I had a chat with a Queensland cop

[leathal]

Interesting responses, a good discussion is usually based on facts, so here are a couple more...
This copper wasn't the first time I have asked this question of the official types.. ptb's or whatever.. I recently asked the Department of Justice and the Attorney Generals office to provide evidence that I was wrong. I asked quite politely, again, and they ignored me, again.
I have asked the Australian federal governments information service the same things, and the Governor General of Australia... guess what, nobody has denied it, I had to deal with the Cairns regional council, they where threatening a friend with fines and penalties for not having their dog registered, 2200 buck worth, I wrote to them and challenged them to prove that they had the power to do this under Chapter 3 of the Constitution, and to prove that registration does not mean "give to the regent" and for what valuable consideration they were bringing to the contract (registration form) other than a promise not to kidnapp and hold the dogs for ransom and or kill them... they backed off, we never heard from them again, in fact they couldn't produce the evidence so they shut up.
Take back the power. Don't get screwed by consent

[firstworldproblems]

Placebos work!

[leathal]

Originally Posted by firstworldproblems

Placebos work!

No shit sherlock...
no placebo needed, or interpretation for that matter... the bill of rights article 12 is quite plainly worded.. ie fines and forfeitures prior to conviction ARE ILLEGAL AND VOID, whats to interpret here, I made no claims to this cop, I just asked questions, and if ignorance is no excuse why didn't this bloke know this if he is there to enforce the 'law'? if he is bound to operate within the confines of legislation, then why didn't he have a damn clue about the laws that guarantee our liberties and rights.
Today I attended a lecture by a former High Court of Australia Justice, Michael Kirby..(alphabet soup) he is a member of the Group of Eminent Persons that are involved in the Commonwealth of Nations reform process, and his lecture was about fairly superficial stuff about the Commonwealth, The Queen has asked for subject nations to revise their laws relating to the succession to the crown, at the end of the lecture I asked him how this would effect the imperial acts in force here, including the bill of rights 1688, he said that it would only effect the Act of Settlement, but he avoided the Bill of rights that has articles about succession, and the Succession to the crown act... gotta wonder why.
In my opinion (as humble as it is) any changes to these laws is a threat to what remains, if they repeal the Bill of Rights in its entirety then good bye to many liberties. I doubt that they would just ammend it, that's not how they play.
At least Kirby is about rights and protection of the liberties of the subjects.

[wiseguy]

Originally Posted by leathal

Hi all, I've been offline for a while, but I have been busy .
Yesterday I went to a 'careers expo' in Toowoomba at the University, Isaw this recruiting stall for the state police service, so being thecurious character that I am, I had a chat to the senior constable onsite, I asked him if he was aware of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1984 (QLD), he said he never heard of it, so Ifilled him in on the idea of the Act being to preserve the rights and liberties of the subjects (me), then I told him that the criminal code act and police powers act and regulatin didn't seem to repeal the Imperial Laws, and then I quoted (1688) Bill of Rights, 1 William and Mary Sess C2 article 12 to him.. ie ' Promises of fines and forfeitures prior to conviction are ILLEGAL AND VOID, then I mentined the Magne Carte to him etc,.
You should have seen him start squirming when I asked how he could justify writing an infringement notice, and wether or not he would be commiting an offense in doing so, then I reminded him of the separation of powers reserving the issue of penalties to the courts under chapter 3 of the Australian Constitution and that this law over rode state laws because they are inconsistant...
as soon as I walkedaway, he went to his car and got on the radio
comments...

Knock knock knock...

[rumpelstilzchen]

Originally Posted by leathal

the bill of rights article 12 is quite plainly worded.. ie fines and forfeitures prior to conviction ARE ILLEGAL AND VOID,

Traffic violation tickets are an offer to settle the matter rather than going to court. The ticket will even tell you if rather than accept the out of court offer, you would rather have the matter dealt with by a court you can do.
That is why these tickets do not contravene the BoR.

[yashin]

Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen

Traffic violation tickets are an offer to settle the matter rather than going to court. The ticket will even tell you if rather than accept the out of court offer, you would rather have the matter dealt with by a court you can do.
That is why these tickets do not contravene the BoR.

Hence why they are titled "conditional offer of a fixed penalty notice" in the UK at least.
Accept the offer or refuse and go to court.

[msbpunk]

I fail to see what the point of what these exchanges are, for except as some sort of self ego massage.
It's like the the people who post you tube videos "educating" police and traffic wardens about "lawful and legal" "statute and common law" etc etc.
What difference does it actually make, apart from being able to gloat about how they "squirm" and run from the "truth, abandoned the court" or whatever.

