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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Problem of the Bitcoin Billionaires Biden: “We’re leaving America in a better place today than when we came into office four years ago … " Candace Owens: Gaetz out, Bondi in. There's more to this than you think. OMG!!! Could Jill Biden Be Any MORE Embarrassing??? - Anyone NOTICE This??? Sudden death COVID vaccine paper published, then censored, by The Lancet now republished with peer review Russian children returned from Syria 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

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: 3155
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  

I still need people to write articles for http://unlicense.org detailing how to legally get out of the system.

Do I hear a fat lady singing?

Critter  posted on  2006-10-05   0:21:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I daresay if you look at what you read, you'll find it broken down into chapters. Try breaking your posts about your project down into sections....follow a pattern that will logically lead your readers to gain the same conclusion as you desire. Perhaps on your home page, make an index or a table of contents, that matches to the titles of the sections you post.

I can guarantee not everyone is a speed reader.

Speaking only for myself, though I can't imagine I am the only one who does this........if a subject isn't 'hot' with me to begin with, OR it doesn't grab my attention right away, like in the first or second paragraph, I can guarantee my eyes will glaze over as I scroll past 500 paragraphs!!!

rowdee  posted on  2006-10-05   0:50:56 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  

Lord, no on BAC.....I refused to read his recycled baffle em with bullshit cut and paste games!!!

I was thinking of oibl (I think that was the initials)--he had a fetish regarding the federal reserve and couldn't seem to get beyond the fact that many of us knew/know about it and that there were other things to be dealt with besides that topic.

Poor guy....he'd get so frustrated.

rowdee  posted on  2006-10-05   1:03:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I was thinking of oibl

i knew that was who you meant.

oibl=one if by land

christine  posted on  2006-10-05   10:10:22 ET  Reply   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?

The Talmudic Khazar-Jew dream; Christians killing Muslims and Muslims killing Christians. What could be better than that? Well, Whites killing non-Whites and non-Whites killing Whites, of course.

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

I thought you said you would never own another gun.

The statement was past tense, as in HAVE HAD. As to putting up with people, living in Missouri is far different from where I lived, and it was far different 20 years ago as well. And, the process that I and my friends used are hardly appropriate to today. I have looked at your paperwork, and I suspect that it does suffice, today. That does not mean that you can use THEIR system against them indefinately. They will adjust, as it is their system.

As to having a plan, why, yes, I do, thank you for asking.

The Talmudic Khazar-Jew dream; Christians killing Muslims and Muslims killing Christians. What could be better than that? Well, Whites killing non-Whites and non-Whites killing Whites, of course.

richard9151  posted on  2006-10-05   11:28:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I guess you don't. Maybe this all will help, but I doubt it.

This is the site used in More Blonde Jokes II; http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/FedSubjMtrJurisdiction.h tm

Foreign government: "The government of the United States of America as distinguished from the government of the several states." [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition]

Foreign laws: "The laws of a foreign country or sister state." [Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition]

Foreign States: "Nations outside of the United States...Term may also refer to another state; i.e. a sister state. The term "foreign nations', ...should be construed to mean all nations and states other than that in which the action is brought; and hence, one state of the Union is foreign to another, in that sense." [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition]

Unless expressly provided otherwise in the law itself, all laws passed by the U.S. Congress shall conclusively be presumed to apply only within the former, or first of the two jurisdictions, called the federal zone, above.

"A canon of construction which teaches that of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222 (1949)

All of this is confirmed by Thomas Jefferson, one of our founding fathers, who said at http://e text.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1050.htm:

"With respect to our State and federal governments, I do not think their relations are correctly understood by foreigners. They generally suppose the former subordinate to the latter. But this is not the case. They are co- ordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. To the State governments are reserved all legislative and administration, in affairs which concern their own citizens only, and to the federal government is given whatever concerns foreigners, or the citizens of the other States; these functions alone being made federal. The one is domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government; neither having control over the other, but within its own department." -- Thomas Jefferson ["Writing of Thomas Jefferson" pub by Taylor & Maury, Washington DC, 1854, quote number VII 355-61, from correspondence to Major John Cartwright, June 5, 1824.]

The important question then arises:

"How can we know which laws apply to each jurisdiction?"

