TheAntiTerrorist & Velluminous Press would like to take this opportunity to point out that in these litigious times it's easy
to lose sight of the fact that we—as a community of kindred souls—once valued common sense. So cast back in your memory to that long-forgotten concept and embrace the fact that the TheAntiTerrorist & Velluminous Press stand above all for freedom and personal responsibility. Simply stated, how you apply this information in your own life has nothing to do with us. These transcripts are for education and entertainment purposes only. TheAntiTerrorist on Dealing With The Police Broadcast on 22 November 2007
Hello friends, I am TheAntiTerrorist. Thank you once again for all your messages of support, your emails and for being part of the conversation. Now, I do have a number of concerns about how the information I give you in this broadcast is going to be used. I don’t want to enable criminals in our society to thwart justice, but I am committed to protecting the innocent from what appears to be an explosion of police abuse, and in a case like this I choose to protect the people. I want to make it perfectly clear I am not giving legal advice—I’m not a lawyer—so saying “TheAntiTerrorist told me to do it,” is not going to cut you any slack with the police, but I can give you my personal opinion, and I could say what I would do or what other people have done in the past. If more people were to understand and exercise their rights at the appropriate times, we would be a whole lot more successful at reining in the tyranny that we are all complaining about right now. Knowing your rights. Knowing what to say and who to say it to, and what not to say and who not to say it to. You see, the police use tactics—they capitalise on the fact that very few of us know our rights because we were never taught them in the public-indoctrination school system. Anything you know about your rights you either read in the papers, or you heard from your friends or your uncle or your parents, but you certainly weren’t told about your rights in school. Generally speaking, the average person in this country and in the United States is a constitutional illiterate who has no idea what his or her rights are, but they are constantly complaining about ‘losing their rights.’ Your rights are lost not because someone took them from you, but because you are unable to claim them—you don’t know what the right is and you don’t know how to claim it. The police now are trained to get the evidence from you—not by force, although that happens from time to time—but rather to do it subtly, to trick you. They cunningly coerce you into waiving your rights because of your ignorance, Don’t blame the policeman for violating your rights. At some point in time you’ve got to say,
“Hey, Mr Policeman, you’re violating my rights.” It’s up to you to tell him. It’s an adversarial position—the policeman against you. He’s not your friend. If you think he’s your friend you have your head up your backside. Now let’s be clear—’adversary’ does not necessarily mean ‘enemy.’ I’m talking about ‘adversary’ in the sense of playing chess with someone, someone who wants to win in a situation. They need to win to get their detection rate up, especially in the British police—it’s all based on detection, it’s how many detections they get in a day. They are not your enemy, they are your adversary. It’s not supposed to be that way, and it wasn’t always that way. Back in the day, the policeman was our friend in a judicial system, a justice system. Today, we have a monetary system, not a judicial system, it’s money. It’s an adversarial system and the policeman’s job is to get the goods on you and convict you so that they can ﬁne you and make money. He’s a revenue agent, nothing more, nothing less. He’s there to protect the claims window of the insurance industry, that’s why he insists you wear your seatbelt and you have it fastened. Whether or not you wear a seatbelt doesn’t make a rat’s backside difference to me or you or anyone else, but it does to the insurance industry, and the policeman is out there to protect the insurance industry, he’s not there to protect you. He doesn’t care whether you wear your seatbelt or not. Now if you’re a policeman, you know you are a revenue agent. That’s your job. To generate revenue. And you also know that if you don’t generate revenue your boss is going to be asking you about that. “The average number of tickets we write in this department is two a shift and you’re only writing 1.7. John. Now what the hell’s going on here? Tom over there, he’s averaging three tickets per shift...” Now the police, they vehemently deny it but they’ve got a quota system. ‘Scuse me Mr Ofﬁcer, let’s be intelligent people over here. Mr Policeman, try writing no tickets whatsoever for thirty days and see what happens to your job. For the next thirty days, every time you catch someone speeding, try giving them a warning. Instead of giving a guy a ticket for drunk driving, give him a ride home—try that for thirty days and ﬁnd out what happens to your job and tell me there’s no quota system, ofﬁcer. The biggest complaint that we should have and the biggest complaint that the police actually do make themselves because they do understand what’s going on is that they are being used as revenue collection agents instead of doing their job and protecting us from the bad guys of this world. They’re out there to collect money. They know it and they don’t particularly like it very much. As I said in my last police video, they are mostly good people, and they do understand what’s going on. We all pay our taxes and the taxes are used to support the police department, and we should not be depending on 5 million in ﬁnes here and there to balance
