• About
  • Books
  • Contact
  • The Perrin Lovett Show

PERRIN LOVETT

~ Thoughts on Freedom and The West

PERRIN LOVETT

Tag Archives: Americans

Ups and Downs of Amerikan Health

21 Friday Dec 2018

Posted by perrinlovett in News and Notes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Americans, decline, education, fat, health, obesity

There was that funny (and prophetic) Garfield panel from the 1980s. This one:

Garfield_quot

Jim Davis

In modern Amerika, life imitates art: On average, people are shorter and fatter.

The average U.S. adult is overweight and just a few pounds from obese, thanks to average weight increases in all groups – but particularly whites and Hispanics.

Overall, the average height for men actually fell very slightly the past decade. There was no change for women.

One factor may be the shift in the country’s population. There’s a growing number of Mexican-Americans, and that group tends to be a little shorter, said one of the report’s authors, Cynthia Ogden of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The findings come from a 2015-16 health survey that measures height and weight. More than 5,000 U.S. adults took part.

CDC records date to the early 1960s, when the average man was a little over 5 feet, 8 inches tall and weighed 166 pounds. Now, men are almost 1 inch taller and more than 30 pounds heavier. But today’s average height of 5-foot-9 is about a tenth of an inch shorter than a decade ago.

The average woman in the early 1960s was 5-foot-3 and 140 pounds. Now, women are a half-inch taller and about 30 pounds heavier, on average. The average height is about the same as it was a decade earlier: 5-foot-4.

Other survey findings:

• In the last decade, the average weight of men rose about 2 pounds, to 198. For women, it rose 6 pounds, to nearly 171.

• Men have 40-inch waistlines, on average. Women’s waistlines are a little under 39 inches.

So, today’s big beautiful women are heavier, despite being a half foot shorter, than the men of yesteryear. And, with the average for both sexes bloating towards obesity, that means that a considerable percentage are obese, many grossly, morbidly so.

Because you asked, I’m right around the average male height but 20 pounds under the average male weight and six inches off the belt size. This, with a much lower than average BMI, half the body fat, and around twice the general physical strength.

It’s hardly surprising that these changes are coupled with shortening lifespans and the wild increase in various physical and mental maladies. Factor in the decreasing IQ’s and lack of education, and we have a problem.

I wonder how much of the increased average weight is tattoo ink?

Advertisements

Two-Thirds of Americans May Not Actually Be So

08 Monday Oct 2018

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

America, Americans, citizens, citizenship test, decline, Posterity

Based on a study of “citizen” results on the citizenship test: only a third pass.

Just a third of Americans can pass a multiple choice “U.S. Citizenship Test,” fumbling over such simple questions as the cause of the Cold War or naming just one thing Benjamin Franklin is famous for.

And of Americans 45 and younger, the passing rate is a tiny 19 percent, according to a survey done for the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation.

Worse: The actual test only requires that 60 percent of the answers be correct. In the survey, just 36 percent passed.

Magic dirt, LOL.

Telling, with the poorer than the already horrendous norm scores from the young people, given the late demographic shift. And, as to the norm, given a Constitutional Posterity definition of “citizens, the third statistic may actually be about right.

For reasons all my own, I have devised a beta-version test of what I call “basic” American civic knowledge. It needs work; initial norming indicates that most US law school professors could not pass it. We’ll see how the Posterity performs sooner or later.

2033, anyone?

The Office, Ink.

13 Tuesday Mar 2018

Posted by perrinlovett in News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Americans, culture, decline, mall, tattoo

So, the lovely young ladies kindly dragged me off to the mall today. There, as I observed the wildlife from my blind in the food court, I saw a fella wearing a hooded sweatshirt. Lettered on the front, it read: “Tattooed AND Employed”. His partially rolled-up sleeves verified the first part of the imprinted statement.

Maybe there’s some truth to this story:

“Times have changed,” Cannon [someone with tattoo(s)] said, adding that perceptions that tattoos are just for rebels and rock stars are fading. “People are using tattoos to express themselves. You actually learn a lot about a people just through their ink.”

A 2016 poll found that about 3 in 10 Americans had at least one tattoo, up from about 2 in 10 just four years earlier, and the younger they were, the more likely they were to have a tattoo: 47% of millennials — people in their 20s and 30s — had a tattoo; followed by 36% of gen Xers and 13% of baby boomers.

Moreover, the poll showed, a majority of Americans said they’d be comfortable seeing a person with a tattoo in a range of jobs including teachers, coaches, pediatricians, judges — and even presidential candidates.

And while Americans are getting more comfortable with tattoos in the office, they also seem increasingly adverse to wearing ties, which, for years, were part of the professional man’s uniform.

