tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post6444249289660743044..comments2017-04-13T04:47:21.148-06:00Comments on Pro Libertate: When the Right to Resist Becomes the "Duty to Submit"William N. Grigghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-70662733115473375882014-01-17T21:26:25.986-07:002014-01-17T21:26:25.986-07:00I noticed the cops who were serving and protecting...I noticed the cops who were serving and protecting neglected to get the supposedly drunk driver out of the busy street. Poor thing just stood there in the traffic, likely too scared to move to safety. However, they sure stopped the young man from recording the violent aggression of the cops. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-51531561736168515292013-07-31T11:50:00.399-06:002013-07-31T11:50:00.399-06:00I love everything you have shared except, respectf...I love everything you have shared except, respectfully, the last paragraph about the 4th amendment. On the contrary, I think now is the time, more so than ever, to keep the Amendments at the front of our minds and the edge of our lips. Let us not forget our constitution, to be replaced with modern slang. Let it solidify in our hearts and It will resonate in our actions. And then methinks, we will have our country again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-48211939782131968252013-07-31T11:43:46.285-06:002013-07-31T11:43:46.285-06:00Indeed we've become the very monster we fought...Indeed we've become the very monster we fought to free ourselves from. What I fear I fear though, is that we are engulfed in a struggle with a darker, more tyrannical monster. Interesting to look at what happened when England imposed a 3% tea tax, yet... What taxes do I pay everyday just to live. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-82091615503795625962013-07-31T11:38:16.999-06:002013-07-31T11:38:16.999-06:00Amen!Amen!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-38708707918011616392013-05-21T21:29:12.416-06:002013-05-21T21:29:12.416-06:00Cops are cunts.Cops are cunts.eric harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15903221655201423647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-41159856006158805352012-06-12T19:11:22.482-06:002012-06-12T19:11:22.482-06:00Hey Will, thought you might enjoy this article abo...Hey Will, thought you might enjoy this article about Indiana allowing citizens to shoot officers for "legalized" home invasions. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/06/05/MN9Q1OT281.DTL) About time someone got it right.<br /><br />- Ron D.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-13961041651217556872012-01-19T15:22:07.631-07:002012-01-19T15:22:07.631-07:00This is from MaClay's Journal:
June 14, 1789 ...This is from MaClay's Journal:<br /><br />June 14, 1789 – My mind revolts, in many instances, against the Constitution of the United States. <b>Indeed, I am afraid it will turn out the vilest of all traps that ever was set to ensnare the freedom of an unsuspecting people.</b> Treaties formed by the Executive of the United States are to be the law of the land. <b>To cloak the Executive with <i>legislative authority is setting aside our modern and much-boasted distribution of power into legislative, judicial, and executive </i></b>– discoveries unknown to Locke and Montesquieu, and all the ancient writers. It certainly contradicts all the modern theory of government,<i><b>and in practice must be tyranny.</b></i><br /><br />This is from February 14, 1791:<br /><br />The system laid down by these gentlemen was avowedly as follows, or, rather, the development of the designs of a certain party:<br /><br /><i>The general power to carry the Constitution into effect by a constructive interpretation would extend to every case that Congress may deem necessary or expedient. Should the very worst thing supposable happen, viz., the claim of any of the States to any of the powers exercised by the General Government, such claim will be treated with contempt. The laws of the United States will be held paramount to all their laws, claims, and even Constitutions. The supreme power is with the General Government to decide in this, as in everything else, for the States have neglected to secure any umpire or mode of decision in case of the differences between them. Nor is there any point in the Constitution for them to rally under. They may give an opinion, but the opinion of the General Government must prevail, etc. This open point, this unguarded pass, has rendered the General Government completely uncontrollable. With a fleet and army, which the first war must give us, all the future will be chimerical.</i>ynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-20796452905872556102012-01-17T20:39:46.850-07:002012-01-17T20:39:46.850-07:00Jerri Lynn Ward,
True sovereignty lies with whome...Jerri Lynn Ward,<br /><br />True sovereignty lies with whomever writes the law.<br />The common law gave sovereignty to the people in<br />their ability to mold the law to their needs.<br />Judges only interpret the law, they don't write it.<br />If you want to rule a people, you have to get a <br />monopoly on writing the laws they live under.<br />It's that simple.<br />Codifying the law gives the legislative/executive<br />branch a monopoly on the law. What better way<br />to rule and control? Codified law is also much much<br />easier to learn because it is "black letter law" rather<br />than contained in hundreds of years of case law.<br />This is the fatal attraction to students and young<br />lawyers. It's much easier to learn, but changing it<br />is next to impossible because you have to get<br />control of congress. The common law is what set<br />the Anglo-Saxon world apart from the legalists<br />in Europe that lived under the Napoleonic and <br />Roman codes that stifle social development and of<br />course, liberty.willbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-86146316973872199572012-01-17T18:21:28.214-07:002012-01-17T18:21:28.214-07:00corporate revenue collectors enforce "peace&q...corporate revenue collectors enforce "peace" by attempting to kill 66 year old man<br /><br />repeat over and over - "it's not state sponsored terror, it's not state sponsored terror, ... corporate revenue collectors and peace enforcers are good, ..." <br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FAbUZd3zoM&feature=player_embeddedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-75627001583893501102012-01-17T10:14:32.358-07:002012-01-17T10:14:32.358-07:00willb,
