[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Donald Trump Indirectly Exposes the Jewish Neocons Behind Joe Biden's Nuclear War Key European NATO Bases in Reach of Russia's Oreshnik Hypersonic Missile Supervolcano Alert in Europe: Phlegraean Fields Activity Sparks Scientists Attention (Mass Starvation) France reacted to the words of a US senator on sanctions against allies Trump nominates former Soros executive for Treasury chief SCOTUS asked to review if Illinois can keep counting mail-in ballots 2 weeks after election day The Real Reason Government Workers Are Panicking About ElonÂ’s New Tracking System THEY DON'T CARE ANYMORE! Young Americans Are Turning Off The TV Taxpayer Funded Censorship: How Government Is Using Your Tax Dollars To Silence Your Voice "Terminator" Robot Dog Now Equipped With Amphibious Capabilities Trump Plans To Use Impoundment To Cut Spending - What Is It? Mass job losses as major factory owner moves business overseas Israel kills IDF soldiers in Lebanon to prevent their kidnap 46% of those deaths were occurring on the day of vaccination or within two days In 2002 the US signed the Hague Invasion Act into law MUSK is going after WOKE DISNEY!!! Bondi: Zuckerberg Colluded with Fauci So "They're Not Immune Anymore" from 1st Amendment Lawsuits Ukrainian eyewitnesses claim factory was annihilated to dust by Putin's superweapon FBI Director Wray and DHS Secretary Mayorkas have just refused to testify before the Senate... Government adds 50K jobs monthly for two years. Half were Biden's attempt to mask a market collapse with debt. You’ve Never Seen THIS Side Of Donald Trump President Donald Trump Nominates Former Florida Rep. Dr. Dave Weldon as CDC Director Joe Rogan Tells Josh Brolin His Recent Bell’s Palsy Diagnosis Could Be Linked to mRNA Vaccine President-elect Donald Trump Nominates Brooke Rollins as Secretary of Agriculture Trump Taps COVID-Contrarian, Staunch Public Health Critic Makary For FDA F-35's Cooling Crisis: Design Flaws Fuel $2 Trillion Dilemma For Pentagon Joe Rogan on Tucker Carlson and Ukraine Aid Joe Rogan on 62 year-old soldier with one arm, one eye Jordan Peterson On China's Social Credit Controls

Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Government thugs handcuff children, kill dog during $60 marijuana raid
Source: Marijuana Policy Project
URL Source: http://www.mpp.org
Published: Sep 28, 2006
Author: Rob Kampia
Post Date: 2006-10-02 17:19:33 by Neil McIver
Ping List: *Marijuana Policy Project*     Subscribe to *Marijuana Policy Project*
Keywords: None
Views: 2894
Comments: 194

I want to share with you a recent horrifying example of our government's war on marijuana users. Get ready to be outraged.

The following is an excerpt from a September 20 article in the "Times Union" in Albany, New York:

"A police strike team raided a woman's Prospect Street apartment and handcuffed her children and killed her dog early Tuesday in a $60 pot bust. The woman called it excessive force and a case of mistaken identity, but officers said they stormed the home for a good reason: One of her sons was selling marijuana there.

The Police Department's tactical squad knocked down the front door of the upstairs apartment at 110 Prospect St. and flooded into the apartment shortly after 6 a.m.

'I heard a big boom. My first reaction was to jump out of bed. We were trying to find where our kids were at and all of a sudden we had guns in our faces,' said 40-year-old Anita Woodyear, who rents the second-floor flat.

During the ensuing chaos, police handcuffed two of the woman's children, Elijah Bradley, 11, and 12-year-old Victoria Perez, and shot at her dog in the kitchen before killing it in the bathroom, Woodyear said.

'That seems like an awful lot of firepower for marijuana,' said Fred Clark of the Schenectady chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. 'That's like spending $125,000 for $5.'

Woodyear said she suspected police had intended to search a neighboring home, but had the wrong address on the search warrant. Neighbors said they suspect illicit drugs are dealt at other homes on the block.

'No apology, no "sorry about your dog",' she said.

But police said they have no reason to apologize. They said they raided the house because Woodyear's 18-year-old son, Israel M. Bradley, sold three plastic bags of marijuana there for $40 on Sept. 15. They allege he sold two other bags of marijuana in the house for $20 on Aug. 28, they said.