Read on to the part about employees and customers gleefully, willingly branded and paying homage to their corporate masters. Nisti servitus. Okay…

Rock stars. Rebels. Sailors. Inmates. Judges. And presidential candidates. Hey, why not? We already elect idiots, potheads, drunks, noncitizens, socialists, actors, and many other sorts of embarassingly unqualified goofs. A little “art” might brighten up the end Repubire (condensed Republic and Empire).

The bad news is that similar and not-too-unrelated polls, surveys, and studies find that America has become a mental basketcase. The good news, assuming we still have electricity and petrol in a decade or two, is that there may be a massive demand for tattoo removal. Kids of Gen Z, consider dermatology!

Also, as Carlin once remarked, “Americans LOVE the mall.” Shopping and eating! Light up sneakers. Things they don’t need. Short pants.

636561189473475613-tattoo-promo-2

Yeah! I wonder if a PL.me or FP.com tat would be appropriate. I’m no rock star. Rick Nease/Detroit Free Enough Press.

Don’t Drone Me, Bro!

07 Thursday Mar 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

14th Amendment, 9/11/2001. 12/7/1941, Americans, army, Austin Rhodes, banksters, Big Club, capitalism, children, Clay Whittle, Constitution, Cornfield County, corporatism, Daivd Koresh, drones, due process, Eric Holder, feds, Fifth Amendment, filibuster, GA, government, guilt, idiots, innocence, JAG, Jesus Christ, King John, law, law enforcement, lies, Magna Carta, murder, Natural Law, poor bird, Posse Comitatus Act, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Scott Dean, Senate, sheriff, tanks, taxes, Texas, the Devil, The Empire, Thomas More, Waco massacre

This post rambles from subject to subject.  Be forewarned.

Drones…

Just last night I thrilled you, my dear readers, with a few news stories concerning the law.  While Attorney General Eric “Fast and Furious” Holder refuses to prosecute super-rich banksters for criminal wrong-doing, he has no problem using drones to murder “ordinary” Americans for any reason or no reason.  Well, in his defense, He said the drones would only be used to thwart catastrophic events like the 9/11/2001 or Pearl Harbor attacks.  I don’t believe him.  It doesn’t matter since he’s not in charge of when the triggers are squeezed. 

This morning I was listening to the radio and had the privilege of hearing my friend Austin Rhodes (WGAC, 580 AM, Augusta) give his morning commentary.  He initially praised Senator Rand Paul (Ron’s son) for his filibuster yesterday which targeted the administration’s dystopian law enforcement policies.  Then he surprised me.  He, playing devil’s advocate, asked if a drone strike on David Koresh (remember him?) in 1993 would have prevented the later bloodshed at Koresh’s Seventh Day Adventist Church in Waco, Texas.  At first I was indignant but then I realized the value of his question.  The ultimate answer is “who knows?”  No-one does for certain.

It is my opinion that the government was out to get Koresh and his senior worshippers and would have slaughtered them all anyway.  Austin and I disagree on the nature of the events that unfolded in Waco twenty years ago.  That’s the beauty of America, we can agree to disagree.

There was much disagreement in early 1993, regarding the pre-assualt on the church.  For instance, the warrant obtained by the Imperial stormtroopers was defective.  Perhaps they could not decide on what, if anything, was wrong with Koresh and Co.  That might explain the defects in the law sited to obtain the warrant.  The local Sheriff and the State of Texas disagreed with the feds that crimes were being committed in the church.  A JAG officer (military attorney), when asked about the legality of deploying military assets for this domestic law enforcement “operation,” disagreed with his inquirers.  He reported the scheme was illegal, a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, etc.  The first Stormtroopers on the scene must have disagreed about the wisdom of carrying communication devices in case something went wrong, whether to open fire immediately upon exiting their horse trailer (official police version), and whether the church members would return fire.

In the end, the dissenters were silenced.  The rest is history.  As I recall the Empire had several grounds for the War in Waco: 1) income tax evasion; 2) illegal drugs; 3) illegal firearms; and 4) the abuse of children.  I think they eventually proved the tax count as they can prove that against almost anyone due to the psychotic nature of our tax laws and regulations.  I think there was no evidence of the guns or drugs – any existing specimens would have been destroyed in the government’s fire.  As for the children, while I recall some survivors insisted there had been some sort of impropriety, most (all?) of the children were killed in the fire or crushed to death beneath the Army’s 70-ton tank.  Some may have been shot by snipers.  Anyway, there wasn’t a lot of evidence after the fact.

Still, none of this answers Austin’s question.  I’ll pose a question which is easy to answer definitively: Would a drone strike on Rev. Koresh been legal?  Two questions, really – Would the drone strike have been ethical?  The answer to both questions is a certain “NO!” 

