Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

National News
See other National News Articles

Title: Air Force sidelines 17 ICBM officers at Minot AFB
Source: minotdailynews.com
URL Source: http://www.minotdailynews.com/page/ ... CBM-officers-at-Minot-AFB.html
Published: May 8, 2013
Author: WASHINGTON (AP)
Post Date: 2013-06-04 17:20:03 by GreyLmist
Keywords: None
Views: 620
Comments: 55

Excerpts:

"We are, in fact, in a crisis right now," the commander, Lt. Col. Jay Folds, wrote in an internal email obtained by The Associated Press and confirmed by the Air Force.

The Air Force publicly called the inspection a "success."

But in April it quietly removed 17 officers at Minot from the highly sensitive duty of standing 24-hour watch over the Air Force's most powerful nuclear missiles, the intercontinental ballistic missiles that can strike targets across the globe. Inside each underground launch control capsule, two officers stand "alert" at all times, ready to launch an ICBM upon presidential order.

The 17 cases mark the Air Force's most extensive sidelining ever of launch crew members, according to Lt. Col. Angie Blair, a spokeswoman for Air Force Global Strike Command, which oversees the missile units as well as nuclear-capable bombers. The wing has 150 officers assigned to missile launch control duty.

The trouble at Minot is the latest in a series of setbacks for the Air Force's nuclear mission, highlighted by a 2008 Pentagon advisory group report that found a "dramatic and unacceptable decline" in the Air Force's commitment to the mission, which has its origins in a Cold War standoff with the former Soviet Union.

In 2008, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates sacked the top civilian and military leaders of the Air Force after a series of blunders, including a bomber's mistaken flight across the country armed with nuclear-tipped missiles. Since then the Air Force has taken numerous steps designed to improve its nuclear performance.

The email obtained by the AP describes a culture of indifference, with at least one intentional violation of missile safety rules and an apparent unwillingness among some to challenge or report those who violate rules.

Although sidelining 17 launch officers at once is unprecedented, the Air Force said stripping officers of their authority to control nuclear missiles happens to "a small number" of officers every year for a variety of reasons.

In addition to the 17, possible disciplinary action is pending against one other officer at Minot who investigators found had purposefully broken a missile safety rule in an unspecified act that could have compromised the secret codes that enable the launching of missiles, which stand on high alert in underground silos in the nation's midsection. Officials said there was no compromise of missile safety or security.

Folds also complained about unwarranted questioning of orders from superior officers by launch crews and failure to address superiors with the proper respect.

The launch simulator is used in testing for inspection because, for obvious reasons, they can't perform an actual missile launch.

Exposure of shortcomings within Vercher's unit recalls an earlier series of stunning mistakes by other elements of the nuclear force, including the August 2007 incident in which an Air Force B-52 bomber flew from Minot to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., without the crew realizing it was armed with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. One outcome of the incident was the creation of Global Strike Command in January 2009 as a way of improving management of the nuclear enterprise.

Bruce Blair, who served as an Air Force ICBM launch control officer in the 1970s and is now a research scholar at Princeton University, said the Folds email points to a broader problem within the nuclear weapons force.

Blair is co-founder of Global Zero, an international group that advocates the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons.

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 46.

#2. To: GreyLmist (#0)

August 2007 incident in which an Air Force B-52 bomber flew from Minot to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., without the crew realizing it was armed with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.

I still find it impossible to take that story at face value.

I have no experience with nukes, or any .mil experience at all. But I do know a few things from reading good sources. For example, no one is left alone with a nuke, ever. Someone is always watching. IOW, they don't play.

Incompetence does not even begin to explain how this happened. It would have to be universal incompetence, and I don't see that happening.

PSUSA2  posted on  2013-06-04   17:39:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: PSUSA2 (#2)

August 2007 incident in which an Air Force B-52 bomber flew from Minot to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., without the crew realizing it was armed with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.

I still find it impossible to take that story at face value.

I have no experience with nukes, or any .mil experience at all. But I do know a few things from reading good sources. For example, no one is left alone with a nuke, ever. Someone is always watching. IOW, they don't play.

Incompetence does not even begin to explain how this happened. It would have to be universal incompetence, and I don't see that happening.

Good points. Like the article said: "One outcome of the incident was the creation of Global Strike Command in January 2009 as a way of improving management of the nuclear enterprise." Couldn't be possible that outcome was pre-planned and the incident was the premise to implement it, could it? Nah, that would be like a conspiracy with too many people involved, etc., etc. /s

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-06-04   19:26:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: GreyLmist (#4)

All I know about nukes is that they don't just go grab a few from the bunker and load them up just because they felt like it. They don't play with these weapons. I wish I could remember more about the protocol used, because it would show the complete impossibility of something like this happening because someone had a massive brain fart.

