Compulsory Constitutional Cremation

Well folks it is here. The right to freedom of speech and the right to freedom of press is quickly becoming a dinosaur of the past.

 

To understand what is taking place in most publishing firms around the world today, once again we must focus on that world reknown document which has been disputed by the very people which abide by its every word and which insures of Satan's success in his scheme for global conquest as the would be King over mankind

Excerpts : Protocols of the Learned Elders of Babylonian Talmudic Qabalah Mysticism of Satan's Hell

FREE PRESS DESTROYED

7. We turn to the periodical press. We shall impose on it, as on all printed matter, stamp taxes per sheet and deposits of caution- money, and books of less than 30 sheets will pay double. We shall reckon them as pamphlets in order, on the one hand, to reduce the number of magazines, which are the worst form of printed poison, and, on the other, in order that this measure may force writers into such lengthy productions that they will be little read, especially as they will be costly. At the same time what we shall publish ourselves to influence mental development in the direction laid down for our profit will be cheap and will be read voraciously. The tax will bring vapid literary ambitions within bounds and the liability to penalties will make literary men dependent upon us. And if there should be any found who are desirous of writing against us, they will not find any person eager to print their productions in print the publisher or printer will have to apply to the authorities for permission to do so. Thus we shall know beforehand of all tricks preparing against us and shall nullify them by getting ahead with explanations on the subject treated of.

8. Literature and journalism are two of the most important educative forces, and therefore our government will become proprietor of the majority of the journals. This will neutralize the injurious influence of the privately-owned press and will put us in possession of a tremendous influence upon the public mind .... If we give permits for ten journals, we shall ourselves found thirty, and so on in the same proportion. This, however, must in no wise be suspected by the public. For which reason all journals published by us will be of the most opposite, in appearance, tendencies and opinions, thereby creating confidence in us and bringing over to us quite unsuspicious opponents, who will thus fall into our trap and be rendered harmless.

9. In the front rank will stand organs of an official character. They will always stand guard over our interests, and therefore their influence will be comparatively insignificant.

10. In the second rank will be the semi-official organs, whose part it will be to attack the tepid and indifferent.

11. In the third rank we shall set up our own, to all appearance, off position, which, in at least one of its organs, will present what looks like the very antipodes to us. Our real opponents at heart will accept this simulated opposition as their own and will show us their cards.

12. All our newspapers will be of all possible complexions - aristocratic, republican, revolutionary, even anarchical - for so long, of course, as the constitution exists .... Like the Indian idol "Vishnu" they will have a hundred hands, and every one of them will have a finger on any one of the public opinions as required. When a pulse quickens these hands will lead opinion in the direction of our aims, for an excited patient loses all power of judgment and easily yields to suggestion. Those fools who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us. In the vain belief that they are following the organ of their party they will, in fact, follow the flag which we hang out for them.

13. In order to direct our newspaper militia in this sense we must take special and minute care in organizing this matter. Under the title of central department of the press we shall institute literary gatherings at which our agents will without attracting attention issue the orders and watchwords of the day. By discussing and controverting, but always superficially, without touching the essence of the matter, our organs will carry on a sham fight fusillade with the official newspapers solely for the purpose of giving occasion for us to express ourselves more fully than could well be done from the outset in official announcements, whenever, of course, that is to our advantage.

14. THESE ATTACKS UPON US WILL ALSO SERVE ANOTHER PURPOSE, NAMELY, THAT OUR SUBJECTS WILL BE CONVINCED TO THE EXISTENCE OF FULL FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND SO GIVE OUR AGENTS AN OCCASION TO AFFIRM THAT ALL ORGANS WHICH OPPOSE US ARE EMPTY BABBLERS, since they are incapable of finding any substantial objections to our orders.

ONLY LIES PRINTED

15. Methods of organization like these, imperceptible to the public eye but absolutely sure, are the best calculated to succeed in bringing the attention and the confidence of the public to the side of our government. Thanks to such methods we shall be in a position as from time to time may be required, to excite or to tranquillize the public mind on political questions, to persuade or to confuse, printing now truth, now lies, facts or their contradictions, according as they may be well or ill received, always very cautiously feeling our ground before stepping upon it .... WE SHALL HAVE A SURE TRIUMPH OVER OUR OPPONENTS SINCE THEY WILL NOT HAVE AT THEIR DISPOSITION ORGANS OF THE PRESS IN WHICH THEY CAN GIVE FULL AND FINAL EXPRESSION TO THEIR VIEWS owing to the aforesaid methods of dealing with the press. We shall not even need to refute them except very superficially.

16. Trial shots like these, fired by us in the third rank of our press, in case of need, will be energetically refuted by us in our semi-official organs.

17. Even nowadays, already, to take only the French press, there are forms which reveal Masonic solidarity in acting on the watchword: all organs of the press are bound together by professional secrecy; like the augurs of old, not one of their numbers will give away the secret of his sources of information unless it be resolved to make announcement of them. Not one journalist will venture to betray this secret, for not one of them is ever admitted to practice literature unless his whole past has some disgraceful sore or other .... These sores would be immediately revealed. So long as they remain the secret of a few the prestige of the journalist attacks the majority of the country - the mob follow after him with enthusiasm.

18. Our calculations are especially extended to the provinces. It is indispensable for us to inflame there those hopes and impulses with which we could at any moment fall upon the capital, and we shall represent to the capitals that these expressions are the independent hopes and impulses of the provinces. Naturally, the source of them will be always one and the same - ours. WHAT WE NEED IS THAT, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS WE ARE IN THE PLENITUDE POWER, THE CAPITALS SHOULD FIND THEMSELVES STIFLED BY THE PROVINCIAL OPINION OF THE NATIONS, I.E., OF A MAJORITY ARRANGED BY OUR AGENTUR. What we need is that at the psychological moment the capitals should not be in a position to discuss an accomplished fact for the simple reason, if for no other, that it has been accepted by the public opinion of a majority in the provinces.

19. WHEN WE ARE IN THE PERIOD OF THE NEW REGIME TRANSITIONAL TO THAT OF OUR ASSUMPTION OF FULL SOVEREIGNTY WE MUST NOT ADMIT ANY REVELATION BY THE PRESS OF ANY FORM OF PUBLIC DISHONESTY; IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE NEW REGIME SHOULD BE THOUGHT TO HAVE SO PERFECTLY CONTENDED EVERYBODY THAT EVEN CRIMINALITY HAS DISAPPEARED ... Cases of the manifestation of criminality should remain known only to their victims and to chance witnesses - no more.

 

 

 

Adis International Limited

 

 

 

 

Reuters

 

N.B. teen jailed for cross burning

Convicted man explains hate crime as 'a prank'

 

MONCTON, N.B. (CP) — A teenager who burned a gasoline-soaked cross on the lawn of a black family "as a prank" was sentenced Wednesday to four months in jail.

 

"To hear him say it was just a prank ... that's pathetic," Judge Sylvio Savoie said in sentencing James Hanley of Moncton, N.B., on a charge of willfully promoting hatred.

Hanley said nothing as he heard his jail sentence, which will be followed by two years of probation, a curfew, and racial sensitivity training. Police immediately took him away.

 

Of course I cannot condone a physical act of vandalism on private property. However if you can see what is happening, if you incite a wariness for what is about to happen you may be charged with a hate incitment criminal indictment.

Yep, I'm soon to be dead meat.

 

Terrorism-terrorism-terrorism to your television soon

 

Army seeks Hollywood help against terrorists

Writers, producers asked to speculate on possible terror scenarios

 

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Some of the filmmakers who craft tales of violence and terrorism for Hollywood are helping the U.S. army.

