TO: Police Officer, Sheriff, or Law Enforcement Officer, Peace Officer, or agent
please take notice of this information:
The individual man or woman presenting this information (constructive notice) to you is doing so in a good faith attempt to protect you from yourself. Me, I have
a good deal of respect for the public service job you are doing and understand how difficult it is to seek out and prosecute criminals. However, this document is presented at a ´traffic stop´. Comity applies.
Where an individual is detained, without a warrant and without having committed a crime (traffic infractions are not crimes), the detention is a false arrest and false imprisonment.
Damages awarded. Trezevant v. City of Tampa, 741 F.2d 336 (11th Cir. 1984)
Motorist illegally held for 23 minutes in a traffic charge was awarded $25,000 in damages. The above case sets the foundation for ~$65,217 dollars per hour, or ~$1,800,000 (1.8 M) dollars per day. If you want to make me rich - detain me for as long as you like.
"The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." LEFKOWITZ v. TURLEY, 94 S.CT. 316, 414 U.S. 70 (1973).
"The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever this might tend to subject to criminal responsibility on him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is a party defendant." MC CARTHY v. ARNDSTEIN, 266 U.S. 34, 40, 45 S.CT. 16, 17, 69 L.ED. 158 (1924).
"...where the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is involved...the court has always construed its protection to ensure that an individual is not compelled to produce evidence which later may be used against him as an accused in a criminal action. ... The protection does not merely encompass evidence which may lead to criminal conviction, but includes information which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence that could lead to prosecution, as well as evidence which an individual reasonably believes could be used against him in a criminal prosecution." HOFFMAN v. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S.CT. 814, 95 L.Ed. 1, 18 (1951).
"in KASTIGAR v. UNITED STATES, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S. CT. 1653, 32 L.Ed. 212 (1972), we recently reaffirmed the principle that the privilege against self incrimination can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory. Id., at 444, 92 S.Ct. AT 1656; LEFKOWITZ v. TURLEY, 414 U.S. 70, 94 S.CT. 316, 322, 38 L.Ed. 274 (1973).
"WE have recently noted that the privilege against self-incrimination --- the essential mainstay of our adversary system -- is founded in a complex of values. ... To maintain a fair state individual balance, to require the government to shoulder the entire load ... to protect the inviolability of the human personality, our accusatory system of criminal justice demands that the government seeking to punish an individual produce the evidence against him by its own independent labors, rather than by the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it form his own mouth. ... In sum, the privilege is fulfilled only when the person is guaranteed the right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will."
"...there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves." MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 86 S.CT. 1602, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Please also NOTE: the above, as stated by the Supreme Court, are rights and privileges as guaranteed by the Constitution, and anyone (including judges) who knowingly violates those rights may be civilly and criminally liable under several federal statutes. Please see: United States Code, Title 18 Section 241 (Conspiracy against Rights), and Section 242 (Deprivation of Rights under color of Law); Title 42 Section 1983, 1985, 1986 (Civil Rights).
Officer, I cannot and will not provide you with any information that may later be used against me in a civil or criminal proceeding. This includes producing documents that may or may not be in my possession. If there is some important information that you wish to impart to/upon me, please do so in a respectful manner. I do hope you will have a good day.
__________________________________, reserving all rights, proceeding Sui Juris
James Duane from Regent Law School explains
innocent people should never talk to the police.
"Don´t Talk to the Police" by Professor James Duane
Bruch from the
Virginia Beach police department responds to Professor James Duane´s presentation on why innocent people should never talk to the police.
"Donīt Talk to the Police" by Officer George Bruch
Because of what appears to be lawful commands on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance.
US. v. Minker, 350 US 179 at 187 (1956)