Search the FAQ Archives

3 - A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - K - L - M
N - O - P - Q - R - S - T - U - V - W - X - Y - Z - Internet FAQ Archives

Lawful Arrest/Search/Seizure FAQ

[ Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index | Schools ]
Posted-By: auto-faq 3.3.1 beta (Perl 5.006)
Archive-name: law/lawful-arrest
Posting-Frequency: posted on the 6th of each month
Version: 2.4

See reader questions & answers on this topic! - Help others by sharing your knowledge
Lawful Arrest FAQ -- Version 2.4 -- 08 Nov 2002


Whether you are being arrested, witnessing an arrest, or
sitting on a jury, this is the most important thing you 
need to know:

In every criminal case, always ask:

	"What is the name of the victim, 
	and the nature of the injury?" 

	"What is the name of the civilian 
	that has made a complaint against the accused?"

	"What is the evidence to suggest that the
	accused caused the injury to the victim?"

If they put the accused in jail, or threaten with this,
then it is a criminal case. 


This document provides information about the elements of
a Lawful Arrest, and Lawful Police Actions in general,
including detainment, search, seizure. There are additional
sections on rights and powers, and for what happens after 
the arrest.


The primary references used for this document are 

   o  United States Constitution including the Bill of Rights, 
   o  Declaration of Independence, 
   o  The Federalist (and Anti-Federalist) Papers, 
      Rights of Man, Civil Disobedience, etc.  

The Constitution and Declaration together define our Founding
Principles of freedom and privacy, and denote the highest
law of this land. The author hopes to inspire you to
seek out these texts and to study them, and to consider the
possibility of a free and gentle life for all creatures.

PS: Any "law" which is inconsistent with the Constitution is 
not law, but a "de jure" imposter, which may have the 
appearance or "color" of law, but is not "de facto" law.
What if a police officer, judge, or other government agent
violates the Constitution?

	"If they are violating their oath to uphold the
	Constitution, then they commit an act of treason.
	If they use weapons and violence to commit treason, then
	they commit an act of war.  If she is held captive by
	an act of war, then she is a Prisoner of War" -- Farrell
	Montgomery, when asked why he was flying a POW/MIA flag
	near Shirley Allen's house, Roby Illinois, Oct 1997


Brace yourself. You will never hear about this on CNN ;^)

Recently, a man was jailed in the United States of
America, Land of the Free. For his crime, and without
the benefit of trial by jury, he was detained for one week
in a American Gulag, a huge facility surrounded by razor
wire and machine-gun-wielding guards, with miles of underground
tunnels made of steel and concrete where even the *screams* of
the beaten cannot escape. In this place, this man was subjected to
unsafe, and unsanitary conditions, deprived of food and
water, deprived of contact with loved ones, deprived of the
ability to work, and was subjected to barbaric violations
of his mind and body, including sexual torture (in the guise 
of a "medical examination").  It might surprise you to know that
this torture is quite common, and happens to every new
"guest" of the place.

What was his crime that justified such horrors? He was
accused of "injuring no person".  You see, his "papers
were not in order": He was caught driving with an expired
driver's license. That's all. Shocking but true: it happens
every day in every big city and every little town all
across America. Don't believe it? The man was the author
of this document.  Don't care? Think "criminals deserve
whatever they get"? Believe this: It could happen to YOU
tomorrow, for something just as trivial.

Interested? Good! Read on...


The author asserts the legal system in the United States
(as in many other countries) is horribly violent and
corrupt, as it jails and tortures innocent non-violent
people, while violent people go free. Our legal
system destroys careers, lives, and families of decent
citizens. Ignorance of our country's Founding Principles
perpetuates the injustice.

Here are some interesting facts, from Dec 1999 study
by the Justice Policy Institute, and an Aug 2002 report
released by the U.S. Dept. of Justice: 

        o There are presently 2 Million Americans in jail,
        about half for non-violent "offenses".

        o 6.6 million people, nearly one in every 32
        adults in the United States, was behind bars or
        on probation or parole by the end of 2001.

        o The US has the world's highest incarceration
        rate, surpassing Russia and China, and the world's
        largest prison population.

        o With less than five percent of the world's
        population, the US now has fully one-quarter of
        the world's prisoners.

        o There are six times as many Americans behind bars
        as are imprisoned in the 12 countries making up the
        entire European Union, even though those countries
        have 100 million more citizens than the US. 

        o Nearly one in three African American boys born
        this year will spend some time in prison.

        o In several states, such as Florida, ex-convicts
        who have theoretically paid their debt to society,
        are permanently stripped of their right to vote.
        Unfortunately, in recent years we have seen all
        too clearly that apprehension and punishment for
        criminal acts is highly skewed and often racially
        or politically biased. (Source: Marc Mauer, The
        Sentencing Project)

This author contends that one cause of these statistics
is that in many or most of these cases, the "offender" 
was not properly arrested, according to the United States 
Constitution. This document describes what "properly
arrested" means.

There is little good information available in public
schools, colleges, libraries, or law textbooks, or from the
corporate media on this subject, however, much DISinformation
is available. 

Everyone gets outraged upon learning the police use "racial 
profiling" to decide who to detain, search, etc., but never
do we hear about what would define a *proper* police action.
This document attempts to fill the void.  It is presented as 
an alternative viewpoint.

This document is likely to arouse a bit of controversy ;^)

September 11, 2001 Aftermath: 

Racial, Ethnic, and Religious Profiling, Unconstitutional Detainments, 
and the Aborgation of Rights, In the Name of "Preserving Freedom":

Today, in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks 
on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the government
is engaging in a new war against privacy, civil rights,
and the Constitution. The Washington Post reports in its
November 4, 2001 edition that there are over 1,100 people
being detained in the United States, in "a campaign of detentions 
on a scale not seen since World War II." The article continues, 

	"The operation is being conducted under great secrecy, with
	defense attorneys at times forbidden to remove documents from
	court and a federal gag order preventing officials from discussing
	the detainees. Law enforcement officials have refused to identify
	lawyers representing people who have been detained or to describe
	the most basic features of the operation. The officials say
	they are prohibited from disclosing more information because of
	privacy laws, judges' orders and the secrecy rules surrounding
	the grand jury investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks."

The Center for National Security Studies (
has issued a press release stating that a Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request to learn basic information abouth the detainees has
been denied by the FBI. The request was to learn:

	1) The identities and citizenship status of each individual
	2) The circumstances of their detention or arrest
	3) The location where each was arrested 
	4) Where they are currently held 
	5) What charges are made against them
	6) The identity of any lawyers representing any of these individuals

The recent "Patriot Act", now signed into law eliminates or modifies
several Constitutionally defined rights. Most lawmakers were prevented
from examining the proposed legislation before voting on it!

	"The insult is to call this a 'patriot bill' and suggest I'm not patriotic 
	because I insisted upon finding out what is in it and voting no. I thought 
	it was undermining the Constitution, so I didn't vote for it and therefore 
	I'm somehow not a patriot. That's insulting." -- Representitive Ron Paul (R-TX)

President Bush has also just signed an executive order allowing special
military tribunals to try non-citizens charged with terrorism.  The
tribunals would even reach non-citizens in the United States, including
lawful permanent residents. It is interesting to note that no where in the
Bill of Rights does the word "citizen" appear, yet speaks of the rights of
"the people" no less than 5 times.



Moral Advice:

        "We must learn to live together as brothers 
        or perish together as fools." 
                -- Martin Luther King

This tract provides needed knowledge of the law, but
knowledge of the law is not enough. A great moral
paradox is caused when those demanding freedom from harm
from the government, by their chosen manner of living,
cause harm to others.  

        "To use violence is to already be defeated."
                 -- Chinese proverb

       "Non-violence leads to the highest ethics,
       which is the goal of all evolution. Until
       we stop harming all other living beings, 
       we are still savages." -- Thomas Edison

If you live your life following the principles of
Non-Violence, you will always stand on the highest moral
ground. This does not mean that you should be a victim to
oppression; quite the contrary.

Mohandas K. Gandhi taught that the way to achieve a
free and peaceable society can only be through mutual
cooperation and kindness, and active, yet non-violent
resistance to those that would cause injustices against
us. He called this protest "Satyagraha". The force of
truth and righteousness is more powerful than any gun.

      "If violence is wrong in America, violence is wrong
      abroad. If it is wrong to be violent defending
      black women and black children and black babies and
      black men, then it is wrong for America to draft us,
      and make us violent abroad in defense of her."  --
      Malcolm X

Brief Words on Religion:

The phrase 

	"This country was founded as a 
		Christian Nation!" 

is not nearly as accurate or as helpful as 

	"This country was founded on the principles of 
	tolerance and religious liberty for all".

So can we please stop with the "Christian Nation"
mantra? There are all kinds of religions here, then
and now: Moslem, Quaker, Jew, Shaker, Hindu, Taoist,
Luciferian, Mennonite, Trekkie, Witch, Hopi, Unitarian,
Deist, Atheist, Sub-Genius, Pagan, Deadhead, Moonie,
Polytheist, Wiccan, Humanist, Universalist, Arawaki,
Gnostic, Agnostic, Slacker, Buddhist, Peyoteist,
Rastafarian, SomaSeeker, Bozoist, Fooist, etc... Who is
to say which one is better?

We are here to discuss how people in a civil society should
*act*, not what they should believe. Here is the rule:

	Any religious practice or belief should be
	tolerated by all other religions, with one
	exception: if the practice causes injury to others.


	If *your* religion (or State, or corporation) seeks
	to control *my* thoughts and non-violent actions,
	via coercion, threats, or violence, it has ceased
	being a religion (or whatever), and has become an
	illegal, improper, and unjust fascist totalitarian
	regime, and is subject to resistance and rebellion.

Enough said.


The author of this document is not an attorney. In fact,
the author asserts that much of the misinformation
disseminated regarding this subject matter is due to
the particular monopoly that attorneys enjoy over our
legal system.

This document should not be considered legal advice, and
is provided for its educational and entertainment value.
The reader is encouraged to research the arguments provided
herein, and make judgements accordingly.

The gentle, adult reader assumes all responsibility.
(...thus becoming Sui Juris: responsible, self-owned,
autonomous, not a ward, able to make friendly contracts
in public, free :)

Other Sources of Information:

There is a loose band of people around the U.S. who
regularly meet who talk about these topics. They sometimes
call themselves Patriots, Libertarians, Constitutionalists,
Militia, Freedom Fighters, Anarchists, etc. Seek out these
folks for their law knowledge. (other info you get, use
at your own risk/peril :)

  o  Founding Documents:

     o  -- check out the great 
       annotations and the missing 13th! (from research by 
       David Dodge).  

     o Printed copies: _The Citizens Rule Book_, Whitten
       Printers, 1001 S 5th St., Phoenix, AZ 85004 (about $1
       each with great jury's rights info!) (602) 258-6406
       WARNING: It has been reported that certain branches
       of Big Brother's Secret Police have classified persons
       possessing this book as a suspected "domestic terrorist".

  o  Books: 

     o  Steven Gifis: _Barron's_Law_Dictionary_ -- Highly 
        Recommended!  (Forget about _Black's_: save your money)

     o  Frederick Bastiat: _The Law_  available here:, also
        _That Which is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen_ :

     o  The major works of Thomas Paine: 
        _Common Sense_ :
        _Rights of Man_ :
        _The Age of Reason_ :

     o  _The Social Contract_, by Jean Jacques Rousseau, available
        free here:

     o  _A Discourse on the Love of our Country_, by Richard Price

     o  Henry David Thoreau: _Civil Disobedience_ Available free 
        from Project Gutenburg , or here:

     o  Peter McWilliams:  _Ain't_Nobody's_Business_If_You_Do_ : 
        available free here   If Peter's
        sole purpose on this plane was to write this book, then
        it was a fine purpose.

     o  Anything political by Noam Chomsky

     o  _The Media Monopoly_, by Ben Bagdikian

     o  _Animals, Property, and the Law_, (ISBN 1566392845) or 
        _Introduction to Animal Rights : Your Child or the Dog?_ (ISBN 1566396921)
        by Gary L. Francione. Also see his web site:

  o  Periodicals:

    o  The Anti-Shyster,  
       Publisher: Al Adask. One of the greatest resources about
       law and the Constitution.  Many back issues are free on the 
       web site.