And all I know is that we weren't even given a reasonable explanation on how this could possibly happen. I wouldn't argue if it's claimed there was a conspiracy, simply because no one could ever do this alone.

PSUSA2  posted on  2013-06-04   19:42:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: PSUSA2 (#5) (Edited)

I wish I could remember more about the protocol used, because it would show the complete impossibility of something like this happening because someone had a massive brain fart.

Right again.

IIRC a nuke weapons officer must be present to release the weapons to the loading ground crew with fully traceable paperwork. (ground crewmen don't walk around with nuke locker keys in their pockets to prevent any from going into business for themselves) The same goes when the nukes are loaded and the pilot signs to accept delivery-and the awesome responsibility for the nukes on the plane.

The real stink including the untimely deaths of several ground crewmen who could have poked holes in the fairie tale they sold the public is, they loaded X missiles and delivered X minus 1. True to form the carefully selected stooges may have been told that The Acme Import Company, patriots all, needed the missile and any further explanation is above their pay grade. I dare say that most servicemen would not question it until conflicting news stories turn up and out-of-the-loop investigators show up flashing badges and looking to arrest and scapegoat some non commissioned (like former grunt Lee aka "Miracle Mannlicher Carcano" Oswald) link in the chain.

We had long posts and chats about how such a missile could mysteriously vaporize from the inventory. The popular belief was that it would be used on us and blamed on them ol' Ay-Rabs. The average schmoe doesn't have the skills to trace fissile material by its unique signature. And most all concluded that Bush-Cheney were capable of anything to get their treasury raiding, oil controlling hot war into high gear.

That need having been satisfied, I predict that a disgruntled AR15 owner will set off a dirty bomb in The US...

America is the only nation where a nuke can be accidentally loaded, overlooked during the flight then disappear, and the only country where highly skilled lab techs can open a dangerous bio freezer locker, remove and then culture a deadly flu strain without noticing the gaudy danger labels and the howling Klaxons and red flashing lights. It's never been explained how these safety measures could be inadvertently defeated. How can these things happen despite the most intensive redundancy men can create?

In short, they lie to us. And we are now a banana republican dictatorship.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2013-06-04   20:47:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: HOUNDDAWG (#6)

The average schmoe doesn't have the skills to trace fissile material by its unique signature.

Wouldn't the government be able to trace that if it really wanted to find a n-weapon reported as missing?

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-06-05   22:23:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: GreyLmist (#14)

Wouldn't the government be able to trace that if it really wanted to find a n-weapon reported as missing?

Of course.

But, if Dirty Dick Cheney had engineered the dirty bomb detonation (in the US) and blamed some yet unnamed Arab "terrorist sponsor state", the govt would be in no hurry to identify then admit that it was bomb material manufactured at The Savannah River Breeder Reactor then assigned to the US AIR FORCE as a nuclear device.

So, we'd be kept in the dark completely, with the media never mentioning that fissiles have unique signatures. Those eggheads and physicists who would know would not be inclined to call press conferences. They know all too well what happens to anyone who swims against the tide, as do you and I.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2013-06-06   1:10:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: HOUNDDAWG (#15) (Edited)

I read something years ago about a radiation hotspot detected someplace. Seems that a missing n-weapon could possibly be found that way before it was used, if gov-officials really wanted to find it -- at least if it hadn't been quickly hidden or was in-transit.

Edited for spelling.

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-06-06   17:30:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: GreyLmist (#19)

I read something years ago about a radiation hotspot detected someplace. Seems that a missing n-weapon could possibly be found that way before it was used, if gov-officials really wanted to find it -- at least if it hadn't been quickly hidden or was in-transit.

In the John Travolta-Christian Slater film, BROKEN ARROW Travolta arranges the theft of one of his air force nukes to shakedown FEDGOV for a few bazillion bux.

In the film, he planned to hide the nuke in proximity to some hospital radiology department so that the weapon couldn't be spotted by satellites.

That technology seemed plausible in the film rather than artistic license to fatten the drama.

But, I cannot state with any certainty that it's possible to see a "glowing nuke" from space.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2013-06-06   20:37:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: HOUNDDAWG (#23)

In the John Travolta-Christian Slater film, BROKEN ARROW Travolta arranges the theft of one of his air force nukes to shakedown FEDGOV for a few bazillion bux.

In the film, he planned to hide the nuke in proximity to some hospital radiology department so that the weapon couldn't be spotted by satellites.

That technology seemed plausible in the film rather than artistic license to fatten the drama.

But, I cannot state with any certainty that it's possible to see a "glowing nuke" from space.

I think that's a movie that might have been on where I was but I was busy working or going somewhere so don't know much about it except that Travolta was the villain. Sure don't remember that about a hospital radiology department as camouflaging. Sounds devious but seems it could have been spotted before then or why try to hide it there? Like you, I don't know for certain that it could be seen from space but a song by Rod Stewart that I like has the same title as that film. I don't think it's part of the movie-soundtrack, though, afaik.

