True Patriot wrote:
>
> YES you have the right to assure that the person you are talking to is a
> public servant/law enforcement officer.
> NO that does not give you permission to ask a thousand different questions.
non sequitur....
When one attempts to assure themselves that the person they are talking to
is actually a public servant/law enforcement officer, questions pursuant to
the laws and regs are relevant. Likewise, questions which are not pursuant
to the laws and regs are not relevant. In other words, one has a 'right' to
ask any relevant questions to assure that the person one is talking to is
actually a public servant/law enforcement officer, and to refuse to answer
any of the agent's/officer's questions until they prove their identity
beyond reasonable doubt (but only as long as their PSQ questions are
relevant to the to the laws and regs).
Further, a public servant/law enforcement officer has, like everyone else,
the liberty to ignore others -- the 'right to remain silent', 'right to
privacy', etc., -- and not answer anyone's questions (re: First, Fourth and
Fifth Amendments). Yet if a so-called public servant/law enforcement
officer refuses to answer relevant questions to assure that the person one
is talking to is actually a public servant/law enforcement officer, then
they may be impostors masquerading around as a public servant/law
enforcement officer. Criminals have done this enough in the past that there
are now laws in every state against such impostors.
> scofflaw stopped by traffic cop in uniform refused to produce his
> (non-existent) license or proof of insurance and instead tried
> to insist that cop first fill out his "Public Servant's Questionnaire"
> (PSQ), convicted of obstructing a police officer. City of
> Billings v. Skurdal (1986) 224 Mont 84, 730 P2d 371 cert.den 481 US 1020;
First, the PSQ is not a 'silver bullet'; things could and sometimes do get
botched up: the individual in the above case could give information to
unidentified parties (those who have not responded to your PSQ); could fail
to demand to be taken to a magistrate immediately; could pay bail; could
sign a "ticket" (Notice to Appear - a promise to appear for which violation
of the promise is a separate crime and which automatically gives the court
jurisdiction where it might not otherwise have had any), etc.. Or perhaps
his PSQ was littered with irrelevant questions and was thus frivolous and
impotent.
Further, using the above 16-year old case to 'debunk' the validity of *all*
PSQs is a non sequitur/strawman fallacy. During the past year on the FWO
list, there have been more then a few credible people who shared their
personal experiences in successfully using the PSQ during 1999 (in states
from Georgia to California).
> the same sort of PSQ was held an improper
The 'same sort'? What's that supposed to mean? Sound to me like you're
pulling out a broad brush and pushing your non sequitur fallacy for all
it's worth....
> attempt at discovery, and could not be used during litigation under the Fed
> Rules of Civil Procedure ( the PSQ included
> questions about govt employee's Social Security Numbers, home phone numbers
> and addresses, and details about spouses -
> all explicitly beyond the scope of the Freedom of Information Act,
This is one reason why this particular PSQ failed. The Rarebird PSQ, (and
other valid PSQ's) do not contain such frivolous questions such as SS#,
home phone#, details about spouse, etc. (Although since one will need two
forms of valid ID from any public servant/law enforcement officer to verify
the info they provided on the PSQ is correct, asking questions to verify
info on the ID, such as their address, is not unreasonable -- there are
such things as 'fake ID', and it is not unreasonable to assume a scoundrel
impersonating an officer might be using a fake ID).
> even though two versions of the PSQ on the internet refer to
> the FOIA as their source of authority).
True, one of these basic, FOIA-based PSQ's from the web is attached (see
the table of authorities at the bottom, revealing how each question is
either directly related to Title 5 U.S.C. 552a, or is relevant in it's own
right; also note that this sample PSQ only has 22 basic questions, while
the Rarebird and other tried-and-true PSQ's contain over 50 question, each
of which has its own cite to prove its legal relevance.
> US v. Scott (ND Ind unpub 2/4/98)
> 81 AFTR2d 1076 judgmt entered (ND Ind unpub
> 10/8/98) and his subsequent attempt to appeal on the grounds that the court
> should have compelled the govt employees to
> answer his PSQs was fined heavily as "frivolous squared".
They can't be compelled to answer the questions, they have a 'right to
remain silent' as well. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) reveals
anyone may ask questions of anyone else, but that there is no requirement
on the part of anyone to answer questions [see also, Terry v. Ohio, and
read related cases, such as Brown v. Texas, Davis v. Mississippi].
* TERRY v. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
<http://laws.findlaw.com/US/392/1.html>
* BROWN v. TEXAS, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)
<http://laws.findlaw.com/US/443/47.html>
* DAVIS v. MISSISSIPPI, 394 U.S. 721 (1969)
<http://laws.findlaw.com/US/394/721.html>
* Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983)
<http://laws.findlaw.com/US/461/352.html>
The answers to the PSQ can be made a requirement necessary to be fulfilled
*before* one chooses to answer questions put to them by a person claiming
'official authority'. They have no obligation to answer your questions,
just as you have no obligation to answer theirs. As these cases show,
refusal to answer interrogation cannot be made the probable cause for an
arrest, and this case also says that most people would not know or assume
that. Basically, an officer must have probable cause to believe that a
crime has been committed, and that you are the one who committed it, in
order to effect a lawful arrest. "Being under suspicion and taken downtown
for questioning" is a thing of Hollywood entertainment fantasies only, as a
reading of Kolender v. Lawson will show.
