Page 1 of 1

Monday, 1st February, 2010

PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:41 pm
by Veronica
This is not fixed, or faked (just my address redacted)

Re: Monday, 1st February, 2010

PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:57 am
by Veronica
I’m not the most active person on the ‘public’ part of this Board, these days. (I think that might be an understatement!)

However I can assure everyone that I’m very ‘active’ in many other ways, and I now tend to let the Moderators run things … because they can.

This means I’m free to do other things (not least of which being to write letters on my own behalf!). So I’m gaining personal experience along with everyone else.

In the last few weeks, I’ve been in contact with Vince on Tir na Saor Radio. In fact he interviewed me a couple of weeks ago. It went pear-shaped because the computer I was using played up. I had already had a 2-hour conversation with Vince, which was ‘perfect’ but – when it came to showtime – well … those who heard it know what happened. This has given Jonny (at Tir na Saor) a massive headache to try to piece together an archive of it.

However, I now have another computer to run Skype, and it seems to work OK. So we are going to try again this coming Wednesday (3rd) … along with Angie.

I sent my letter to Richard: of the Harrision family today. The word is he will possibly be out on Thursday, and we all look forward to that, I’m sure.

Conversations with Vince have led to a ‘meeting of the minds’ in many aspects of what we do, and are trying to achieve.

We certainly agree that the whole thing revolves around Mindset. Or Mindsets, Ours and ‘theirs’ … especially the Policymen. Getting the right Mindset is the key. For this reason I give a summary, based on as many ‘experiences’ as I have gathered, of the things I would do, in the various circumstances. Of course, it is entirely up to you what YOU do if you encounter these circumstances yourself.

First of all, I would NOT do things recommended by (as far as I know) TPUC. I would NOT ask a Policyman if “I was obliged to answer his questions”. I would simply NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT ALL. NO MATTER WHAT he said.

Here are some ‘samples’ (and these are based on real experiences in some cases):

Both Vince & I agree that we would NEVER ask them if "Am I obliged ...". For the simple reason that they are likely to say "Yes".

If I then went on to ask “A Statute is only given the force of law by the consent of the governed, is this not so?” ... he won't say "Yes" (because he won’t know)... he'll probably say "Huh?" or "No" ... or "No, that's ridiculous" ... or something like that.

Note: This "given the force of law by the consent of the governed" business, takes some working out. It is perfectly true, but isn't immediately obvious. It has to be worked out by discussing Statutes & Societies. See "Statutes" here:

Fundamentally the situation is this. I WOULD NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, ANSWER ANY QUESTION WHATSOEVER, however 'encouraging' it may be put e.g. "All I want is your name, and you will be able to go" ... and that sort of thing. As has been pointed out, I would consider a name to be a 'sword'. If I were carrying a sword, and someone asked me hand it over, do you think I would? Just like that? I think I would say:"Hold on … what do you want if for ... what do you intend to do with it?"

1. One thing that confuses them (according to ‘researchers’ who have experienced these things) is to say "I haven't got one", when asked for a name. The Policyman might very well then say "Everyone MUST have a name". So I would respond:"If you know that much, and can speak for EVERYONE, then know a lot more than I do".

Remember: A "name" is only hearsay ... from one’s parents ... so I would say "If I have name, I would only know it by hearsay, from my parents. Do you want hearsay, or do you want truth? Are you going to base anything on hearsay ... you won't get very far ... especially in a Court"

2. Another possibility, In other circumstances, could be:

"What is your name?"

"Why do you ask that?"

"Because I want to know your name"

"For what purpose do you intend to use that information?"

... which causes a bit of a problem ... because he wants to use it AGAINST ME ... but obviously daren't tell me that! So he'll probably say something like "You are not making things easy for yourself, you do realise I can hold you for questioning?"

"Well, that's not a very nice thing to say. To threaten to take away my liberty just like that! Just for your own ends! If you can do that WITHOUT knowing my name, heaven alone knows what you would do WITH my name!

Listen: I'm not your property, do you understand? If I were your property, then you would know my name, and wouldn't have to ask me, would you?

And since I'm not your property you have no right, nor jurisdiction, nor justification to threaten me like that. It's Common Assault ... in case you didn't know. A CRIMINAL OFFENCE, PUNISHABLE BY A PRISON SENTENCE ... in case you didn't know. And, if you didn't know, what are you doing wearing that uniform in public?"

This is likely to raise eyebrows, and he will shout "RIGHT ...." ... at which point I would cut in and say "Yes, that's correct, I am right, and thank you for admitting it. Which means that you are wrong. So Good Day to you!"

(Experience has found that the guy has shrugged, and put his notebook away, and walked off in complete confusion ... long before the end of that scenario)

3. If I got tugged 'down the station' then I still don't answer ANY questions. I would say:

"Have you arrested me ... Yes or No?" (they will say "Yes")

"Have you charged me ... Yes or No?" (they will say "Yes")

"Have you cautioned me ... Yes or No?" (they will say "Yes")

"In that case you are at the limit of what you can do. And I don't propose to go through any pre-trial hearing with you. I'll say anything I need to say directly to the Jury, and no-one else. Good Day!"

If he says "You'll be lucky to get a Jury", I’d say "No I won't be lucky at all. It is my Inalienable Right, and I will insist upon it. Magna Carta 1215, mate!"

4. Given ANY 'opening' at all, I would say "Did you take an Oath when you became a Serving Officer? Was it solemn? Well, repeat it for me ... and let's examine it carefully and very CLOSELY ... and you might understand your limitations."


(I leave you to ponder in your own way, and in your own time)

Re: Monday, 1st February, 2010

PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:16 am
by Veronica
Oh ... and by the way.

Yes, there are people posting problems on the Forums. I know that.

But I can tell you this. At the time of writing, FMOTL is not yet even a year old.

And we can't claim to have won everything (although an awful lot is till in the pipeline).

But, by using plain, ordinary, common-or-garden reason + dollops of Common Sense, WE HAVE MADE TREMENDOUS GAINS.

I'm currently hearing more 'success stories' than 'failures'.


And that's ALL down to "MINDSET".

Last year, last March, we were ridiculed by a Policyman 'invasion' from the UK Policymen Forum as in "HAW! HAW! HAW! THERE'S ONLY 80 OF THEM! ... GRUFFAW! HYUK! HYUK! HYUK!"

Funny what a year will do, innit?