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is clear – “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”  (Emphasis added).  The Fourteenth Amendment backs up the Fifth’s Due Process provision.  These concepts date back the Magna Carta in 1215.  The truth is eternal, it remains the same in 1215, 1791, 1993, or 2013.  The theory is that if the government wants to kill someone, they must adhere to a certain process.  We generally refer to the key part of the process as a trial (Jury, evidence, and stuff).  The theory jives with what that crazy carpenter, Jesus Christ, talked about twelve centuries before King John admitted his authority was not arbitrary.

For those of you who might have heard Austin and taken his question as a simple endorsement by mistake, how about this: Would Sheriff Whittle’s use of a drone against Scott Dean saved us the trouble and expense of a trial?  He was convicted, after all, by twelve wise citizens.  The fact of his innocence and his accuser’s later recantation are irrelevant for this discussion.  For those of you fortunate enough not to live in Cornfield County, Scott Dean was a County Commissioner.  He adopted some girls.  One of the girls, a teenager with a history of lying in court, accused him of a heinous crime.  He denied any guilt but was convicted none the less.  He went to prison.  Then, his lying adopted daughter, safely out of the country, admitted she made the story up and Dean was in fact innocent.

Since the recent revelation of Dean’s innocence I’m sure the twelve men and women who sent him to prison have the utmost difficulty sleeping at night.  Can you imagine the Sheriff’s guilt and shame had he used a drone instead of the law?  Natural Law and its proper extensions in the corporeal world are important.  “I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”  Saint Thomas More, A Man For All Seasons, 1966.

Due Process of law is a Natural Right to which every person is entitled when human laws exist.  This was obvious to earlier generations of Americans.

Too Big…

In my recent second installment of Slavery In America, https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/slavery-in-america-part-ii-of-iii/, I mentioned the Big Club members who are invested in our modern plantation.  The giant banks are charter members of the club.  I mentioned their immunity from criminal prosecution last night.  It seems they are too big to fail, too big to jail, and they are rapidly sucking up all the wealth in this country.  See this story: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/corporatism-a-system-of-control-designed-by-the-monopoly-men-of-the-global-elite.  It’s about “corporatism,” the fascists’ bastardization of capitalism.  It’s an excellent article from an eye-opening site.

It Could Be Worse…

We could all be stuck in a cage and abandoned at the car wash…

0307131156a

(This poor guy was!  He was happily adopted though!)

Yeah, ramblin more than normal… 🙂

Structuring, Are You Guilty?

06 Wednesday Mar 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

31 U.S.C. 5324, Americans, attorneys, banks, Boston, crime, CTR, FBI, Federal government, forfeiture, Harvey Silverglate, money, selective prosecution, Structuring, The Smurfs!, Three Felonies a Day, U.S. Attorney

Boston attorney Harvey Sliverglate wrote an insightful book called Three Felonies A Day, http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229, about how the average “law-abiding” American commits three “serious” offenses every day without realizing it.  His point is one I have seen firsthand – the feds have thousands of laws, which criminalize everything imaginable, from which to choose to selectively prosecute anyone they want.  They can always decline, but when they do target a citizen, that person is instantly in a world of pain. 

Here’s an example of such a federal criminal law you didn’t know about and probably have committed.  After law school, passing the bar exam, and practicing criminal law for years, I had never heard of it until one particular case (maybe I’m dumb…).  The mere existence of the law and it’s application potential I find staggering.  

I had a client charged with another crime who received a wrist-slap as punishment (more excellent lawyering, folks! [my deal to have his case completely dismissed fell through due to administrative technicalities]).  The FBI had previously seized numerous items of his property including about $25,000 in cash from his house.  The do that frequently and usually the items (especially money) are “forfeited” to the government.  However, while this particular case proceeded through the system, they slowly returned almost all items to my client’s wife.  Immediately after the final hearing an agent approached me about returning the cash!  I was a little dumbfounded.  They gave the money back that very day.  I have still never seen or heard of this happening again.

Anyway, the client’s wife and I went to the local FBI office to retrieve the money.  It was still in large bill form, exactly as removed from the house.  Whatever I may say about them, the FBI is extremely efficient and organized.  While the money was being counted out in our presence I told the wife she should immediately deposit it into her bank account for safety.  Then I recalled that cash transactions in excess of $10,000 are automatically flagged by banks and refered to the FBI for investigation.  As you know, all cash amounts over $10K are the result solely of criminal activity…

So, to help her avoid the hassle, I suggested she break the deposit into 3 installments.  The agent in charge stopped counting, looked up, and said, “That’s Structuring.”  I looked at him like a deer observing an approaching 18-wheeler and asked, “Huh?”  He then explained how it was illegal to split cash deposits so as to evade the reporting process.  He then kindly noted that if she deposited all the money (he thought it a good idea too) the report would come to him and he would have the system pre-flagged to ignore and dismiss the report.  I know and trust this particular agent as an outstanding man of integrity so I had no problem trusting him.  Things worked out fine.