Here are the ways:

First, we examine the U.S. Constitution to determine the specific delegated power from which the authority to legislate derives. If Congress is exercising a delegated power authorized by the Constitution as applicable within the 50 states, then it applies there as well as in the federal zone.

Next we look at the definition of the term "United States" used in the legislation or statutes themselves. If legislation refers to the District of Columbia as its meaning of the word "State", for instance, such as the Internal Revenue Code does in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9), then the legislation must be presumed to only apply within the federal zone.

If the above are inconclusive, we examine court cases.

Ibid;

Yes, I understand; there is nobody, or as close to nobody as it does not matter, home in the Republic. Everyone has become 14th Amendment citizens resident in the one of the several states. I understand, and that does not change what Justice Harlan stated in his objection to the upholding the decision in [Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)].

.... we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments ...

And he added;

... 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. ...

Does that sound familiar? You know, sooner or later, everyone will have to come to grips with one simple fact; something is wrong. It does not do to make statements like; they are violating the Constitution! That will work until you realize that this means that EVERY one of the federal judges is a criminal upholding criminal actions everywhere. And I do not buy that; I think a lot of federal judges are honest and straight forward; it is not their responsibility to protect us from ourselves. It is a political question, and until you, and I, and a lot more Americans understand what the problem is, nothing, but nothing, can be fixed. And your route, saving a couple here and there, will guarentee not only that those few you save are not saved (becuase they will be amoung the first rounded up), but it will mean that the round-up WILL occur.

Somewhere, there is a jurisdiction where the Constitution does not apply. That much is obvious, and every day you are told, by the politicians and the media that you live in the greatest Democracy that has ever existed. Perhaps you should listen to what they have to say.

By the way, perhaps you should look at the post, Who Controls the United States, Part 2. I think you will enjoy the part about Social Security.

I also think, and I have been waiting for you to do so, that you need to make a disclousure to everyone that you have a personal stake in the position that you advocate.

The Talmudic Khazar-Jew dream; Christians killing Muslims and Muslims killing Christians. What could be better than that? Well, Whites killing non-Whites and non-Whites killing Whites, of course.

richard9151  posted on  2006-10-05   12:12:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I still need people to write articles

Please permit me to think about this. However, I have stopped, 15 years ago when my first wife got sick, in keeping up with the theories and practical results of actions taken. I certainly do not have any faith that anything works if THEY decide not to permit it.

I would be more inclined to write something about why no contracts and the meaning of contracts rather than how/why/when etc.

If I fail to get back to you in a week about this, please ping me (I am forgetful).

The Talmudic Khazar-Jew dream; Christians killing Muslims and Muslims killing Christians. What could be better than that? Well, Whites killing non-Whites and non-Whites killing Whites, of course.

richard9151  posted on  2006-10-05   12:16:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

That does not mean that you can use THEIR system against them indefinately. They will adjust, as it is their system.

The judges are bound to uphold the code and if they change any of it, they run the risk of invalidating the entire scam. The commercial rules are set and to change them would cause great upheaval in the corporate sector. There would be a great many fascists upset with any changes. And besides, the few who are doing this is of little consequence. That is why we need more students and more to "do the deed."

“The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes, knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.” James Fenimore Cooper

BTP Holdings  posted on  2006-10-05   12:55:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

... 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. ...

Does that sound familiar? You know, sooner or later, everyone will have to come to grips with one simple fact; something is wrong. It does not do to make statements like; they are violating the Constitution! That will work until you realize that this means that EVERY one of the federal judges is a criminal upholding criminal actions everywhere. And I do not buy that; I think a lot of federal judges are honest and straight forward; it is not their responsibility to protect us from ourselves. It is a political question, and until you, and I, and a lot more Americans understand what the problem is, nothing, but nothing, can be fixed. And your route, saving a couple here and there, will guarentee not only that those few you save are not saved (becuase they will be amoung the first rounded up), but it will mean that the round-up WILL occur.

Somewhere, there is a jurisdiction where the Constitution does not apply. That much is obvious, and every day you are told, by the politicians and the media that you live in the greatest Democracy that has ever existed. Perhaps you should listen to what they have to say.

They are doing it now, richard. The jurisdiction is their extra-constitutional, quasi-criminal, administrative law. So stop dancing around and see the real point.