Excellent reasoning! Have you ever done a...willb,<br /><br />Excellent reasoning! Have you ever done any research on what is behind this drive for Uniform Codes to be enacted in every state? I haven't, but I suspect that such research would reveal something alarming.Jerri Lynn Wardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-72609571804735325322012-01-16T04:01:47.305-07:002012-01-16T04:01:47.305-07:00The right to resist arrest exists in the common la...The right to resist arrest exists in the common law but is being removed from the codified law. This is easy to explain: the common law is of the people whereas the codified law is of the legislature and executive. Guess who the police answer to? Certainly not the people. This is happening in every area of our law; the common law is being subverted by our legislatures through codification which accomplishes 2 goals: 1) it halts the refinement of the common law by etching it in stone. 2) it places the law into the exclusive purview of the legislature and executive thus confiscating it from the people. <br />In essence, we are creating a new Napoleonic Code which at least one State, Louisiana, languishes under already. To change the law, you have to move the congress to do so. Anglo-Saxon law has recognized for centuries the advantages of non-codified law, the best advantages being that it is malleable and in the hands of the people.willbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-84556974955048176542012-01-15T21:53:28.752-07:002012-01-15T21:53:28.752-07:00Well said, Willb.
From Hemmen’s article: The righ...Well said, Willb.<br /><br />From Hemmen’s article: <i>The right to resist an unlawful arrest has existed, in some form, at common law for over 300 years. Its origins may be traced to the Magna Charta in 1215, but it was not until <b>The Queen v. Tooley</b> that the right was clearly established by judicial decision.</i> <br /><br />Whether the right existed for 300 years or 795 years (dating from the Magna Charta from which it was "traced,") it seems clear that during those years, the police were considered as nothing more than other citizens. They could no more kidnap anyone or commit home invasions than you or I could. I guess it took Americans to exalt them to little gods, who can do whatever they want with absolute impunity.<br /><br />The two sites I checked showed the first ten states with the highest homicide rates split North/South 50–50. These sites also showed the states with the highest homicide rates had the largest population of African–Americans; the states with the lowest homicide rates had the largest population of whites. So why wasn’t their “study” called the “African–American subculture of violence”? Well (1), you just can’t say that, (2), their hatred of the white south, and (3), they would have to admit the truth that most African–American violence is the fault of the government, such as their Ridiculous but Beloved Drug War. Stop the Drug War, and probably half the imprisoned Blacks will be released.<br /><br /><i>The South has historically had a higher level of interpersonal violence than other regions; possible explanations for this include social disorganization, economic deprivation, [all caused by the government], an adverse reaction to losing the Civil War, and unusually strong support for the right of the <b>individual</b> to <b>defend their (sic) honor.</b></i> <br /><br />The Civil War is mentioned three times because white southern hatred is all they think about. What other group besides white Southerners can you call sister f**king, ni**er hanging, inbred porch monkeys? Only the Germans can be talked to or written about with such hatred.<br /><br />But Southern white hatred didn’t start with the war. This is from a <a href="http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/foleyx-browse?id=Secession" rel="nofollow">letter</a> from T. Jefferson to John Taylor, June, 1798, <b>63 years</b> before the Civil War: <br /><br /><i>It is true that we are completely under the saddle of Massachusetts and Connecticut, and that they ride us very hard, cruelly insulting our feelings, as well as exhausting our strength and subsistence.… <b>If to rid ourselves of the present rule of Massachusetts and Connecticut, we break the Union, will the evil stop there?</b></i> The "evil", Tom? You're such an idiot.Yossariannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-43702911374305520572012-01-15T21:11:58.284-07:002012-01-15T21:11:58.284-07:00I just noticed this. That Oborski cat has his pic...I just noticed this. That Oborski cat has his picture taken in front of a MADD banner with flyers. As if by inference he's saving the public by putting those BAD people who drink into the klink! Coincidence? Not hardly. Cynical media manipulation.MoThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13996714804361467430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-62898149911628599262012-01-15T07:30:27.637-07:002012-01-15T07:30:27.637-07:00Mr. Grigg,