  o  Political Parties:

    o The Green Party, These folks wanna
    legalize pot, they are pro-environment, and anti-corporation, 
    they embrace all religions, and they advocate NON-VIOLENCE!  

    o The Libertarian Party, : Advocates ending 
    the "drug war", anti-big-government.

  o  Reform Groups:

    o The Fully Informed Jury Association:

    o Drug Reform Coordination Network: -- 
      subscribe to "The Week Online" ... it's free!

    o The Electronic Frontier Foundation:

    o FEAR: How the Constitution is being circumvented by the
      government in (mostly) drug cases by stealing property 
      in *civil* courts, without a jury.

    o National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws:

    o The Society of Computer Professonals Opposing Drug Testing:

  o  Radio (shortwave, unless noted):

    o  Radio for Peace International (RFPI).  6.975, 7.385, 7.585, 15.050 Mhz.

    o  William Cooper, 7.415 MHz M-F @ 0300 UTC 

    o  Pacifica Radio, (FM Broadcast band USA), several cities and syndicated.

  o  Community Access Television (from your Cable provider)

    o Read about the 1984 Cable Act (USA)

    o is a great place to start your research! 
      Lists *hundreds* of Public Access TV studios around the US and around the
      world, also lists non-profit community media organizations.

    o watch for subversive topics like this!

    o become a producer and make your own show!

  o  Inspirational Music:

    o  Anything by Bob Marley, Peter Tosh, or Gil Scott Herron

    o  _Porn Wars_, _Dumb_All_Over_ et. al., by Frank Zappa

    o  _Hempilation_, (Various Artists)
  o  Spoken Word Recordings

    o  Anything by Jello Biafra.  Available here: , 
       but many are transcribed on the internet, 

    o  _BANNED: Radio Commentaries of Mumia Abu Jamal_. OK, so they've accused him of one
       of the most horrible-sounding crimes that there is. But consider that there is a
       chance that the accusation is false, and that he is on death-row in
       order to silence him. Do yourself a favor and LISTEN to the words of
       this beautiful man! A CD is included with the book _All Things Censored_, 
       ISBN 1583220224.  $24 on either or 

  o  Comedy

    o  Anything by Bill Hicks, or Lenny Bruce

  o  Scary Movies/Videos about how bad things really are:

    o  _Waco: Rules of Engagement_

    o  _Will Freedom at Roby Ridge_ (The Shirley Allen Story)

For information on Non-Violence or Civil Disobedience,
study: Mohandas K. Gandhi, Henry David Thoreau, and Martin 
Luther King.

Also especially interesting is a possible rational/mathematical 
basis for cooperation/non-violence discussed in Douglas Hofstadter's 
_Metamagical Themas_ ("Prisoner's Dilemma" series, based on the
work of Richard Dawkins and Robert Axelrod).


Copyright (c) 2000-2002 Ahimsa Dhamapada (
Permission to redistribute this work unedited and in its entirety
is granted, provided that this copyright notice is not altered or
removed. This includes permission to redistribute as part of compilations
in CDROM or other media.


This document is archived all over the world: USA, Brazil, Netherlands, 
England, Spain, Czech Republic, Portugal, Hungary, France, Canada, Austria, 
Japan, Germany, Poland, Ireland, Russian Federation, Norway, Sweden, Hong Kong, 
Thailand, Greece, Austrailia, South Africa, and probably more. Praise God, 
however you imagine her to be, that FREE SPEECH still exists on the internet!

If these links don't work, do a web search on "Lawful Arrest FAQ".
Official Text, HTML and RTF versions:


Original plain-text version:

        o  freenet:/text/government/lawful_arrest.txt (more info here:

Other slightly different HTML versions:

        o    <-- Easiest to remember URL. (Thanks Kent!)
        o  freenet:/text/government/lawful_arrest.html (more info here:
        o (older version, but with cool pix from _Brazil_!)


This document is dedicated to victims of Government Violence,
Church Oppression, Military Muscle, and Corporate Coercion in all 
countries; to all political prisoners everywhere (not just in America);
to all people who are jailed, not because they've caused 
injury, but because of what they think, say or believe, or what 
books they read, what music they listen to, or what mutually consensual
activities they are involved in, whatever their nature.

Special dedication to those jailed Freaks, and Outcasts, 
guilty of non-violent so-called "drug crimes", which may be better 
defined as:

	o  practicing a forbidden religion, 
	o  pursuing happiness in an unauthorized manner,
	o  taking a verboten vitamin, 
	o  consuming untaxed tea, 
	o  possessing flowers with intent to administer healing, or 
	o  practicing recreational gardening

You are all God's children. 
You are not forgotten. 

	"And when all the broken hearted people,
	Living in the world agree, 
	That there will be an answer: Let it Be"
		-- From a Beautiful Hymn by John Lennon

Kudos to:

Special thanks to Marc Visconte (, for 
spelling corrections, and for other very good suggestions. The RTF version
is due to Marc's inspiration. 

Thanks to Seth Golub for his txt2html, and Larry Wall for his Perl; both 
were used in creating the "official" HTML version. (This should not be 
considered an endorsement on their part.)

Thanks to those generous many who shared their knowledge with me.

Request for Translators:

Anyone want to volunteer to translate this to Chinese, or other 
language? Unicode knowledge preferable. Email me: 


Revision Notes:

2.0 Sections rearranged from prior version to put important stuff first.
2.1 Minor changes
2.2 Spelling corrections... new RTF version! 
2.2b/c: more links ...
2.3 Frames web version, entrapment, conspiracy, sovereign immunity
2.4 More quotes

	"The claim of the modern state to monopolize
	the use of force is as essential to it as its
	character of compulsory jurisdiction and of
	continuous organization." -- Max Weber,
	  The Theory of Social and Economic Organization

	"Let us, in particular, take care not to forget the
	principles of the Revolution. This Society has,
	very properly, in its reports, held out these
	principles, as an instruction to the public. I
	will only take notice of the three following:
	First, the right to liberty of conscience in
	religious matters.  Secondly, the right to resist
	power when abused. And Thirdly, the right to chuse
	our own governors, to cashier them for misconduct,
	and to frame a government for ourselves."
	  -- Richard Price, _A Discourse on the Love of
	  our Country_

	"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only
	power any government has is the power to crack
	down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
	criminals, one 'makes' them. One declares so many
	things to be a crime that it becomes impossible
	for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants
	a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there
	in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of
	laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor
	objectively interpreted, and you create a nation of
	law-breakers, and then you cash in on the guilt."
	  -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Lawful Arrest FAQ -- Version 2.4 -- 08 Nov 2002


Section 1: Lawful Arrest

      1.1:	What are the elements of a lawful arrest, detainment, search, or seizure?
      1.2:	What is "Probable Cause"?
      1.3:	What is a "Standing Army"?
      1.4:	What are "standing orders"?
      1.5:	You can't expect the police do nothing until AFTER a crime occurs!?
      1.6:	What is "Oath or Affirmation"?
      1.7:	Isn't "committing a crime" the same as "violating the law"?
      1.8:	What is a "Warrant"?
      1.9:	What is a "Cause of Action"?
      1.10:	What are "Miranda Warnings"?
      1.11:	Doesn't the U.S. Constitution only apply to the Federal Government?
      1.12:	Are Police un-Constitutional!!??
      1.13:	Is Jail "cruel and unusual"?
      1.14:	Is Entrapment Legal? 
      1.15:	Is "Conspiracy to Commit Murder" equal to murder itself?
      1.16:	What is a Bill of Attainder?
      1.17:	What is an Ex Post Factor Law?

Section 2: After: Judges/Juries/Lawyers/Courts

      2.1:	Should I hire an attorney to represent me in court? 
      2.2:	What is an Attorney At Law?  What is an Esquire? 
      2.3:	How do I "represent myself"?
      2.4:	How should I plead: Guilty, Not Guilty, or No Contest?
      2.5:	Judge or Jury?
      2.6:	What is "Jury Nullification"? 
      2.7:	What is a Grand Jury?
      2.8:	How long can they hold me without charging me?
      2.9:	What is the Writ of Habeous Corpus?
      2.10:	Why won't my attorney argue my case on Constitutional grounds?
      2.11:	What is a jurisdiction? What are the different kinds?
      2.12:	What is "Due Process?"
      2.13:	How does the Constitution help me?
      2.14:	Why do they speak Latin in court? I don't speak Latin!
      2.15:	What is Double Jeopardy? What is "Multiplicity"?
      2.16:	Aren't these just your opinions? Aren't you are misquoting the Constitution?

Section 3: Basic Principles: Rights and Powers

      3.1:	What are my most basic rights as a living person?
      3.2:	Are rights only for men?  
      3.3:	Are there any limits on the exercise of a right?
      3.4:	Is there a right to a job/health insurance, etc?
      3.5:	Does a corporation have rights? 
      3.6:	Can the State be a crime victim?
      3.7:	What is a right vs. a privilege?    
      3.8:	What is a license?        
      3.9:	Do I have a right to defend myself?   
      3.10:	Do "property rights" exist in nature?
      3.11:	Can I give up a right?
      3.12:	Where does government power come from?  
      3.13:	What are "inherent powers"?
      3.14:	Where does the Police power come from?
      3.15:	What is Sovereign Immunity?
      3.16:	Why don't they teach this is public schools?

Lawful Arrest FAQ -- Version 2.4 -- 08 Nov 2002

Section 1: Lawful Arrest

1.1:	What are the elements of a lawful arrest, detainment, search, or seizure?

For your reference: here is the Fourth Amendment of the
United States Constitution: 

         "The right of the people to be secure in their
         persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
         unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
         violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
         probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
         and particularly describing the place to be
         searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Perhaps you should memorize it!

So, according the Fourth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, the elements are as follows:

             1: Oath or Affirmation made 
             2: Probable Cause determined
             3: Specific Warrant issued
             4: The actual arrest/search/seizure/detainment

(NOTE: the ordering is important! 1 and 2 should happen
before 3, and 3 before 4.)  This means, in common language:

             1: A civilian makes a complaint
             2: Evidence is found linking the accused with 
                the victim's injury, and that the injury was probably 
                caused by "criminal intent"; that is, it was not 
                an accident.
             3: A document issued describing what is to be searched, 
                or who/what is to be seized/arrested, and why.
             4: The actual arrest/search/seizure/detainment

Yet today, here is what usually happens:
             1: There is no complaint from a civilian. 
             2: There is no injury, thus there can be no Probable Cause.
             3: There is no Warrant issued.
             4: The Police Officer executes a standing order to
                detain/search/arrest someone for a victimless 
                "pretended offence".

This is explained further below.

(Note: other Amendments discuss what is supposed to follow
after the arrest: presentment before and accusation by the
people: the Grand Jury indictment, and trial by the people:
the petit or trial jury. READ THE CONSTITUTION!)

1.2:	What is "Probable Cause"?

	"The officer had *probable cause* to believe
	that the person had violated a law."

	(A strange phrase commonly heard on television,
	seen in newspapers, and in law dictionaries and
	college textbooks)

Probable cause is NOT a simple synonym for "reason",
yet this is how it is used most often.

Law dictionaries often define Probable Cause as 

	"A reasonable belief that a crime has been 

While this is close, it is not adequate, as we will soon see...

If this *were* the definition, then the most common
usage wouldn't make sense! Make the replacement in the
above phrase:

	"The officer had *a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed* 
	to believe that the person had violated a law."

Huh? Something is wrong here.

Now, if "probable cause" is simply "reason to believe a crime
has occurred", then it offers the people little protection
against harassment, given the number of obscure "laws"
on the books that the people are subject to. Such a
definition would give the police wide powers to detain
just about anybody for any reason at any time. Hmmm.... 

