Would you PRINT THIS on a CARD, and give it to a policy enforcer who's hassling you?
"Well, officer, .. a crime requires an injured party. Seeing that there isn't one, I can only assume that you're attempting to manufacture my consent to contract with the STATE's corporate POLICY in order to generate revenue as part of a racketeering scam.
Therefore I REQUIRE the following:
1) Your NAME or Badge number: ______________________________________
2) The NAME of the company that you work for: ____________________________
3) The NAME of the Real Party in Interest: ________________________________
4) Your authorization to act on behalf of said Party: __________________________
And only then I will be willing to identify myself, although I might do that sooner if I feel threatened by your weapons and history of the policy enforcers to abuse their authority."
And obviously, since Public Policy is CORPORATE "LAW", finding out exactly WHO is the source of the authority that the cop asserts, should be your RIGHT. I.e. you gotta first IDENTIFY the party who claims authority over you. Only sheeple automatically ASSUME that a man in a uniform has authority over them.
I mean, it's all COMMERCE since there's no real money in circulation, and in commerce even the DEBTOR is entitled to certain defenses, such as to identify the PERSON making a presentment, identify the INSTRUMENT that created the liability, and identify the CREDITOR or Holder in Due Course.
“A real party in interest is the person or entity whose rights are involved and stands to gain from a lawsuit or petition even though the plaintiff who filed suit is someone else, often called a "nominal" plaintiff. It is the person who will be entitled to benefits of a court action if successful; one who is actually and substantially interested in the subject matter, as opposed to one who has only a nominal, formal, or technical interest in or connection with it. It may be broadly defined as someone who may be adversely affected by the relief sought or the person or entity entitled to the benefits if the action is successful.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), FRCP 17(a) provides that "every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest", so that the named plaintiff must have, under the governing substantive law, the right sought to be enforced. “
BTW, here’s what most cops are. Basically they’re employees of MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS with power to carry guns and make arrests. Also, at least here in Cali, they don’t swear to uphold the Constitution (except the Chief of Police). I mean why would they, they’re enforcing the STATE’s Public POLICY, not Public Law.
And cops only have jurisdiction WITHIN the muni corporation (i.e. the CITY OF XYZ) they work for. In UNINCORPORATED areas, there are no cops and only highway patrol and the sheriff has jurisdiction there. Of course COUNTIES are also MUNI corporations, so it's all corporate "authority" that they're asserting. I.e. there has to be a CONTRACT, since otherwise corporations have no authority over men and women.
And of course the contract they're secretly claiming is US citizenship and CITY/COUNTY/STATE residency.
Definition from Florida Statutes:
“ 943.10 Definitions; ss. 943.085-943.255.—The following words and phrases as used in ss.943.085-943.255 are defined as follows:
(1) “Law enforcement officer” means any person who is elected, appointed, or employed full time by any municipality or the state or any political subdivision thereof; who is vested with authority to bear arms and make arrests; and whose primary responsibility is the prevention and detection of crime or the enforcement of the penal, criminal, traffic, or highway laws of the state. This definition includes all certified supervisory and command personnel whose duties include, in whole or in part, the supervision, training, guidance, and management responsibilities of full-time law enforcement officers, part-time law enforcement officers, or auxiliary law enforcement officers but does not include support personnel employed by the employing agency.”
Oh and when dealing with policy enforcers, smart people first ask "Am I being Detained?", since cops often ask questions in order to get a reasonable suspicion of some violation. Nowadays even refusing a question can be considered as an admission of guilt if you don't first assert your 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. And of course if he refuses to answer, I'd say "I'll take that as a NO and will be leaving".