Re: [CTRL] Don't Talk To Cops

[pmeares]

 -Caveat Lector-

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> ..............................................................
>
> Forwarded from the New Paradigms Project [Not Necessarily Endorsed]:
> From: Douglas Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Doug Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Don't Talk To Cops
> Date: Friday, December 31, 1999 5:59 PM
>
> Don't build a false case against yourself.


"Impostors use police cars with lights, uniforms and badges too..."


from:
Report on the Use of The Public Servant Questionnaire (PSQ)
by Frog Farmer <http://www.rarebird.net/frogfarm/>


"Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and
require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because
the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant
was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to
require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person
subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be
"reasonable." - U.S. Supreme Court, BROWN v. TEXAS, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)

The following is also from the above cited case:

"When pressed, Officer Venegas acknowledged that the only reason he
stopped appellant was to ascertain his identity. The record suggests an
understandable desire to assert a police presence; however, that purpose
does not negate Fourth Amendment guarantees."

"In the absence of any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the
balance between the public interest and appellant's right to personal
security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference.
The Texas statute under which appellant was stopped and required to
identify himself is designed to advance a weighty social objective in
large metropolitan centers: prevention of crime. But even assuming that
purpose is served to some degree by stopping and demanding
identification from an individual without any specific basis for
believing he is involved in criminal activity, the guarantees of the
Fourth Amendment do not allow it. When such a stop is not based on
objective criteria, the risk of arbitrary and abusive police practices
exceeds tolerable limits. See Delaware v. Prouse, supra, at 661. [443
U.S. 47, 53]" <http://laws.findlaw.com/US/443/47.html>

"The application of Texas Penal Code Annotated, Title 8, 38.02 (1974),
to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the
Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to
believe appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct.
Accordingly, appellant may not be punished for refusing to identify
himself, and the conviction is Reversed."...

"APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT

"THE COURT: . . . What do you think about if you stop a person lawfully,
and then if he doesn't want to talk to you, you put him in jail for
committing a crime."

"MR. PATTON [Prosecutor]: Well first of all, I would question the
Defendant's statement in his motion that the First Amendment gives an
individual the right to silence."

"THE COURT: . . . I'm asking you why should the State put you in jail
because you don't want to say anything."

"MR. PATTON: Well, I think there's certain interests that have to be
viewed."

"THE COURT: Okay, I'd like you to tell me what those are."

"MR. PATTON: Well, the Governmental interest to maintain the safety and
security of the society and the citizens to live in the society, and
there are certainly strong Governmental interests in that direction and
because of that, these interests outweigh the interests of an individual
for a certain amount of intrusion upon his personal liberty. I think
these Governmental interests outweigh the individual's interests in this
respect, as far as simply asking an individual for his name and address
under the proper circumstances."

"THE COURT: But why should it be a crime to not answer?"

"MR. PATTON: Again, I can only contend that if an answer is not given,
it tends to disrupt."

"THE COURT: What does it disrupt?"

"MR. PATTON: I think it tends to disrupt the goal of this society to
maintain security over its citizens to make sure they are secure in
their gains and their homes."

"THE COURT: How does that secure anybody by forcing them, under penalty
of being prosecuted, to giving their name and address, even though they
are lawfully stopped?"

"MR. PATTON: Well I, you know, under the circumstances in which some
individuals would be lawfully stopped, it's presumed that perhaps this
individual is up to something, and the officer is doing his duty simply
to find out the individual's name and address, and to determine what
exactly is going on."

"THE COURT: I'm not questioning, I'm not asking whether the officer
shouldn't ask questions. I'm sure they should ask everything they
possibly could find out. What I'm asking is what's the State's interest
in putting a man in jail because he doesn't want to answer something. I
realize lots of times an officer will give a defendant a Miranda warning
which means a defendant doesn't have to make a statement. Lots of
defendants go ahead and confess, which is fine if they want to do that.
But if they don't confess, you can't put them in jail, can you, for
refusing to confess to a crime?"

Today more than ever it is important to safeguard and protect our rights
from encroachment by greedy and out-of-control government. Decades of
apathy and ignorance have contributed to an environment where the rights
of individuals are often violated by overzealous public servants. Such
violations often begin as an innocent-sounding request for information
made in meetings with citizens.

