Cal's Techdirt Profile


About Cal

Cal's Comments comment rss

  • May 05, 2015 @ 08:48am


    "The second corporations were allowed to contribute to election campaigns was the second democracy died"

    Are you talking about the democratic PROCESS of voting? Because America is not now, nor has she ever been, a democracy. Nor will she ever be one.

  • Apr 25, 2015 @ 05:29am

    Re: the article doesn't get it


  • Apr 25, 2015 @ 05:21am

    Re: Dunno why they don't teach this (explicitly) in school...

    Because they are NOT the "authorities" per se, they SERVE the public. Admittedly they are working really hard to become the "authorities", rulers.

    It would help if you would no longer give them that title, and remind them that they do work for us overall and that WE do have the constitutional remedies for their corruptness - admittedly (again) it would help if more people would actually bother to learn the US Constitution, and their own state Constitution as they ARE the contracts that they are REQUIRED to follow and work under.

  • Apr 24, 2015 @ 11:42am



    Let me compliment you on being able to critically think about more then one subject and put the pieces together!

  • Apr 24, 2015 @ 11:24am


    It is called "Election Fraud".

    Understand now?

  • Apr 24, 2015 @ 09:45am

    Re: Good faith?

    "...if grand juries repeatedly refuse to indict for such circumstances...)

    Grand Juries as they are being used as government tools are not the Lawful and REQUIRED Grand Juries here in America. It IS part of the dumbing down of the people.

    Grand Juries are OUR, "We the People's", tools, not a part of any branch - state or federal - including the judicial branch. But because the people themselves (who make u the Grand Juries) do not know this, they are told by those who serve within our government how they must judge, what they are ALLOWED to consider, etc.

    That makes EVERY Grand Jury indictment false and unlawful.

    Read and learn PLEASE, America needs you (generic "you") to be educated enough to know what is allowed and not allowed.

    Grand Juries are OUR tool to be used to investigate, and to prosecute.

    US Constitution, Article 1, Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,..."

    “The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people”.

    “Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” (Misbehavior, “Good Behaviour” requirement)

    “The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists. The “common law” of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.”

    “Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised.”

    “The grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.”

    “Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge”

    “Given the grand jury’s operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury’s evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all. “it would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution” to permit an indictment to be challenged “on the ground that there was incompetent or inadequate evidence before the grand jury.” Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992)

    The Preamble to the US Constitution says, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    This means that the people themselves are the last word on all of those who serve within the branches of our governments, though that “last word” must also be “in Pursuance thereof” the US Constitution.

    It is important to understand that judges do NOT hold their office for life. They hold it for "life" as long as they use "Good Behaviour" in the courtrooms.

    US Constitution, Article III, Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,..."

    All that is going on within our nation is OUR fault.

  • Apr 24, 2015 @ 12:26pm

    "The parties to the NAFTA -- the United States, Canada and Mexico -- have all repeatedly clarified that ISDS is not meant to be a court of appeals sitting in judgment of domestic administrative or judicial decisions.

    Nonetheless, the ISDS tribunal's lawyers ignored the clear intent of NAFTA's corporate sovereignty provisions, and issued their judgment dismissing local decisions following national laws."

    Here in America, anyone who implemented that would be OPENLY declaring their TREASON against the American people and the US Constitution. (Yes, treason must ALWAYS be against the American people and the US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it - though it can go through those that serve within our governments it is STILL against the American people).

    The US Constitution, Article 6 applies to those laws, Treaties, regulations that follow (are in Pursuance thereof) the US Constitution which are the ONLY lawful to be used here in the USA.

    Article 6: “... This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

    Alexander Hamilton: “... a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States.”

    Alexander Hamilton, concerning the supremacy clause The Federalist Papers, 33: “It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines the supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution.”

    Alexander Hamilton: “The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is, that it shall not change the Constitution... On natural principles, a treaty, which should manifestly betray or sacrifice primary interests of the state, would be null.”

  • Apr 24, 2015 @ 11:16am

    " I think of our national government is to keep us safe."

    He needs to STUDY the US Constitution, the contract that all who serve within the federal and state governments are under (state governments are ALSO under that state's Constitution).

    The First and main duty of those that serve within our governments - state and federal - is to protect our FREEDOMS.

  • Mar 28, 2015 @ 11:40am


    "Prosecutor Lori Fellows had argued during closing arguments in the Juvenile Court trial last week that though the judge said police didn't have lawful authority to stop Gurule, he still violated Oregon's resisting arrest law. ..."