In addition, police said Bradley was carrying marijuana in the home on Sept. 1. 'We had the absolute right house. We had the absolute right target,' said Assistant Chief Michael Seber."

Visit http://ny.mpp.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=grKMIYPGIqE&b=1773617&ct=2947891 to read the entire article.

Who do the police think they're helping by breaking down the front door of a family's home, pointing guns in their faces, murdering their dog, and handcuffing the children? Was this for the good of the children? The mother? The neighborhood?

No one wins -- except perhaps for the government thugs who get jacked up on the adrenaline rush that comes from threatening and persecuting others.

We have to stop this madness. We have to change the laws so that government thugs no longer have the legal authority to kick in people's doors to find marijuana.

If you're as outraged by the above story as I am, please turn your anger into action by helping MPP restore sense to our nation's marijuana policies.

Thank you for standing with us in this important fight.

Sincerely,

Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

P.S. As I've mentioned in previous alerts, a major philanthropist has committed to match the first $3.5 million that MPP can raise from the rest of the planet in 2006. This means that your donation today will be doubled. Subscribe to *Marijuana Policy Project*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 168.

#84. To: Neil McIver, BTP Holdings, wbales, Tausero, christine, jessejane, RickyJ, mehtable, Zoroaster, robin, Eoghan, tom007, Jethro Tull, lodwick, angel, AngelSpawn, , range, all (#0)

Dead Constitution

The Constitution is alive and quite well, thank you, and I want to show ALL of you how little you understand, EVEN WHEN THE INFORMATION IS HANDED TO YOU, BY YOUR FELLOW CHILDREN.

1. The US government is incompetent; look at how badly they are handling the War in Iraq! (Jeez. As if.) I see this theme constantly being discussed on 4um, and repeated repeated repeated repeated endlessly. Meanwhile, the important part of the info flies past all of you with hardly a notice, and, it would be the part that could be used to awaken people.

2. The US government has constantly refused to send enought soldiers to Iraq to ´get the job done.´ An action which is repeated is not an accident, and reveals INTENT. Do you understand, children?

3. On 4um, there was a post some time ago detailing a meeting with many different military officiers, including Turkish military in which a new, proposed map of the Middle East was presented BY THE US MILITARY. The Turkish military walked out of the meeting as soon as the map was presented. Why? Because the map revealed the INTENT of the US government which included carving off a part of Turkey to form the new state of the Kurds. BUT, what the new map also revealed was no-more-Iran; Iran was divided into three separate sections. Sound familiar? Because this division of Iraq can not occur without a civil war...... WOW! Boy!!! Is that US government incompetent or what?!

There was also a post on 4um before about the intent of the US government to turn Bagdad into a new City State..... well, let me see.... Bagdad..... ummmmm... See the post, Masonary is a Religion. See the post, The Talmud Unmasked. Ummm, what is the federal code? Oh, right, according to BTP Holdings, the Law Merchant, and he is correct, but.... the Law Merchant is the merchant law of Babylon brought forward through Rome and incorporated within the Federal Zone. Oh, yes, I forgot, Bagdad IS the location of old Babylon. so for the purposes of religion, Bagdad IS Babylon.

It is The Babylonian Talmud, and if you read the post, Masonry is a Religion, you will find that the Masons are the keepers of the Mysteries (their words, not mine) of Nimrod, who.... oh right, was King of Babylon and the founder of the Mystery Religion (and worshipped throughout the ages of the world as Baal, Marduk, and the Sun; anyone care to worship on the day of the Sun? You know, Sun-day?), and the Mystery Religion of Babylon is the religion of the Roman church named catholic, or, universal. See the book, Two Babylons, but hey, what do I know.

richard9151  posted on  2006-10-04   12:00:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The Constitution is alive and quite well, thank you,

Please read number 84 first, please, and now I want to take this a little further on, and show you another way that George Bush could turn things around, in a heart beat.

As you read this, remember what the President of Iran told us; that representatives of the United States government have been meeting with the leaders of the insurrection, arming them, and funding them, thus guarenteeing that a civil war would occur.

I just posted a new post; Congress sets aside 20M to celebrate wars end, from AP

Now, why would they do that? And, why will the Democracts NOT jump on the bank wagon against the war? Do they know something.... that you don¨t know?

Bet on it. Here is a solution to the war, and it accomplishes exactly what I outlined in number 84.

