails ultra vires any arrest Sweety made would be void ab initio - as if it never happened. Besides, even as he was a-twitchin' and convulsing in his own bodily expulsions john-james still had the presence of mind to conduct a LAWFUL arrest of a rogue constable (who has just shot a peaceful man in the back without even the decency to shout 'POLICE, TASER!'). That was the only arrest made.

As soon as he acknowledged/accepted Constable Todd's proffered oath john-james absolutely had jurisdiction. Jurisdiction doesn't 'mean'control, it engenders it. Jurisdiction is better defined as 'the right' or 'the correct authority'. Sweety 'presumed' he was dealing with the 'usual'. A presumption rebutted (via his actions) by John-james. Sweety presumed he would gain easy joinder. Rebutted. He also presumed jurisdiction. Again, rebutted.

Sweety had NO control whatsoever of the situation. If he had he would have gained consent, joinder, jurisdiction, personal details and the usual boost to his fully-in-control ego. Instead he got nothing but a massive headache.

Whatever armour or weaponry these goons carry, who cares? That fear is gone, replaced by knowledge.

Actually it was Sweety's choice re: escalation. john-james could only choose to submit or politely and reasonably stand on his rights. In that situation i would make the same choice (though it would be nice to never find out!).

Re: 'news flash'. Where does 'right or wrong' come into it? i asked you how john-james broke legislation when legislation didn't even come into play, as Sweety (on video, remember!) had gained neither joinder nor jurisdiction. Again, any reference to legislation is void ab initio - a fraud.

Whatever Sweety THINKS, what he KNOWS is procedure. Even the dumbest examples of the 'toys in glue' know they HAVE to get joinder ('name', address and d.o.b. - the perfect trifecta). They usually don't know WHY it's so important - but WE do!

You see, as soon as you give them your ('agent') name (eg Mr John James Doe) you assume the liabilities and responsibilities (ie become trustee) of the Estate of MR JOHN JAMES DOE. As an 'agent' (of the Crown) you are subject to 'code' (ie military) regulations (aka legislation) and, amongst other duties, bound to obey any 'superior' agents' (ie 'policy enforcers') commands.

Incidentally the only name you own is the name/s your parents gifted you - eg john-james (Christian/Man name). Your 'family' name was forced upon your ancestors but remained copyright property of the Crown. It's another legal fiction and your 'assumption' of it makes you (in the eyes of commerce and officialdom) an 'agent of the Crown' responsible for the collection (from yourself) of any dues the Crown deems necessary from the person/agent for the Estate of (in this example) MR JOHN JAMES DOE. i could go on, but anyway....

If there is no crime committed then NO JOINDER = NO AUTHORITY (without consent from the victim)

Btw, this would never get NEAR a court....

You say you pay attention, yet neither Sweety nor your good self stopped to wonder why john-james asked 'Who is Mr James?' - TWICE! Hence, 'reasonable presumption' - rebutted!

i trust i'm demonstrating a reasonable grasp on the concept of 'presumption' now?

Actually, his full 'agent' name IS Mr John James Doe, and it's the Mr Doe bit in particular that enslaves you to the Crown. It is both a name AND a job title.

It's a REALLY big onion, dreadlock. i would urge you to keep peeling......

Cheers!

[Dreadlock]

It's important to be exacting... If i was trying to hail a cab (as part of YOUR stated scenario)...

Yes it is important to be exacting. If you are going to quote me then actually QUOTE me. Changing things to suit yourself merely causes me to suspect your motives for posting and loose respect for you. What I posted was:

Scenario. I'm a copper, I've been watching you loitering on the pavement for the past 10mins (waiting for a taxi, but I dont know this).

Not trying to hail a taxi, but waiting for a taxi. If John had been attempting to hail cabs he would not have been seen as loitering. "Waiting for a taxi" implies there is one on the way and could easily be mistaken for loitering. We don't know the location, we don't know the time of day or night we don't know if there are witnesses.

Now i don't know 'bout you, but i only unhand bag once seated - and if i didn't want it searched it would be welded to my hand until all hope was lost. As i was fingering my 'guardian angel' with the other hand i think it fair to say both hands were full.

We don't know if the bag was being held, or slung over a shoulder, or on the ground.

As we don't know any of the aforementioned things we can't use them as facts. End of story.

Most of the rest of your post is about arguments that would be raised in a court. You are failing to put yourself in Sweeney's shoes. From his perspective he did nothing wrong. Which is why John ended up being tasered. All those points you raise about joinder, consent bla bla bla. Sweeney couldn't give a crap.