    What the Prosecutor forgets is that she took an Oath to support and defend the US Constitution, as did those "cops". They all committed felonies when they broke that Oath, maybe multiple felonies.

    The US Constitution is the Supreme LAW (yes LAW) of this land that all laws, regulations, etc must be in "Pursuance thereof" to even be lawful in this nation.

    Oregon's resisting arrest law is "null and void" against any US citizen and can only lawfully be used against someone working for the state of Oregon.

    The right to resist unlawful arrest IS a constitutional one. It stems from the right of every person to his bodily integrity and liberty of movement, which are among the most fundamental of all natural rights. Substantive due process principles require that the government interfere with such a right ONLY to further a compelling state interest — and the power to arrest the citizenry unlawfully can hardly be characterized as a compelling state interest. The advent of governmental professional policing has endangered important rights, lives, and property of the American people. This" changing balance of power" between police and private citizens now revels itself by the unlawful power of modern police to easily use violence against the population, and to use unlawful arrest techniques with no consequences.

  • Mar 07, 2015 @ 12:35pm

    Re: Re:

    What makes you think that it is "Net Neutrality" concept that is the problem that they have, and not the government agency itself?

    May as well give that over to the NSA,... Oh, basically they did.

    If you do not understand our legitimate government; and you do not understand what is going on with those who serve within it now then how will you ever understand what the people are objecting to, and if they are correct to be worried - and they are.

    File this somewhere and see if later down the road I am not correct. I will be.

  • Mar 07, 2015 @ 12:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Which is why the USA is a Constitutional Republic, NOT a democracy. It has never been a democracy, nor will she ever be one.

  • Mar 07, 2015 @ 12:28pm


    Or can it be that there is no real idea of how the FCC functions and how everything that it "monitors" to keep it freed u is now under the auspices of a cartel?

    Supreme Court, Red Lion v. FCC, 1969: “It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.”

    Guess what? They "abridged" it.

  • Mar 05, 2015 @ 03:35am

    Re: Dealbreaker for me

    Yeah, along with using Election Fraud to become a presidential candidate. Both actions say a lot about who she is, more importantly what she is, corrupt to the core.

    But then so is Obama who is NOT lawfully the US President for two reasons, Election Fraud in all 50 states, and not meeting all three conditions all presidential candidates are REQUIRED to meet. She also would have been impersonating a US President while the country did not have a LEGITIMATE one as is happening now.

    South Bend, Indiana JURY found that Election Fraud put BOTH Obama and Hillary Clinton on the presidential primary ballot in Indiana in the 2008 election.

    Neither were legitimate candidates.

  • Feb 28, 2015 @ 03:16pm

    Re: Re: Critical question

    Actually, that is not quite correct. They do it because we do not hold them accountable as the US Constitution requires of us.

    The US Constitution only gave the general government the powers that were specifically enumerated (listed) was the ONLY understanding reached by the states, and held until modern (progressive) unlawful reinterpretations of the Constitution took hold.

    Our founders had the ingenious wherewithal to draft a Constitutional model that is based the powers for the general (federal) government that are explicitly spelled out, chiefly in Article I, Section 8 as LAW, the supreme law of this land.

  • Feb 28, 2015 @ 03:11pm

    Re: Re: Critical question

    Actually they cannot lawfully create a contract that makes you give up your natural rights that are PROTECTED by the US Constitution, that would make the contract (lawfully) "NUll and Void" as the framers said.

  • Feb 27, 2015 @ 05:10am

    Re: Looks like a case for the ACLU!!!

    "Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view."

    Why don't we see what the people who WROTE the US Constitution says it means, and the courts of that time - and beyond - before there were filled with Domestic Enemies (traitors, but was playing nice) of the USA and the American people say about the Second Amendment.

    Oh, and this quote by George Washington applies to this article.

    "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies." George Washington

    Notice that even back at that time he felt that there would come a time that we would have enemies serving within our governments and that we needed to make sure that we had OUR OWN "manufactories" so that we would not be dependent upon those who serve within our governments. Our framers knew history, and everything else, much better then anyone educated today. Sad isn't it.

    How many of you today are aware that those who serve within our governments were FORBIDDEN to create governmental professional law enforcement or to keep a "standing" (full time) military?

    James Madison, the Father of the US Constitution: “... large and permanent military establishments ... are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.”

    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 specifies that there shall be no military beyond that of two years. The Militia of each state is charged with our nations defense here within the USA until and unless the congress has declared war and a “standing” military is raised:

    “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”.

    Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, floor debate over the 2nd Amendment, I Annals of Congress: “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to PREVENT THE ESTABLISMENT OF A STANDING ARMY, the bane of liberty….”

    James Madison: "An efficient militia is authorized and contemplated by the Constitution and required by the spirit and safety of free government."

    Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... THE UNLIMITED POWER OF THE SWORD IS NOT IN THE HANDS OF EITHER THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENTS BUT, where I trust in God it will ever remain, IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE.”

    Thomas Jefferson, 1st inaugural, explained that: "a well-disciplined militia" is "our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them" and also a guarantee of "the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; [and] economy in the public expense."

    Samuel Adams: “It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control ... The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them..”

    Our governments - state and federal - were to use the Militia, us, when needed to enforce things or to defend our states, our nations so that we could NEVER become a police state.

    Representative Jackson, first U.S. Congress, when it met and turned to defense measures in 1791: “The inhabitants of Switzerland emancipated themselves by the establishment of a Militia, which finally delivered them from the tyranny of their lords.”

    The New Hampshire ratifiers called for a guarantee (the Second Amendment) that: Congress shall never disarm any Citizen...”.

    The Pennsylvania minority at its ratifying convention demanded a guarantee of a very broad right to arms, that: "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own State or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game."

    Joel Barlow, Revolutionary War veteran, and American whose political writings were debated on the floor of Parliament said of the US Constitution: "… not only permitting every man to arm, but obliging him to arm.”

    Daniel Webster: “Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly and wickedness of the government may engage itself? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest right of personal liberty? Who will show me any Constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life, itself, whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it? ... A free government with an uncontrolled power of military conscription is the most ridiculous and abominable contradiction and nonsense that ever entered into the heads of men”.

    Cockrum v. State: “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power”

    Andrews v. State explains, this "passage from Story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."

    Nunn vs. State:'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right”.

    Bliss v. Commonwealth: “Arms restrictions - even concealed weapons bans - are unconstitutional, since arms bearing is an individual right and the legislature may not restrict any aspect of such a right.”

    Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition: "The body of citizens in a state, enrolled for discipline as a military force, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies, as distinguished from regular troops or a standing army."

    Thomas J. Jackson: “The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.”

    Thomas Jefferson:“Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.”

    John Norton Pomeroy: “The object of this clause [the right of the people to keep and bear arms] is to secure a well-armed militia.... But a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms.”

    State Gazette (Charleston): No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state.... Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the  freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.

    Ask yourself this, WHEN did those who serve within our governments start dismantling the Militias of the several states?

    In the early 1930's. They went at it with gusto soon after Joseph Stalin said in 1933: ”The United States should get rid of its militias”.

    Those who serve within our governments were never given the authority, and the Second Amendment itself says "shall not be infringed" which means that no one serving within any of our governments may alter in any way that PROTECTION.

    Each state's Militia is made up of “We the People” protecting our own interests, homes, states, nation, and enforcing our governments. The Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties to:

    Enforce the US Constitution and each state's Constitution,
    Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
    Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
    “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

    The US Constitution guarantees to each state its own “Republican form of government”. It is every state's Militia that is the ONLY Constitutionally assigned force to “counter Invasions” and “Domestic Violence” within our nation.

    Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions."

    Notice that no where is "law enforcement mentioned, nor is calling out the Military which is not allowed to exist - now you know why the Pentagon keeps us in false and unlawful/illegal wars. No standing military and they lose a lot of power, money, positions. Think about it.

    The forefathers wouldn't put the militia under federal control as there was always a chance that those in office would turn traitorous against the people. They already had learned, and history taught – then and now, that people in places of power could not be trusted. So they broke it up; the people ARE the militia and would keep the best interests of the people themselves at the forefront of all decisions made. Then they assigned the duty of organizing, arming, and disciplining each state's militia to the federal congress; and to each state the appointment of their Militia's officers and their training; all under Article I, Section. 8, Clause 16.

    “To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.

  • Feb 14, 2015 @ 06:21am


    "... write their own laws..."

    Yet, they are under the executive branch which is forbidden to write laws, regulations, etc by the word "All" by the supreme LAW of our nation that all must be in Pursuance thereof to be lawful here within the USA. US Constitution, Article 1, Section 1:

    "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

    Yes, that does mean that "executive orders" are NOT lawful and it matters not over how many decades they have been used, time does NOT make them lawful, just that those who all served within our governments and allowed them to be used on the people and not just those who are in Washington DC criminals.