The group was assembled through the Institute for Creative Technologies, a University of Southern California think-tank that works on virtual training programs for the army.

"In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, the army and USC's ICT have worked together to co-ordinate ongoing panel discussions with some of Hollywood's top talent," the centre said in a statement Tuesday.The group will brainstorm possible terrorist plots against U.S. targets.

The army declined to provide specifics about the work or name members of the group. The trade paper Daily Variety said it includes Steven De Souza, who co-wrote the 1988 hit Die Hard, in which terrorists commandeered a Los Angeles office building.

De Souza, speaking through the Writers Guild of America, declined to answer questions.

 

 

 

 

 

Gersh Kuntzman: Un-American Activities

 

Our columnist examines the quickly shifting role of patriotism in the weeks since the attacks 

 

 Oct. 6 — FOR ABOUT A WEEK, I was actually proud to be an American. Watching our nation respond with unity to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 filled me with the feeling that we are a decent, thoughtful, caring, intelligent people.

 

Well, that didn’t last long, thanks to a sudden shift in the very notion of patriotism. Now, if you aren’t waving a flag, cheering every focus-group-tested word out of President Bush’s mouth or supporting the use of force, you’re a threat. You’re anti-American. You must be silenced.
        The examples are legion: a columnist in Texas is fired for questioning President Bush’s leadership skills; a columnist in Oregon is fired for questioning President Bush’s leadership skills (sense a pattern?); a professor in New Mexico is disciplined for criticizing American foreign policy; talk-show host Bill Maher—whose show’s very name, “Politically Incorrect,” warns advertisers that he aims for controversy—loses key sponsors because he suggested that the suicide bombers of Sept. 11 were not “cowards”; a rap group removes a song critical of New York City cops because it is deemed “inappropriate” at this time; conservative columnist Ann Coulter, who urged a violent form of revenge against nations that sponsor terrorism, was dropped by NationalReview.com; a friend of mine has been threatened because her car bears a bumper sticker, NO MORE BUSHI$#—even though she affixed before Sept. 11, when such criticism was tolerated.

Instead of recoiling at these attacks on that most American ideal of free speech, our country has accepted them as part of the war effort. Indeed, only a few card-carrying ACLU members seemed to mind last week when the president’s spokesman, Ari Fleischer (who once said that gas-guzzling was part of the American “way of life”), warned all Americans that “they need to watch what they say, watch what they do” in this time of crisis. (As if evoking the specter of “thoughtcrime” from the book “1984” wasn’t enough, Fleischer fashioned himself as Big Brother, rewriting history by removing the words “watch what they say” from the official transcript of the press conference.)
        Maybe Fleischer should have warned today’s patriotic demagogues, rather than the writers who’ve lost their jobs questioning our nation’s patriotic psychosis.
        “I’m getting calls all day and night from people who scream at me that I’m un-American,” says Dan Guthrie, the columnist (make that former columnist) for the Daily Courier in Grants Pass, Ore. “That doesn’t bother me. It’s the death threats that get scary.”
        Guthrie lost his job because he suggested in print that the president responded “lamely” because he “skedaddled” rather than immediately returning to Washington after the attack.
        Tom Gutting, a columnist with the Texas City Sun, also learned the cost of criticizing the president. Gutting’s column accused Bush of being “a puppet ... controlled by advisers” who is leading us into a war that will solve nothing. Gutting called for Americans to “be vigilant citizens, as our Constitution demands.”
        Gutting’s boss had a different definition of patriotism and fired his columnist, calling his writing “not appropriate during this time our country and our leaders find themselves in.” (Want to do the American thing and decide for yourself? Read Gutting’s column at: http://www.poynter.org/medianews/extra16.htm).
        Gutting is anything but un-American. In fact, he says he is moved to tears when he reads the Constitution. (Weird, perhaps, but certainly patriotic.)
        “People call me a communist or yell, ‘Go live in Afghanistan’,” he says. “A communist?! I love this country, but there is no asterisk on the First Amendment that says ‘Except in times of crisis when you must support the president’.”
        Two hundred and thirty years ago, such subversiveness would’ve made Guthrie and Gutting Founding Fathers. Today, it earns them pink slips.

But Dan Guthrie and Tom Gutting are just two small victims of our country’s orthodoxy. The bigger problem is a nation where all debate is stifled in the name of unity—sort of like those dictatorships that we’re always condemning.
        A recent poll shows that we trust our government more now than at any point since 1966. Doesn’t that concern anyone? In 1966, trust in government was the problem.
        Oddly, most of the forced orthodoxy is coming from the right, the supposed defenders of our freedoms. Apparently, if you live in the so-called Blue States, you’re supposed to remain silent about the president’s performance even though the people from the Red States spent the entirety of the last presidency making as much noise as possible. Back then, such divisiveness was considered patriotic. Now it’s un-American.
        While we’re at it, here’s my current list of thought crimes:
        1. I agree with Bill Maher. The men who crashed planes into the World Trade Center were not cowards. Cowards are people who plan such attacks from the safety of their caves.
        2. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is right: Western civilization is “superior” to modern Islamic civilization, where oppression, not democracy, is the rule. Free speech? Even in supposedly moderate Egypt, the president picks the editors of the top papers. American allies? How come Friday-night prayers even in supposedly moderate mosques feature the obligatory venomous attack on the United States. (Look at me, agreeing with Jonah Goldberg of the National Review! Isn’t this a great country?)
        3. It bothers me that Muslim shopkeepers who’ve lived in my neighborhood for 25 years feel they must fly the American flag so they won’t get beaten up by their fellow Americans.
        4. “God Bless America” is a lousy, cloying song. Give me “America the Beautiful” any day.
        Exercising my free speech (hell, I don’t exercise much else) will probably generate plenty of anger from readers. What else is new? I mean, did you catch these recent attacks:
        Conservative columnist John Podhoretz criticized a New Yorker essay by Susan Sontag for “dripping with contempt for the nation’s politics, its leaders [and] its economic system.” (Podhoretz could recognize it because that was his role before Jan. 20, 2001.) Now Podhoretz is complaining that liberals want to restrict free speech. But it wasn’t liberals who axed Guthrie, Gutting and Coulter.
        Steve Dunleavy, another consumer of raw meat, complained in The New York Post about liberals, “whom I regard as traitors in this time of crisis ...” The liberals’ crime? Not supporting greater access to guns. (No, really.)
        Later, his Post colleague Andrea Peyser mocked pacifists as “fuzzy-headed academics [who] must have eaten a few too many magic mushrooms.” The pacifists’ crime? Pointing out that American mistakes—such as backing Osama bin Laden against the Russians (we called him a “freedom fighter” back then)—helped create the horrible world we now live in.
        Syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin even complained that liberals view “the U.S. military as an outdated, hierarchical, racist, sexist, homophobic and imperialistic institution.”
        Is it un-American to point out that the U.S. military has been all of those things at various times?
        Americans should not be happy about where this “1984”-style orthodoxy will lead. In Florida, for example, it’s already being used as a cudgel against would-be opponents to a congressional run by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris.
        Republican spokesman Daryl Duwe previewed his party’s strategy when he warned Democrats, who are still angry about how Harris used her office to assist the Bush campaign last year, that bringing it up “would be a losing strategy ... Post-Sept. 11, they do not want to hear the Democrats talk [about it].”
        In other words, a terrorist who lives in a country where a man can be flogged if his beard is not sufficiently unkempt has neutralized our ability to criticize our political rivals. Wasn’t that his goal?
        But forced orthodoxy goes far beyond the public’s fear of criticizing government officials. No one wants to take chances anymore. Take a seemingly innocuous example from this season’s sitcoms. On both the supposedly daring “Sex and the City” and the dull “Friends,” sexy single characters found themselves pregnant—but the writers never even entertained an abortion plotline.
        Wouldn’t want to offend anyone, would we? Then again, why not? Sure, people went nuts when Dan Quayle criticized Murphy Brown—but aren’t we a better country because he was able to say what he felt?
        After all, he did turn out to be partially right. Hmm, maybe there’s something to staking out a controversial position.