Jurisdiction doesn't 'mean'control, it engenders it. Jurisdiction is better defined as 'the right' or 'the correct authority'

No. I provided you with the definition I was using for the meaning of jurisdiction. It was not a point for debate it was a point of clarification. "Jurisdiction", as I used it, means control.

Sweety had NO control whatsoever of the situation. If he had he would have gained consent, joinder, jurisdiction, personal details and the usual boost to his fully-in-control ego. Instead he got nothing but a massive headache.

Your definition of control and mine must be vastly different. He arrested John by tasering him. That's control. There is nothing to indicate he got massive headache, though John may well have. "Arrest" means "stop" - clarification, not for debate.

Whatever Sweety THINKS, what he KNOWS is procedure. Even the dumbest examples of the 'toys in glue' know they HAVE to get joinder ('name', address and d.o.b. - the perfect trifecta).

Not for a stop and search. Check for yourself, you will discover you are wrong.

You say you pay attention, yet neither Sweety nor your good self stopped to wonder why john-james asked 'Who is Mr James?' - TWICE! Hence, 'reasonable presumption' - rebutted!

Wow, now you know what goes on in my head? Impressive. Why do you think Sweeney referred to John as "Mr" twice? Reasonable presumption was in no way rebutted, does John even know what was being presumed? More mind reading perhaps?

i trust i'm demonstrating a reasonable grasp on the concept of 'presumption' now?

Nope.

Actually, his full 'agent' name IS Mr John James Doe, and it's the Mr Doe bit in particular that enslaves you to the Crown. It is both a name AND a job title.

Incorrect and you contradicted yourself. Either the full 'agent' name IS Mr John James Doe OR it (Mr John James Doe) is both a name AND a job title. It can't be both now can it? So which is it? Both answers are wrong anyway.

Your 'family' name was forced upon your ancestors but remained copyright property of the Crown. It's another legal fiction and your 'assumption' of it makes you (in the eyes of commerce and officialdom) an 'agent of the Crown' responsible for the collection (from yourself) of any dues the Crown deems necessary from the person/agent for the Estate of (in this example) MR JOHN JAMES DOE.

And you believe this to be true because?
Can you provide an example of a government form which requires a family name? There are plenty of online forms - a link will do.

The UK government and corporations require surnames NOT family names. Here is an example:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/359928/V10_220714.pdf
Look around you can probably find many more.

Do you still believe everything you wrote in that last quote is true?

I have nothing further to add to this thread.

[iamani]

Hi dreadlock

Well, i think i've managed to convey my point of view - you don't agree and that's fine. The thread is there for others to read, they can make up their own minds as to what is correct.

Incidentally, guess who was stopped for speeding today? The officer accepted some of my points and rejected others, dropped a copy of the unsigned ticket through the one inch gap. He admitted he took oath and i acknowledged and accepted it on camera (least i hope i recorded it, not checked it yet) and he was really patient (didn't taser me once!). Have to say i was impressed.

Now i'm going to watch some Troy. i believe i need to write and inform someone (within 72 hours) of my status as a man travelling at the time of the alleged 'offence' to kill the ticket.

Isn't it amazing how hard it is to remember everything when you're in the hot-seat? There was no fear because i was prepared to accept any outcome and deal with it, but the old sphincter was twitchin' like a good-un just the same, higher-pitched voice and everything! Time to write down some reminders to keep in the 'conveyance' i think.

Maybe someone will see this and post something helpful?

Cheers!

[Dreadlock]

Hi,

I think it would be interesting to know what he accepted and what he rejected. I wonder if police are acutally getting taught some of this stuff now...

[iamani]

Hi dreadlock

It's possible i suppose. i have heard they all go on a common-law course once every six months, don't know how true that is.

i don't know what he thought i had right or wrong, he didn't say and i didn't need to push my luck at that point. If it shows on the video will let you know.

Cheers!

[iamani]

Greetings!

We all know that acts and statutes apply to the 'person', right? That there is no mention of the living man in any of them?

Looking at the RTA it seems that if you stop when requested by a'constable' you are seemingly admitting to 'being' a 'person'. Yet if you don't stop there are consequences.

If one's general strategy is to live in 'the private', what would those consequences be if you just travelled past the 'constable'? After all technically you are just demonstrating your superior knowledge of law. What could they do if you know who you are/aren't and know how to negate the charges?

"Why didn't you stop?"

"Because the act you are depending on says a 'person' must stop. Can you prove i was acting in role of 'person' or 'agency'? If you can't then my assertion stands, i the living breathing man am not a 'person' so didn't need to stop."

Anyone ever tried this?

Cheers!