| PM | Quote | Reply | Full Topic |
Seasoned...
Joined: Sat Oct 21st, 2017
Location: Near The Pointy End , USA
Posts: 1299
Status:
Offline
Reputation: 
Reputation Points: $user_rep
Seems like every survey I come across show that just shy of 50% of Americans in some way/shape/form don't trust police. Corruption, shaved heads (ie, military and at war mindset), abuse of power, intimidation, profiling of all types, the list ins long. Here's a great read about how an innocent man who commit no crime whatsoever had his life savings stolen from him by the police on one of your States.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/1/16686014/phillip-parhamovich-civil-forfeiture
Ohmaagawd.. its almost as if you knew I'd be one of the first to get on this thread. This is gonna be a great thread I can feel it.. lmfao
Here's the paradox and I will touch on the emotional status and the lawful status of things. Keep in mind a few things.
[a] despite the celebratory years of 241 years in this country, many think that is how old this country is. Far from truth but when this country was under the current Constitution (II version) which we celebrate as July 4th 1776 and that is not even the true date. That was the day it was drafted, the actual holiday should be August 2nd of 1776. To amend it true existence was 300+ years prior of that.
Many of the things this post is going to raise the Q&A of is going to ruin the paradigm we live in as a individual and a collective and I really hope that from it people choose to dig deeper than the first 2 google pages to find some absolute truth and make an informed decision of their own. Use what information you may pull from this as a starting point and validate it yourself with your own due diligence.
[c] REMOVE the thought of and the pursuance of whats being termed horribly as the "Sovereign Citizen" OR "Freeman Movement" if you're Canadian. NOT ONLY is the word "Sovereign Citizen' an oxymoron its contagious to parroted stupidity from across both sides of the aisle. Few know what an actual Citizen is let alone what a free one would mean in relation to it. And with that I'll lead into the summaries..
Emotional summary:
Some of us are old enough to recall far less intrusions in our lives and remember being taught if not by your family, the public-fool system brought officer friendly into the classroom(s) and we were taught that if we had a problem, got scared, or was under threat; Officer friendly was there to "protect, life, liberty, and property".. and we all grew up with more than a just a respect for police officers, we believed they were here for OUR good, the PEOPLES good, to "protect and serve as it would be. The Government, State, Courts, and your Sheriff/Marshalls were put in place to play a role in our lives to protect liberties and property from trespass and THAT IS IT... Nothing else. What your opinions may be reflects nothing to CFR and US Code, and the actual law which is all available as public record.
But here in the next segment we find through Supreme Court rulings however things aren't as we seem.
Lawful Summary:
Opponents who argue "the police will protect you" are a menace to your safety. They are also flat wrong. I am not referring to the overwhelming inability of police to combat crime. Why state the obvious? I am referring to the fact that the police have no duty whatsoever to protect you against criminals. That's not in the job description of 'police officer.' The courts have recognized this fact for over a century.
In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no duty to protect any individual. Their duty is to enforce the law in general. More recently, in 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents... but it does not violate... the Constitution." Later court decisions concurred: the police have no duty to protect you.
Police vehicles routinely sport decals proclaiming sentiments such as 'Proud to Serve!' If they aren't there to protect you, the question becomes, "Who are they serving?" The answer is clear: the police department exists to enforce the law. Policemen serve the government, not the people. And uphold the law with total disregard for whether their actions create or prevent violence. For example, if government decides that certain forms of adult consensual crimes must not be tolerated, then the police will draw their guns and barge into otherwise peaceful bedrooms. To uphold an unjust law, they will create violence and victims.
class="Arial10"Those who blithely reassure you about police protection are doubly wrong. Not only is protection not the officers' job, they may well be the ones who victimize you. Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, correctly observes that the American legal system is based on the English Common Law. The modern American policeman dates back centuries to the role of the English Sheriff, who was paid by and accountable to the government, not the community. As the JPFO states, the main purpose of the Sheriff was the "enforcement of government decisions," such as seizing property. "Maintenance of public order" was of secondary concern. Indeed, if the two concerns collided - as in the enforcement of victimless crime laws - the government invariably won.
Americans revere the romantic Western notion of Marshall Dillon defending the schoolmarm against the Bang-'em-Up gang who swoop down like wolves on the prairie town. But, often, these particular sheriffs were hired by the communities and were responsible to the people there, not to the government. Moreover, the townsfolk themselves routinely owned guns. What Americans are actually revering is an example of a quasi-private police force functioning within an armed society. Unfortunately, this image still benefits the modern state policeman who is routinely glorified by television programs like Cops! Yet these state-employees are the antithesis of the Western sheriff. They are modeled after the British Sheriff - they are responsible only to enforce government policy and they often are the wolves.
If policy makers want to prevent violence, they should disarm the police and encourage gun ownership within the citizenry. There is historical precedent. In his book Frontier Justice, Wayne Gard describes the rampant corruption of politics and police in 1850's San Francisco. Violence soared until the SF vigilante committee revived (1856). Within three months, Gard explains, "San Francisco had only two murders, compared with more than a hundred in the six months before the committee was formed."
At least until erring policemen acknowledge a duty to protect the life and property of individuals, 'the people' en masse ought to say 'no more donuts for you!'