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-06-07   7:42:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: GreyLmist (#24)

I think that's a movie that might have been on where I was but I was busy working or going somewhere so don't know much about it except that Travolta was the villain. Sure don't remember that about a hospital radiology department as camouflaging. Sounds devious but seems it could have been spotted before then or why try to hide it there? Like you, I don't know for certain that it could be seen from space but a song by Rod Stewart that I like has the same title as that film. I don't think it's part of the movie-soundtrack, though, afaik.

-------

After reading up on the film I recall that bad guy Travolta left a badge ID or sumthin from a nearby hospital as a false clue so Slater or others would think he was stashing the warheads at a hospital radiology ward.

He wasn't worried about the govt tracking the missiles after he threatened to detonate them in a populated area if he didn't receive the munny he demanded.

In any case that plot device was a minor one and no hospital was seen or used in the film. But, it was based on the idea that the nukes could be tracked by satellite. In fact, it doesn't really add up when I think about it. There was no attempt to track the nukes in real time by the govt's NEST TEAM. According to this link the equipment needed is ground based, not orbiting in space.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2013-06-07   14:16:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: HOUNDDAWG (#25)

Seems improbable that all tracking measures failed to prevent "misplacement" or to find the missing Minot-Barksdale n-inventory. The Wikipedia source indicates that the NEST TEAM has been in the Boston area since the Marathon, probably as part of the crisis-actions/monitoring counter-manuevers.

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-06-09   15:04:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: GreyLmist (#26) (Edited)

Seems improbable that all tracking measures failed to prevent "misplacement" or to find the missing Minot-Barksdale in-inventory. The Wikipedia source indicates that the NEST TEAM has been in the Boston area since the Marathon, probably as part of the crisis-actions/monitoring counter-manuevers.

(I)mprobable indeed, considering the frightfully expensive and technologically fail-secure methods developed to prevent unauthorized diversion, detonation and/or crude and dirty contamination of such powerful bomb cores, worth millions on the black market where oil bux are piled as high as the moon in "terrorist sponsor states' piggy banks" for just such opportunities..

The PNAC Coven is likely so concerned about a spontaneous backlash from so many flag draped shipping containers offloaded at The Dover AFB "high speed with dignity" drain, salute and drop 'em mortuary, that the Clandestine Sanhedrin want to preempt-slam dunk all criticism, thereby moving it into the "none dare speak its name" zone where suspicious people dare not tread. (It is to their credit and honor that the Old Guard inter all eligible vets with equal respect and ritual dignity.

And, what better way than attributing an unthinkable dirty bomb (or even a righteous skyburst detonation) over some mid-Western city where lots of Christian men, women and newborns in their very first postage stamp-sized Pampers could be vaporized? Of course the numbers of non-Christians allegedly killed can be salted with non existent victims where all avenues to verify those deaths can be closed to indies and skeptical investigators, that is, those who aren't in the employ of responsible North American news outlets. (Rothbards, Aspers, Bronfmans, etc.,. )

And, just as with Ground Zero (and completely unlike OKC-The Murrah Building) the verifiable deaths of religion-race victims would include a few state bureau of taxation employees, perhaps non observant, low level employees with no powerful connections or strategic worth to speak of.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2013-06-12   8:59:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: HOUNDDAWG (#27)

the Clandestine Sanhedrin want to preempt-slam dunk all criticism, thereby moving it into the "none dare speak its name" zone where suspicious people dare not tread.

Hark. Who goes there?

"To avoid all criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing." -- echo from Aristotle or somebody

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-06-18   1:10:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: GreyLmist (#28)

the Clandestine Sanhedrin want to preempt-slam dunk all criticism, thereby moving it into the "none dare speak its name" zone where suspicious people dare not tread.

Hark. Who goes there?

Because we're often forewarned of future disasters in TV and film dramas, two things come to mind.

In the Demi Moore vehicle FLAWLESS, a film where she is the single woman accounts manager for the London Diamond Exchange, the insurance underwriter attempts to elude liability for a massive robbery by claiming that the LDE president's son once attended a Marxist-Leninist Rally as a college student 20 years before. A youthful indiscretion/judgement error was to serve as an excuse for denying the insurance claim worth millions of £ Sterling.

And now we learn that the snoop fraternity is building a super computer database in Utah large enough to save everything we write forever.

If that or any other agency compiles carefully selected posts to paint (actually to color) a picture of a future Oswald, Sirhan or or Arab hijacker, the trial by media can be concluded in a matter of hours.

