The Oath of the Police

[danster82]

UK Police Officers oath which is referred to as the "Attestation"

All UK Police Officers swear this "Attestation"

"I, .. .. of .. .. do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."

I dont really like this Oath its too ambiguous, Firstly it shouldnt be serve the queen with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality but serve the people.

Also what does "discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law." mean, does legal fit into this? Law is literally an undefinable term.

The most usful part for us imo is "upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property"

As if they argue they are serving the queen or discharing duties according to law they should not beable to do these two without breaking human rights, and with equal respect to all people, infact equal respect to all people as part of the oath would by definition mean the part given to to the queen is also give to all people....

[tien an]

UK Police Officers oath which is referred to as the "Attestation"

All UK Police Officers swear this "Attestation"

"I, .. .. of .. .. do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."

I dont really like this Oath its too ambiguous, Firstly it shouldnt be serve the queen with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality but serve the people.

Also what does "discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law." mean, does legal fit into this? Law is literally an undefinable term.

The most usful part for us imo is "upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property"

As if they argue they are serving the queen or discharing duties according to law they should not beable to do these two without breaking human rights, and with equal respect to all people, infact equal respect to all people as part of the oath would by definition mean the part given to to the queen is also give to all people....

"serve the Queen in the office of constable"
Does this not mean, given that the Queen is his ultimate 'boss' that he serves her?
(I mean, we the public don't employ him directly, do we?)

"with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people;"
I think this bit belongs together and is coherent.

"and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."
...and here's the job description...

The only word I take exception to is "people". That, IMHO, is ambiguous, particularly since we find it in the same sentence as 'human'.
(But I might just be splitting hairs here...)

The rest of it seems ok; what can you see that I can't?

tian an.

[tom bombadil]

UK Police Officers oath which is referred to as the "Attestation"

All UK Police Officers swear this "Attestation"

"I, .. .. of .. .. do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."

I dont really like this Oath its too ambiguous, Firstly it shouldnt be serve the queen with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality but serve the people.

Also what does "discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law." mean, does legal fit into this? Law is literally an undefinable term.

The most usful part for us imo is "upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property"

As if they argue they are serving the queen or discharing duties according to law they should not beable to do these two without breaking human rights, and with equal respect to all people, infact equal respect to all people as part of the oath would by definition mean the part given to to the queen is also give to all people....

Attestation=To witness this oath.
Oath=An official oath is one taken by an officer when he assumes charge of his office, whereby he declares that he will faithfully discharge the duties of the same, or whatever else may be required by statute in the particular case.
to the best of my power=Is a get out clause for any copper.
Offence(s)=Crime or misdemeanor; a breach of the criminal law.
Crime=Go here.... http://www.blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/1/C/c-0301.jpg too long to type!
misdemeanor=Lesser crime.
..the criminal law=Duties not to be crossed.
...I will to the best of my skill and knowledge...=A get in clause for us as we knowingly educate them after they have arrested the 'criminal. In otherwords it is up to them to the best of their power (works for us too!) to look into what you say.

It all boils down to the free man not being concerned with 'bobbies' other than if they wish for them to keep the peace. This is the role of constable, we respect that one. The rest is not of this world.


Nelly.

[yozhik]

This oath/attestation was analysed previously on this forum.
It also raised some interesting questions re: "constable" and the description thereof.

Would be worth referencing again.

[tom bombadil]

Do we know where?

[theoneandonly]

Saw this on tpuc.org...... sorry if its tooo long! :)

http://www.tpuc.org/content/office-constable-explained

At this point I would like to publish the Oath that all Policemen and Policewomen swear in this country (PCSO’s etc do not swear an Oath as TPUC has confirmed many times) – the Oath is known as the “Attestation” in the force and it goes like this!

Its printed here:-

http://www.policesupers.com/default.asp?id=144&name=Oath%20of%20Attestation&page=Home

" I . . . . . of . . . . . do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the
Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding
fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."

So looking at that Oath I see that it speaks only of “serving the queen in the office of Constable”

So lets look up the definition of a Constable: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c289.htm

CONSTABLE - An officer, generally elected by the people, who possesses power as a conservator of the peace at common law, and by virtue of various legislative enactments.

He may therefore apprehend a supposed offender without a warrant, as treason, felony, breach of the peace, and for some misdemeanours less than felony, when committed in his view. He may also arrest a supposed offender upon the information of others but he does so at his peril, unless he can show that a felony has been committed by some person, as well as the reasonableness of the suspicion that the party arrested is guilty. He has power to call others to his assistance or he may appoint a deputy to do ministerial acts.

A constable is also a ministerial officer, bound to obey the warrants and precepts of justices, coroners and sheriffs. Constables are also in some states bound to execute the warrants and process of justices of the peace in civil cases.

In England, they have many officers with more or less power, who bear the name of constables; such as, lord high constable of England, high constable, head constables, petty constables, constables of castles, constables of the tower, constables of the fees, constable of the exchequer, constable of the staple, etc.

In some of the cities of the United States there are officers called high constables, who are the principal police officers where they reside.

Blimey ... thats interesting! Lets take a closer look at this then ...

