Terminology For Non-Compliance.

THERE HAS BEEN MANY CASES where innocent people have found themselves, through no fault of their own, entangled in the vague, cynical and anti-transparent mess of victimless crime laws or unlawful police conduct. Police officers use what I call slight of hand techniques to make unlawful, unethical or immoral arrests.

Let us look at the three categories of consequence:

Unlawful arrest: A police officer is obligated to know what he is enforcing, if the detainee makes a impromptu legal challenge against the law the police officer is enforcing, than the officer must inform his boss that the detainee makes a legitimate case as to why he should not be arrested and charged. When a police officer is met with the legal challenge, he cannot reply with the worn out excuse in which he states “I am just following orders” because his orders do not supersede the law. If police officer uses this excuse against the detainee to halt the legal challenge, than the detainee must demand to speak with the person that has given the officer his marching orders. For instance, if a police officer says you must give him your identification, you must make reference to public law which is designed to deal with relations between the public and the police. The officer, under the banner of public law, must provide sufficient reasonable suspicion as to why he suspects person X of having nefarious intentions.

The ID-and-arrest scheme has become popular technique for American and Canadian police especially in a time of lawless “emergency measure” enforcement. The police use pseudo-emergency legislation(which is just subordinate/arbitrary/fake legislation made by the executive branch) to justify giving people a ticket. If you fail to provide your information so that the police can write you a ticket, than you will be arrested for obstruction. In this situation the police officer must provide you with sufficient reason as to why he suspects you of breaking the law AND must explain the difference between suggestions and laws. Real laws are, to an extent, fixed(i.e. natural laws) whereas emergency orders are arbitrary and constrained by constitutional and civil liberty law. Civil liberties are a set of fundamental principles which govern a civilized society to ensure that law enforcement officer do not excessively adhere to unjust or unconstitutional federal laws which come from the “top” as it were. Civil rights must not only be explained to the constable(the lowest rank) but also to the higher ranks as the detainee must demand to speak to a supervisor or higher.

The aspect of law which is particularly relevant to today is procedural fairness. The Toronto police have broken, on numerous occasions the Estoppel doctrine where they allowed an “illegal” anti emergency lockdown protests to take place every weekend for a year up until January of the new year. The police were constrained by our constitutional right to assemble and protest but then, by no specified or valid justification, became unconstrained by sheer political caprice which was reminiscent of last year when the police all across Canada allowed railways to be illegally blockaded. When the police can become politicized at the flick of a switch, so to speak, they are no longer credible and continuously corresponds to the civil libertarian axiom that no government service can match the quality of what the private sector offers.

Adjudicating these matters within the confines of administrative law, which deals with agencies, boards, commissions and tribunals(all apart of the machinery of government) is inadequate as these sectors can only deal with individual disputes which cannot supersede legislation. Societal change can only be accomplished by challenging the validity of the law, not by the nicheness of what tribunals deal with. Administrative law waters down liberty through a simulation of justice; that is to say, the various machines of government have created their own in-house courts within each machine to ensure that disputants do not question the necessity of the whole commission existing to begin with. Commissions who present themselves as a legitimate facet of law have the ability to be opportunistic as they subservient to government virtue signaling(i.e. Human Rights Commissions decreeing what the limits of free speech are as exposed by former lawyer Ezra Levant(2008)).

If a police officer looks to arrest you on behalf of a Human Rights Commission, they you must inform the officer(and his superiors) that commissions, boards and tribunals are not courts of law and that the arrest will be unlawful. Back in 2002, Alberta farmers were arrested for selling their own wheat to the US even though they were not breaking any particular trade law, they were only laws made by the wheat board-in other words, fake laws designed to intimidate and build revenue for government). I label these former wheat laws as fake because they had no epistemic justification for their existence. Who is better at marketing their wheat? At monopoly or a life long entrepreneur and farmer? Obviously the farmer knows his market best, so why threaten the farmer with fines and imprisonment if the board was created to help farmers with marketing? The actions they take contradict their purpose as is the case with all government commissions.

