Powers Vs. Rights

16 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Powers Vs. Rights

Tags

America, anarchy, Articles of Confederation, Bill of Rights, Congress, Constitution, Courts, fantasy, freedom, God, government, law, law school, Liberty, Lysander Spooner, monarchy, Natural Law, politics, republic, rights, States, The People

This post concerns the force and effect of the United States Constitution and similar documents. I’ll stick with the U.S. version for simplicity and because most state and many foreign constitutions are based on the federal version.

The old parchment is divided into several articles and subsequent amendments. Each of these deals with different legal concepts. Article One grants certain powers to Congress. Article Two does the same for the executive. Amendment Three prohibits the government from sheltering soldiers in your house during peacetime. There are seven primary articles and twenty-seven amendments.

Aside from formal division the Constitution may be properly divided into two parts. Good Constitutional Law professors cover this in first year law school. The notice is generally lost amid a mad scramble to interpret Byzantine case-law and make a living as an attorney. The lesson is almost completely unknown outside of law and political theory education.

The first effective feature of the Constitution is that is allows powers for the government. In fact the Constitution created the federal government. In 1789 those seeking strong central political control replaced the Articles of Confederation which had loosely united the several (and wholly independent) states for a very few mutually beneficial purposes. The first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, came along two years later as almost an afterthought.

The anti-federalists were concerned that certain fundamental rights needed official recognition and legal protection. Their theory was that a strong government, even of republican nature, could run roughshod over the freedoms of the people – like a dictatorial monarch. The amendments were added without much fuss as it was then concerned the new government, its keepers, and their successors would never seek to abridge such rights as freedom of speech, bearing arms, or freedom from illegal arrest and punishment. No one saw any harm in the additions.

The inclusion of those additional protections proved both prophetic and pointless. Those ten amendments and a few others comprise the other practical function of the Constitution – protection of individual rights.

In an ideal world government would only exist to protect people from those things they would be otherwise vulnerable to. The proper function of law and politics would be a careful balancing of the power of the government and the rights of the people. Powers versus rights. Some legal scholars still wax elegantly about the concept. Their conceptualization is largely just conceptual.

The new federal government lost little time in enacting various laws which curtailed individual liberty. The trend continues to this day in addition to the habit of constantly expanding the realm of federal authority light years beyond what the Constitution allows. The courts, allegedly the arbiters of the balancing test, have largely consented to this gross shift. They too wasted no time in inventing new authority for themselves – “judicial review” for example.

Any review usually ends up empowering the state. They are on the same team after all. The people, now bereft of representation and appellate avenues, are on the outside looking in. Lawyers gleefully await court decisions to tell them what laws really mean. The public, largely fat and ignorant, continues to support this corrupt system with astounding zealous patriotism.

As a result of all this what we are left with is a central government of unlimited power ruling over a nation of peasants who are happy to receive whatever liberty the rulers confer upon them. Every once in a while one or another branch kindly reaffirms some right. These are usually in trivial matters. However, the march to greater control never ceases. It works well as most do not favor freedom. Under the faux two-party system, most go along so long as their side wins on a somewhat regular basis.

In truth, they lose. We all lose. All except for the corrupt politicians and beaurocrats and their corporate crony enablers. The system is wrecked and bears nearly resemblance to even that central authoritarian regimes of the late seventeen Century let along an ideal state.

In modern reality ignorance abounds. Some speak of the right of the government to do some thing or the other. Governments have no rights as they are artificial constructs. Only human individuals have rights. These rights are natural, God-given. Governments can only protect or (more often) abridge those freedoms.

Others decry freedom outright. They declare the people have too many rights. For them, in their simple lives, they may be right. Argument for order and justice is lost on them and a waste of time.

There are those who indulge in the fantasy that a return to the original text and intent of the Constitution would usher in utopia. If this myth was anything but, I could agree with them. The federal government of 1791 would be infinitely better than what we suffer today. That of the Articles would be better yet.

The myth lovers assert the Constitution established a national government of limited scope. Maybe they are correct in theory. In real life no government worth its salt stays limited for long. Geometric growth of government is an iron law of political science.

So it is with freedom and central authority. Mencken.

Lysander Spooner said it best of the lost war of Rights versus Powers: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” He elaborated: “A man’s natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name indicating his true character,) or by millions, calling themselves a government.”

I find my view of anarchy criticized at times as belief in fantasy. It is said that men, by their very nature, cannot be trusted for long to maintain free, peaceful association and mutual respect. This, sadly, may be true. It, then, is also true that an honest man, desiring to remain free, cannot trust a government, any government. Belief in central authority is thus misguided. Tell you what, you have your fantasy and I’ll have mine. The rest of you have a choice to make: support powers or support rights.

Concealed Carry on Private Property (and Related Issues)

16 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Amercia, attorneys, concealed carry, Constitution, crime, firearms, freedom, government, gun law, guns, law, militia, Natural Law, NRA, Private property, rights, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Second Amendment, States, terrorism, The People

Americans love guns and with good reason. Every year over a million lives are saved in this country because we are an armed people. We have guns. No one is going to take them from us. Period. The fascist left knows this. The nitwit politicians know this. More common criminals know it. ISIS is going to learn it sooner or later.

In the wake of the ISIS attack in San Bernardino and the brewing Sharia in the Whitehouse the people are buying more guns than ever. This year black Friday was flat except for firearms sales. Broken record after broken record.

