Don’t Talk To Police

13 Jun

Photo of a police officer, Boston, USA

Hmm . . . that’s an interesting question. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Here’s a video of some legal advice from an attorney who talks faster than I do.

Generally speaking, I’d say this attorney’s advice is solid.

But I have some doubts . . . or at least some questions. If you’ve read my hypothesis concerning Notice, then you know I that I believe the proper to response to any governmental Notice is not: 1) to make statements; or 2) to go silent–but instead, 3) to ask questions.

I’m therefore inclined to suspect that every interaction initiated by a police officer begins with some sort of “notice”. That notice may be the emergency lights on top of the cop car. It may be the officer’s uniform, or the fringed flag on his shoulder.  It might be a statement as simple as “I’d like to talk to you,” or “I’d like to ask you a few questions.”

I agree with the attorney in this video that you must not make statements to the police. However, without any supporting evidence, I still have some doubt whether your best choice is to go silent.

Yes, silence is almost certainly better than making statements.  However, I suspect that when the police try to interview you, you might do best by responding to their initial notice (for example, a Miranda warning), with questions of your own concerning the venue of the alleged offense, whether the status of the “police officers” is de facto or de jure, and how they perceive you (“Do you presume that I’m a 14th Amendment ‘citizen of the United States’?” “Do you understand that I am one of the people of The State of Oregon?” “Do you understand that I’m a man made in God’s image?” “Do you admit or deny that I’m endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights?”).

I’ve never tried this strategy.  It’s purely hypothetical.  I don’t know that this strategy would work always, mostly or even ever.  But if you were articulate, astute, and not too pushy, I have a hunch that by persistently posing intelligent questions you might encourage the cops to either end the “interview” or make ’em so frustrated that they’d crack your skull.

video   00:48:40


Posted by on June 13, 2013 in Notice, Police State, Questions, Video


Tags: , , , ,

16 responses to “Don’t Talk To Police

  1. Timmy

    June 13, 2013 at 11:16 PM

    i always think back to Johnnie Cochran’s question to the court in OJ’s trial… “What is the nature of the person which you are seeking?” or something similar. Wonder if that is why he got him off? Certainly a bizarre thing no one has commented on in the msm. Cochran was flamboyant and “street” but he was a brilliant defense attorney. Met him once; very nice and personable.

    • Steve

      June 14, 2013 at 7:19 AM

      Timmy…that is a great question to ask. Is the nature of the person a debtor?, a creditor?, one of the people of the commonwealth?, a legal fiction?, a natural born man?, an US citizen?, a fiduciary?…and then ask “what is the cause of this action?…common law/, commercial in nature?, admirality?, contractual?, a tort? it is always best to be the one asking the questions!

      • Adask

        June 14, 2013 at 12:29 PM

        The best question of all for a purported cop might be “Who are you?”. We see flashing lights; we see a uniform; we presume he’s a peace officer working (ultimately) for The State of Texas or The State of Oregon. But maybe he’s not a true officer of The State. Maybe he’s only de facto (at best). So, if we were to ask who he is, who he works for, does he have an obligation to protect the people of The State, etc., we might be able to induce him to at least implicitly admit that he’s de facto rather than de jure. If he’s de facto we may not have to recognize his purported authority.

  2. Anthony Clifton

    June 14, 2013 at 8:09 AM

  3. Joseph S Haas

    June 14, 2013 at 9:06 AM

    Thanks Al for this excellent common denominator for us all of: “whether the status of the “police officers” is de facto or de jure, ” as in to see their “paypahs” as in their being hired by who? their boss or bosses, and so on up the totem pole to see if everyone did, like here in Nerw Hampshire, as an example, did Article 84 BOTH “make and subscribe” (as in to “draw up” and “sign” AND “vis.” of to ALSO that of SAY so too verbally, since we live in a Republic for “complete”ness by N.H. Article 14 too, of not just a majority on down the line like in a Democracy of 51% did so and so them THINKing it O.K. when it is NOT! of to assert your N.H. RSA Chapter 91-A:4,IV “Right to Know” withIN “5 business days”. — Joe

  4. pop de adam

    June 15, 2013 at 7:55 AM

    I recently same across this article, while its only relevance to this column is that it features an officer in part. It made me think for a while after reading, thought you might enjoy it.