Besides protecting ourselves from unwarranted intrusion into our affairs
by legitimate government employees, we also must guard against being
duped by those who would disguise themselves as public servants in order
to gain some advantage over us. Stories of criminals impersonating
officers of the law are numerous and can be found in the archives of any
metropolitan newspaper. When you are approached by a person in what
looks like official garb or uniform, be on your guard and ready to
defend yourself, and do not hesitate to question the person with your
PSQ if the person asks you any questions. An impersonator will certainly
not be prepared to answer your questions, and will probably suddenly
find a reason to leave the scene.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Terry v. Ohio, [446 U.S. 544, 553]
noted in the concurring opinion of MR. JUSTICE WHITE, that "there is
nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing
questions to anyone on the streets." Police officers enjoy "the liberty
(again, possessed by every citizen) to address questions to other
persons." (Harlan, J., concurring), although "ordinarily the person
addressed has an equal right to ignore his interrogator and walk away."
Remember this: NOBODY is under ANY requirement to answer your questions
on your Public Servant Questionnaire. They have the ability to walk away
and leave you alone. The point is, that YOU are under no requirement to
answer THEIR questions unless, after getting their answers to your
questions first, you decide that doing so would be in your best
interests.

If the person is indeed a legitimate government agent who wants to
initiate an interrogation or seek information about anything, the
answers to the questions on your PSQ can be demanded before and as a
condition of your making any answers. After you have your answers to
your questions, you may decide that it is in your best interests to
exercise your 5th amendment right to remain silent. It doesn't matter
how you come to be asked these questions, such as by telephone, by
letter, or in person. Your right to have your qualifying questions
answered is secured by the United States Constitution and several laws
passed in pursuance thereof, including the Freedom of Information Act
and the Privacy Act, Title 5 of the U.S. Code, sections 552 and 552a.
Although most public servants can appreciate your need for the
information the form elicits, they are usually very reluctant to provide
the information if it is about themselves, or if they are preparing some
sort of unpleasantness for you. Information they provide, such as their
home address, should be checked with two pieces of identification such
as their official government ID card if they have one, and their drivers
license which usually will have their picture on it. After all, you have
to know exactly with whom you are dealing and where they can be reached
should you need to get in touch with them on a personal basis, for
something like having them served with papers for a civil rights suit
for example. The use of the PSQ lets the public employee, agent, or
agency know that you know your rights by the fact that you are
exercising them timely in an organized and civil fashion. They had best
take your rights seriously because if they fail to do so, it could
result in their becoming a defendant in a civil rights lawsuit.

Whenever you present the PSQ you can safely assume that the public
servants you encounter will not be pleased by your use of the Public
Servants Questionnaire, and many would prefer to go on to someone else
who isn't as knowledgeable of their rights as you are. It seems to be
standard operating procedure that PSQs don't get answered by government
employees. Many are probably afraid of some sort of retaliation for
previous abusive acts. We're not encouraging revenge or retaliatory acts
by anyone, but proper lawsuits for monetary damages and other
appropriate relief should be encouraged from all who suffer from
government abuse, or the threat of it, or the denial or attempted denial
of any of their rights. Public servants have made inquiries or demands
by mail, by phone, and in person only to be stymied by the Public
Servant's Questionnaire. We've never heard of any agent who has ever
filled one out, or even answered all the questions when put to them
verbally. What most often seems to happen is that the agent simply
leaves or gets transferred to another case. Sometimes a new agent will
try to succeed where the last one failed. Usually the new agent will
move on as well. There have been many reports of police wishing the PSQ
user a "nice day" and leaving the scene without further ado.

It seems that government agents want their intended targets to answer
their questions by waiving any rights they may have had to decline to
answer the questions. It is truly a remarkable sight to see grown men
begin to shake and tremble and lose control emotionally after they are
asked to fill out a PSQ. This can be a very dangerous situation, as many
agents carry concealed weapons and when they are so terrified that they
are actually shaking uncontrollably, they may do anything. So, when
using a PSQ, it is very important to be courteous and polite, but firm,
insofar as it is possible without compromising any rights or privileges
you may have. If a public servant appears to have lost his composure, a
good suggestion would be to ask that he involve his superior who is more
able to conduct business in a more professional manner. Then you get to
see if the superior will answer your questions.