How do you expect the brainwashed sheeple to know enough to get out of the fraud? Most of them will not bother since they are too busy trying to live and make ends meet.

If there is a round up coming, all I can say is, they can kill ya, but they can't eat ya. ;0)

“The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes, knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.” James Fenimore Cooper

BTP Holdings  posted on  2006-10-05   13:03:17 ET  Reply   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   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?

The Talmudic Khazar-Jew dream; Christians killing Muslims and Muslims killing Christians. What could be better than that? Well, Whites killing non-Whites and non-Whites killing Whites, of course.

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

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.

The Talmudic Khazar-Jew dream; Christians killing Muslims and Muslims killing Christians. What could be better than that? Well, Whites killing non-Whites and non-Whites killing Whites, of course.

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

DickeyBird,

By any standard you are way fucked up; which requires no magnitude of "track record."

Citing material out of context is "disinformation," regardless of what package you wrap it in.

In short, you're incredibly transparent and deserve no respect or regard to possessing any significant measure of credibility.

Your consistent 'out-of-context' material tells all that you can't be trusted; therefore you're another joke, in the league of "BAC," bearing an uncanny style to his.

Why waste everyone's time and energy - other than a well-known style of disinformation?

SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2006-10-05   16:49:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I bozo'd him back around comment 30 or 40.

I kinda figured I wouldn't be missing much.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-10-05   20:24:51 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  

and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate.

And this shows the 17th Amendment was another fraud since those states which failed to ratify (it should have been 100%) lost their equal suffrage, and had no say whatsoever in the matter.

Those of us in the know have been on to this for some time. Just thought it prudent to point it out again. That is the major reason to repeal the 17th Amendment and put things right in the process.

“The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes, knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.” James Fenimore Cooper

BTP Holdings  posted on  2006-10-05   22:10:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Believe it or not, once upon a time, a long time ago, the owner at tos1 was a strong proponent on working to repeal the 17th.

Nowadays, it seems like he just prefers a dictator with a goon squad.

rowdee  posted on  2006-10-05   23:49:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

anyone deciding anything in BagHdad about doing anything by partitioning IRAN is so full of shit!

I have been thinking about what you wrote. Let me give you another thought about this.... what if that battalion of Iraq police were pulled out because they had seen some things that they were not supposed to see.... ummm?

I just saw a video that I never heard of before; it was posted this afternoon on 4um;

For those who really want a look into the sleeze and lies behind the so-called terror attacks, take a look at this free video, please.

http://video.google.com/videoplay? docid=786048453686176230&q=TerrorStorm&hl=en

It goes back to what the President of Iran said about representatives of the US government meeting with, arming and funding the insurgents in Iraq. I would believe him before I would believe anyone in Washington, DC, so, if they pulled the plug on those they are funding/arming, peace would decend in a minute. I would think so, anyway.

richard9151  posted on  2006-10-06   0:17:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

richard_666

Please connect the Jesuits and the Masons to your yarn.

Thanks.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2006-10-06   0:24:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Richard, regardless of why they were pulled out of police work, the attacks there are getting worse, not better.....to fill the gap, the old 'stand up because they can't yet' routine, they are filling the gap with us soldiers. And right now we are losing them to the tune of nearly 5 a day.

We're already shorthanded there--look at all the retired military heads that are agreeing with what Shinskiski (sp) said back before the damned war began.

And while they can't even protect the green zone now, they're going to partition IRAN?

You don't dod that wiwth bombs......that takes boots on the ground==boots and bullshit.

I can see them partitioning Iraq--I've said that from the get/go-- it would be a natural, and it would help maintain our hold on any oil that comes from there.

Iran is NOT Iraq.

rowdee  posted on  2006-10-06   0:43:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I can see them partitioning Iraq

If I said Iran, I am sorry; I also said Bagdad (I know how to spell it, rowdee), Iraq is what is going to be partioned. And that could very well be the October surprise that Rove has promised.

The Solution is to apply, for the first time in the history of the United States, the Constitution to Washington, D.C.

richard9151  posted on  2006-10-06   10:46:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

repeal the 17th Amendment and put things right in the process.