People are carrying their guns – everywhere, everyday. If you are a criminal or a terrorist in America, know that hunting season has opened. You will be safer elsewhere.

Daily, it seems to me, I hear more and more of my friends talking about securing a concealed carry permit from their state governments. In Georgia, twenty years ago, one out a hundred citizens had a permit. Now they are more common than driver’s licenses. My mom has one.

I am philosophically opposed to the concept of these permits. What other natural and Constitutional right requires a permission slip? Imagine if they offered or required permits for speech, worship, or freedom from warrantless searches. As a practical matter I have conceded this is one of the state’s games it’s okay to play. Just don’t take it so seriously.

Don’t get too attached either. State after state is beginning to follow Vermont’s lead. They are concerning to me these slips are unnecessary and illegal. It’s called Constitutional carry. Small matters really.

As part of the growing concealed carry discussion I have seen several mentions of certain private establishments that do not welcome armed patrons. Friends on Facebook vow not to support such places. I tend to agree with them.

Buffalo Wild Wings.

A question sometimes posed to me is how much legal weight these business notices carry. The answer is “it depends.” One must consult the law of one’s local jurisdiction.

In Georgia a “no guns allowed” sign is just a sign. It has no legal authority. Every outside door at my local mall has a little picture of a crossed out pistol. Maybe this means long guns only? It doesn’t matter. The worst they can do is ban you from their property. That’s their right as the owner. I can respect it. However, for most men, being banned from a shopping mall is more of a reward than a punishment. The mall I reference is the kind of place I will only enter if I am armed.

There’s a much better, more upscale mall a few hours away in Charlotte. It hosts a fine Cigar shop and fewer thugs. The sign there reminds shoppers not to leave their guns behind in their cars. It is an indirect encouragement to bring them inside.

The law in North Carolina is different too. There signs prohibiting guns on private property do carry legal consequences. A violation of such notice constitutes misdemeanor criminal trespass.

If you carry, you need to know the law. Or, at least, some of it. We have over 23,000 gun laws in the U.S. (all of these serve as no deterrent to criminals and terrorists). Compliance or even comprehension is virtually impossible. Luckily it matters very little.

If you carry concealed and your weapon is well concealed, then no one will know about it. Many public places require passage through metal detectors. Avoid the hassle. Don’t go to these places. The visit usually features payment of a tax or some other unpleasantry anyway.

As for all other locations, just keep the weapon hidden from view and don’t mention it. Everyone will be happy. Mind that if you walk in the grocery store sporting an AR-15 on a tactical sling you may rouse suspicion even if you break no laws. Use a little judgment.

This all reminds me of a conversation I had years ago at an NRA national firearms law seminar (in Charlotte or Pittsburgh I think). These courses feature expect analysis of popular legal issues. There are as exciting as any other law program. Those of us from gun friendly state sir and listen to the horror stories told by colleagues from communist jurisdictions.

That particular time a friend from Massachusetts went on and on about how restrictive are the Bay State’s gun laws. During a recession I approached him laughing. I told him I visit New England regularly and I regularly carry a gun. I informed him I had found a way around all of the restrictive laws. “How?!,” he asked. I smiled and said, “I break them.”

He sputtered and said I could be charged with something. I slapped him on the shoulder and said I knew a good attorney.

Take my car for example. I have been stopped by the police maybe five times in life and not at all in the past ten years. I have never been searched. Any search would have found me heavily armed. But, it never happened. Odds are it never will. Compliance with unjust laws out of fear is a mere phantom. It may be safely ignored as Aquinas suggested.

Note that encourage not the breaking of the valid law. Rather, I adhere strictly to and encourage strict adherence the law of the law. By keeping and bearing armed, the people, the militia, maintain the security of the free state.

Molon labe.

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.

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.

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).

Guilty: Students, Professors, and the Public Get Schooled by Big Brother

16 Wednesday Sep 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

America, Amerika, anarchy, bombs, Courts, crime, double jeopardy, drugs, due process, evidence, evil, freedom, government, injustice, Islam, justice, Justice Department, law, police, police state, prisons, probable cause, rights, schools, Sir. William Blackstone, State, statism, students, teachers, Temple University, terrorists, The People

Several years ago, when I was actively practicing law, I held a discussion with a class of highly motivated and intelligent high school students (mostly upperclassmen). My subject matter was the economic and cultural chaos wrought by the modern police state. To my joy the students, nearly every one of them, were not only aware of the issues I covered but were deeply concerned about the world they would soon enter as adults. Many embraced good old-fashioned anarchy as a positive response to the daily deluge of state-imposed evil.

Another thing which struck me, and which I mentioned to the young people, was how much their public, government high school resembled a prison – both in physical appearance and in operation. Of this too they were all to aware.

It was a nice, new, modern facility in one of the trendiest parts of town. It was where the money went when they didn’t want the private school bills. The halls were clean, the grounds attractive, the people were pleasant. However, I noticed things which seemed better suited for a correctional facility than a place of education.

Back then I regularly traveled around to various prisons and jails. Most have a familiar layout and feel. So too did this shiny new hall of academia. The building was made of interlaced concrete blocks, bare of ornamentation – like a prison. The rectangular halls, with classrooms on either side, were laid out in wings or pods, fanning from a central hub – like a prison. The central hub housed the administrative office in what looked like a tall glass control tower – like a prison. Near the doors were metal detectors (not in use that day) – like a prison. The building was patrolled by armed officers – like a prison.

