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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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 Senator Kennedy Exposes Bad Jusge Jewish Land Grab Trump Taps Dr. Marty Makary, Fierce Opponent of COVID Vaccine Mandates, as New FDA Commissioner Recovering J6 Prisoner James Grant, Tells-All About Bidens J6 Torture Chamber, Needs Immediate Help After Release AOC: Keeping Men Out Of Womens Bathrooms Is Endangering Women What Donald Trump Has Said About JFK's Assassination Horse steals content from Sara Fischer and Sophia Cai and pretends he is the author Horse steals content from Jonas E. Alexis and claims it as his own. Trump expected to shake up White House briefing room

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: 2682
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 # 74.

#4. To: Neil McIver, lodwick, BTP Holdings, Ferret Mike, angle, mehtable, RickyJ, all (#0)

Hell of a story, and it will only get worse; THIS IS WHAT COMES OF LIVING IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT STATE. And if you do not know what I mean, well, you should by now, because there is no control on this type of behavior in the Federal Zone.

richard9151  posted on  2006-10-02   18:34:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

THIS IS WHAT COMES OF LIVING IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT STATE. And if you do not know what I mean, well, you should by now, because there is no control on this type of behavior in the Federal Zone.

It is also what comes of living in a tyranny based on the Law Merchant (UCC) and the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Once you sign on the dotted line, for anything, especially a SSN, you are presumed to be a beneficiary of the government program or licensing scheme.

I'll make it simple. The government is operating the Treasury account you created when you applied for that SSN. We have a court case which states this but I cannot locate the cite just now.

The state operates under a presumption that you, the live man, are the surety for the fiction of law, or juristic person, which they have created for you by and through those applications for birth registration, SSN, drivers license, etc.

Since the corporate state is a fiction of law, it cannot communicate with a live man, and this is the same for other fictions. That is why these fictions have attorneys to represent them in court proceedings. If you partake of the commercial world you are in their fictional Babylonian system.

We have the solution to this scheme and it is not a silver bullet in and of itself. We know that the common law is a part of it, so we use it and stay out of their administrative law Babylonian jurisdiction.

The Habeas Corpus works in the common law. In their fictional corporate state, Bush has just thrown it on the trash heap of history.

But the key to the commercial scheme is to take control of your fictional entity, sometimes called the Strawman. And we do that with a filing in the UCC and by placing in that filing a Security Agreement which gives us the Priority over any and all claimants, and also makes us the Secured Party in any and all property which we list in that UCC contract.

Not to mention, one of the benefits of this is that we have an Indemnity Bond in that contract which allows us to discharge any debts or claims made against the Strawman in the public sector, which includes public utilities, banks, credit cards and any gov't agency or entity.

I've used this process and it works, even with the IRS. All they need, and what we give them, is a paper, a negotiable instrument, which they use to zero the account. The sad part is that they are making these claims in a fraudulent manner. We have no loss in this instance and the debt is assigned back to the original obligor of the currency, the USG. They created the monster, so now let them live with it.

A simple way to explain this is since the bankruptcy of the U.S. in 1933 and the confiscation of gold as money of account, they have succeeded in doing something which was never possible under the Apportionment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. They have transferred the national debt to the people by and through the use of Federal Reserve Notes. Limited liability is one of the benefits you are presumed to receive from this system which has been foisted on the people.

But, when you use the slave owners note to purchase something, the slave owner still maintains an interest in the property. You have possession and use and that is all. When you register that property, you pledge it to the state and they then use it as collateral to get credit from the bankers to operate. They profit from tricking you into the registration scheme whereby you waive your God-given unalienable rights under the contract. So, next time you get pulled over for speeding, remember that the license and registration gives them subject matter jurisdiction and you are screwed.

For an application for a UCC-1 Financing Statement/Security Agreement/Indemnity Bond Click Here.

But be aware that the address for me in there is old since I have recently moved. If anyone is really interested in this, please send me a PM and I will give you the new address.