out the city or county budget. And if we stopped doing that we would ﬁnd the police would be more helpful and less adversarial. With this adversarial monetary system the police haven’t got time to deal with murderers, thieves and rapists, because they’re too busy dealing with seatbelts and trafﬁc signs and drivers licenses, registration, proof of insurance— the victimless crimes that don’t amount to anything whatsoever, that don’t have anything to do with protecting the health, safety and welfare of the public. This is big business and parking tickets and speeding tickets and police on the roads enforcing the trafﬁc laws—in some communities it’s the difference between bankruptcy and solvency. What we have here is a public that’s irresponsible and a police force that’s almost equally irresponsible—dedicated, sincere, but deﬁnitely irresponsible. So how much does your government know about you and how much do you want your government to know about you? The government doesn’t have some agent following you around with a clipboard taking down all the information about you—they don’t do that. No one knows anything about you that you have not revealed by your own mouth or your own hand. All of the evidence that’s ever going to be used against you will be furnished by you. The government seems to know just about everything about you—they want to know more. They want to go through your luggage, they want to go through your pockets, they want you to take your shoes off at the airport—these are called security steps to make you safe and if you want to exercise your rights then you have to keep your mouth shut. That’s it. There’s a golden rule when dealing with the police: keep your mouth shut, don’t say anything, shut up. If you say nothing, nothing will be used against you. If you say something, something will be used against you. If you say a lot, a lot will be used against you. The more you talk, the more that have to use against you. And they tell you that very plainly. I mean, you have to be seriously mentally retarded to sit there and talk to a guy who says to you, he looks you right in the eyeballs and says, “ you have the right to remain silent and anything you say can and will be taken down and used against you. Now, where were you going? where were you coming from? What’s your name, address, telephone number, social security number? Are you married? How many kids have you got? Where do you have sex with your wife?” You’ve got to be absolutely crazy [to talk to] a guy who tells you, ‘Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.’ But we just go right ahead and try and talk our way out of it, and all we are doing is digging a hole for ourselves that we can never get out of. Now, do you have to talk? Do you have to answer questions? For anyone, whether they are a government ofﬁcial or just an ordinary guy in the street? It may very well be that the police are required by law to ask you certain questions and the reverse question is, are you required
by law to answer any of those questions, and the answer is, ‘No.’ Most people will answer every question you ask them. When you are talking to a police ofﬁcer and they ask you questions, you answer them all. And the reason you answer them all is because you believe that you have to. You believe that there’s nothing wrong with answering the question and if I don’t, they might arrest me. Most people think they have some legal responsibility to talk to the police, but they don’t. None. Zero. As a general rule. If you’re here to ask me questions, Mr Police Ofﬁcer, the answer is, I’m not telling you a damn thing. If you are coming here to ask me questions about somebody else, well I don’t have any problems with that, answering questions about somebody else. You want to ask me about the maﬁa guy down the road, or you want to ask me what I saw when the red car hit the yellow car, I can be a helpful witness if that’s what you want, but when you start asking me questions like, “What’s you name, what’s your birthdate, where do you live?” you’re starting to get into an area that’s none of your business and I’m not telling. And I don’t have to. If you’re being detained by them and they say, “Oh, isn’t it a lovely day today?” You don’t have to answer that question. And if they say, “Well, the weather’s pretty bad today, isn’t it?” you don’t have to answer that question, either. “Where are you going?” You don’t have to answer that question. “Where have you been?” None of his business whatsoever. Now, I don’t think I’d be rude to him, I don’t think I’d say, “You’re an ugly SOB and I’m not answering any of your questions. That would be impolite. I could, because that would be free speech, but I wouldn’t. I often hear the argument, “Well, if you don’t have anything to hide, then why don’t you answer any of their questions?” See the teacher told you in school, “If you don’t have anything to hide, then why don’t you answer any of their questions?” And by the same token, when the police ofﬁcer asks you a question and you refuse to answer his immediate response—from his own training—is wow, this guy’s got something to hide, I’d better dig deeper. People often ask me, “Well what is it that you’re hiding?” and I often say, “If I told you what it was hiding, it would no longer be hidden, would it?” "If I told you what it was hiding, it would no longer be hidden, would it? So I'm not telling you what it is I'm hiding. As it happens, I'm hiding my privacy." Privacy is only important to people who value their privacy. Nobody seems to make the statement, “Well, if I don’t answer the question, it’s probably because it’s none of your damn business.”