I had met some of these officers, all certified in law enforcement, before in professional settings. I tried several cases stemming from “criminal” school misconduct. The cases usually involved drugs, alcohol, cigarettes or other earth-destroying calamities. Every single one of them was also devoid or things like probable cause, evidence, due process, and common sense. I beat every single case. And, it took quite the beating to win them.

Another ancient legal protection absent from modern Amerika, especially concerning students, is the prohibition against double jeopardy. The theory, best summarized by Sir William Blackstone in the late eighteenth century was the “universal maxim of the common law of England, that no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same offence.” (Emphasis mine.) This theory is but legend now. Our children often face triple jeopardy over things that are not crimes in the first place. Here’s a real world example (possibly a combination of different cases, all real):

Johnny saw the school psychologist who suggested Johnny be prescribed mind-altering psychotropic drugs for his nonexistent attention deficit (in reality Johnny was just a boy). Johnny’s doctor prescribed the narcotics, which otherwise would be considered illegal under state and federal law. Johnny became semi-addicted. The drugs caused his brain to slow down. While giving him the appearance of being calm and receptive the dope also seriously impaired his health, to include his judgment. Johnny became a zombie.

Now, under the influence of these otherwise illegal drugs, practically mandated by his school, Johnny ran afoul of the school’s idiotic policy on otherwise illegal drugs. School regulations dictate that any and all medications prescribed to a student must be held for the student’s use in the keeping of the school nurse. Johnny so kept his medicine in the school’s care and keeping. Remember, the drugs in question diminished Johnny’s ability to rationalize and act appropriately.

One day, under the influence of these dangerous narcotics, Johnny forgot to drop off a few of his pills with the nurse. He kept them in his book bag. Mind you that Johnny never had any troubles whatsoever with his teachers, his classmates, or anyone else.

Out of the blue, without warning, probable cause, or a warrant, along came the local Sheriff’s department and their trusty drug-sniffing dog. My students told me periodic drug sweeps were common in the prison…er..school. The dog did his unlawful job well and promptly located Johnny’s pills. The pills he was forced to take. The pills that impaired his ability to reason. The pills that caused him to forget to follow the procedures of the school that forced him to take the pills. Johnny was in trouble.

Jeopardy the first: Johnny had to appear at an administrative school hearing and faced expulsion or a year at the “alternative” school – like the supermax prison of the school world. Jeopardy the second, under asinine state law, as a minor with a driver’s license, Johnny’s possession of “drugs” put his license at risk and necessitated another administrative hearing before a state officer. Third, and worst, Johnny faced a criminal proceeding and the possibility of jail time.

Luckily, Johnny had a good attorney and beat the triple threat. He was back in class, soon weened himself off the school dope, and became a college honors student. Others in the system are often not that lucky. Maybe you know one of them. Maybe you were one of them. Others have noticed this phenomenon and written about it.

Today John W. Whitehead wrote: Public School Students Are the New Inmates in the American Police State.

From the moment a child enters one of the nation’s 98,000 public schools to the moment she graduates, she will be exposed to a steady diet of draconian zero tolerance policies that criminalize childish behavior, overreaching anti-bullying statutes that criminalize speech, school resource officers (police) tasked with disciplining and/or arresting so-called “disorderly” students, standardized testing that emphasizes rote answers over critical thinking, politically correct mindsets that teach young people to censor themselves and those around them, and extensive biometric and surveillance systems that, coupled with the rest, acclimate young people to a world in which they have no freedom of thought, speech or movement.

If your child is fortunate enough to survive his encounter with the public schools, you should count yourself fortunate.

Most students are not so lucky.

By the time the average young person in America finishes their public school education, nearly one out of every three of them will have been arrested.

Whitehead.

Whitehead notes the utterly insane militarization of the school police, who shouldn’t even exist in the first place:

In their zeal to crack down on guns and lock down the schools, these cheerleaders for police state tactics in the schools might also fail to mention the lucrative, multi-million dollar deals being cut with military contractors such as Taser International to equip these school cops with tasers, tanks, rifles and $100,000 shooting detection systems.

Indeed, the transformation of hometown police departments into extensions of the military has been mirrored in the public schools, where school police have been gifted with high-powered M16 rifles, MRAP armored vehicles, grenade launchers, and other military gear. One Texas school district even boasts its own 12-member SWAT team.

As Whitehead states, the stories of abuse are “legion.” Students are being harassed, detained, and arrested for anything and everything. One student was recently arrested for showing off his homemade clock at school. Specifically, he was showing the clock off to his engineering teacher, who was duly impressed. Despite the fact the clock was obviously a time keeping device and impressed the shop teacher, its owner, a 14-year-old, was handcuffed and hauled away by police.

Child Arrested for Chronometer Possession. BBC.

The boy in question was a known Muslim and some feared his clock was a bomb. The criminal case was dismissed after the clock was verified to be a clock not a weapon. I imagine the boy still faces school discipline in addition to the trauma he suffered during the incident.

This story almost makes sense. Americans today face the threat of Islamic terror, largely because their government constantly stirs the Islamic world to the point of terrorism. The same government then trains, equips and funds the known terrorists. Worse, the government, almost out of malicious hate for the people, then import migrants from the areas where they have fostered hate and terror. You can see this is definitely a problem. But, it’s a problem with the state not with an aspiring young engineer.

Your government does not care, at all. Frequently neither does the media nor the television-numbed people themselves. Obey those laws! Trust the state! Arrested means guilty, period!