Only those who have rights have the right to defend those rights. Those
who have waived certain rights may not, without incurring penalties,
attempt to defend the rights that they have waived, otherwise there
wouldn't be such a concept as the waiver of rights, would there? How can
you justify defending (in the extreme, to the death) a right you have
waived? That would be criminal. Many people will waive almost any right
you can mention. I've seen people waive rights they never knew they had
until they were asked to waive them, and then they waive them, in what
seems to be an attempt to win approval and less harsh treatment by their
enemies. This is known as "appeasement". It is important to claim and
exercise all rights in a timely fashion. In the case of the rights
protected by the PSQ, there is no time like the present when a situation
presents itself!

Before we started using the PSQ, we were prosecuted for several
"offenses" which were not offenses, and we won the cases, but only after
much work and time spent going to court to defend ourselves. After a few
cases, we got tired of it. It was getting tired that prompted us to see
if there wasn't some way to derail cases as soon as they started, and
that's what led to the new and improved PSQ, which has seemed to be
enough to stop harassment for years now. The PSQ is not a magic bullet -
think of it as an oiled teflon banana peel. You have to know how to use
it. This can be easily surmised by reading it and becoming familiar with
its questions before using it the first time. Maybe a little research
into the laws referenced on it would help you to feel comfortable with
using it as well.

A good rule to go by, in all cases, all the time, everywhere, is to
attempt to qualify anyone claiming any special authority over you. Doing
this might actually cause them to disqualify themselves. Failure to
answer a PSQ after a person has asked you for information is an
admission and confession that the person was not authorized to ask you
the questions in the first place, or else it is an admission and
confession to a violation of your constitutional rights and the Privacy
Act and the Freedom of Information Act, and probably other state
statutes as well.

Think of the PSQ as a note pad to help you determine the lawful status
of the person to whom you're talking. The PSQ helps you talk when you're
tongue-tied. It's you that has to have your act together. Even if they
suddenly pull you out of a car, handcuff you, and throw you in the back
seat of a squad car, the moment eventually comes when they ask you the
first question. You have to know what your own first answer will be.
Ours is, "who are you, what is your name"? Carrying a PSQ on your person
will permit you to ask many more questions that you may not be ready to
ask without such a reminder.

In California, a magistrate is required to be available at all times,
day or night. See Cal. Penal Code, section 810 (a). Your state probably
has a similar requirement. There's a space for his name on the PSQ, and
one for his alternate, too! Isn't that nice? Yet how often have you
heard of a person spending the weekend in jail because there was no
magistrate available? By asking who the assigned magistrate is, you can
get an admission that they're in violation of their own statutes before
you ever receive your notice to appear (otherwise known as "traffic
ticket")!

Some people will say that using a PSQ is too much "hassle". How much
hassle is too much? Is having to be ready to defend your rights at all
times too much hassle? "The condition upon which God hath given liberty
to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is
at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt."
- John Philpot Curran (1750-1817)

One Friday night, a friend who had been waiting for a chance to use a
PSQ got one. He was stopped for speeding. He decided against it, giving
as his reason the fact that he had his 80-year-old mother in the car.
(We would have looked at that as even more reason to use it). He signed
the Notice to Appear without any reservation of rights. After he got
home, he called us for advice, which we do not give. We thought about it
all weekend, and we can't think of any federal question that was raised
by him at the scene, which even an attempt at using the PSQ would have
done. Many people do not know that their case can never reach the
Supreme Court unless it involves a federal question. Using the PSQ sets
that up for you.

Marvin Cooley once said: "We must pity the poor wretched timid soul who
is too faint-hearted to resist his oppressors. He sings the song of the
damned: "I can't fight back; I have too much to lose; I own too much
property; I have worked too hard to get what I have; They will put me
out of business if I resist; I might go to jail; I have my family to
think about." Such poor miserable creatures have misplaced values and
are hiding their cowardice behind pretended family responsibility -
blindly refusing to see that the most glorious legacy that one can
bequeath to posterity is liberty; and that the only true security is
liberty."