_________________________________

In Texe Marrs "Power of Prophecy Newsletter which goes out each month was the following...

Star Magazine Punished with Anthrax


Texe Marrs

www.powerofprophecy.com

Star Magazine has long been a thorn in the side of the elite, bravely exposing their plots and murders. Payback came with a vicious anthrax germ disease attack against the magazine and its employees

Star Magazine Punished with Anthrax

It was the surprisingly reliable Star, a tabloid, that first broke the Bill Clinton/Gennifer Flowers sex scandal. It was also the Star that, back in July, broke the stunning, documented story and revelation that Gary Condit is a homosexual and sick sex pervert into bizarre ritual. Guess which magazine in Boca Raton, Florida was punished by "terrorists" with an anthrax attack in September? That's right—Star!

It was a Star company employee who died of anthrax infection, and the germ was found on a Star keyboard. The U.S. Justice Department then ordered the entire building owned by the 300-employee corporation that publishes Star and two other tabloids to be closed and sealed. This was a lesson that the Illuminati elite would no longer allow independent "rogue" media to "out" its political servants.

______________

Friday January 4 4:10 PM ET

Swedish Man Sentenced

 

STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) - The publisher of a booklet derogatory to Jews was sentenced Friday to six months in jail for violating Sweden's hate speech law.

A district court on Gotland, an island 60 miles east of the Swedish mainland, said the booklet, titled ``The Jewish Question,'' constituted ``agitation against an ethnic group.''

The publisher, Fredrik Sandberg, 25, faced up to two years in prison.

The material originally was written by a Nazi party member and published in 1936. The National Socialist Front, a neo-Nazi organization, published a new, 60-page edition two years ago and sold it on its Web site.

Several copies were confiscated by police and the organization was ordered to stop selling the material.

A spokesman for the organization, Bjoern Bjoerkqvist, called the ruling ``a blow'' to free speech.

 

I am no Nazi and I do not hate any Jewish person, I do hate those who hate my Lord, those who call themselves Jew, but who are liars and of the synagogue of Satan. When will these of the ADL and the United Nations have the Amerikan version of hate speech ratified and law in the United States to quell the opposition to the coming false Talmudic Mashiach?

Monday, 16 September, 2002, 09:14 GMT 10:14 UK
Author on trial over Islam 'insult'
Mr Houellebecq
The author has won the Impac prize and Prix Novembre
Prize-winning French novelist Michel Houellebecq is to stand trial on Tuesday on charges of making a racial insult and inciting religious hatred.

The controversial writer is being sued by four Islamic organisations in Paris after making "insulting" remarks about the religion in an interview about his latest book.

The novel, Platform, is also cited in the case being made by the largest mosques in Paris and Lyon, the National Federation of French Muslims (FNMN) and the World Islamic League.

Platform cover
Platform has been a best-seller in France
In an interview given last year to the French literary magazine Lire, the author was quoted as saying "the dumbest religion, after all, is Islam".

"When you read the Koran, you're shattered. The Bible at least is beautifully written because the Jews have a heck of a literary talent," he told Lire.

The author, who recently won the Impac literary prize, is used to the controversy - and the attendant publicity - arising from his frank and sometimes nihilistic novels.

He has neither retracted his comments nor defended the main character in his novel Platform, who admits to a "quiver of glee" every time a "Palestinian terrorist" is killed.

"A writer is not interviewed as if he were on a political stage with a microphone," his lawyer Emmanuel Pierrat said.

'Humorous'

Last year Mr Houellebecq said he had "a gift" for insults and provocation.

"In my novels, it adds a certain spice. It's rather humorous, no? What I think as an individual seems to be of no importance here," he said in an interview.

But the lawyers for the Paris and Lyon mosques said in a statement: "It is anti-Muslim racism that is at the heart of the trial, not the personality or the provocative tastes of one successful author or another."

Houellebecq, who lives in Ireland, is working on the film adaptation of his novel Atomised (Les Particules Elementaires).

He has said he plans to explain his thought processes to the court - and that a number of French literary figures will speak in his defence.

He faces a year in jail or a 52,000 euro (£33,000) fine if he loses the case.

 

Sunday January 6 7:22 AM ET

Official Paper Slams Lieberman Over Iraq Remarks

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - An official Iraqi newspaper on Sunday attacked U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman over his remarks on the necessity of U.S. action to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) as part of the war on terrorism.

Lieberman, a Democrat, and Republican John McCain recently signed a letter to President Bush (news - web sites) urging him to make Iraq the next target in the ``war on terrorism'' following the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan (news - web sites).

Last week the pair led a delegation of senators to Ankara, where they vowed any action against Iraq would be taken in consultation with Turkey and other countries in the region.

``I expressed the point of view, which I think is felt by many in the United States, that the war against terrorism will not end until Saddam Hussein is removed from power in Baghdad,'' Lieberman told reporters in Ankara.

``This arrogant Jew has launched a campaign against a number of Arab countries...concentrating his attack on Iraq, inciting the American administration against it,'' Al-Thawra, newspaper of the ruling Baath Party, said in a front-page editorial.

``He is still, without any occasion, attacking Iraq and the Palestinian organizations accusing them of terrorism and declaring insolently his support for the Zionist entity,'' the newspaper added.

Bush recently warned Iraq to allow United Nations weapons inspections to resume or ``find out'' the consequences.

The U.N. says sanctions, imposed on Iraq for its 1990 invasion of Kuwait, cannot be lifted unless Baghdad allows inspectors back into the country to check for weapons of mass destruction.

___________

 


wonder when I will be beheaded? Wonder when the un-believers will believe that they do God a service when they put me to death?

 

George W. Bush to the Nation 4-30-2002

Ancient evil, of anti-Semiticism......If we are not with him against this evil........we are against the war on terrorism........are we now terrorist? Are Christians who understand that Talmudic Judaism of the Babylonian twist to be determined terrorist? Of course, who then can oppose the coming Moschiach ben Lucifer? The God that the Talmudic Jews and the new world server obedient Noahides have chosen?

Anti-Semitism is the greatest tool Satan has ever devised to destroy Christianity by those anti-Christ who call Jesus a bastard and the son of a whore. And complacent apathetic Amerika, will silently sit back and be herded to the slaughter without even a squeak of opposition.

Soon, and very soon, the new SS cheif Ashcroft will enforce hate crime laws against what they will determine Anti-Semiticism against those who oppose the Babylonians.

E-Mail I received 8-1-2002

 www.restoreliberty.com 

From: <Counselier@aol.com>
To: <infosam@bellsouth.net>
Subject: US Supreme Court Permits "Unauthorized Deprivations" and thereby Declares War Ag
Date: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 5:55 PM

US Supreme Court Permits "Unauthorized Deprivations" and thereby Declares War 
Against The People of the United States.

Compare http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/7068.html with the following:

Abraham Lincoln said "Let [Law] be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in 
legislatures, and enforced in courts of justice." 

President Abraham Lincoln stated that IF the Federal Government violated a 
Constitutional Right of any State or of its People, that State and People 
would have the Moral and Legal authority to SECEDE from the Union, and/or to 
wage WAR against the United States. As predicted by George Orwell, the 
Constitutional rights of the People were disposed of in the year 1984.

