Part Six

Mixing the Holy with the Profane

Greetings to all esteemed members of the YAHUAH-ALUAH community in the glorious name of our heavenly father, YAHUAH. We honor YAHUAH and his voice, YAHUSHA, our MASHAYAH, with utmost praise and reverence. Our sincere respects also go to our Elder Brother Daud, whose teachings continue to bless and prepare us for the imminent arrival of YAHUAH’s glorious kingdom. Your role in this preparation is invaluable, and on behalf of YAHUAH’S TRUST, I am grateful for your unwavering interest. I pray that our heavenly father grants you profound knowledge and wisdom to apply the principles of his covenant trust for the betterment of His kingdom.

As we approach the conclusion of our study, I wish to emphasize the urgent and profound significance of strictly adhering to the laws formally decreed by YAHUAH. We find ourselves at a critical juncture where our faith and ability to overcome will increasingly be tested by YAHUAH, compelling us to determine our true loyalties. This testing will not only come from our own government, but governments worldwide, to which Yasharal is presently subject to all over the world. Undoubtedly, a better future awaits us, but only those deemed worthy shall partake in it. The consequences of not adhering to YAHUAH’s laws are grave, even within our extended families, as some may continue aligning themselves with religious customs and practices ingrained in their hearts and minds throughout their lives rather than adhering to the divine laws of YAHUAH.

Therefore, it is of utmost importance that I conclude this study with certain fundamentals for your contemplation. These fundamentals are not just theoretical knowledge but practical tools that will equip you to face the imminent trials that will befall those who are unprepared. In due course, we shall all be tested and compelled to choose between embracing YAHUAH or adhering to the traditions propagated by men (Religion), thereby subjecting ourselves to perpetual servitude. Our choices will be revealed through our observance or dismissal of YAHUAH’s laws, ultimately displaying our true allegiance to YAHUAH or the world. Only by overcoming will we demonstrate our alignment with YAHUAH and his will for his kingdom. In these two final sections of YAHUAH’S TRUST, we will delve into the concept of overcoming corrupt government. I hope that you can utilize this information and that it will guide you toward obedience in YAHUAH, our ALUAH.

Let’s begin!

 In our previous installment, we explored the concept of qualified immunity – a legal defense used by high-ranking officials (such as lawmakers, executives, judges, and corporate trusts) to protect the Public trust of the United States, along with their own interests. Rarely through traditional means is a person able to secure justice when it involves acts of law enforcement officers seemingly breaking the law to carry out the law. This is called “acting in good faith,” it is that part of qualified immunity that creates the bar that an officer must remain under to maintain immunity from indebtedness or prosecution for harm to the citizenry. Let us take a closer look at it and see our remedy.


The bar for individuals to receive justice for their injuries directly caused by government officials is high. To prevail in a suit against the government, the conduct of the government official (Peace Officer) must be demonstrated to be a willful deprivation while under the color of law. According to the United States Supreme Court:

In order for a person to be guilty of crime of willful deprivation of constitutional rights while acting under color of law, defendant’s action must be done under color of law and, where use of force is involved, force used must be unreasonable and unnecessary. U. S. v. Stokes, C.A.5 (Ga.) 1975.

Prosecution for deprivation of civil rights does not depend upon death or serious physical injury to victim; penalty is subject to enhancement if death results, but that does not concern guilt or innocence of the crime. U.S. v. Calhoun, C.A.4 (W.Va.) 1984.

Mistake of law will not generally excuse commission of offense; thus, defendant’s error as to his authority to engage in particular activity, if based upon mistaken view of legal requirements or ignorance thereof, is mistake of law, and fact that he relied upon erroneous advice of another is not, typically, an exculpatory circumstance; he will still be deemed to have acted with culpable state of mind. U. S. v. Barker, C.A.D.C.1976, 546 F.2d 940.

In part seven of this study, I will fully explain in depth what “wilfull depravation of rights under color of law” actually means. Still, until then, you must be aware that it is the number one reason so many claims for injury are thrown out of court under qualified immunity. As indicated above, in any case in which a government official causes injury or some other deprivation of the inherent right of a citizen, the citizen must prove with evidence that the official:

1. acted under color of law, 

2. and when the use of force is used, the official acted unreasonably and unnecessarily,

3. or for all intents and purposes, the official is culpable because his or her authority to act was based on ignorance of the law.

In all other instances, the Supreme Court has firmly stated that the government will not be liable (qualified immunity) if it is shown that although the government official was the cause of the injury, he or she will not be culpable if he or she completes their duties in good faith. This is a standard many seeking justice for perceived injuries caused by the government routinely fail to meet.