As I was leaving he said he would have our friend at the U.S. Attorney’s office provide me information on the crime.  By the time my friend called, I had already researched the law – 31 U.S.C. 5324.  He directed me to a website which provided a pamphlet warning against the practice and giving examples of innocent enough transactions which are, in fact, illegal.  He asked me to spread this information to all attorneys I know and all of my friends.  Thus, I relay his story to you.  By the way, the banking industry refers to this practice as “smurfing,” in honor of those little blue critters from the 80s…

cash-money

(The Smurfs weapon of choice.  Google Images.)

You can view the pamphlet here, http://www.fincen.gov/whatsnew/pdf/CTRPamphlet.pdf.  They have one geared toward gambling winnings too, http://www.fincen.gov/whatsnew/pdf/CTR-CPamphlet.pdf.

Here are two examples of smurfing violations, taken from the first pamphlet:

“2. Jane needs $18,000 in cash to pay for supplies for her wood-carving business. Jane cashes a $9,000 personal check at a financial institution on a Monday, then cashes another $9,000 personal check at the financial institution the following day. Jane cashed the checks separately and structured the transactions in an attempt to evade the CTR reporting requirement.”  CTR Pamphlet, www.fincen.gov.

“3. A married couple, John and Jane, sell a vehicle for $15,000 in cash. To evade the CTR reporting requirement, John and Jane structure their transactions using different accounts. John deposits $8,000 of that money into his and Jane’s joint account in the morning. Later that day, Jane deposits $1,500 into the joint account, and then $5,500 into her sister’s account, which is later transferred to John and Jane’s joint account.” CTR Pamphlet, www.fincen.gov.

Jane and John are hardened criminals who could be sentenced from one to five years in federal prison.  Don’t be like Jane and John! 

I can envision situations in which an attorney or am accountant, for example, might “structure” a client’s funds like this.  While the attorney and his client might have innocent intentions, their acts would be criminal.  I’m still trying to get this all straight in my head.

We know that keeping cash on hand is illegal as the cash can be stolen (“forfeited”) due to alleged involvement in criminal activity.  All cash comes from crime!  We also know depositing the money whole with a bank will be reported as a possible indication of crime.  Depositing the money in batches is a crime.

I now take my friend’s friendly advice; I advise everyone that everything is illegal.  Good luck out there!

How to Interact with the Police

26 Tuesday Feb 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Uncategorized

≈ 13 Comments

Tags

1791, 42 USC 1983, 911, advice, Americans, Armed Citizen's Legal Defense Fund, arrest, Augusta, authority, Bill of Rights, Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents, citizen, citizen-police encounter, clients, concealed carry, Constitution, Courts, crime, don't talk, education, evidence, felony, Fifth Amendment, firearms, Georgia, government, gun, H.L. Mencken, illegal, incrimination, James Duane, law enforcement, lawyers, libertarian, Libertarian Party, Ludowici, militia, Miranda v. Arizona, Natural Rights, North Carolina, open carry, permit, police, public, right to remain silent, searches, Second Amendment, self-defense, self-preservation, sheriff, South Carolina, States, Switzerland, Terry v. Ohio, Vermont, warrant, witness, Youtube

Don’t talk.  Do not ever talk to the police under any circumstances whatsoever, ever.  Ever.  This is the general libertarian legal advice given by good lawyers who wish to spare their clients and anyone else listening the possibility of unwittingly implicating themselves in criminal activity, whether they were actually involved or not.

I like this advice and tend to give it to clients myself.  However, as with most legal issues, this matter is not quite that simple.  Well, maybe it is, but there are reasons why you might need to address the cops.  I’ll get to those a little later.

On March 10, 2013 I will address the Libertarian Party of the greater Augusta, Georgia area.  I was asked to speak on the subject of citizen interaction with the police in general and, more specifically, interactions involving a citizen carrying a firearm.  I will do so happily.  This column is a preview of what I will likely discuss.

There are two federally recognized (sometimes) natural rights which are affected by such situations – actually, they are different tangents of the same right – the right to self-preservation.  The first involves not implicating oneself in wrongdoing, the second involves the right of self-defense.  The Constitution lists these rights under Amendments V and II, respectively.  All State Constitutions recognize the same rights to a degree somewhere within their texts.  I’ll stick with federal language as a universal representation:

The Fifth Amendment reads: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The above subject primarily deals with the “witness against himself” clause, though due process is implicated as well.

The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  This relates, obviously, to carrying a weapon while interacting with the police.