William L. Anderson today recounts the horror story of the arrest and unlawful prosecution by the U.S. “Justice” Department of Xiaoxing Xi, Chairman of the physics department of Temple University, on espionage charges: Paranoia and Pernicious Prosecutions: The Department of Injustice Continues its War Against the Innocent.

The once-glorious standard of American criminal law – guilty beyond a reasonable doubt – no longer exists de facto in U.S. courts, and especially in federal courts. Furthermore, federal intervention in certain legal areas – and especially when highly-politicized accusations of sexual assault are made – has made it extremely difficult for charged individuals to mount a defense, even when a charge is ludicrous on its face.

Let me further explain. Had there been a trial federal prosecutors would have presented their evidence and Dr. Xi would have had to then rebut with his evidence. However, as became painfully obvious, prosecutors had no evidence. Instead, they had “evidence” that on its face was untrue because they had the wrong material. One imagines that prosecutors and their “expert” witnesses would have given jurors a lot of scientific terminology that would have been confusing, and when jurors are confused, they usually end up siding with the prosecution, since most Americans believe that an indictment itself is “proof” of guilt.

It would have been up to Dr. Xi and his defense to prove that federal agents had presented the wrong set of blueprints. The feds would have falsely claimed that theirs was the correct set, even though by then they surely would have known they were presenting false claims. This last point is important, because it is a crime to knowingly present false information to a jury, but prosecutors never are disciplined for doing just that.

Anderson.

As Anderson notes, the feds dropped their case once it was obvious they had no evidence. Xi pretty much lost everything – his reputation, his position, his peace of mind as an innocent American – all because of groundless charges brought without evidence. Evidence is (or used to be) critical for a criminal case and conviction. In my career I had similar criminal cases in federal and state courts fall apart due to a complete lack of evidence. More on some of those in another column or two.

Many do not care about standards of evidence, due process or about the rights of people in general. See: here, and here, and here. That last “here” link is to a story I did about an innocent man shot by the police in Atlanta in his own home for no reason. That narrative has played out yet again:

Fearing for their lives, California deputies opened fire on a man who was recording them with a cell phone from the garage of his home Friday, claiming they thought it was a gun.

Sacramento County sheriff’s deputies then searched the man’s home, finding no guns, before they apologized and went on their way.

Fortunately, Danny Sanchez survived the shooting, ending up with only bullet fragments in his legs, which he was having removed through surgery on Friday.

And although deputies apologized to Sanchez, they are pretty much unapologetic for their actions because, you know, officer safety.

Carlos Miller, PINAC News.

Pitiful action by pitiful men. Scared of a cellphone. “Sorry we shot you. Well, have a good day, sir!” And the lemmings among you will still praise the deputies and chastise the victim. “He should have obeyed the law!” He did. “You have to respect the police!” No known disrespect even after they almost murdered him. Reality is doing a really poor job convincing the state-worshipers their’s is a false god.

For you, the sane, eye with distrust the machinations of government: its foreign policies; its immigration policies; all its policies; its schools; its courts; its police. All the laws and all the agents serve but the government and its owners. You and I are either obedient servants or criminal enemies of the state.

Note: This article was originally intended as two separate parts. As the subject matters – schools as prisons and more prosecutorial/police misconduct are related, I combined them, here. This also promotes reading economy. You’re welcome.

The Doves of Peace and the god of War

06 Sunday Sep 2015

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

America, Constitution, crime, freedom, government, law, military, Nazi germany, police, police state, Posse Comitatus Act, rights, The People, troops

Last week I posted a short bit about an odd, illegal police shooting in Atlanta. I caught a little flak from readers – mostly over the “innocent” nature of the subject home invasion and aggravated assault.

I saw the story as further proof of the American police state (no longer a theory nor “emerging”).

Nonetheless, I recognize some folks will support the police no matter what. Some have a love affair with government. Some see government as a god. These same people sometimes sport “Support Our Troops” bumper stickers and similar ornaments. Strangely, these same people usually view other parts of the state as dangerous – but they love the heavily armed parts. Weird, I know.

Such is the love and admiration for government troops that some will even take up arms to guard the very troops who supposedly guard the guards. Confusing, I realize. It gets even murkier when one considers that the endangering element from which the guards must be guarded was created by and imported by the government. No mind. The troops must be supported no matter what. Even when they, like the police, invade your property without cause and hold you at gun point. Read this:

Texas Air Force Personnel Detain Dove Hunters on Private Property

Outdoorhub.com.

On Tuesday, the opening day of dove season in Texas, six hunters were detained by base personnel while traveling through private farmland adjacent to the base. The property was leased by the company that organized the hunt, Wildlife Systems, and had been used previously for hunting. Despite that, 17th Training Wing Security Forces entered the property and detained the hunting party—which reportedly also included the property owner.

…

“On a farm field that we lease that’s adjacent to the Base, surrounded by a security fence, they swarmed our group of 6 hunters, made them lay on their belly, spread eagle, for almost 30 minutes at gunpoint, two of them on asphalt in almost 100 degree temps and would not let them move, with our hunters pleading with them. One was laying in a red ant bed and they would not let him move.”

Base officials later stated that the hunters were detained because they were believed to be a threat, especially due to their proximity to the base. After it was determined that the hunters were only after doves, base officials said they were promptly released.

Outdoorhub.com.