 According to Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition:

QUALIFIEDAdapted; fitted; entitled; susceptible; capable; competent; fitting; possessing legal power or capacity; eligible as an elector to vote. Applied to one who has taken the steps to prepare himself for an appointment or office, as by taking oath, giving bond, etc. Also limited; restricted; confined; modified; imperfect, or temporary. The term is also applied in England to a person who is enabled to hold two benefices at once.

IMMUNITY Exemption, as from serving in an office, or performing duties which the law generally requires other citizens to perform. Freedom from duty or penalty. The term aptly describes an exemption from taxation. A particular privilege.

LIABILITYThe word is a broad legal term. It has been referred to as of the most comprehensive significance, including almost every character of hazard or responsibility, absolute, contingent, or likely. It has been defined to mean: all character of municipal debts and obligations, amenability or responsibility, an obligation, one is bound in law or justice to perform.

An obligation which may or may not ripen into a debt. Any kind of debt or liability, either absolute or contingent, express or implied, any liability whatsoever, condition of being actually or potentially subject to an obligation, condition of being exposed to the upspringing of an obligation to discharge or make good an undertaking of another, or a loss or deficit, or the being exposed or subject to a given contingency, risk, or casualty which is more or less probable, condition of being responsible for a possible or actual loss, penalty, evil, expense, or burden, condition which creates a duty to perform an act immediately or in the future, duty to pay money or perform some other service, duty which must at least eventually be performed, every kind of legal obligation, responsibility, or duty, fixed liability, legal responsibility, penalty for failure to pay tax when due, present, current, future, fixed or contingent debts, punishment, responsibility for torts, tax, that which one is under obligation to pay, or for which one is liable; the state of being bound or obliged in law or justice to do, pay, or make good something; the state of one who is bound in law and justice to do something which may be enforced by action.

The term is therefore broader than the word “debt,” or “indebtedness,” and includes in addition existing obligations, which may or may not in the future eventuate in an indebtedness. The word is not synonymous with “loss” or “damage,” and under an automobile insurance policy insuring against “liabilities,” there may be recovery without allegation or proof that the insured has been required to pay any sum, whereas under a policy covering “actual loss or damage,” no obligation arises till insured has suffered loss or damage. 

 Immunity from liability is a concept of law. In those instances when an official is shown to have acted outside the parameters of qualified immunity, the government is made liable. Simply put, immunity does not mean no responsibility. Many citizens believe qualified immunity means a free pass for Peace Officers to do as they please to enforce federal, state, and local laws. Again, this notion is furthest from the truth. The truth is that most fail to realize what is taking place when qualified immunity is initiated by the powers that be in high places. What truly happens is a mere transfer of liability! Under normal circumstances, the city attorney (a trustee) handles the Peace Officer’s liabilities, or in cases involving the Sheriff, county counsel (a trustee) will take protective action on behalf of the county. Federal and state officers will have their respective state and federal attorney generals (trustees) protect them, involving any potential liabilities incurred by their officers.

One must remember that the Peace Officer’s agency is a part of a corporation called a city, county, state, or federal territory for which they are employed. These entities under the law merchant are persons, who can sue and be sued at law. At this level, you will encounter qualified immunity in which most lose their case based upon their perception that they are seeking justice, only to find an insurmountable hurdle.

Please read the links below for full context. Below is a short summary of all three.




In the early hours of November 23, 2004, Malaika Brooks was driving her 11-year-old son to school when she was pulled over by Seattle police for exceeding the speed limit. When the officers issued her a ticket and requested her signature, Brooks declined, believing that she had been unjustly stopped and mistakenly fearing that signing the ticket would imply guilt. In response, the officers threatened her with arrest, and when Brooks persisted in refusing to sign, a sergeant ordered her arrest.

To coerce Brooks out of her vehicle, one of the officers brandished a Taser and inquired if she recognized the device. Although she did not, Brooks informed the officer that she was seven months pregnant. In a disturbing exchange, the officers casually deliberated which part of her body to target with the Taser: “Well, don’t do it in her stomach,” one of them remarked, “do it in her thigh.” Subsequently, they forcibly twisted Brooks’s arm, administering three separate Taser shocks—first to her thigh, then her arm, and finally her neck, before dragging her onto the street, placing her face-down, and applying handcuffs.

In pursuit of accountability, Brooks filed a lawsuit against the officers. Six federal judges concurred that their use of excessive force, devoid of any threat to their safety, violated the U.S. Constitution. However, these same judges dismissed her case, invoking a legal doctrine known as “qualified immunity.” This doctrine has emerged as a primary mechanism by which law enforcement evades responsibility for misconduct and as exemplified by Brooks’s situation, even proven constitutional violations. While ordinary citizens are held to legal standards, law enforcement officers often seem to remain shielded from consequences, while taxpayers are left holding the bag of $345,000 in legal fees for the state to defend itself in this suit. The civil suit was settled out of court several years later, however the U.S. Supreme court refused to hear the issue of police use of tasers upon the citizenry.