Sorry, richard, but, as I see it, what you propose about a constitutional amendment is a distraction and diversion which will waste time and resources in our fight to take back this country and put the rule of law back in the hands of the people.

The Federal Districts exist as an overlay, but are only lawful if you enter their jurisdiction. The trick is to stay out of them if at all possible since you have no rights there. But, the U.S. District Courts do exist for a lawful purpose and that is to settle disputes between parties in different states or between citizens and other government entities. What we need to ask ourselves is if we wish to claim to be a 14th Amendment civil rights citizen. There are advantages but then again, there are disadvantages as well.

Sometimes we have no choice since the state courts are so utterly corrupt at the lower levels. Not always, but for the most part. As an example, we have a judge here in a nearby county who was asked, "Why is there so much injustice in the courts?" He answered without hesitation, "Because the people allow it." So it goes for all levels of government.

"Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature." James Garfield

BTP Holdings  posted on  2006-10-02   22:01:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Sorry, richard, but, as I see it, what you propose about a constitutional amendment

Somehow I missed that. I'd like to read the exact wording of Richard's proposed amendment.

Where is it?

wbales  posted on  2006-10-02   22:36:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Where is it?

Click on his screen name and see his home page.

BTP Holdings  posted on  2006-10-02   22:40:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

OK.

I decided to ignore this:

These states are foreign governments with respect to the United States. They are also referred to as "foreign countries" in 28 U.S.C. §297 and 26 CFR §1.911- 2(h) and "foreign states" in 28 U.S.C. §1603.

which is patently WRONG and get to this:

Constitution of the United States

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17;

17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings: And,

The new Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 shall read;

17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings: And,

So, Richard is proposing to add "SUBJECT ONLY TO THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION" to the constitutional clause establishing Washington, DC as the seat of the federal government and giving the federal government authority over its federal military bases, federal parks, lands, and so forth wherever so situate.

For one, "SUBJECT ONLY TO THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION" seems superfluous. Second, it is arbitrary and vague.

What is the intent of adding this language? That federal government controlled lands within the United States are subject to the authority of the US Constitution?? That any and all state law is invalid/inapplicable to and within such areas??

What, exactly and specifically, is attempting to be accomplished by adding this language?

This is confusing.

wbales  posted on  2006-10-02   22:55:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I decided to ignore this:

These states are foreign governments with respect to the United States. They are also referred to as "foreign countries" in 28 U.S.C. §297 and 26 CFR §1.911- 2(h) and "foreign states" in 28 U.S.C. §1603.

which is patently WRONG

I have not gone to check on those parts of the code. So I cannot say exactly what is in there.

But it is a fact that we have two parallel jursidictions, one is for the federal state which encompasses the District of Colombia and all of the territories and other federal posessions, forts, federal buildings, etc. And the other is the jurisdiction for the several states of the union.

This is a well founded fact of the law in this nation and there are many court cases which show this to be true. American Jurisprudence would be the place to look for this. For the purposes of distinguishing these two separate jurisdictions, there is a court case which I recall seeing that says specifically that the federal jurisdiction is foreign to that of the several states. Hence, the federal government is foreign to that of the states.

The two jurisdictions cannot be mixed. And it is from this that there arises much confusion. The intent of Congress when it passes a law is that the jurisdiction is only for one or the other, or both.

Any law which is applied to a jurisdiction to which it cannot be done under this constitutional separation, would be struck down by the courts. The problem is that many of these laws which are misapplied are never challenged in court. Therein lies the problem. And also the dishonest nature of the bureaucracy which does these things.

BTW, this jurisdictional issue has been proven by the Congressional Research Bureau time and again. When the word "state" is used in legislation, it does not always have one meaning. The whole law must be read to bring this into context.

For one, "SUBJECT ONLY TO THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION" seems superfluous. Second, it is arbitrary and vague.

What is the intent of adding this language? That federal government controlled lands within the United States are subject to the authority of the US Constitution?? That any and all state law is invalid/inapplicable to and within such areas??

What, exactly and specifically, is attempting to be accomplished by adding this language?

