It's become apparent to me that there are far too many "law officers" who feel that their jurisdictional authority is somehow arbitrary in nature. They neglect to recognize that this "government" is a representative one, requiring the consent of the people. These same officers seem to have developed a God complex which gets exacerbated when they are simply questioned by a "person" whom they have detained, oftentimes for matters that can't reasonably be considered to be unlawful acts - such as fishing without a license (permission), which amounts to an infraction of "contractual obligations" under the statute, often remedied by the paying of monies. The officer, who determines that their authority is being challenged by the person ultimately becomes frustrated, loses their patience, concocts an additional charge, such as refusing to identify their person, and places said person under false arrest, and all as the result of the person insisting that the officer actually establish jurisdictional authority, and not merely assume it. Sadly, this sort of situation could really only have been avoided by a clear headed officer who understood fully the difference between laws and statutes, and also that their strict adherence to the law is required by the people, and comes well before the enforcement of any statutes.

The enforcement of statues arise out of contractual obligations between two consenting persons, both of which understand fully the language and terms of the contract to be enforced. In order to fully comprehend the negligence involved in merely assuming that a lawful contractual obligation is in effect, one must understand that under the statute there are two distinct persons. The first person is a human being, even despite the fact that legalese does not define a human being. The second person is defined as a corporation, or, legal fiction, and "law dictionaries" (legalese) are completely devoted to defining and controlling legal fictions. Every Americans legal fiction (societal vehicle) is created via the name on the birth certificate ("contract"), and since legal fictions are created by human beings for the purpose of society, we can only reasonably assume that humans are in control of their legal fictions, except of course when they are not. And human beings are not in control of their legal fictions when they are systematically led to believe that they ARE their legal fiction, thereby, their corporation controls them, as they unwittingly waive their human rights over to the corporate officer who falsely establishes jurisdiction via "implied consent" (silence).

Simply stated, corporate persons attain false jurisdiction over other corporate persons via a manipulative statutory mechanism which depends on the conscious mind of the human staying out of the loop. It's an ugly scenario, and one which can't be given the force of law, as relying on a persons ignorance for the purpose of forcing them into commercial activity is clearly unlawful.

Under the statute, law officers have a legal duty and responsibility to act in good faith with those who pay their salary and tell the truth, or else they are negligent at the very least, and forfeit the jurisdictional authority which they've been given by the people, to uphold and enforce the law. And officers who are knowingly misleading are committing the crime of fraud and should not be in a position to arrest anyone, ever. Unfortunately, I know plenty who are.

CORRECTION:This column was initially and mistakenly attributed to Warren Patrick. In fact, it was written by Mary Thomson. We apologize for the error.