This legal doctrine is designed to safeguard the system of commerce that the public trust depends on, preventing its collapse. Unfortunately, the prevailing circumstances illustrate a distressing pattern that is all too familiar across the nation, especially within the African-American community. The appalling experience of enduring pain and anguish directly caused by the actions of law enforcement officers is intensified exponentially when the judicial outcome appears to mock justice, as observed in the case of Mrs. Brooks. At first glance, this situation presents a clear and alarming miscarriage of justice. Depending on one’s perspective, usually along ethnic and national lines, many in the majority argue that the aforementioned confrontation could have been avoided if Mrs. Brooks had simply complied with the law or even just signed the ticket. It is common for many in the majority to paint a biased narrative that portrays us, the minority in this country, as the problem, alleging that we lack respect for both law enforcement and the law itself. But is this narrative true? Do we, as a collective people, truly have an issue with the law? Are we truly devoid of respect for authority? Let us examine our history to ascertain the facts.

Ezekiel 22:1-31

(1) MOREOVER the Word of Yahuah came unto me, saying, (2) Now, son of A’dam, will you judge, will you judge the bloody city? Yea, you shall show her all her abominations. (3) Then say you, Thus says Yahuah, The city sheds blood in the midst of it, that her time may come, and makes idols against herself to defile herself. (4) You are become guilty in your blood that you have shed; and have defiled yourself in your idols which you have made; and you have caused your days to draw near, and are come even unto your years: therefore have I made you a reproach unto the heathen, and a mocking to all countries. (5) Those that be near, and those that be far from you, shall mock you, which are infamous and much vexed. (6) Behold, the princes of Yashar’al, everyone were in you to their power to shed blood.

(7) In you have they set light by father and mother: in the midst of you have they dealt by oppression with the stranger: in you have they vexed the fatherless and the widow. (8) You have despised my holy things, and have profaned my Shabbaths. (9) In you are men that carry tales to shed blood: and in you they eat upon the mountains: in the midst of you they commit lewdness. (10) In you have they discovered their fathers’ nakedness: in you have they humbled her that was set apart for pollution. (11) And one has committed abomination with his neighbor’s woman; and another has lewdly defiled his daughter in law; and another in you has humbled his sister, his father’s daughter. (12) In you have they taken gifts to shed blood; you have taken usury and increase, and you have greedily gained of your neighbors by extortion, and have forgotten me, says Adonai Yahuah. (13) Behold, therefore I have smitten my hand at your dishonest gain which you have made, and at your blood which has been in the midst of you. (14) Can your heart endure, or can your hands be strong, in the days that I shall deal with you? I Yahuah have spoken it, and will do it. (15) And I will scatter you among the heathen, and disperse you in the countries, and will consume your filthiness out of you. (16) And you shall take your inheritance (profanity) in yourself in the sight of the heathen, and you shall know that I am Yahuah.

(17) And the Word of Yahuah came unto me, saying, (18) son of A’dam, the house of Yashar’al is to me become dross: all they are brass, and tin, and iron, and lead, in the midst of the furnace; they are even the dross of silver. (19) Therefore thus says Yahuah; Because ye are all become dross, behold, therefore I will gather you into the midst of YARUSHALYAM. (20) As they gather silver, and brass, and iron, and lead, and tin, into the midst of the furnace, to blow the fire upon it, to melt it; so will I gather you in my anger and in my fury, and I will leave you there, and melt you. (21) Yea, I will gather you, and blow upon you in the fire of my wrath, and ye shall be melted in the midst thereof. (22) As silver is melted in the midst of the furnace, so shall ye be melted in the midst thereof; and ye shall know that I Yahuah have poured out my fury upon you. (23) And the Word of Yahuah came unto me, saying, (24) son of A’dam, say unto her, You are the land that is not cleansed, nor rained upon in the day of indignation.

(25) There is a conspiracy of her prophets (government leaders) in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured souls; they have taken the treasure and precious things; they have made her many widows in the midst thereof. (26) Her priests (government leaders) have violated my Torah, and have profaned my holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they showed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my Shabbaths, and I am profaned among them. (27) Her princes in the midst thereof are like wolves ravening the prey, to shed blood, and to destroy souls, to get dishonest gain. (28) And her prophets have daubed them with untempered mortar, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus says Adonai Yahuah, when Yahuah has not spoken.