In 1984, the Supreme Court made it clear in Oliver v United States, 466 US 
170, and Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, that landowners in the several 
states no longer have any Property rights that Executive Agents of the 
Federal Government are bound to respect, (see e.g., 
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ny/ctap/079_0474.htm ) and that the "intentional" 
commission of "Unauthorized Deprivations" of ___, Liberty and Property by 
Federal and State Executive agents will not be restrained nor punished.

One scholar describing President Richard M. Nixon's legacy, including his 
assault upon the Rule of Law, narrowly focuses upon the erosion by the 
Supreme Court of the debatable rights of persons accused or convicted of 
crimes: 
http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/15incredible.html ("We 
now have U.S. Supreme Court headed by a right-wing extremist, William 
Rehnquist, who got his start in the Richard Nixon/John Mitchell Department of 
Justice. [W]e have entered a new era ... some call it the new rehnquisition.")

"The term 'Rehnquisition' first appeared in a Harvard Law School publication 
in the early 1970's." ... The term originally referred to then-Associate 
Justice Rehnquist's vision of criminal procedure as indicated in his judicial 
opinions--a bizarre, quasifascist world in which the basic rights and 
judicial remedies of criminal defendants are steadfastly belittled and 
denigrated, and the powers of police and prosecutors are steadily exalted and 
expanded. ... These frightening, alien principles may be summarized as 
follows. First, lawlessness in law enforcement [i.e., lawlessness in 
government] is permissible.... In the world of William Hubbs Rehnquist, as 
in the world of Nazism, leniency is weakness, adherence to the rule of law is 
sentimental claptrap, and the role of the judiciary is not to be the guardian 
of rights but to assure that ... lawlessness in [government] go[es] 
unpunished. When future generations look back at the Rehnquist Court, they 
... will conclude [that] the highest court in the world ... favored not 
liberty, not rights, but death."
http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/19note.html
http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/crim_proc.html

But Take Notice, the Supreme Court's destruction of the Basic Rights of the 
People is no longer limited to coercing and depriving those who are accused 
of violating Penal statutes written by the People. In 1994, in Albright v. 
Oliver, 510 US 266, the US Supreme Court, lead by Nixon-appointee 
Chief-Justice Rhenquist, extended the treasonous "Doctrine" of "Unauthorized 
Deprivation" to empower Federal or State Executive agents to make-up 
pretended offenses not prescribed by the People's statutes- empowering them 
to charge and to subject citizens to coercive "unauthorized deprivations" of 
Liberty and/or Property. This Doctrine defies the express guarantee(s) "Of 
Law" written in the US Constitution, and effectively vests in Executive and 
Judicial agents the (formerly Legislative) Power to coercively dictate what 
property a citizen may hold, and what particular activities (Liberty) a free 
citizen will be allowed or forbidden to engage in under penalty of 
prosecution. The Doctrine gives the Executive and the Courts the Power to 
coercively Rule the People independently of the Statutes and Laws adopted by 
their Legislatures through republican representative processes.

In a Republic, Law is "The Consent of the Governed." 
www.givemeliberty.org/spotlights/archive/March1999/markferran.htm 

In 1803 Chief Justice Marshall noted, in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (1 Cranch) 
137, that "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a 
government of laws, and not of men." But he warned that "It will certainly 
cease to deserve this high appellation, if … Law is incapable of securing 
obedience to its mandate." Archibald Cox, reflecting upon the Nixon 
administration's intent to establish a lawless form of government, said: 
``Whether ours shall continue to be a government of laws and not of men is 
now for Congress and ultimately the American people [to decide].''
http://www.boston.com/globe/search/stories/books/books97/ken_gormley.htm

The Due Process of Law clause of the Fifth Amendment, explicitly guarantees 
that Executive agents of the Federal Government shall not commit Unauthorized 
Deprivations of Life, Liberty or Property. 
www.givemeliberty.org/spotlights/archive/March1999/markferran.htm 

In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856), Judges opined that the "powers of the 
Government and the rights and privileges of the citizen are regulated and 
plainly defined by the Constitution itself" and that that by the Constitution 
"the rights of property are united with the rights of person, and placed on 
the same ground by the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which provides 
that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due 
process of law." Dred Scott. http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Scott.

"Due process of law requires, first, the legislative act authorizing the [
depriv]ation, pointing out how it may be made....; and, second that the 
parties or officers proceeding to make the [depriv]ation shall keep within 
the authority conferred, and observe every regulation which the act makes for 
the protection or in the interest of the [citizen], except as he may see fit 
voluntarily to waive them."

Chicago, Burlington &c. R'd v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 241 (1896) (quoting 2 
Story Const. § 1956).

"The absence of proper prior statutory authority for the [deprivation] 
constitutes a denial of the substantive [Law] element of due process." 
Nichols, On Eminent Domain, § 4.9. 

"ARBITRARY Government is where a people have men set over them...who have 
power to govern them, and judge their causes without a rule. God only hath 
this prerogative; whose sovereignty is absolute, and whose will is a perfect 
rule, and reason itself; so as for man to usurp such authority, is 
tyranny...."
Anno Domini 1644 http://www.bartleby.com/43/9.html

Due Process of Law is the "general law, operating equally upon every member 
of our community, which the words 'by the law of the land,' in Magna Charta, 
and in every subsequent declaration of rights which has borrowed its 
phraseology, make essential to the safety of the citizen, securing thereby 
both his liberty and his property, by preventing the unlawful arrest of his 
person, or any unlawful interference with his estate.' ... Chancellor KENT, 
(2 Comm. 13,) adopts this mode of construing the phrase. Quoting the language 
of Magna Charta, and referring to Lord COKE's comment upon it, he says: 'The 
better and larger definition of due process of law is that it means LAW in 
its regular course of administration through courts of justice.' This accords 
with what is said in Westervelt v. Gregg, 12 N. Y. 202, by DENIO, J., p. 212: 
'The provision was designed to protect the citizen against all mere acts of 
power, whether flowing from the legislative or executive branches of the 
government.' ... And in Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 US 90 the court said: 'A 
state cannot deprive a person of his property without due process of law.... 
Due process of law is process according to the law of the land. This process 
in the states is regulated by the law of the state.' ... Law is something 
more than mere will exerted as an act of power. It must be not a special rule 
for a particular person or a particular case, but, in the language of Mr. 
Webster, in his familiar definition, 'the general law, a law which hears 
before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only 
after trial,' so 'that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, 
and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern 
society,' ... Abritrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the 
persons and property of its subjects, is not law, whether manifested as the 
decree of a personal monarch or of an impersonal multitude. And the 
limitations imposed by our constitutional law upon the action of the 
governments, both state and national, are essential to the preservation of 
public and private rights, notwithstanding the representative character of 
our political institutions. The enforcement of these limitations by judicial 
process is the device of self-governing communities to protect the rights of 
individuals and minorities, as well against the power of numbers, as against 
the violence of public agents transcending the limits of lawful authority, 
even when acting in the name and wielding the force of the government."
Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=110&
invol=516#527

"As we explained in Hurtado, 'bulwarks' of protection such as the Magna 
Charta and the Due Process Clause 'guarantee not particular forms of 
procedure, but the very substance of individual rights to life, liberty, and 
property.'" http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-833.ZD.html 

“The citizens are the authors of the LAW ... because the Law derives its 
AUTHORITY from the CONSENT of the public, expressed through the democratic 
process.” 628 F.2d 730, 734 (1st Cir. 1980).
Government "derives its authority [to act and to enact rules] from the same 
pure and sacred source as itself: the voluntary and deliberate choice of the 
people. ... Laws derived from the pure source of equality and justice must 
be founded on the CONSENT of those whose obedience they require. " Chisholm 
v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793).

If a ruler has no duty to refrain from intentionally committing an 
"unauthorized deprivation" of a person's life, liberty, or property, then 
that person is not a "citizen" in a Republic, but merely a "subject" or a 
"slave." Acts 22.24-23.11

A "Citizen" is protected by the Constitution from Random and UNauthorized 
deprivations, BUT a "'slave" is by definition a "subject" who has no 
Constitutional rights that Executives and Judges are "bound to respect." Dred 
Scott. "A subject ... hath no way to oblige his Prince to give him his due. 
" Chisholm.

Pursuant to the US Constitution, a "citizen" of a "Free State" has the 
"right to resist" an unauthorized deprivation of life, liberty, or property, 
and "to keep and carry arms" for that lawful purpose. Dred Scott. "[I]t being 
reasonable and just [that] I should have a right to destroy that which 
threatens me with destruction." (Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, 
14)
The only remedy associated with an injury to a "slave", was "compensation" 
(to his master). The Thirteenth Amendment, a result of the first american 
Civil War, provides that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except 
as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, 
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their 
jurisdiction." Therefore, the million or more slaves in our prisons today who 
"have been duly convicted" of "crime" are not supposed to enjoy the SAME 
rights (to have Liberty, and to hold Property) as free citizens expect to 
enjoy. The Form of Government existing inside our prisons is not a Republic, 
and rarely resembles a Government of Laws- and the inmates have no "right to 
resist" the Will of their Masters.

Until about 1950, American law schools taught that: "Constitutional 
government is a government by law. The office of the state is to establish 
and maintain laws." Henry Campbell Black, American Constitutional Law §70 
(4th ed., West Pub. 1927). They also taught: "Due process of law requires, 
first, the legislative act authorizing the [depriv]ation, pointing out how it 
may be made... etc."

These original principles of the People subsequently went out of favor with 
"law professors," and are no longer found written in any common "law school" 
textbooks. By the 1970s, Attorney Richard M. Nixon and his associates 
including (now-Chief Justice) William Rhenquist endeavored to establish a 
different Form of Government that can act against the People totally 
unconstrained by Law (and therefore operate outside and beyond the Consent of 
the Governed). They have now accomplished that.

In Hudson v. Palmer (1984) and Parratt v. Taylor (1981), etc., the US Supreme 
Court opined that the Constitutional rights of Free Citizens and of Slaves 
(prisoners) to hold property shall henceforth be the SAME in the United 
States, and that free citizens shall be governed like the slaves- by the same 
Form of "random and unauthorized" government which operates efficiently 
inside our prisons. The Court opined that no Executive or Judicial officer 
of the United States nor of the several States who has sworn to uphold the 
Constitution has any duty under it to "refrain" from "intentionally" 
committing "random and unauthorized deprivations" of a free citizen's ____, 
"liberty" or "property." But for this Doctrine, the wilful commission of an 
unauthorized deprivation of a free citizen's Life, Liberty or Property by a 
state or federal agent would be punishable as a Federal Crime. 18 USC § 242 
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/242fin.htm

The Doctrine "provide[s] that random, unauthorized deprivations did not 
violate [the Constitution] if adequate" money is available to pay 
compensation. http://www.law.utexas.edu/dawson/cases/racing/patin.htm 
According to this Doctrine, as confirmed by Chief "Justice" Rhenquist, 
"Justice" O'Connor, "Justice" Scalia, and "Justice" Kennedy, a government 
agent's "wanton, unauthorized departure from a [Legislature]'s established 
policies and procedures, working a deprivation of liberty" or "property" does 
NOT violate any Constitutional DUTY that must be respected by the agent. 
(Zinermon dissent) In fact, according to this perverse doctrine, "The wanton 
or reckless nature of the" unauthorized deprivation is what makes the 
unauthorized deprivation Constitutionally permissible. Id. The Deprivations 
which are most permissible under the Doctrine are those that are committed by 
an Executive agent who has wilfully, "deliberately or recklessly subverted 
his [the citizen's] rights and contravened" the Law. Id. 

This Doctrine is designed to leave every Executive agent of the Federal 
government free to pursue any "random, unauthorized personal vendetta against 
the" free citizen, with the financial backing and the full weight of the 
government's machinery and Lawyers at the Executive agent's disposal. 
(Zinermon) The Doctrine is designed to empower Executive agents of the 
Federal Government to "harass or persecute prisoners" AND FREE CITIZENS, 
under any pretense of authority or without any pretense of lawful authority 
other than their official titles. (Zinermon) The Doctrine is designed 
specifically to permit any state or federal government agent to "exceed the 
limits of his established search and seizure authority," to "wrongfully ... 
withhold" property," and to otherwise "disregard" and to "flout" the People's 
Laws. (Zinermon dissent) 

According to the Doctrine, an Executive agent of the Government has no 
Constitutional Duty to "refrain" from committing an "unauthorized 
Deprivation" if sufficient taxpayer money is "available" from the Government 
to the person deprived, (or to his heirs), by which he (or they) might 
"recover[] the value of the" Life, Liberty, or Property he has been 
unlawfully deprived of. 
http://www.law.utexas.edu/dawson/cases/racing/patin.htm According to the 
Doctrine of Unauthorized Deprivation, BECAUSE the government has enough 
taxpayer's MONEY to pay "damages" (e.g., in a "tort action") for any "
unconstitutional deprivation" committed by a government official, then "the 
random and unauthorized act of [government] officials (not pursuant to Law)" 
is not forbidden by the Constitution. Id. The Doctrine has been expressly 
extended beyond its initial application to the "property" of incarcerated 
prisoners, to the property of free citizens, and then extended further "to 
specifically include deprivations of Liberty interests" of free citizens. Id. 
The Rhenquist Court has even suggested that a random and unauthorized 
deprivation of "Life" by government agents is not forbidden by the 
Constitution. "This doctrine dictates that a state actor's random and 
unauthorized deprivation of a [free citizen's, Life, Liberty or] property 
does not result in a violation of [Constitutional rights that will be 
respected]. http://home.olemiss.edu/~llibcoll/ndms/apr98/98D0052P.html 
Under this Doctrine, Executive Agents of the Government are no longer 
required by their Oath of Office "to follow established stat[utory] 
procedures [i.e., Law]" when dealing with the Life, Liberty, and Property of 
citizens. 
http://csmail.law.pace.edu/lawlib/legal/us-legal/judiciary/second-circuit/test

3/97-9411.con.html
The Doctrine empowers every petty tyrant to intentionally falsely accuse a 
citizen of "crime", even for engaging in purely lawful actvities (such as 
keeping or displaying arms for lawful purposes), and to thereby "disrupt his 
employment, drain his financial resources, curtail his associations, subject 
him to public obloquy, and create anxiety in him, his family and his friends" 
without authority of Law. 
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-833.ZD.html

Know what civil Liberty IS, and you shall Know what it is Not. 
http://familyguardian.tzo.com/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/liberty.htm

This Doctrine permitting "Unauthorized Deprivations" is as destructive of 
the security of Life, Liberty and Property as were the odious Writs of 
Assistance, pursuant to which "Every [executive agent of the government] may 
reign secure in his petty tyranny and spread terror and desolation around 
him, until the trump of the archangel shall excite different emotions in his 
soul. [N]ot only deputies but even their menial servants are allowed to lord 
it over us." http://www.nv.cc.va.us/home/nvsageh/Hist121/Part2/JamesOtis.html
http://www.usgennet.org/usa/topic/colonial/book/chap11_1.html