Anybody can ask you questions but you don’t have to answer them. You don’t have to tell anyone your name, your telephone number—you don’t even have to tell the policeman at the scene of an accident. You have to be prepared to go into a cell for a few hours. Many people are not able to exercise their rights because they are unable to withstand the intimidation, the coercive effect of the policeman or the government ofﬁcial who, acting under colour of law, intimidates you into giving the information against your will or over your objection. “You have to answer my questions—if you don’t answer them, I am going to arrest you and charge you with obstruction of an ofﬁcer in the performance of his duty...” That alone, all by itself, regarding 99% of people, it just chills them to the bone, and why it may anger you, you may say to yourself, “I don’t like being threatened by this.” You may complain about it, you won’t like it, you may thing there’s something wrong with it, and because of our fear and our ignorance 99% of you will start answering those questions pretty damn quick. If you’re not prepared to go into a cell for a few hours, then you can’t exercise your rights because they will test you at every turn. When police ofﬁcers arrest you and they do so without authority, that’s called false arrest and false imprisonment, and it goes on all the time. A lot of people are claustrophobic, they can’t handle sitting in a cell for a few hours. And the policeman knows this, so he locks you up. The threat of the inconvenience at the time will get most people answering anything the policeman asks. He’s trained that way. he simply makes statements that have no legal veracity whatsoever. Threats. He coerces you into answering questions that can be used against you in a court of law, and they do use them against you. You have to be prepared to go into a cell at any time, at the drop of a hat if that’s what’s required to protect your privacy and protect your rights, and if not, then you can be cunningly coerced into waiving your rights at any time. That’s the difference between a master and a servant. A master and a servant. The master asks the questions and the servant answers them. If you are answering someone else’s questions, you are the servant—it’s as simple as that. It’s not rocket science. The guy that’s asking the questions is in the master position of the master/servant relationship. Do I really wan the police ofﬁcer to be in the master position? Or in the servant position? I believe that police ofﬁcers are servants of the public. I see myself as the master, employing the police ofﬁcer to protect me and my property against unlawful intrusion.
Let’s get our positions straight here; who’s the boss and who’s the servant? Now as soon as you get that through you head, you’ll be one step closer to the truth. Remember, policing has changed in this country and it’s changed in the United States—they are no longer the police ofﬁcers you remember, they are no longer your friend—they are your adversary. They are all good people, but as I said in my last video, they will do as they are told, and what they want is your money and your freedom. Law enforcement ofﬁcers are trained to bluff you into making denials, into making statements, and they will appear friendly, and they will appear reasonable, and they will appear willing to help resolve the matter. They will pose as your friend, and they will tempt you to talk about it, and to appear sympathetic, Don’t fall for it. Say nothing. Deny nothing. Give them nothing. Stick your tongue between your teeth and bite down hard. You do not exist. You have no past. You have no address. You have no name. You have no National Insurance Number or Social Security Number—you give them nothing whatsoever to work with. Now, having established what we cannot and must not say, let’s establish what we should say. So, a police ofﬁcer approaches you and says, “Excuse me sir, would you mind if we asked you some questions?” What you do immediately—you reach for your mobile phone and you activate the voice recording option, and you hold your phone up in plain view and you make sure the ofﬁcer realises you are recording the conversation. Then you say, “Hello, ofﬁcer, I recognise your contact, what is the nature of the intended detention?” If he says you cannot record this conversation, what you say is, “In that case, am I free to go?” If he says, “Yes, you’re free to go, “ you say, “Thank you for your time, goodbye.” If he says, “No, you are not free to go,” you say again, “What is the nature of the intended detention?” Always asking questions. Always in the master position. If he refuses to tell you what he is stopping you for, you ask him, “Did you witness me breaching the peace?” to which he will reply [either] yes or no. If he says, “No,” you say, “I am now reserving my right not to speak to a peace ofﬁcer who has not witnessed me breach the peace. Thank you and good day.”
