You are on page 1of 18





1. What are my rights?

2. What is Oath or Affirmation?

3. Why police only act after a crime occurs?

4. What are standing orders?

5. What is a standing army?

6. What are the elements of a lawful arrest?

7. What is probable cause?

8. What is a warrant?

9. What is a sovereign? 10. What happened to justice?

What are my most basic rights as a living man/womb-man

Mans most basic rights comes in the form of a Duty from the Creator. Man has the Duty to love his neighbor as himself, i.e. respect each as you would want them to respect you. Respect is earned not demanded. 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 government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. Thomas Jefferson

Remember, Thomas Jefferson said that these rights are self-evident. What does that say for the people of America today? Not too much, because the people of America today is so brainwashed, they are totally afraid of the government and the government agents/henchmen (police).

Man and Womb-Man was given the only Commandments that is supposed to be Law on this planet, but man and womb-man has forgotten those Commandments and tries to please the wishes of MAN instead. What Commandment? And [God] said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creapeth upon the earth, so [God] created man in His own image. In His image created Him, male and female created He them. Genesis 1:26-28

The Creator gave Man the Liberty to have dominion over the things of the Earth

and to sojourn with Him over the Earth, but Man has gotten so lazy and disobedient, that Man would rather be a Slave to another Man rather than be the Child of the Creator.

Man created governments as a means to protect His rights and property among other men in a peaceful community, but men in positions of power have change the mission and scope of government for self enrichment, and the enslavement of anyone not enlightened enough to avoid his pitfalls. Man use words to trick and deceive other men into doing his biddings and give him nothing in returnslavery.

Below are the things that one Man abuse to enslave another Man into believing that he is less of a Man than was created by the Creator, and must serve the alleged greater man.

What constitutes a Crime? For anything to be a crime there must be an Injury and/or damage to property with malice of forethought, not an accident.

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 violation of law 3. The government licensed attorney speaks for you in court (enslavement)

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 the people to be in control and the beneficiary of each step of the way.

In the days before the Constitution was written, the Colonists were being accused, arrested, and transported beyond the seas to be tried for pretend offences by the British Government. What is a pretend accusation? One could only guest; i.e. Failure to pay the Tea Tax where the government is the plaintiff/complainant. There being no originator of the complaint, and there is no victim. (sounds familiar?)

The Founders of the Colonial united States 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 Violation of the Kings Law by the Kings Standing Army, because of Standing Orders to do so. (Do you see the similarity to an occupying police force who have standing orders to arrest violators of the States Statutes?)

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 as if to imply that even though the courts are acting without the complaint of just ONE civilian, they are somehow representing the interest of all the people.

Why Police Only Act After a Crime Occurs


This is exactly what we should expect!

If the Government (police) act 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.

Yes, 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). Police are not clairvoyant and they dont have crystal balls to tell the future.

The role of the police as agents of the government is only CRIME PREVENTION. At least thats what the street patrols are designed to do.

What Are Standing Orders?

All 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 followed 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.


is 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 used by a Police commander to his troops.

A Police Lieutenant gives a piece of paper to two officers with the following explanation: ARREST MR. JOE R. BLOW, 123 MAIN STREET, HE IS ACCUSED OF ROBBING HIS NEIGHBOR MS JANE DECENT, SHE HAS SIGNED A SWORN COMPLAINT AGAINST HIM. This is a Direct Order, why, it is specific as to who is to be arrested. It is a specific Warrant. It names the accused and the crime, and it is reactive; it comes after the event. The complaint is initiated by 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 organizers of the American Colonies were very much opposed to this kind of discretionary power being placed in 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 Colonists understood this form of tyranny (police state) because it was levied against them by the Armies of Great Britain. Today the conditions are similar, however while it isnt a foreign army that occupies us, the abuse against the people are the same.

Do you know the 2 elements of the Fourth Amendment that is intended to prevent Standing Orders from being executed against the people? The first is the Oath

and 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 and standing orders (and a big conflict of interest), and ensures that the Police Force is reactive, and not self-directed. If ALL arrest/search/seizures are documented with the specific justifications of the action (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 oath or affirmation of a complaining civilian. The lawyers, political pundits, corporate owned free press, and even college textbooks will argue why this is necessary so, but the simple fact remains: + Most police actions in America lack a injured victim (except for perhaps the accused), + Most Police actions in America lack Probable Cause, thus + Most Police actions in America lack a valid Warrant, thus + Most Police actions in America are Unconstitutional, (see the Communist Manifesto).

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 Convention

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 Militia.

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.

Because none of the Founding Documents mention the word police, our Municipal, city, county, and State Police fit this description of a Standing Army. The Organizers of the Colonies are on record for opposing the abuses of Standing Armies.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace. United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 10 A Standing Army (or police) with Standing Orders define a Police State, Marshall Law, or military rule. This condition was recognized by the Organizers of the Colonies as perhaps the greatest single threat to the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

What Are The Elements Of A Lawful Arrest?

