• You trust a government to police itself and keep its power in check; and/or
  • You need someone to explain to you how “law enforcement officer” has become an expired title that needs to be replaced with “egomaniacal sociopath”; and/or
  • You don’t understand, even remotely, how the history of police brutality is disproportionately balanced because the prosecutors, judges and justices are in on this bullshit, and their only goal is to preserve the system, and the “appearance” of fairness, rather than actual fairness; and/or
  • You don’t see the gross unfairness in giving a paid vacation to a cop that has shot an unarmed victim, or body slammed an unarmed teenager, when if it were you or me, we’d be arrested, and left in jail to sort it out; and/or
  • You don’t see the problem with having corrupt judges with total immunity from accountability for their actions; and/or
  • You have a problem understanding why cops are shot on the street “for no reason” when the reasons abound ad nauseum; and/or
  • You don’t understand how the badge, and the acts of bad cops are fungible upon and with those cops that claim to be “good cops” (but do nothing to stop evil acts); and
  • You forget that there was a time when our forefathers grew tired of this same bullshit oppression, bullying, and constant threat, and they SHOT the motherfuckers who were the source, regardless of the “legality” of that outcome; and/or
  • You need a government to tell you what is morally and ethically right or wrong; and/0r
  • You passively agree that cops like the one in the story above are above reproach because they are just “doing their job”; and/or
  • You forget that you need no further permission than the Declaration of Independence that tells you that it is your right to throw off such a government; and/or
  • Throwing off an armed force doesn’t happen at a protest where tear gas, LRAD, riot police, dogs, rubber bullets, and SWAT are ready for your unarmed ass, or in a courtroom where a judge can hold you in “contempt” if you hurt their fragile egos, but rather on the street or in a driveway or in a shopping center parking lot where all of the above variables are reversed,

Then, by all means, keep going in the produce/consume cycle, and act as if nothing is wrong.

And, congratulations. You’re a total dumbass.

Decorative Scales of Justice in the Courtroom


More Suggestions For Copwatch Responses


Another guy I like as a cop watcher, is SAEXTAZYPREZ. The video I want to hopefully add some responses I would give is this video, and the police interaction picks up around 5:50

The videographer tells the cop first thing “I’m not armed”, and I see this as a positive.

Let me be clear. There IS a war going on with the civil rights of individuals. Cops are the enemy combatants. They don’t give a shit about your rights, and they want you to avoid exercising your rights. They’ll try any trick in the book to get you to believe that you have to abandon your rights. They’ll lie, intimidate with threats of jail, and they will get in your face while being armed (force).

To start the interaction off with a subjugation of “I’m not armed” means that the cop is acknowledged as having superior force, whether or not this is actually true. Most people just react in fear. A confident, but factual “I’m not armed” seems to be a reach for an even playing ground that is called “peace.”

“They’re just concerned about you filming the prison…” (5:58)

I would respond “Oh, they’re concerned about me exercising my rights?”

If the cop tried to get me to explain my rights, I would simply ask if the first amendment had been repealed…

“You’re kinda making some suspicious activity, you know what I mean?” (6:20)

In many of the cop watch videos that I’ve seen, cops are quick to allege that something the videographer is doing is “suspicious.” This, by itself is BULLSHIT.

The standard which a cop must meet to lawfully detain you, is to have a Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) that a crime is afoot (either being committed, or about to be committed).

I like to ask them “What is your reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is afoot?” 

If they allege that what I am doing is suspicious, I ask them again,  “What is your reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is afoot?” (And I emphasize “crime”).

Cops are taught distraction techniques. They may continue to allege that what I am doing is suspicious, and so, I ask them “how are my actions or demeanor criminal in nature?”

Another thing, the “you know what I mean?” is a NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) tool that uses hooks on the end of claims to gain acceptance and agreement. Another example of this would be to say “right?”.

The videographer gives an EXCELLENT answer “Suspicion of misdemeanor or felony?” BAM. That separates out “suspicious activity” from “suspicion of a crime”.