And you walk away. If he asks you for some identiﬁcation, you ask him if you are obliged to carry identiﬁcation. If he asks you for your name, you ask him if you are obliged to give him your name. The answer to both of those questions is, ‘No.’ If he says ‘Yes,’ he is acting fraudulently, he is not acting as a lawful police ofﬁcer. Again you say, “Am I free to go?” “Am I free to go?” "Am I free to go?" That’s it. That’s all you say. “Am I free to go?” If they continue to detain you, “Am I under arrest?” That’s all you say, “Am I under arrest?” “Am I free to go?” “Am I under arrest?” “Am I free to go?” “Am I under arrest?” If they continue to detain you, and they give you a sense that you are going to be arrested, you immediately say, “Ofﬁcer, I am a peaceful man, if you are going to arrest me there will be no reason for force or violence, however, you are obliged to note that I am operating under protest and duress at all times. I reserve all of my rights at all times and waive none of my rights at any time for any cause or reason.” And then if they take you down to the station, the golden rule: Keep Your Mouth Shut, Say Nothing, Shut Up. You do not give them permission to take your ﬁngerprints. You do not give you consent to ask you any further questions. You do not give them consent to put their hands on you in any way, shape or form. You do not have consent to touch me, ofﬁcer. You see, the key here is they can only police by consent. When they are working with statutory regulations they need your consent. Now if you’ve broken the law, and by the law I mean you’ve killed someone, or you have been in a serious accident and you’ve harmed someone else or damaged their property, or you’ve committed fraud in your contracts, then you’ve broken the law and you need to take your punishment like a man. But if we’re talking about statutory regulations, they all require your consent. The deﬁnition of a statute is a legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the government—now that’s not consent given by the majority of the governed—that’s not consent by the majority of the governed, that’s consent of the governed, that means you.
Nothing happens without your consent with regards to statutory legislation. Nothing. All the while you’re in the cell, just relax, get your head down, get an hour’s sleep, ignore all the confrontational stuff they throw at you, ignore all the intimidation, it’s all just tactics to get you to speak. You are not required to give your ﬁngerprints, you are not required to give your DNA. You are not required to give a blood or urine sample. Not without your consent. Now if you want to waive your rights, you can do that at any time by opening your mouth or giving them what they want, but the only way you are going to get out of that cell in a few hours, or 12 hours or 24 hours or whatever it is, is by shutting up. Without the information you give them out of your own mouth, they have to release you, it’s as simple as that. What you’ll ﬁnd as you’re asking these ofﬁcers questions, instead of blindly submitting to their faux authority, is they’ll look at you like you’ve just shown a dog a new card trick... :-D It’s a completely alien experience for them, being asked questions. They are used to asking the questions—”You don’t ask me questions, I’m an ofﬁcer of the law.” Until you’ve established probable cause, my friend, there’s a Roman maxim in law that says, Equality before the law is paramount and mandatory. That means before you have established that I’ve done anything wrong, you and I are on an equal footing, my friend, no matter what uniform you’re wearing. So you will treat me with respect, and you will speak across to me and not down to me or I will not assist you in any way, shape or form. Now most ofﬁcers are very courteous and polite, but I’ve been witness to many abuses of power, especially since the new statutory legislation came out. Stop and search powers are being abused left, right and centre, and the ones that are suffering are the ones that don’t know they simply have to say, “No. I do not consent—I’m not consenting to any searches today, thank you very much.” “Am I free to go?” “Am I under arrest?” “Am I free to go?” “Am I under arrest?” Now, the law rabbit hole is a very deep one, and it’s also a very accessible one. You need to go to a site called
www.thinkfree.ca and there you’ll ﬁnd many, many tools that will give you a lot of freedom, along with many friendly and experienced people who have a great understanding of the law and know how to deal with these lawyers and these police ofﬁcers that are operating illegally and unlawfully, and they will give you a great deal of insight into what is going on in the world at the moment. Also, essential reading, How I Clobbered Every Bureaucratic Cash Conﬁscatory Agency Known To Man by Mary-Elizabeth:Croft. The title is a bit of a mouthful, but there is life-changing information in there—life-changing—and I do not say that lightly. Thanks for listening.
HEO 9 February 2009 © MMIX TheAntiTerrorist & Velluminous Press