(29) The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery, and have vexed the poor and needy: yea, they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully. (30) And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none. (31) Therefore have I poured out my indignation upon them; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath: their own way have I recompensed upon their heads, says Adonai Yahuah. 

 Mrs. Brooks found herself confronting a distressing situation that was, quite frankly, beyond the realm of what any individual could reasonably imagine. Her experience was a potent testimonial to the harsh reality of what could and does happen when faced with one-track-minded Peace Officers bent on exacting what they believe is justice. It is certainly not a comfortable thought, but her trials – and indeed our own related experiences – can be traced back to a lack of knowledge and full understanding of the precarious situation in which we, as members of the African-American community, may sometimes unwittingly participate in constructing for ourselves. Her poignant example underscores not merely the necessity but the immediate crucial need to armor ourselves with accurate knowledge and a profound understanding of the laws that govern us and the rights we are entitled to under YAHUAH’S authority. We must not forget that although we are in captivity, we are still under YAHUAH’S authority and his laws! It just so happens that we are in the judgment phase that we must make our way through. This is our overcoming moment! 

 Isaiah 5:13-16 Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge: and their honorable men are famished, and their multitude dried up with thirst. (14) Therefore She’ol has enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoices, shall descend into it. (15) And the mean man shall be brought down, and the mighty man shall be humbled, and the eyes of the lofty shall be humbled: (16) But Yahuah shall be exalted in judgment, and Yahuah that is holy shall be sanctified in righteousness (lawfulness & justice).


Let me be blunt! The roadside is not the place to express or exhibit your disagreements with American law enforcement officers. It is futile to expect that arguing with a police officer will resolve the question of right or wrong on the spot. Anyone who believes they can change the mindset of a law enforcement officer carrying out his or her duties and who firmly believes they are enforcing the laws of the land is clearly mistaken. Therefore, it is essential to recognize that peace officers are acting in accordance with the will of their justice system, and entertaining the idea that you can somehow persuade them otherwise is a manifestation of irrationality on your part. There is an abundance of online videos available on platforms like YouTube that provide evidence supporting this reality (police stops gone wrong for their victims) that they will harm and even kill you unless you follow their commands. According to the Guardian news outlet, police in the United States killed 1,232 people, making 2023 the deadliest year for homicides committed by law enforcement in more than a decade.


This mindset is built into their justice system, and you can do nothing to change that fact. The American justice system is adversarial in nature, just as the sea is adversarial to those who live on land. So, in essence, you must understand this fact if you desire to overcome it. I will say it again, you have no business arguing with a cop on the side of the road, especially if you are Black!  The odds are at zero for changing an officer’s mind, so the best defense is to make the encounter with the officer as unmemorable for the officer as possible. This can be accomplished by following the officers commands, so that the encounter is over as quickly as possible, while at the same time, maintaining your rights. We will discuss how you maintain your rights during a police encounter in part seven, where I will show you several things you must do to secure your victory in court, while also holding the Peace Officer accountable for his actions.

With that said, you must also understand that there are more than 800,000 police officers throughout the United States. Hence, casting the dispersion that all law enforcement officers are killers is not only unfair but such a claim could be construed as bearing false witness. If we look at the numbers, rather than just the media’s lack of delivering reality, millions of police contacts happen daily without incident. We must look at the facts. We as a people murder one another to a far greater degree per capita than the police ever will and despite the corruption, we as a people must have introspection concerning our own spirit and how we deal with one another. Our lack of it is the very cause of our captivity. Unless we, as a people, acknowledge our own shortcomings, seek repentance, develop a desire for our own nation again, and embrace our own authority in the ancient paths of YAHUAH, he will permit us to remain subject to our oppressors until the era of gentile dominion ends.


In of itself, there is absolutely nothing sinful or wrong concerning commerce. However, when a people group decide to mix commerce with justice, they agree to mix the profane with the holy. Nowhere in our covenant with YAHUAH will you find terms and conditions on the payment for sin (crime) with money. Throughout the scriptures, sin (crimes) are always paid for with an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth; YAHUAH will not be mocked with bribery or unjust weights and measures. It is only in the heathen world that you find the commingling of money and justice. As a reminder, the heathen learned this commingling of justice and money from our ancient forefathers in defiance of Leviticus 19:15.   

To overcome your oppressor, you must first clearly understand the dynamics that unfold during your interaction wherever it occurs. Wherever the occurrence happens, the laws of Maritime/ Admiralty (commerce) are at work. Maritime is the law of commerce during peacetime on the high seas, and Admiralty is the law of commerce during war on the high seas. They have brought this brand of justice upon the land specifically to deal with the Negro! The ability to discern this is paramount. This is why it is so important to know the laws of YAHUAH so that you can judge truth from deception. When the flickering red lights and the piercing sound of a siren flood your rearview mirror, the mechanisms of American law, an intricate blend of the holy and the profane (Law of the sea mixed with Trust law), swing into action over you and to them, it is strictly business.