Also, there is a common misunderstanding as to the definition
of "crime".  Many people think that a crime is a "violation
of the law", but this is a circular definition!  Which came
first, law or crime? If crime is "things which the law
prohibits", and law is "that which is crime", we have
self-reference, a tautology, begging the question, a circular
reference. Anyone who has studied logic will tell you that
this has no meaning at all. (see any logic text, or:

The Founding Fathers wrote *probable cause* and not
"reason to believe that a violation of the law occurred",
because they were *defining* the law! They obviously meant
something different.

We must all *begin* with an agreement of what is a crime
BEFORE we codify the Law, or else we end up with a meaningless 
law that refers to itself, corruption of the courts, legislature,
and the police, and people going to jail for absurd things like 
"possessing forbidden flowers", "not having proper paperwork", 
"having a bad opinion about the court" or "talking about doing 
something really nasty".  (Wait! That IS what we have today...)

So, let's come up with a USEFUL definition of crime:

The body of a crime (Corpus Delicti) must have 2 components [from Gifis]:

         1: An injury
         2: A criminal cause

A crime is an injury caused by criminal agency (not
an accident or act-of-god). You can injure someone
accidentally: not a crime.  Someone can get hurt from a
falling meteorite: not a crime.  Someone causes an injury
intentionally: *this* is true crime.

Now replace this in the dictionary definition, and we have
the following:


So if a civilian makes a complaint, and a body of the people such
as the Grand Jury, can reasonably assert: 

"The accused PROBABLY CAUSED the injury to the victim", 

then we have met the Constitutional requirement, and the 
origin of the phrase becomes clear.  (It could alternately 
be interpreted as "Probable Cause of Action", but it is 
no different, since a "cause" is a claim, and a claim requires
a right, an injury, and a petition for restitution)

Finally! Now that we know what *probable cause* really is,
now we can define what is required to show or determine
probable cause:


There is really more to it than this; for example, certain
human-caused injury may be simple accident, thus it should
be shown that the injury was intentional and malicious.

But here is the *really* important thing to remember:

If there is NO VICTIM, or the "victim" has suffered NO
INJURY, there can be NO PROBABLE CAUSE. Most police
detainments in the United States these days begin as
traffic "offences" (there is no offended party):
speeding, safety checks, no seat belt, expired tags, etc.
In the absence of any injury, these all lack Probable
Cause, and are thus, unConstitutional.

Think: "He PROBABLY CAUSED the Injury to the Victim".

1.3:	What is a "Standing Army"?

        "When a government wishes to deprive its citizens
        of freedom, and reduce them to slavery, it
        generally makes use of a standing army." -- Luther
        Martin, Maryland delegate to the Constitutional

An Army (an armed force) can be called up by volunteers
from the community *as needed* when there is some threat,
such as the threat of invasion. This is generally called the

But a Standing Army is a paid, armed military force that
exists before there is any threat. A Standing Army that
lives among the citizenry is most likely to be used against
the citizenry.  Our present system demonstrates this.

While none of the Founding Documents mention the word
"police", our Municipal, City, County, and State Police fit
this description of a Standing Army.  The Founding Fathers
are on record for opposing the abuses of Standing Armies:

        "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to
        prevent the establishment of a standing army,
        the bane of liberty." Rep. Elbridge Gerry of
        Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August
        17, 1789)

        By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall
        stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the
        press, freedom of commerce against monopolies,
        trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions
        of the habeas corpus, no standing armies. These
        are fetters against doing evil which no honest
        government should decline.  - Thomas Jefferson

        "[The King of Great Britain] has kept among us,
        in times of peace, standing armies without the
        consent of our legislature. He has affected to
        render the military independent of and superior to
        civil power...  For protecting them, by mock trial,
        from punishment for any murders which they should
        commit on the inhabitants of these states ...
        For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits
        of trial by jury, For transporting us beyond seas
        to be tried for pretended offenses...."
                -- Declaration of Independence

        "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress,
        ...  keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of
        Peace" -- United States Constitution, Article I,
        Section 10

        "The objections which have been brought against
        a standing army, ... may also at last be brought
        against a standing government.  The standing
        army is only an arm of the standing government.
        The government itself, which is only the mode
        which the people have chosen to execute their
        will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted
        before the people can act through it."  -- Henry
        David Thoreau

A Standing Army (or police) with Standing Orders define
a Police State, Marshall Law, or military rule. This
condition was recognized by our Founding Fathers as perhaps
the greatest single threat to the blessings of liberty
for ourselves and our posterity.

1.4:	What are "standing orders"?

Military Troops, Police Forces, etc. follow the orders of
their commanders, and these orders come in 2 varieties:
Direct Orders ("You go do this now!") and Standing Orders.

A Standing Order is a "general order" to be obeyed if some
condition comes into existence in the future. Note that
a standing order is made at some time prior to the event,
and is non-specific as to the name of the accused.

"ARREST ANYONE YOU SEE JAYWALKING!" a standing order; it is general and non-specific (it
does not name the accused) and is made before the event,
and in anticipation of the event.  It is issued by a Police
commander to his troops.

COMPLAINT AGAINST HIM." the opposite of a standing order: it is a specific
Warrant. It names the accused and the crime, and it is
reactive; it comes AFTER the event. It is initiated by
the complaint of a civilian.

Police officers today generally have (or *think* they
have!) standing orders to detain, search, and/or arrest
those *they feel* violated a law. The Founding Fathers
were very much opposed to this kind of discretionary
power being placed in the hands of ANY one person (and is
evident by the general design of the Federal Government:
the distribution of power across 3 branches, the system of
"checks and balances", etc).

The Founders intended for there to be a civilian defense
force, and for it to be reactive to the needs of the
people, for they knew that an autonomous (self-directed)
police force or standing army is ultimately unaccountable
to the People, and uncontrollable by the People, and
thus a thing to be feared. They knew, because they were
occupied by a tyrannical force, the English Army. Today,
the conditions are similar, however, while it isn't a
foreign army that occupies us, the abuses against the
people are the same.

There are 2 elements of the Fourth Amendment that were
intended to prevent Standing Orders from being executed
against the people:

The first is the "oath or affirmation": a sworn civilian
complaint, and the second is that warrants must be
specific.  Both are intended to remove the discretion
of arrest/search/seizure from the arresting officer,
and provides the needed "checks and balances".

If the complaint MUST ALWAYS come from a civilian (i.e.,
not the government; not the arresting authority) this
eliminates the invocation of "general" or standing orders
(and a big conflict of interest!), and ensures that the
Police Force is *reactive*, and not self-directed. If ALL
arrests/searches/seizures are documented with the specific
justifications of the action (the warrant), this also
removes the arbitrary discretion from the officer.

The Fourth Amendment requires both specific Warrants and
that the complaint be initiated by a civilian, and thus
prohibits the police from executing "Standing Orders"
against the people. However in modern America, when
the police arrest someone, there is rarely a specific
warrant, and rarely is there the "oath or affirmation" of
a complaining civilian.  The lawyers, political pundits,
corporate-owned "free press", and even college textbooks
will argue why this is "necessarily so", but the simple
fact remains:

o  Most Police actions in America lack a injured victim 
   (except for perhaps the accused!), thus,
o  Most Police actions in America lack Probable Cause, thus
o  Most Police actions in America lack a valid Warrant, thus
o  Most Police actions in America are Unconstitutional.

1.5:	You can't expect the police do nothing until AFTER a crime occurs!?

This is exactly what we should expect!

If the government acts BEFORE there is a crime,
this is known as "Prior Restraint", or "Restraint Before
Injury", which the Supreme Court has decided (in many
decisions regarding free speech and free assembly) to
be Unconstitutional.

Even the police know this! Often times when called to a
scene, perhaps a domestic dispute, they will refuse to take
a person into custody until that person commits a crime
(causes injury).

Besides, how can the police *know* that a crime *will*
occur (in the future)? Are they clairvoyant? Do they have 
crystal balls and know the future? Certainly not.

The role of the police as agents of "Crime Prevention"
is a myth. It may be a reasonable goal for Superman with
his super powers; but when mortal men try it, they *always*
violate the rights of innocent people.

1.6:	What is "Oath or Affirmation"?

This is the sworn complaint of a civilian; it is the
accusation of wrong-doing.

Why must it come from a civilian? Because there is a HUGE
conflict of interest if

   1) the government makes the law
   2) the government makes accusations of violations of law 
   3) the government licensed attorney speaks for you in court
   4) the government judges/courts find you guilty 
   5) the government keeps your money

The design of the United States Government as described
by the Constitution made it quite clear that the designers
intended WE THE PEOPLE to be in control and the beneficiary
of each step of the way:

   1) The People should make the law (or the People's 
        freely-chosen representatives -- PS: This is NOT what we have today!) 
   2) The People should make the accusations of wrongdoing 
        (civilian complaint and Grand Jury indictment) 
   3) The People have a right to speak for themselves in court
   4) The People decide guilt or innocence  (trial jury)
   5) Crime should not make the government rich. If anyone
        receives compensation/restitution for crime, it
        should be the victims, NOT the government.

In the days before the Constitution was written, the
Colonists were being accused, arrested, and transported
"beyond the seas to be tried for pretended offences"
[Declaration of Independence] by the British government.

(Note: while it doesn't say what a pretended offence is,
one could guess that it is like "Failure to pay the Tea
Tax", where the government is the plaintiff/complaintant
[i.e., the originator of the complaint] and there is no 
victim. Hmmm. Sound Familiar?)

The Founders made this requirement of the Sworn Complaint
of a civilian as insurance against tyranny.  It was common
in those days that there was no civilian complaint; the
people were often arrested for "Violations of the King's
Law" by the King's Standing Army, because of Standing
Orders to do so.  (Do you see a similarity to an occupying
Police force who have standing orders to arrest violators
of the State Law?!)

Now, there may be extreme circumstances when decent
people sitting on a jury may waive the requirement of
the complaint of a civilian, such as if a police officer
witnesses a murder (and the victim is unable to complain!),
but one might imagine that these cases should be uncommon,
and the officer should be prepared to answer to a public
inquiry on the matter.

        "For in a Republic, who is 'the country?' Is
        it the Government which is for the moment in
        the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a
        servant - merely a temporary servant; it cannot
        be its prerogative to determine what is right
        and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot
        and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders,
        not originate them." -- Mark Twain

Today, most police and judicial actions are *not* initiated
by the complaint of a civilian. To cover up for this fact,
most court summons or indictments are listed as

        "THE PEOPLE vs. Joe Smith" if to imply that even though the courts are acting
without the complaint of *just ONE civilian*, they are
somehow representing the interests of "all the people".

1.7:	Isn't "committing a crime" the same as "violating the law"?


"Crime" traditionally has *not* been defined in terms of
the Law, moreover, it *cannot* without leading to paradox.

If the law is the "prohibition of crime", and crime is
"that which the law prohibits", we do not come closer
to an understanding of anything. It is a tautology:
a circular definition!

Crime must be defined in terms the victim's injury.
This is known by the Latin: "Malum In Se", meaning "Evil
of itself", true crime.  Thus, if there is no injury,
there can be no crime.


	"We suspect he's involved in ...  
		-- from Terry Gilliam's film _Brazil_


The facts of the crime are collectively called (more
Latin!) "Corpus Delicti" [From Gifis]:

       1: A victim who has sustained an injury
       2: A criminal cause (as opposed to an accidental cause
          or act of god).

Here are examples of true crime, which always produces a
victim with injury:

        o  murder
        o  rape
        o  assault
        o  kidnapping or taking a hostage/slave/prisoner

Conversely, Laws ("Malum Prohibitum") are seldom defined
in terms of victims or injury. These are all examples of
common violations-of-law for which there is no *guaranteed*

        o  Possessing a thing (plants, weapons, books, music)
        o  Not Possessing a thing (insurance, ID, license)
        o  Having bad intent (usually in combination with another
           victimless crime, like "possessing a thing WITH INTENT
           to do something really horrible")
        o  Having an opinion (contempt of court)
        o  Talking about doing something really nasty (conspiracy)
        o  Having improper velocity (speeding, loitering)
        o  Existing in public at a certain time (curfew)
        o  Gambling (unless it's the State Lottery!)
        o  Buying or selling sexual pleasure
        o  Most motor-vehicle or traffic "offences"


	Judge: You are accused of "injuring no person"!
		How do you plead?"	