The cop quickly agrees “It’s not an offense.” BAM. That seals out the future chance of the cop alleging that RAS was present. He has NO legal ground to detain the videographer, but he’s free to keep questioning him.

Then the cop starts lying. “But it’s enough to detain you and try to figure out who you are.” (6:30)

This is a flat out lie. Suspicious activity is NOT Reasonable Articulable Suspicion that a crime is afoot. The cop just admitted there was no “offense”. So now the cop is lying and saying that it IS enough to detain the videographer, when this is legally and factually FALSE.

I’d remind him that he just admitted there was no offense, and I’d use NLP and say “Right?”

I’d ask:

“You just said there was no offense, right?”

“What gives you the right to detain someone? Is it Reasonable Articulable Suspicion that a crime is afoot, as established in Terry v. Ohio?”

If the cop admits to this, I’d ask him why he feels it is necessary to lie to me and allege that just suspicious activity is enough to detain me.

The videographer claims to be an investigative journalist, gathering content for a story. I would avoid this, but I respect the right of others to say what they want. This seems (every time) to open a door for a response of “prove it.”

The cop immediately says “How do I know that?” (6:36) EVERY cop interaction is treated as guilty until proven innocent, but it’s good when they actually take the position verbally, because this can be questioned. The cop is asking the videographer to prove his claim.

If you know that you’re not doing something illegal, it helps you to remain at ease. Here’s an attorney that has prepared a pdf document that you can print and take with you to just hand to a know-it-all cop. (I don’t recommend attorneys, but this one had a neat document that seems to be helpful.)

Instead of the journalist deal, I’d simply ask the cop if I have lost the ability to exercise my rights. “Is there some reason I’m prohibited from exercising my rights?” This question keeps the burden of proof on the cop to (a) explain any prohibition, and (b) explain why my photography of a public place from a public space is no longer a right.

In this ACLU article, the author states “First of all, photography is truly a means of self-expression and as such receives the full protection of the First Amendment.”

You, as a videographer, don’t have to be a “journalist gathering content for a story.” You might feel that this makes you more legit, but what I see is that it ALWAYS invites a “prove it” response.

The videographer at around 6:52 makes me proud when he says “You’ve already told me I’m not breaking the law.” BAM. APPLAUSE!

The cop keeps trying to obtain identification, and let’s be real. It’s ONLY for intimidation. There’s no reason he needs it, and no legal authority to ask for it. It’s a power play. EGO. Blue EGOS Matter. The American cop is 98% ego and 2% training in almost every case.

EVERY time a cop alleges that you might be a felon, or you might have a warrant on you, is an OFFER to get you into a “guilty until proven innocent” paradigm. You have the right, every time, to refuse this offer for cause (the cause being that it’s an illegitimate offer).

“What kind of journal are you doing?” (7:00) This is why I don’t see the positive of claiming to be a journalist. I’d simply hand the cop the paper, ask him if I’ve lost the ability to exercise my rights, and then let him figure out how to answer that. (There’s no really good answer to it, but they will try to distract to another tack).

A funny aside here is when the cop asks “What’s the story regarding?” (7:08) I’d posit that a really cool and space-giving response would be “It’s about cops that are trained that they must have reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is afoot as the legal standard to detain and demand ID, but then these same cops lie and allege that merely “suspicious activity” (and I would put air quotes around it to make it seem as ridiculous as it is) is a reason to detain and demand ID.” This would be a really non-offensive way to punch the cop in the ego. You just described what he’s doing, without accusing him of doing it…

“But you also understand the alarm that you’re creating, right?” (7:19) Again, notice the NLP hook on the end of that. (“Right?”)

I’d respond “They’re alarmed that someone would exercise their rights?”

The videographer does a really excellent job of meeting the cop with counters in this video, and I don’t want to make it seem like he could have even done better, because he rocks it. I’m just offering a different perspective.

The videographer, at 7:58, asks the cop “Are you familiar with Texas Penal Code 38.02?”

I have to admit, this surprised me. The videographer has done his homework. LOUD.RAUCOUS.APPLAUSE.