Secondly, we should gather information during the initial law enforcement encounter to prepare for our subsequent discussions in their courtroom arena with their representatives, commonly called prosecutors and judges. Building a foundation of intelligence is crucial for navigating their legal landscape.

Thirdly, we must learn how to accept their offer conditionally or, in honor, provide a counteroffer. However, it is essential to remember that this legal process commences before the initial roadside encounter, and you must be ready for it spiritually before it ever happens in reality. Do you know how to negotiate like Moshe (Moses)? 


Step one is the ability to recognize a Peace Officer’s responsibility in relation to the protections, prohibitions, and rights included in the amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the constitution of your particular state. This is vital! If you miss this, you miss the objective of this lesson. In their system of law, the People are the sovereign, presumably. You have already failed to overcome if you have never read your state’s constitution. As I explained earlier, your fight with the powers that be (real men and women) in High places of government (prosecutors, judges, congressmen, mayors, governors) started well before a Peace Officer ever stopped you on the side of the roadway. They have mixed the holy with the profane (their laws). You must be able to recognize and decipher it.

Once in the courtroom, the Peace Officer is reduced to a mere witness against you, nothing more! Your battle to overcome is now squarely aimed at the prosecutor and the judge. According to their constitution, the American justice system is inverted, placing public servants at the bottom of the hierarchal organizational government chart and the people at the top. You must recognize this fact and capitalize on it rather than succumbing to fear of mortal men who worship idols you know have no power.

Also, understand that your state’s constitution is not a running list of your rights! It is actually a contract of prohibitions that Public Officials agree to abide by when dealing with the citizens of your state. It is a set of guarantees they will perform in all efforts not to do specific things outlined in the constitutions with you acting as one of their constituents. This is the real relationship they established after their independence from Great Britain. Remember that the Constitution is a set of prohibitions for them, not you! Read their Declaration of Independence. It is outlined with specificity there, too!

According to Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition:

CONSTITUENT – He who gives authority to another to act for him. The term is used as a correlative to “attorney,” to denote one who constitutes another his agent or invests the other with authority to act for him. It is also used in the language of politics, as a correlative to “representative,” the constituents of a legislator being those whom he represents and whose interests he is to care for in public affairs; usually the electors of his district.

A Public Official has no more power over any person than what his constituents give him or her. If your Public Official has any power and authority, it was most certainly received from those he represents. This is precisely the relationship between you and the Peace Officer on the side of the road. According to American law, he is your agent, and you are his constituent. Thus, the Peace Officer’s power to arrest, detain, and make decisions of discretion, including those of life and death, are powers granted to him by the people (You)! However, these powers and authority are not without consequence. They all fall within the ORDER OF AGRREMENTS! Any actions outside the prescribed order of law are violations of the law. I hope you realize where they got this formula! The laws of YAHUAH are universal, and every action made by man is only a derivative of YAHUAH’S laws and will. The courtroom is vital in their order of law because it is where contracts (agreements) are made and memorialized as law.

In granting the Peace Officer his authority and powers, he must do so based upon specific terms and conditions. These terms and conditions are in the Federal and state constitutions. The ones you need to focus on are the following:

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

The “Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

The Fourth Amendment provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, forbids “double jeopardy,” and protects against self-incrimination. It also requires that “due process of law” be part of any proceeding that denies a citizen “life, liberty or property” and requires the government to compensate citizens when it takes private property for public use.

 The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you.

The Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and enslaved people who had been emancipated after the American Civil War. It included them under the umbrella phrase “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” 

“The liberty mentioned in that [Fourteenth] amendment means not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned. This means the government has guaranteed they shall not abrogate your right to contract.

 These are not exhaustive in any measure, but you must know these in particular if you desire to overcome.

In part seven of YAHUAH’S TRUST, we will dive deeper into these amendments; however, it is incumbent upon you to know the prohibitions that constitute the terms and conditions placed upon your local public officials and peace officers where you live. When you know these prohibitions they (Peace Officers and other government officials) must abide by, it makes your life much easier when a Peace Officer has pulled you over because you now know what questions to ask him in preparing your conditional acceptance or counteroffer, when dealing with the prosecutor, the judge, and their superiors. Additionally, as I outlined in part five of our study, the Peace Officer’s agency strictly outlines the guidelines and parameters each of its respective officers must abide by. These guidelines are called “Policies and Procedures.” It is imperative that you secure a copy of these policies and procedures for the local departments where you live, including the city (police dept), county (sheriff), and state officers (state police and highway patrol) so that you are aware of their duties and responsibilities. You must do this before your next encounter. 


