If i'd ever encounter a man or woman who at times acts as a police officer, i'd EXPRESS the Law COMMON TO i when i speak with him or her.
Here is no advice, just a knowledge share from one of mankind with another or others of mankind. Each man and each woman, in this instance you who reads this, is responsible for the law common to you which you set. You're accountable for any and all consequences that flow from how you act and express the law of you. If you do not wish to be responsible for how you act, please do stop to read now.
Let's say during a walk in town, i'd be stopped by a man or woman who at times acts as a police officer.
This is what i'd say to the fellow wo/man who on that hypothetical day would choose to put on a uniform and use a title.
This only works 121. i'd choose 1 man or 1 woman of several who might "handle" me during my walk. i'd say that i will record our interaction. i'd ASK his or her NAME AND MEMORISE IT (in case a man or a woman would steal my recording device). i'd not give information about i.
Instead, i'd ASK quietly but assertively what is his/her name, whether he or she believes i did do anything wrong? Did i possibly cause harm to another man or woman or did i cause loss to the property of another man or woman? If so, where is this wo/man so i can offer remedy to him/her?
i'd not relent. I'd not move on to another question until i'd establish who i speak with and why s/he may claim i'd possibly did do wrong? NB: if i did commit a wrong, i'd offer to make remedy immediately - that is what to act with honour means.
If i did cause a harm or loss to another man or woman, the man or woman who at times acts as police officer will provide evidence for such harm or loss i allegedly did cause.
If i did NOT do a WRONG, yet said wo/man in uniform would continue to cause harm to i (rough handle i) or would detain i unlawfully (hand cuff - not: arrest!), i'd notice him or her verbally then and there that i WILL press a claim against him/her AT open court (not: in - i'd not "submit" to their jurisdiction);
If need be i'd convene the court of i then and there, AT the room a wo/man who at times acts as a magistrate will let me use (magistrates are to be on stand by). NB: i might decide to convene a jury which is another option i'd have).
When wo/man in uniform with title would cause me harm (not injury - if it's not spelled the same it doesn't mean the same!), i'd press a claim (not a complaint!) against him or her for trespass by way of harm.
When he or she detains i unlawfully (not arrest - different meaning!), i'd press a claim (not a complaint!) against him or her for trespass by way of unlawful detainment.
When he or she steals the property of i, in this instance the phone of i (not confiscate!), i'd press a claim (no complaint!) against him or her for trespass by way of theft.
i'd state what i require as remedy for EACH trespass, 10k, 100k, 1million pounds Sterling from the man or woman who commits such trespass upon i. This would depend on the severity of the trespass. i'd also notice him/her of the amount that i'd see fit as remedy for each minute each such trespass continues, say 1£ per minute.
i'd sign no form, make no statement, answer no questions, rather i, am the one who ASKS. Quietly, politely but assertively.
i ONLY ASK. i do not state (i'd have to prove such statement). Instead, when i get an answer that confirms (or not) what i ask another man or wo/man, s/he witnesses the question i did so ask. This is useful also AT the court i'd convene in the absence of a recording as evidence (in case a wo/man did steal the phone of i).
In sum:
i ALWAYS UPHOLD THE PEACE.
i ALWAYS ACT WITH HONOUR.
i press a claim against a man or woman who chooses to trespass by way of xyz upon i AT the court i convene.
That's it. i express the law common to i in every situation. However it may unfold.
This is ancient knowledge. Those high up in gov KNOW this. That's why they control our education systems. The highest court in this land is the one a man or woman convenes.