"In 1761 the validity of the use of the Writs [of Assistance] was contested 
in the historic proceedings in Boston. James Otis attacked the Writ 
ofAssistance because its use placed 'the liberty of every man in the hands of 
every petty officer.' His powerful argument so impressed itself first on his 
audience and later on the People of all the Colonies that President Adams was 
in retrospect moved to say that 'American Independence was then and there 
born.' ... [It was therefore recognized that] the broad constitutional 
proscription [against Unauthorized Deprivation in the Due Process of Law 
clauses, includes] the right to shut the door on officials of the state 
unless their entry is under proper authority of law. [AND] self-protection: 
the right to resist unauthorized [deprivations of Life, Liberty and Property]"
Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360 (1959) 
http://www.usscplus.com/online/index.asp?case=3590360

Thomas Jefferson said: "Nothing is ours, which another may deprive us of." 
(to Maria Cosway, 1786. ME 5:440 )

The Due Process of Law clause in the US Constitution and in every state 
constitution (formerly) guaranteed "the inherent and inalienable right to 
protect [life, liberty, and] property" from unauthorized deprivations. Cross 
v. State, 370 P.2d at 376-7 (Wyo 1962); People v. McManus, 67 NY2d 541, 496 
NE2d 202, 505 NYS2d 43 (1986); Frank v. Maryland.
This "great and fundamental principle of all constitutional governments . . . 
secures to every individual the right to acquire, possess, and defend 
property." Young v. Wiggins, 240 SC at 435, 126 SE2d at 365 (1962)

The Constitutional right to keep, hold and to defend Life, Liberty and 
Property under the Protection of the Law has been dispensed with by the 
Supreme Court's Doctrine of Unauthorized Deprivation. The Doctrine of 
Unauthorized Deprivation disparages or denies to the People their inalienable 
"right to resist" and punish unauthorized deprivations.

To avoid objection by the Aristocratic Masters of the People (i.e., 
Attorneys), the Doctrine carefully preserves the "procedural" right of the 
citizen's adoptive Master (i.e., Attorney) to seek compensation (e.g., up to 
1/3 of the market value of the citizen) for an "unauthorized" injury to his 
citizen. Justice Powell, although not a true champion of Government by Law, 
objected to the Court's "narrow, wholly procedural view of the limitation 
imposed on the [government] by the Due Process Clause" in the Parratt 
decision and warned that there was "a somewhat disturbing implication in the 
Court's opinion" and "that the reasoning and decision of the Court today, 
even if viewed as compatible with our precedents, create new uncertainties" 
with respect to the "substantive" rights of free citizens! Nevertheless, this 
degenerate (Sodomite) form of "Random and Unauthorized" Government is 
becoming the actual Form of the Government of the United States and of every 
government in the United States. 

In this Sodomite Form of Government, no Executive Agent of the Government 
has any Constitutional Duty to Read the Laws, nor any duty to "keep within" 
the Authority conferred by Law; No Judge need bother to restrain an unlawful 
(Unauthorized) deprivation committed or threatened under false pretense of 
authority. The People in each State, their lives, liberty, and property, are 
to be subject to the arbitrary Will of Men, and their income and property is 
to be subject to unlimited taxation to support and fund such unlimited 
lawless deprivations. The Unlimited Power to Tax the People has become the 
Unlimited Power to Control and Destroy the People, one individual at a time, 
or whole families (e.g., R. Weaver's) and communities (e.g., in Waco, TX) at 
a time. 

A Government that claims the unlimited Power to Destroy its People, is 
destructive of the rights of Life, Liberty and Property that it was 
established to Secure. The Doctrine of Unauthorized Deprivation subverts 
the explicit "right of the People" to "Keep" arms for lawful purposes, 
because Executive Agents of the Government are no longer forbidden to commit 
"unauthorized deprivations" of any "property," including arms. "One of the 
ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purpose [i.e., to commit 
unlimited Unauthorized Deprivations] without resistance is, by disarming the 
people, and making it an offense to keep [or to "display"] arms ...." Justice 
Story, (1893) (quoted by Stephen P. 
Halbrook)http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_saf-hal.html#fn+

According to John Locke, "The great chief end therefore, of Mens uniting 
into Commonweaths, and putting themselves under Government, is the 
Preservation of their Property." He also said, "Whenever [rulers] endeavor to 
take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to 
slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with 
the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience,..." -- 
John Locke, 2nd Treatise of Government, 1690. 

Jefferson said: "The functionaries of every government have propensities to 
command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no 
safe deposit for these but with the people themselves" To Colonel Charles 
Yancey (6 Jan. 1816), Bergh 14:384.

James Madison said: "The preservation of a free government requires not 
merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power may 
be invariably maintained; but, more especially, that neither of them be 
suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people 
[i.e., the Rule of Law]. The rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment 
exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are 
tyrants. The people who submit to it are [not] governed by laws made ... by 
themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves." A 
Memorial and Remonstrance-against religious assessments" (c. 20 June 1785) 
The Papers of James Madison, 15 vols. 8:299-300.

The Declaration of Independence teaches that: "Governments are instituted 
among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed," to 
"SECURE" Mankind's "inalienable Rights" including "Life, Liberty and the 
Pursuit of Happiness," and that "whenever any Form of Government becomes 
destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to 
abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such 
Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem 
most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

According to the standard articulated by President Abraham Lincoln, because 
the Federal Government has asserted an Unlimited Power to Destroy the People 
in each state through "Unauthorized Deprivations" of __, Liberty, and 
Property, the People in each State have been deprived of their allegiance to 
it, and now have the moral and legal authority to secede from and/or to wage 
War against the Government of the United States. 

The People should first consider amending Article III of the US Constitution 
to reform or abolish the US Supreme Court and repudiating that Court's 
pernicious "doctrine" which permits "unauthorized deprivations" and which 
promotes here the same lawless and arbitrary form of government that was 
deceitfully established in Sodom and condemned by God. Isaiah 1:9-23, 
Ezekiel 22:25-28 
http://www.crestinism-ortodox.ro/html_en/05/bible/old/ezek.html )

In case the People's effort to limit their Government by Words shall continue 
to fail, the People should prepare to do so by Swords. Those among the 
People who now keep and bear arms and who cherish the Security for Life, 
Liberty and Property which only a constitutionally limited government (i.e. 
limited in its deprivations by the Consent of the People) can provide, should 
begin engraving their swords, their guns, and their bullets and every weapon 
they possess with the motto "Inimicus Tyrrani" (The Enemy of Tyrants). And, 
as Jesus instructed, "let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one." (<A HREF="http://www.carm.org/kjv/Luke/luke_22.htm#29">
Luke 22:36</A>; <A HREF="http://www.carm.org/kjv/Matt/matt_10.htm#27">Matthew 10:34</A>) Let those among the People who do not yet possess 
arms sufficient to defend themselves sell their clothes if necessary to 
purchase arms, or make them. And, "Put on the whole armor of God, that you 
may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle 
against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against 
the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness 
in [High] places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye 
may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 
Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the 
breastplate of righteousness." Ephesians 6:11-14

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of 
patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." --Thomas Jefferson to 
William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME6:373, Papers 12:356 

Mark R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl
Counselier@aol.com

In a message dated 6/15/02 10:08:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Restoreliberty 
writes: 

> The Supreme Court of Mammon 
> By Adrian Banks 
> June 15, 2002 

> Anyone who takes the time to study the rulings of the United States Supreme 
> Court can see that today's court is not the same as the supreme court of, 
> say, a century ago. The older rulings were more liberty friendly. A century 
> ago, people had confidence that the courts would uphold their rights that 
> their Constitution secured them, and the rulings of that time proved this. 
> No so today. Today's courts, from the supreme court on down, show little if 
> any regard for people's constitutional rights. Myself, like many other 
> people who have filed suits in the various state and federal courts for 
> rights violations have found out this bitter truth the hard way. Some of us 
> have even had sanctions imposed against us for filing suits that the courts 
> deemed to be "frivolous." Our rights have become frivolous things in the 

The New deal of the 1930's is critical to understanding what happened to the 
courts. I knew there had to be a period 
> in history where something happened that changed the courts into 
> anti-liberty courts. I found it during the period of our history known as 
> the "New Deal." 
> Roosevelt and his administration massively expanded the size and power of 
> the federal executive. His administration was able to usurp legislative 
> powers, something the supreme court unanimously ruled in 1935 was 
> unconstitutional. Today, Congress writes only about 10% of the laws it 
> votes on. About 90% of all laws are written outside the halls of Congress 
> by Executive bureaucrats and then a congressional representative "sponsors" 
> the legislation. It doesn't take a genius to see that de facto government 
> begets de facto judges. 