We always recommend having at least two PSQs on one's person, even to go
out on their own property. Using it at your first opportunity is better
than not, if you ask us. Whether you use it right or not is not as
important as using it. You have a right to the information it calls for,
so what's to keep you from getting it besides your own lack of will to
use it? The PSQ has stopped many problems before they even had a chance
to get started.

If fate presents you with an opportunity, don't pass it up because "you
aren't ready" - if you do, you'll never be ready. Using it, and
experiencing the power of your own right to know before you can be made
to humor their desire to know, will teach you all you need to know about
"how" to use it. You learn by doing. Have some idea about how YOU want
the scene to "go down" and it may surprise you and turn out your way!

Begin asking the questions whenever a face gets in your face. After Toto
pulls back the curtain, can anyone still believe in the Wizard of Oz?
Sure - all those who weren't there to see it. But when you've seen the
wizard whirling the wheels with his trousers falling down around his
ankles, it's not a pretty sight, or one to instill confidence. The PSQ
is Toto pulling back the curtain. If a public servant refuses or
otherwise fails to qualify himself by answering your questions, then
that person was never really qualified as a public servant. The back
side of the PSQ reminds you to get his oath of office and make sure it
is in order. We must assume a non-cooperative person is merely another
human being with rights, and not a subject acting in privilege (a.k.a.
"public servant"), until shown to be different. However, if YOU qualify
him as being in authority before he answers your PSQ, nobody will argue
with your decision (and courts will hold you to it), so don't go calling
a person "officer" until you KNOW he's an officer by his answers to your
PSQ.

The only thing we'll hand anyone in response to an interrogation is a
PSQ. Then they can't ask for anything else, unless they fill it in (or
answer your questions verbally if you have to read the questions to
them), and then we go over the answers. And that will never happen.

The PSQ is only appropriate when somebody asks you a question and
demands an answer. How does a policeman ever determine what you have or
don't have if you disqualify him from even asking the question? You may
get in front of a magistrate, but if you've exercised your right to
remain silent there can't be any charges except "obstructing, hindering
and delaying an officer" and if you take your rights seriously, the
policeman will have been mutually arrested by you for impersonating an
officer, as he failed to fully identify himself before asking you for
information he claimed was required. The attorney of a friend of ours
asked the magistrate and prosecuting attorney, "look at this PSQ and
tell me what question constitutes obstructing, hindering, or delaying."
No one could answer. Case dismissed. They never got around to discussing
the reason that the officer originally pulled our friend over.

If someone asks for our social security number, we tell them that that
is official information, and if they want it they can fill out our PSQ.
We do not exist to satisfy the wonderings of the curious.

Again, failure to demand rights timely is a waiver of rights. It may be
sad, and unfair to the uneducated, possibly, but then you have to blame
the parents, as education is not a legitimate governmental activity.
Yes, the PSQ is our favorite set of questions for faces that get into
ours while they claim to be public servants of some kind. Obviously, no
one has to answer the PSQ when you approach them first, but then what
are you doing to be approaching them in the first place? The PSQ is not
always the first set of questions for a judge, as a judge rarely has
reason to interrogate you unless he's taking on the role of prosecutor,
although many of its questions could be asked of a judge. We don't often
experience a judge being the first person we meet who asks us questions
- there are usually a few people in between. If you use the PSQ, you
will probably meet fewer judges.

The PSQ can be adapted for use in any state. When modifying it for your
own situation, questions should revolve around the requests for
information that you reasonably anticipate being made of you. If
somebody approaches us with a question, our first answer is "And who are
you to be asking that question?" Our next question depends on their
answer, and our mood. Our purpose in asking questions is not only to
secure information, but to determine the authority of the person to
interrogate us, and whether or not we want to help them advance in their
career. We generally play a game of "either they go away and leave us
alone, or we meet their supervisor". Want to guess how many supervisors
we meet? How about supervisor's supervisors?