No my friends, "our govt" is now in open rebellion against the chains forged by the constitution's authors. All I can suggest is for citizens to simply abolish reelection. Because govt won't even hear of a bill to that effect we must do it ourselves and never again vote for the same candidate twice.

Of course we'll be bombarded with hang wringing pleas from corporate media, explaining why we can only lose by turning out seasoned cloak room wheeler dealer vets. But, could America possibly be any worse if freshmen aren't there long enough to be bought, blackmailed or buggered with wheelbarrows of cash and underage quail?

And, if citizen legislators who still cling to a naive belief in the constitution are sworn every two years, I just can't see a downside to that. There just isn't enough slush fund cash to buy every new rep.

And, imagine the govt scribes in the MSM trying to explain why no one is reelected without revealing America's worst kept secret.

Hey, I can dream, Can't I?

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2013-06-19   22:05:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: HOUNDDAWG (#29) (Edited)

One-term limits would be an improvement in the situation but the people using our elections to wreck America's Constitutional Republic likely would not vote accordingly for that. People who refuse to adapt to our system of government, which is the Constitution, and refuse to abide by it are like alien demolition crews who should have no vote in our elections. I nominate Ron Paul to be our President, Tom Woods for a seat on the Supreme Court...

Edited for punctuation.

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-06-21   3:49:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: GreyLmist (#30)

One-term limits would be an improvement in the situation but the people using our elections to wreck America's Constitutional Republic likely would not vote accordingly for that. People who refuse to adapt to our system of government, which is the Constitution, and refuse to abide by it are like alien demolition crews who should have no vote in our elections. I nominate Ron Paul to be our President, Tom Woods for a seat on the Supreme Court...

Edited for punctuation.

You Sir, are a principled Constitutionalist of impeccable character.

Go easy on that stuff. there are teams of roving killers on retainer now. (See the film, ENEMY OF THE STATE)

If people start to listen to you it could sound the bell for predatory military cutouts, and they may circle you like a wolf pack on a weakened, winter-starved elk.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2013-06-22   2:20:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: HOUNDDAWG (#31)

P.S. A little over 1/2 hour into the movie, there were some things I had to look up. FinCEN: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. EPIC: Electronic Privacy Information Center. I could not find out what DRD meant. Don't know either what was meant by "Humpty Dumpties".

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-06-27   4:21:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: GreyLmist, farmfriend (#33)

Good posts all, Ma'am.

My research indicates that "DRD" is possibly "Date rape Drug" and "Humpty Dumpties" are politicians and possibly foreign and domestic leaders and despots who are erected for various purposes only to fall and be irretrievably broken, such as LA Sen. Huey Long, Richard Nixon and foreign hummus or plantain munching banana republicans the company has propped up only to be burned in effigy by their people and/or deposed or killed by their creators. (Fulgencio Batista, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Anastasio Somoza, Manuel Noriega, Augusto Pinochet)

Speaking about my nightmares, Pinochet's justice for leftists involved strapping them to sections of rail track and then flipping them out of choppers into the sea. People like that make me want to hand out equally heinous law and order to psychos of that stripe. Although a person of good conscience, I could picture myself risking the guilt if I had the chance to give them a dose of their own meds.

Also, for some reason I have trouble remembering which friendlies are women unless of course they have screen names like "Bo Peep Patriot" or, "Dedicated, Nurturing Caregiver & Better Half".

farmfriend is the exception because I got to know her a bit after inquiring about her name and political interests.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2013-06-27   17:32:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: HOUNDDAWG (#34)

Thanks, HD. I listed the context of the spook slang at #35. Your research posting was quite film noir-esque, though. Also, if you ever need a profile reminder about me, just click on my screen name link to check my 4um Home Page site. It's very short -- just two words: Constitutionalist Female.

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-07-12   15:41:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: GreyLmist (#36)

And roger on your home page summary, Constitutionalist Female.

Just think, if more wimmen get involved we may end up using less than lethal weapons someday. Instead of killing adversaries with nukes we may just drop bombs that make them feel real bad for a while. Image Hosted by
ImageShack.us

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2013-07-12   21:14:36 ET  (1 image) Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: HOUNDDAWG (#38)

Just think, if more wimmen get involved we may end up using less than lethal weapons someday. Instead of killing adversaries with nukes we may just drop bombs that make them feel real bad for a while.

Sounds like slightly torturous PsyOps but we might not have to drop anything other than leaflets for that to work. Undoubtedly, your less than lethal strategy would be more humanitarian and environmentally friendly than n-war. Just think, though, the more Constitutionalist men and women who get involved, the less adversaries America might have except of the Commie/Neocon sort here. I'm thinking we could maybe just deport them to that international airport in Russia where Snowden was at, if they move to subvert our Constitution like it's merely something "optional". Then they could apply for asylum in countries other than America from there.