	Accused: I try to "injure no person"
		at all times, m'Lawd!


In fact, certain categories of law are not defined
in terms if the severity of act, but in terms of the
severity of the punishment!!  (e.g., Felony, "Capital
Offenses", etc.) Thus, ridiculous as it might seem, *if*
the punishment for spitting on the sidewalk was death,
it would be considered a felony!

Which leads the author to ask:


o	Society should seek to reduce "Violations of State Law"
o	Society should seek to reduce "The causing of injury"

The author suggests that a truly free, thoughtful, and 
civil society shouldn't give a damn about one, but care 
very deeply about the other.

WARNING! Once you realize this simple fact, it may change
your entire world view. You may stop eating cheeseburgers,
for example ;^)

1.8:	What is a "Warrant"?

A justification or reason to arrest/search/seize, which
exists *PRIOR to the arrest*, usually described in a
document. The Warrant describes exactly what is to be
searched, or who/what is to be seized (and why!). All
proper arrests, searches, seizures need this in order
to be valid (except perhaps for some extremely rare

We often hear today of the multitude of conditions
under which a warrantless search or arrest can happen.
"It's OK, you see! The courts have approved it" (which,
by the way, is the same court that makes a "fine" profit 
when you are found guilty of the charges). 


A Warrant is more than a piece of paper. (And under the
present system, having the Warrant issued by a judge is
like putting the wolf in charge of protecting the sheep!)

Look up the word in any dictionary.  Warrant means
"justification, reason".  If there is no Warrant for
arrest, there is no "just reason" for arrest. There is no
just action. 

Imagine a world where a Warrant is not needed! If there
is no Warrant to arrest, then there is no proof of
a valid reason to arrest. In such a system, nothing
would prevent the Occupying Force from setting up
blockades, and searching every ship (or automobile!),
and taking/impounding/stealing anything they please. This
common event today is what the Founders were trying to
prevent by the Fourth Amendment requirement of a specific 

Note that the officer often obtains a "consent to search"
by asking, "Do you mind if I search your car?" This may
appear to waive the Constitutional requirement for a
Warrant, but it is very much in violation of the spirit
of it. Many people feel coerced into consenting, because
of fear of the consequences.  Also, many people feel that
not consenting to a search implies guilt.

Further violations of the spirit of the Constitution:
having a dog or x-ray instruments, etc. perform the search;
Requiring "implied consent to search" in order to obtain
a Driver's License, etc.

1.9:	What is a "Cause of Action"?

This can be thought of as "The Cause of Police Action",
or "The Cause of State Action". From [Gifis]:

"Claim in Law sufficient to demand judicial attention."

The elements of a valid Claim are:

        1: A right 
        2: An injury
        3: A petition for compensation (money or property).
           a.k.a., a "prayer for damages".

Once again, we see that before the force of the people/government
(the Police, the militia, etc.) can act, there should be
an injured victim, and a complaint by the injured party.

This notion has a long history, and is derived from
concepts in Common Law, the long unwritten legal code of
our ancient European ancestors.

1.10:	What are "Miranda Warnings"?

The courts have decided (in Miranda vs. Arizona) that for a
proper interrogation to occur, the accused must be informed
of certain rights, such as the "right to remain silent". This
comes from the Fifth Amendment (the right against being
compelled to be a witness against oneself). Also in Miranda
is the "right to an attorney".  This comes from the Sixth
Amendment: that the accused has "right to the assistance of 
Counsel" Note: the Sixth Amendment never mentions the word 
attorney.  A Counsel might be your wife, your neighbor, your 
friend, your landlord, or your boss, anyone you talk to for 

[A particular perversion of the readings of these two
amendments commonly happens in court: you are *required*
to be silent, and you are *required* to hire an attorney
to speak for you in court. By the way, your State Licensed
Attorney will almost never argue a case on Constitutional
grounds. Hmmm. Coincidence? Go figure...]

In actual fact, Miranda is used as a trick to get you
agree to waive or forfeit some of your rights! The text
of the trickery is highlighted below.

Note: The police do not need to read you Miranda in order
to arrest you, but they must inform you of these rights
before they question you.

Note: There is no "requirement" that one be notified of
other rights, such as those described in the First, Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, or Tenth Amendments,
or of the Declaration of Independence. All of this may be
relevant to interactions with the Police, Courts, etc.

Here is the text of Miranda:

     "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say
     can and will be used against you in court. You have
     the right to an attorney, and to have the attorney
     present during questioning.  If you cannot afford
     an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you
     understand AND WAIVE THESE RIGHTS?"

To which you answer:

   I understand my rights and WAIVE NONE OF THEM. Furthermore,
   I *demand* that all of my natural and common-law rights as
   denoted by my Constitution be respected.

1.11:	Doesn't the U.S. Constitution only apply to the Federal Government?

No. The U.S. Constitution binds what the States can and
cannot do in many places (example: Article I sec, 9-10),
and the Bill of Rights.

Even in places where it specifically mentions the Federal
Government, it has widely been interpreted as applying to
the States as well. An example is the First Amendment:

       "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the
       freedom of speech..."

Despite the language "Congress shall make no law", in
hundreds of cases over the last few decades the Supreme
Court has upheld that the right to free speech (as well
as the others listed in the Bill of Rights) are so sacred
to us as a people, that the State Governments have been
compelled to not trod upon them.

Now what about corporate employers? Are they exempt
for being compelled to observe and respect the rights
of their employees? Perhaps, but consider that corporations
are created by their "State Charter". In this way, the
"private corporate business sector" might actually be 
considered a branch of the government. Corporations 
certainly are a creation of the government! 

Remember, you cannot convey a right which you don't already
have. Thus, if the State has no right abridge the freedom of 
speech, they cannot create an entity (like a corporation) 
which *does*.

1.12:	Are Police un-Constitutional!!??

Well, perhaps State Police are.  Don't Believe it!?
Read the US Constitution, Art. I, Sec 10:

         "No State shall, without the consent of Congress,
         ... Keep Troops or Ships of War in Time of

Keep this in mind the next time you get stopped and
accused of the crime of "possessing improper velocity" 

It is clear from the founding documents, that the Founding
Fathers considered any occupying government police force
one of the greatest threats to liberty imaginable. The
Founders imagined that instead we should have a local,
civilian defense force, made up of every able-bodied man
in the community, called the militia.

Notice the words "without the consent of Congress". This
could explain the Presidential edicts to "Fight the War
on Drugs", "Fight the War on Poverty", "Fight the War
on Illiteracy", etc., and the laws passed by Congress to
fight these bogus "wars".

OK, this question really isn't asked all that frequently ;^) 

1.13:	Is Jail "cruel and unusual"?

Jail is certainly cruel: In the South, you start
out in 130 degree F. mobile sweat box (police car) and they
deny you fresh air. They find this "mellows out" most 
detainees. In the North, they use cold similarly.

They strip you and make you spread you cheeks for
inspection. They hose you with water. They are always
yelling at you. Sometimes, detainees get "roughed up".
Who's to know? You are deep underground in cement 
caves with thick walls and steel doors and 24 hour
buzzing flickering fluorescent lights. Inmates shouting,
echoing cries, screams, assaults, suicides, retching
heroin addicts at your feet...

You sleep in overcrowded dungeons sometimes on the floor.
The place smells like piss. The toilets are sometimes
dirty. Even the clean water is foul. 

Depending on what you say, they can take you to a special
ward, named after YOU since after all, you are now a Ward
of the State, right?  They claim the just power to inject
drugs into your body against your consent. They strap you
to a bed and forget about you. Commonly, people in jail
are tortured in ways that are almost unspeakable.

So, cruel? Yes. Unusual? Unfortunately, no. 

1.14:	Is Entrapment Legal? 

Certainly not morally proper, if not clearly illegal! 

Entrapment, also called sting operations, are crimes
where the law enforcement officals themselves create the
circumstances of the crime. The police  place ads in Soldier of Fortune
magazine claiming to be assasains for hire. They pose as drug dealers,
and drug buyers; as prostitutes and "johns"; they pose as 14 year old girls 
in Internet chat rooms, each trying to lure someone into the crime of 
*asking* someone to do something nasty.

Note that these "crimes" *may not have occured* had not the
police created the circumstances of the crime, set the bait, 
played the part of the snake in the garden and used tempatation
to cause the sin. These "crimes" CERTAINLY would not have occured
in the same way.

1.15:	Is "Conspiracy to Commit Murder" equal to murder itself?

No! If A hires B to kill C, and B actually kills C, then one
person is a murderer, and the other isn't.  Simple. Sure A 
shares in the moral responsibility in causing the death, but in 
actual fact, A is NOT a murderer. 

For a real shocker, consider the case of Charles Manson. He
is unsightly, bizarre acting, and probably derainged.  
I wouldn't want to live next door to this fellow,
but he has never been accused nor convicted of murder. He
will spend the rest of his life in jail for the crime of
"conspiracy to commit murder", but not murder itself.

Where this concept really becomes significant is in cases of entrapement.
Cops place an ad in a magazine and claim to be a killer for hire.
Mr. A hires the undercover cop B to kill C. Mr. A is arrested for
"conspiracy to commit murder". Mr. A simply had the "criminal intent"
to kill, even though no one actually was killed!

And while "criminal intent" is necessary in proving an actual
crime occured (injury caused by the hand of another), as opposed to a
simple accident, it is important to note that simple intent by
itself, in absence of any injury, CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED CRIMINAL,
(Except by the Thought Police), and should not be considered equal
to the act of the crime itself. More and more, however, "conspiracy
to commit Z" is treated as if Z had actually been committed.

The muddled legal definition of "conspiracy" is: 

  a) two or more persons gathered for the purpose of doing something
     really nasty (Oooo! did someone actually get hurt?, and how can
     their intent be proven?), or

  b) committing *legal acts* be using "illegal means" (Huh? Is the act
     legal, or isn't it?)  

I'm not kidding; look it up! Conspiracy is either "people talking about
committing a crime" or "LEGAL ACTS committed via unlawful mechanisms",
whatever the hell that could possibly mean.

It is interesting to note that the root of the word "conspiracy"
is the same as the root of "aspire" (to breathe). So if "spirit" is the
breath of life, then "conspiracy" might be the "crime of breathing".

	Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of
	its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
	under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The
	robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at
	some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good
	will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval
	of their own conscience.  - C.S. Lewis

1.16:	What is a Bill of Attainder?

Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 3 states, "No Bill Of Attainder or
Ex-post Facto Law, shall be passed."

From the Bill of Attainder Project pages, authored by Tom Saunders:

The government not only has over 300 laws which permit them to confiscate
property, they are doing it with no regard for guaranteed Constitutional
rights. America has legislatures who not only have no regard or knowledge
of bills of attainder, they no longer make laws which respects their
restriction on passing ex-post facto laws. Bills of attainder are more
than one thing and harder to understand than ex-post facto laws. The fact
that both states and the federal governments are passing these laws,
and the courts are enforcing them, shows there is no regard in our
government for the preservation of individual rights, or private property.

The Bill Of Attainder Project is dedicated to having the phrase,
"bill of attainder" defined in the law as: "A law or legal device which
outlaws people, suspends their civil rights, confiscates their property,
punishes or puts people to death without a trial."

More info:

1.17:	What is an Ex Post Factor Law?

According to Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, "no State shall pass 
any ex post facto Law." This is a law which makes something a law after
the fact.

Lawful Arrest FAQ -- Version 2.4 -- 08 Nov 2002

Section 2: After: Judges/Juries/Lawyers/Courts

You tried to live a good and moral life, and you
would never intentionally cause any injury, but 
nevertheless, you now find yourself in the "belly 
of the beast". Now What?

2.1:	Should I hire an attorney to represent me in court? 

This is an ancient legal maxim: "A man who represents himself 
in court, has a fool for a client!" But I've got one of my own:


Here's why:


"Represent" means: "looks like", "acts like", 
or "acts on the behalf/benefit of". Presumably you hire 
a lawyer to act as you would, and on behalf of you, for
your benefit. This is *not* how it really is, as you know
if you have ever asked your lawyer to defend you on 
Constitutional grounds. (he won't)


Part of being free is having "Sui Juris" status:
a responsible adult with the ability to make friendly
contracts in public. Insane people are declared Non Compos
Mentis, thus Non-Sui Juris, prohibited from making friendly
contracts in public, prohibited from managing one's own
affairs.  They become wards of the State. (I'm not saying
this is proper, just that it *is*.)