What I am now going to propose is perhaps the most important facts you need to understand when dealing with Peace Officers on the side of the road. Every encounter you can have comprises one of these three types ONLY: the consensual encounter, the detention, and the arrest. Those are the basis for every single encounter with law enforcement.

Let me plainly state that if you understand these three types of encounters with a Peace Officer and how each comes about, you have won 80% of the battle in your quest to overcome. So that I am clear, I need you to place on your thinking caps concerning what I am about to explain. Upon first contact, you must establish which type of encounter you are engaged in with the Peace Officer. Failure to do so causes scenarios such as Mrs. Brooks in the example above, or worse, what happened to James Floyd. Each term listed below is the specific definition taught in the California Peace Officer’s Standard and Training Academy to new recruit (rookie) Peace Officers. I am 100% certain that your particular state’s constitution and laws show the same or very similar language as the primary definitions for these three encounters.

A consensual encounter is a face-to-face contact with a person under circumstances which would cause a reasonable person to believe they are free to leave or otherwise not cooperate. No legal justification is needed as long as officers are in a place they have a right to be. If people refuse to cooperate during a consensual encounter, the peace officer may not require them to do so. People must be allowed to leave unless the officer has obtained or developed sufficient additional information which would justify detaining (based on reasonable suspicion) or arresting them (based on probable cause). 

Every non-consensual encounter with a Peace Officer is, by law, either a detention or an arrest. You must fully comprehend the distinctions between these terms before your next interaction with a Peace Officer. A consensual encounter is essentially the same as an encounter you might have with a friend or even a complete stranger. These encounters occur countless times daily among millions of people in America. Whether in coffee shops, grocery stores, or even at the Post Office, we all engage with others based on our own consent, in various ways and at different times. The key point to remember is that every encounter is contingent upon the voluntary consent of all parties involved. We have the discretion to choose whether to engage in verbal interaction or not to engage at all. Our interactions with others are solely at our discretion, and this is exactly what the courts consider when determining if our interactions with a Peace Officer were based on our consent. As outlined in the definition above, the court’s criterion for determining whether a reasonable person would believe they were free to disengage from or walk away from the officer they encountered.

A considerable number of interactions with Law Enforcement Officers commence as consensual encounters. Consider, for instance, an officer approaching you and asking what you are doing as you stand on a street corner. Devoid of any additional evidence demonstrating the possibility of you having committed or intending to commit a crime – such a scenario is categorized as a consensual encounter. This distinction carries a great deal of significance. Many individuals, when confronted by an officer of the law and subjected to such inquiries, would almost inevitably feel a certain degree of anxiety. Such intimidation could lead them to erroneously believe that they are bound by law to stay put and comply with the officer’s line of questioning. If you find yourself trapped in such a predicament, asking, “Am I free to leave?” as your initial response rather than directly answering his original question becomes paramount.

This question acknowledges the officer’s presence and underscores your awareness that the officer is endeavoring to extract information from you based on your agreement to participate in the conversation. This circumvents the officer’s need to satisfy the more stringent criteria required for an official detention or arrest. Your assertiveness in this manner ensures your rights are protected while providing a degree of subjective cooperation to the officer. What this question does is force the officer to decide on the law pertaining to the terms and conditions of the prohibition contained in the constitution he promised to abide by (see 4th and 5th Amendments). He risks violating the law himself, or he must respond to you like any other person walking down the street who is not a Peace Officer. He, like any other person, has the right to ask what you are doing, but you have the right not to answer during a consensual encounter with a Peace Officer. It is that one question that immediately brings the question to bear as to whether the officer has the authority to continue with his engagement with you or not. 

 Detention A lawful detention requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. A temporary detention or stop is an assertion of authority by a peace officer that would cause a reasonable person to believe they are not free to leave. Such a belief may result from physical restraint, unequivocal verbal commands, or other conduct by an officer. A detention of a person is limited in scope, intensity, and duration.

It is less than an arrest and more substantial than a consensual encounter. Reasonable suspicion is when a peace officer has enough facts and circumstances present to make it reasonable to suspect that criminal activity is occurring and the person detained is connected to that activity. Reasonable suspicion of criminal activity must exist to make a detention lawful. Reasonable suspicion may be based on observation, personal training and experience, or information from eyewitnesses, victims, or other officers (totality of the circumstances). Reasonable suspicion cannot be based on a hunch or instinct. If reasonable suspicion is not properly established in a court of law, the case against the defendant may be dismissed or any evidence seized may be excluded from trial.