> US v. Scott (7th
> Cir unpub 6/23/99); not an acceptable alternative to
> a Freedom of Information or Privacy Act request, and could not sue fed govt
> employees for not filling out his PSQ. Murdock
> v. Kay (ED Mich unpub 7/23/96) 96 USTC para 50517, 78 AFTR2d 6117 aff'd 124
> F3d 198(t), 97 USTC para 50776, 80
> AFTR2d 6485; ditto ("Plaintiff cited no authority supporting his right to
> have these questionnaires completed, and we are aware
> of none.") Allen v. Cantrell (D Kan unpub 12/27/78) 79 USTC para 9171, 43
> AFTR2d 710; similarly (presented traffic cop
> with a "Notice to arresting officer with Miranda warning") State v. Booher
> (Tenn.Crim.App 1997) 978 SW2d 953.
On the other had, every state has a Penal Code similar to the following
California code:
CVC40307. ...Whenever a person is taken into custody pursuant to
subdivision
(a) of Section 40302 and is arrested for a misdemeanor or infraction
of this code pertaining to the operation of a motor vehicle, the
officer in charge of the most accessible county or city jail or other
place of detention within the county may detain the person arrested
for a reasonable period of time, not to exceed two hours, in order to
verify his identity.
It is up to the complainant to identify the defendant. If one refuses to
become their own accuser and put their own name into the record (a right
demanded until they get the PSQ answered), then they have to let them go in
two hours. At this point, there is not even an "action" to "dismiss".
There many cases where this has occurred.
PS, I'm no expert on the PSQ, and its use is certainly not for everyone. I
kept a copy handy, but have never had occasion to use it. I know of several
others who have though, and it has been effective for them under numerous
circumstances and situations. For better cites, references and further info
try asking Frog Farmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> about the PSQ.
Buildfreedom.com's FWO list is also a good place to ask questions about the
use and effectiveness of the PSQ directly from those who have 'been there,
done that'.
Title: Public Servant's Questionnaire [basic]
Public Servant's Questionnaire |
Public Law 93-579 states in part: "The purpose of this Act is to
provide certain safeguards for an individual against invasion of
personal privacy by requiring Federal agencies . . . to permit an
individual to determine what records pertaining to him are collected,
maintained, used or disseminated by such agencies."
The following questions are based upon that act and are
necessary for this individual to make a reasonable determination
concerning divulgence of information to this agency.
1. Name of public servant_____________________________________
2. Residence address__________________________________________
City_________________________State__________Zip____________
3. Name of department of government, bureau, or agency by which
public servant is employed_________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Supervisor's name__________________________________________
4. Office mailing address_____________________________________
City_________________________State__________Zip____________
5. Will public servant uphold the Constitution of the United
States? Yes___ No___
6. Did public servant furnish proof of identity? Yes___ No___
7. What was the nature of proof? I.D. No.____________________
Badge No.__________________________________________________
Driver's License No. ______________________________________
8. Will public servant furnish a copy of the law or regulation
which authorizes this investigation? Yes___ No___
9. Will the public servant read aloud that portion of the law
authorizing the questions he will ask? Yes___ No___
10. Are the citizen's answers voluntary?___ Or mandatory?___
11. Are the questions to be asked based upon a specific law or
regulation?___ or are they being used as a discovery
process?___
12. What other uses may be made of this information? ___________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
13. What other agencies may have access to this information? ___
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
14. What will be the effect upon me if I should choose to not
answer any part or all of these questions? _________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
15. Name of person in government requesting that this
investigation be made?______________________________________
____________________________________________________________
16. Is this investigation "general"? ___ or is it "special"? ___
NOTE: By "general" is meant any kind of blanket investigation in
which a number of persons are involved because of geography, type
of business, sex, religion, race, schooling, income, etc. By
"special" is meant any investigation of an individual nature in
which others are not involved.
17. Have you consulted, questioned, interviewed, or received
information from any third party relative to this
investigation? Yes___ No___
18. If yes, the identity of all such third parties: ____________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
19. Do you reasonably anticipate either a civil or criminal
action to be initiated or pursued based upon any of the
information which you seek? Yes___ No___
20. Is there a file of records, information, or correspondence
relating to me being maintained by this agency? Yes___
No___
21. Is this agency using any information pertaining to me which
was supplied by another agency or government source? Yes___
No___ If yes, which agencies and/or sources? ______________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
22. Will the public servant guarantee that the information in
these files will not be used by any other department other
than the one by whom he is employed? Yes___ No___
If any request for information relating to me is received
from any person or agency, you must advise me in writing before
releasing such information. Failure to do so may subject you to
possible civil or criminal action as provided by the act or other
applicable statutes.
AFFIRMATION BY PUBLIC SERVANT
I swear (or affirm) that the answers I have given to the
foregoing questions are complete and correct in every particular.
X______________________________________________________________
Witness_____________________ Witness______________________
|
Authorities for Questions:
- 1,2,3,4. In order to be sure you know exactly I am giving
the information to. Residence and business addresses are
needed in case process in a civil or criminal action needs
to be served.
- 5. All public servants have taken a sworn oath to uphold
and defend the constitution.
- 6,7. This is standard procedure by government agents and
officers.
- 8,9,10. Title 5 U.S.C. 552a,
paragraph (e) (3) (A)
- 11. Title 5 U.S.C. 552a, paragraph (d) (5), (e) (1)
- 12,13. Title 5 U.S.C. 552a, paragraph (e) (3) (B), (e)(3)(c)
- 14. Title 5 U.S.C. 552a, paragraph (e) (3) (D)
- 15. Public Law 93-579 (b) (1)
- 16. Title 5 U.S.C. 552a, paragraph (e) (3) (A)
- 17,18. Title 5 U.S.C. 552a, paragraph (e) (2)
- 19. Title 5 U.S.C. 552a, paragraph (d) (5)
- 20,21. Public Law 93-579 (b) (1)
- 22. Title 5 U.S.C. 552a, paragraph (d) (1)
- 23. Title 5 U.S.C. 552a, paragraph (e) (10)
|
|