Now, when you ask a lawyer to "represent you", that is,
you assign someone your "power of attorney", you
are diminishing your own "Sui Juris" status, as
the lawyer (your agent) now can sign your name,
negotiate deals with the judge, engage in contracts,
etc., without your knowledge or further consent! 

Your lawyer "acting on your behalf" has degenerated
into "Acting/Speaking for You". In court it is even worse:
"You are forbidden to speak/act for yourself".  These days,
you MUST have an agent in court. You are forced / compelled
/ coerced to delegate part of your essential liberties
(your power to contract) to this fellow, licensed by the
same State that made the accusation against you!  Yes,
and the same State that will grab a tidy sum of your money
when you are found guilty. Fair system, huh? ;^(

You have been tricked into becoming a ward. You have
been deceived into *thinking* you are no longer free.
You are required to hire your State Licensed "advocate"
(who is not even sworn to tell the truth in court) to do
all your talking for you. He is not your advocate. His only
interest is in getting paid, not offending the judge or the
monopolistic Bar Association, and thus, keeping his job,
and making his Mercedes payment.

(You should know that your ultimate responsibility is 
non-delegatable. It is YOU that will go to jail upon
a guilty verdict, NOT the lawyer! And. he gets paid even 
if you are found guilty)


Also interesting is "liability insurance", like
the kind required "by law" in the event that you
want to pilot an automobile without harassment.
Having insurance is like saying, "I am not responsible
for my future actions; my agent is". Let me say that
again. Having liability insurance is like saying, 
"I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE...".  Remember that Sui Juris status 
is a *responsible* adult, free to make contracts at large, 
in public.

Thus, hiring an attorney, or having insurance, is similar
to saying, "I am not responsible. I am not able to
manage my own affairs. My agent will act for me. My 
agent will engage in contracts on my behalf. I am not 
a free adult, but I am a ward".


As a last sidebar, it can be now shown that in this
way, a *representative* democracy (a republic) is inferior 
to true participatory democracy. Don't be tricked into 
fearing "mob rule"; the Constitution asserts and protects 
individual rights. (You might suspect someone critical of
Democracies as advocating substituting a different despot 
for the one you've got now!)

Our republic was the only practical form of the ideal democratic 
state that could have existed 100 years before automobiles and 
200 years before the Internet ;^)


Hiring an attorney is a personal decision, and now
that you understand the issues, you can make an
informed decision.  Do so if you think it is in your 
best interest. Frankly, this may be the path of least 

For real excitement, bring a legal expert along as your 
"Counsel" who is not a state-licensed attorney.  This is 
your right. Be prepared for a charge of "having a bad
opinion about the court" (contempt). 

You can also "appear before the court as your own proper
person". DO NOT say that you are REPRESENTING YOURSELF.
This is a trick like "have you stopped beating your wife".
(explained below).

You can also try this: hire an attorney as your counsel,
but DON'T give him general power of attorney (you could
outline exactly what the attorney is to do, or not do). 
YOU do all the talking in court, YOU defend yourself as 
you see fit, and require your agent to advise you only.

No matter what you choose to do, stay calm, do your homework, 
be prepared.

2.2:	What is an Attorney At Law?  What is an Esquire? 

I bet you didn't know this!

"At Law" means "governed by the rules of law", as opposed
to the rules of "equity" (contracts).  An "Attorney at Law"
is by definition an "officer of the court". He essentially
works for the court. He is granted the right to work by
permission of the court, in the jurisdiction of the court.

Is such a man without bias? Can such a man defend you properly!? 

A very interesting topic to research on your own:
The is evidence to suggest that the United States is
still under British rule. Evidence? Many or most 
lawyers use the title "Esquire", which is a title of
the English gentry. Like "Count", or "Knight", etc. it is
granted by the reigning Monarch. The use of such a title
in a court is evidence that the Constitution is being
subverted, replaced by the King's Law. The English Gentry
believe that the people are not sovereign, but the Monarch 

David Dodge has uncovered a very interesting fact:
there appears to be a missing Amendment of Constitution,
and may have been properly ratified. It is the so-called
"Titles of Nobility" amendment, and it appears to forbid
lawyers from serving in public office.  It would have 
been the 13th Amendment. If you search the internet you should 
be able to find his research, or check out the back issues 
of the Anti-Shyster.

This topic has been known to get lawyers pretty agitated:

	> The usual crap 'bout the "Titles of Nobility Amendment"
	> which was not ratified and would do nothing of the
	> sort.  For a comprehensive look at the bizarre myths
	> some hate groups have created about this "amendment":
	> Clear sign
	> that the poster/author of this "FAQ" is a nutjob. 
	>    -- (quoted in

"Hate Groups". I guess "tennish" wasn't paying attention when
we were speaking about non-violence, huh? ;^)

2.3:	How do I "represent myself"?

You should never say that you "represent yourself" ("Pro Se")!
This is a trick to get you to think you have given up your
rights. If you do not have a lawyer, you are "appearing
before the court as your own proper person".  ("Pro Per",
or "In Propria Persona").

Here is the trick:

The 6th Amendment asserts the right to "the assistance of 
Counsel", which the lawyers say means that you have the
right to be "represented by attorney". In reality, *anyone*
can be your counsel: your wife, your landlord, your boss,
your friend, or just some libertarian fellow who has studied
the Constitution. Your Counsel (someone who gives you advice)
does NOT need to be your representative (someone who speaks and
acts for you). 

This is an important distinction. You can appear before the court
as your own person, without an agent/representative and STILL 
have someone who gives you advice!

What is the basis for the State-sanctioned monopoly of the
Bar Association, especially when you grievance may be with 
the State? Let's open up the practice of law to good old
fashioned American Competition! 

So, if you say "I Represent myself", then the judge will usually
say, "Then, you waive your 6th Amendment right to Counsel?" 

To which you calmly reply: "I assert all of my rights and 
waive none of them. I respectfully demand that this court 
recognize all of my rights under the Constitution. I appear
without representative, but I still assert my right to the
Counsel of my choosing. My Counsel will advise me, but will
not represent me."

2.4:	How should I plead: Guilty, Not Guilty, or No Contest?

This answer comes primarily from research by Richard
Nagol, and appeared as the "Generic Plea, Criminal" in the
AntiShyster magazine, June 1991, and Jan/Feb 1993 issues.

If you enter any plea, you are accepting the jurisdiction
of the court. If you hire an Attorney, At Law (an officer
of the court), you are implicitly accepting jurisdiction
of the court.

A perfectly valid tactic is to cry "NO JURISDICTION!",
and the Court must prove subject matter, geographic,
and personal jurisdiction over you. You appear before the
court not because you accept it's jurisdiction, but because
of threats of incarceration, loss of work, fines, all of
which constitute threats to your life and family, etc. You
challenge jurisdiction in ALL matters before the court.

You must state, "I assert all my rights under the
Constitution and under Common Law at all times. I wave none
of my rights".  If the Court fails to observe your rights
as a free and natural person in every respect, the court
becomes renegade to the Constitution of the United States,
and loses all jurisdiction over you, the accused.

Supposedly, one cannot be incarcerated by the court unless
one has Counsel at trial. Thus, you should never sign a
waiver to Counsel.

If you must enter a plea, REMEMBER THIS: If you enter a
plea of Guilty or No Contest (or plea bargain, or "cop
a plea"), then you are WAIVING YOUR RIGHT TO TRIAL BY
JURY. If you are innocent of wrongdoing, if you haven't
hurt anybody, you must plead INNOCENT and get a jury trial.

2.5:	Judge or Jury?

Always, always, always get a trial by jury. NEVER "plea
bargain", as by pleading guilty to a lesser charge, you are
waiving your right to a jury trial, which is probably
your only hope of getting a fair trial.

If you do not get a jury, the Judge will find you
guilty. This is called a "Summary Judgement".  Yes, he
may find you innocent, but it is rare. Why should he? The
court keeps your money if you are found guilty, and is
thus BIASED.  That's right, if the court makes a profit
from the guilt of the accused, then THE COURT IS BIASED.
Your money goes into the "general fund", which pays the
judges salary, and buys police cars. Is this fair?

Remember the words of Sunshine George:

       "Pay close attention to what they say, and then follow
        the money"

In the ancient days of England (where our legal system originates), 
there were no juries. They had the Star Chamber, where those
accused were beaten into confessions, and the masked man dressed in 
black robes spoke your sentence in Latin. The abuses of the Star Chamber 
were well known to the Founding Fathers, and caused them to require 
Grand and Trial Juries in the Bill of Rights.
2.6:	What is "Jury Nullification"? 

Please seek out the Fully Informed Jury Association! 
( Also, Whitten's _Citizen Rule Book_ 
has good info on your rights and responsibilites as a juror.

When you sit on a Jury, you have more power than as
almost under any other capacity as a citizen, 1000 times
more power than when you vote. You have more power than the 
judge, than the legislators, than the police. You have a 
right and a duty to judge the facts according to the law, 

Jury Nullification is when a jury nullifies bad law. 
A jury can say "not guilty" for ANY reason, especially
if the jury thinks the person violated a law, but finds
that the law was a bad one.

Research what happened to Edward Bushnell, who sat on the
jury of William Penn, accused of practicing an illegal

Also research how Jury Nullification helped eliminate
prohibition. (Well, of course I mean *alcohol prohibition*.
we still have prohibition today, just a different kind!)

2.7:	What is a Grand Jury?

Here is the entire 5th Amendment, for your

       No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
       otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
       indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
       in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia,
       when in actual service in time of War or public
       danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same
       offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
       nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
       witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
       liberty, or property, without due process of law;
       nor shall private property be taken for public use,
       without just compensation.

A Grand Jury is a body of the people whose purpose is to:

   1) make accusations of wrongdoing (especially on the 
      part of government officials)
   2) verify that accusations of wrongdoing made are just 
      and proper.

If the police arrest a woman based on the complaint that
"she turned me into a newt!", and if this is considered
a serious crime (like if the accused is faced with any
jail time), then this accusation should go before a
body of the people, the Grand Jury, BEFORE it goes to 
court. The people see that the injury is false, and have
the accused released.

2.8:	How long can they hold me without charging me?

This is not clearly defined, but the trial should be 
"speedy and public". Here is the 6th Amendment, for your 

       In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
       enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,
       by an impartial jury of the State and district
       wherein the crime shall have been committed, which
       district shall have been previously ascertained by
       law, and to be informed of the nature and cause
       of the accusation; to be confronted with the
       witnesses against him; to have compulsory process
       for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have
       the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

If they put you in jail, or threaten you with jail, then
they are treating you like a criminal, and the 6th amendment
applies. Notice that is says you have a right to 
"the Assistance Counsel", and not "you are required to
have an officer of the court do your speaking for you".

2.9:	What is the Writ of Habeous Corpus?

(also spelled "Habeas Corpus")

It is a petition by the people to the court. It is called the
Great Writ. It means "Why are you holding this person!?" It is
a demand to show just cause of action, or release the person
from custody.  

These Writs are RARE these days, and no one seems to
understand how they work.  People will tell you that they
must be issued by a judge, which is absurd, if it is the
judges that are corrupt!

If there is corruption of the cops, courts, etc., and
someone is jailed unjustly, then try to get the Grand Jury
to issue this Writ. The Grand Jury is really just "The
People", which is you and your friends and family. Create
your own writ. Post it up in front of the Courthouse,
jail, and police station. Demand the release of the
innocent. Demand due process!

2.10:	Why won't my attorney argue my case on Constitutional grounds?

1.  Lawyers profit from a corrupt and unfair system
2.  Lawyers are officers of the court, and are licensed by state 
    and are thus biased in favor of "the system"
2.  Unfair Monopoly: no competition
4.  Gold fringe on the flag may indicate a Military court
    where the Constitution does not apply. Scary.
5.  An "Esquire" may favor the King's law over the Constitution

2.11:	What is a jurisdiction? What are the different kinds?