It's just fmotl masturbation.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Originally Posted by msbpunk

apart from being able to gloat about how they "squirm" and run from the "truth, abandoned the court" or whatever.

Don't forget the "....as I walked away the cop got onto his radio....." line.

It's just fmotl masturbation.

Isn't this the one area where the fotl excel?

[yashin]

Originally Posted by msbpunk

I fail to see what the point of what these exchanges are, for except as some sort of self ego massage.
It's like the the people who post you tube videos "educating" police and traffic wardens about "lawful and legal" "statute and common law" etc etc.
What difference does it actually make, apart from being able to gloat about how they "squirm" and run from the "truth, abandoned the court" or whatever.

It's just fmotl masturbation.

Agreed, it's ejaculation rather than masturbation we want. The Judge saying "correct, you have to consent to Statute law, you haven't so are free to go".

Anything else is just masturbation with no end product.

[reverendjim]

Originally Posted by yashin

Agreed, it's ejaculation rather than masturbation we want. The Judge saying "correct, you have to consent to Statute law, you haven't so are free to go".

Anything else is just masturbation with no end product.

hmmm....yes...i have noticed that the vast majority of society are involved in one big circle jerk. its not just fmotl.

[tien an]

Originally Posted by msbpunk

Cool story, Bro !!

Originally Posted by msbpunk

I fail to see what the point of what these exchanges are, for except as some sort of self ego massage.
It's like the the people who post you tube videos "educating" police and traffic wardens about "lawful and legal" "statute and common law" etc etc.
What difference does it actually make, apart from being able to gloat about how they "squirm" and run from the "truth, abandoned the court" or whatever.

It's just fmotl masturbation.

Wow; are there two of you in that body?

You've changed your standpoint within 72hrs!

I think this OP is different in that the OP only asks questions...not asserting anything (apart from the perceived notion of the cop being on his radio to discuss the same subject as he'd just been discussing with the OP).

Masturbation?
How about those who suggest that questioning the law = masturbation?

tian an.

[msbpunk]

Originally Posted by tien an

Wow; are there two of you in that body?

You've changed your standpoint within 72hrs!

I think this OP is different in that the OP only asks questions...not asserting anything (apart from the perceived notion of the cop being on his radio to discuss the same subject as he'd just been discussing with the OP).

Masturbation?
How about those who suggest that questioning the law = masturbation?

tian an.

I don't think you get what "cool story, bro!" means.

And I don't see these exchanges with cops, etc as "questioning the law", more like playing silly buggers with (usually obsolete, foreign) legal dictionaries and completely misinterpreting what they have read. Then they spout off to some poor plod who does their best to be polite and humour them.
Do these fmoltl really believe the cop goes home and and thinks "wow, I've learned the truth today?". I highly doubt it makes any difference to them at all.
Maybe masturbation wasn't the best word to use, maybe "empty gesture" would be better.

[tien an]

Originally Posted by msbpunk

I don't think you get what "cool story, bro!" means.

And I don't see these exchanges with cops, etc as "questioning the law", more like playing silly buggers with (usually obsolete, foreign) legal dictionaries and completely misinterpreting what they have read. Then they spout off to some poor plod who does their best to be polite and humour them.
Do these fmoltl really believe the cop goes home and and thinks "wow, I've learned the truth today?". I highly doubt it makes any difference to them at all.
Maybe masturbation wasn't the best word to use, maybe "empty gesture" would be better.

I took your first post at face value...


I agree with you that FMOTL putting themselves in the position where they will get themselves arrested (or nearly), is daft and at best counterproductive, but asking a cop those particular questions (come on; the OP's done his homework on this one), without putting either of them in a situation where it can escalate into something else may at least plant a seed in the guy's head and he'll go home and have a look for himself...

...and what if the OP's right?

We're all a bit prone to hyperbole here, eh?

As I've said above...I think this was a little more than an empty gesture.

tian an.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Originally Posted by tien an

...and what if the OP's right?

That would be a matter for a court to decide, not a policeman.

[johne]

Exactly! Why do people hassle police recruiters about points of law when they have open access to the courts? Why not ask a meter maid about the legality of parking tickets and then imply success when the she calls to add potatoes to the family grocery list?

[tien an]

Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen

That would be a matter for a court to decide, not a policeman.

Of course; you're right.

But that attitude just stifles conversation.

...because these issues are ultimatey dealt with by the courts (or 'inquiry').

What you're saying is I / we should just be silent and await the court's decision....never questioning....discussing...speculating?