Ahhh, you Constitutionalists, I thought that you would see what happens when, for the first time in the history of the United States, the Constitution was applied to Washington, DC, but I guess it has to be spelled out, step-by-step:

Fourteenth Amendment, Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition: 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;…

"The amendment (fourteenth) reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution," United States v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases, 785, 794

And I have read the Supreme Court of Utah decision that declared the Fourteenth Amendment to be UnConstitutional; very lucid, very on-point, except.... IT ONLY APPLIES TO WASHINGTON, DC. So, what happens if you apply the Constitution to Washington, DC? Why, the Fourteenth Amendment disappears!

"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 Federal Cases 829, 830.

“The rights of a citizen under one (state or United States citizenship) may be quite different from those which he has under the other...” Colgate v. Harvey, 296 US 404, 429.

What is the Constitution?

Lysander Spooner, in his 1869 treatise titled No Treason, said it very well: “The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man.”

And by the way, what about the Thirteenth Amendment?

"The thirteenth amendment is a great extension of the powers of the national government." United States v. Morris, 125 Federal Reporter, page 322, 325.

So what happens to the Thirteenth Amendment once the Constitution is applied to Washington, DC? Why, it disappears, of course.

How about the 17th Amendment? It is unConstitutional on its face, and it also disappears. JUST LIKE THAT!!

Oh, and did someone ask if I had a plan? Why, yes, I do, and thank you for asking!

Here is a small part; This is what is called a hot button item: the constitution DOES NOT apply to Washington, DC (with a little supporting info). That means that EVERYONE who hates Washington, DC; dem, repug, independent, does not matter; they all hate Washington, DC., all of them. And once they are told that the Constitution HAS NEVER applied to Washington, DC, well, you figure it out.

I am really surprised at all of you so-called patriots. In the other locations where I am talking about this, two caught on right away. For instance, one message to me was; JESUS CHRIST! You are talking about cancelling all of the amendments from the Thirteenth on!

To which I simply replied, why, yes, thank you for noticing. If the Amendments are against the Constitutional restraints detailed within the Constitution, once the Constitution is applied to Washington, DC, then they are of no force and effect and become simply a footnote in history.

Oh, and by the way, this also destroys the UnConstitutional police powers, such as the FBI and etc. And the Federal Reserve.

Now, is this going to be accepted without question? Of course not; there would be a howl of gigantic volume come out of every attorney and criminal in Washington, DC, and they would react. I suspect you would get your wish about a round-up..... BUT, it would not be done when they want to do it, and, we would have an opportunity to galvanize the people, so that some small measure of understanding could begin to chip away at the power structure.

But hey, WHAT DO I KNOW!

(And do not lecture me about what I know about the Constitution, please.)

The Solution is to apply, for the first time in the history of the United States, the Constitution to Washington, D.C.

richard9151  posted on  2006-10-06   11:29:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Just a little add-on; this amendment would also do away with NAFTA, WTO, the connection to the World Bank, and etc. Can anyone here see just a small bit of the possibilities in tying together ALL of the fragmented efforts to correct things within the United States? Because this is the ONLY way to correct EVERY problem at one stroke.

Just perhaps you should take a day or so and think about it.

The Solution is to apply, for the first time in the history of the United States, the Constitution to Washington, D.C.

richard9151  posted on  2006-10-06   11:45:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Whew. I was hoping we wouldn't be thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat stoopid. Your comment makes more sense now. As i noted earlier, I believe that has been the intent from early on. After all, it is so much easier and less costly to have 3 crippled governments fighting with each other. Hell, they may even make Baghdad a 4th country!

rowdee  posted on  2006-10-06   12:13:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

And that could very well be the October surprise that Rove has promised.

That wouldn't be an action that could affect the election. BFD would be the mindset of the sheeple--too stuck in stoopid to see any ramifications, or realize that they could divide it into 100 countries and that wouldn't bring any more soldiers out of there. It wouldn't stop the flow of $$$$$$$$$$ over there. And frankly, I believe it is too late to have a hope of ever taking life back to something it was BEFORE terriers struck!

rowdee  posted on  2006-10-06   12:18:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat stoopid.

I really need to double-triple check what I send out.... BUT, it is nearly impossible to double check your own writings. I learned this long ago; you can find some errors, BUT YOU WROTE IT, and it connects somewhere in your brain that it is all right.... oh what to do! But I am sorry for the confusion.

On the election, we have about a month right now, and an announcement that the agreement has been reached, that we are going to IMMEDIATLEY begin to withdraw troops as a part of the AGREEMENT as this is the wish of the Iraqi people and that the first troops would be home before Nov. 7 (naw, little too obvious!), that Iraq is PARTIONED so that each group has their own laws, schools, legislature and etc., and that Bagdad is now SEPARATE just as Washington, DC, is, with ALL IRAQIs having access, as is their RIGHT, why, can you just sense the relief that would flow through the US sheeple?

I don´t know. I just know how gullible are the sheeple, and I can think of nothing else that would pave the way for the planned war with Iran like WINNING THE WAR IN IRAQ, and incidently, keeping control of the oil in Iraq, as I mentioned in the first ill-written post. Esp. if it was explained at the same time that THIS HAS BEEN THE PLAN ALL ALONG BUT WE COULD NOT COME OUT AND TALK ABOUT IT UNTIL IT WAS REALITY. But, we knew what we were doing and THIS IS WHAT IS BEST FOR THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST.

Oh, and trust us, the war in Iran is neccessary and trust us, we also have a plan for Iran, oh, and trust us, we know what we are doing....... we know what we are doing.......we know what we are doing.......we know what we are doing.......we know what we are doing.......we know what we are doing.......we know what we are doing....... And in case the sheeple do not understand repeat endlessly; we know what we are doing.......

The Solution is to apply, for the first time in the history of the United States, the Constitution to Washington, D.C.

richard9151  posted on  2006-10-06   12:54:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat stoopid.

Done for emphasis....deliberately.....as is the mispelling of stoopid. That personally is how I look at the sheeple.

At this point in time, with all the fan slinging that is and will occur til the first week in November, it wouldn't take very much on the part of the demowits to show this up as just a 'tactical' electioneering gimmick. Enough of the sheeple are disgusted with the republocraps they'd even be able to see thru that phony routine.

Trust will be a big gimmick this go round........especially when it is out there about who do you trust with your kids.......trust, trust, trust........24/7.

Little things like a clip of hastert saying, 'I didn't do anything wrong", followed by a teenager or a mom responding with 'and you certainly didn't do anything right'!........followed by clips of various identified 'r' representatives saying they would have handled it differently......or they figured he was taking care of it. And it wouldn't take much, especially in light of the recent killing of all those little girls at the Amish school, or another run of predators after children, to keep the cannonball aimed squarely at the ballot box. Safety for children will outweigh years of a war that does nothing but kill and maim and take money away from education or health care or whatever other programs can be tied to children and families.

rowdee  posted on  2006-10-06   13:07:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The judges are bound to uphold the code and if they change any of it, they run the risk of invalidating the entire scam. The commercial rules are set and to change them would cause great upheaval in the corporate sector. There would be a great many fascists upset with any changes. And besides, the few who are doing this is of little consequence.

A tardy afterthought:

Do you recall when the SCOTUS split along party lines 5 to 4 and handed Bush the presidency, and, ordered that their decision not be used as a precedent in any other case?

And, did you happen to notice that Bush and his bobbleheaded attorney general have trimmed fat off of the US Constitution, The UCMJ, federal statutes and the Geneva Convention with signing statements, and not one congressman, senator, federal justice, judge or magistrate or any flag officer with the authority to arrest the bastards for his open treason emitted a peep of objection?

The reality is this: Not one career office holder will risk his or her pension to simply save the American people from the inevitable march of jackboots over us.

The best chance we had were the cadets of West Point who spoke against the unlawful war, until they were given a direct order to waive their now dead constitutional right to speak, even if they were making the charge of treason.

The truth is even if they succeeded and the president and his cronies were impeached or indicted, charged and convicted, sentenced and hanged, the cadets would still be guilty of disobeying a direct order and they would lose their commissions, and none of them are willing to sacrifice their military family legacies just for a bunch of greedy, socialist Lilliputian welfare state-worshiping dumb asses who dont vote and most of who don't even know who their congressman and two senators are.

And, if the cadets lose their commissions and their bright futures, they will have lost much more than the people who don't even know what rights have been stripped away in broad daylight as the president signed those bills on the White House lawn.

I can see it now:

The Supreme Court ruled that the UCC does not apply to one component of American Commercial law-the registration of automobiles.

"We find that because public safety is paramount and more lives are lost in car crashes because of unsafe vehicles than are lost to accidental or intentional homicides with firearms, the recent legal maneuvering to attempt to defeat the mandatory registration, licensing, inspection and safe operation of motor vehicles or any powered conveyence intended for commercial or recreational transportation of goods and people are an issue of national security.

We hold for the state and remand to the lower court for sentencing....."

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2006-10-12   4:31:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I can see it now:

The Supreme Court ruled that the UCC does not apply to one component of American Commercial law-the registration of automobiles.

"We find that because public safety is paramount and more lives are lost in car crashes because of unsafe vehicles than are lost to accidental or intentional homicides with firearms, the recent legal maneuvering to attempt to defeat the mandatory registration, licensing, inspection and safe operation of motor vehicles or any powered conveyence intended for commercial or recreational transportation of goods and people are an issue of national security.

I doubt that. They can't change the code. If you had an inkling of how it operates under law (the legal term is "operation of law") you would not be saying this.

The only reason they get away with all of this is that the people, through their ignorance, have allowed it to happen. If we did our due diligence and knew the law which our nation was founded under, these crooks would be swinging from lamp posts.

One of these days, the people will realize that it is their dependence on the nanny state which has caused their loss of liberty. Unfortunately, by that time it will be too late.

“The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes, knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.” James Fenimore Cooper

BTP Holdings  posted on  2006-10-12   11:45:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

And, if the cadets lose their commissions and their bright futures, they will have lost much more than the people who don't even know what rights have been stripped away in broad daylight as the president signed those bills on the White House lawn.

there ya go.

some days, it's just so difficult to retain even a smidgen of hope.

christine  posted on  2006-10-12   11:51:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

They can't change the code.

Oh, right!

I forgot that Moses brought the tablets down from the mount straight from the big guy himself!

The UCC is no more sacred than the Constitution, The Geneva Accords, or the US Code.

Your beliefs are an act of faith, and there is simply no statutory ban to amending the code. It doesn't exist.

Here is a proposed amendment to the code. No mention of the statutory ban that must be defeated to effect this or any other change!

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2006-10-12   16:07:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

some days, it's just so difficult to retain even a smidgen of hope.

As long as you are breathing and thinking there is hope. Dark, dark and terrible days may come, but hope always always follows.

the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.

bluedogtxn  posted on  2006-10-12   16:10:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

some days, it's just so difficult to retain even a smidgen of hope.

Well, I agree with you and hope for the fraud ($) to collapse.

Since most of these would-be traitors are loyal to nothing but their checks, and even more produce nothing of any tangible worth, our best hope is the collapse of the ewe gno watt.

And, then we can pay the federal reserve (sic) swindlers off with their own worthless paper.

And if they demand gold we'll just remind them how they told us that it's a "barbaric metal!"

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2006-10-12   16:19:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

They can't change the code.

Oh, right!

I forgot that Moses brought the tablets down from the mount straight from the big guy himself!

The UCC is no more sacred than the Constitution, The Geneva Accords, or the US Code.

Your beliefs are an act of faith, and there is simply no statutory ban to amending the code. It doesn't exist.

Here is a proposed amendment to the code. No mention of the statutory ban that must be defeated to effect this or any other change!

You are barking up the wrong tree on this.

Perhaps I should have been more specific. A sitting judge cannot change the code. The judge must rule as the code specifies and the judiciary must uphold the code lest they create havoc in the commercial realm.

The UCC is in fact changed regularly, sometimes concerning matters such as those in the link you posted, which has to do with the electronic age and undertaking contracts over the internet.

What you fail to understand is that there are many provisions in the code which, if changed, would change the way the law has come to be used and seen as a protection for all parties. These provisions can be used to best advantage and I have done so myself previously.

It is factual to say that if you partake of their Babylonian system and are not aware of the rules in the code, you are either a fool or a knave, and will certainly become enslaved, which indeed most are (unbeknownst to them), and much to their lament.