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". Can you name the crime in; DUI, running a red light/stop sign, speeding, smoking weed/crack cocaine, prostitution, pay taxes, etc.

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 committed." 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: PROBABLE CAUSE *IS*: "REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AN *INJURY HAD CRIMINAL CAUSE*" 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: PROBABLE CAUSE *REQUIRES*: "CERTAIN FACTS LINKING THE ACCUSED WITH THE VICTIM'S INJURY". 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, un-Constitutional. Think: "He PROBABLY CAUSED the Injury to the Victim".

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 circumstances). 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). WHAT RUBBISH! 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 warrant. 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.

What Is A Sovereign?

James Madison, the "the Father of the Constitution", stated: "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Benjamin Franklin once quipped: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."

"Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested* in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated." [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth ed., p. 695]


Black's Law Dictionary defines a "Sovereign" as: "A person, body, or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested; a chief ruler with supreme power; a king or other ruler in a monarchy." "We the People" are the Sovereigns because sovereignty is vested in the citizens, not in their (civil) servants (i.e. politician, judges, attorneys, sheriff). Furthermore, individual citizens have the authority to choose whether to exercise their powers of sovereignty either 1) directly or 2) through representatives. For example, sometimes people exercise their powers of sovereignty directly when they make a citizen's arrest. On the other hand, people can also choose to act through a representative by electing a civil servant (e.g., sheriff) to make arrests for them.

Little by little from the time of the founding of our county people have been programmed to believe that politicians are the "leaders" and that sovereignty is vested in them, not in "We the People" as individuals. Abraham Lincoln reminded people repeatedly of these basic founding principles--a country "of the people, by the people, for the people". Lincoln also stated: "The people are the masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!" Yes, the people are the masters and the politicians are the servants. What does the master of the house do when he has a disobedient servant? He fires him, doesn't he?

Today most people are afraid to stand up to their public/civil servants. The servants have taken over the house. The people often allow corrupt politicians to usurp* constitutional Rights, unalienable Rights and our sovereignty. This phenomenon is the direct result of people no longer taking the viewpoint of being Sovereigns, that is, of being the masters of the house. Therefore, to turn the tide of corruption all one needs to do is to assume the viewpoint of a Sovereign and exercise the Rights of a Sovereign. The only reason a servant can usurp the authority of the master of the house is if the master lets him (i.e., acquiescence or consent to the usurpation). This may sound all very simplistic and theoretical, but one can demonstrate the workability of this principle in real life, as I and many others have done.

* vested: "Fixed; accrued; settled; absolute; complete. Having the character or given the rights of absolute ownership; not contingent; not subject to be defeated by a condition precedent. Rights are "vested" when right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become property of some particular person or persons as present interest; mere expectancy of future benefits, or contingent interest in property founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws, does not constitute "vested right." [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition] * usurp: To seize and hold any office by force, and without right; applied to seizure of office, place, functions, powers, rights, etc. of another. [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition] Are you the Master (Sovereign), or are you the Slave, to be tread on by anyone in public office. No Man/Womb-Man in public office have any authority over you for any reason. Only the Creator has authority over His creation, no one else.

What Happened To Justice?

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children. Hosea 4:6

The people of America seek everything except the true Law of Nature. Man is not interested in the Laws of Allah, only the things of the flesh. What happened to Justice in America? The people went to sleep and never woke up.

The alleged Black People/Afro-American (Indigenous People of the Olmec Dynasty), has not had anything close to justice since 1493. Since the landing of the Muurs and the Whiteman from the European Continent, there has been no justice in the Western Hemisphere. All original (Indigenous, Indian [Olmec,

Mayans, Aztec, and Inca]) peoples of the Western Hemisphere has been enslaved by the authority of the Catholic Church by the Bull-Inter-Catera by Pope Alexander VI of May 4, 1493, that has never been rescinded, repealed, removed, or superseded by any other bull, order, rule, or statement by the Vatican.

All Peoples of the Western Hemisphere [United States, Canada, Mexico, Central America, South America, Alaska, Panama, Venezuela, Costa Rica, Jamaica, West Indies, Cuba, Hawaii, Haiti and all other land mass] are called by pet names i.e. negro, colored, black, afro-american, african american, hispanic, latino, etheopian, and many others. These terms dont in any way identify a culture, dynasty, or natural peoples on the Earth. When given a chance to identify with other peoples of the World, the Peoples of the Western Hemisphere has lost, misplaced, and have had stolen their true cultural identity that has been misplaced by lies, false tales of valor, and false standings in the Heritage of the original peoples of the Earth.