  • Feb 14, 2015 @ 06:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How did they not see this coming?


  • Feb 14, 2015 @ 06:12am

    Re: Re: Re: How did they not see this coming?

    They may think they are the "good guys", but they took an LAWFULLY required binding Oath as to what qualifies in THIS nation as "good" to qualify as a "Good Guy", and it IS a felony to break that Oath (all - hired, contracted, elected, etc are REQUIRED to take and keep that Oath).

    When they no longer understand what qualifies as a "Good Guy" in our nation they no longer are a part of the "good guys".

  • Feb 12, 2015 @ 08:42am


    It is a felony.

    They broke their Oath, which is a felony, and in some instances more then one, plus perjury, etc. The right to resist unlawful arrest IS a constitutional one. The US Constitution is the supreme LAW of this land that ALL laws, regulations, treaties, etc - state and federal are required to follow to be lawful here in OUR country.

    It stems from the right of every person to his bodily integrity and liberty of movement, which are among the most fundamental of all natural rights.

    Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    The Constitution of the United States of America and all laws, bills, treaties, etc that are IN PURSUANCE THEREOF are the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government. The Supremacy Clause of Article VI does NOT declare that laws passed by the federal government are the supreme law of the land, period. What it says is that the “laws of the United States made in pursuance” of the Constitution are the supreme law of the land. So if the federal government is carrying out the duties assigned it by the US Constitution in a constitutional manner they are supreme. That is the ONLY time they are supreme.

    42 USC § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

    5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office the three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees are required to take before assuming office.

    5 U.S.C. 3333 requires the three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law

    18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

    5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense for anyone employed in the United States Government to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.

    The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311.

    Executive Order 10450 provision specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”
    Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States.

    Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other then by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

    28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

    “An officer who acts in violation of the constitution ceases to represent the government.” Brookfield Construction Company V. Stewart 284 F Sup. 94

    The advent of governmental professional policing has endangered important rights, lives, and property of the American people. This" changing balance of power" between police and private citizens now revels itself by the unlawful power of modern police to easily use violence against the population, and to use unlawful arrest techniques with no consequences.

    Professional police as we know them today originated in American cities during the second quarter of the nineteenth century, when municipal governments drafted citizens to maintain order. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, police forces took on the role of crime-fighting. The goal of maintaining public order became secondary to chasing lawbreakers. The police cultivated a perception that they were public heroes who "fought crime" in the general, rather than individual sense.

    This "new" role followed the law enforcement model developed in England. Our country had cut its ties with England to develop our own form of government with LESS governmental involvement in the affairs of the people. The "new" law enforcement was incorporating MORE government into the affairs of the people against the US Constitution as is done in England.

    The 1920s saw the rise of law enforcements new concepts developed and spread by J. Edgar Hoover. Hoover's Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBI came to to be a perfect example of "police". They represented how to expand the police profession in its sleuth and intelligence-gathering role. FBI agents infiltrated mobster organizations, intercepted communications between suspected criminals, and gathered intelligence for both law enforcement and political purposes.

    This very new view of police as" soldiers combating against crime"quickly became very popular law enforcement agencies of both the feds and the states. The FBI assisted local police to develop integrated repositories of fingerprint, criminal, and fraudulent check records. The FBI took over the gathering of crime statistics (which used to be gathered by private associations). Then the idea of governmental professional law enforcement as a "thin blue line," that "serves and protects" civilized society from lawlessness was pushed to change the way individuals saw their own duty as the Militia versus a professional governmental law enforcement.

    The treatment of law enforcement in the courts shows that the law itself of crime control has hugely changed. Under the common law, there was no difference whatsoever between the privileges, immunities, and powers of law enforcement and those of private citizens. Professional governmental law enforcement were literally and figuratively clothed in the same garments as everyone else and faced the same liabilities — civil and criminal — as everyone else under identical circumstances.

    When the USA started delegating their constitutionally required law enforcement duties to the professional governmental law enforcement, the laws were then relaxed to allow police to execute warrantless felony arrests upon information received from 3rd parties. Since the information received could not be confirmed, the Professional governmental law enforcement could no longer be required to be "right" all of the time, so the rule of strict liability for false arrest was lost.