Some people might be afraid that if you use the PSQ on the police, they
will arrest you. The truth of the matter is, if you use the PSQ on the
police, they might arrest you, but it would be a mistake on their part.
On the other hand, if you use the PSQ on someone who claims to be a
police officer and who can't support that contention, then you may be
dealing with an impostor. There are so many people impersonating police
nowadays that they've passed laws against it in every state. The offense
is called "impersonating an officer". If you use the PSQ on someone, you
won't know they are the police until they at least answer a few
questions.

Impostors use police cars with lights, uniforms and badges too. No
legitimate governmental authority should object to identifying
themselves in answer to the questions on a PSQ.

Nowadays, you may even be arrested if you smell bad, or "look
suspicious". People are arrested every day for non-existent crimes. It's
called harassment and violation of rights. Today, almost any set of
facts can be twisted into "probable cause". Let's face it, if you say
anything beyond an 8th grade vocabulary or do anything which a public
employee has not been trained to expect, anyone could arrest you for
anything. Due process is another matter entirely. If you want to fight
for due process, you have to be able to recognize faulty process. The
PSQ helps you in that regard. If you're willing to lay down and suffer
faulty process, or even no process, then it is a waste of time to use a
PSQ. But if you want and demand due process, then using a PSQ to relay
your legitimate questions is not any more likely to lead to your arrest
than would a loud fart. Many people have successfully used the PSQ to
send their message. Those without a message best not use it, especially
if they have no desire for the information it could provide.

No one has been reported as having died at the hands of police for using
a PSQ. Instead, the reports of police wishing the PSQ user a nice day
are far more numerous. There was one instance where the PSQ user only
had one blank form left, and didn't want to have it written upon so that
he could make more blank copies. He was stopped around midnight in a
small town in northern California. His offense was "looking suspicious"
because he got off the freeway at a wrong exit, turned into a closed gas
station to turn around, and headed back out of town towards the freeway.
He chose to read his PSQ to the policeman who stopped him. He never got
more than a few questions down the list when he was told to get into his
car and leave! He never got around to producing his license and
registration.

The PSQ was developed in response to the advice of the Supreme Court of
the United States, who ruled that we as citizens have a duty to
determine the veracity of persons claiming to act for the government. It
is error to assume that all police officers will break the law by making
a false arrest of anyone who demands their rights timely. Anyone may use
a PSQ. We all have the right and the duty to determine with whom it is
we are dealing.

See Federal Crop Ins. Corporation v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947).
At 384: <http://laws.findlaw.com/US/332/380.html#384>

"Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering
into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having
accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government
stays within the bounds of his authority."
The intent of the PSQ is to end most situations, so that we never need
consider the possibilities of what might happen in court. But keep that
a secret! Just use the reason for it printed on its face, to get
information you have a right to have before you can be compelled to
provide information. The PSQ sets you up to win later, by making a
record of the incident and documenting the public servant's inability to
comply with the law.

What happens if the agent completes the questionnaire and satisfies the
questionnaire's intent of determining whether a public servant has
authority to question you? And is this even probable or possible? It is
possible, but highly improbable. If that happens, your report will be
the first we've ever heard of. If it happened to us, we'd next check the
person's oath of office (be sure to fill in the rest of the form on the
back, fully - any answer not determined equals a right you've waived).
If we found it to be out of order, we'd let him know and give him the
chance to take the right oath (and his first official orders) from us.

If anybody declines to answer our PSQ after they present themselves as
officers and they make demands, we have the right to arrest them for
impersonating an officer and other crimes. The trial will determine
their guilt or innocence. The blank PSQ is "prima facie" evidence of
their failure to qualify as a public servant. We then go about
collecting either accomplices or witnesses, should we feel so disposed.

Several generic PSQs are available on the Internet, but we think the
version obtained from Rarebird Consulting Services is the best we have
seen so far. It asks for almost 50 items of information and has recently
been the subject of litigation in which the prosecution could not point
out which, if any, questions constituted "obstructing, hindering, or
delaying an officer in the performance of his duties".

To get one from Rarebird Consulting Services, send $3.00 and a S.A.S.E.
(self-addressed stamped envelope - #10 ) along with a note saying that's
what you want. Once you get one of the originals, you can make all the
copies you want. Send it to:

 Rarebird Consulting Services
 400 West Third St. #D-243
 Santa Rosa, Calif. 95401

DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing!  These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically  by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om