The Constitution defines 3 jurisdictions of lower courts, and
a very limited federal jurisdiction for dealing mainly with 
conflicts between states. According to the Constitution,

	"Well, don't make a federal offense out 
	of it!" -- Larry, The Three Stooges

Here are the 3 jurisdictions of the lower courts:

1. Criminal (victims with injury)
2. Civil/Equity (contract disputes)
2. Admiralty (Military or At Sea) 

The Constitution asserts certain rights for people accused of 
serious crimes (criminal or capital offenses). But if you
ask a judge the jurisdiction of the court you will often get
a fuzzy of vague definition like "this court has general
jurisdiction". They will not say that this is a criminal
court, because then you might invoke your rights as a 
criminal suspect!

If you challenge the courts jurisdiction over you, they
must prove it. They must show that they have the following:

1. Subject matter jurisdiction (they are governed by rule of law, and
   the laws must be in accord with the Constitution)
2. Geographic jurisdiction  (they can't arrest you out of their district)
2. Personal jurisdiction (you had to violate a just law)

2.12:	What is "Due Process?"

All of this is due process. It is probably not a complete list!

    1: Victim has injury caused by a human (not an accident)
    2: civilian complaint
    3: probable cause determined (connection between accused and victim's 
    4: warrant issued
    5: if accused is searched, or has self / property seized, then this happens
       after 1-4 in that order
    6: Grand Jury decides the accusation and offense is real, and that the
       accused probably has something to do with it.
    7: accused given fair bail 
    8: accused gets speedy trial
    9: accused tried by jury of peers (like minded people in the same community
       where the crime occurred -- no change of venue!)
    10: jury informed of their rights and duties according to US Constitution
    11: accused gets benefit of assistance of any chosen counsel (may not be
        a state-licensed attorney)
    12: accused can fire counsel at any time! 
    13: accused gets witnesses on own behalf
    14: accused told nature of charges
    15: accused not denied the right to speak freely 
    16: accused not denied any rights by courts
    17: accused is presented with accusors and cause of action
    18: if found guilty, accused can still petition for redress (appeal)
    19: if guilty, accused given fair fines
    20: accused does not have property taken with out compensation
    21: accused charged/tried once for one crime
    22: accused not forced to confess, 
    23: accused not tortured, or given other cruel punishment
    24: accused has open, public trial
    25: accused has equal protection of the law (no favorites, like the
        rich, or the incorporated, etc) 

2.13:	How does the Constitution help me?

   The Constitution won't help you. You must study and learn the
   Constitution in order to help yourself. It isn't easy. But
   you may learn that at the core, the law is really on the side 
   of We the People.

   Here is a brief guide to the Bill of Rights:

   o First: Appeal = petition for redress  

   o Fifth: Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy/One crime is not many, 
      no forced confession / self testomomy, due process, improper property

   o Sixth: for serious crimes: speedy trial, impartial jury 
      from same district, informed of accusation and cause of action, be
      confronted by accusators and be able to call defensive
      witnesses, assistance of Counsel

   o Seventh: common law suits: right to trial by jury, no retrial
      except under common law rules ...etc...

   o Eighth: No Excessive bail,  excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

   o  Fourteenth: problems w/14th: new class of citizen, not properly ratified, only partially
      restates 5th as applying to states, etc. 
      talks of "privileges and immunities" and not rights
      good things: seems to say the constitution applies to states

2.14:	Why do they speak Latin in court? I don't speak Latin!

Just like the solemn ceremonies of the Roman Catholic church,
read in Latin by the highest priests, the black robed judges 
speak the accusations and maxims of the Most Holy Law in Latin.
It is an attempt to make the law obscure, strange, intangible
to the mortal man. 

This is not what the authors of the Constitution wanted for
We the People.

I once heard Harvey Wysong of the FIJA suggest this:
since non-English speakers get courtroom translators, 
when the lawyers and judges start speaking in Latin, 
we should demand a translator!

2.15:	What is Double Jeopardy? What is "Multiplicity"?

The 5th Amendment says 

	"nor shall any person be subject for the same
	offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb"

This is commonly interpreted to mean that a person
can not be tried again and again for the same offence.
This *does* happen today. People found innocent of
a criminal charge will often be tried again in civil

But there is more to it than this. There is something
which happens that Marcus Anarcus calls "Multiplicity",
which the 5th Amendment may be trying to prevent.  Often a
single "offense" will become 20 separate charges. Listen
very carefully to the charges. It is very common.

   o  "Conspiracy to possess the thing"
   o  "Unlawfully soliciting an undercover agent to purchase the thing"
   o  "Possession of the thing with intent to do something awful"
   o  "Using the thing with malice or forethought"

Does it remind you of the old George Carlin routine about
all the sins produced by simply thinking about "feeling
up Ellen"? ;^)

And usually they throw some or all of these, just for
good measure:

   o  "Resisting Arrest"
   o  "Reckless Endangerment"
...or if you really piss-off the cop or judge:
   o  "Reckless Endangerment of a Child" (Did someone *actually* get hurt?)
   o  "Obstructing Justice"
   o  "Failure to Appear"
   o  "Contempt of Court"

Even if the charges *seem* different, you may wish to
consider that every "offense" which produces no injured
victim are all really multiple counts of the same thing,
the pseudo-crime of "injuring no person".

2.16:	Aren't these just your opinions? Aren't you are misquoting the Constitution?

Perhaps, but imagine for one moment that YOU get to design
a new country. Would you design a system of slaves and
masters with the expectation that YOU will get to be a
master? Or do you design a system where all creatures are
of equal right in the eyes of the law, and equal beauty
in the eyes of God?

Do you design a system where the Police detain anyone for
any reason at any time, or do you make them reactive to
a civilian complaint?

       "She turned me into a Newt!"
	     -- A civilian complaint lacking probable
	     cause, from _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_

And what of the complaint?  Do you allow government agents
make the complaints? Do you allow someone to be
jailed for being ugly? Or smelly? Or being annoying? Or by
saying something unpleasant? 

        "Why 'you different? Why be that way?
         If you don't get in line,
         We'll lock you away..."  
              -- Dave Mathews Band, _Typical Situation_ 

...Or do you insist that there be some connection between the 
accused and the victim's injury?

And what of the injury? Do you suggest that the police
be given the power to arrest or detain those for
"victimless crime"? Yes?  Then which "actions which do
not cause injury" are crimes?  Breathing? Thinking? Moving
about? Aren't we all guilty of "injuring no person" right
now? Do YOU want to be jailed for nothing at all?

The time for peaceable revolution is upon us.  Let's make
the new system more fair, and the creatures more free.
How do YOU think it should be done?

Lawful Arrest FAQ -- Version 2.4 -- 08 Nov 2002

Section 3: Basic Principles: Rights and Powers

Before we can fully understand what the Police are doing
wrong, we first must ask some basic questions about rights.

This section ventures into off-topic areas, so you
may want to skip right to Section 2.

3.1:	What are my most basic rights as a living person?

Thomas Jefferson wrote these words:

	"We hold these truths to be self-evident,
	that all men are created equal, and were
	endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
	rights, that among these are life, liberty, and
	the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these
	rights, governments are created among men and
	derive their just powers from the consent of
	the governed. And when any government becomes
	destructive to these ends, it is the right of
	the people to alter or abolish it."
So according to TJ, we all have the right to life, the
right to be free, the right to seek happiness, and the
right to resist/destroy a government that is oppressive
these rights. These are the natural rights.

[Note that Jefferson asserts that these rights are
"self-evident", and that he does not appeal to any
particular god or religious text. While he does use the
word "Creator", this has many interpretations and should
not be interpreted to deny those of different beliefs their
rights, even atheists. (Many of the Founding Fathers,
including Jefferson, were Deists, which today might be
considered a branch of Paganism).]

3.2:	Are rights only for men?  

While the Declaration of Independence says that all *men*
are created equal and endowed with certain rights, "men"
is commonly interpreted to mean "mankind". A better word
might be "persons", or "natural persons" (this would
help to distinguish between living, breathing creatures
with eyes and a brain, and "artificial persons", a.k.a.,
corporations, which do not deserve rights such as the
right to life since they never were alive to begin with!).

	"Our task must be to free
	widening our circle of compassion to embrace
	all living creatures and the whole of nature
	and its beauty." -- Albert Einstein

Our notion of "whom is deserving of rights" is constantly
expanding. In the days when the Declaration was written,
it is possible that Jefferson actually meant "men" so as
to exclude women. Slaves and bonded servants were once
commonplace and also thought to be less than a person and
undeserving of rights. However, as this concept expands,
perhaps one day all things with eyes and a brain will be
recognized as persons and deserving to live and be free.

3.3:	Are there any limits on the exercise of a right?

Yes. Imagine a man whose "pursuit of happiness" involves
murder.  Obviously this is wrong because it infringes upon
another's right to live.

If we all have the right to live and be free to do as we
please, it must follow that if the exercise of one man's
right violates another's, then either there are limits to
the exercise of this right, or no such right ever existed.

3.4:	Is there a right to a job/health insurance, etc?

A right implies that an injury is always suffered when
it is violated. Conversely, an injury *may* indicate a
violated right (but may not, as in the case of human-caused
accidents or natural disasters).

We must be careful here not to classify our petty
or vain desires as rights, for if we do, then we may
unintentionally introduce a huge class of "non-injuries"
for the government to oppress us with.

While we all want rewarding work, there is no such thing
as a right to a job. Once we do have a job, then this
employer/employee relationship is bound (as are all
contracts) not by criminal law, but by equity jurisdiction.

We also have no right not to be offended, and we have
no right to a government handout, health insurance, or
socialized medicine. These things are used by politicians
to raise taxes and increase government power.

3.5:	Does a corporation have rights? 

This is a long answer, but when people are being accused of 
all kinds of "pretended offenses" against corporate "victims", 
it is important to understand.  In many ways, the oppressions 
against the people by the government pales in comparison to 
the harm that corporations cause. 

There is actually a long history of the abuses
of corporations, and how they, under the pretense of being
organized for commerce, become non-democratic systems of governance:

       One of the major accomplihments of the [American]
       revolution was to kick private corporations out of
       this country, to kick some out (like the Hudson
       Bay Company), which were very powerful private
       corporations of the day, and to transform what
       had been private stock corporations chartered by
       the king.

       Massachusetts Bay Corporation ..., the Virginia
       Corporation, the Carolina Corporation, the
       Maryland Corporation, the Pennsylvania Corporation,
       these were business corporations that settled and
       created the 13 colonies. They were dictatorships,
       there was no pretense. The people who ran those
       companies decided what you could grow, where you
       had to ship your products, what kind of work you
       did. They could conscript you into the militia.
       They were dictatorships.

       The revolution fundamentally transformed those
       companies into constitutional states. Not perfect
       by any means. But it shifted the source of political
       power. It shifted the nature of sovereignty so that
       there became institutional processes for making
       decisions: legislatures, the courts, separation of
       powers, terms of office for those holding office....

       So in effect, by force of arms, the colonists
       transferred the sovereignty that had set with
       the King of England to the people. The king was
       the sovereign; he got his sovereignty allegedly
       from God. All his rulers ruled in his name. That
       sovereignty, with the revolution, passed to
       "the people."

           -- Richard Grossman, _Revoking the Corporation_


A corporation by definition an "artificial person", a legal
fiction, let's call him Ersatz Ernie, created immortal by
men (and the government that charters it).  The purpose is
to reduce tax liability, raise money through stock sales,
and to protect the personal assets and otherwise limit the
liability of the human founders in the event of civil or
criminal wrongdoing. 

(Wait! What was that last part again!??)


For corporations to work, they need to be endowed with the
"rights" of property ownership and the ability to engage
in contracts. But while we humans evidently claim to
have figured out how to create artificial life, we have
certainly not figured out how to endow little Artificial
Abbott, Ltd., with a soul, or a conscience, or a moral
code. Corporations "live" for one purpose: profit. They
consume natural resources and human labor in the process.