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-07-13   2:08:50 ET  (1 image) Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: GreyLmist (#41)

our Constitution like it's merely something "optional".

It doesn't even exist - it ain't optional - it's BULLSHIT

E-Mail from EX-ATTORNEY [ain't no constitution]

12 July A.D. 2013

When the O.J. Simpson homicide case first started, this author seemed to be a committee of one, in the nation, raising the roof that O.J. Simpson had not been indicted.

Exactly as is "taught" by "Perry Mason" and such tv "programmes," what CALIFORNIA does, instead of Indictments, on a "When we want to" basis, is file a Felony Complaint.

At the time, this author was still a "constitution-ist," and, frankly, at the leading edge of "constitution-ists" around the nation. At that time, the following language was sacrosanct:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger[.]"

Murder is a capital offense (in the traditional meaning of "capital," a death- penalty offense). He wasn't serving in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, in actual service in time of War of public danger. So, there was no reason, at all, that he not be indicted in order to be "held to answer for" any charge of murder.

It happened that while the O.J. Simpson case was still a hot topic, there was a continuing legal education seminar (there in Houston) on "Media and the Law." One of the closing sessions was a panel discussion. On that panel was a judge who handled high profile cases, a defense lawyer (with high profile clients), and two journalists, one of whom what the CNN anchor on the O.J. Simpson case and the other the anchor on the Susan Smith case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Smith (killed her own sons, claiming that a black man had kidnapped them) (huge, huge, huge media case, equal to the O.J. Simpson case). Someone really did well to get that panel together.

At the question/answer session at the end of the panel discussion, this author asked his question. He started by suggesting that the panel would agree that "capital" means "death penalty," and that murder was a "capital" offense, and that such cases require Indictments. With that intro, the question was posed as to why the fact that O.J. Simpson had never been indicted never made the news?

The carpet in that meeting room was the long-fiber shag, popular in the 60's and 70's in the "hip" apartments and social clubs, and one could still have heard a stick pin hit that carpet. It was that quiet in that room.

The CNN anchor, who was "the" fellow who anchored "everything" about the Simpson case for CNN, through whom went everything that aired over CNN in that case (and who had at least attended law school), had his jaw dragging the table he was sitting behind. It would have been great to have had a picture of the panel at the immediate moment of posing the question. The room was silent so long that the moderator had to say something, and he said, "Well, looks like you've stumped the panel."

Sometime after that, one of this author's objections was received by another who (still) claims to be a "constitution-ist" and who swung away as this author for this author's not being aware of the Hurtado case. See Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884). supreme.just ia.com/cases/federal/us/110/516/case.html. In the Hurtado case, what we learn is that there is no "federal" requirement that anyone be Indicted in or by any state system. Hurtado was not Indicted. If the Fifth Amendment were "admissible evidence of law" in California, Hurtado would have been popped right out of jail. But, the Supreme Court upheld that no- Indictment-based conviction! In the face of the so-called Fifth Amendment, how can that be? Where the Fifth Amendment is so plain, who in the world would even think of a need to look for something like the Hurtado case? How can this be? The answer is the exact same answer as learned in The Terre Haute Litigation. The "constitution" is just flat out irrelevant. We learn via the 1884 Hurtado case that there really is no Indictment requirement. Thus, the Fifth Amendment isn't really a limit on any STATE. It applies to the "national church," but, despite the fact that the States allegedly created that system, binding themselves to it, by oath (certainly by the judicial officers), it just simply is not Supreme Law of the Land when it comes to STATE processes and procedures.

Now that we understand the basics of the Hurtado case, we come back to the statement "claims to be a 'constitution-ist.'" To "justify" the Hurtado case, i.e., to accept that lesson as true and reliable, is to be a "realist," not a "constitution-ist." So, while that same person still is quite active as a "constitution-ist," there'll be a day when his own "lessons" will ring true in his own mind, and he'll become a full-time "realist;" hence, he'll stop being a "constitution-ist," and he'll stop promoting the "constitution," altogether.

To the point about the "constitution," if the Fifth Amendment language were binding by oath on the STATE judiciary, then there could be no Perry-Mason- esque "preliminary hearings" that substitute for a Grand Jury. There could be no "homicide" prosecutions initiated by any charging instrument other than a Grand Jury Presentment or Indictment (on each Count charged).

Why is it Ok that Simpson was never indicted? Because that Fifth Amendment language just simply doesn't exist, for purposes of its application to the STATEs. The Supreme Court taught us this reality circa 1884. The national system is bound by that language, but the STATEs are not bound by it, i.e., the language that purports to bind the judges in the "States" by oath of office to those concepts is equally non-existent, equally void, equally of no legal effect.