So we see that a “Constable” is “an officer, generally elected by the people”?

I would love to know if there is common law or old law that confirms that every Police Constable has to be elected by the people, if this is true then it means overnight that every Policeman and Police woman in the land is UNELECTED and therefore is NOT a Constable! Ooh somebody please tell me its true!

We go on ...

“who possesses power as a conservator of the peace at common law”

Hot damn – there it is in Black and White that a Constable is responsible primarily for upholding the peace under COMMON LAW.

Also take a look at the Attestation published earlier, it says ...

“I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property;”

So even in the Oath the Constable took he confirmed that he himself/ she herself had the job of keeping the peace and preventing offences against people and property, in other words, preventing “Harm or Loss” under common law.

Also, the definition of Constable goes on to say:-

“and by virtue of various legislative enactments”

Well, as we have all learned I am sure, “Statute / Leglislation are merely a set of rules given the FORCE of law by the consent of the governed”

So even though the Definition says “by various legislative enactments” those very legislative enactments are impotent unless we give our consent to be governed by them. I certainly don’t!

You will also notice that the Attestation sworn by Constable says this;-

“and that while I continue to hold the said office I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.”

Its says ... “ACCORDING TO LAW!”

Statue and legislation is NOT law! Merely a set of rules (not law) given the FORCE of law (same power as if law SUBJECT TO) by the CONSENT (means agreement and recognition of that FORCE of law) of the GOVERNED (by you and without which the FORCE of law does not apply).

NOWHERE, I Repeat NOWHERE in the Attestation (Oath) of a Constable does it mention or speak of STATUTE or LEGISLATION! Therefore by default no single Police Constable in this land has agreed to uphold Statute / leglislation in their Oath.

Its interesting that in the USA there are some people now confronting Police officers and putting them on notice of their Oaths the uphold the LAW (Not Statute / Legislation) I have links to videos on Youtube of this happening if you need them.
I digress, lets get back to the definition of a Constable where it says;-

“He may also arrest a supposed offender upon the information of others but he does so at his peril, unless he can show that a felony has been committed by some person, as well as the reasonableness of the suspicion that the party arrested is guilty.”

WOW!!!! ... so from what I am reading here is that there is a price to pay if a Constable makes an arrest without being able to show that a felony has been committed along with the reasonableness of the suspicion that the arrested party is guilty.

I am now going to start researching the office of Constable in great detail if it means we can hold these Peace officers to account in the event that they try to enforce their corporate statutes upon us in blind disregard to common law.

I just found this in respect of UK common law:-

http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/arrested_rights/common_law.html

I am amazed by this line:

Common Law:

Cannot be stopped by police officer unless there is an intention to arrest. Citizens have no duty to answer questions. Rice v Connoly 1966 QB: cannot arrest for refusal to answer questions and no legal duty to accompany police officers.

Ergo, next time I get stopped I will let the constable know that I have no legal duty to go with him!

I feel a lot more reading is required on this subject, the office of Constable is an ancient and honourable office that has been twisted and abused by the Corporate governance machine and its time we took the office back for ourselves.

I will keep you all updated as I find out more! I Don’t know it all and if any of you feel like helping me out with knowledge then please email me via the TPUC.org site.

“Keep ‘em peeled”



These are not my words but from... http://www.tpuc.org/content/office-constable-explained

[rosix]

I would personally refrain from referring to myself as a citizen or responding to being addressed as such

[tien an]

Saw this on tpuc.org...... sorry if its tooo long! :)



Ray: St.Clair

Hi Ray!
Nice to meet you.
(Congratulations on your recent court case).

tian an.

[bsmurph83]

I would personally refrain from referring to myself as a citizen or responding to being addressed as such

we, as living men and women, are in a foreign jurisdiction, are we not?

so yeh, we're not civilians, residents, locals and so on...

we're foreigners (to admiralty jurisdiction).

[theoneandonly]

Hi Ray!
Nice to meet you.
(Congratulations on your recent court case).

tian an.

Ohh no i am not Ray... far from it... being a female anyway :D

i just copied and pasted the whole article... and just realised he put his name at the bottom! Sorry for the confusion i will ammend post :p

[theoneandonly]

Just to confirm i am not Ray! ;)

[lightworks]

seeing as the queen is reptilian...who gives a Phuck.....I feel that I have infinite soul power...andthe police are just a refelction of a mind programming that i used to be subject to.....irpoetect myself and am surroiunded by the light...fuck em...

[yozhik]

seeing as the queen is reptilian...who gives a Phuck.....I feel that I have infinite soul power...andthe police are just a refelction of a mind programming that i used to be subject to.....irpoetect myself and am surroiunded by the light...fuck em...

I have a hard enough time getting my two year old to accept the concept of "poop in potty" and that's a dog - woof woof, THAT'S a cat - meow meow ...

I think I'll leave the "Queenie is a lizard" thing until a little later ...

[lightworks]

I have a hard enough time getting my two year old to accept the concept of "poop in potty" and that's a dog - woof woof, THAT'S a cat - meow meow ...

I think I'll leave the "Queenie is a lizard" thing until a little later ...
but manychildren haveeyes tosee these thingsfriend....i did at ten or eleven years old