Yep, Pretends to be Pete (Inc.), Not Really Nick (LLC),
False Fran (Corp.), Made Up Marvin (Ltd), Mimeograph of Mike,
Nowhere to be Found Norman, Isn't Isabelle, A Figment of
Fred, Never Was Wally, Cardboard Charles, Polystyrene Pam,
Surrogate Sam, Victor the Invented, Propped Up Paul,
Silhouette of Alice; Substitute Sue, Spurious Steve,
Pat Placebo, Mock Mike, Faux Roe, Artificial Wanda, Image
of Ivan, Negative Ned, Mary the Marionette, David the Dummy,
Pete the Puppet, Howard Handupme, Opposite of Opie, 
...whatever, has no soul, has no moral conscience, no memories,
no values, cannot suffer injury, cannot strive to seek
self-redemption, cannot feel guilt or be punished. It has
no consciousness and is not Sui Juris (responsible, adult)
and thus is closer to insanity than other living states.
Dave Ratcliffe (of 
calls them "corpses" as a play-on-words, and to indicate their 
non-living nature.

Why would such a fiend (or living agents thereof),
driven by profit alone, act properly amongst living
creatures? They won't and they don't.


In the past, corporations were created for a specific
purpose, and for a certain time. Today, Corporate Charters
are "indefinite". This makes our Artificial Life, immortal.
We have created a God in the image of a man, so we claim.

Why should a "corp'se" be created immortal? What about punishing 
bad ones by revoking the charter: corporate death?  An argument can be
found to say that killing any creature with eyes and a
brain is wrong, but who can argue against dismantling a
misbehaving machine?  A corporation (or the State) is a robot, 
a servant, an automaton, designed and fabricated to do the will of
the people.  When the masters find themselves slaves to
the machine, it becomes their duty to dismantle it.


Lately we have also heard that corporations have the right
to free speech, and the right to make a profit. We will
examine these in detail, but first...


An essential right of all natural persons is the right to
engage in friendly agreements (contracts), which derives
from the natural right of free association (Remember when
TJ talked about Life, Liberty and pursuing happiness?).

Contracts are extremely important in civilized societies.
Not only are these voluntary agreements the basis of 
commerce ("you give me A and I'll give you B"), marriage,
employment (as opposed slavery), etc., but Jefferson, Locke, 
Rousseau, Bastiat, and others argued that the social contract 
was the basis of government itself:

    SINCE no man has a natural authority over his fellow,
    and force creates no right, we must conclude that
    conventions form the basis of all legitimate authority
    among men. -- Jean Jacques Rousseau, _Social Contract_

Now think about humans moving about freely and acting freely in 
public and making friendly agreements with other civilized
creatures. Now, consider the Corporation, an Artificial Person.
Can Invisible Eddie, Ltd. move about?  Can something without a brain 
agree to something?

"Sui Juris" (Latin: "Self Law") is a legal term used for
an adult natural person, able to engage in contracts
The following are generally considered incapable of
engaging in contracts, thus, defined to be non-Sui Juris:
children, animals, trees[*], buildings, and "the mentally
incompetent".  (Whom that judges what "incompetent" is
another matter for further inquiry!)

( [*] It is interesting to ponder forming a contract with a
tree. Can a tree honor an obligation? Perhaps! Living trees can be
very reliable in providing oxygen, and homes for birds and squirrels
and insects. Related: In Athens Georgia, there is a tree which owns
itself. Gerry Spence in _From Freedom to Slavery_ suggests that a 
tree may even have "legal standing". We encourage you to research
and debate this notion, but we assume that only conscious beings
with eyes and a brain have rights. We *DON'T* encourage you to go 
burn an entire forest, or destroy a species, however :^)


Contracts are friendly promises between creatures of honor, 
and have the following characteristics [from Gifis]:

   o mutual benefit 
   o mutual obligation
   o mutual understanding
   o mutual consent
   o mutual right to remedy upon breech
   o consideration (partial pre-payment, forfeitable offering, 
     given as enticement by the buyer to the seller; earnest money,
     signing bonus, etc.)
   o proper subject matter
   o responsible, adult, honorable (Sui Juris) parties


Yet a "legal fiction" is not a living thing. It is
without a soul and without honor. In a very real sense,
a corporation (like the State that created it) does not
really exist, nor ever existed.  It is not a thing at all;
it cannot be touched or seen, it cannot act, and thus, it
*certainly* cannot act morally, or with honor. It does not
have a mind, thus cannot understand or consent. Something
which cannot act with honor, lacks understanding or the
ability to consent is, by definition, Non Sui Juris, and
thus not fit to engage in contracts.


Natural living beings need to possess and consume
the living capital of the earth (water, air, plants)
and occupy land in order to sustain life.

This necessary possession, occupation, consumption of land, 
water, air, and plants, is the basis of the human notion of 
"ownership", which is more like "possession by right". 

The author asserts this notion of ownership is seriously 
flawed in all cases. Humans owning land, humans owning animals,
humans owning other humans... there is something arrogant about
each of these, because the assertion of the "right" of ownership
always DENYS this right to others. The denial of any proper right 
produces an injury. "Property rights" is a paradox!

	"In India, people believe that you should give generously 
	to beggars. Why? Because the thing was never yours to begin
	with. It belongs to God; so give it back to God." -- Julius Victor

But even if you accept that humans can own things, what does it mean
that an artificial person can own? Can a legal fiction own property
and exclude living creatures from it? Can an artificial person 
own cattle or slaves? Can an artificial person own an ocean? Why?
This could only be for an evil purpose.

Please see a later question for other problems with so-called 
"property rights" in general.


It is absurd to think that something without a mouth,
tongue, or vocal chords has a right to free speech, yet
today we hear that Corporations do. Of course there is
no right to corporate "free" speech, which ironically is
usually *paid* advertising.


Advertising has interesting properties: 

  o  It is by definition unsolicited and biased.

  o  It uses "registered marks of trade", which may
     resemble statements of fact, but aren't. They
     resemble statements of truth, but are not. They
     are more like intentional falsehoods intended to

Consider this slogan (not to pick on one corporation 
over another):
     "Serta. The World's Best Mattress (TM)"

Well, it sort of looks like a statement of fact:

     "Serta *is* the world's best mattress."

...which itself is rubbish, for claiming to make the world's
best anything is simply an opinion! Now: the opinion of
*whom*? There is no antecedent speaker.  No brain ever
conceived this thought, except the brain of an advertising 
executive for sloganization, which doesn't count. Even in 
the ad-man's mind, it is unproven. Should we burn coal 
and cut trees to "expose" millions of people to an unproven, 
biased, and quite likely deceptive and misleading statements?

Advertising is not news, it is not truth. Advertising
is not even opinion!  It isn't really a lie, because
only something with a brain and a honor could choose
to lie.  It is NOT FREE SPEECH, it is PAID SPEECH;
corpo-speak; profit-speak.  It does not inform, it does
not educate. Should the government grant protections to
this sort of "speech", especially when it is at the expense
of the people expressing themselves, or perhaps should we
should ban it!?

	"TV: Just say NO! 
		Why do you think they call it *programming*?"
			-- David Neff

The Founders couldn't conceive of Nike Ads on Television, 
but they wrote the First Amendment to prevent a corrupt 
government of giving aid to ANY entity that would subvert 
communications with such bias as we have today. When
the government grants special protections to artificial
person advertise-speak, and by not giving similar aid to 
natural-person free-speak, this is equivalent to 
establishing the Religion of Capitalism, and violates the
letter and spirit of the First Amendment in several ways.


Commercials are designed to make real persons think they
are lacking, diseased, in pain, deficient, and that the
product the corporation makes is the cure for this malaise.
Advertising is mind control propaganda, Manchurian
programming designed to make us shop. Commerce-Speak
dominates and controls all media and drowns out the speech
of natural persons. And since the government created the
corporations, and the political candidates are funded
by corporations, and the television stations are owned
by corporations, and the government and banks make most of
the money available to the corporations, and we need this 
money to pay taxes to the same state which chartered/created the 
corporations ...

...Is it any wonder that speech that is critical of state oppression 
or corporate crime is rarely heard over the din of jingles, slogans, 
and registered marks of trade? 

"Corporate speech" is of a different nature than natural speech,
and does not deserve the same protections as the speech 
of natural persons.


And if we consider that corporations have a right to make a
profit, then we might consider "loss of corporate profit"
a felony, such as assault. Of course, this is absurd!
Humans are living, breathing creatures which bleed and
suffer injury and thus deserve rights, corporations can
not suffer injury and thus do not have rights.

3.6:	Can the State be a crime victim?

The state, like a corporation, is another soul-less
abstraction, an artificial person. There are many
such things: charitable trusts, incorporated
churches, 501c3 non-profit corporations, 
universities, etc. 

Only natural living things with eyes and a brain are
born free, and can suffer injury, and thus be
crime victims.

3.7:	What is a right vs. a privilege?    

A right is something you are born with, and you will
die with, granted to you by your "Creator" (whatever you
imagine He/She/It/Them to be). A privilege is granted to
you by the King, General, Church, or the State, and may be
revoked at any time, if one loses favor. This is usually
caused by a failure "consider the king", a failure to pay
the "royalty", tax, indulgence, tithe, license fee, etc.

So-called "Civil Rights" are by definition, conveyed by
positive law, and thus are more akin to privileges than
to natural rights. So-called "Civil Liberties" are by
definition natural immunities to government interference,
and are thus are more akin to proper natural rights.

Rights exist before, and are thus superior to, privileges.

3.8:	What is a license?        

By definition, a license is an instrument conveying a
right.  This is, of course, absurd, except to a tyrant:
someone who wants to exersize control over another.
A license is a right turned into a privilege.

The right to travel or move about freely is one such right,
exemplified by the "privilege" of the driver's license.
The passport, voter registration, the liberty card (used
by U.S. military personal), are more examples. 

3.9:	Do I have a right to defend myself?   

While this may seem simple and obvious, it isn't, because
warring parties often disagree as to who struck the first
blow. One side may call it the first attack.  While the
other side calls it a retaliatory strike in "self-defense".
Wars almost always escalate until one side is destroyed,
and in a nuclear war, there may be no winners.

If the right to self-defense does exist, it should be
exercised with great restraint. Gandhi taught that we
should better suffer the blows of our attackers than to
strike them and risk resembling/becoming creatures of
violence ourselves, which of course we aren't!

3.10:	Do "property rights" exist in nature?

The "right" of property seems to very ancient in the minds
of many peoples, and the "injuries" of trespass and theft
seem very real, even to this author. Certainly, each living
creature needs the use of a certain amount of "property" in
order to live: land to grow food and build shelter, etc.
But there are a couple of troublesome areas to point
out. (As this is a sidebar to our primary discussion,
we won't draw any conclusions. We leave these issues for
you to explore.)


While a "just power" may be used to enforce a right, a
power is not the same thing as a right.

Animals can be observed "staking claim" to (and defending
by force) food and water sources, nesting areas, etc.,
but just because something is accomplished by force does
not mean that a right to do so ever existed. Barbarians
have attacked, conquered, and pillaged peaceful societies,
by using force against them, but this does imply the right
to do so.


The Earth is a living eco-system, and for it to be
healthy (well functioning), certain areas must be left
in a natural state for the benefit and enjoyment of all
living things. And do not all creatures enjoy the same
right to enjoy life and nature's bounty (within reason)?

If all land is titled to an owner who has rights of
possession, modification, and "disposal", what is to
happen to the wetlands needed for water purification,
or forests needed for clean air? Will every square inch
of the earth eventually be devoted to shopping malls,
strip mines, roads, factories, and human housing? Will
all coal be burned and will all rivers be dammed to make
electricity for lighted fast-food restaurant signs? Will 
all forests be cut to make grazing land for slave animals 
destined for slaughter and human consumption?


An "owner" is defined as someone who "holds title"
to "property", and is entitled to quiet possession
of the property at the exclusion of all others. The
owner is claimed to have the right to modify, or dispose 
of this property.

Should every square inch of the earth have an "owner"? 
Does it make sense that ownership should mean something
different than possession?  Yes, in a world of bonded
tenants and rent-seeking land-lords, but is this an
ideal system, or the only conceivable one? Can an
artificial person own anything? By what right?

