Historically, the Police have been a buffer between the people and the criminals. The Police are supposed to be the “front line”, not only between us and the criminals, but the government as well. When the People become afflicted by oppressive laws, we tend not to blame the Police because we are told they are “just doing their job”. But the Police are to blame. They are carrying out those oppressive laws against the People and standing as Agents protecting an oppressive government, not the People.

Is it time to downgrade the traditional Police Officer's "time honored" standing in American Society? Today, the Police Officer is no longer your friend. He is a dangerous and practiced adversary, and just like the salesman who hons his skills to close the next deal, the modern day Police Officer is the shark in the water... and we are their bloody bait.

I say, “No more letting the front line (Police) off the hook” by placing blame on the legislatures, or some other bureaucracy, for the passage of "bad" or "unfair" laws and in the next breath exclaim, "It’s not our fault, we're stuck in the middle" and “we don’t make the laws we just enforce them.” I've heard these same lame excuses much of adult my life. The Police thrive on passing the buck. "Uh, just doing my Job Sir!" It’s time to hold their feet to the fire. Let them complain to the legislature that the public despises them because of the creation of "duplicitous laws" designed to eat out the substance of orphans and widows.

I have an idea, why don't we all put the Police on probation? No more "good day officer!"; "thanks for your service officer!"; and "how ‘bout a free doughnut and some coffee officer"? I say make 'em pay double... till their off probation anyway. No you say? Are we not reasonable respectful polite Americans? Beat me, break my bones, deprive me of my liberty and property at will, and even electrocute me with a taser gun... but don’t kick my dog”. I give you all fair warning... stop this madness now before it’s too late.


I often wonder how Hitler’s Brown Shirts and his “SS” came to such power. It didn’t happen overnight. They could arrest without probable cause or warrants, take people out of their beds away from their families and homes without notice, hold them for an unlimited period of time without trial or access to legal counsel and even assassinate their own citizens with impunity. Can anyone say “Patriot Act” or "NDAA"? WAKE UP FOLKS!!! It’s already here, happening now, in front of your eyes, just like it did in Nazi Germany.






 
 
As a former police officer from South Florida and current teacher of constitutional rights for the layperson, many of my lay students have asked me how they ought to handle themselves in the face of the same kind of government intrusion suffered by Mr. Bierfeldt. Although it is true that TSA officials have the authority to conduct safety-related searches for weapons, explosives, and in Steve Bierfeldt's case question the origin of his cash on hand, exactly what is our duty to comply and/or cooperate with TSA's investigation? Inotherwords, what are our rights in that situation, what are TSA's limitations and how should we respond? (TSA has no constructional rights, only government granted privileges, whereas we the people on the other hand enjoy constitutional rights)

When confronted by government's questioning the paramount inquiry is "What is the nature of their inquiry?" Not, do I have a legal duty to answer your question, as phrased by Mr. Bierfeldt. When the TSA asked Mr. Bierfeldt where the cash he possessed originated, his response should have been and should always be, "Sir, what is the nature of your inquiry? When the TSA agent asks for clarification in response Mr. Bierfeldt's query, his response should have been, "Sir are you conducting a civil investigation or a criminal investigation?" There can only be those two legal purposes to any government agent's investigation. If the investigation is neither criminal nor civil and they are just a friendly father watching out for their children, then you obviously have a distinct choice as to leave abrubtly without interruption. However, they will eventually admit that the investigation is either civil or criminal.

If Government's response to your question is that it's a civil investigation then you must only remain in their presence of your own free will and may leave at anytime you wish. Government has no legal authority to hold or detain you under a civil investigation without a lawful court order from a court of competent jurisdiction. If Government's response is that it is a criminal investigation, you state in response: "Very well, please articulate your suspicion of my criminal activity." Government must articulate a well founded suspicion of your criminal activity in order to have probable cause to continue to detain (arrest) you. (If you can't leave, then you're under arrest and that arrest/detention is subject to the constraints of the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution)

In Mr. Bierfeldt's case, the investigation was neither civil nor criminal. The TSA was simply conducting a wild goose hunt, nothing more, nothing less. So, to capsulize, your response to government's inquiry in most every situation might be like the following:

What is the nature of your inquiry? Is it civil or is it criminal? If it's civil you can't hold me without a lawful court order from a court of competent jurisdiction and I can now leave. If it's criminal you must articulate your suspicion of my criminal activity. Inotherwords, tell me what law makes it unlawful for me to carry $4,700.00 in cash on an airplane. Make them tell you exactly what law you are suspected of offending.

I hope this helps to some extent. I'll be happy to answer any question for purposes of clarity.

Very truly yours,

Terry Ingram, founder of the Foundation for Public Awareness and Law In Simple Terms

 

    Terry Ingram

    Founder of The Foundation for Public Awareness and Law In Simple Terms

    Archives

    June 2012

    Categories

    All


law in simple terms, foundation for public awareness, rights, constitution, constitutional, law, civil rights, rights, constitutional law, traffic, police, officer, police officer, Terry Ingram, teach, teacher, instructor, brutality, pro se, pro per, court, ticket, arrest, arrested, crime, police state, secrets, police encounter, police encounters,