Usually, searches are not permitted during a detention. If officers have a factual basis to suspect that the person is carrying a concealed weapon, dangerous instrument or an object that can be used as a weapon, the officers are justified in conducting a cursory/pat search to protect the officers from an assault. If a person attempts to leave during a detention, officers may use reasonable force and/or physical restraints to compel the person to remain. The use of force does not necessarily elevate the detention to an arrest. Uncooperative individuals may be handcuffed, and/or placed in a patrol vehicle.

Detentions are perhaps the most misunderstood encounter between a Peace Officer and a citizen. Most detentions start as infractions in which the Peace Officer witnesses you violating the law as an infraction. An example would be the all-too-familiar motor vehicle traffic code violations, such as speeding. We will go deeper into this in part seven. 

Arrest is taking a person into custody, in a case and in the manner authorized by law. The arrest must be based on probable cause. Probable cause for an arrest is a set of facts that would cause a person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain an honest and strong belief that the person to be arrested is guilty of a crime. Probable cause is required before an arrest is made and is based on the totality of the circumstances. Facts required to establish probable cause may include, but are not limited to direct investigation or reports, circumstantial evidence, or second-hand statements from reliable sources. Probable cause is a higher standard of suspicion than reasonable suspicion.

However, factors that contribute to establishing reasonable suspicion can also be used to establish probable cause, or it can escalate into probable cause.

Peace officers’ expertise is part of the equation for determining probable cause. For officers versed in a specific field of law enforcement, an activity that might otherwise appear innocent may provide probable cause to a trained eye. An arrest is considered a full seizure of a person under the Fourth Amendment because it takes away a person’s liberty. Federal and California law establishes the authority to arrest and the information that must be provided to a person being arrested. Officers acting within agency policy and the lawful scope of their authority are protected from prosecution for false arrest or imprisonment for both warrant and warrantless arrests (qualified immunity).

 The above three encounters are the only type of encounters you can, in effect, have with a Peace Officer! There are no other types of encounters at law. I cannot over-emphasize the importance of this fact!  When you encounter a Peace Officer for any reason, you must verify the type of encounter you are having at the moment! It will be one of the three listed above. If at any time you are unsure of the type of encounter, you must ask the question up front before answering any of his or her questions: ” Am I free to leave, or am I under arrest?” 


In American law, the profane is mixed with the holy! Rather than the Peace Officer accepting responsibility for his own breach (crime) against a citizen as all citizens are required to do, the powers that be in high places (Administrators of the State) invoke qualified immunity (an insurance policy) on behalf of their agent Peace Officer. This insurance policy is paid for with taxpayer dollars, thus spreading the liability for harms committed by the Peace Officer upon the entire public rather than the one responsible. Most accept this as a normal course of business, thus making all citizens responsible for crimes (harms) they did not commit. However, there is one attribute of the insurance policy that most citizens routinely overlook or are not even aware of at all. It is called the Public Official’s Bond.

This Public Official’s Bond (insurance policy) is built in two parts. In part one, the officer or public official has what is called an “oath of office.” If the public official (Peace Officer or other public official) breaks his or her “oath of office” to the United States Constitution and his or her State Constitution in which he or she violates, abrogates, or infringes in any way, especially bodily injury, loss of property, and/or inhuman treatment, then one can place a LIEN on that public official’s “Public Official Bond.”

The second portion of the insurance policy is called the “SURETY BOND.” So, you have the oath of office and the surety bond, which comprise the Public Official’s Bond. Most citizens are unaware of this first portion of the Public Officials Bond and assume that the courts utilizing a suit is the only option. They are diverted to strict law merchant and its qualified immunity. The Public Official’s Bond is kept hidden from the public’s purview under common law, where any and all officials are held truly accountable. When they mix the common law (Biblical Law) with the Law of the Sea (Merchant/ Admiralty Law), they are mixing things common/ clean with things that are profane.


In Deuteronomy 24:10-13, we see the lien process at work the way YAHUAH intended. Mashah (Moses) elevates the law, which promotes loving and caring for your neighbor. The law forbids a lender (creditor) to enter his borrower’s (debtor) home to take his pledge. He must remain outside as the borrower chooses the item he wants to pledge. If a borrower is poor and offers his cloak as collateral, the lender must return it to him every evening until the loan is repaid. The pledging of collateral was to be mutual, and the lender (creditor) was not to take advantage of the borrower.