I read the comments which accompanied this story. Roughly half were rightly indignant. The other half expressed unwaivering, religious support for the state’s criminal actors. In the clouded eyes of the latter group, dove hunting on your own land is akin to terrorism and worthy of assault or worse. Nothing must offend the (very sensitive) god-king.

I immediately thought this was a Posse Comitatus Act violation. The PCA forbids, under criminal penalties, the use of the federal military for civil law enforcement. Upon further consideration I realized this was just a case of law breaking, rather than enforcement. The MPs or “base personnel” are just guilty of trespassing and felony kidnapping.

They will not be published. One does not punish the god-king of the state. All those wacky laws, as applied to the government, are null and void. Even the revered Constitution has fallen:

“So you’re a Constitutionalist? We’ve had problems with this before!”

Long Valley, CA — Last month, the Feinman family was driving through a constitutionally questionable interstate checkpoint. This checkpoint is not on the US/Mexican border; it is along Highway 395N between California and Nevada.

When driving through these in-country checkpoints, you are not required to answer the agent’s questions (usually starting with “Are you a United States citizen?”). Nor are you required to consent to any searches.

Please note this story occurred in the United States not in Nazi Germany. The foolish family asserted their rights as free people and were promptly seized and arrested. The criminal state agents noted they had prior problems with Constitutionalists which means they have a problem with the Constitution – at least the parts concerning individual liberty.

To the sane among us it is patently obvious there is no legal protection in this country for us or our freedoms. The insane, the stupid, the craven will support the police, the troops, the government unto the bitter end. Something has to give.

The moral of the story is: support the government or they will invade your property, shoot your dog, and throw you to the ants.

If You Have Nothing to Worry About, Then Why Did You Call Me?

27 Wednesday May 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on If You Have Nothing to Worry About, Then Why Did You Call Me?

Tags

America, crime, defense, don't talk, freedom, government, Lew Rockwell, people, police, rights, silence, television

The police are supposed to keep us safe from harm. Government was allegedly instituted solely to protect our rights, integrity and freedom (all lies). If this was true then Clover would be correct in his oft stated mantra, “if you ain’t doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.”

I don’t believe that. I have been in the system and around it. Even now I can smell its faint odor of maliciousness. Yuck!

A long time ago I penned a piece called How to Interact with the Police. It was a short guide on protecting oneself from unnecessary prosecution. I have given several speeches on the subject and advice innumerable to individuals over the years. In short, just don’t talk to them. They are necessarily your friends.

Many cops do a great job enforcing the law while preserving individual freedoms. Many others do not. Consult YouTube for countless abuses of police power in America. Half of the videos there concern people who know and assert their rights and successfully escape the dragnet of police corruption. The other half are of innocent people tased, arrested or murdered by the police, usually for nothing.

In most of those latter cases the “suspect” either invited the police into his life or answered their questions. Don’t do either. There is a reason you have the right to remain silent. This is one commonality between police reality shows and police drama shows (both big hits in Amerika). The suspect always breaks down and confesses or says enough for the police to link him to a crime. This happens in real life too. Oftentimes, the only evidence the cops have of any wrongdoing is the defendant’s statement or admission. Don’t do their job for them.

Don’t talk and you’ll likely walk.

As for calling them or inviting them into your home – never do it. Police are like vampires. They usually need permission to enter but once inside they proceed to destroy. Again, don’t help them.

My friends over at LewRockwell.com have posted another grand article on this topic – a video with instructions. Both are worth a review. Know your rights when dealing with the government’s armed agents.

(Don’t be cornered.)

This problem of malicious police exploration can effect anyone, even the police. A friend of mine, an agent with a powerful federal police agency, called me recently. He knows I no longer actively practice criminal defense but he wanted my unofficial opinion anyway. He happens to be a lawyer himself, by the way.

It seems his agency is conducting some internal investigation into something trivial, something which does not involve my friend. However, despite his doing nothing wrong, for some reason he seemed to have something to worry about. Explain that, Clover.

Given his position, his predicament may be a little more nuanced than that of the average citizen. However, knowing very little, all I could advise him was to say nothing. If the matter concerns written records, then the investigators will have them to review. Let the record speak for itself. There is no need to explain or expand anything. Such actions might lead in a direction no rational person could foresee.

I told him, “You know how you guys are.” He seemed a little offended by the statement but sheepishly agreed with me. Investigators are usually on a fishing expedition and not using some concrete science as portrayed on television. They need a suspect (or witness) to tell them something in order to have any chance of prosecuting anyone. Don’t be that someone. Don’t effectively prosecute yourself. Don’t talk.

Valediction

24 Sunday May 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in News and Notes

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

2015, America, best and brightest, brainwashing, children, Cicero, civics, college, communism, Consitution, crime, debased, Dr. Seuss, education, freedom, future, generations, George Carlin, government, graduation, Jefferson, Jesus, John Taylor Gatto, law, law school, learning, new, news, old, oppression, prisons, responsibility, rights, schools, Second Amendment, slaves, Soviet Union, teachers

As I type this bit up I am listening to several of my friends discuss the graduation of their several children from high school. It’s that time of year. All across America eighteen-year-olds are preparing to say goodbye to lifelong friends, to embrace college, to join the workforce, and to become adults. It is a joyful time.

The local fish wrapper ran, today, a separate pictorial section dedicated to our young people, their early accomplishments and their future plans. In particular the paper dwelt upon the lives and missions of the valedictorians and salutatorians of local schools. These are young men and women who are poised to go far in life.

