Saturday, January 01, 2000
How to Insulate Yourself from Informants
with total impunity from law enforcement
Living in a country that respects the rule of law, we are blessed in the sense that our agents of "law enforcement" are bound to follow the law themselves.
Sadly, few people understand this, and many citizens willingly allow themselves to be victimized by illegal law enforcement activity.
Amongst the many useful facets of our legal system lies the binding nature of notarized sworn statements.
In short, any person who pays a fee, and applies for a license can become a notary public, and can thus notarize legally binding sworn statements that carry the weight of perjury for any individual that willfully violates their sworn oath in said statement.
The upshot of all this is that any person who doesn't care to be lied to can have themselves made a notary public and compel any individual to make a legally binding sworn statement.
What follows is that no law enforcement officer can lie under oath, and so any pay rolled informant can be automatically neutralized by forcing them to swear that they are not acting as an agent of any law enforcement agency. (this being very separate from the ability of agents to LIE while doing their jobs, which they most certainly can do.)
What is unknown about this method is whether or not a non law enforcement informant could lie in a sworn statement and still have their testimony be admissible in court.
I am not a lawyer, and I lack the resources to have this question considered by a legal professional, but my guess would be that the courts wouldn't really care, and as long as the informant was acting of his own volition when he swore that he wasn't a law enforcement agent, his testimony would still be admissible, even if he had committed a crime in the course of witnessing the acts that he was testifying to.
A few suggestions for any sworn statement along these lines:
I am not an employee or agent of any government agency, or an employee of any organization, or corporation, or contracted individual working on the behalf of any government organization.
I do not have on my person any device capable of recording or transmiting any record or representation of my actions or experiences, whether they be audio, video, or location, or any other information about my actions, and to the best of my knowledge no other individual is employing any device that could record or transmit information about my location, conversations, or audio or visual recordings of my activities, or any other records of my actions.
I have no knowledge whatsoever and am in no way a part of any investigation or inquiry - whether it be initiated by a government agency or private organization or individual - with __NAME__ as its subject or target.
I swear that I will not relay, repeat, or re transmit in any form, whether it be electronic, verbal, written, or other, any record, summary, or record of any transpiring communication, act, or event between myself and __NAME__.
****I AM NOT A LAWYER. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. THIS IS NOTHING BUT IDLE SPECULATION.****
Living in a country that respects the rule of law, we are blessed in the sense that our agents of "law enforcement" are bound to follow the law themselves.
Sadly, few people understand this, and many citizens willingly allow themselves to be victimized by illegal law enforcement activity.
Amongst the many useful facets of our legal system lies the binding nature of notarized sworn statements.
In short, any person who pays a fee, and applies for a license can become a notary public, and can thus notarize legally binding sworn statements that carry the weight of perjury for any individual that willfully violates their sworn oath in said statement.
The upshot of all this is that any person who doesn't care to be lied to can have themselves made a notary public and compel any individual to make a legally binding sworn statement.
What follows is that no law enforcement officer can lie under oath, and so any pay rolled informant can be automatically neutralized by forcing them to swear that they are not acting as an agent of any law enforcement agency. (this being very separate from the ability of agents to LIE while doing their jobs, which they most certainly can do.)
What is unknown about this method is whether or not a non law enforcement informant could lie in a sworn statement and still have their testimony be admissible in court.
I am not a lawyer, and I lack the resources to have this question considered by a legal professional, but my guess would be that the courts wouldn't really care, and as long as the informant was acting of his own volition when he swore that he wasn't a law enforcement agent, his testimony would still be admissible, even if he had committed a crime in the course of witnessing the acts that he was testifying to.
A few suggestions for any sworn statement along these lines:
I am not an employee or agent of any government agency, or an employee of any organization, or corporation, or contracted individual working on the behalf of any government organization.
I do not have on my person any device capable of recording or transmiting any record or representation of my actions or experiences, whether they be audio, video, or location, or any other information about my actions, and to the best of my knowledge no other individual is employing any device that could record or transmit information about my location, conversations, or audio or visual recordings of my activities, or any other records of my actions.
I have no knowledge whatsoever and am in no way a part of any investigation or inquiry - whether it be initiated by a government agency or private organization or individual - with __NAME__ as its subject or target.
I swear that I will not relay, repeat, or re transmit in any form, whether it be electronic, verbal, written, or other, any record, summary, or record of any transpiring communication, act, or event between myself and __NAME__.
****I AM NOT A LAWYER. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. THIS IS NOTHING BUT IDLE SPECULATION.****