Both of these rights, despite laws and court rulings in their favor, have experienced considerable erosion since the ratification of the Bill of Rights (most rights have).  I will not necessarily discuss the origin of the rights, their history, or their decline herein.  As is, I will just accept them as plainly written.

Back to not talking to the police.  Many attorneys, including yours truly, generally advise against talking to government employees of any stripe, not simply the police.  This extends to telephone conversations (including 911 calls) as such calls are frequently recorded.  I recently posted a link to this video (Don’t Talk to the Police): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc.  The video is a 50 minute discussion of our subject by Regent Law School (Virginia) law professor James Duane.  The advice is excellent.  You’ll notice though that immediately after saying he will never talk to the police, professor Duane talks to a police officer.  There are almost always exceptions to a general rule.

I’ll cover a few of those now.  If you are a law professor who gives such a talk and you invite a police officer to participate, you will need to talk to the police.  If you’re a nice person who walks by a cop on a sunny morning, you might say, “Good Morning!” – that’s talking to the police.  If your child is kidnapped late one night you will probably call the police before anyone else.  If you are the victim of another type of violent crime you might talk.  If you are drunk, high, suffering from low blood sugar, or under a mental delusion, you might talk to the police, not remembering any of this advice at the time.  If your friend, relative, co-worker, or neighbor is a cop …  you get the picture.

Other government employees sometimes require your verbal attention too.  These examples are almost too numerous to list.  They range from telling a campaigning CongressCritter to buzz off when he disturbs your breakfast at the local cafe (happened to me once) to asking a clerk where the county vehicle tag office is.

Most of these examples are innocent enough.  However, sometimes the police arrest and persecute people for innocent interactions.  I had a client once who singed an insurance policy while paying for it.  He was later arrested and charged with felony insurance fraud based on his signature.  The crime didn’t even involve his particular policy.  In such cases, no advice is sufficient; one must engage a competent attorney and fight the system.

My subject matter here is really how to interact with the cops when you are approached about a possible criminal action wherein you might be a suspect. 

I recall from law school there are three tiers of citizen-police encounters.  The first is a simple and voluntary meeting (like some of my above examples) wherein the citizen is free to leave.  If you find yourself in a Tier One and you suspect the officer is probing you, ask if you are free to leave.  If you are, do so immediately.  Remember you do not have to say anything to the police no matter what they ask or say.  In these simple situations you can just walk away and terminate the encounter.

The second tier is known in legal circles as a Terry stop (see: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).  It is also more commonly called an investigatory stop.  That means the approaching officer is officially investigating some alleged or potential criminal wrongdoing.  The citizen is not necessarily free to leave and is technically under detention, even if temporarily so.  A Tier One becomes a Terry stop if the officer responds that the citizen is not free to leave.  At this point the citizen should shut up.  The exceptions are again to ask if you are free to leave or if you are under arrest and to tell the officer you do not consent to any searches.  Do not ever consent to searches.

The police are not supposed to arbitrarily initiate Terry stops (they do sometimes).  Rather, they are supposed to have “articulable suspicion” that a crime has or may have been committed and that the citizen is a likely suspect or witness.  The standard for such suspicion varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and by the individual case, though the common maxim is the officer must have something more than a hunch about the possible crime.  Fuzzy, yes.

Terry stops originate from many sources: tips or reports of crime, something the officer witnesses, an emergency, a man-hunt, or something else.  Frequently, the police have nothing at all in the way of evidence.  Thus, they turn to the citizen for incriminating evidence.  Citizens offer the evidence against themselves voluntarily in most cases.  If you ever saw the TV show Cops, then you know a suspect will immediately start babbling on about what he did or didn’t do.  This usually digs the suspect a nice hole – with bars.  This is why you shouldn’t say anything.  Do not help the police do their job.  At this point you will either be arrested, further temporarily detained, or released regardless of what you say.  Talking won’t help, so don’t do it.

The third tier is a formal arrest.  If you are arrested you must absolutely cease talking period.  At some point the police will advise you of your Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)) – you know these from TV.  They will tell you you have the right to remain silent and that anything you say can and will be used against you.  Did you get that?  Anything you say will be used against you.  Give them nothing.  Under arrest you only make one statement, repeatedly in necessary: “I want an attorney.”  The police usually stop questioning at that point, sometimes they don’t.  Just do not answer or make any other statements – at all.  Be silent as you have the right.

Silence is the better rule in most of these encounters.  By talking you will either implicate yourself or possibly give the officer(s) something else to consider in your prosecution.  Sometimes officers hear things wrong or falsely report what a citizen says.  They can make you out to be a liar.  You’re not lying if you’re not talking.