The law review article linked in your ...Mr. Grigg,<br /><br />The law review article linked in your column, <br />Resisting Unlawful Arrest in Mississippi:<br />Resisting the Modern Trend by Craig Hemmens,<br />strikes me as a-typical of backward statist reasoning which serves only to obfuscate the true issues being examined. <br /><br />Mr. Hemmens appears at first glance to be a proponent of the common law right to resist an unlawful arrest, yet his article digresses into the age old conundrum of Southern rebellion rather than focusing on the true question of Northern incitement.<br /><br />In questioning the demise of the common law of liberty on any level, from the right of secession down to the right to resist unlawful arrest, it is typical of the statist mindset to focus attention on those who dissent rather than on those who are the proximate cause of the violence done to our liberties in the first instance. <br /><br />Rather than produce a useful treatise on Northern society's historical and energetic effort to undermine and discard hundreds of years of common law and hard won liberty, the article chooses instead to focus on a time worn straw-man: "Southern subculture of violence." <br /><br />As a Southerner myself, let me give you the definitive diagnosis of the "Southern subculture of violence." In a word, it is called "blowback." <br /><br />Why is it a mystery that we Southrons choose to retain the common law as was handed down to us over hundreds and hundreds of years? Isn't the true mystery a question of why, as in so many other instances, the Northern establishment is so willing to discard the common law rather than advance it? <br /><br />What I would have liked to have read in Mr. Hemmens' article is an explanation of the <i> Northern </i> subculture of violence that continues to undermine and destroy our historical progress toward a free and liberal society. <br /><br />willbwillbhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06728783070002203973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-77152320007778729822012-01-14T20:36:37.332-07:002012-01-14T20:36:37.332-07:00What does that mean, "Internet ID for America...What does that mean, "Internet ID for Americans?"Yossariannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-66087280713041388202012-01-14T15:44:29.021-07:002012-01-14T15:44:29.021-07:00"Internet ID for Americans, a White House off..."Internet ID for Americans, a White House official said here today."<br /><br />Tagged and bagged you slaves! Tagged and bagged.MoThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13996714804361467430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-14945300848981688612012-01-14T15:42:22.906-07:002012-01-14T15:42:22.906-07:00Yossarian, the obvious conclusion, and we're p...Yossarian, the obvious conclusion, and we're pretty much preaching to the choir around here, is that our black robed overlords by and large side with their storm troopers and fellow travelers, to protect themselves to line their pockets. With a straight tax-fattened face no less.MoThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13996714804361467430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-8291065233030722062012-01-14T10:02:18.612-07:002012-01-14T10:02:18.612-07:00Did anyone else notice that the grey shirt Mr. Bue...Did anyone else notice that the grey shirt Mr. Buehler is wearing says "D'Anconia Copper"?Rose Gonellahttp://www.etsy.com/shop/SeaKnightsCraftnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-10462859899715517932012-01-13T13:16:24.014-07:002012-01-13T13:16:24.014-07:00“But certain imperfections in the functioning of t...<i>“But certain imperfections in the functioning of the [common law] rule have brought about changes in some jurisdictions. A new principle of right conduct has been espoused”… “that if a peace officer is making an illegal arrest but is not using force”… “the remedy of the citizen should be that of suing the officer for false arrest, not resistance with force.”</i><br /><br />If you have the means to “sue a cop” for false arrest, what fresh hell will this incur? From what I’ve read, this “remedy” may take years of your life and drain your life savings and the outcome will probably not go in your favor.<br /> <br />In 106 Fourth Amendment cases, the words “Fourth Amendment” are used <b>3,440</b> times, while the phrases “Privacy,” “right to/of privacy” and “expectation of privacy” are used <b>3,345</b> times, a difference of five. Even if your Fourth Amendment “right” has been violated, it won’t matter, should the Court determine that you had no “expectation of privacy,” which the court itself determines on a case by case basis. The Fourth Amendment is good and solid; this stuff is crap.<br /><br />The term “good faith” is used 90 times in these opinions, and “bad faith” is used nine times, and both terms apply only to cops. So, if you sue a cop for false arrest, it won’t matter if the cop acted in “good faith” OR “bad faith”; the result may be the same:<br /><br /><i> The upshot was that the officers in <b>good faith</b> believed Miller was Hill and arrested him. They were quite wrong as it turned out, and <b>subjective good-faith belief</b> would <b>not in itself justify either the arrest or the subsequent search.</b> <b>But sufficient probability, not certainty, is the touchstone of reasonableness under the Fourth amendment, and, on the record before us, the officers’ mistake was understandable and the arrest a reasonable response to the situation facing them at the time.</b></i> (Most people cannot grasp the horror of certain crimes unless it happens to them, like kidnapping. People see you are now free, alive and unhurt, so what’s the big deal? It is a <b>huge</b> deal, especially official kidnapping.)<br /><br />The cops, under the terms good faith/bad faith, are held to no standard whatsoever and are not even required to know the law. You, on the other hand, must know every law; otherwise, you could use the “good faith” defense, but you can’t. “Ignorance of the law is no defense” applies to people, but not to cops. <br /><br />So this “remedy” starts off with this premise: <i>“the Government’s knowing and purposeful <b>bad faith hostility</b> to any person’s fundamental constitutional rights.”</i>Yossariannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-30022445766285940752012-01-13T12:57:18.562-07:002012-01-13T12:57:18.562-07:00Source: CNet
