Tags for This Article:

Government (3358)  Truth (1628)  Peace (1382)  Law (1166)  Law Enforcement (157)  Anger (122)  Thomas Anderle (2) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ;
Add to My Group
July 26, 2008 at 00:34:32

What Law Enforcement Needs to Know

by Melinda Pillsbury-Foster     Page 1 of 2 page(s)

www.opednews.com

 

Tell A Friend

View Ratings | Rate It  

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.

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.

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.

 1  |  2

 

http://howtheneoconsstolefreedom.blogspot.com

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 and grandfather.

Ms. Pillsbury-Foster has been active in politics since the Goldwater Campaign. She left the Republican Party to join and become active in the Libertarian Party in 1973, working as an activist and party officer until she left the Libertarian Party in 1988 when she returned to the Republican Party and became active in the National Federation of Republican Women.

She is also the the founder of the the Arthur C. Pillsbury Foundation

Contact Author
Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
3 comments

I am a professional life-extensionist and liberty promoter who practices what I and husband, Paul Wakfer, encourage. More detail about both of us - philosophically and physically - at http://morelife.org/personal/

When the comment time period has closed at OpEdNews.com, readers are welcome to post their comments/questions at MoreLife Yahoo after meeting the posting requirements of that group, sent to all new members upon joining. All archived messages, however, are available to anyo...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Kitty Antonik WakferI am a professional life-extensionist and liberty promoter who practices what I and husband, Paul Wakfer, encourage. More detail about both of us - philosophically and physically - at http://morelife.org/personal/

When the comment time period has closed at OpEdNews.com, readers are welcome to post their comments/questions at MoreLife Yahoo after meeting the posting requirements of that group, sent to all new members upon joining. All archived messages, however, are available to anyo...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Enforcers + Upholding the Constitution is Problematic

As Melinda has pointed out, government enforcers are the *real* problem - something I've stated many times, many places, including here at OEN. (January 2008 Article + several comments - recent one is last of 10 here). I go further and in a slightly different direction (as I did in the linked article and comment) and encourage others who recognize this fact to socially preference against government enforcers:

Are they (still) treated by you as friends? If so, then I suggest you do some thinking about why you grant them such a privilege. Have you voiced your opinion to them regarding the harm that this government agency does every hour of every day? And if you've reduced your association with these individuals because of their enforcement of or support roles for harmful action, have you made it clear to them why you have done so? If someone you know voices the possibility of employment with the DHS [and any government agency], do you provide them with reasons why this is a long range poor idea for hir? ....

Keep in mind that while Congress in the US passes federal laws, the enforcing is done by individual agents in the executive branch department given that authority by Congress. Without the enforcing agents, the Laws/Mandates/Edicts are meaningless! This is a universal truism anywhere in the world. The enforcers are the key!
As a long time resident of Arizona, I am familiar with Richard Mack, going back to his early days as Sheriff of Graham county. He created quite a stir in parts of the country but had lots of support in Arizona, including many other law enforcement officers - those (including my former husband who was on the Pinal County Sheriff's Office for 20 years) who have/had a mixed view of their role and government/laws, mostly described as Constitution-supportive.

However, the stated goal of having government officials "uphold the Constitution" is problematic - because the Constitution itself contains within it the seeds of its own deterioration and destruction, the results of which are all around us. Do not get me wrong. The US Constitution was a remarkable document when it was created and the best that the learned (and they were) men of that time could produce to organize an orderly society. They did not have the knowledge and technology that has become available mostly in the past 25 to 30 years. The Internet itself by which these exchanges of information and views are taking place is one of the major ones. Understanding of human neurophysiology is another. I wrote on this very subject of returning to the Constitution almost exactly 1 year ago - my first article here at OEN (so new was I that I even made a typo in the title and didn't catch it till modification time was closed).

A self-ordering society of individuals interacting to mutual benefit, each with the goal of maximizing hir lifetime happiness (the purpose of each whether or not s/he recognizes that fact), is possible. Individual self-order without rule by others is the social system whose members are humans, who have become fully adult. Just as people can become physical adults, so can they become social adults - if only they are allowed (and even required in the sense that they will not achieve their desires unless they do) to socially mature sufficiently. Understanding the social interaction methodology by which more individuals would progress to become fully socially mature adults requires a paradigm shift in thinking about human interactions. I invite - and even challenge - those who seek a society of individuals interacting to mutual benefit (or are maybe only curious at this point) to read "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Human Interaction" and then review the twin frameworks of the Natural Social Contract and Social Preferencing, both of which flow from that basis.


**Kitty Antonik Wakfer

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting

by Kitty Antonik Wakfer (22 articles, 4 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 124 comments) on Saturday, July 26, 2008 at 6:48:02 PM
 


I'm a 29 year old male. 
TyI'm a 29 year old male. 

US Constitution

The US Constitution doesn't give the government rights. The US Constitution delegates specific powers to each of the 3 different branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution also places certain restrictions on the federal government especially in the Bill Of Rights.

The 10th amendment says that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the US Constitution doesn't delegate the power to issue driver licenses to the United States but doesn't prohibit it to the States, each State government is free to require the people who live in the state to have a driver's license.

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 861 comments) on Saturday, July 26, 2008 at 8:52:07 PM
 

 

3 comments

 

Tell A Friend

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008

Blog Ads

 

 

 

 

Most Popular Articles
in the Last 2 Days
(by Recommend Emails)

Keith Olbermann Broke Up With Me! by Shannyn Moore

Special Message for Tibetans Living In and Outside of Tibet Posted by Stephen Fox

Study Confirms Genetically Modified Crops Threaten Human Fertility and Health Safety Posted by sadelaine

SO SAY THE BANKERS: Learn to Love the 'AMERO' by Patrick Henningsen

Getting Through the Coming Depression by Bernard Weiner

Children dying in Haiti, victims of food crisis exacerbated by four devastating tropical storms Posted by Stephen Fox

Kucinich is Still Rockin' My World Toward Peace by Meryl Ann Butler

Tim Robbins: An Open Letter to the New York City Board of Elections by Tim Robbins

Obama is Already Stirring Controversy by The Old Codger

Senate testimony by police captain reveals 9 sticks of missing dynamite in 'Omaha Two' bombing case by Michael Richardson

Go To Top 50 Most Popular