The news calls them the “best and brightest.” By the popular measure of educational achievement, this moniker fits. However, these words are today minced in a somewhat incorrect manner. “Valedictorian” and “salutatorian” come from Latin roots – valediction and saluation. The former is a farewell, the latter a greeting.

At ceremonies coast to coast these meanings serve a justifiable purpose. The valedictorian speaks first to bid the class farewell to the sheltered academic lives the members have known. The salutatorian then speaks to the promise of the coming years. Or, something like that.

Those acquainted with the works of John Taylor Gatto or who have children of school age, surely understand the decline of quality in American public education. Gatto was formerly New York’s teacher of the year (State and City). His distinguished career spanned decades. Now he speaks and writes of the critical need for drastic school reform. His writing is frequently published at lewrockwell.com. He is the author of The Underground History of American Education: A School Teacher’s Intimate Investigation Into the Problem of Modern Schooling (2000).

Gatto has related the American model of public education to Soviet-era brainwashing:

Two years before I ran across that Atlantic broadside, I encountered a different analysis in the financial magazine Forbes. I was surprised to discover Forbes had correctly tracked the closest inspiration for school psychologizing, both its aims and its techniques, to the pedagogy of China and the Soviet Union. Not similar practices and programs, mind you, identical ones. The great initial link with Russia, I knew, had been from the Wundtian Ivan Pavlov, but the Chinese connection was news to me. I was unaware then of John Dewey’s tenure there in the 1920s, and had given no thought, for that reason, to its possible significance:

The techniques of brainwashing developed in totalitarian countries are routinely used in psychological conditioning programs imposed on school children. These include emotional shock and desensitization, psychological isolation from sources of support, stripping away defenses, manipulative cross-examination of the individual’s underlying moral values by psychological rather than rational means. These techniques are not confined to separate courses or programs…they are not isolated idiosyncracies of particular teachers. They are products of numerous books and other educational materials in programs packaged by organizations that sell such curricula to administrators and teach the techniques to teachers. Some packages even include instructions on how to deal with parents and others who object. Stripping away psychological defenses can be done through assignments to keep diaries to be discussed in group sessions, and through role-playing assignments, both techniques used in the original brainwashing programs in China under Mao.

The Forbes writer, Thomas Sowell, perhaps invoking the slave states in part to rouse the reader’s capitalist dander, could hardly have been aware himself how carefully industrial and institutional interest had seeded Russia, China, Japan, and the Pacific Islands with the doctrine of psychological schooling long ago, nearly at the beginning of the century, and in Japan’s case even before that. All along we have harvested these experimental growths in foreign soil for what they seem to prove about people-shaping.

– Gatto, The Empty Child, Chapter 13 of The Underground History of American Public Education (2000).

“Slaves,” “people-shaping,” and “brainwashing” are alarming and damning. However, from my experience I find them succient and apt discriptions of American education.

I was lucky growing up. I had a slew of teachers, older and steeped in the traditions of real education – the old school way, who actually dared and cared to teach. I remember them fondly. Also, in high school, college and graduate school I possessed a hard-headed resilience and independence which plagues me to this day. You may sense in my writing.

Today schools are little more than prisons crossbred with day care centers. Our children are marched around like cattle by overweight nitwits. They are subjected to communist indoctrination and cultural immorality. State-worship is everywhere. Rules must be obeyed perfectly. Freakism of every strip is revered. God is banned from the building.

In all this idiocy the one thing missing is teaching – learning and educational experiment are vacant in our public schools. They are unwanted qualities among the people. As George Carlin used to say, the system wants people just smart enough to operate the machines and file the paper – they do not want educated people capable of free thought or consideration.

By the grace of God Almightly the “best and brightest” are often times exempted from this nonesense. Many possess those rebellious traits I hold dear. Many are allowed to pursue real studies in real academic subjects. These are statistical outliers. The other children, the majority, are treated like sheep and criminals.

A boy in West Virginian was recently ARRESTED for wearing a t-shirt which expressed support for the NRA and the Second Amendment. No-one was bothered by the shirt. The lad harmed none. However, the Second Amendment representing the last hope of freedom for oppressed people (like students), the shirt had to be banned and demonized. In an overreaction typical of modern schools administrators, the teacher and principal called the local Gestapo. The child was led away in handcuffs – for wearing a shirt.

The charges were later dismissed by an honest judge. However, great damage has been done. The boy’s mother is suing the school for violating her son’s civil rights. Go mama!

Long ago, public schools had civics classes. In those classes the Constitution, its traditions and foundations were taught. This included the second amendment and the necessary right and obligation of rebellion against tyranny. Revolution was celebrated. Today, as best I can gather, such thought or instruction would constitute a criminal offense. Our babes are taught the government is the end all and be all of human existence. Its supremacy and place must never be challenged.

This is a crime, in and of itself, equal with all the positive modern instruction concerning dependence, homosexuality, death culture, etc. Anything goes and is okay, our children are taught, so long as it does not make any sense. I imagine that math, being completely based on absolute truth, is completely absent from the new schools. Robots and foreigners can always add for us. This subtracts from the ability of our people to independently endure. It cries out for vengeance. Most ears are deaf to that cry.

Back to our new graduates … the fish-wrapper relayed to its readers how a valedictorian and salutatorian of a local high school treated their classmates to the verse and wisdom of Dr. Seuss. This is a commonality in schools these days. Oh, the places you’ll go… This small child’s book was read, in part, in one of my law classes. Maybe it was at our graduation. It was foolish and inappropriate.

(Dr. Seuss, keeping children and adults shit stupid since 1937. Google.)

What kind of world is it when the words of Jesus, Jefferson and Cicero are absent and replaced by the sophomoric rhymes of the kindergarten? Seuss is the level of the new school – childish, pointless, and optimistically vacuous.

Were I permitted to address a graduating class I too would present a Seuss book. I would introduce the Cat in the Hat. I would then rip it in half, throw it on the floor and proceed to tell the children that they were, that day, freed from one form of government oppression. I would congratulate them for surviving without arrest records. I would then extol them of the crucial importance of real learning. Never let schooling interfere with education. Never let education interfere with learning. Question everything. Accept no mastery. Put down with brutality that slavery prepared for your adult lives. I would never be invited back again.

Before I wrote about my experience in college and in law school. I ridiculed myself for opportunities lost and the system for lack of substance. Schooling is what one makes of it. I hope our future generations grasp this. I hope they reject the new theories of dumbed-down complacency. I hope they prosper. Congratulations to the Class of 15.

Trial By Jury, The Yellow Ribbon Myth and the Decline of an Ancient Institution

29 Wednesday Apr 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

alternative, America, Amerika, ancient, Arizona, Boston, case, Cicero, Courts, crime, English, freedom, greece, guilt, jury, justice, law, Magna Carta, men, Milke, Ninth Circuit, order, peers, people, rights, Rome, terror, trial, Tsarnev, U.S.

The ancient Greeks and Romans had the crazy idea that a man accused of a crime should have the benefit of a public trial. During this ordeal the accusing party (the State) would have the burden of presenting facts, which might establish a crime. The Sword of God crowd would hold these base allegations sufficient to show the underlying criminal act. Our ancient ansestores had other ideas. To them the issue was important enough to warrant consideration by an assembly of impartial justices – a jury.

Of old the jury consisted of various members of the accused’s peers. These were his friends whom knew him well. Why were such pre-disposed men considered impartial, as they were friends of the accused? The idea was that, being men of honor, they would hear the evidence and weigh it in their minds fairly regardless of their relation to the suspect. The fact that they were friends of the accused served as a check against an illicit prosecution.

If “X” was charged with a baseless crime, the jury might collectively judge that, “yes, X is given to bouts of indiscretion, but he would never do something like this. Or, they might find that X, while am affable fellow, might be the sort who would commit such an act as alleged.

The system, while not perfect, worked well. In Rome, such trials were reserved for the upper classes – for men of privilege. Commoners were generally tried by magistrates in shorter, more informal settings. These lessor citizens, being of lessor importance, faced lower burdens of proof and lower levels of punishment. Fair if not. Members of the elite classes, given to higher responsibilities, were treated to high levels of justice. See the defense of Milo (a murder suspect), presented by one Marcus Tullius Cicero, one of the greatest lawyers of antiquity.

This theoretical approach to justice lived on after the 5th Century, being embodied in the Magna Carta, a core right of Englishmen. Thus, the right to a jury came to America.

Today this right is practically non-existent. In modern Amerika a jury trial, while nominally “of one’s peers” is one assured not by your peers. The fact is that very few criminal prosecutions end with a trial. Most of those end with a conviction (the vast majority). This is due to the overwhelming influence of the State and the extremely limited powers of the accused to resist such influence. Every effort is made to ensure that the jury does not, in nay way, know of the accused on a personal level. Further, only those enslaved to the power and suggestion of the accusing State are favored or empaneled. The system has been turned on its head.

Lately, several high-profile trials have made the news; these illustrate my point that there is no right to a fair trial in Amerika.

In 1989 Debra Milke was tried for the murder of her four-year-old son, Christopher. A jury (not of her peers) found her guilty – based solely on the unsupported testimony of a rogue police detective. Despite all indications of innocence the State’s chosen jury found Milke guilty. Thus, for several decades Milke lived in the daily terror of Arizona’s death row – dimmed to die for a crime she did not commit. The guilty parties averred she had nothing to do with the crime. This did not matter to the State until the matter was finally (thankfully) reviewed by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme Court. See also: Arizona Supreme Court Won’t Allow Retrial of Debra Milke. The prosecutor is, naturally, frustrated by this untimely carriage of justice.

Milke was blessed by higher intervention. Too often the innocent in Amerika are executed for crimes they did not commit. A recent admission shows that the FBI and its crime lab have doomed at least a dozen innocents to death. You have probably never heard of these cases of injustice. So it goes.

Thus do the innocent, robbed of true justice, resort to filing pleadings in courts entitled, “F*ck this Court.” This one warrants reading and consideration.

Debra Milke faced execution because a heartless police officer lied under oath. The officer has since “taken the fifth” so as to avoid prosecution himself for his lies. The citizens of Arizona will pay millions of dollars to right this injustice.

A thousand miles away, in Boston, Dzhokhar Tsarnev has been found guilty of the Boston Marathon Bombings. His was one of the most bizarre trials I have ever heard of. See: Boston Marathon bombing trial: 18 jurors at a glance. The jury was selected based on their indifference toward the accused and their alliance with the state. Tsarnev was not allowed a defense. Rather, he, by way of his “counsel,” admitted guilt but relied on specious allegations of the undue influence of his older brother. His brother and other key witnesses were, conveniently, dead.

The case was tried backwards. The prosecutor first present victims of the bombing and their woeful statements – this usually comes after guilt has been established, during the penalty phase of the trial. Tsarnev’s counsel never even questioned these witnesses. The government then presented an unopposed fable of how Tsarnev constructed and utilized homemade bombs. Again, no challenge came from the “defense.” The lack of direct evidence was deafening.

Having admitted guilt and completely failing to challenge the government’s base allegations it was a given fact Tsarnev would be found guilty. They strategy (if any) of his counsel was that he would attempt to evade the death penalty by way of the supposed undue influence of his dead brother. Charming. Pathetic.

It is entirely likely that this young man played a part in the bombings. Thus, he deserves execution for his crimes. However, I have long suspected he was only a pawn in a false-flag operation designed to test America’s willingness to endure a police state (shelter in place, and all that). We will never know the truth here.

As a former criminal defense attorney I am well aware of the failings of the modern, American jury system of “justice.” Here follows the entire account of one of my trials in federal court, before a jury and bereft of justice. The names have been changed to protect the innocent, the guilty, and me. This story was originally designed for publication (never achieved) in a major news journal:

The Yellow Ribbon Myth: Amerikans Do Not Support The Troops, Nor Justice.

Do you “support the troops?” One sees countless bumper stickers proclaiming such support. I no longer believe the propaganda. When someone says, “I support the troops,” I hear, “I support the government.” This concept was made painfully obvious to me during a criminal trial last fall.

My client, “Donny’s” case, in a U.S. District Court, 2012:

I’m am calling my client “Donny” as I have not yet sought his permission to use his name; I also may be restrained from using certain facts due to Orders of Sealing/Impoundment.

Donny enlisted in the U.S. Army while in high school and completed basic training the summer before his senior year. Donny received an appointment to West Point though, after one year, he stopped his education and entered the Army as an enlisted man. He served with the 375th Ranger company in Afghanistan where he was forced to kill men, women, and children. The experience haunts him daily.

While in the field and during additional training he sustained major injuries, which necessitated his retirement on disability: I think his physical was 50%; his mental injuries (PTSD, psychosis, etc.) were 100%. During his tenure he rose to the rank of Sargent and was awarded so many medals and commendations that multiple forms DD-214 were necessary to list them all.

He received continuing physical and psychiatric treatment at the Augusta, GA VA hospital; they placed he on enough narcotics and psycho-tropic drugs to turn anyone into a zombie. His mental condition was initially rated as temporary. Throughout 2011 he pursued the status of “permanent and unemployable.” During this time he suffered marital and mental health-related troubles daily. Towards the end of his bureaucratic ordeal he made a phone call to the VA national “service” center.

During the (recorded) call he made statements which the VA took as terroristic threats – they alleged he said he was going to the regional VA office in Atlanta to kill the first 3,000 people he encountered using unspecified weaponry. My review of the call lead me to believe he was not sane during the call, that the government’s allegations were a wild, composite stretch of the words used, and that VA’s service isn’t. He was originally arrested on State charges. He was legally carrying a pistol at the time though the arrest was without incident. Damningly, his permanent status was approved the next day. He was released on bail only to be rearrested by the feds, charged with violating 18 USC 875, interstate terror threats (a 5-year maximum felony). Had he specified a “weapon of mass destruction” he would have faced 40 years in prison.

I was appointed as defense counsel and immediately moved for a psychiatric evaluation, thinking this would easily end the case. After several months I received a lengthy report from the MCC New York which exhaustively listed Donny’s chronic mental problems and concluded he was permanently psychotic. However, the good (government) doctor also stated he was obviously sane at the time of the call and competent to stand trial.

We elected to present the matter to a jury, figuring no twelve people could possibly convict a sick man for seeking help from the only source available. We were wrong. The government’s doctor explained the extent of Donny’s condition. The VA representative from the call stated she was not threatened by Donny’s language. The VA stated they did not take any defensive measures when faced with this 9/11 magnitude threat from a man they had trained to expertly kill other human beings. The VA storm-trooper in charge testified he lied under oath to the Grand Jury to obtain the indictment and that he, for no reason, held Donny’s elderly, disabled father at gunpoint AFTER the arrest. Despite all this the twelve morons returned a guilty verdict in less than half an hour. As an aside, at trial the government sandbagged me with thousands of pages of previously withheld discovery and they handed me the afore-referenced pistol LOADED in open court (I cleared it in disbelief).

Donny was sentenced to time served with the probationary condition that he continue his torture at the VA. When I walked into the hearing I was greeted by the AUSA and the VA goon who both suddenly agreed Donny was out of his mind during his “crime.” Donny accepted his sentence and declined both an appeal and a request for a Presidential pardon. I fear his condition will worsen, perhaps with morbid consequences. He is a delightful but pitiful and broken man. I was saddened and broken by this affair.

In modern Amerika Grand Juries, while supposedly independent in their deliberations, are little more than tools of State prosecutors. The defense is usually excluded entirely. The State has the free reign to present any “evidence” no matter how contrived.

The trial that follows (if any) is a showing of prosecutorial imagination and juridical ignorance. Less that 3% of defendants are acquitted under this system. The innocent are convicted and often executed. The lucky escape after years of torment. Life goes on and things are not likely to change any time soon.

I will, shortly, present an alternative, if primitive, alternative to this mad, fixed system of “justice.” Until then, be forewarned and prepared.