Already being talked about in Bagdad is the possibility of ending the sectarian violence by agreeing to partion Iran; that would be for the Shites, Kurds, and whoever the third faction is. But here is the rest of the story; you will be told, in only one or two news account, that a compromise has been reached whereby all Iraqi people will have access to Bagdad, but because of sectarian violence, Bagdad will be under the direct control of the Iraqi parliment (or whatever) WHICH WILL HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER BAGDAD.

It will then be explained that the three separate sections of Iraq will now be legally separate (or words to that effect), with their own school systems, own laws, own courts, and own police, etc. etc.

It will also be explained that, in order to benefit the Iraqi people in general, BAGDAD WILL HAVE CONTROL OVER ALL NATURAL RESOURCES. Bingo, control of the oil. And, the Iraqi people, now split up, will no longer be able to resist what is going on.

If this occurs before the election, the election will be a slam dunk for the Repub., the Dems do not look bad because they never came out against the war, and.... it paves the way for the war in Iran. I mean, who is going to argue with George Bush, when he SO obviously knows what he is doing. Right?

And good-bye 9/11 problems. Who wants to hear that nonsense now when we are winning the war on terror!

Oh, and the other thing that you are going to be told is how fortunate are the Iraqis, because they now have a Constitution which is modeled, more or less, after that greatest of all documents, the US Constitution. Lucky people.

richard9151  posted on  2006-10-04   18:35:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Oh yeah.....I wanted to mention something about your constitutional amendment. Your chances of geting congresscowards to go along with that are about zippo.

And if you called for a constititional convention, I, for one, would fight you every step of the way. The minute a concon is called, it is all over for sure. Positively. Overnight.

rowdee  posted on  2006-10-04   19:57:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

congresscowards to go along with that are about zippo

Oh absolutely. Never happen, at least as long as nothing but attorneys are sent to Congress. But.... the states can propose amendments as well. Never been done, but it is legal.

richard9151  posted on  2006-10-04   23:27:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I, for one, most certainly don't want states calling for a con-con.......that's just as bad as having the congressbastards initiate it. Such a move was just beaten down a few years back when leavitt of Utah tried to get one going.

The problem is they would NEVER stop at just your amendment......the sonsabitches would try to rewrite the whole damn Constitution! NEVER! They've not done a fuckin thing right yet, not even with the military! Certainly not the post office!

At least the Founding Fathers were wise enough to realize they weren't perfect.......these arrogant bastards at all levels in todays' government(s) place themselves right next to God and Jesus. No thanks.......They aren't worthy of carrying the chamber pots of the Founders.

rowdee  posted on  2006-10-05   0:58:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

don't want states calling for a con-con.......

I agree; that is not how it works. Each state or one state proposes an amendment, which is then submitted to all of the other states and to the Congress. It has never been done, but as the states are party to the Constitution, it is legal. And once the Amendment is on the table, nearly impossible to kill it; and the debate then begins, and, one would hope, the awakening. So, all that is neccessary is one state... can anyone say... Idaho?

richard9151  posted on  2006-10-05   11:22:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Each state or one state proposes an amendment, which is then submitted to all of the other states and to the Congress. It has never been done, but as the states are party to the Constitution, it is legal. And once the Amendment is on the table, nearly impossible to kill it; and the debate then begins, and, one would hope, the awakening. So, all that is neccessary is one state... can anyone say... Idaho?

I can say Idaho easily......however, my copy of the Constitution does not call for your mode of amending.

Article 5:

The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid for all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate.

The states can request a con- con to propose amendments. They do not have the same authority as Congress to propose and send out for ratification by the states any amendments.

If you have something that differs, I'd like to see it/hear it.

rowdee  posted on  2006-10-05   13:06:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

If you have something that differs,

I did have. I will have to see if I can find it. I lost a lot of paper when I moved, and may not have it. As I recall, the paper was based on states being a party to the Constitution, and the Congress could not refuse to entertain an amendment proposed by a state. I will see what I can find. And, the same holds true, if the process is started in one state, then the discussion spreads from there. The main issue is to force the discussion open for all to see.

Aftr all, if a sufficient number of people are aware and talking about the problem, it only takes one Representative to propose the Amendment. In that case, can you say, Texas?

richard9151  posted on  2006-10-05   14:45:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#169. To: Neil McIver, BTP Holdings, wbales, Tausero, christine, jessejane, RickyJ, mehtable, Zoroaster, robin, Eoghan, tom007, Jethro Tull, lodwick, angel, AngelSpawn, max, phant2000, range, all (#168)

NUTSHELL

Now that we have got the supporting documentation out of the way, please permit me the opportunity to place a nutshell explanation in the record.