No thanks.

tian an.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Originally Posted by tien an

What you're saying is I / we should just be silent and await the court's decision....

Well actually, yes I would say that. Arguing with a policeman that a statute says this or a statute says that is pointless. If you believe your legal argument has merit you should seek a court's decision on it. Do you really believe a policeman would stop writing out traffic tickets because somebody he stopped for speeding told him speeding tickets are unlawful?
And before you reply with "Well, it might make him think..." The only thing he is going to think is "Another nutter."
The fotl are arguing with the wrong people imo and making themselves look like idiots in the process.

[tien an]

Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen

Well actually, yes I would say that. Arguing with a policeman that a statute says this or a statute says that is pointless. If you believe your legal argument has merit you should seek a court's decision on it. Do you really believe a policeman would stop writing out traffic tickets because somebody he stopped for speeding told him speeding tickets are unlawful?
And before you reply with "Well, it might make him think..." The only thing he is going to think is "Another nutter."
The fotl are arguing with the wrong people imo and making themselves look like idiots in the process.

I would say that the two of them were having a discussion about some points of law...before anything has even 'happened'...
Much better to take this approach than instigate a situation, such as being stopped without a valid licence (and not able to produce one within a reasonable period of time...such as here in the UK)...and making themselves look like idiots.

I was at a wedding this weekend where I met a distant relative who happens to be a lawyer:
We had a chat about this sort of thing...should we not have bothered?
Would you wish to stop us discussing the subject?
He didn't think 'another nutter...' he thought it quite interesting.

Again; the OP didn't just hit the cop with 'some statute or other', but a situation where (complete with court case reference, which is rare...you must admit), two conflicting interpretations exist at the same time.

So what I glean from your post is that people who have an interest in this subject should either shut up and wait for a court decision and just accept it...or go out and create one?

...just don't discuss it.


As I say; ultimately you are right. The court's decision is what stands...and we agree that is should.
What happens in between now and then?


tian an.

PS I was in N Qld recently, visiting my brother. I can tell you they don't mince their words in that part of the world.
In fact, I appreciated no end their forthright behaviour.
If they've got something to say, or ask..they do so.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Originally Posted by tien an

I would say that the two of them were having a discussion about some points of law...before anything has even 'happened'...
Much better to take this approach than instigate a situation, such as being stopped without a valid licence (and not able to produce one within a reasonable period of time...such as here in the UK)...and making themselves look like idiots.

Maybe it was a discussion. But reading the OP, to me it appears to be an account of something we see regularly on here: an attempt by somebody who is not qualified in law to "educate" a policeman in law.

I was at a wedding this weekend where I met a distant relative who happens to be a lawyer:
We had a chat about this sort of thing...should we not have bothered?
Would you wish to stop us discussing the subject?
He didn't think 'another nutter...' he thought it quite interesting.

Of course you should discuss it.
I'm interested to know, did this lawyer have an opinion on whether statutes are not law? Did you ask him if he believed the government creates a strawman? Did you ask him if criminal law is in fact admiralty law, and whether statute law is contract law? Was he a solicitor or a barrister?

Again; the OP didn't just hit the cop with 'some statute or other', but a situation where (complete with court case reference, which is rare...you must admit), two conflicting interpretations exist at the same time.

I have just re read the OP (quickly) and I cannot find any reference to any court cases. From what I can make out the OP simply hit the cop with his own interpretation of some Acts.

So what I glean from your post is that people who have an interest in this subject should either shut up and wait for a court decision and just accept it...or go out and create one?

That is not what I am saying. But attempting to "educate" a policeman in law imo is pointless.

...just don't discuss it.

By all means discuss it but don't expect the police to consider for one minute your interpretation of law is correct. We see these youtube videos all the time. The sovs for some inexplicable reason believe that verbosity conquers all. It's crazy.

As I say; ultimately you are right. The court's decision is what stands...and we agree that is should.
What happens in between now and then?

Well, if all the fotl are going to do is continue to attempt to "educate" cops by using sophistry I would say we'll see more of the same.

[johne]

From what I have read of freemen’s writings in the last several days it seems to me that many freemen have a fondness for stating their conclusions as proven. Some freemen also like to mail their conclusions to government officials and then assume those conclusions are accurate when they don’t get a response from government officials. Leathal did this too. This seems presumptuous to me. Considering the numbers of freemen passing their ideas around on the web. . . this surprised me. . .I can’t help but wonder if somebody in Australia has tried the approach suggested by Leathal and then we can see if it works.