To solidify this notion about the myth of the "constitution," generally, via proof that there is no Fifth Amendment Grand Jury Indictment protection, in particular, it was also at or about the time of the O.J. Simpson case that Col. "Bo" Gritz was facing kidnapping charges (clearly, an infamous type of charge) in CONNECTICUT. What is that STATE's motto? Right, "The Constitution State." Really!?! Is it because CONNECTICUT is "The Constitution State" that CONNECTICUT went to very deliberate effort to remove the entire notion of "Grand Jury" from that STATE's "constitution?" "Constitution State?" Really?? Gritz was held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime in that STATE court system without having been indicted.

"Well, Harrumph! Harrumph!! 'Constitution' this, and 'constitution' that," is the incessant mantra from a great many (very) intelligent people.

But, what "constitution?"

We do not now have and have never had a "constitution." Therefore, that language in no way created the national system, and, by that very reason, in no way limits that national system.

"But, but . . . the Supreme Court use that label all the time!"

Yes! They sure do, as do state and national courts around the nation. To do otherwise is to allow the lid to blow off the top, and the nation (well, think "the bank") doesn't benefit by that. The "bank" benefits by our proving our continuing unawareness of just exactly how this evil system of theirs actually functions (always remember that "federal" means "federal," and that they really don't want very many people to start putting 2 and 2 together down that path). In other words, this author has the privilege, and the duty, to be extremely frank. This author esteems himself as working for YAHUWAH, as a "teacher of Israel," for the benefit of His Kingdom, thus, for the benefit of Americans (and those around the world who prefer to live free from tyranny). The Court (and all the STATE high courts, and all appellate and trial courts in both system) doesn't have that luxury. They realize they work for the "bank." And, the Supreme Court has, on a per-case basis, recognized a few phrases from the "constitution" and incorporated those concepts as doctrines into the operative principles in and for this present system. Therefore, our duty, on the learning side, is to put together the "hints" made in every single Supreme Court ruling as to where the limits are on how far the "bank" may press the people. The reflective mind doesn't need to see that many instances where the "constitutional" language would produce one conclusion and the actual ruling goes the other way. There must be thousands and thousands of examples on which to draw to make that very point. To understand the realty is to apply the reality so as then to be able to argue reality meaningfully. That means letting the courts come up with whatever "cover story" may be suitable for that case. The reality is that there is no such thing as a "constitution;" the "cover story" uses labels and doctrines that perpetuate the myth that there is such a thing. To buy into the myth is to avoid full access to the efficiency of our present legal reality.

In time, as wicked a paradigm shift as it is, the minds of those called to learn the reality well enough to apply it adjust to the reality that "the" reason why there's such a mismatch is that the "constitution" simply "never was." One of the hardest concepts to accept, for anyone, is having "been had." We'll, we've "been had." If it helps, this particular "Beast" system is the ultimate of "Beast" systems. Rome would blush with envy. Rome would bow to these people out of pure Machiavellian respect. So, there's never been a more advanced "Beast" system, and this is the one we're up against. Yet, in those areas where the "Beast" roars the loudest, we find the "Beast's" greatest weaknesses. For example, the wars going on in the Middle East as we speak exist because this "Beast" is insisting that the world use is "funny money," and those going "rogue" in the view of this "Beast" system are being attacked, militarily.

Want the troops home? Stop using "funny money." They're "over there" to set up a "branch office" of the Fourth Reich's "funny money"-issuing bank. They're being blown to bits, shot to hell, vaccinated with all kinds of potions, and exposed to today's level of horrors, in order that the "bank" set up a "branch office" in a place where the people there just simply don't want that.

This is the same "banking" system that is shoving in our faces the fact that Zimmerman is being tried for a capital or otherwise infamous crime without having first been indicted.

Thus, this author's having been through that ringer, and in particular on this very issue of Indictment by a Grand Jury, via his in depth study of the O.J. Simpson case (where were all the "birthers" and "constitution-ists" when O.J. Simpson was being held to answer for a capital crime without having first been indicted?), it's somewhat surprising that this author wasn't cluing in on, wasn't snapping to, the reality from much earlier that Zimmerman was never indicted.

theweek.com/article/index...or-george-zimmerman-what- does-it-mean

www.huffingtonpost.com/be...n/george-zimmerman-grand- jury_b_1445714.html

www.washingtonpost.com/bl...ost/why-no-grand-jury-in- killing-of-trayvon-martin-is-a-positive-sign/2012/04/09/gIQAkE1H6S_blog.html

www.washingtonpost.com/na...rman-trayvon-martin-case- will-not-go-to-grand-jury/2012/04/09/gIQABDZG6S_story.html

polipundit.com/?p=37424 (1st sentence, 2d ¶: " The prosecutor wasn’t required to go to the grand jury for the indictment, but the fact that she didn’t in such a high-profile case is troubling.")

www.theagitator.com/2012/...man-indictment-reactions/

Reaction by "Bmaz" -- "The case is also patently overcharged. As stated above, I think it is more than arguable that the probable cause affidavit does not even support manslaughter, but it is not remotely close to supporting second degree murder. This is an embarrassment not only for Angela Corey, but [also for] the magistrate who signed off on this bunk. It makes the criminal justice system look horrible."