He goes on to tell the cop that he is only guilty of failure to identify if he’s been arrested. My first thought was the same as the cop’s, who countered “or detained.” Detainment is NOT a reason for failure to identify in Texas. It’s a crime to give false information if lawfully detained, or if you’re a witness to a crime, but it’s not even required to identify then.  Here’s the applicable section:

Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:

(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.

This also ties into the last article I wrote, which was in Texas.

“You understand why we’re out here, right?” (8:20) Again, with the NLP hook, he’s trying to gain agreement and acquiescence to his (unlawful) authority that is suggesting the videographer leave and demanding of the ID.

I’d always avoid agreeing with or accepting the word “understand”. It’s a sign that agreement is reached, and we are totally in DISagreement with cops that believe they are above the law.

Everything this cop did was “allowed” but not “authoritative.” He’s probably with some department authorization to lie or deceive to gain information, but the Texas Penal Code makes that a misdemeanor crime if it restrains the person unlawfully.

I’d ask the cop if he was also familiar with Texas Penal Code chapter 5, section 20.01.

The cop did tell him to keep moving when no crime was committed. He also said that “it’s enough to detain you and try to figure out who you are.” This is patently false, and could have been pursued further to actually gain an admission from the cop that he was being detained illegally.

“Just stay away from the prison.” (8:29) Another unlawful restraint. The cop is without authority to demand this of the videographer, and the videographer knows it, and responds in kind, which is again, applaudable.

“You understand why they’re concerned, right?” (8:41) These NLP hooks are starting to get  comedic. Once again, I’d ask “They’re concerned because I’m exercising my rights?”


I would be happy to share with some of the actual cop watchers how to prevent information from being gained when followed. It’s not something I feel comfortable putting out on a public forum because of the possibility that it could be countered easier by cops. 

One thing I would have done is to walk up to the vehicle following me and get better footage. This may cause the person in the vehicle to back off if they know they are being videoed with their face showing.

That’s a case-by-case, and would depend on the comfort of the videographer.

For more information, subscribe to this blog, and check out my youtube at http://youtube.com/c/LuckFawyersInstitute\

One final time, kudos to SAEXTAZYPREZ for a great job doing what he does!

{NOTE: The goal of the cop, in their need to control (psychopathically) every situation they encounters, is to attempt to gain agreement, and more importantly, ADMISSION that a crime is being committed, so he/she can proceed to gain revenue for the entity which pays them, to wit, the STATE. The goal of the public should be to AVOID agreement, but the problem is that the EGO of the cop often takes disagreement as an opportunity to charge someone with “contempt of cop”. Walk softly, but carry a camera.}

The Doorway to Revolution

The Magic Moment meets the Tipping Point.

Every revolution, no matter how big or small, is brewed in frustration, until the frustration creates a crisis of conscience. That’s when the anger of being subjugated, meets the moment of realization that the full potential of the subject has not been tapped into. The subject realizes that there are more choices, even though those choices are less desirable/ more uncomfortable.  That moment is the moment when revolution begins. Even if the subject doesn’t exercise their full range of opposing force, at that very moment, the domino of that chain of events has already started to tip over.

Malcolm Gladwell is one of my favorite writers, because he likes to look at the obverse side of the status quo perspective. In the Tipping Point, he talks about how small things become a big thing, or a phenomenon.

I also remember reading a book years ago that spoke of a magic moment, when someone believes they are gaining a benefit or a desired or expected outcome, when they will be open to being taken advantage of. The focus on the outcome and belief of the outcome obscures the possibility of the present.

Magicians often use the magic moment, the expectation of outcome, to distract from the possibility of the instant. 
Politicians, and their lackeys, Bureaucrats, use this same Magic Moment to rape you blind.

Up until recently, it seems to have been societally accepted without a lot of resistance. Things are starting to change, however, and the rape and pillage of the right of self-determination is becoming more visible, and constant.

Self-Determination, in it’s most pure form, exists in the right to BE without harming another. Many “crimes” today are victimless on the part of the Plaintiff (The State), in that there is no one actually harmed by the Defendant. The Defendant has become the constant victim of tyranny and political plundering. Frederic Bastiat speaks of this in his famous work “The Law”.

