Saturday, 18 June 2016

Do's and Don'ts in dealing with "Officials"

Once people start to wake up a bit and begins to see Banks, Police, Lawyers, Courts, Tax Offices, registration Offices, Councils and the Government, as more than just honourable people doing "What is best for our society", some get an urge to challenge the system.

I hope to give some advice on how to do this without getting yourself in too much trouble, as well as doing it fairly effectively.

This will just be some simple principles that can be applied anywhere, and no legal mumbo jumbo.

First I want to stress the fact that we will never deal directly with the people causing whatever we are not happy about. We will be dealing with some poor soul who is just "doing my job" and getting paid for the time he or she puts in. It is nothing personal, so do not make it so, and do not be unpleasant or disrespectful to these people.

I am sure you have noticed that when people treat you like shit, your willingness to be accommodating or helpful, goes out the window.  Treat others like you would like them to treat you.

Then you need to know that "The facts are on the moon".  It is next to impossible to prove anything. Have you ever tried to prove to a very religious person that "God does not exist" or if you are religious, prove to an atheist that "God exists"?  Any luck with that?

When we are dealing with things like "Law", "Regulations", "Money", "Tax", etc understand that we are dealing with fictions. And if you play around in this field for a little bit, you will soon come to realise that this whole society is nothing but a house of cards and it's rules and laws are not watertight, but rather so full of holes that a Swiss Cheese seems solid by comparison.

Therefore most things can be challenged in different ways.

The Systems only power is the convictions of some people that is is real, valid, just and legitimate. Some of these people will have uniforms and guns, or hold keys to cages with beds and toilets in them.  So in essence what we will run into is peoples beliefs regarding what we can and cannot do.

Since it is next to impossible to prove anything - do not make any statements or claim anything positively. Instead use the "innocent weapon of mass destruction" to achieve your goals - a question.

The question is an excellent method for staying out of any claim (where it could be demanded that You provide proof of your claim. Let your opponent do that instead) and lay the burden of proof upon your counterpart.

If you say "Well, the Government is not real. It's just a fiction of human imagination" then someone could say "Prove it!".
If you instead say "Could you please show me The Government? I would like to see what it looks like, what colour it has and what shape it is. I would like to know what it weighs, where exactly it stands, and to touch it." You will have to imagine the rest of this conversation. If one person tried to prove and the other just stayed in the question all the time, and presented any argument in the form of a question and demand of proof, it would soon be clear and maybe even admitted that the Government is not a part of the physical reality, but is a fiction.

If one cannot use a question, one can at least word things in such a way, that the burden of proof still rests upon the other one.  Don't say "I am not Mr. KENT BENGTSSON, I am a living breathing man and I am not liable for anything you claim Mr. KENT BENGTSSON has done".  Instead say something like "As I understand it, the accused in this matter, Mr. KENT BENGTSSON, is some kind of government created legal fiction or juristic person and not the living man you are speaking to now. I have seen no irrefutable proof that I acted in the capacity of this fiction at the time of the alleged contravention, and I believe no such proof exists.".  Again putting the burden of proof on them. Then maybe follow up with the question "Does anyone here, now in this room, have any such proof?" Give them three opportunities to provide it or forever hold their peace, and discharge the matter.

You will also find that people working for various official bodies will come up with all kinds of things you "must" do, or make claims as to how things are.  Just turn it all around on them and counter with something like "OK, I accept your statement - as long as you provide me with a written sworn statement that this is true, as well as a sworn promise that you in you full private capacity will be surety for that claim and compensate me for any loss or injury, should you in any way be wrong in your claim."  Then watch and see them go quiet.

I do not know how many times I have asked officials to guarantee something in that way. But I know how many have done it - NONE!  They know deep in their hearts that is all bullshit and that the facts are on the moon. They probably have enough shit on their plate in their job as it is, without now taking personal responsibility and liability for what they say or do

Another little "trick" is to avoid obeying a direct order. If a Policeman, Judge, security guard, etc. tells you to do something, such as "Step out of the car please", "Stand up",  "Show me some identification", it may become unpleasant if you just refuse, but if you comply, your compliance is likely to be interpreted as you voluntarily submitting yourself to their "authority". So you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.
A simple, gentle and honourable way to deal with such a situation, without giving away your sovereignty, is to ask them as if you did not hear their command "Would it be alright if I stepped out of the car?", "Do you mind if I stand up now?" or "Would you like to see my declaration of identity?".

That way you are not obeying their order, but rather, your own suggestion. Thus you have not given up your rights and independence. You stay in control of the conversation.  I think it was Brandon Adams of Creditors in Commerce that first came up with the observation that the word "Asking" can be split into two words "As" and "King". So when you ask the questions you are acting "as King" and you retain your sovereign position. Who answers questions? Subjects do.

Look at it as a kind of mental Judo. In Judo you take the force of the opponent and use it against him.

When you oppose, when you fight, you are trying to stop something coming at you. Which means you will be hit. Better to kind of step aside and let the blow miss you, while maybe you put a leg out and trip the attacker.  Do it with a friendly attitude and an honest smile on your face, addressing the man or woman behind the title - appealing to their humanity and good sense - and you may have gained a friend instead of a foe.

Hope this helps someone.

Here is an excellent example of how to apply the above. Note that he does not answer questions, but questions back. Also he does not attack the officers personally, just the stupidity they come up with.


  1. None of this works in family courts. They just tell lies and record what they want as the official version. That's why they don't allow the public in. That's why you cannot record or photograph what goes on there. That's why you will be arrested and imprisoned for contempt of court if you dare report what goes on there.
    Family courts, the gaunt anamorphic bay for millions of US citizens and their children.

  2. I know Family Court is very dishonourable.

    But I seem to remember that Karl Lenz had some success there as well as followers of him in the US and Canada, with a simple request done under Common Law. Search in YouTube on his name.

  3. I also remember that members of the Common Law Society in Ireland got their police to come in as witnesses to Court Hearings in Ireland, to verify that all was done properly. Maybe that could be arranged with family Courts.