BREAKING ALERT: Patriot Raided by SWAT Under Patriot Act
Walter Reddy, the founder of the modern Committees of Safety, joins Gary Franchi for a special interview to recount the recent SWAT Team raid on his home.
If you and/or your senators and representative are in favor of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act you may want to think twice. Recently, a friend of mine had his home raided by a SWAT team for three hours - operating without a search warrant. Why? Because Walter Reddy is a good patriot and a good American? In a police state, it doesn't matter. You see another man who knows of Walter went to the police station and made wild accusations about him. And even though, the man refused sign to (swear to) his statement to police, the police nonetheless acted on the hearsay and unsubstantiated charges. Oh and of course they confiscated his lawful firearms though he was not then nor is he now charged with any crime.
Let's wake up and grow up! The so-called P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act is nothing more than a license for a police state to operate with impunity. This dangerous act is as unconstitutional and unAmerican as it can be. Police actions under it routinely violate the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment of your innocent fellow Americans. Walter is just another man who is trying to right America's severely listing republic. Don't expect to see this article on the nighly news. America, we can do better and we MUST!
Here is an article about Walter; he is deservedly well respected.
Walter Reddy's First Amendment website is CommitteesOfSafety.Org
The “Rotten Apple” theory states that deviant police officers are those who psychological testing fails to screen out. This concept is favored by police administrators because it offers a quick and easy solution to police deviant behavior. However, there is a growing body of literature that suggests that it is the stressful occupation that is policing that is the fertile soil from which police deviant behavior springs otherwise known as the “Rotten Barrel” theory. This article shall explore police deviant behavior from the perspective that it is the “Rotten Barrel” that leads to police deviant behavior.
What we are now seeing appears to indicate that psychological testing is being used to locate and hire sociopathic deviants rather than to screen them out. Are the people, who ought to be in prisons or mental institutions, now being given guns and badges? Are the prisons or mental institutions now for religious, or freedom loving people? Sociopathic deviants are the first line of enforcement in every dictatorship.
This dangerous act is as unconstitutional and unAmerican as it can be. Police actions under it routinely violate the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment of your innocent fellow Americans. Walter is just another man who is trying to right America's severely listing republic. Don't expect to see this article on the nighly news. America, we can do better and we MUST!
The Pat Act personal jurisdiction claim is exclusive to 14th American serf/slaves.
This being said, the so-called Patriot in question forfeited or exchanged his 1st, 2nd etc. rights for "Incorporated rights" (privileges dolled out by Legislative slave masters and judges) when he accepted Federal Benefits.
Did the 14th Amendment do away with State Citizenship?
"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, p. 591 [1979].
The answer is absolutely not.
In fact the leading and controlling case on State Citizenship and United States Citizenship is the Supreme Court case, The Slaughter-House Cases (16 Wallace 36: 21 L.Ed. 394 [1873]). In this case, the Supreme Court distinguishes between State Citizenship and United States Citizenship.
"It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics of the individual." The Slaughter-House Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 74.
"The importance of the case can hardly be overestimated. By distinguishing between state citizenship and national citizenship and by emphasizing that the rights and privileges of federal citizenship do not include the protection of ordinary civil liberties such as freedom of speech and press, religion, etc., but only the privileges which one enjoys by virtue of his federal citizenship, the Court averted, for the time being at least, the revolution in our constitutional system apparently intended by the framers of the amendment and reserved to the states the responsibility for protecting civil rights generally." Cases In Constitutional Law by Robert F. Cushman, 5th Edition, pp. 250-251 (College Law Textbook) [1979].
"Citizenship is elaborated in two privileges and immunities clauses of the United States Constitution. . . . The Slaughter-House Cases [1873] 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, emphasized the distinct character of federal and state citizenship. Slaughter-House held that privileges and immunities conferred by state citizenship were outside federal reach through the Fourteenth Amendment. . . . Federal citizenship was seen as including only such things as interstate travel and voting. While subsequent decisions have extended the meaning of citizenship in the Fourteenth Amendment, Slaughter-House is still controlling in that it precludes use of privileges and immunities language in protecting citizens by federal authority." Constitutional Law Deskbook - Individual Rights, by Chandler, Enslen, Renstrom; Second Edition, p. 634 (Lawyers Cooperative Publishing, 1993).
"The Fourteenth Amendment did not obliterate the distinction between national and state citizenship, but rather preserved it. Slaughter-House Cases." 103d Congress, 1st Session, Document 103-6: The Constitution of the United States of America; Analysis And Interpretation: Annotations Of Cases Decided By The Supreme Court Of The United States To June 29, 1992, p. 1566. 1
In addition, the Supreme Court in The Slaughter-House Cases concluded that there are two citizens under the Constitution of the United States:
"The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is, that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established.
It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.
We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section, which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several States. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same, and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.
The language is, 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.' It is a little remarkable, if this clause was intended as a protection to the citizen of a State against the legislative power of his own State, that the word citizen of the State should be left out when it is so carefully used, and used in contradistinction to citizens of the United States, in the very sentence which precedes it. It is too clear for argument that the change in phraseology was adopted understandingly and with a purpose.
Of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States, and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the State, and what they respectively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment." The Slaughter-House Cases: 83 U.S. 36, at 73-74.
"The expression, Citizen of a State, is carefully omitted here. In Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution of the United States, it had been already provided that 'the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.' The rights of Citizens of the States [under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1] and of citizens of the United States [under The Fourteenth Amendment] are each guarded by these different provisions. That these rights are separate and distinct, was held in the Slaughterhouse Cases, recently decided by the Supreme court. The rights of Citizens of the State, as such, are not under consideration in the Fourteenth Amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions." United States v. Anthony: 24 Fed. Cas. 829, 830 (Case No. 14,459) [1873]. 2
"This provision [The Fourteenth Amendment] protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. See Slaughter-House Cases 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)." Jones v. Temmer: 829 F.Supp. 1226, 1232 [1993].
Therefore, State citizenship and United States citizenship are provided for in the Constitution of the United States. A citizen of a state is to be found at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States whereas a citizen of the United States is located at the Fourteenth Amendment.
_________________________________
1 "... [U]ndoubtedly in a purely technical and abstract sense citizenship of one of the states may not include citizenship of the United States." United States v. Northwestern Express, Stage & Transportation Company: 164 U.S. 686, 688 [1897] get case
2 "Appellant does not invoke the commerce clause, and is neither a citizen of a state nor of the United States within the protection of the privileges and immunities clauses of Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment. Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. (US) 168, 177, 19 L ed 357, 359; Pembina Consol. Silver Mining & Milling Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U.S. 181, 187, 31 L ed 650, 653, 8 S.Ct. 737, 740, 2 Inters Com Rep 24; Selover, B. & Co. v. Walsh, 226 U.S. 112, 126, 57 L ed 146, 152, 33 S.Ct. 69, 72." Asbury Hospital v. Cass County N.D.: 326 U.S. 207, 210-211 [1945] get case
The language is, 'No State shall make or enforce any law [My note: any law, whether at the State level or the Federal level] which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.' It is a little remarkable, if this clause was intended as a protection to the citizen of a State against the legislative power of his own State
Yes, it's quite remarkable and yes it does protect the citizen of a State against Uncosntitutional legislation by their State and also against Unconstitutional Federal legislation, such as the "Patriot Act". I call it the Nullification Clause. The Slaughterhouse Cases = Pro-States' Rights ruling. The State of the cholera-causing butchers did not violate any of their Constitutionally protected rights by moving to protect the citizens of that State from their epidemic-causing business practices.