Read Him His Rights

What the corporate policy enforcers SAY are your rights are: “You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention now, anything you later rely on in court. Anything you do say will be given in evidence.” Lets analyse this. The very first thing you are told AFTER you are under arrest is that ‘you do not have to say anything’. It is total logic that if you are at any time not under arrest then you have more rights than when you are under arrest. Therefore if you are not under arrest you are not obliged to say anything at all to a policeman, ever. They will tell you that this makes them suspicious; they can arrest you on suspicion only tell you that you have a right not to say anything. ‘but it may harm your defence’ MAY is confusing legal speak. It is legalese and does not as commonly misperceived actually mean ‘possibly’. It is granting permission. What it means to the policeman and in court is literally; ‘I give myself permission to…’ ‘may… your DEFENCE’ Thus assuming that you are on the defensive by the policeman giving himself authority to be on the offensive. The interesting interplay between two definitions of the word ‘offense’ here, however during an arrest is probably not the best time to be analyzing that particular issue. ‘Anything you do say will be given in evidence’ Yes, this is where you say “I AM UNDER DURESS” which destabilizes the arrest because it denies giving authority to that arrest. We are policed by consent. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oAwnw-mLNs&feature=related If a policeman asks you “Do you understand” he does not mean ‘Do you comprehend?'. It is more legalese. It means 'Do you stand beneath my authority' and if you say “yes" then you have given him the power above you. A maxim of Law is that we are all equal under Law. If you say “no” then you retain your real Rights. Rights are Rights. They are automatically yours by Right. That is what it means. The only possible time your Rights do not apply is if you are being abused or if someone has tricked you into giving away your rights. There is a law (I will have to check up on exactly what it says) that if you have been tricked into giving your rights away, the result is void because the real rights remain your rights. For example if I sign a contract agreeing to allow somebody to kill me and that person kills me, they are not exempt from being incarcerated for murder. Rights are definitive. Now it is time to analyse our REAL Rights which is NOT what the policeman say are your rights. This is your homework assignment. Despite Rights being What Is Right, if you do not speak up in defense of your rights then you have none. If you do not know your Rights then you are a push-over. If I spell it out here for you, you will forget it by tomorrow. If you put time and effort into educating yourself, you will deserve your Rights. Meanwhile let us explore a finishing topic; Oath of Constable: “I swear to serve the Queen with fairness integrity diligence and impartiality upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people and that I will to the best of my power cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.” The wording is confusing in that to ‘discharge all the duties thereof’ technically means ‘to let go of’ / ‘release from’. Therefore the oath is a promise both to do something and to remove obligation to do it. What the? I have not yet ascertained the legal meaning of discharged. One would think that it means the opposite of being charged (with an offense). Not that the corporate policy enforcers nor parliament care about such matters, however the Office of Fair Trading states that; "It is unfair to communicate, in whatever form, in an unclear, inaccurate or misleading manner." It would be a very different sort of community were they to apply this to themselves. Additional: Names, Castes & Wiki on Egalitarianism To claim ownership of a name of a legal fiction person (a name on a birth certificate) puts you under governmental policy enforcement jurisdiction. This is why a policyman requests your name. A name that has been registered (register means to 'transfer title ownership of deeds) means that the name is crown copyright and therefore in truth you would be committing theft to claim it as your own. A distinction must be made between the name of a piece of paper (a legal person) and the name of a flesh and blood living being with or without a soul (a natural person). This distinction IS made and recognised by courts, by legislation. A name that does not exist on the database of registered names indicates a living being who is bound by Law but not bound by legislation. "A Statute is given the force of a Law by consent of the governed." and I do not consent to be governed. My name is Commonly Known As somebody, it is not Mr. somebody. Mr somebody is a paperwork. Living beings make paperwork. Paperwork does not make living beings. See the hierarchy? The Common Law of our Ancestors also known as the Law of the Land is easy to abide by and remember;Do not steal from, trick or harm anybody; and Keep the Peace. If you live within that then you have not broken any laws. Everything else is statutory regulations legislated by parliament, who are empowered to do so by the monarchy, and is 'legal' rather than 'lawful'. You only have to abide by all of that if you consent to the paperwork (legal person) being you (the natural person). The authorities might not like this approach, they assume that everyone is a legal fiction and anyone who is evasive about it is likely to be persecuted hard. This is because the deception has corrupted so many peoples minds that they cannot recognise common sense. It is a money industry sworn to protect itself. The following is some quick research I did in Wikipedia: “Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone). These rights may exist as natural rights or as legal rights, in both national and international law.[2] The doctrine of human rights in international practice, within international law, global and regional institutions, in the policies of states and in the activities of non-governmental organizations, has been a cornerstone of public policy around the world. The idea of human rights[3] states, "if the public discourse of peacetime global society can be said to have a common moral language, it is that of human rights." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights “Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists. Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by the law of a particular political and legal system, and therefore relative to specific cultures and governments. A legal right can be enforced in courts of law against another who has infringed the right. The idea of human rights is also closely related to that of natural rights; some recognize no difference between the two and regard both as labels for the same thing, while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights.[3] Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an important legal instrument enshrining one conception of natural rights into international soft law. Natural rights were traditionally viewed as exclusively negative rights[4], whereas human rights also comprise positive rights.[5]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights DISCLAIMER: This document is not in any way intended as antagonism. It is intended as exploration of situations involving Rights and corporate policy enforcers, and for educational purposes; and without ill will, frivolity nor vexation. All rights reserved. COMMENTS PLEASE WELCOME first published on facebook 2.9.2012 Associated Links: http://www.mckenziefriend.com http://www.hmpbritain.co.uk/police-are-there-as-public-servants/ http://www.thelioness.co.uk/POLICEDBYCONSENT.php