    • Yartap

      June 16, 2013 at 6:04 PM


      I read the meeting of the minds and agree with the writer. Further, the government agent or any other who receives government money for their livelihood should not vote. They have a conflict of interest which disqualifies them.

  5. palani

    June 16, 2013 at 7:00 AM

    This one might confuse him …’Is the nature of your office one of profit or one of trust?’

  6. Yartap

    June 16, 2013 at 6:07 PM


    Your videos are not working on the site. They do not come up to start them. Help!

    • Adask

      June 16, 2013 at 9:12 PM

      I don’t know which videos you’r referring to. If you’re talking about “Don’t Talk To The Police,” I just tried that link and it worked fine. If some other videos aren’t working, you can let me know which videos you’re talking about and I might be able to find replacement links.

      • Yartap

        June 17, 2013 at 12:46 PM

        Al, it is all the videos! I guess something is wrong with my end. The revenge of the NSA. Ha Ha!

      • Yartap

        June 17, 2013 at 12:48 PM

        Al, if it is not any trouble, maybe you could start posting a link below the black video boxes for people like me. THANKS!

  7. Yartap

    June 19, 2013 at 1:42 PM

    Al, I believe I have seen this video of the professor and police officer from Virginia discussing why one should not talk to police or detectives. I am in total agreement with them. The 5th Amendment is a strong right. Silence is golden.

    Today, police are being trained to spot “sovereign citizens,” which they have a preconceived notion about them. I believe that your line of questions to the police will get one labeled as a sovereign citizen and further get one described/associated with other so-called “anti-government types.” And may be presented in a court room with your piers. Like: “Yes Sir, Mr. Adask refused to answer any questions, but he began asking me questions that were weird about my status and authority as a police officer in a so-called republic. You know – like a sovereign citizen/anarchist type.”

    Police are even trained to look out for bumper stickers, like anti-abortion supporters, to lump them all in the sovereignty movement. If I “had” to have a bumper sticker on my car, it would read: “Support your local LAWFUL police and sheriff!” You and I know what it means, but they don’t.

  8. Lex Mercatoria

    July 7, 2013 at 6:33 AM

    “Cops” are only that if you recognize them as such. It is this recognition, as evidenced by one’s words and/or actions that empowers them to proceed.

    “Who are you?” is the first question I’d ask. That man or woman is a stranger to me and until they can demonstrate they are as I am–a man made in the image of God–then we have no meeting of the minds and thus no basis for further interaction. It’s a matter of apples and oranges, as they say.

    Identity is everything and the only issue that really matters. As Rice McLeod likes to ask, “who are you?”

    • Jetlag

      July 7, 2013 at 1:51 PM

      So proper law enforcement requires a “meeting of minds” between the police and their suspects?

      The criminal element will surely approve of this policy, if it’s ever implemented. All they have to do is decline to contract, and they’re effectively above the law.

      • Lex Mercatorai

        July 9, 2013 at 1:40 AM

        What law is that? Whose law?

        There is no “law” enforcement, at least not in the way most assume and presume there to be. There used to be but no longer, as it’s all business now–at least on the surface. Those police actors–yes, they are actors (all the world’s a stage, you know)–are just looking to generate revenue. They need your consent via word or deed to do that. That said, let us not mistake force for authority. If one wishes to view the matter from within the proverbial sandbox, Marc Stevens has documented the system actors’ numerous tacit admissions that the latter lack any evidence their legal sounding verbiage is binding upon anyone.

        Fortunately the genuinely criminal elements of society are oblivious to all this. I am self-governing thus I do not need nor am I subject to their purported law, and they agree with me on that. Their “law” is for those who, by their words and/or actions, indicate they need to be governed, or least believe they either need to be governed by others or are subject to others’ “laws.”

        One will either govern oneself or be governed by others.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s