I have been retained by several clients just over the issue of voluntary interrogations.  I stopped the practice entirely after so many such incidents.  The client would get a call from the police, asking the client to “come downtown” to answer a few questions or make a statement.  Once a client demanded to visit the Sheriff to make a statement all on his own – over a non-issue.  My constant advice to all of these folks was to not go and to say nothing.  Most did not listen and I had to accompany them to the Q&A sessions.  At those meetings I objected to each and every question the police asked and every statement the client uttered.  That did not stop most of these people.  I have literally watched as people talked themselves into felony prosecutions.  Seeing the process as pointless and potentially liability-inducing on my part, I stopped participating.  Don’t put your attorney through such torture.  Don’t talk.

I’ve also been hired by clients after they talked to the police.  I have read many statements and listened to many recording wherein a client essentially convicted himself.  Often, without their own damning, idiotic testimony through such statements, the government would never have had a case to try.  Don’t talk to the police.

Firearms add an extra dimension to the issue.  America is the most heavily, privately armed country in the world.  We should rejoice!  The primary reason for the Second Amendment was to ensure the People would always be able to fend off a tyrannical government, all other purposes are ancillary.

Unfortunately, much has changed since 1791.  Today, many Americans are afraid of firearms (and much else) and defer unwisely to the government for protection.  Their fears are fueled by a few isolated stories from the lamestream media.  Many of these cases, I suspect, are false-flag operations of the government, ginned up to alarm the frightened people.  Remember always – “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H.L. Mencken.

In the old days, no-one looked twice at a person carrying a gun in public.  It was what Americans did.  You can still find the practice accepted in many rural communities.  The practice is open and notorious in Switzerland (God bless the Swiss). 

Swiss Militia man

(A Swiss Militia member openly carrying a battlefield rifle in a grocery store.  The blonde woman is not concerned – free people are not.  Source: Google Images.)

The local LP sent me a video of a law student telling off a police officer who “detained” the student over a firearm.  I seem to have misplaced the video link.  You can surely find it or something similar on Youtube.  Here’s my take on the matter.  First, Americans have every right to go armed just about anywhere they want to, even though many jurisdictions illegally attempt to block this right.  Second, sometimes discretion is the better part of valor – more on that in a second.  Third, in the Georgia and much of the South, we are lucky to have pro-gun law enforcement.  Many officers welcome armed citizens. 

Let’s assume for argument’s sake, you encounter an officer with a dimmer view of freedom.  Georgia and most other States allow concealed carry of weapons – usually with a permit.  I think those permits are UnConstitutional.  A few States like Vermont do not regulate of require such licenses.  This issue is slowing making its way through the courts.  We will see what becomes of it.  For now, if you carry concealed, play the government’s game.

To avoid an unwanted and unnecessary confrontation over your gun, carry concealed.  If they (the police or the easily alarmed) can’t see the weapon, they can’t inquire about it.  Some State’s licenses come with the requirement that a citizen inform any approaching or present law officer that they have a license and are carrying.  North and South Carolina come to mind.  This is also UnConstitutional.  Georgia is not such a State.  Say nothing in Georgia.  In fact, if you have the gun well concealed, say nothing wherever you are.  If they don’t know, they don’t know – and they don’t need to.

If you carry openly, which is your right, you may expect someone to alert the police to “a man with a gun.”  As a result, you may be approached by an officer.  This would be a quasi-tier one/two encounter.  Carrying a gun itself is not justification for any suspicion of wrongdoing.  The police will inquire anyway.  They may go as far as to handcuff you while they check your license and the gun.  This a violation of your civil rights.  I had a friend who was stopped by a traffic officer in Ludowici, Georgia one night.  The officer inquired about my friend’s pistol and took the gun to “check it.”  The officer then announced he would have to keep the gun until the next day in order to verify it really belonged to my friend and was carried properly.  This was in keeping with Ludowici’s long-standing policy of public harassment.

Before I became really upset about the story my friend told me it had ended well.  The Ludowici police chief, realised his officer had broken the law, immediately dispatched a courier to hand deliver the gun back to my friend.  As my friend was happy, the issue died.  A bloodless victory is the best kind as we say in court.

However, if you find yourself in a similar situation, the best thing to do is keep quiet.  Do not tell off the officer as the afore-noted law student did, even though you are completely right.  The police sometimes get nervous and arrest or murder “uppity” civilians and make up a good excuse for their actions in their report.  The street is not the place to fight for your rights – unless the officer endangers your life.  You can use force against the police if necessary, just as you would against any other armed thug.  But, these situations are messy at best. 

It is usually after such an encounter you should act – by contacting an attorney.  You may very well have a civil rights action against the police (State or local) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (or a Bivens action against federal officers [Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)]).  An attorney can advise you in a particular case.