How much land should one man be allowed to "own"? 
Could one rich man (or government, or corporation, etc.)  
claim title to everything, forcing all creatures to pay rent?  
Should every square inch of the earth be "owned" by
someone?  Who owns the moon?


Historically, there have been 3 kinds of property:

   1) Land (Real property, Real Estate)
   2) "Capital", stuff, stored food, tools, fixtures upon land, etc.
   3) Living creatures/chattel: slaves, cattle, whores, prisoners, 
      pets, laborers, lab animals, etc. 

This last sort (#3) works contrary to our premise that all
things with eyes and a brain have a right to live and are
born free.

This question is of great importance for all to consider,
not just for "animal rights kooks". Consider that humans
have eyes and a brain and beating hearts and breathe,
... are thus *animals!* What is the basis for granting
rights to *some* animals (humans), and denying them to
others (cows)?  What about whores? Which category do you
put them in? Do whores get rights, or are they more like
inanimate property? What about "niggers" or women or Jews
or dope fiends or drunks or untouchables? 

Where do you draw the line? And, do you obtain a different
answer depending on who gets to choose?

Living, breathing, self-directed beings possessing the
animating force are by definition free agents: they should
never be considered the "property" of another. Certainly
no such right, for one creature to "own" another, exists.

Some may say that animals do not deserve rights because
they are not "moral agents". While most animals may not
be "moral agents" (neither are most humans!), this is
irrelevant.  Moral responsibility is only a requirement
if the creature is engaging in contracts. If the creature
is without moral responsibility, perhaps you should not
make a contract with it! If the creature is a wild savage,
perhaps you should just keep your distance!

A creature with different morals than me is still free,
self-directed, deserving to live. Who am I to judge the
morals of another, especially if they live their lives

Consider the cheetah: a born killer.  Proper "moral agents"
may consider the cheetah a savage brute, because it kills,
and these same proper moral agents may feel that "even
though the cheetah has not harmed me, or my family, it
still should die, because it is likely to kill again."

That is, "Society should kill the killer, why? Because
our premise is that killing is wrong!"

Does anyone see the contradiction in this line of thinking?

Do we kill the cheetah for being a killer, and if so, isn't
the executioner a killer too, who should now be killed?
When does the killing stop?

Proper moral agents have no right to kill the cheetah
simply for being a cheetah.  The cheetah has "cheetah
nature", and every creature in the jungle understands
the arrangement.  The cheetah must kill in order to live.

Intelligent moral agents, who *can* live without killing,
do so by their own free choice. On the other hand,
intelligent creatures, who *can* live without killing,
yet choose to kill for profit or other selfish motive are
by definition: the true savages.

Anything that moves on its own, and cries out and struggles
to be free when captured is asserting "I am a conscious
agent and deserving to be free!", and therefore is.
To say that "a cow is merely an animal" to justify its
imprisonment is the same argument as "a slave is merely
an animal" to justify his. 

	The animals of the world exist for their own
	reasons.  They were not made for humans any more
	than black people were made for white, or women
	created for men. -- Alice Walker

Humans are also "merely" animals: so what? Humans have 
all the characteristics of other animals: living breathing
creatures with a beating heart, feels pleasure and pain,
needs food, air and water, self-directed, moves about and 
makes sounds, has eyes and a brain, etc. Possessing animal 
spirit is justification to DESERVE rights, not to be denied
of right.

If the world is to be considered filled with owners and
property (and I am not saying that it should), and, if 
our basic premise is *freedom, and the equal right of life 
and freedom for all*, then things that wiggle about, make 
unique sounds (name themselves?), have beating hearts and 
sensory organs and a central nervous system, are the OWNERS, 
and should never be considered the property of another.

(That being said, the remaining "property", the ownable
stuff of the earth, the Body of our Mother Gaia, should never
be treated with selfishness, or without reverence.)


If you read a deed or a land title, you will see words
like: "The legal holder of this title shall possess
the right to quiet possession at the exclusion of all
others". "Right"? By what right can any creature assert
such a thing? If you trace the title to the previous
owners, from where did this title originate?  God? But
why would God grant a greater right to one creature,
at the exclusion of all others? Or is the title a legal
convenience formed by mutual contract of all creatures? And
if *this* is true, then did the excluded creatures agree to
the arrangement? (mutual agreement is an essential element
to all contracts.) Why would they agree to such a thing?


There was a time when land titles did not exist. Sometime
during the middle ages, the King asserted his right to
reign allegedly by divine providence: by the fiat or will
of God. This "sovereign" had an army of savage thugs called
Lords (the English Gentry) that fanned out across Europe
and set up shop. They claimed that since the Christian
God owned everything, and since the King was God's chosen
representative, that all land was therefore "owned"
(controlled, stewarded) by God's representative: the King.

The King granted each lord a region to control, made up
of several feudal serf farmers. The lord would give each
serf a "choice":

   1: Acknowledge that the King rules by the Supreme and Divine 
	will of the Christian God, 

   2: Acknowledge that this God, the King, and the local lord 
	are the source (and arbitrator) of all law, 

   3: Acknowledge that he (the serf) is now a subject of this law

   4: To promise a "voluntary" tithe of 10% of all his crops for 

   5: To swear allegiance to this thug...

... in exchange for a tenancy, that is, to be allowed
to live on the land that his ancestors had lived on for
perhaps generations! Some deal!

This was acknowledged in a ceremony called "paying homage",
which was denoted with a tap on each shoulder with the tip
of the lord's saber, and a gentle kiss on the cheek. And
what if the serf refused? Then the lord was not so gentle
with the saber! Non-compliance was dealt with swiftly and
harshly, and the severed head was displayed to encourage
others to "make the right decision".

This savagery was the beginning of out modern notion of
"property rights".  In this way, it can be shown that
really (in the words of Proudhon),


When America was born, it abandoned many of the precepts
of the former savage system, by creating a separation of
church and state, forbidding the issuance of "titles of
nobility", etc. However, we still held on to the "civilized" 
European concept of property, yet ironically dispossessed and
slaughtered nearly all the native Americans in the process
of creating "titles" for the Land of the Free. 

3.11:	Can I give up a right?

No. A right is a right granted to you by at birth.  You can
not waive, forfeit, relinquish, sign-away, or otherwise
lose a right. Only a tyrant or a thief would try to 
convince you of something different.

3.12:	Where does government power come from?  

If you accept the words of Thomas Jefferson, governments
"derive their just powers from the *consent* of the
governed". The key word here is "consent". Consensual,
mutually beneficial agreements are called "contracts",
which lead many libertarians to call the United States
Constitution "the REAL Contract with America!"

3.13:	What are "inherent powers"?

Inherent powers are powers which governments must have in
order to rule. They are not conveyed upon it by the people,
they preexist or are endowed upon it by fiat of God.

If you believe, along with Thomas Jefferson, that
governments "derive their just powers from the consent
of the governed", then there is no such thing as inherent
powers; the government has exactly the powers that the
people delegated to it. (And the people can only delegate
powers which they originally had).

3.14:	Where does the Police power come from?

From Bastiat, _The Law_:

	If every person has the right to defend (even by
	force) his person, his liberty, and his property,
	then it follows that a group of men have the right
	to organize and support a common force to protect
	these rights constantly. Thus the principle of
	collective right -- its reason for existing,
	its lawfulness -- is based on individual right....

He continues...

	Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use
	force against the person, liberty, or property
	of another individual, then the common force -
	for the same reason - cannot lawfully be used
	to destroy the person, liberty, or property of
	individuals or groups.

	Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases,
	contrary to our premise. Force has been given to
	us to defend our own individual rights. Who will
	dare to say that force has been given to us to
	destroy the equal rights of our brothers?

	If this is true, then nothing can be more evident
	than this: The law is the organization of the
	natural right of lawful defense. It is the
	substitution of a common force for individual
	forces. And this common force is to do only what
	the individual forces have a natural and lawful
	right to do: to protect persons, liberties,
	and properties; to maintain the right of each,
	and to cause justice to reign over us all.

Like Bastiat, many libertarian philosophers believe that
the police power derives from the right of self-defense
and the right to contract (make friendly agreements).

When all of the able-bodied men in a village or town gather
for the purpose of self-defense, this has historically
been called the "militia". For convenience sake, we
form a mutually beneficial agreement amongst ourselves
(a contract) to delegate this power to the people we hire
for the job: the police.

Remember, essential elements of contracts are mutual
*consent*, benefit, and understanding, proper subject
matter, and adult parties. Remember these words?

  "Governments ... derive their just powers from
   the consent of the governed."

Governments are created when people in a society delegate
certain powers collectively to the group, but, we cannot
delegate a power which we do not enjoy as individuals.

Thus, if we do not possess the right to attack for no
good reason, then certainly we cannot delegate this to a
government that we create, or to the police. 

If the police act to detain, restrain, or take property,
or worse, without the complaint of just one civilian,
then this is a violation of the social contract which
created the job. When you get detained for "speeding"
or any other petty traffic "offence" (in the absence of 
a civilian complaint, or a victim with injury), you *feel* 
violated, because your rights *are being* violated.

3.15:	What is Sovereign Immunity?

Sovereign Immunity is a doctrine that dates back to the Middle Ages,
which held that a subordinate citizen/serf could not sue his dominant
Sovereign King, without the permission of the King.  This is absurd,
because you can imagine what the answer would be. 

	'Scuse me, m'Laud.  But may I sue you? No? 
	Righto then. Thank you for your time!

It is commonly held that today, the ancient principle of
Sovereign Immunity means that a citizen cannot sue the
State/Sovereign without the permission of the State. 
This is exactly backwards.

Now there is one problem with this modern meaning. It is
a perversion and a corruption, and shows a lack of basic 
understanding of the principles which founded the USA.
It is a lie promulgated by lawyers, politicians, and the
corporate media that paid for the elections....

As documented in Thomas Paine's _Rights of Man_, historically
there have been 3 means by which people have seized and 
asserted the right to govern, and maintained such:

  1: Divine Providence (Religous Rule), almost always 
     in conjunction with

  2: Military Rule (Might makes Right), and 

  3: Heredity (Blood Right, Genetic Superiority)

... except one. The United States was the first nation
of European people founded on the fundamental principle
of democratic self-rule, the right to "chuse our own
governors, to cashier them for misconduct, and to frame
a government for ourselves." [Richard Price, A Discourse
on the Love of our Country (1789)] The United States
was founded upon the fundamental notion that the people
hold the sovereign power, and are thus dominant over the
subordinate state.

Thus, if "Sovereign Immunity" is said to still exist, it
should mean that the subordinate State cannot bring suit
against a dominant citizen without the people's permission!
This is completely consistant with the required "oath
or affirmation" of a civilian complaint mentioned in
the Fourth Amendment, and that all complaints must be
approved or initiated by the Grand Jury, which is a body
of the People.

3.16:	Why don't they teach this is public schools?

Good question!

	"Humanity by nature is gifted to think freely,
	but in order that this free thought should lead
	him to the goal of liberty and independence, his
	way of thinking must be shaped be the process of
	education." -- Haile Selassie I, 1946

	"To educate a man is to unfit him to be a 
	slave." - Fredrick Douglass

So, should we be having the police DARE-ing our children
to turn in Daddy for that little baggie in the back of his
sock drawer, or should we be instructing them in the
Freedoms promised by our Constitution?

Why don't we teach our children that Thomas Jefferson
and George Washington grew the very same plant that Will
Foster grew in Oklahoma, but which landed *him* a 99 year
prison sentence?!

Should we teach our children to follow the rules of law
by their own free choice, because they are good rules,
or to "get in line, shut the hell up, and do as you
are told" in fear of the harsh hand of a psychopathic,
antisocial, and UNCONSTITUTIONAL government power?

Which is most likely the better path to the goal of
liberty and independence for all?

	"Teach your children well!"
	   -- Crosby, Stills, and Nash

_End Lawful Arrest FAQ_

User Contributions:

Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic:

[ Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index ]

Send corrections/additions to the FAQ Maintainer: (Ahimsa Dhamapada)

Last Update March 27 2014 @ 02:11 PM