STANFORD, Calif.--President Obama i...Source: CNet<br /><br /> STANFORD, Calif.--President Obama is planning to hand the U.S. Commerce Department authority over a forthcoming cybersecurity effort to create an Internet ID for Americans, a White House official said here today.<br /><br />It's "the absolute perfect spot in the U.S. government" to centralize efforts toward creating an "identity ecosystem" for the Internet, White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt said.<br /><br />That news, first reported by CNET, effectively pushes the department to the forefront of the issue, beating out other potential candidates, including the National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security. The move also is likely to please privacy and civil-liberties groups that have raised concerns in the past over the dual roles of police and intelligence agencies.<br /><br />The announcement came at an event today at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, where U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Schmidt spoke.<br /><br />The Obama administration is currently drafting what it's calling the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, which Locke said will be released by the president in the next few months. (An early version was publicly released last summer.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-69079588888112189532012-01-12T23:38:26.738-07:002012-01-12T23:38:26.738-07:00Anon @11:07 AM: Thanks for the info; I did a searc...Anon @11:07 AM: Thanks for the info; I did a search on "New Police weapon against homeless, (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22New+police+weapon+against+homeless&rlz=1I7GGLD_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7), but I haven't read it yet. I can't find anything about the police on Urban 75; can you give us the site?<br /><br />ThanksYossariannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-11961712986310223262012-01-12T11:07:35.783-07:002012-01-12T11:07:35.783-07:00Please read about my police encounters with a sear...Please read about my police encounters with a search for "New police weapon against homeless" on homeless forums and "Historic coverup of FBI and police crimes currently taking place" on the Urban 75 message board. Please share these threads with anyone you know who believes in civil liberties. Then try to get any media to begin telling the story. Bill Anderson soxin8@hotmail.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-19533087514792144532012-01-12T08:37:02.776-07:002012-01-12T08:37:02.776-07:00@Isiar
You can post this to facebook, just not as...@Isiar<br /><br />You can post this to facebook, just not as a link. Just click the little X next to think link portion of the share box and leave the url as plain text, sure it isn't as convenient - people will have to copy and paste the url - but at least you can spread the message.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-31127871870395512182012-01-12T06:08:53.161-07:002012-01-12T06:08:53.161-07:00NDAA @6:16 p.m. said, Anne is an enemy of the sta...NDAA @6:16 p.m. said, <i>Anne is an enemy of the state and will be dealt with accordingly.</i> Since there is no other Anne mentioned in the post but Anne Dekins, I assume you mean her.<br /><br />If Anne were 20 at the time of the "incident" and the case of <i> Queen v. Tooley</i> took place in 1710, Anne would be at least 282 years old today, which is about how long it takes the police to solve a murder or find a missing person.<br /><br />Anon @10:03 pm: What exactly are you talking about? If you're saying what I <i> think</i> you're saying, then I agree with you completely. However, if I've misunderstood your post, in the words of Rosanne Rosanna Danna of SNL, "never mind." I am curious, though.Yossariannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-30554438215599229662012-01-11T22:50:47.007-07:002012-01-11T22:50:47.007-07:00Will, you wrote ,“On this construction, a police o...Will, you wrote ,<i>“On this construction, a police officer can nullify the Fourth Amendment anytime he pleases, simply by claiming that the victim committed the supposed crime of resisting.”</i><br /><br />I think Scalia (who believes the Fourth Amendment does not explicitly impose the requirement of a warrant anyway) has admitted that. In California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, (1991), he wrote (happily) that <i>“Even before today’s decision, the ‘warrant requirement’ had become so riddled with exceptions that it was basically unrecognizable. In 1985, one commentator cataloged nearly <b>20 such exceptions.”</b></i><br /><br />He continues, quite sarcastically, I think, <i>“Our intricate body of ‘law’ regarding <b>‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ has been developed largely as a means of creating these exceptions, enabling a search to be denominated not a Fourth amendment “search,” and therefore not subject to the general warrant requirement. <br /><br />There can be no clarity in this area unless we make up our minds, and unless the principles we express comport with the actions we take.”</b></i><br /><br />So, until they make up their minds, just do your duty and languish for decades in prison. Scalia loves the drug war and hates the Exclusionary “Rule” because he says it unleashes violent criminals (pot smokers) on society.<br /> <br />(BTW, calling the Fourth Amendment the Fourth Amendment is SO yesterday. It is now officially “the right to privacy.”)Yossariannoreply@blogger.com