There is a problem in America. Everybody knows this, but no one can agree as to what, exactly, is the problem. Everybody wants to discuss the sleight of hand of some Supreme Court Justices in 1933, or the bankruptcy of the United States government in 1929, or the Trading With the Enemy Act in 1917, or the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, or, the more radical of the Patriot groups will only discuss the Civil War and the actions of the United States government going forward from that time. If you will notice something about each of these arguments, they go backward in time, getting older and older as the discussions drag on and on and on. But no one can agree as to what, exactly, is THE problem.

Are the things enumerated above, problems? Of course they are, but it is silly to fragment ourselves arguing about which is the first problem, which is the most important problem, and what is necessary to fix each and every problem…. Unless we FIRST identify what permitted each and every one of these problems to occur. It is also silly to run around in circles screaming about they are ignoring the Constitution when federal judges keep telling us that this or that is not a Constitutional issue, and they are correct, it is not. It is generally a contractual problem/issue.

So, here is THE problem, in a NUTSHELL:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution is called the Exclusive Jurisdiction clause in the Constitution.

United States v. Cornell 25 Fed. Cas. 646, no. 14,867 C.C.D.R.I. 1819 … It is under the like terms in the same clause of the constitution that exclusive jurisdiction is now exercised by congress in the District of Columbia …

In Downes v. Bidwell, 1901, the Supreme Court ruled that "exclusive" meant exactly that; EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction, with no control from the Constitution. (In Downes v. Bidwell, the Court ruled that "exclusive" meant "without consideration of the Constitutional restraints...")

"without consideration of the Constitutional restraints...") means exactly what it says; under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress, the limitations on governmental power enumerated within the Constitution, DO NOT APPLY. This means that there are no Constitutional limitations of power exercised within the United States Federal Zone.

The Constitution was NEVER meant to apply to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress. How do we know this? Because in politics there are no accidents. If this had been an accident, it would have been corrected long ago, and it has not been. I would assume that this means that unless the people correct it, it will never be corrected.

Now, we have a Supreme Court Justice who addressed these issues in 1901.

Justice Harlan said; The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.

Justice Harlan was right on the mark. He knew what he was talking about, but only a very few attorneys and the like would have been interested, because there simply were no people under the EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION of Congress in 1901. Basically, the only United States citizens who existed were the former slaves of the South, and they had no knowledge or understanding of what was being done to them. So most of what Justice Harlan had to say just went into the history books and it was pretty much the end of the story (until now).

But, Justice Harlan then went on to add; I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism. ...

It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution.

Now if this strikes a bell with you; We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism. ...

Then perhaps you should take a close look at what is causing the problems we are experiencing today; Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17; EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.

And if you study the Fourteenth Amendment, it was intended to put United States citizens under the EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION of Congress.

What does my proposed Amendment do? Simple. It applies the Constitution to the Federal Zone.

Now, the question was asked, do I have a plan? Why, yes, thank you for asking, I do indeed have a plan.

NOTE; I have posted this in this thread, however I am going to create a new post named NUTSHELL, and will ping you when it is up. Please post all comments in the new thread. Thank you.

richard9151  posted on  2006-10-05 14:49:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Count me out of whatever your project is. I, for one, certainly need more than what you offer up as proof something can or can't be done.

I just reviewed Article V at the Cornell Law site and find that their wording is the same as what my copy here at home is. Until you can show where there has been a change, properly ratified, that changes it, I believe you're misleading people.

I can guarantee you that should one state or 3/4 of them ask Congress to convene a convention for the purpose of enacting a single solitary 'little' ol change to the Constitution, Pandora's Box would never be shut.

And there is no way that 536 political hacks would just sit back and say, 'help yourselves folks'....and that isn't even considering any of the handlers or behind the scenes power brokers.

You want something meaningful---start with restoring senators to being appointed by their own states; that way states have representation in gubmint.......and guess what.....that one wouldn't make it thru either. There are too many $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ floating out there; and they don't want to have to deal with entire state legislative bodies. Its much easier to buy off 100 rather than the several thousands collectively from the 50 states plus any territorial or otherwise representatives.

rowdee  posted on  2006-10-05 21:00:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]