How to Combat the Political Police

Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

Appendix Five

Your Legal Rights

[This section is a reproduction of an article written by Ron Owen, editor of Lock, Stock and Barrel - a patriotic magazine (see Lock, Stock and Barrel, No. 26, pp. 42-43). While this is printed as being of general interest to Nationalists, its publication here should not be inferred as implying any connection to, nor is any comment is offered regarding, Ron Owen or Lock, Stock and Barrel.]

Introduction

For many reasons, we at Lock, Stock and Barrel talk to the police or government officials when they come to the place of business during business hours. I would not necessarily have the same point of view if they approached a residence where a family was situated. The best advice, without doubt, when realising that police or members of the many security forces are in the vicinity of your home, is to immediately locate your pocket tape recorder, start it up and keep it on your person. Find a camera, and start taking photographs of the government intruders and their means of transport. If you have a video camera, use that as the number one preference. Get other family members to make phone calls to your friends and neighbours and tell them to get over to your place with their cameras and recorders. If the phones have been cut off use any other means of communication.

Confront first

The head of the household must then confront the security forces at the front gate or the front door, but certainly at the earliest opportunity. Ask them who they are and get someone to write their names down. Then ask them if they have a warrant to search the premises or to arrest anybody, and if they say "No" immediately tell them in no uncertain terms that it is private property (even if you rent, it is your domicile - it is the same).

Tell them that any licence to walk up your path or driveway has been removed, that they are trespassing, and that they must leave immediately. If they don't leave, call the police or your local security firm. If they say only want to ask questions, tell them to put them in writing and you will have your solicitors answer them. You do not have to talk to them!

Record everything

In all circumstances, there is no advantage for you to talk to police or government security agents. They will always record everything that you say to them and use those tapes to pressure others into talking to them, and try to put everyone's collective words against some other poor unfortunate.

If they do not leave and want to search or ask questions of you, yet do not show you warrants, you are within your common-law rights to reasonable resistance.

If they have a warrant, ask to see it. Write down the details of it, the date it was issued, by whom it was issued, why it was issued, and what it allows them to do. Photograph it, record yourself reading it. More than likely it will be the last time you see it until you subpoena it for court, so get the information.

Never ask them into your home - if you do so, they do not need a search warrant. Basically, if you ask them in, they can do what they like. If they break in, they are committing an offence. If they come through an open door tell them in no uncertain terms to remove themselves, remind them that they have not been invited and that they are trespassing.

Watch green fingers, planting could occur!

If they have warrants and they appear to be in order, unless they are for your arrest they, cannot dictate your movement. Ensure that you watch where they search, make sure that they do not plant anything. Take photographs, film, or record them at all times, or just keep notes on a piece of paper. Have your other family members phone solicitors and/or friends and get them to come over as soon as possible, even if it is 5.00am. Ask them to come and help watch the police search, or even just to come and watch the police. Every set of eyes is important, every witness is important!

Always do the unexpected

If they ask you or your partner to go somewhere else and answer questions in private, refuse, stay and watch. Remember you are dealing with a known criminal organisation which has another known criminal organisation called the CJC watching them! So, watch and record! Tell them that you will be suing them for damages, defamation of character, harassment, discrimination of your political and/or religious beliefs, and invasion of privacy.

Think of where you are going to draw the line before beginning violence against them, but do not show it in any way or discuss it. It is definitely not an option when the ball is in their court. Randy Weaver fought them off when he got his house call; but he lost his wife, his baby, his son and his best friend. Okay, he got $3 million compensation, but shoot-outs on the home turf are not good logic in any book. Remember what Sun Tzu said: "Always do the unexpected".

Legal decisions

Here are a few legal decisions from the courts on the subject of "an Englishman's home is his castle", taken from the High Court decision Dillon v Plenty dated 20/21 August 1990. In that particular case, the respondent Mr Desmond, received over $1 million compensation from the police for trespassing on his property as they tried to serve a summons. He actually struck one of the policeman with a piece of wood. The starting point is the judgement of Lord Carrington LCJ in Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1029 at 1066:

So be it - unless he has justification by law.
Trespassing

And in Halliday v Nevill (1984) 155 CLR 1, Brennan J said

"The principle applies alike to officers of government and to private persons. A police officer who enters or remains on private property without the leave and licence of the person in possession or entitled to possession commits a trespass and acts outside the course of his duty unless his entering or remaining on the premises is authorised or excused by law." The proposition that any person who "set(s) his foot upon my ground without my licence... is liable to an action" in trespass is qualified by exceptions both at common law and by statute.

