The corporate headlines read: " Police power to stop cars under threat ", see corpau article
http://corpau.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/police-power-to-stop-cars-under-threat.html
The reality should read " Police have NO power to stop cars. ", but that is NOT conducive to accurate reporting.
Here is an article that ALL Australian motorists should be familiar with:
of the following text
Notice
TO ALL POLICE OFFICERS OF THE
COMMONWEALTH
COMMON LAW EXCISE OF RIGHTS
NO IMPLIED CONTRACT – ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
NO DUTY TO IDENTIFY SELF
“The
Common Law does not require a citizen to identify oneself
or
carry identification of any sort”
Koechlin v.
Waugh (1957)
NO STATUTE
AUTHORITY
“An ancient principle of the
common law that a person not under arrest has no obligation to stop for police,
or answer their questions, and there is no statute that removes that.”
“The conferring of such a power on a police officer would be a
substantial detraction from the fundamental freedoms which have been guaranteed
to the citizen by the common law for centuries.”
Justice Stephen
Kaye
ANDREW
HAMILTON v. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS;
December 25, 2011, Victorian Supreme Court.
(s 272 of the
Criminal Procedure Act, Supreme Court of Melbourne, Common Law Division –
Judicial Review and Appeals List No. SCI 2011 2013 on the 25th of
November 2011.)
Signed :
…………………………………………….
Can i print a copy of this and hand to police when they stop me for no reason, no crime committed? And who signs at the bottom of it?
ReplyDeleteThis isn't a legal document so if the police stops you it's required that you show them ID or be arrested.
ReplyDeleteZad0r There is a difference between 'lawful' and 'legal'. 'Lawful' derives from the Constitution and Common Law. 'Legal' refers to statutes passed in Australia by an unlawful corporate parliament. It is unlawful for the police to randomly stop you and demand ID. Common Law and Constitutional Law sit above Statutory Law. Therefore their demands are illegal by virtue of them being unlawful.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that would stop arrogant pigs from arresting/ticketting/assaulting you.
ReplyDeleteMaybe could sue them later though?
After extensive research and with due deference to the real law in this country being the source, The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution as well as the Imperial Acts still in force and effect today I have some comments that I wish to clarify. It is my understanding that a 'signature' is provided by a juristic corporate fiction that we are all assigned with and shows as ALL CAPS in everything from drivers licences, bills, expiation notices etc. I now formally use a line as an 'autograph' which designates 'us' as a natural person of flesh and blood and not the corporate fiction name. I also use the sovereign 'we' which is generally confused as the 'royal we'. I have tried over the years to debunk my assertion but it works extremely well in correspondence especially with the add on of 'in rerum natura'. If anyone has any counter to this I would be extremely interested including any source material.
ReplyDeleteIf the signature does not have the line with a printed name required, such as this document, the point is moot? Such authorities can ask, "is this you?".We could say yes without uttering the name?
DeleteAttention Zad0r
ReplyDeleteYou are wrong. there are more court judges and Magistrates that have stated the "Police have no right to stop you and request ID, there is NO law giving them that right".
The only time you are required to identify yourself is if, you are already under arrest...
That is the law. Next time I suggest you do some research before you make incorrect statements.
Wayne A.
Guy here in Tassie used this strategy. Got pepper sprayed,assaulted and locked up. I believe he is suing.
ReplyDelete