    This has had the effect of depriving Americans of the certainty of guilt when warrantless arrests are committed against the populace. Plus judges now consider only if there was "reasonable grounds" to suspect a person, rather than "actual guilt" in committing a crime by those doing the (illegal here) warrantless and no knocks on peoples homes. This, combined with greater deference to the "state" in most law enforcement matters has reversed and gone against the supreme law of our land that they all are sworn to support and defend. It has reversed the original intent and purpose of American law enforcement that the state act against stern limitations and at its own peril, Americans now have fewer assurances that they are free from unreasonable arrests, and no way to recover the damages caused from false arrests under the "color of law" being perpetuated on the people.

    The differences between the "privileges" of citizens and professional governmental law enforcement have grown rapidly wider in the twentieth century. State and federal lawmakers now give them expansive immunities from firearm laws, plus from laws regulating the use of equipment (scanners, body armor, and infrared scopes) while trying to tighten up and do away with those natural rights belonging to US citizens and those lawfully allowed to be here.
    Legislatures also exempted professional governmental law enforcement from day to day expenses and annoyances such as toll road charges, auto registration, and even exempted police from fireworks regulations, and giving them confidential telephone numbers; some even practice "professional courtesy" - exempting off duty police from things as speed limits, etc. Police are also protected by other statutory immunities and protections that the common person here no longer has such as mandatory death sentences for defendants who murder them, etc.

    Officers who illegally eavesdrop, wiretap, or intrude upon privacy are now protected by a statutory (as well as case law) "good faith" defense. Private citizens who do so face up to five years in prison. The tendency of legislatures to equip police with ever-expanding rights, privileges and powers has, if anything, been strengthened rather than limited by the courts as the US Constitution requires of the judges within the courts - state and federal.

    This growing power differential goes against the principles of equal citizenship that is the bedrock of this nation. The great principle of the American Revolution was, after all, the doctrine of limited government. Advocates of the Bill of Rights saw the chief danger of government as the inherently aristocratic and disparate power of government authority, so wrote in immunities (natural rights) of the people from those in government overreaching themselves against the people. Constitutions - state and federal - specify the principle that all men are "equally free" and that all government is derived from the people.

    The has had the effect of depriving Americans of certainty in the executions of warrantless arrests. For instance judges now consider only the question of whether there was "reasonable grounds" to suspect a person rather than whether then the guilt of the person of any crime. Unsubstantiated "third party" information can occasion that people are arrested without any evidence as required by the US Constitution. This loss has reversed the original intent and purpose of American law enforcement that the state act against stern limitations at its own peril. Because arrest has unlawfully become the near exclusive province of governmental professional police instead of the Militia's Americans have fewer assurances that they are free from unreasonable arrests.

    This unconstitutional disparity between the rights and powers of police and citizen shows up most in the modern law of "resisting arrest". Any US citizen could resist arrest if probable cause for arrest did not exist or the arresting person could not produce a valid arrest warrant where one was needed as individual liberty is the bedrock of our constitutional republic.

    It wasn't that long ago that the United States Supreme Court held that it was permissible (or defensible) to shoot an officer who displays a gun with intent to commit a warrantless arrest based on insufficient cause. Officers who executed an arrest without proper warrant were themselves considered trespassers, and the owners had a right to violently resist (or even assault and batter) an officer to evade such an unlawful arrest.

    Well into the twentieth century, violent resistance was considered a lawful remedy for Fourth Amendment violations. Even any third-party person who voluntarily assisted were lawfully able to forcibly assist to liberate wrongly arrested persons from unlawful custody.

    By the 1980s many states had unlawfully eliminated the common law right of resistance for the people in order to make it easier for professional governmental law enforcement to do the work of the state. They unlawfully criminalized resisting of arrest or anything else by the general populace of any "officer" acting in his official capacity. Then they eliminated the requirement that an arresting officer present his warrant at the scene, PLUS drastically decreased the number and types of arrests for which a warrant is required. Basically destroying the basis of our legitimate government, and the level of protection given to us by, and put into place by the Framers into the US Constitution and state Constitutions.

    “Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart.” Justice Robert Jackson, Chief U.S. Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials

    The Nazi's in Germany was tried here - Nuremberg. This is also where was put into writing those who serve within governments are not allowed to use the excuses of "just doing their jobs" or "just following orders" to excuse the crimes they committed.

    That was created because if they had not "just done their jobs" or "just followed orders", that episode in history would not have happened. The same for those who was "just doing their jobs" or "just following orders" for Stalin's country-wide elimination of undesirables, Pol Pot, Amin, Bosnian Serb massacre, the massacre of helpless villagers in the Sudan by government forces, the "land-reform" executions of landlords in the Soviet Union, the Khmer Rouge, etc, etc, etc.

More comments from Cal >>