The scope of the third rule in Semayne's Case is stated in Tomlin's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1835), Vol 1, tit Execution, III.

"It is laid down as a general rule in our books, that the sheriff, in executing any judicial writ,cannot break open the door of a dwelling-house; this privilege, which the law allows to a man's habitation, arises from the great regard the law has to every man's safety and quiet, and therefore protects them from the inconveniences which must necessarily attend an unlimited power in the sheriff and his officers in this respect; hence, every man's house is called his castle". 5 Co 9l: 3 Inst 162: Moor 668: Yelv 28: Cro Eliz 908: Dalt Shar 350. Halliday v Nevill (1984) 155 CLR 1 at 10. Except in the cases provided for by the common law, and by statute, constables of police and those acting under the Crown have no special right to enter land.

Power to enter

In Robson v Hallet (1967) 2 QB 939, Lord Parker CJ said (at 951):

"The occupier of any dwelling-house gives implicit licence to any member of the public coming on his lawful business to come through the gate, up the steps, and knock on the door of the house". This implied licence extends to the driveway of a dwelling-house. However, the licence may be withdrawn giving notice of its withdrawal. A person who enters or remains on property after the withdrawal of the licence is a trespasser.

In Davis v Lisle (1936) 2 KB 434, police officers who had lawfully entered a garage for the purpose of making inquiries were held to have become trespassers by remaining in the garage after they were told by the proprietor to "get outside". The common law has a number of exceptions to the general rule that a person is a trespasser unless that person enters premises with the consent, express or implied, of the occupier. Thus, constable or citizen can enter premises for the purpose of making an arrest if a felony has been committed and the felon has been followed to the premises. A constable or citizen can also enter premises to prevent the commission of a felony, and a constable can enter premises to arrest an offender running away from an affray. Moreover, a constable or citizen can enter premises to prevent a murder occurring. In these cases there is power not only to enter premises but, where necessary, to break into the premises.

A number of statutes also confer power to enter land or premises without the consent of the occupier. But the presumption is that, in the absence of express provision to the contrary, the legislature did not intend to authorise what would otherwise be tortuous conduct: Morris v Beardmore, per Lord Diplock, at 455. Thus, in Colet v The Queen (1981) 1 SCR 2, the Supreme Court of Canada held that legislation which authorised the issue of a warrant for "the seizure of any firearm" in the possession. custody, or control of a person did not authorise entry onto and the searching of the premises of that person named in the warrant. In Clowser v Chaplin (1981) 1 WLR 837; (1981) 2 All ER 267, the House of Lords held that a legislative power, authorising a constable to arrest without warrant a person who had refused to provide a specimen of breath, did not authorise him to enter private premises, without the permission of the occupier, for the purpose of making the arrest.

The general policy of the law is against government officials having rights of entry on private property without the permission of the occupier, and nothing concerned with the service of a summons gives any ground for creating a new exception to the general rule that entry on property without the express or implied consent of the occupier is a trespass.

The right to damages

In Dillon v Plenty they entered as police officers with all the power of the State behind them, knowing that their entry was against the wish of the appellant. The first and second respondents had no right to enter his land. The appellant was entitled to resist their entry. If the occupier of property has a right not to be unlawfully invaded, then, as Mr Geoffrey Samuel has pointed out in another context, the "right must be supported by an effective sanction otherwise the term will be just meaningless rhetoric". "The Right Approach?" (1980) 96 Law Quarterly Review 12 at 14, cited by Lord Edmund Davies in Morris v Beardmore, at 461: "If the courts of common law do not uphold the rights of individuals by granting effective remedies, they invite anarchy, for nothing breeds social disorder as quickly as the sense of injustice which is apt to be generated by the unlawful invasion of a person's rights, particularly when the invader is a government official. The appellant is entitled to have his right of property vindicated by a substantial award of damages".

How to Combat the Political Police
Australian Nationalism Information Database - www.ausnatinfo.angelfire.com/~natinfo