If you are threatened(in Ontario)with arrest for not taking a “mandatory” PCR test to find out if you have Covid(even though you have no symptoms), then you must tell the officer that it not only violates your mobility rights and bioethical medical autonomy, but that there is no legislation full stop! No police officer discretion supersedes the official law. If the officer ends up arresting you, then violates law, ethics and morality.

Ethics: When an officer takes his political policing hat off and puts his human hate on, he has the ability to make ethical decisions under the word “discretion”. He practice what I call covert non-compliance in which the dissenting officer appears to enforce political non laws, but does not actually enforce them. If the entire police force were to practice this subtle form of dissent, than there would be a gradual revolution against an unjust law as politicians are powerless without their (illegal) enforcers.

Morality: Most rational people believe that punishing people for victimless crimes is cruel and unproductive in improving the persons (say drug) problem. It is believe that the current problem of political/selective policing is the result of the victimless crime scheme which has seen increased funding for the police to enforce all these implicitly anti common law non-crimes. If the police disavow normative morals for a mere payment, than society must form its own institutions to address the immorality of victimless crime laws in order to instill new moral norms into society. This would form a populist non- compliance that would eventually force change-tightening the blindfold around Lady Justice.

If you are approached by a particularly vile police officer, then you must find legitimate excuses to render your interaction with him obsolete and consensual.

  1. Ask the officer if the conversation is consensual. If he does not answer, then you must leave immediately before the confrontation escalates. If he attempts to touch you, then threaten him with a private lawsuit against him as an individual not the police. An individual prosecution bypasses qualified immunity.
  2. State that you are a process server and then ask if you are free to go. If you know there will be a large police presence at event X then you should carry the legal document, which does not have to be your own, with you. It would be best to contact your local independent journalist on the matter of unwarranted police harassment. Local journalist Kevin J Johnston of Mississauga(Greater Toronto Area) is the leading proponent of this technique and among other techniques which render by-laws irrelevant.
  3. If you remain silent and continue walking, a vile police officer may use the tiniest bit of wisdom left in him not to look suspicious even though he wants to accuse you of being suspicious without cause. If the officer becomes increasingly agitated at you not complying when you have not done anything to look suspicious, then his body camera will make him look like a full blown criminal. If he gets a hold of you, than you can charge him with assault.
  4. Use reverse psychology by telling the officer he is committing a crime and that you are upholding the law. You can use the absurdity of an unjust law against the officer who wants to provoke you(i.e. you are acting dis-orderly officer).
  5. Use misdirection by stating by changing the topic whilst using equivocal and opaque language(never getting to the main point). Using verbal misdirection techniques are ideal if the police officers mother tongue is not English.
  6. If you state that you are with the media, you do not have to provide credentials as anyone can be a journalist. Basically, if you record something you are a journalist. If, for instance, you are on a “illegal” beach which has been closed by the city, than you can say that you are with the media and that you are working on a geographical website which takes relevant pictures to record the contemporary conditions of the area. The more technical or obscure the explanation, the more credible it sounds.





I am a lay libertarian, bioethicist, writer, philosopher, alternative health and reform advocate and more.

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.

Recommended from Medium

Living in Deportation’s Shadow: How One Los Angeles Charter School Grapples With Immigration…

Coronavirus Panic Buying – Shame on us?! No, Shame on the Government

City Council Approves Legislation Providing Free Access to City Pools; Outlines Upcoming Budget…

Donald Trump Starts To Dismantle the GOP

Who Cares?

Tech Breakup Coming? 💻


What to expect when you’re expecting Comey

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Luke "Lantern" Thompson

Luke "Lantern" Thompson

I am a lay libertarian, bioethicist, writer, philosopher, alternative health and reform advocate and more.

More from Medium

Luca Review

A Mothering Adventure — in three parts

The Pessimist Hope in “A Short Film About Killing”

My Soul Is Made Of Music