Stillness in the Storm

An Agent for Consciousness Evolution

Use Your Inalienable Rights | D.C. Circuit Judge Gives Advice on How to Talk to Police

By Leave a Comment

Spread the love

Here is yet another Judge confirming the fact that systems of ‘justice’ and any government obligation is only ever consensual. 

The problems come when we forget or never exercise our rights to contract and issue non-consent when we are able. 

Of course the truth is, there are no lawful or de jure governments and as such any systems of justice within these illegitimate bodies is invalid and unlawful; albeit the average police officer or court official is probably not aware of the facts. These ‘officers’ are agents of an insurgent government, an invading force, and are impersonating public officials. Which under the true de jure government of the Continental United States (laying dormant), is trison and high crime. 

Since there are no de jure justice systems, we the people are responsible for notifying these agents of the facts. Doing so with compassion and realizing most of the people in these systems have no idea of their fraudulent actions is essential to preventing violence. Choose your battles wisely in this respect. 

For more information on this see the updates here from Judge Anna.

– Justin

Source – National Law Journal

“I do not wish to have an encounter with the police right now. Am I free to leave?”

Janice Rogers Brown. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/NLJ

That’s advice from Judge Janice Rogers Brown about what to say to police on patrol in Washington for illegal guns. Writing on Tuesday, Brown urged citizens to address officers “firmly, politely, respectfully,” but to exercise their right to end what are supposed to be voluntary encounters with law enforcement.

Brown was part of a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that said members of the Metropolitan Police Department’s Gun Recovery Unit were allowed to approach people on the street to ask if they were carrying contraband and if they would consent to a search.
But Brown, writing a separate concurring opinion, expressed her unhappiness with the situation.
“Our jurisprudence perpetuates a fiction of voluntary consent where none exists,” Brown wrote. Confronted by police officers in tactical gear who might use a refusal or other reaction as justification to conduct a search anyway, Brown said, the person being questioned in fact had little choice about whether to comply.
Brown wrote,
With the guise of voluntary consent stripped away, the reality of the District’s regime is revealed. It is a rolling roadblock that sweeps citizens up at random and subjects them to undesired police interactions culminating in a search of their persons and effects. If the Fourth Amendment is intended to offer meaningful protection in the context of Terry stops, the voluntary-consent exemption cannot be used to engage with members of the public en masse and at random to fabricate articulable suspicions for virtually every citizen officers encounter on patrol.
After offering her advice about what a person should say to police during such an encounter, Brown said that if an officer said the person was not free to leave, “then coercion will cease to masquerade as consent. Our courts will be forced, at last, to directly grapple with the reality of the District’s policy of routinized and involuntary seizures.”
A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office declined to comment. The Federal Public Defender’s office in Washington argued for defendant Will Gross, whose arrest was at issue in the case. Federal public defender A.J. Kramer said he thought that Brown was “obviously correct.”
Police will “have a tough time ignoring it if somebody says that in the future,” Kramer said, referring to the script Brown provided at the end of her opinion.
Gross was walking in southeast Washington when police officers in a car pulled up next to him. One officer said, “[H]ey, it is the police, how are you doing? Do you have a gun?” Gross didn’t answer. The officer then asked, “Can I see your waistband?” Gross lifted up his jacket and the officers started to drive away.
But another officer in the car was suspicious and asked the driver to stop. As the officer stepped out of the car, he asked Gross if he could check him for a gun. Gross ran away. During the chase, an officer said he saw Gross pat his right side, which the officer suspected might mean he had a gun. The officer caught up to Gross and put him handcuffs. A frisk revealed a .40-caliber semiautomatic handgun.
The D.C. Circuit agreed with the trial judge that Gross wasn’t subjected to an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment when an officer first asked if he was carrying a gun and if he would show his waistband. D.C. Circuit Judges Sri Srinivasan and Harry Edwards heard the case along with Brown.
Gross’ case wasn’t the first time that Brown questioned police tactics. In 2007, Brown wrote a dissenting opinion in another case that addressed the question of when a seizure began under the Fourth Amendment.
“In my view, truly consensual conversation (‘Have you seen this man?’) in which police are on equal terms with ordinary citizens is very different from a confrontation in which police target a particular person because they suspect him to be the criminal described in a police broadcast,” Brown wrote at the time.
In the 2007 case, United States v. Goddard, Brown criticized police officers for stopping a group of black men “conversing peaceably in front of a gas station” as they searched for a suspect described as “a black male, 5’8” to 5’10” in height, about 180 to 190 pounds, wearing a black jacket or coat and blue jeans.”
“Apparently, a ‘lookout’ broadcast encompassing virtually any casually dressed black man in the vicinity made all black males fair game,” Brown wrote. “Such a generic description should never be a sufficient basis for a Terry stop.”
_________



Source:


http://www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/id=1202724118179/DC-Circuit-Judge-Gives-Advice-on-How-to-Talk-to-Police#ixzz3Y9GLbv4v

Notices and Disclaimers

We need $2000 per month to pay our costs. Help us one time or recurring. (DONATE HERE)

To sign up for RSS updates, paste this link (https://stillnessinthestorm.com/feed/) into the search field of your preferred RSS Reader or Service (such as Feedly or gReader).

Subscribe to Stillness in the Storm Newsletter

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” – Aristotle

This website is supported by readers like you.

If you find our work of value, consider making a donation. 

Stillness in the Storm DISCLAIMER: All articles, videos, statements, claims, views and opinions that appear anywhere on this site, whether stated as theories or absolute facts, are always presented by Stillness in the Storm as unverified—and should be personally fact checked and discerned by you, the reader. Any opinions or statements herein presented are not necessarily promoted, endorsed, or agreed to by Stillness, those who work with Stillness, or those who read Stillness. Any belief or conclusion gleaned from content on this site is solely the responsibility of you the reader to substantiate, fact check, and no harm comes to you or those around you. And any actions taken by those who read material on this site is solely the responsibility of the acting party. You are encouraged to think carefully and do your own research. Nothing on this site is meant to be believed without question or personal appraisal.

Content Disclaimer: All content on this site marked with “source – [enter website name and url]” is not owned by Stillness in the Storm. All content on this site that is not originally written, created, or posted as original, is owned by the original content creators, who retain exclusive jurisdiction of all intellectual property rights. Any copyrighted material on this site was shared in good faith, under fair use or creative commons. Any request to remove copyrighted material will be honored, provided proof of ownership is rendered. Send takedown requests to [email protected].

What is our mission? Why do we post what we do?

Our mission here is to curate (share) articles and information that we feel is important for the evolution of consciousness. Most of that information is written or produced by other people and organizations, which means it does not represent our views or opinions as managing staff of Stillness in the Storm. Some of the content is written by one of our writers and is clearly marked accordingly. Just because we share a CNN story that speaks badly about the President doesn’t mean we’re promoting anti-POTUS views. We’re reporting on the fact as it was reported, and that this event is important for us to know so we can better contend with the challenges of gaining freedom and prosperity. Similarly, just because we share a pro/anti-[insert issue or topic] content, such as a pro-second amendment piece or an anti-military video doesn’t mean we endorse what is said. Again, information is shared on this site for the purpose of evolving consciousness. In our opinion, consciousness evolves through the process of accumulating knowledge of the truth and contemplating that knowledge to distill wisdom and improve life by discovering and incorporating holistic values. Thus, sharing information from many different sources, with many different perspectives is the best way to maximize evolution. What’s more, the mastery of mind and discernment doesn’t occur in a vacuum, it is much like the immune system, it needs regular exposure to new things to stay healthy and strong. If you have any questions as to our mission or methods please reach out to us at [email protected].

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.