This is confusing.

That is what I thought also.

Furthermore, the fact that the constitution and Bill of Rights are a compact between the states (as representatives of the people, who are not a party to that compact) and the federal government are between them only as a guarantee of our rights and the limitations of the federal government as it pertains to the states and the people.

See my post #30 above also at the very end where I give my opinion of this.

BTP Holdings  posted on  2006-10-02   23:35:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Hence, the federal government is foreign to that of the states.

The two jurisdictions cannot be mixed. And it is from this that there arises much confusion.

They can be mixed and are every day--its called concurrent jurisdiction. There is not that much confusion. Whether federal jurisdiction or state jurisdiction attaches and/or which jurisdiction's law takes precedence is generally well settled.

The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. The US Supreme Court is the court of last resort in the United States. In some situations, a state Supreme Court is the court of last resort.

This all seems to be much ado about nothing.

The focus of concerned Americans should be on removing the traitors and idiots, special interests, and a particular foreign country running the American federal government AND geeting government to recognize, enforce and follow laws which are on the books.

And, I'll say again: Richard's proposed amendment makes NO sense to me.

wbales  posted on  2006-10-03   8:00:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

They can be mixed and are every day--its called concurrent jurisdiction. There is not that much confusion. Whether federal jurisdiction or state jurisdiction attaches and/or which jurisdiction's law takes precedence is generally well settled.

Concurrent means they exist side by side. Generally speaking, they do not mix. But, FEDGOV has been trying to mix them more and more as is shown by the attempts to federalize crimes which should be solely in state jurisdiction. You know what I mean, all of this baloney about hate crimes and other nonsense.

But, I was referring also to the two concurrent federal jurisdictions, rather than the state and federal jurisdictions. That is where there is real confusion since the word state is used in both but there are two meanings.

BTP Holdings  posted on  2006-10-03   10:21:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

But, I was referring also to the two concurrent federal jurisdictions, rather than the state and federal jurisdictions. That is where there is real confusion since the word state is used in both but there are two meanings.

So from Richard's PM and the statement above, I garner more enlightenment.

There is, according to Richard and BTP as well, two concurrent federal jurisdictions: one up front and out in the open and one, ostensibly, behind the scenes really running the show, extraconstituional, so to speak.

First off, I do not necessarily disagree that there is a shadow government: the Big Business Elite and Zionists who are calling the shots. In fact, that is probably the case. However, that such rises to the level of an "official" secondary, parallel federal government, I am dubious. That the enactment of Richard's proposed contitutional language would expose and bring this secondary federal jurisdiction to a halt, I am MUCH more skeptical (laughing is more like it). After all, do you all really think these people would be worried about a change in the constitution's wording: "Well, it's been amended boys, time to close up shop."

Oh yeah, the Zionists and thier ass kissing lackeys in the American federal government would be sure to say that. Do you really need reminding of how Bush, et. al., regard the US Constitution?? ACK. ACK. GAG. GAG.

No, we don't need no constitutional amendments. We need no more laws.

What is needed is an informed citizenry who shall no longer tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption and the influence and control of a small cult centered in Israel over and in Washington, DC. The typical and far too numerous apathetic, un- and mis-informed, lazy, intimidated, stupid, and gullible American is the real problem. That is what needs to fixed.

No more voting for anyone with an R or a D attached to thier name--more attending street corner protests--more letters to the editor--more bumper stickers--more blurting out at cocktail parties and backyard BBQs that Israel runs the US and Bush sucks--more calling into radio and TV talk shows--more telling your close friends and relatives that they are braindead MFers if they support Bush, this federal government, and/or Israel, grass roots sort of action, so to speak, again.

Well...IMHO.

wbales  posted on  2006-10-03   23:00:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

--more telling your close friends and relatives that they are braindead MFers if they support Bush, this federal government,

yahoo! i agree. hehehehehehe. good post, wes.

christine  posted on  2006-10-03   23:09:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

        There are no replies to Comment # 74.

End Trace Mode for Comment # 74.

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

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