When we bring this ancient process forward to modern times, we see it transform into what we call the lien process. The lien allows a creditor to recover his property taken by the hands of a debtor who fails to keep his promise to the creditor without entering the debtor’s home to retrieve this collateral. Instead, the debtor’s promise is recorded as a memorial for all the public to witness. A lien, by definition, is a charge; in this case, it is a charge against a Public Official who made a promise. A Public Official’s promise is contained in His or Her’s “oath of office.” According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, a lien is as follows: 

LIENA charge or security or incumbrance upon property. A claim or charge on property for payment of some debt, obligation, or duty; hold or claim which one person has upon the property of another for some debt or charge; obligation, tie, duty, or claim annexed to or attaching upon property by the common law, equity, contract, or statute, without satisfying which such property cannot be lawfully demanded by another; pledging of the assets available to pay the corporate liabilities. A qualified right of property which a creditor has in or over specific property of his debtor, as security for the debt or charge or for performance of some act; right or claim against some interest in property created by law as an incident of contract; right to enforce charge upon property of another for payment or satisfaction of debt or claim. Right to retain property for payment of debt or demand. Security for a debt, duty, or other obligation; tie that binds property to a debt or claim for its satisfaction.

A “claim” is generally a liability in personam but capable of embracing both a personal liability and a lien on property, while a lien is a liability in rem. A lien is a charge imposed upon specific property, whereas an assignment, unless in some way qualified, is properly the transfer of one’s whole Interest in an estate, or chattel, or other thing. A “lien” is not a property in or right to the thing itself, but constitutes a charge or security thereon.

An “estate”in land is the right to the possession and enjoyment of it, while a “lien” on land is the right to have it sold or otherwise applied in satisfaction of a debt. Liens are “property rights”. The word “lien” is a generic term and, standing alone, includes liens acquired by contract or by operation of law.

 When a public official causes an injury, harm, or any crime against you, you must file a claim and lien against their surety bond, and the officer or public official who committed the wrong against you can no longer work in his or her profession until the lien against his or her bond is satisfied, no matter whether you win your claim or not, they still cannot work until the lien is removed. Do you understand the implications of this? Again, when appropriately implemented, the lien prevents the public official from reentering his profession until his breach has been repaired under the common law (Biblical law). However, I must make it plain. This approach is dangerous! Your claim MUST be true and based on facts and law. If it is not, you can and will be arrested for filing a false claim and fraudulent lien upon the public record. You must know YAHUAH’S LAWS (see the 9th Commandment). 

PUBLIC OFFICIAL BONDS What you do not know will destroy you!

A Public Official Surety Bond is a type of Bond that guarantees that the public official will faithfully perform the official duties as per law. Public officials, by definition, are those elected or appointed to look after the public’s welfare, like senators, representatives, presidents, governors, mayors, sheriffs, police chiefs, tax collectors, judges, court clerks, treasurers, notaries, etc. These public officials are thus responsible for all accounts and cash collection of public funds. These agents for the public trust and their subordinates are also included in the public official Surety Bond, usually termed a “blanket bond.” What all comes under the ambit of public official Surety Bond? Dishonesty, loss of any sort due to negligence on the part of the public official, failure to give a proper account of public funds, an error in judgment and losses resulting from that, illegal operations, and wrongdoing are some of the things covered. Thus, a Bonded official has to be incredibly careful and faithful in his/her execution of the job duties (trustee) and responsibilities called an oath of office.

Again, the Public Officials Bond consists of two parts. The oath of office and the surety bond. Below is a copy of an oath of office every single public official is required to give by sworn oath before taking any office with the state. Your particular state has something similar your public officials are legally required to obtain. You will often find that public officials purposely fail to take the oath of office, thus operating in their public position in a defacto manner rather than in dejure. There are several more crimes, such as impersonating a public officer, that such a person would also have to deal with, let alone jeopardize all previous acts completed in the name of the office. No matter where you are in the United States, in every jurisdiction or municipality, ALL Police Officers, Judges, Prosecutors, lawyers, Presidents, Mayors, Clerks, Governors, and all other Public Officials MUST have a “Public Official Bond,” including an oath of office and some type of surety bond to work in their positions. This mandate is part of both the State constitution of your state and the federal constitution of the United States of America.

In part seven of our study of YAHUAH’S TRUST, we will conclude our study concerning YAHUAH’S TRUST, what overcoming actually is in the eyes of YAHUAH, and round out how to deal with Public Officials while we await our redemption in trust.

Peace and Love, Brother Dash!

Ecclesiastes 1:9 – What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
1 Comment
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mayaka'al Ben Yasharal

Great Job Brother Dash! Thank you for your commitment to keeping our community informed! May YAHUAH continue to bless the work of your hands.

Shalom Yasharal! Comment Herex