(If we're talking "affidavits" and magistrate participation, then we're talking "Perry Mason"-esque "preliminary hearing" activity, which is pretty close to the exact anti-thesis of a Grand Jury Indictment. As a nation, even with the "constitution-ists," are we so far "gone" that we no longer recognize the difference?).

www.perthnow.com.au/news/...mmerman-to-be-charged-by- special-prosecutor/story-e6frg12u-1226324418536 ( Zimmerman to be charged by special prosecutor; NewsCore; April 12, 2012 3:58AM )

theerant.yuku.com/topic/4...Zimmerman-indicted?page=1

The Washington Post

Updated: 2:32 p.m. Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Posted: 2:19 p.m. Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Florida special prosecutor Angela Corey plans to announce as early as Wednesday afternoon that she is charging neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, according to a law enforcement official close to the investigation.

It was not immediately clear what charge Zimmerman will face.

Martin, 17 and unarmed, was shot and killed Feb. 26 by Zimmerman, who said he was acting in self-defense. Police in Sanford, Fla., where the shooting took place, did not charge Zimmerman, citing the state’s “stand your ground” law.

Corey told reporters Tuesday night that she would hold a news conference about the case within 72 hours. A news release from her office said the event will be held in Sanford or Jacksonville, Fla.

Benjamin Crump, who is representing the Martin family, said this week that Corey’s office had asked where Trayvon’s parents would be each day this week. They arrived Wednesday in Washington for a civil rights conference organized by the Rev. Al Sharpton, where they are scheduled to speak.

The announcement of a charge against Zimmerman would come a day after Zimmerman’s attorneys withdrew from the case, citing their inability to contact Zimmerman.

Lawyers Craig Sonner and Hal Uhrig on Tuesday expressed concern about Zimmerman’s emotional and physical well-being, saying he has taken actions without consulting them. They also said they do not know where Zimmerman is.

“You can stop looking in Florida,” Uhrig told reporters. “Look much further away than that.”

Corey said Monday that she would not bring the case before a grand jury, which was expected to convene this week. She said her decision to forgo the grand jury should not be viewed as a factor in determining whether charges will be filed.

Corey has indicated in recent weeks that she might not need a grand jury to bring charges against Zimmerman.

The lawyers said they stand by their assertions that Zimmerman acted in self- defense when he killed the 17-year-old, who was unarmed, but they acknowledged that they formed their impressions without meeting Zimmerman.

This intent to stir up racial discord AND to dissuade defense of neighborhoods, as in defense of others, as well as personal self-defense (via guns, anyway), is just one more "in our face" sorts of "Let's prove there's no constitution" matters. This author knows that today's yellow propagandists have no real ability to think on their own, so this author in no way expects competent legal analysis of legal matters by the yellow propagandists. However, the self- proclaimed "constitution-ists" in the house are a different story. Where is all the high and mighty brain power on such an obvious issue? Where's the uproar, the outrage, that Zimmerman was never indicted? It says, right there, in the Fifth Amendment, that no one, which surely includes Zimmerman, shall be held to answer for (compelled into trial over) a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless and until he's first been charged by a Grand Jury, whether by Presentment (one of the Grand Jurors is an actual witness) or Indictment (the Grand Jury investigated and entered a True Bill against the defendant).

If the "constitution-ist's" "constitution" is so easily rendered asunder, what, then is their "constitution?" If it may be so easily rendered asunder, it's not a "package deal," which it must be, if it is the Supreme Law of the Land. Since it's clearly not a "package deal," an "all or nothing" set of ideas, then it simply is "nothing."

Where are all these 2d Amendment Sheriffs groups while Zimmerman is being "held to answer for" a capital offense, in flagrant despise of the Fifth Amendment language?

Where's the ACLU?

Where's the Heritage Foundation?

On and on and on. Where are these big "constitution-ist" voices decrying the fact that Zimmerman was never indicted?

They're silent.

Is that because they've read the Hurtado ruling and are "realists" on this issue? Or is it because the concept of Grand Jury Indictment is presently so foreign to the mind that the difference is simply no longer recognized?

And, if they're "realists" regarding the situation that no STATE has to indict in order to try someone for any capital or otherwise infamous crime, why does not perspective not spill over into any other matters, into all other matters?

Being played out before the nation, as happened with the defiance of the Grand Jury Indictment in the O.J. Simpson case, as happened with the defiance of, and turning on the ear of, the concept of extradition in the Murrah Building bombing cases (which cases were literally exported away from the one State having jurisdiction of the alleged crimes), as happened with all the "war on terror" executive decisions to send military troops without any legislatively- asserted Declaration of War, as happened when "funny money" replaced Money (gold and silver Coin), as happened with the handling of the investigation of the JFK assassination (the one investigative body in the nation with authority to investigate that murder is the Dallas County Grand Jury; there is no authority in any Warren Commission), as happened with the fact that the obama- nation truly was born in Kenya, as has happened with the replacing of the "electoral college" with this quasi-popular vote election mechanism for the executive officers, and as is happening in the case against Zimmerman, what we're witnessing is systemic "bragging" about the non-existence of any "constitution."

For so long as our minds are in the prison of myths promoted by the "bank" and their yellow propagandists, the "bank" doesn't even have to engage the debate on the point. The sooner we come to terms with our reality, the sooner we're in a position to turn the tables on the "bank" that pretends also to be providing "governmental" services. The don't like "the" debate, the argument that exposes the fundamental legal mechanism in operation at the moment. To draw "them" into that debate is first to marshal all relevant commercial FACTS in favor of oneself (and one's business enterprises). Once the commercial FACTS are mastered and are pointing in the exact opposite direction from that which benefits the "bank," that's the time to engage "the" debate. To engage the debate without first learning and applying the reality so as to know which FACTS to marshal and how to do so is to ask to get clobbered.

To realize that there's no problem in the eyes of this system over the fact that Zimmerman has not been indicted is to realize that there is no "constitution." To realize that there is no "constitution" is to come to terms with the fundamental concept driving this present system, which is this: "federal" means "federal." That system functions "by agreement."

That should make good and perfect sense in light of the reality that we're not dealing with a "government." We're dealing with a "bank" that pretends to provide "governmental" services.

Harmon L. Taylor Legal Reality Dallas, Texas

Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net

noone222  posted on  2013-07-13   2:51:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: noone222 (#42)

Your Post #41: In the Hurtado case, what we learn is that there is no 'federal' requirement that anyone be Indicted in or by any state system. ... We do not now have and have never had a "constitution."

+ related section here: Was Zimmerman charged with a "capital offense" ? Answer = yes ... just like OJ Simpson he was indicted by an information NOT A GRAND JURY ... where's his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to indictment upon a true bill delivered by a Grand Jury ?

Hurtado v. California - Wikipedia

Justice Harlan presented a lone dissent, a learned disquisition on the history and meaning of "due process of law" that included quotes of many of the great jurists.

Justice Harlan was right to dissent and the majority SCOTUS ruling was wrong, like many of their rulings and those of other courts have been wrong and the cause of much injustice. The evidence that they were wrong is that the Founders exempted from the requirements of 5th Amendment Grand Jury presentments/indictments only "cases arising in the land or naval forces [Federal Militaries], or in the Militia [State Militaries], when in actual service in time of War or public danger." When not serving in time of War or public danger (and so under the jurisdiction then of Military courts), not even those State citizens in the Militia were to be exempted from 5th Amendment protection. For further evidence that was what the Founders intended, State Militias needn't even be in Federal service during time of War or public danger. They can be called into service at the State level during public danger there, etc. and, if their State is invaded, they can wage War to Defend it without being in Federal service or even needing Federal approval.

There is a cottage industry of Constitution Mythologizers who overcomplicate our problems with their concocted streams of misdirection and obstructionism. The author you cited seems to be of that bunch, imo. No matter how much time and effort is expended through the years trying to counter it all, they just keep on cranking out the same bilge or something else to impede our way forward. This time it's the defeatist mantra that we have no Constitution at all because SCOTUS ain't perfect. Neither is any other branch without errors and they all typically move to sabotage the Constitution. That just means they need to make repairs or be replaced with Constitution loyalists who will do so, not that the Constitution is meaningless and void. Even if our Military moved like McArthur is said to have done overseas to quickly establish rightful governance, that cottage industry of opposition to the Constitution would probably still continue on their missions of distortion, demoralizing and manufacturing mazes of fabricated obstacles. We have different belief systems and theirs defers to every lowdown action and falsification against the Constitution as overpowering and extinguishing it. I don't know why you would even want to help them make conditions more miserable and difficult for Patriots, as if the problem is our allegiance to the Constitution instead of their enmity to it and their fake pretenses of "authority". It would be nice if you'd work more with us than for their divisions.

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-07-15   3:11:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: All (#44)

Your Post #41 Post #42: In the Hurtado case, what we learn is that there is no 'federal' requirement that anyone be Indicted in or by any state system. ... We do not now have and have never had a "constitution."

Oops. Edited to correct the Post number and link path reference.

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-07-15   18:48:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 46.

        There are no replies to Comment # 46.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 46.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest