Anarchy Is Better Than No Government At All

30 Monday Nov 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

Tags

Alan Watson, anarchy, attorneys, chaos, crime, education, evil, freedom, Golden Rule, government, J.R.R. Tolkien, law, legal theory, libertarians, life, Natural Law, Natural Rights, Perrin Lovett, philosophy, political science, politics, UGA

Some years ago I landed in what for me was probably the perfect legal position of employment. I took a job out of law school as a law clerk with a Georgia court. Law clerks review case file, do research and make recommendations to their judges.

My tenure went far beyond the norm. I was afforded the opportunity to wear many hats – each of which fitted me perfectly. I was able to indulge in a great breadth and depth of research with some publication to boot. I was granted the more prestigious title of Staff Attorney. I was also a registered lobbyist, working occasionally in pursuit of projects concerning the judiciary. I even filled in a few times on the bench.

Gravitating naturally towards research and writing and having almost total freedom with my time I began to explore additional opportunities of academic nature. My great interest is in freedom in and out of legal and political systems. I am a theorist. I learned towards some hybrid between legal theory and political philosophy.

The American Bar Association views a J.D. as the equivalent of a PhD for teaching purposes. Most non-law schools hold a different view. I realized I might benefit from another, specialized graduate degree. My choices as I saw them were either a Master of Law or LLM (in law a Master’s degree comes after the doctorate – yes, backwards) or a PhD in poly sci.

My school of choice, based on both reputation and logistics, was the University of Georgia. I had my own strict criteria concerning any entry into these programs.

The only LLM program in the world which interested me was at UGA. It was a directed study of comparative legal theories under the esteemed base master of such philosophy, Dr. Alan Watson. The only PhD I would consider was in political theory or philosophy and, with a concentration in natural law and libertarian/anarchist views.

I demanded, or would have, freedom to explore my own paths. I also included teaching experience as a must have.

My quest never got very far. In short order life dictated I abandon my beloved job and move to a less than desirable locale, practicing less than desirable law. Thus began my professional “downfall.” I ended up, for a brief time, a miserable prosecutor. When I could no longer stand that I entered private practice. Several were my shinning moments but I never regained even a shadow of my former fit and happiness.

Everything happens for a reason. Today, through my writing, I am finally able to pick up where I left off nearly a decade ago. This time, it’s my way on my own by necessity. One, I doubt there is any organized poly sci department in America which would or could house me. That’s fine – times have changed. Today we have YouTube and Udemy. Two, Alan Watson retired and took with him the last vestige of true legal study in the country. Again, I’m on my own. Autodidact or die …

I visited Watson’s office a few times back the. It was my intention to interview him and to be interviewed myself to check compatibility. Per my usual laziness I always showed up unannounced. He was never in. I have never met the man. Perhaps that all was a sign. My little daughter did accompany me on one visit – we had a great time – as such the trip was anything but a waste.

The political science department did receive me for an arranged visit. I toured the facility and we had a good discussion. There was a real chance things might have worked out. Nearly all the faculty members were “liberals” but they seemed to tolerate my extremism rather well. They were open to my ideas of a very loosely structured curriculum and my desire to teach while I worked. They also deemed an attorney in the department a plus. But, as I said, life intervened.

On my afore-mentioned tour I passed many faculty office doors. Many were closed. One was covered in signs and stickers. One of the stickers read: “Anarchy is better than no government at all.” That stuck in my jumbled mind. I think I used it as a title once …

“Anarchy” has various meanings to different people. Of late the term has been used to describe somewhat disruptive protestors of modern socio-economic life. These, to me, appear more like pro-communist or anti-capitalist activists than anything else. Communism is in my mind the polar opposite of anarchy. Then again, I don’t have a monopoly on the word. I suppose this crowd is descended from the mad bomb throwers of yesteryear.

Tolkien, a hero of mine, described his own political philosophy as anarchism. The specifically rejected the bomber disposition; rather, he merely wanted to leave others alone in exchange for equal treatment. This position is as close to my own as any.

Anarchy and “no government” as the door sticker alluded are often used synonymously. However, I don’t think they are one and the same.

Many consider anarchy the equivalent of chaos. To them it is the complete absence of any controls, political or societal, and could only lead to pandemonium. Their views are understandable. For 10,000 years we have been trained to accept some degree of authority outside of ourselves and over us. As society has evolved (or fallen) government and society have also become synonymous. They are not.

One can speak of the American or French or Japanese cultures and traits without the slightest regard for their respective governments. Government did not create the beauty of the natural world. Nor does it bring happiness to small family gatherings. Though they might claim otherwise, politicians had nothing to do with the development of symphony, football, pizza or the quiet enjoyment of an evening cigar.

Anarchy does represent a form of governance. It is one that stems from the natural freedom of association between civilized people. Heavy-handed policies, tactics, and laws are most unnatural. Too many repeat the phrase “government is a necessary evil.” At least they acknowledge the evil but the institution is just that – evil but unnecessary.

Think of anarchy as “Golden Rule” government. Each affords the other respect and vows not to violate the other’s rights and freedoms. Anarchy is freedom. Freedom is happiness.

Yes, not all people are civilized. Criminality is a continuing cost of original sin. Somewhere in time someone postulated the state’s main purpose was to protect the good people from the bad. History shows this premise is a total failure. Governments are typically the worst violators of freedom and dignity. They also have the nasty habits of coercing decent people into supporting and paying for their depravity and of criminalizing private attempts to disrupt real criminal activity.

In the absence of such retarded controls the free would be able to – individually or in concert – using their strength and conscious – shame, disrupt, or terminate undesirable elements.

Other things government is supposed to do, but which it can’t do well and did not invent, are better left to private cooperation. Roads, schools and defense are all possible without state intervention. And they all predate government.

Many a good, libertarian man I know have said to me (almost in desperation) “you have to have some government!” No, I do not. I have reached a point where I am content to manage my own affairs and relations. Perhaps they real mean “they have to have government.” They don’t. It’s the conditioning of 10,000 years at work which convinces them otherwise.

Anarchy isn’t better than no government. It is the best government.

Google.

Note: I realized upon finishing this one that it’s as much about me as my pet philosophy. The two seem intertwined. Funny. I don’t care much for structure and tend to live out a life of personal anarchy. I have to admit that for all the foibles it works out pretty well.

Law Schools: Deans, Dunces, and Degeneracy

28 Saturday Nov 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

abortion, Amercia, attorneys, children, Christians, communism, education, First Amendment, free thought, free-speech, hero, Hobos, idiocy, law school, Madison Gesiotto, Miss Ohio, Moritz College of Law, Natural Law, Nazis, Planned Parenthood, Political correctnous, socialism, students, THE Ohio State University, univerity, writing

This week I protested the wholesale stupidity and cowardice of high school administrators in Massachusetts. Sadly, I now have bigger fish to fry. Fry them I shall. Last night I read about the utter demise of the Moritz College of Law at THE (they put emphasis on that word) Ohio State University.

You may recall my reflections on my own Legal “Education” – a process which bears little resemblance to the legal profession and none to the actual law. Law schools obsess over “positive law,” meaning statutes and court decisions (particularly the courts). There the Natural Law is a heresy.

In general law schools are not worth attending. They offer three years of state worship, communism and idiocy in exchange for entry into a failed and depressing career. THE Ohio State law school provides an excellent example.

Until about 40 or 50 years ago American universities were places where ideas were exchanged and cultivated. Law schools were supposedly high bastions of legal theory. I say supposedly because they also served as gatekeepers for the attorneys’ professional monopoly. Many of our best lawyers – Jefferson, Adams, Spooner, etc. – did not attend law schools – they “read” or self studied the law while apprenticed to a practicing attorney. I digress…

Elementary and high schools provided the base education. They made sure graduates could read, write, add and think for themselves. They also instilled a sense of history and scientific wonder and civic appreciation. Colleges were where serious scholars furthered their learning. Graduate schools were reserved for the elite.

Everything has changed now. Grade schools today serve as temporary detention centers where the inmates are indoctrinated as they await entry into either real prisons, menial employment (becoming rarer), or college admissions. The colleges serve as hosts for semi-professional football teams, sex and drug parties, and havens for the mentally defective, otherwise unemployable people known as “academics.”

Colleges, to include law schools, babysit a generation of uneducated, uninterested, uninteresting weaklings. The students demand “safe spaces.” They obsess over trivial or purely imaginary sufferings of which they have no understanding. They are unfamiliar with free thought or the value of a question. The staff and professors, still mourning the loss of the Soviet Union, cater to this legion of wusses in a desperate bid to keep their own irrelevant jobs. They cater and coddle so long as the little snowflakes are politically correct. The free-thinker, the libertarian, the conservative, the proudly Caucasian and the Christian are considered enemies within.

Madison Gesiotto found out about the deplorable intellectual dishonesty and spinelessness of the Moritz College of Law the hard way. The stunning beauty queen (Miss Ohio USA) came to Moritz for the stunning purpose of furthering her education. A pro-life Catholic and an accomplished writer, she penned a story about the devastating effects of the abortion industry on the black community.

This was a triple sin. First, Christians are supposed to be silent should they even be allowed inside the temples of government worship. Second, abortion is a sacrament to the cult and never to be questioned. Third, and a recent development, the black community is not to be mentioned outside of glowing support for the black lives matter bullshit and other small sects of discontent.

A reasonable, thoughtful person would glean from Madison’s article her concern for black children, all children, murdered by the Satanic likes of Planned Parenthood. The American abortion trade was born of racist Nazi origin. One would think liberals and the modern race hustlers would declare war on rather than fully defend such an institution. Those black lives must not matter.

For her sincere concern and honest scholarship Madison received scorn and even a threat. “The government cannot take action against you for your offensive and racist article. But your colleagues can,” wrote some idiot on Madison’s Facebook page. Madison does not know the fool who posted this statement (smart enough not to be criminal but dumb enough for national condemnation) though she knows or suspects he is a student at Moritz.

I wrote to Madison too, informing her that her online stalker is a wuss and not to be feared. I can almost guarantee he sleeps with a nightlight – the kind who flits about in skinny jeans – the kind just brave enough to threaten a girl on the internet – the kind that finds girls “icky.”

We can tell a good bit about our e-vilgilante by his choice of words. He starts: “The government cannot take action against you …” He really wishes it could. He’s a socialist or Nazi at heart. Anything he deems inappropriate should be a crime. The government should take action.

“…for your offensive and racist article.” Up is down and black is white to these itty bitty babys. An article condemning the murder of several hundred thousand black children each year is racist. Does the bedwetter want them killed? Why? Perhaps his cry is a transferring admission of a conscious he is personally afraid of. And “offensive.” Lefties love nothing more than to be offended by something. Rather than threaten Madison they should thank her for giving them something to cry about.

“But your colleagues can.” Can what? Take what action? Whatcha pansies gonna do? They’ve done it. They sent a Facebook message. They have now exhausted their powers. One would hope they are now safely back in the safe room being safe. You can’t help but feel sorry for them. It’s like coming across a terminally injured rabbit (except the bunny thinks a bit more and isn’t afraid of girl bunnies).

Using this dork as a benchmark Madison has no colleagues at Moritz. She must stand out like a tree among weeds. That last line – the threat – was a subtle warning that politically incorrect thought and expression will be punished by the legal community. The sentiment was echoed by the school itself as I will note shortly.

So what? Madison can’t be kicked out for free speech (though that would rid her of all this stupidity). Perhaps the Ohio Bar will frown on her application. Odds are the review personnel are not smart enough or industrious enough to connect these dots. Even if they did, they can be sued just like a law school. Maybe Madison won’t have the luxury of slaving away 16 hours a day, 7 days a week for years at a big “prestigious” law firm. The kind of firm where, if you survive, they come to you one day and tell you you’re not moving up so it’s time to move out. Horrors!

No, Madison’s future is secure. She was bright enough to make it on her own anyway. Now, as a victim of statist discrimination, she is a national sweetheart. People (most of us) still love real women and real Americans. She’s probably already had job offers. Maybe book offers. She will be on national television this weekend to explain her experience.

Now, let us look at the school itself. Feeling threatened Madison did what she was supposed to. She contacted the school and arranged a meeting with the dean. At the meeting she found herself confronted by three deans. They blew off her concerns for her safety and freedom and immediately attacked her and her article.

“This is a flawed article, it’s not a good legal piece, it’s not a good journalistic piece, either,” snorted her trio of over(tax)paid assailants. Like the Facebook bully these “academics” revealed a bit of their psyche and lack of mental horsepower. Their statement revealed a lack of understanding of journalism, legal or otherwise.

Dean Alan C. Michaels said he “takes any alleged threat against its students very seriously.” The thought bubble over his head continued, “except in this case. We’re going to abuse the victim here.”

Alan, who graduated from Harvard and Columbia, can be reached at (614) 292-0574. He’s a former prosecutor and criminal law specialist. Criminal. You know. Like threatening remarks criminal. Criminal negligence in refusing to investigate threats. Pitiful. If the roles were reversed, Madison would be in a holding cell somewhere. Pathetic.

Dean Kathy Seward Northern ((614) 292- 7750) alerted Madison she had reached out to the Moritz’s Black Law Students Association and found them not a threat to Madison. This was pointless as Northern knew the stalker was white and likely not a member of the BLSA. Her real intent was probably to fan emotions in the BLSA against Madison’s raaaaaaacism (defending black babies and all that). Her specialty is “environmental racism” whatever the hell that is.

The hidden agenda worked. The BLSA said they were OFFENDED by the racist article. Again, she made their day, showering them with glorious offense. Not mine. All this offense taking is beginning to offend me.

Northern told Madison (probably while looking down her nose) “that in her mind this article could be taken various ways and left questions to be answered.” Yeah, idiot, that’s what good journalism does. It provokes questions. Thoughts. Discussion.

The deans did recommend a “facilitated discussion” between Madison and her intellectual and emotional inferiors. She wisely refused. Such a session would have consisted of lowbrow freaks taunting the young woman (while maybe also flinging poo at her) while the deans looked on in smug approval.

A third dean was mentioned but remains unidentified. It’s as likely as not it was a homeless person pulled in off the street by Michaels and Northern. Hobos look and act much like law school deans. He obviously added nothing memorable to the conversation.

The Moritz website touts its faculty: “Brilliant scholars and devoted teachers, our professors are passionate about making lasting contributions in their fields of expertise and in the lives of their students.” I ponder their lasting contributions to Madison. Maybe they did teach her something – personal fortitude in the face of socialism.

Like a champion, Madison remains undeterred. She wrote another excellent article in her own defense.

I am Catholic, I am conservative, I am an American, I am a woman, I am a millennial, I am a law student and I am proud.

I am not afraid to voice my opinions and refuse to be stifled by the unwillingness of others to accept views, beliefs or behaviors different from their own.

Madison, Washington Times.

You. Go. Girl.

Concerned Women for America and other groups have come to her defense. Not that she needs it. She has single-handedly defeated the fascists of Moritz. She did it by merely standing up to them. They have no power over her and will fear her going forward. They also have nothing to teach her though this incident has given her an education of sorts.

Madison is beautiful, brave, talented and a winner. She can’t be alone in academia. If there remain even a few like her, then the institution is not completely lost.

The dynamic deanery.

Freedom: Waiving or Waving?

01 Sunday Nov 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Freedom: Waiving or Waving?

Tags

America, Constitution, Courts, crime, due process, DUI, freedom, Georgia, government, intelligence, law, Natural Law, police, reason, rights, The People, tyranny

Living in Georgia and having practiced law here a while I know something more about the legal and political environment of the State. In general, it is a broken mess. Yet, every once in a while, something good emerges from the murk of Peach State mediocrity. Recently, a federal judge held Georgia’s unconstitutional garnishment statute a violation of due process. Now, the State Supreme Court has aimed the same barrels at Georgia’s DUI law.

DUI laws, like drug laws (and most laws), are a failure. They do not deter dangerous driving. The continually high numbers of DUI arrests attest to this fact. The true intent should be to punish or prevent harm to the innocent. Other, ancient laws, grounded in Natural Law, can already do that.

The real purposes of modern DUI laws are three-fold:

One, they generate revenue for the useless government.

Two, they allow that government a degree of control over the people. In a free society it should be the other way around.

Third, these laws placate the ignorant, the state-worshipping, and those aggrieved few desperate for corrective action.

Failure aside, some hold dear to DUI enforcement (and not just the MADD moms). Part of this is reasonable. Most people drive and are potentially at risk of encountering an intoxicated motorist. Drunk drivers can afflict harm or death on others which is a bad thing. Other crimes are far worse but are much harder to understand or relate to – treason, currency debasement, suicidal immigration, toxic foreign policy, etc. Those evils are not quite so “in your face.” Still, if any crime is to be prosecuted, the enforcement must be carried out with respect for natural rights. The balancing is precarious but necessary if arbitrary tyranny is not a thing desired.

Georgia law states that by possessing a driver’s license and operating an automobile one automatically and impliedly consents to roadside sobriety and other tests in the case of a suspected DUI. An officer will read a driver an implied consent warning (they all carry little script cards) which, ultimately, gives the driver two choices. One, consent and forgo the rights against unwarranted searches and against self-incrimination. Two, refuse and suffer a suspension of the driver’s license – to the detriment of the right to freely travel.

The right to travel being universal, no state should issue permits for the same. States should also never place a person in a position of choosing which of his freedoms to sacrifice for the expediency of the government. There are proper investigative methods to solve crimes but usually the lazy state is dependent on the suspect’s cooperation or acquiescence. A man from a large metro-Atlanta county put an unusual spin on these concepts as part of his DUI defense.

John Williams was stopped in Gwinnett County for suspicion of driving under the influence. The officer read Williams his consent warning. Williams allegedly consented to a blood test which showed he was, in fact, legally intoxicated. The test would be the State’s primary evidence. Accordingly, Williams filed a motion to suppress the test results. He argued he was too intoxicated at the time, as demonstrated by the test results, to give his consent knowingly. “The defendant wasn’t actually capable of an informed waiver of his constitutional rights,” William’s attorney argued.

The trial court denied the motion but the Supreme Court held such argument must be considered given the importance of a suspect’s intelligent interaction with the legal system.

Catch twenty-two! Prosecutors are now in the position of arguing a DUI defendant was sober – sober enough to waive his critical Constitutional rights in a situation with serious (jail) consequences. If a man is so sober concerning important legal decisions why would he not also be sober enough to operate an automobile?

Thinkstock, Getty Images.

As a freedom advocate I do not hold much hope this ruling will have any lasting effects. Trial judges and prosecutors could question the State’s witness as to whether he was satisfied, at the time, the defendant truly understood what he was doing. The General Assembly, ever eager to maintain control over its minions while providing them with the appearance of safety, could similarly change the wording of the implied consent warning.

I’ve seen such catches fall out in the government’s favor before. I’ve heard a state psychologist testify a defendant was utterly insane. So crazed he was a threat to society and himself and, thus, should be held without bond. So psychotic he lives in his own world, detached from ours. But, just for a brief second, while allegedly committing a crime, he knew and understood what he was doing. This happens all the time in America, a place from which honest reasoning has departed.

If the government maintains its war on intoxicated drivers (and it will), then it should rely on independently gathered evidence – evidence which does not involve the suspect’s compromised cooperation. Even better the state could concern itself with real crimes and the victims thereof. If a drunk driver causes property damage or physical harm to another, there are many ways to address the malfeasance. Best of all, government being as failed as any of its laws, it could merely go away.

The best scenario will not happen anytime soon. Government’s hate to admit their failure just as much as they hate you and your rights.

The People

24 Saturday Oct 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in News and Notes

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

America, anarchy, blog, English, freedom, government, greece, Liberty, Natural Law, Paul Craig Roberts, Perrin Lovett, Rome, security, The People, The West, William Wallace, writing

Down along the left-hand side of this article and all others on my site a reader will find a list of words. Seventy-five words to be exact. These are the most popular descriptive terms or “tags” found here at the blog. I recently increased the number from 50.

You, dear reader, may have noticed some of those terms are larger, others smaller. The larger the word the more times it has appeared in my writing here. Should you click on one, all the columns featuring that term will pop up. No, these terms do not appear on the simplified mobile version of perrinlovett.me. If you’re on your phone just scroll to the very bottom of this page and click on the regular web tab.

Of the larger search terms one of the biggest is “The People.” I mention these mysterious folk on a very regular basis, especially in my legal and political works (the majority). Who, exactly, are “the people?”

Well, when I put them in a column I usually have two meanings. One is prominent, primary. The other is a bit more subtle and deployed less frequently.

The first and most common usage refers to you, my readers. You and like-minded people everywhere. This site is admittedly Amerocentric. “America” is another of the largest words on my list. I happen to live amidst the ruins of the Old Republic. Many or most of my stories concern the U.S. though “The West” is also a frequent topic. I am concerned with that heritage descended of the Romans, the Greeks and the English.

I also often conjoin “people” with “free.” These are people who live in an idyllic world of liberty, the kind still romanticized by American conservatives. Others live in otherwise unfree settings but personally choose to live free. Sometimes we call ourselves anarchists. Believe it or not, this lifestyle is easier than one would imagine.

All you have to do is live in peace, largely ignore popular culture, and beware of the authorities when necessary. Sometimes playing along and humoring the stupidity of the state goes a long way. It can also be a fun game.

I digress.

The free people live in harmony with others or at least try to. They work and mind their own business. They are folks you would want as neighbors. However, they are generally the most aggrieved victims of government aggression. They are expected to shut up, pay the taxes, obey the rules, and pull the load for society.

Great is my sympathy for free people wherever they may be. Without them the horror stories I explore here would be all too appropriate. Without them my regular references to Natural Law would have no context. They live the ideals of Western Civilization. Sometimes they stumble but they are on the right path.

The other group I sometimes delve into are of an opposite disposition. Lacking most individuality and fortitude, they go along with the herd, right or wrong. Whereas the former crowd is concerned with truth and the eternal, the latter is obsessed with the here, the now, and the easy.

Paul Craig Roberts once referred to these folks, domestically, as “the shit stupid American people.” A bit cruel perhaps but generally accurate.

They are the majority – always accepting and seeking out fair masters. The free and independent minded are a small sect indeed.

For these miserable many I express scorn or weary tolerance rather than empathic support. You can always tell the difference. I use descriptive words like “masses,” “zombies,” “fools,” “sheep” and so forth. Like Roberts’s, my labels fit if uncomfortably.

I truly bear them no ill will unless or until their pitiful, unthinking indifference affects me and mine. It is my desire, in addition to informing and entertaining you, to wake these sloths from their collectivist sleep. I wish them happy freedom.

For most freedom is a frightening idea. Along with the loss of annoying management comes the loss of perceived security. Said security is always false. But, it is, apparently, very difficult to shake off.

So, there you have it. If you have made it to this end of the article you likely belong among the true and the free. If, by odd chance you are, ashamedly, of the other variety, then join us! It is really better over here.

W. Wallace understood the difference. Google.

Free Speech Free Zones

24 Saturday Oct 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Free Speech Free Zones

Tags

America, Antonin Scalia, Colorado, Constitution, elections, Facebook, First Amendment, Fred Reed, free-speech, freedom, government, law, McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, money, Natural Law, politics, rights, The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, The People

A long time ago the government pretended its constraint under the Constitution. It was to be neutral regarding religion. It supposedly did not treat the people like criminals unless they actually were. It begrudgingly consented to the armament of the citizenry. It allegedly allowed people to voice their opinions, even if the expressed notions were unpopular. Those days are behind us.

Today there remains but a paper pretense of freedom in America.

A Colorado judge just ruled that a political Facebook post was impermissible “free” speech.

A state judge has ruled that a Facebook post by Liberty Common School amounts to an illegal campaign contribution to a Thompson School District board candidate.

In August, the Fort Collins charter school shared with its Facebook followers a newspaper article about a parent of a student running for a board seat in the neighboring school district. Liberty Common’s principal, former Colorado Congressman Bob Schaffer, then shared the post and called candidate Tomi Grundvig an “excellent education leader” who would provide “sensible stewardship” of Thompson.

Nick Coltrain, The Coloradoan, Oct. 22, 2015.

The judge said the violation was “minor,” but that [T]he school’s action was the giving of a thing of value to the candidate, namely favorable publicity…”

A Colorado law professor, one Scott Moss, was rightly alarmed by the ruling: “I don’t buy that under the First Amendment speech about a candidate can be deemed a contribution … Is speech valuable? Yes. But that’s not a basis for restricting core political speech.”

Naturally speaking, the good professor is correct. Legally and politically, he would have been correct in the former United States. Not today. Not in modern Colorado. Not in modern, post-Constitutional America.

I warned of this in postings prior. The particular judge in this case was likely just doing his job. Rather than being a “judicial activist,” he was simply carrying out a bad law. Bad governments enact bad laws, historically. As governments all become debased, the outcome is always the same – the people are stifled. In a representative government this usually occurs at the people’s bidding. Odd, yes. Whatever Colorado election law rests at the heart of this ruling likely mirrors current federal law in spirit and/or form.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“The McCain–Feingold Act”), Pub.L. 107–155, 116 Stat. 81, 2 U.S.C. 431 et seq. and blah, blah, blah (effective January 1, 2003) set new limits on political speech. This First Amendment nullifier was the brainchild of Republican Senator John McCain and signed into “law” by Republican idiot George W. Bush (who, at the time, admitted he did not understand what he was signing).

The Supreme Court later upheld the speech crushing effects of the Act in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003). The gist of the opinion was that as the issues were political in nature and the two political branches had approved, the Court would simply defer to the esteemed wisdom of Congress and the White House. They seem to forget all about the rights of the People and that thing … the um … the Constitution maybe? Whatever…

In his raging dissent Justice Scalia noted that modern elections were already so complex that only the well-connected and well-funded were safe to engage in them with any hope of success. He blasted the Act as limiting the speech of the people – their only remaining tangible connection to the process. So long as they comply with the Byzantine laws, the moneyed interests are free to support any candidate they choose. The little people, usually poor financially and in legal knowledge are now constrained to even voice political support. Scalia noted that of all free speech political speech is the most important in a free society.

Of course, this might matter if we still were a free society. We are not. Fred Reed succinctly nailed down the problem as to the political:

Democratic? As Stalin had show trials, America has show elections. These serve to distract the public while keeping them away from issues of importance. Who do you vote for if you want to end the wars, halve the military budget, end affirmative action, get the government out of family life, control criminal minorities who burn cities, and slap down NSA?

Fred Reed. Emphasis mine.

I love Reed’s work. This particular gem of an article concerns more than just electoral politics – it explains the pitiful state of thinking (or lack thereof) across the whole American landscape.

About the half of it. Google.

Election season is once again upon us. It’s always election season it seems. Daily, I see many of you voicing support for this or that candidate on Facebook and elsewhere. Be careful what you say lest you commit the “minor” violation of free speech. Me, I need not worry. I never support any candidate. I support freedom.

A Dichotomy Of Arms

18 Sunday Oct 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Amercia, anarchy, arms, army, Athens, authority, firearms, freedom, God, government, guns, history, Iraq, law, Melian Dialouge, Melos, military, murder, Natural Law, Paul, police, police state, power, Romans 13, Second Amendment, self-defense, self-preservation, state worship, The People, War

A man in Wyoming was out riding his bicycle. According to him he was attacked by a vicious German Shepherd (Belgian Malinois). Fearing for his life he shot the dog to death with his trusty revolver. It’s a story you may have missed. It only made the news because the dog in question was a former military service dog, a Bronze Star recipient, no less. I find the story interesting because it sheds light on a schism amongst the American people.

Mike was a nine year old dog who previously served two combat tours in Iraq. Upon his retirement Mike was adopted by Matthew Bessler, a retired Army Ranger. Both veterans suffered from PTSD; they provided each other with beneficial companionship.

Bessler went hunting. He left Mike in the care of a friend. Mike wandered off and encountered the cyclist – with deadly results. There, the news story ends.

The cyclist was not charged, his use of deadly force deemed by police to be justifiable self-defense. A GoFundMe page has been set up in order to provide Mike with a military burial.

A sub-controversey surrounds the fact the lethal shot hit Mike in the rear or back. I discount this factor. Attacking dogs move very fast. Shooting scenarios move fast too. A shot in the back does not, by itself, disqualify self-defense, especially concerning an animal. The old, false adage that retreat is better if possible is dangerous when one crosses a predatory animal. Withdrawal might trigger a chase or hunt instinct which could be worse than the initial confrontation. Like everyone else, I was not present and I can only go by the shooter’s account, tempered by reasoned thinking.

On the surface I find this story sad all the way around. I regret Mike’s death. I regret the cyclist felt his life was endangered to the point of resorting to shooting. I’m sorry Mike and Bessler suffered PTSD. I’m sorry their conditions were the results of the government’s inexplicable and indefensible war in Iraq. It’s terrible some think we need that government.

Mike, another victim of the State. Daily Mail, UK.

Based on the bare facts reported by the (British) press, I support the cyclist’s account of the incident and his use of force. I can see a dog with PTSD (even if usually docile) becoming aggressive around a stranger. It happens.

I also hold Mike blameless. Even a vicious, dangerous animal is still just that, an animal. Mike was utterly blameless, too, regarding his military service and resulting illness. A human soldier with a conscious can object to illegal wars of aggression. A dog can’t.

Any blame here rests with the friend who was supposed to watch Mike. Large dogs should be leashed or fenced. Maybe there is no one to blame. Mike could have escaped a reasonable containment. Dogs do things like that. Maybe this was just a bad thing that happened – like a tornado or a freak accident.

At any rate, all of this is merely supporting background for my story. I noticed themes in the comments which accompanied the news which, upon further consideration, formed my titular dichotomy.

There were hundreds of comments which roughly divided into two camps. The first was supportive of the cyclist. They found the shooting justified. Most of these also held a pro Second Amendment bias. The other group was mortally offended at the death of a military hero, albeit a dog.

The former group fully supported the individual right of self preservation even if they found Mike’s death lamentable as I do. The latter hold the shooting of a military veteran indefensible under any circumstance.

There were a few other reactions. Some found the existence of the subject firearm the problem. I suppose some might hate bicycles or hate dogs. These opinions are outliers and safely factor out of my analysis.

Some pro-shooter comments:

Should have been on a leash.

…

Too bad for the dog but most communities have leash laws for a reason…and yes, many joggers and bicyclists are bitten by uncontrolled dogs, that’s why pepper spray is a good idea.

…

“Park County Sheriff Scott Steward said: ‘Essentially, if you feel your life is in danger or threatened by an animal, you can act against it.’ Exactly

Pro military, no matter what:

Sounds like another Democrat got there hand’s on a gun !!

…

this cyclist had no business killing this dog. Charges should be brought against him immediately.

…

I would not blame or feel bad at all and I would even back the dog owner if he wanted to take fatal retaliation against the cyclist. It is just. What the hell is wrong with people that want to kill a dog like that…This soldier has one more mission to accomplish! …huh rah!

…

I hope the shooter gets hit by a car and suffers a long painful death

These views show a division between otherwise aligned interests. Most of the folks are likely “conservative” by political philosophy, perhaps a few libertarian. “Liberals” would abhor the gun itself.

I see this as a difference of opinion between “red staters.” I suspect the majority of both sides generally support the carrying of individual arms. Both likely support justifiable self-defense. Here’s the division: the first group seems to support self-defense regardless of the aggressors status. They find a man free to act when illegally threatened. Period. I’ll call these the people “freedom lovers.” The others support self-defense unless the aggressor is a member of the hallowed legions of the state. I’ll call them “government lovers.”

The government lovers are more extreme. Not only do they want the cyclist prosecuted, they want him dead – by a “long painful death” – for a situation they did not witness. But, to them, the facts do not matter. They are more worshipers than mere lovers of the state. The government and its uniformed agents (even dog agents) must not be challenged – ever.

The worship of the state may be increasingly seen in American churches, particularly Evangelical protestant churches. Government has seemingly replaced God for many. Much of this stems from an overzealous but false interpretation of Romans 13. Paul was only speaking to legitimate state authority – authority not acting against God’s Natural Law.

The Nazis, acting under Hitler’s “legal” orders, carried out the murder of dissidents and other war crimes. Were these too God-sanctioned acts of official authority? I think not.

The statists see it otherwise – at least concerning the American government.

If American soldiers kill innocents overseas, regardless of conditions, it’s acceptable collateral damage. If the police shoot a dog it’s okay, even if the police are breaking their own laws during the shooting. The same standard applies to police shootings of innocent civilians. No matter the cause, no matter the circumstance, the government is never at fault.

In the odd event the government is at odds with one of its servants the lovers will throw the individual under the bus without thought or hesitation. The false god of the almighty state suffers NO challenge.

This highlights both a disdain for individuality and a lack of logic among the parishioners of official authority.

For those of us who value freedom over safety this dichotomy and this particular example illustrates both a dire problem and a hazardous solution for liberty. It reminds me, for some reason, of the Melian Dialogue (with a twist).

A bit of archaic history: In 416 B.C. Athens was perhaps the most powerful military force in the known ancient world. The Athenians sought to subjugate the small, peaceful island state of Melos. The Athenian navy arrived at Melos. The dialogue went something like this:

Athens: “Surrender and join us.”

Melos: “No.”

The Athenians then proceeded to exterminate the Melians and seize their island.

Ruins of Melos. Google.

Many in the freedom camp rightfully seek to resist the evil of the modern state. However, as to outright martial confrontation, they see no hope. Maybe they are right. The American military and police state is almost powerful beyond measure. Outright rebellion would be almost impossible.

It may though be possible to indirectly oppose state oppression. An individual might be able to resist a single agent of the state and legally get away with it. Such resistance is still fraught with gravest danger. After such an incident the individual will be faced with resentment and hatred of the government’s unthinking masses. Hatred to the point of murder in revenge.

A safer if slower strategy might be to seek out those of the opposing camp and convert them to the truth of freedom. If they can think and reason this may be possible. They can be armed without an army. They can be safe and secure absent official structure. They can act as individuals. They can regard God as God and alone the Supreme source of authority.

All of this is open for consideration. What say you?

Gunning For Votes: A Look At Candidate Positions On The Second Amendment

20 Sunday Sep 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

America, Bernie Sanders, Carly Fiarino, Constitution, crime, Darryl Perry, Democrats, Donald Trump, Federal government, freedom, Gary Johnson, government, guns, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Joe Biden, Libertarian Party, Liberty, Natural Law, Natural Rights, President, Rand Paul, Republicans, rights, Second Amendment, self-defense, self-preservation, States, Supreme Court, Tenth Amendment, The 2A, The Founders, The People, Thomas Jefferson, tyranny, United States, violence

Last week Donald Trump added a white paper to his presidential election campaign materials: PROTECTING OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. Until then The Donald had been a one note Donny – his note was all immigration reform. I decided to make a professional examination of his paper. Then I decided to review the positions of major candidates from all parties on the subject of the Second Amendment. Not all of them, of course; there is something like 170 Republicans seeking the party’s nomination. I don’t have that kind of time. Trump gets the spotlight. Not because he’s Trump but because he published a white paper.

Now, this examination draws together two concepts which, for me, are diametrically opposed: I love and cherish firearms rights and all individual freedom; I detest electoral politics and government in general. Herein, though, I attempt to keep a neutral attitude towards the subject. You will soon realize my failure.

“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.” Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety). I have expounded, in great detail, on the Second Amendment. While a part of the Federal Constitution, establishing another government to plague mankind, the Second Amendment is the part that embodies the spirit of natural self-preservation, a branch of Natural Law. It embodies protecting oneself from small-scale, “ordinary” predation as well as from the tyranny brought about by politics.

Politics involves the people setting themselves up for disaster one election at a time. It’s usually a contest to see who is the biggest and worst rat – the rats usually win. “The most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.” J.R.R. Tolkien, 1943 The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.

Let’s get started with…

The Republican Field

Donald Trump

Trump begins his dissertation: “The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.” He soon forgets the infringement and the period and explains why some abridgment is okay.

donaldjtrump.com.

Well, he doesn’t throw The 2A under the bus immediately:

The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

That’s his way of kinda sorta acknowledging Natural Law. I might add, here, that it’s not just about self-defense. It’s also about tyranny prevention and resolution – through armed and extreme measures if necessary. The Founding Father knew about that too; The Supreme Court wouldn’t exist without it either.

Trump then moves on to enforcing “the laws on the books.” That’s great so long as those laws are valid – most are not. “We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals,” Trump says. He gives examples of local violent crimes. The man is not running for any local office but for President of the United States. There are only two (potentially) violent federal crimes mentioned in that Constitution nobody reads: piracy and treason. And, those are almost exclusively committed (alone with counterfeiting), these days, by the federal government itself.

States and localities should enforce laws that prevent violence against the innocent or which punish such violence. My view is if a man commits a violent crime, then he should be prevented from further interaction with society, either via a prison sentence or a well placed shot. This approach would necessarily remove him from the pool of persons capable of bearing arms. Otherwise, the issue of crime is as completely removed from the Second Amendment discussion as violent crimes are removed from federal jurisdiction.

Speaking of well placed shots … Trump advocates self-defense. That’s good! He boasts, “that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well.” That’s bad! Who needs a “permit” from anyone (least of all from political and bureaucratic rodentia) to exercise a right?? Free people must be free to arm themselves if they like, without any government involvement – infringement if you will.

Trump wants to fix our broken mental health system. Again, that’s great. It’s also not part of his desired employment as set forth in Article Two of the Constitution (I keep coming back to that thing…). I assume he means using his personal financial and celebrity status to help the mentally ill. For that I commend him. Otherwise, like crime mental health is irrelevant to the Second Amendment.

He gets back to guns: “Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.” By itself this is his piece de resistance! However, he immediately murkifies the white right out of his paper by praising federal background checks (infringement) and by advocating a national carry permit (we have that now, it’s called the Second Amendment). He also says driving a car is a privilege, not a right but that is another can of white papers.

The Donald ends by praising the military (yes, he’s running as a Republican) and proclaiming the rights of servicemen to carry arms. I wonder if he caught the word “militia” in the text of The 2A? The militia is the people. The people have the right to arms. Trump’s military is the national standing army, known bane of freedom and limited to a two-year duration by that Constitution (am I dreaming all this????).

If pressed I don’t think trump would stand he forceful claim about people owning the firearm of their choice. Suppose my choice is belt-fed and electrically operated. Who Donald permit that or would he fire me? I don’t care to find out.

Carly Fiorina

Carly doesn’t have a white paper though she has much better looks that Trump (sure he would agree). Her Second Amendment views may be found on her website, including a video from Fox News!

She notes that her husband has a government permission slip to carry a gun and she thinks that is fine and Constitutional. I don’t think she’s read the document nor does she grasp the concept of a right.

Rand Paul

Dr. Paul is the son of Dr. Ron Paul, the man who should be President now. Outside of the Libertarians (see below), Rand has the best stance of The 2A.

As President, I vow to uphold our entire Bill of Rights, but specifically our right to bear arms.

Those who support the second amendment must also vehemently protect the Fourth Amendment. If we are not free from unreasonable and warrantless searches, no one’s guns are safe.

I will not support any proposed gun control law which would limit the right to gun ownership by those who are responsible, law-abiding citizens.

In the White House, I will remain vigilant in the fight against infringements on our Second Amendment rights.

Excellent! However, to be true to his word, Rand would have to seek to repeal numerous federal laws in place now (NFA, ATF, 1986 “tax” act, etc.). He’s also right about protecting rights in tandem. That’s really the only valid reason to have a government. He must also know that, sadly, every government in human history has immediately departed from this objective. This trend will not abate anytime soon, Rand or no.

Jeb Bush

Yeah. Another Bush. Bush number three. Not to worry, there’s a Clinton down below (not like that, Bill…).

I could not find an issue statement from George…er…Jeb’s website. I did find an interesting exchange between the former governor and Stephen Colbert on The Late Show:

Stephen Colbert: Well, the right to have an individual firearm to protect yourself is a national document, in the Constitution, so shouldn’t that also be applied national…

Jeb Bush: No. Not necessarily…There’s a 10th amendment to our country, the Bill of Rights has a 10th amendment that says powers are given to the states to create policy, and the federal government is not the end all and be all. That’s an important value for this country, and it’s an important federalist system that works quite well.

Once again the comedian gets it right, the politician wrong. Bush is aware of the tenth but not the second? Firearms and defense are universal rights not just national rights. The right to self-preservation exists even in the absence of any government (imagine that for a minute..aaahh). Bush didn’t even get number 10 quite right; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety).

This means the federal government is strictly limited to those very few powers specifically written in the Constitution. The States have some power outside the scope of the federal leviathan – concerning violent crime for example. And, The People themselves retain political power. By the way, government is a mix of powers and rights. The body politic is empowered only insofar as it may preserve the rights of the individual. None of this power, federal, state or personal may (legitimately) infringe the freedoms of the people. Illegitimately, it happens all the time. Use your personal power – save us from another Bush presidency.

The Democrats

The days of Zell Miller and Sam Nunn being behind us, many write off the donkey party as wholly anti-gun. Anti-freedom is more accurate. They are generally a mirrored image of their anti-freedom elephant counterparts. Losing my objectivity, yes.

Hillary Clinton

Clinton. Yes, one married to that other Clinton. Like so many leftists, Hillary couches firearms issues in backwards thinking and words. To her guns in private hands are bad and result in bad things. Instead of “firearms rights” she talks about “gun violence prevention.”

“I don’t know how we keep seeing shooting after shooting, read about the people murdered because they went to Bible study or they went to the movies or they were just doing their job, and not finally say we’ve got to do something about this.” Hillary, August 27, 2015. Part of her something would be reinstating the assault weapons ban. That would be infringement as prohibited by the Second Amendment.

Like Hillary I too deplore violence. That’s why I support a ban on government.

Bernie Sanders

Bernie’s list of issues is devoid of anything for or against the Second Amendment. I glanced over it and it rather reminded me of Karl Marx, maybe with a friendly Vermont bent. Moving on…

Joe Biden

Crazy Joe is apparently just about to get into the race. He has no papers or issue statements yet. However, some of his positions on guns may be found here and here. Mind you, should he enter the race, his positions are subject to magically change depending on who he’s talking to. Buyer beware.

Despite having voted against gun rights in the past, at a press conference in 2013 Biden enthusiastically demonstrated his prize, imaginary shotgun for reporters. Trump has a point about mental illness.

Libertarians

Americans love their “two-party” system despite its none-existence. We all tend to forget about the lovable, pot-loving Libertarians. In addition to legalizing (decriminalizing, geesh) whacky tobacky, the LP is pretty decent on gun rights as far as it goes…

Darryl Perry

Darryl Perry is running for President. He has a list of issues in his platform among which is “Self Defense.” “As a Life Member of the Second Amendment Foundation, I support the right to privately own and possess firearms or any other weapon deemed appropriate for self-defense.” Perry.

Deemed appropriate by whom, Mr. Perry? “Deemed appropriate” sounds like the talk of the permit set. What about offensive weapons designed to rid the people of a tyrant. Ah. That would go against the LP’s pledge, “I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

That’s fine and dandy during civilized times. But, suppose there’s a government on the loose? What then? Defense? Defense against government is best accomplished by government prevention, which may require a little initiation of force – see the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson, New Hampshire Constitution, etc.

Gary Johnson

Mr. Johnson was the LP candidate during the 2012 election. No word on whether he’s in for this bout. Nonetheless I have included his position.

“I don’t believe there should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None.” Johnson, April 20, 2011, Slate Magazine. If he means firearms for the people, then that’s the best Second Amendment support statement of the 21st Century.

The only way to improve on a position like that is to declare there should be no government. None. But that would deprive us of white paper analysis and fun articles like this one. Cheers!

***Note*** Nothing in the preceding article should be construed in any way as supporting any candidate for any office. Perrin Lovett does not support government (outside of theoretical discussion and fun poking).

Why Did They Shoot Me?

02 Wednesday Sep 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

America, Atlanta, crime, freedom, government, Home invasion, Natural Law, Natural Rights, police, shooting, The People

Many years ago I was in court for various criminal hearings. During a break in the injustice I chatted with the court reporter. She was complaining about the assertions of the defendants of their several legal rights. This unnecessarily slowed the process in her opinion. “People have too many rights!” she screeched.

Too many rights. This sentiment is as common in modern American as it is atrocious. The good news for the rights haters is that our natural rights are steadily eroding. That’s bad news for the rest.

All across the country on almost a daily basis one may read of summary rights deprivation by the state – of the militarized police gunning down unarmed citizens. The haters still assert the police are protecting us from ourselves. If people don’t want to be killed, they shouldn’t break the law, they say. Obey the law. Too many rights. Sieg heil! and all that.

Consider, if you will, if you can, the following tale are martial woe:

On Monday evening Chris and Leah McKinley were enjoying a television movie in the living room of the Atlanta area home. Their family time was interrupted by gunshots in the kitchen. Uninvited, three criminal gang members broke into the kitchen and proceeded to shot the McKinley’s dog. When Chris investigated (unarmed), the intruders shot him also. For good measure the criminals shot one of their own too.

The burglar suffered a serious wound but should recover. Chris McKinley’s injury was, luckily, minor. The dog died in the kitchen.

The horrible but all too common twist to this story is that the McKinley’s attackers were police officers.

Shortly after 7:30 p.m. Monday, three DeKalb County police officers were dispatched to a burglary call on Boulderwoods Drive, just off Bouldercrest Road, about a mile south of I-20. Derek Perez, the man who made the 911 call, wrote on Facebook that he’d told police about a possible burglar outside of “the farthest house at the end of the street.”

The officers, however, stopped at Chris and Leah McKinley’s home — the second house on the street — because it matched the “physical description” given, according to a release from the GBI.

AJC.com.

The officers went to the rear of the home, onto the screened-in porch and through a “reportedly unlocked rear door,” the GBI said.

According to neighbors, that’s when Chris McKinley — who’d been watching a movie called “Serendipity” with his wife and 1-year-old — walked into the room with his dog. Authorities said two of the officers opened fire after they “encountered a dog.”

Id.

McKinley, 36, was shot in the leg, and his dog, a female boxer, was killed. One of the officers — identified Tuesday afternoon as Travis Jones — was shot in the hip by a colleague, the GBI said.

…

“Are we perfect?” DeKalb director of public safety Cedric Alexander said. “Absolutely not. But when we find a mistake, we own it. We own the fact that we were at the wrong house. We didn’t hide it. We didn’t mismanage it. We were at the wrong location based on information that was given to us.”

Id.

This is as close to a real apology as the police give for these incidents. They will not be prosecuted for their misdeeds. The taxpayers may suffer should the county pay some settlement to the McKinleys.

Chris McKinley, survivor. AJC.

One of McKinley’s assailants. AJC.

This shooting was mild compared to some others in the news lately. In other circumstances McKinley might have been killed. Or, he could have been framed with the officer’s shooting or some fictitious type of resisting or obstructing. Chris McKinley (and his dog) broke no laws. He did not “resist” the police. He did nothing wrong. He didn’t need protection from himself. He was minding his own business.

“Why did they shoot me? Why did they shoot my dog?” McKinley asked a neighbor who came to his aid.

Why did they shoot Chris McKinley? Maybe it was a tragic mistake. Maybe it’s because he has too many rights.

Trial By Combat

27 Wednesday May 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Trial By Combat

Tags

accused, Alexander Hamilton, America, ancient law, Athens, Boston Bombing, Boston Massacre, Boston Tea Party, Britain, Congress, Courts, crime, death penalty, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, English common law, Fingoldin, freedom, Germany, John Adams, jury, King, law, Melkor, Natural Law, Parliament, people, police, punishment, Rome, Trial by Combat

Not too long ago I wrote about my experiences with the American Jury system in the 21st Century. It is broken. End of story. Any acquittal you read about is an anomaly – a celebration of truth and luck in a world gone wrong. Juries are no longer the last check against tyranny they were intended to be in ancient Rome or Athens.

Most people plead guilty to criminal offenses. Most of the rest elect to the convicted (not just tried) by a state appointed and employed Judge. The small few who make it before a jury – not of their peers – are usually found guilty. Everything goes the state’s way. Many celebrate this fact. I do not. We were supposed to have due process and equality under the law. This is especially important to the little person facing the endless resources of the government. It is also, now, a fiction. We have none of it. Just convictions.

(Temple of doom. Google.)

The defendant in the Boston Bombing trial, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, was convicted and sentenced to death. His was one of the oddest trials I have ever heard of. It lacked even the plausible credibility of some Soviet-era show trials. In June Tsarnaev learns whether the judge will condemn him to die. He surely will be executed.

If, indeed, he did commit the alleged terror attack, Tsarnaev deserves to die. However, as I have noted before, there is amble evidence to suggest a government link to the plot. If the government is involved in any way, there is usually a plot participation. This might not excuse Tsarvaev but it would implicate others. It won’t though. There was absolutely no mention or murmur of this in court on Tsarnaev’s account. Alarmingly, there was no murmur at all from the defendant. There was no defense whatsoever.

In a way the defense strategy made some sense. They knew, as do I, there is no hope for honest truth or justice in an American court. Accordingly, they adopted an approach which plead Tsarnaev guilty while attempting to shift the blame to the defendant’s dead brother. The ultimate attempt was not to evade a conviction (a given) but, rather, to avoid the death penalty. The approach did not work.

The government opened with a sympathetic case – no-one likes terror attacks on innocent people. The defense then opened by acknowledging the crime and the defendant’s participation therein. “Yeah, he did it. But…” They closed the same way.

Then, the government called witnesses. These were victims who had survived the attack. They told the jury and court of their terrible injuries. Terrible as they are, they do not establish, at all, any criminal culpability. No mind – Tsarnaev had already admitted guilt. In most cases these statements of victims come at the very end of the trial – after guilt has been adjudicated. They are usually used to determine what level of punishment is deserved of the convicted. This case saw all phases conveniently wrapped into one show. No challenge or examination at all was conducted on behalf of the accused.

I, as a defense attorney, could have lessened the blow of these witnesses but asking them if they had ever seen (in person) my client before. None of them had. They had no way to link Tsarnaev to the crime scene.

That tenuous link came from a video and pictorial collage presented by the government. Cameras are everywhere these days and there were numerous shots of the Tsarnaev brothers at the Marathon. Nothing showed them setting off or planting the bombs. Then again, the defendant had already admitted his guilt.

No challenge came to this presentation. There was equal evidence of former government employees – current “security” contractors at the event – with the same backpacks and in the same places as the accused. The difference was that several (not presented) photos showed the brothers leaving with laden backpacks while the agents walk away unencumbered. Nevermind. Guilt admitted, remember.

The government presented weak findings as to how the alleged bombs were made. A good munitions expert could have dissected these as ridiculous. None did. All evidence was submitted without protest. There was then the matter of an alleged admission written on the walls of a hideout boat. No objections.

Given what they were presented with the jury rightly found the defendant guilty. He lost his gamble as to the jury’s recommendation of death. That should have come as no surprise. To the open-eyed and open-minded it should come as an alarm as to where the system has settled.

This is no system in which to place any faith of fairness. The prosecution will get whatever it seeks in most cases. Nothing will change. There are efforts to reform the game but it is too far gone. There is no public support for such efforts. Thus, any alternative seems logical, if it be at all feasible.

Before I go further let me state that everyone is entitled to a defense at trial in cases of alleged criminal offense. Ages ago several British soldiers were tried and acquitted in the Boston Massacre. Their attorney believed in justice, no matter how unpopular the accused. His name was John Adams. You may have heard of him, he served as our second President.

There is an older, if more archaic, alternative to the jury system in criminal or civil cases. You have never heard of it. No American lawyers understand it nor would they encourage it. The Courts will surely be averse to it though it has never been stricken from the codified law (like that matters anymore). No law school will teach it. No agent of the state would wish to face it. No right-minded person would assert the alternative. But, it is there.

There is (or was) a thing called Trial by Combat.

Trial by combat (also wager of battle, trial by battle or judicial duel) was a method of Germanic law to settle accusations in the absence of witnesses or a confession in which two parties in dispute fought in single combat; the winner of the fight was proclaimed to be right. In essence, it was a judicially sanctioned duel. It remained in use throughout the European Middle Ages, gradually disappearing in the course of the 16th century.

Wikipedia (May 27, 2015).

(Fighting it out. Google.)

Wikipedia says this was a Germanic legal tradition, which is true. However, the custom was known to many other ancient cultures. Also, it continued into the somewhat modern age.

The defense continued in regular practice into the Seventeenth and even Eighteenth Centuries. The accused or defendant would assert or demand his right. The prosecutor or plaintiff or a chosen champion would then join the accused in singular combat. This was to the death or to a submission – usually death. I cannot imagine too many district attorneys, police officers, or offended ex-wives going along, willingly, with such strategy. Then again, I cannot see most fat, lazy Americans demanding such a right let alone conducting such as trial.

In 1774 an attempt was made in Parliament, partly in response to the Boston Tea Party, to abolish the practice. This and all other reform efforts failed. No bill or law has ever rescinded the ancient right. The right was in place, part of the English Common Law, when the American colonies declared independence from the King. Thus, the right remained available to Americans. Mostly, such spectacles took form in gentlemanly duels – outside of the courts. Alexander Hamilton participated in one of these with fatal consequences.

Still, no state or Congress has ever formally repealed the practice. The courts have not definitively ruled on it either. This is the case in old England as well as in America.

As recently as 2002 a demand for trial by combat was made in Britain. In Suffolk a man made the demand as his defense in an administrative hearing concerning the local DMV. The magistrates in charge, deeming, him deranged at best, ignored him and fined him a small sum for failing to register (or de-register) his motorcycle. No appeal was made.

You would likely never assert this right as a defense or alternative course of trial. Nor would I. However, if facing severe criminal charges and punishment, trial by combat might mean the difference between prison and a mental hospital. Which seems better to you?

If, though, you should succeed in joining a wager of arms, you may count yourself among the fortunate, even mythical, few. In a federal criminal matter you may consider yourself Fingolfin doing battle with Melkor himself. May the honor and victory be yours.

Police State America: A Permanent Standing Army in Our Midst

28 Wednesday Jan 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

ACLU, Alexander Hamilton, America, Anti-Federalists, Britain, Caesar, Congress, Federalist Papers, freedom, law, Natural Law, NDAA, police, Posse Comitatus, Robert Yates, Second Amendment, standing army, Thomas Jefferson

Sunday I re-posted a popular column on the Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in 1878 to deter a standing army. It did not work, as I noted in that article. That piece briefly examined the use of the actual, federal military to combat drugs, terror, churches, etc. Here, I want to delve into a growing trend, the development of a psuedo-military, based entirely within our society. I’m writing about the militarization of our domestic police force.

This trend has resulted in a paramilitary police as well-trained and equipped as our national army. Barney Fife has been replaced by an armored, machine gun wielding storm-trooper.

Barney was a goofy, good-natured fellow with one bullet (in his pocket):

(Then. Google Images.)

The new masked face of law enforcement more resembles Darth Vader than a peace officer:

(Now. Google Images.)

William Grigg is far and away the best chronicler of modern, martial law enforcement. Just pick any one of his humorous and shocking articles on police state abuse: Article Archive at lewrockwell.com. Be forewarned, like a Pringles, just one won’t be enough.

I too have written short news notes on this phenomenon, none as good as Will’s.

Here’s a picture of a platoon of “officers” on the hunt for Boston Bombing patsy Dzhokhar Tsarnaev:

(Google Images.)

French police in similar fashion:

(Google, DailyMail, UK.)

The Pose Comitatus Act (“PCA”) reads, in its entirety: “Whoever, except in cases and 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.” 18 U.S.C. § 1385.

There has never been a prosecution under the PCA. Considering the constant creation of exceptions to the Act and the fact that the police are not a direct portion of the Army nor the Air Force, the militarization trend will not run afoul of the watered-down letter of the law. However, it violates the spirit of the law in horrific fashion.

At the end of the Roman Republic, more than twenty centuries ago, Gauis Curio attempted to disarm Caesar’s returning army in order to preserve domestic tranquility. See: Caesar, The Gallic War, Loeb Classical Library, 587 (Harvard U. Press, 2000). As you know, Caesar “crossed the Rubicon” and the Empire shortly thereafter commenced.

In early America the fear of armed military forces present in everyday life was of grave concern to our Founding Fathers. Beginning the Declaration of Independence with a nod to Natural Law, Thomas Jefferson listed the first grievance against the King that “He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature. … He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.” Dec. Independence, para. 13 – 14 (1776).

In The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, himself not the greatest proponent of freedom, railed against the standing army as “unsupported by any precise or intelligible designations of reasons.” The Federalist, No. 27 (Hamilton). “Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain. ” The Federalist, No. 8 (Hamilton).

A more concise explanation was set forth by Robert Yates: “The liberties of a people are in danger from a large standing army, not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpations of power, which they may see proper to exercise, but there is great hazard, that an army will subvert the forms of the government, under whose authority, they are raised, and establish one, according to the pleasure of their leader.” The Anti-Federalist, No. 10 (Brutus [Yates]).

“Brutus” described the plight of both Rome and Britain under the rule of a standing army. “Julius Cesar … changed [Rome] from a free republic, whose fame had sounded, and is still celebrated by all the world, into that of the most absolute despotism. A standing army effected this change, and a standing army supported it through a succession of ages, which are marked in the annals of history, with the most horrid cruelties, bloodshed, and carnage; — The most devilish, beastly, and unnatural vices, that ever punished or disgraced human nature.” Anti-Federalist, No. 10 (Yates).

“The same army, that in Britain, vindicated the liberties of that people from the encroachments and despotism of a tyrant king, assisted Cromwell, their General, in wresting from the people, that liberty they had so dearly earned.” Id.

The Forty-Fifth Congress considered several issues in developing the PCA: a standing army versus a militia; limited central government; and, the proper (if any) uses for an army within the confines of the territory of the Republic. Rep. Abram S. Hewitt of New York commented on the subject: “If you want to fan communism, increase your standing army and you will have enough of it.” 7 Cong. Rec. H. 3538 (1878).

Numerous examples of Constitutional violations by federal troops aiding tax agents, governors, sheriffs, and district attorneys in Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, and New York were cited to Congress. Other related troubles occurred all across the country. The problem was national in scope.

Senator Benjamin Hill of Georgia remarked, “A posse comitatus is a wholly different thing from an army; it is different in every respect from an army…” 7 Cong. Rec. 4246. He continued, “it never was lawful, it never shall be lawful, to employ the army as a posse comitatus until you destroy the distinction between civil power and the military power in this country.” Id.

Today we see the destruction of that distinction. The police appear one and the same with the military – same tactics, same equipment.

The military equipment utilized by our police largely comes from the The Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) under the 1033 program (National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1997 (“NDAA”) (FY 1997)). “This law allows transfer of excess Department of Defense property that might otherwise be destroyed to law enforcement agencies across the United States and its territories.”

Since 1997 the program has transferred over $5 BILLION worth of military equipment to the police agencies of America – $450 million in 2013 alone. Again, the various, yearly NDAA provide Congressional cover which allows potential PCA violations to occur unabated.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recently released a report which examined program 1033 and several examples of police militarization in the news. Kara Dansky, An MRAP Is Not a Blanket, ACLU, (12/02/2014).

Ms. Dansky recounted the police responses in Ferguson, MO and the horrific maiming of baby Bou Bou Phonesavanh in rural Georgia. The then 18 month old had “his chest ripped open and his face torn off by a flashbang grenade that police officers … threw into his crib during a paramilitary raid.” Id. The attack was part of a drug raid based on an erroneous tip from an informant – Bou Bou was not a suspect.

The Phonesavanh family faces over $1 Million in medical expenses as a result of this unnecessary, indefensible terror attack. ABC News. Look at the picture below (unpleasant).

Bou Bou is making a recovery but the police involved will not help with his recovery. UK Daily Mail. And, of course, they will face no charges for their evil acts. AJC.com.

(The fears of the Founding Fathers realized. ABC News.)

Baby Bou Bou’s ordeal blows apart the oft-repeated idiot’s argument that “if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.” These SS-style atrocities are oft-repeated as well – in every corner of America.

Echoing the Founding Fathers, the ACLU piece ends: “Militarized policing is dangerous, and American communities deserve better.” We’re not likely to get better any time soon. In 1980 there were approximately 3,000 paramilitary SWAT team raids in America; now there are more than 80,000 per year. Michael Synder, 10 Facts About The Growing SWAT Team Raids In America…. Over one-third of those raids are erroneous. Id. Will Grigg has an endless supply of horror stories about the needless, often deadly attacks on innocent Americans.

Yes, there are circumstances which warrant overwhelming police force, but they are few and far between. Anymore, SWAT teams are deployed for anything and everything – from traffic offenses to searches for teenagers.

The worst part of this is the near complete acceptance of these tactics by the American public. In the immediate wake of the Boston False Flag Bombing the entire city of Bay Area dutifully sheltered in place while a veritable army combed the streets looking for one man. Travel was restricted, homes were searched without warrants, businesses closed, and millions willingly surrendered their freedoms.

It is my theory that the bombing was conducted as part of a test – designed to gauge the public’s willingness to accept a police state. If I am correct, the experiment was a total success. This scenario could likely be played out anywhere. Your local police department (certainly your State) likely has the resources – the tanks, guns, training – to carry out a similar invasion. The odds are you will shelter and comply as told too.

As I have written previously, the Second Amendment was crafted to ensure the people’s ability to resist, with arms, martial tyranny. In addition to our lack of adequate arms and lack of resolve, we now have in our midst a formidable adversary. This mixture is very dangerous indeed.