Two more specific situations, very briefly.  First, if you are involved in a self-defense shooting you will likely have contact with the police.  In such cases always identify yourself as the victim of the underlying crime.  In order to legally use deadly force against another, one must reasonable belive that one’s life is in imminent danger from a criminal actor who simultaneously posses the ability and the proximity to in fact endanger innocent life.  This is the general public standard, in most jurisdictions you have more leeway on your own property (stand your ground and castle statutes).

If you have to shoot someone (I hope you never do), report only the fact of the crime and that you ended it per the standard I just stated.  The police may want additional statements.  Do not make them.  Tell the officer you take the matter very seriously and that you need to, accordingly, speak with your attorney before making any additional statements or answering any other questions.  Again, if you are arrested (not always a given, here), say absolutely nothing.  I am referral attorney for the Armed Citizen’s Legal Defense Fund, based in Washington State, http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/.  The Fund has produced an excellent series of videos on this subject.  Legal and tactical shooting experts discuss in-depth how to handle these situations with your gun and with the law.  I recommend you purchase and review these videos. 

Second, if you are at home and the police knock on the door, do not open it.  Do not let the police in volutarily for any reason.  This by itself constitutes a consentual search (at least cursory).  If the police have authority (a warrant) to enter your home, they will do it rather than asking you for permission.  If they ask, they have no authority.  Don’t help them gain it.  I have former clients in prison because they opened a door for the police.  Don’t do it and don’t talk to them. 

Remember, in a specific case you may have, consult with a specific attorney for legal advice.

As for advice, nothing herein constitutes legal advice.  Consider this, rather, a general legal education.  When you see the police use common sense and do not talk if you can help it.  Doing the first and refraining from the second may save you many headaches.

Droning On and On

15 Friday Feb 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Uncategorized

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

Afghanistan, Americans, Amerika, Ares, Chris Dorner, Congress, Constitution, Courts, crimes, Declaration of War, drones, due process, equal protection, executive order, FAA, freedom, George Bush, Hitler, Iraq, Jacobin, Jimmy Carter, lies, military, murder, neo-cons, New York Times, Obama, polce state, Posse Comitatus, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, terrorism, tyranny, Waco, War, White House, World Trade Center, Yemen

Suddenly, in the midst of the deprivations of the Imperial police state, a controversy has arisen!  I imagine it will die down (literally perhaps).  The same neo-con nuts who gleefully embraced preemptive war, torture, and summary execution of “fara-ners” with rabid, Ares-worshipping lust have suddenly found a reason to be concerned about similar tactics.  Apparently, these Jacobin decepticons were previously unaware of the prolific and deadly use of armed, un-maned drones in the War on Freedo..er..Terror. 

Now there is a great uproar over President Sotoro’s claim, cleared legally by the Just-Us department, unopposed by the loyal and useless opposition in Congress, and unaddressed by Federal Courts, to have the unilateral authority to kill any American citizen by drone strike anywhere, at any time, and for any reason or for no reason. 

You may recall the Obama’s warning to his daughter’s potential suitors: “I have two words for you — predator drones.”  See the Emperor in action here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWKG6ZmgAX4. We all laughed.  Hahahahuuuuuh….  The man was serious it seems.  Now it appears that these flying hunter-killers are intended to quell any Amerikans out of line, not merely stupid teenage boys who hit on the wrong girls.

By Executive Order (an act of Congress without an act of Congress) the President has established a “kill list” of suspects, terrorists, others (political dissenters??), the occupants of which may be targeted for death by Hellfire missile at the President’s individual whim.  Hitler is probably kicking himself in hell for not thinking of something similar.  Americans are not exempted from the list.  No need to trouble a grand jury, the police, or the Courts!  No need for antiquated concepts like Due Process or Equal Protection.  Just press a button and … BOOM!  Problem solved.  All of this takes place in secret as to protect us serfs.

The New york Times has warned that 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue may be engaging in a “‘Whac-A-Mole’ approach to counterterrorism”  (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0).  Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, does it not?  Silly old Jimmy Carter was laughed at for once stating he sought nuclear policy advice from his daughter.  Now we have a deadly serious policy operating on the principles of a carnival game. 

predator-firing-missile4

(This thing may be coming for you, Amerika.  Source – Google Images, fair use.)

Many ordinary citizens, when confronted with such awful reality often retort, “It can’t happen here!”  Sadly, while not necessarily occurring on American soil, it has already happened to three Americans overseas.  Samir Khan and Anwar al-Awlaki along with Awlaki’s 16-year-old son were blasted by a missile from a drone. (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/05/16856963-american-drone-deaths-highlight-controversy?lite).  These individuals were allegedly involved in some sort of terrorist activity in Yemen.  Details are scarce in this case, absent altogether really.  Per the President’s Order the public (and Congress, etc.) need not know any reasons behind such actions.  Tyrants usually do not to explain themselves.