Aaron Swartz also perfectly presents a solution in his work “Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto”.


Civil Disobedience has been tried, and this author applauds it continuing to be a variable in the playbook to foment revolution.

But, it’s timely, and perhaps even morally and ethically responsible to admit that CRIMINAL disobedience is a valid variable of resource in the playbook of revolution. Our forefathers embraced it. They could have been hung. Further, EVERYONE is a criminal now, whether they realize it or not. You could be charged with one or more crimes at this very moment, including the bullshit crimes of “resisting arrest” (if you choose to disagree) or “contempt of court” (If you challenge the judge in a way that makes them feel incompetent).

You’re already a criminal. You know it. It’s what keeps you docile and afraid of doing more.

Every time “authority” comes up to you to punk you for some bullshit, victimless crime, whether it is for not wearing a seatbelt, or for possession of weed, or skating in some place where an authority figure gets their panties in a wad.

Do you pay income taxes, voluntarily? Maybe it’s time to look at the facts, and see that there’s no evidence that you have anything called “taxable income” unless you admit to it.

Do you speed, or run red lights when there’s no one there, or do you wear your seatbelt when you feel like it’s more of a bother than an asset? 

Marcstevens.net has changed my life. Using the Socratic method of questioning, I’ve learned that I’m already free, and how to question any and all claims otherwise.

There are, in the doctrines of law, two kinds of wrongs – mala in se, and mala prohibita.

mala in se –  things that are wrong by nature (or undeniably wrong), such as rape and murder

mala prohibita – things (separate from mala in se) that are wrong because someone else SAYS they are wrong, or things that are wrong according to the opinion of others. These are things like speeding, not paying taxes, not wearing a seatbelt, or consuming a substance that may be categorized as “illegal.”

I would posit that it’s time to look at EVERY action you take on a regular basis, and if it doesn’t feel good to be a “law abiding citizen”, then change your knowledge bank to the point that you can act in a free manner regardless of the fear programming that is all around you.

I’ve been watching videos of skateboarders that are harassed by people and/or the police. It’s encouraging to watch these young minds resist control by someone merely on an authority trip. 

I’m doing my part to thump the domino. Care to join me?


Copyright not claimed, and used under fair use.

Rule Four – Know, and/or DOCUMENT Your Remedy (Solution).

In the four rules, they are all equally important. This one, however, is my favorite.

To know your remedy, you have to start at the beginning. How did you get into this situation? Where did it start? What was the catalytic chain of events that brought you to this place, and what is the way out?

This rule will require a great deal of work on your part. You’ll have to go back, look at the beginning of wherever your problem seems to have originated, and then place every piece of the puzzle under the microscope of critical thinking.

It will require you sending well-written, socially engineered letters to those bureaucratic agencies that claim to rule you. When you put things in writing, it changes things into evidence. Conversely, when you just make a phone call, or have a conversation without documenting it (video or audio), then what you have is NON-evidence. There’s no proof of the conversation.

When you write a letter, and send it by registered mail, with pre-payment for public records costs, or pre-paid postage, and then bind them to action upon that payment in trust and good faith, it creates a dynamic that demands performance by the bureaucrat that is your adversary. It’s a TABLE TURNER.

I’m an expert with writing socially engineered letters that document the facts. It’s one of the few times on this site that I’ll toot my own horn, but I am available for consultation on this matter, so if this is something you’re going to do, contact me, and let’s set up a program that works for you.


Rule Three – NEVER Argue.

Arguing is a natural psychological response when someone accuses you of something. It’s programmed as the right thing to do. Defend yourself. This, however, is the way to dig your hole deeper, faster, and more perfectly than your enemy imagined, all while they are watching you bury yourself.

Arguing shifts the burden of proof to YOUR shoulders. When you argue, you are making one or more claims… “I didn’t” or “It wasn’t me” or whatever you are arguing. STOP IT.

When the impulse to argue arises, let it be a trigger to think “What question can I counter with that will keep the burden of proof on the shoulders of my accuser?”

That is the place of power, and it is Rule number 4.