> As the justices of the supreme court died and retired in the 1930's, 
> Roosevelt was able to completely restructure the supreme court by 
> appointing new justices that were pledged, not to uphold the Constitution, 
> but to create whatever fictions were necessary to uphold unconstitutional 
> practices. These justices knew that the Constitution was being violated. 
> They knew that their oath to support the Constitution was a lie, just like 
> Roosevelt knew his oath was a lie. The people overwhelmingly re-elected the 
> very political forces that were destroying the philosophy of government 
> that respected their constitutional rights, and every election cycle today 
> merely keeps these anti-liberty forces in power. 

> One justice that Roosevelt appointed that was an exception to the 
> anti-liberty trend in the courts was William Douglas. I submit that he was 
> the last liberty friendly justice to sit on the bench. There are none 
> today. In fact, a recent newspaper article pointed out that "The nine 
> Supreme Court justices are richer than all but a small percentage of 
> Americans, with at least five millionaires among them." 

> So you have found the truth, and now you expect justice from the Supreme 
> Court of Mammon. Once again, money and power controls the system, and this 
> leaves the common working folks out in the cold. 

> The only way to get truth and justice back in the system would be to throw 
> the money changers out of the temple, and, quite frankly, I don't see this 
> happening. As long as the majority of the people feel safe and secure in 
> the system, they will not vote to change it. Therefore, each election cycle 
> adds another link to the chain that shackles the people's liberties. 

> Dead, are the judges who used to respect the people's constitutional 
> rights. In the eyes of today's judges it is your duty to accept the system, 
> the Constitution notwithstanding. 

> Yours in Liberty 
> Adrian C. Banks 
> www.restoreliberty.com 

__________

 

Posted on Thu, Sep. 19, 2002

story:PUB_DESC

Profiling charged on 'nightmare' flight
A doctor on Delta Flight 442 was detained by U.S. marshals.

Philadelphia Inquirer

The incident on Delta Flight 442 was scary enough last month: U.S. marshals seized an unruly passenger, then one aimed a pistol at other passengers for a half hour and shouted at them to stay seated.

The event, however, didn't end there. Unknown to most passengers on the Atlanta-to-Philadelphia flight, the marshals upon landing also seized an Indian passenger from first class and silently whisked him away in handcuffs.

Far from being a terror suspect, the second detainee turned out to be a former U.S. Army major and military doctor from Lake Worth, Fla., where he has had a family practice for two decades. Both detainees later were released without charge, and the physician's angry account of his ordeal offers a glimpse at the dark side of America's war on terrorism.

Yesterday, suggesting that the line between security and civil-rights violations is blurring, the physician, Bob Rajcoomar, filed notice in U.S. District Court that he may sue the U.S. government for illegal detention and emotional distress. His wife had been left to wander the Philadelphia airport for three hours during his detention, never told of his whereabouts.

"This is blatant racial profiling," Rajcoomar, a naturalized citizen since 1985, said by telephone from Florida. "They think they can pick up anybody, willy-nilly... . It's not in keeping with traditions of the United States."

David Steigman, a spokesmen for the newly created U.S. Transportation Safety Administration, which oversees the air marshals, gave few details about the detentions or the marshals' actions and declined to discuss the potential lawsuit. Atlanta-based Delta did not comment on the legal action.

Rajcoomar, "to the best of our knowledge, had been observing too closely. When the aircraft landed, the airline declined to press charges" against either man, Steigman said.

Stefan Presser, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, which filed the lawsuit notice, called the detention a civil-rights violation that should "send a wake-up call to Americans before it's too late... . In our haste to protect ourselves, we are literally turning on each other."

The dramatic hours on Aug. 31 aboard Delta Flight 442 started when a passenger from Philadelphia - described as waiflike and disturbed - caused alarm when he began looking at other passengers' luggage.

Two U.S. air marshals rushed back from their first-class seats to investigate. The marshals were later identified by police as Shawn B. McCullers and Samuel Mumma, assigned to the regional Transportation Safety Administration office in Atlantic City, which declined to discuss the case.

"Air marshals issued a series of warnings to passengers to stay in their seats. The unruly gentleman didn't stay in his seat, so they took action to restrain him," Steigman said.

Rajcoomar, sitting in window seat 1-D, reading a book and sipping a beer, said he knew nothing until the marshals showed up and began pushing the unruly man into seat 1-C, adjacent to his.

Alarmed, Rajcoomar said he stood up and asked to be moved. A flight attendant told him to take one of the first-class seats vacated by the marshals.

"One [marshal] sat on the guy in the first seat; he was groaning, and the more he groaned, the more they twisted the handcuffs," Rajcoomar said.

Then, in coach class, a woman rose to switch seats with her child, who was sitting in an aisle seat, according to Rajcoomar's wife, Dorothy, who was sitting in coach class because the couple could not get seats together.

"That's when they started hollering," Dorothy Rajcoomar said of the marshals. One of them rushed to the divider between the first-class and coach sections and leveled his pistol at the coach-class passengers.

"He took control as if he was a terrorist himself," said Bob Rajcoomar, who was then sitting in a first-class aisle seat directly in front of the marshal. "He says, 'Nobody move, nobody look down the aisle, nobody take pictures or you will go to jail, nobody do anything.' He basically hijacked everybody."

One passenger, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge James Lineberger, said marshals "were yelling at passengers to keep their heads and hands out of the aisle... . I couldn't believe they would do such a thing."

Bob Rajcoomar said he, like every other passenger, was watching the marshal but never spoke to him.

About 30 minutes later, the plane landed and Philadelphia police officers came aboard to help take away the unruly man. Thinking the incident was over, passengers began standing up, Rajcoomar said.

"Then out of nowhere, hell broke loose," Rajcoomar said. "One of these marshals came down to me and said, 'Head down, hands over your head!' They pushed my head down, told me to bend down... . I just couldn't believe it. I was speechless, in shock."

Unseen by his wife 30 rows back, Rajcoomar was whisked off the plane, taken to an airport police station, and locked in a cell he called so filthy "I wouldn't even put my dog in it."

During detention, Rajcoomar said, he was never asked anything except his name, address and Social Security number. He asked why he was being held.

"One of the marshals said something like, 'We didn't like the way you looked,' " Rajcoomar recalled. "They also said something like, 'We didn't like the way you looked at us.' "

Finally, after about three hours, Rajcoomar was released without explanation.

"It was like a nightmare," Rajcoomar said. "The marshals were completely out of control... . If they had pulled the trigger, we'd all be dead. I don't feel safe knowing they're there, not with this kind of behavior."

___________________________________

 

The Permanent Breach of Posse Comitatus

20 Stat. L., 145

June 18, 1878


CHAP. 263 - An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, and for other purposes.

