order non hybrid seeds LandRightsNFarming: FW: Great advice from someone who knows!

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

FW: Great advice from someone who knows!

Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:22:13 -0800
From: michaeljamesanthony@yahoo.com
Subject: Great advice from someone who knows!

This guy's pretty good.  Terry Ingram.  Former Florida cop who knows we live in a Police State!  His advice is sound overall.  Four things: "Don't speak, don't say anything, keep your mouth shut and shut up!"  Don't agree 100% but this is well worth your time.  He doesn't ramble on -- he keeps it short and sweet. 
There are supreme court rulings beyond the one he mentions, Brown v. Texas (which is an excellent case that I have included in my material), such as Hiibel v. Nevada (2004).  Held: that you are required to identify yourself to police; but, only if you are under suspicion of having committed a CRIME!  AND, an "infraction" is NOT a crime!  And, if required to identify yourself, all you must do is tell them your name!  You are not required to produce any documents!  BUT, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment privilege might apply in a situation where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.  Reasonable belief!  You should always have it.
He doesn't explore other issues deeply enough.  Excellent question to ask EVERY time:  "What is the nature of your investigation?" Or, "Are you conducting a criminal investigation?"  Then ZIP IT!  Supreme court said you have the right to shut up -- and you SHOULD!  You have the Right to remain silent; anything you say will be twisted around and used against you in a Kangaroo Kourt. 
Breath through your nose and keep your lips together!  Good advice.  I certain other situations you can and should also say, "I'd like to answer your questions, but my attorneys have told me that in situations like this, it's best not to answer until they are present." Then ZIP IT!
You can also say, "Sooner or later my case will come before the Supreme Court."
In sum, many people are looking for pages and pages and cases and cases volumes to throw at the officers/agents/employees/contractors when in reality, there are only a few short statements we should ever make or have to make to them. 
His final point in part 1 is excellent.  I have been saying the same thing now for several years.  Most people plead guilty.  If just 3% of  people charged with any offense plead "innocent" and demand a trial by jury, the system would shut down and fast, thanks to the Right to a Speedy Trial!

"How to Handle Police Encounters in a Police State"

Hiibel v. Nevada
And for the record, I disagree with the ruling of the Supremely Idiotic Kourt.  At least with the 5-4 majority.  The dissenters are correct.  How can we allow these corporate politically appointees to screw us over by a "vote" of 5 to 4?  Rhetorical question.  Despite some of the good things in this case, it still represents an erosion of Liberties.
Peace, but keep your powder dry.
I remain, yours,
Pro Libertate Patriae,
"For the Liberty of My Country"
Michael James Anthony
"History interposes with evidence that tyranny and wrong lead inevitably to decay; that freedom and right, however hard may be the struggle, always prove resistless." 
--George Bancroft, Statesman and Historian (1800-1891)
(This email was sent by River Eyes)