Rule One – Know Who You Are

Know who you are.

In the move The Matrix, there was a sign above the doorway of the kitchen as Neo walked in to meet the Oracle the first time. The sign said Temet Nosce, or know thyself.

Most of us have no idea who the fuck we are. I asked a friend that had long walked the path of self-discovery and self-determination, how he classified himself as an identity. His response was something I will hopefully remember forever. He said “I don’t identify, unless there is a proven benefit in doing so.”

I also remember talking with a friend that had been gang-raped by 8 guys. This friend had her power, and she was free from being a victim. I asked her how she did this. She said “I didn’t make it my identity.” WOW. She didn’t let it define her.

We are all free-flowing. Every moment is a new chance to reinvent ourselves.


When we are born,  (issued from our parents), the State issues a certificate of live birth, but they keep the original, because they are the issuer. They offer you a copy, however, and this copy is an offer of an IDENTITY (ID – entity). Most people readily accept the identity, and enter the cycle of produce-consume that feeds the FEDERAL RESERVE and IMF.  You can never obtain the original, only a copy.

Then, a Social Security card is issued


First, they tell you that the card doesn’t belong to you. They tell you that it’s not YOURS. Then, they tell you that you must return it if they ask for it…

Then, they ask for it. (“If you find a card that isn’t yours, please return it to:”)

And yet, you still have this in your possession, and you claim that it’s “yours.” You’ve been hoodwinked.


To learn who you really are, you’ll have to question everything, and I mean EVERYTHING.

Rudyard Kipling said it best when he wrote:

“I KEEP six honest serving-men
 (They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When 
 And How and Where and Who.”

Questioning everything will tell you who you are NOT. You, and you alone are with the power to determine  WHO YOU ARE.


How To Turn The Tables

Fact. America, at least the America that we grew up with in the 70’s is gone. It has been replaced with a fear-based control construct of rampant police state power, judges that knowingly abuse their power, and all of this is done without accountability.

Our forefathers finally grew tired of these sorts of things, to the point that they just started shooting the fuckers. While I would applaud such an event happening, this site, and the information contained hereon is absent the encouragement to do such a thing. (That’s just to cover my ass, y’unnerstand.)


First, it’s advisable to reach a point of cognitive dissonance. This is a place where your belief system is challenged to the point of instability. It’s the place where you finally have permission within to question EVERYTHING you’ve ever been told. If you’re pissed off enough, you should be able to act

Here’s an example of cognitive dissonance:

She’s had enough of bullying. Her actions reflect that.

Second, you’ll need to learn the rules. There are all kinds of places to learn them, but I’ve tried to streamline them for you. These have worked incredibly well for me and others. Each rule is linked, because there’s an explanation for each rule.

  1. Know who you are.
  2. Know who has the burden of proof.
  3. NEVER argue.
  4. Know, and/or DOCUMENT your remedy (solution).

When you know the rules, and you memorize these as written, to create a filter for you to run processes and events through, you can eliminate most, if not all of the bullshit in your life.

Third, you’ll have a period of seasoning before the rules become more automatic.

Regardless of how you choose to live your life, you’ll have to work through the challenges of your newfound liberty clashing with control constructs.  If you get a traffic ticket? You’ll have to learn the way out of it. If you get challenged for non-compliance to what everyone else just willingly submits to, this is another navigation opportunity to move past control constructs.

Fourth, and this is optional, but I’d really like you to take part in this, there is the matter of shining the light on those who demand compliance while they hide in an unaccountable position. This is called muckraking. Exposing corruption. Publishing and/or sharing that information.

I want to make a searchable database of judges, law enforcement, and other bureaucrats, even down to the flunkie on the front desk at the clerk of court’s office, and have information on where they live, what property they own (how appetizing they are for litigation), and other information that may help expose corruption or conflicts of interest. This information is usually required to be available by law, so much of it is public information, but it just stays hidden because people don’t know how to look for it, or expose it. Here, you’ll find educational information on how to find the information, and a resource here to post and/or share that information with others who may benefit from table turning.

Let’s get to it.