SEC. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section And any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.

10 U.S.C. (United States Code) 375

Sec. 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel: 

The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

18 U.S.C. 1385

Sec. 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of
Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to
execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Editor's Note: The only exemption has to do with nuclear materials (18 U.S.C. 831 (e)

For more information, Click on: "Shadow Government, Martial Law and Locking Americans out of the Liberty Loop." You will discover that the Posse Comitatus Act has already been undermined by 32 CFR 501.4.


Pentagon may assist in sniper hunt

If engaged, capabilities wouldn't be made public

From Barbara Starr
CNN Washington Bureau
Tuesday, October 15, 2002 Posted: 1:28 PM EDT (1728 GMT)
Tuesday, October 15, 2002 Posted: 1:28 PM EDT (1728 GMT)
Tuesday, October 15, 2002 Posted: 1:28 PM EDT (1728 GMT)

Investigators search for clues at the scene of Monday night's sniper shooting in Falls Church, Virginia.
Investigators search for clues at the scene of Monday night's sniper shooting in Falls Church, Virginia.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- At the request of federal law enforcement, the Pentagon is looking at what types of military reconnaissance and surveillance equipment might be used in the investigation of the Washington-area sniper attacks, CNN has learned.

But senior defense officials said no decision has been made.

The plan would mandate that civilian law enforcement officials work hand-in-hand with the military. Military sources said that troops would be used solely to operate equipment and point out potential targets to law enforcement.

That procedure would avoid any potential conflict with the Posse Comitatus Act, the 1878 law that prohibits the military from direct involvement in civilian law enforcement.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, would have to sign an order allowing the equipment to be used.

Once a decision is made to proceed with the use of military assets, the Pentagon may acknowledge the move but will not detail the capabilities of the equipment used, officials said.

The sniper has killed nine people and wounded two in Washington, Maryland and Virginia since October 2. The most recent shooting happened Monday night outside a Home Depot in Falls Church, Virginia. 

An Obedient Goyim Righteous Noahide Society ?

Sniper Accused was 'Captain of Killing Team'

Nov 14 2003

 

The jury in sniper suspect John Allen Muhammad's murder trial was to begin deliberating in Virginia Beach today after the prosecutor said during closing arguments that Muhammad and fellow suspect Lee Boyd Malvo formed "a sniper-spotter killing team" with Muhammad as the "captain."

Meanwhile, Malvo's lawyer - delivering his opening statement at the teenager's trial about 15 miles away in Chesapeake - said Muhammad turned Malvo into a "child soldier," brainwashing him into thinking that the killings were "designed to achieve a greater good of a fairer and righteous society


 

It really doesn't matter, I will continue to put my trust in Christ, Jesus.

The Last Deception

Section 2

  section 3   

section 4 

  section 5  

section 6  

section 7 

  section 8 

section  9     

section 10  

section 11  

section 12  

section 13 

section 14 "The Protocols of the Illuminated Elders of Tzion"

  section 15 

      section 16 "The Beast Has Risen" 

 section 16-B

 section 17  

  section 17-B  

  section 17-C   

section 17-D

  section 18    

section 18-B

section 19    

section 19-B

section 20  

 section 20-B 

  section 20-C 

  section 20-D 

  section 20-E

section 21 

  section 22  

section 23

section 24

section 25

Daniel's Seventy Weeks

Was Peter a Jew?

The Two Witnesses

"The Whore of Babylon"

Mystery Babylon

 Are the " Ael-ians coming"

Ael-ians II

Wall Street " The Mark" is Here

Wall Street II

Wall Street III

It has happened "War Declared upon and in America"

Declared section Part II

"Questions"

"All you ever need to know about their god and Qabalah"

Qabalah Part II

Qabalah Part III

National Identification Card

Prophecy Unfolding

A Sincere Request to  "Rapture" Teachers

"Seventh Trumpet"

Compulsory Constitutional Cremation

Homeland Security, "The Police State"

"The Fourth Beast"

The Babylonian Talmudic Mystical Qabalah

The Scribes of Baal

How will they do it- " The false-christ"

False Christ Part II

The Word

Baal's food Tax

"The Changing of the Guards"

"Summation" The beginning of sorrows has begun

"Moshiach ben Lucifer"

Satan's Tales "Wagging the Global Dog"

"Satan's Plan", Protocols of Zion ( of course they will dispute it's authenticity)

I Witch, New One World Order Seal

Satan's Enforcers of Quaballah

Satan's Enforcers Part 2

Satan's Enforcers Part 3

Satan's Enforcers Part 4

The Seed of God or the Seed of Satan, Your choice by faith

Pledge of Allegiance Part Two

I AM, the Revelation of Jesus Christ

King of the Noachides

"Beware the Mark"

"Beware the Mark" part two

"Beware the Mark" Part 3

"Beware the Mark" Part Four

"Beware the Mark" Part Five

 Harvest of Fear

"Harvest of Fear" Part Two

"Harvest of Fear" Part Three

National Organization Against Hasidic International Talmudic Enforcement

Where's Da Plane Boss, wheres da plane?

The Tarot Card Killer of Olam Ha Ba

The "Lessor Jew"

Temporary Coup d' Etat

The Federal Reserve, Fed up with the Fed?

The Protocols Today. Dispute this, Liars !

Protocols Today Part Two

Letter to a friend "It's not the Jews Dummy"

Identity of the Illuminati

The "Son's of the Synagogue of Satan"Chabad Lubavitch

Chabad Satan Part 1A

Chabad Satan Part 2

Chabad Satan Part 2A

Chabad Satan Part 2B

Chabad Satan Part 3

Chabad Satan Part 3A

Chabad Satan Part 4

Chabad Satan Part 4A

Chabad Satan Part 4B

Chabad Satan Part 4C

Chabad Satan Part 5

Chabad satan Part 5A

Chabad Satan Part 5B

Chabad Satan Part 5C

Chabad Satan Part 6

Chabad Satan Part 6B

Chabad Satan Part 6C

Chabad Satan Part 6D

Chabad Satan Part 7

Chabad Satan Part 7A

Chabad Satan Part 7B

Chabad Satan Part 7C

Chabad Satan Part 8

Chabad Satan Part 8A

Chabad Satan Part 8B

Chabad Satan Part 8C

Chabad Satan Part 8D

Chabad Satan Part 9

Chabad Satan Part 9A

Chabad Satan Part 9B

Chabad Satan Part 9C

Chabad Satan Part 9D

Chabad Satan Part 10

Chabad Satan Part 10A

Chabad Satan Part 10B

Chabad Satan Part 10C

Chabad Satan Part 10D

The Chabad Satan Wall of Destruction

Chabad Wall Part 2

Chabad Wall Part 3

Chabad Wall Part 4

The Chabad Phoenix is Rising

Columbia "The Queen of Heaven"

Patriot Akt II, Comrad 

The Infiltration of the leaven "Jerusalem Council"

Satan's One World Religion

OWR Part 2

OWR Part 3

OWR Part 4

One World Religion Part 5

One World Religion Part 6

One World Religion Part 7  

Re the god of Talmud Bavli

Perpetual Purim

"The Raiser of Taxes"

Jewish Persecution

Obedient Ishmael Kislev 19, 5764

The Final Nazi

Nazi Part 2

Nazi Part 3

Nazi Part 4

The Lord of the Ring, the Return of the Talmudic king

Changing the Time and the Laws

anti-semitism?

Who murdered Jesus the Christ

"Replacement Theology" of Judaic Talmudism

the gods

"The Two Whores"

Noahide News

Noahide News 2

infosam@bellsouth.net