This is the current poster case of drone abuse.  Considering the government goes to extraordinary lengths to keep its criminal activities secret, there may be other incidents of extra-legal drone killings (murder).  I have friends in and out of the legal community who defend such actions as warranted under the “War” on terror.  Can you recall when Congress declared war on terror?  They did not.  They did authorize President Bush to use force in Iraq and Afghanistan based on numerous lies concocted by the previous administration.  I suppose this “War” extends to Yemen and, now, world-wide.  The most Honorable Ron Paul objected to this carte blanche authority and urged his lower-IQ colleagues in the House to consider a Declaration of War, as mandated by the Constitution.  Remember the Constitution?  Congress has not declared war since 1941 and probably never will again.  Rules are so hard to follow; sworn oaths be damned.

Reports have been issued that these mechanical terror birds are currently in use over the good old U.S.A. for domestic surveillance purposes.  The details, again, are scant at best.  A rumour floated around the newsrooms that drones were used to hunt accused criminal Christopher Dorner in California.  Is it possible the fire which killed Dorner might have been started by a warhead detonation rather than the (constantly shifting) reasons given by the authorities involved in the case?  Dorner was described as a “domestic terrorist” after all by L.A. Police Chief Charlie Beck.  (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/10/ex-cop-manhunt-continues/1906999/).  Perhaps Beck made a phone call to the White House.  I speculate wildly and perhaps without cause.

On Wednesday the Federal Aviation Administration assured the shepple that there will never be any armed drones over Amerikan soil.  See here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/13/faa-official-no-armed-drones-us/.  Some, like Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul, Dr. Ron Paul’s son, fear the President might someday use armed drones to kill more citizens here at home.  Now we know we are safe – the government told us so.  This would be the same government that told us income tax withholding would cease just as soon as Hitler and Tojo were licked.  The same government that told us about the great naval battle in the Gulf of Token, the evil of the Waco TX Seventh Day Adventists, and the collapse of World Trade Center Number 7.  We have nothing to worry about!  Really!

I can sense, telepathically, that you don’t believe this latest lie.  You may recall that on the same day they “pulled” WTC No. 7, the FAA temporarily lost control of the nation’s airspace to the Imperial military.  Your flights were cancelled and all.  It’s the same military that will dispatch the armed drones to engage all of you “domestic tarr-ists” whether the FAA likes it or not.  The FAA answers to Little Barry and when (if) he tells them to step aside, they will without a word of protest.

A long, long time ago, back when America more resembled a free country, Congress took up the subject of lower tech military threats against Americans in America.  The result was the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibited the use of military troops or assets in domestic law enforcement.  For years this law sat on a shelf in Washington until it was completely covered with dust.  By strange chance a night cleaning crew uncovered it while trying to tidy up after Watergate.  The law was promptly re-addressed by the Congress and essentially nullified.  It’s still on the books though it has never been used – ever.  Rarely does a federal law go unused.  I am (or was) an expert on this little gem of legal security and you can look for a near future discussion of the same at this site. 

There are many potential solutions to this quandary: impeachment, nullification, Congressional oversight, etc.  You can (and should) write your representative in Mordor to recommend and demand such action; do not expect results.  Reinvigorating and strengthening (and applying) the Posse Comitatus Act might be a way to solve the neo-cons’ worries.  Oh, I almost forgot about them.  They do tend to be annoyingly forgettable, don’t they?  I think their concern stems from the party association of this particular President rather than his policies. 

The ever-wafting neo-fascists were enthusiastic, as noted above, when a Republican president used similar heavy handed measures.  “D” and “R” convey tremendous power.  Last year, as in 2008, the RepunliCONS had a good chance to stand behind a man who would have never allowed such atrocities to befall the American people.  At the time, though, the nuts declared Dr. Ron Paul to be an isolationist and a wachco.  Would they agree now that a wacho beats a dictator?

Perrin Lovett

perrinlovett@gmail.com

Perrin’s Columns for The Piedmont Chronicles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWFFDZemHho

Perrin On YouTube

Click HERE

Click HERE

Follow Perrin at Freedom Pepper

The Best Survival Ideas on the Web

NEW BOOK COMING SOON

The best of my TPC columns, so far. Available around Jan 2019 at Amazon, B&N, and better booksellers.

The Happy Little Cigar Book

Buy From Amazon! The perfect coffee table book!

Perrin On Politics

FREE E-book! Download now~

Top Posts & Pages

  • Facebook = Digital Gangsters
  • Little Ditty Bout Debt and Decline
  • The Easiest Batman Workout
  • About
  • Political Party Time!
  • American Idiots: The Mental Illness of Hoplophobia
  • The "Book" Was A Colt Mustang .380 Auto

Archives

  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • June 2012
Advertisements

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy