Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 2 (2 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   3 comments

General News

What Law Enforcement Needs to Know

      (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Author 94
- Advertisement -

There is no Nuremberg Defense for those who violate the Constitution – Take Note.

Nuremberg delivered a message that is very much on point today for those in government; If you are employed in law enforcement, take heed. Most police and sheriffs today have been lied to, sold a bill of goods. Most believe that they do not have to uphold the Constitution; they believe they are safe from prosecution and accountability if they follow orders. That principle was debunked in Nuremberg and will be again.

Cops hear it from 'up the chain of command,' they hear it when they go into court to testify. As they violate the rights of those their oath promises to preserve and protect they walk on thin ice. They are listening to lies, putting reliance in falsehoods. Americans are slow to anger but anger is coming. If you swore to uphold the Constitution, take note.

Most judges sitting on the bench today are there unlawfully. An example is Thomas Anderle, who is 'on the bench' in Santa Barbara County. Anderle, an exemplar of all that is wrong with the system, has ignored his obligation to affirm the oath of office mandated by both the State of California and the US Constitution; he has posted no bond, paid for by himself. This noticed, all decisions he rendered are void. Anderle and other judges understand this. Today, many are frantic to set up trusts that immunize them from what will come so they can keep their ill-gotten gains. Those who set up off shore trusts for individuals report increasing trade from clients in government. Those in law enforcement remain oblivious; they are unaware of the liabilities they face.

Judges knowingly encourage law enforcement officers to commit unconstitutional acts, for instance traffic tickets. Most in law enforcement are less well educated and used to just taking orders. At the same time the incomes of judges are heavily dependent on the monies squeezed out of Americans in this and other ways – and selling verdicts is profitable. Compliant cops are essential to those profits. Cops will be left flat-footed, mouths gaping when called to account for their actions. They should not expect support from those who are now giving the orders. Bush will be in Paraguay, which has no extradition; No accident.

But a few courageous individuals have always been willing to stand up for the rights granted, not by government but by God. These examples stiffen the spine and show us the way.

Charlie Sprinkle had a jury trial when he refused to take out a driver's license in 1973. The jury later told him they would have found him innocent if the judge had not directed them to find him guilty. That, in case you did not know, also violated the Constitution. The Constitution was written to be used with the Common Law and that system of justice, in use for over a thousand years, relies on the ability of the jury to determine matters of both law and fact. That was affirmed in our Constitution because of the Zenger Case heard in New York in 1735. Zenger broke the law; that law was publishing the truth about the Royal Governor in New York. That case gave you the 1nd Amendment and the case was alive in the minds of our Founders when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The truth needs no excuse and makes no apology. Law and fact are both determined by the jury in the Common Law. Juries are intended to exercise veto power over legislation that violates the Constitution.

During Charlie's attempts to resist compliance with the fine the court had demanded the judge leaned forward and said, “I know we are committing treason but there is nothing I can do about it. If I let you comply with the Constitution the US will be broke in three days.” Charlie again refused. “No, Sir,” said Charlie, “The Constitution does not give government the right to force Americans to have licenses. I'm not going to do it.” And he didn't.

- Advertisement -

Eventually, Charlie went to jail because he refused to pay the $35.00 fine mandated by the court for not complying and having a driver's license. Charlie was and is a Constitutionalist. He knew perfectly well that the Constitution does not give the government the right to force people to have a license to drive.

After refusing to pay the first time Charlie was asked to come back in thirty days after he had considered whether or not he would pay. Returning in one month, Charlie informed the court he did not have $35.00 in legal tender. Legal tender was gold or silver coin, as stated in Article 1, section 9 of the U. S. Constitution. To pay in Federal Reserve Notes would be to conspire with the court in treason, a criminal act. When you see what is right, you do it. Charlie did that.

Charlie went to jail because his conscience allowed him no alternative. Today there are more decent men and women serving time in jail than there are in law enforcement or on the bench or in any area of 'public service.'

That is one reason we need more men like Sheriff Richard Mack.

Decent and honorable men like Sheriff Mack have tried to warn us and get the word to law enforcement officials. While still a cop handing out traffic tickets Richard Mack saw that what he was doing violated the oath he had taken to uphold the Constitution. Until then he had not read that document. When he had he changed how he saw his job. He became a peace officer, working to serve and protect.

- Advertisement -

In 1994 it was Sheriff Mack who filed against the Brady Bill, overturning that unconstitutional law with the Mack-Printz Decision in 1998. There have always been individuals who stood up and did the right thing. Mack is still speaking out today and he will never be silenced.

When Charlie got out of jail in 1973 he filed a law suit against Ronald Reagan, then governor of California, and his wife, Nancy. He called Nancy a welfare queen sucking at the public trough. After the law suit was filed, and after the lawyers failed three times to have the suit dismissed, Charlie received an offer. He was then living in the low rent district of Ventura, California.

A sleek black limo rolled up to Charlie's door. Charlie was watching the neighborhood; he knew the authorities were a touch annoyed with him. Two guys got out of the car dressed in dark suits. They came to the door and asked for Charlie. Charlie today confessed to being a little cautious. The two men told Charlie that if he did not pursue the law suit he would never be molested again. Charlie considered this and told the two men he would think about it.

Next Page  1  |  2


- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It
Melinda Pillsbury-Foster is the author of GREED: The NeoConning of America and A Tour of Old Yosemite. The former is a novel about the lives of the NeoCons with a strong autobiographical component. The latter is a non-fiction book about her father (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Sociopaths - They Prey on All of Us

Restore the Constitution; Indict Thomas Anderle.

Phyllis Schlafly's career as a NeoCon

The Octopus, Promis, and their offspring, molding the future of America

Mitt Romney Desperate to Hide Truth - Debate to take place