Fast forward to 1990 where the judicial oaths are changed:
Justices & Oaths of Office - "Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That the justices of the Supreme Court, and the district judges, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices, SHALL take the following oath or affirmation, to wit:
'I, A.B [I.G - Jon Smith].., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer Justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [I.G.] __District_Judge__ , according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.' "
Now Pay Attention::
Congress On December 1, 1990, however, in Public Law 101-650, at section 404 thereof, 104 Stat. 5124 -- Effective 90 days later, March 1, 1991 (104 Stat. 5124 at § 407) -- alter material by way of amendment, the oath at 28 U.S.C. § 453, 62 Stat. 907 so as to relive all justices and judges of the united States of any duty or fidelity to the constitution; to wit:
"Sec. 404. Amendment to Oath of Justices and Judges.
"Section 453 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking out 'according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to' and inserting 'under' ". Pub. L., 101--650,104 Stat. 5089, 5124, December 1, 1990.
Upon Amendment, 28 U.S.C. § 453 Oath of justices and judges of the United States, 104 Stat. 5124, provides:
"Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office:
'I, A.B [I.G - Jon Smith].., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer Justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [I.G.] __District_Judge__ , under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.' "
But....... the only duties incumbent upon justices and judges of the United States to discharge or perform are provided in the STATUTES OF CONGRESS, I.G., the laws of the United States; the Constitution provides none.
the 1990 oath, 104 stat. 5124, severs the connection between the federal judiciary and the Constitution; meaning: As of March 1, 1991, officers of the federal judiciary have no obligation to discharge or perform the duties of their respective offices "agreeably to the Constitution" (62 Stat. 907), and the former judicial-branch officers are now LEGISLATIVE-BRANCH OFFICERS under the exclusive control of congress!
"As we have repeatedly said: 'Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. they possess only that power by Constitution and Statute. . .' " Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489 (2004)(quoting Kokkonen c guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 611 U.S. 375, 377(1994) (citations omitted)
The 'United States' you'll find under 28 U.S. Code § 3002 Sec. 15(a) -- (15) “United States†means— (A) a Federal corporation id., by the name of the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation. And is very different from the 'United States Of America' - (a sovereign republic, Constitution)
"plus peccat auctor quam actor. - The instigator of a crime is worse than he who perpetrates it" -- John Bouvier, Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 3rd Rev, p. 2153 -- ...and the instigators of the takeover of the federal courts of limited jurisdiction by MUNICIPAL [emphasis added] judges masquerading as Article III judges and usurping exercise of general jurisdiction throughout the Union, are the Members of Congress.
TREASON !
Justices and judges of the United States have used their position of trust to betray their creators, the American People, by overriding their will as declared at Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution, that all judicial officers of the united states shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, and thereby legislating the Constitution out of the legal process; to wit:
"The Congress as the instrumentality of the sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect the Constitution ordains.
The Congress cannot invoke the sovereignty power of the people to override their will as thus declared." Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935).
-- 18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than 5 years and be fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
WHICH SHOULD MEAN: Void Judgements - A void judgement is an utter nullity, of no legal force or effect, and anyone who is concerned with the execution of a void judgement is concerned in law as a trespasser; to wit:
"A void judgement which includes judgements entered by a court . . . lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgement . . . can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally . . . " Long v Shorebank development Corp., 182 F, 3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999).
"Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide any questions which occurs in the cause, and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgements, until reversed, are regarded as binding in every other court. BUT if it act without authority, its judgements and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a remedy sought in opposition to them, even prior to a reversal. They constitute no justification, and all persons concerned in executing such judgements or sentences are considered in law as trespassers." Elliot v. Peirsol, 26 U.S. (1 pet.) 328, 329 (1828)
"a judgement is void if the court that rendered it . . . acted in a manner inconsistent with due process." Margoles v. Johns, 660 F, 2d 291 (7th Cir. 1981)
So at this time is when the information available and sought after seems to point at a time of when the judicial system is basically turned from a court of Justice, NO longer the blindfolded lady with the scales of justice in one hand and the sword of peace in the other to the revenue generating machine that it is today.
You used to have to break the law in order to have the police become involved and you were innocent until proven guilty. Now all you have to do is non-compliance with their City/County/State statutes which are only given the force of law if it applies to you. Where this becomes absurd is NOT knowing who you are, the citizenry. Are you a US Citizen or are you an American? If we are to apply the same rules of the game that a court applies to us, legally you cannot be both, you are either one or the other LEGALLY.
If the forum allows it, I would love to expound on this further by the information I've found available in Historical foundations, US Code, CFR, or standing common law. but I can already feel tensions will mount regardless of how much of those I show or cite that is clear EVIDENCE and not OPINION as proof.
Sorry so long but this is just one of those topics that needs more than commentary, it needs evidence, definitions, burden of proof, and discussion of considerate and level headed people. At the very most, the attempt of all above are what Government will fear most which is why there is so much animosity between the discussions of politics, law, and religion. If we were all to discover the opportunity to all be on the same page, they would lose their power.
Last edited on Fri Dec 1st, 2017 06:36 pm by Undrstm8ed
____________________
"Be never first, never last and never noticed." - Unknown
"The slave is held most securely when he is held by the chains of his own will and of his own fears, and when he is locked down by his own slavish desires for a comfortable life." - Michael Bunker
"Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur" - ~ attributed to Petronius (Gaius Petronius Arbiter (ca. 27–66 AD))
Roman courtier during the reign of Nero.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." - Thomas Paine
~ Undrstm8ed Truckumentry Write Up Pg.
~ Undrstm8ed Trailermentry Write Up Pg.
.