Collection agencies, for one example, operate in the most reprehensible manner (we have something to defeat them as well) and take advantage of people's ignorance to rope them into a contract which they have no right to do.

This is called "the acceptance game." It operates every day in many ways, even among our so-called government, and the only reason we are fooled is because we fail to question authority and accept what they do or give us, like that damn traffic ticket (refuse it and do what the statutes call for).

The basic law is the same in all the states, even in the statutes concerning matters of which we can hold our servants within the strict limits of their authority.

I will say again, as I have already in this thread, the key to this is education. And the only way to control this scheme being used against us is to know the rules and take the necessary steps to protect oneself and terminate or control the legal nexus (of which there are several) so you can make the system work for you and not them.

Anyone who wishes to know what the "necessary steps" are can send me a PM or email me at admin[no spam]btpholdings.com (Replace the [no spam] with @ to get the address correct.) Put UCC Solution or Demand to Cease and Desist Collection Activities (for the collection agencies noted above) in the subject line and I will send more info on either or both subjects.

“The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes, knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.” James Fenimore Cooper

BTP Holdings  posted on  2006-10-12   20:47:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Actually, you have de-mystified the UCC considerably for me and I appreciate it.

The tax rebs and others who rely on it may be correct in their interpretations and applications of same, but, I'm still suspicious of the "silver bullet" approach to dismantling the evil income tax.

And, as you or someone else mentioned, the few who do drop out are of no consequence now, but, if the method "catches on" and the federal reserve finds it's short on deposits from payroll withholding for "income and social security" taxes, then the IRS will make the appropriate changes to restore the "de facto taxation by distraint" system we have today.

As you know federal district courts may err as much as they wish, secure in the knowledge that the SCOTUS will never grant cert to any case that could potentially harm their beloved redistribution of wealth system.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2006-10-12   22:18:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Actually, you have de-mystified the UCC considerably for me and I appreciate it.

And, as you or someone else mentioned, the few who do drop out are of no consequence now, but, if the method "catches on" and the federal reserve finds it's short on deposits from payroll withholding for "income and social security" taxes, then the IRS will make the appropriate changes to restore the "de facto taxation by distraint" system we have today.

Thanks, but I'm not so very good since there is much I need to do so as to get a better grasp of things.

The IRS is already doing it. They even are fooling their own people by lying to them. The fact is the IRS is doing what cannot be done legally. Save-A-Patriot Fellowship is doing the right thing by teaching the law, and exposing the IRS lies and deceit.

What we are doing with the UCC (SAPF does not go that route) is to give them a piece of paper which they use to balance the books (after the lie has been perpetrated). The key is that the SSN is the proof that you are the debtor and have applied for benefits. Whether you receive them or not is of no consequence. They use the presumption that you are benefitting in some way.

Basically, limited liability is a benefit of the use of their FRNs since all debts must be discharged. We no longer have the ablility to pay a debt.

It's a long drawn out explanation if I continue. But the SSN and your birth registration are the basis of how they have leveraged the capacity for production of all the citizens as collateral on the international securities markets. They have literally mortgaged the entire country and us along with it, plus future generations into infinity.

The question is, when will the creditors (int'l bankers) move to foreclose? While we have our guns, they will not try. But the police state grip is tightening. And, as Jack McLamb has said, they will simply redefine all of us as criminals and then there will be no problem with eliminating us. The Nazis did exactly that.

In a different vein, check out this article.

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=36931&Disp=0

“The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes, knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.” James Fenimore Cooper

BTP Holdings  posted on  2006-10-12   23:50:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I know a chap who travels around the country speaking to small groups about the UCC and the things you just mentioned. I never signed on because I believe that the collapse and inevitable hardships won't be derailed no matter how many drop out.

I also believe that despite all the "cold, dead fingers" rhetoric we've heard over the years, the majority will surrender their guns AND MINE if that's what it takes to keep those social security checks coming.

And, those patriots who bury their guns and armor piercing stuffings in PVC pipes are just too clever by half! I mean, what good are they then?

"Oh, we'll dig them up when it's safe to resist!"

Right, when a million armed people march ahead of them they'll dig up their guns and bring up the rear, or, possibly come down from the hills after the battles and slay the wounded.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2006-10-13   1:01:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

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