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.

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.

Updates, April 1, 2015

01 Wednesday Apr 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Updates, April 1, 2015

Tags

America, blog, government, Jesus, police state, Rome

I’m working on several great new items. I have been busy lately thus the delay. Several of the upcoming articles will be of the legal and governance variety. These are based on some particular, current newsworthy cases and on my own experiences.

Here at the blog things have never been better – week after week and month after month I continue to see new levels of readership. Thank you all.

Recently, I have written about the American police state. Today John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute posted an excellent piece – far better than anything I’ve done. His is an analysis of the similarities of the First Century Roman Empire (and the death of Jesus Christ) and the modern American state: Jesus Died in a Police State. It’s definitely worth a read:

Jesus’ arrest account testifies to the fact that the Romans perceived Him as a revolutionary. Eerily similar to today’s SWAT team raids, Jesus was arrested in the middle of the night, in secret, by a large, heavily armed fleet of soldiers. Rather than merely asking for Jesus when they came to arrest him, his pursuers collaborated beforehand with Judas. Acting as a government informant, Judas concocted a kiss as a secret identification marker, hinting that a level of deception and trickery must be used to obtain this seemingly “dangerous revolutionist’s” cooperation.

This analysis presents a philosophical problem for the Sword of God crowd, not that they’re into philosophy.

More to come, stay tuned.

Though The Heavens Fall; Wednesday Night

01 Wednesday May 2013

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

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

ALex Jones, Austin Rhodes, banksters, Boston Justice, crime, freedom, government, police, Rocky, Rome

First, site news – the RC/Banksters v. Rocky/The People case has generated substantial activity here. This is shaping up to be another biggest week ever. Tuesday was another all-time high! Keep it up, friends. April was also the site’s busiest month. I am flattered and thank you all.

My name apparently came up on the Austin Rhodes Show yesterday, I think. I did not hear but was regaled by a few friends. I may call in tomorrow, time permitting. Rocky and I will likely be guests next week. Stay tuned – here and to 580 AM. Alllllllso: Rocky is famous! The story has been picked up by Alex Jones!!!!! Citizen Arrested at Suspicionless Checkpoint for Not Obeying Petty Commands. I’m calling Alex tomorrow! Fire it up!

Fiat justitia ruat caelum! That’s Latin for: “Let justice be done though the heavens fall!” It’s an ancient legal maxim oft attributed to Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, he of the late, dying Roman Republic. Modern legal scholars seldom quote it, if they are even aware. Most prefer “justice” at a lower cost. We will have justice in Augusta, Georgia. I doubt the heavens ever will fall, but the local government can. So be it.

In addition to the Federal Justice [SIC (- sorry, guys, habit…)] Department’s investigation, I’m in talks with a prominent Constitutional attorney and a powerful civil rights organization about how to proceed civilly against the local and international (bank) criminals. I look forward to building a strong team to attack this problem. I also need your help – any help. We must have a mult-pronged approach: criminally, civilly, and public relations.

This problem is spread all across the USSA, However, people are fighting back. There’s a massive uproar in Dallas and in Arkansas a federal class action suit has already been filed. I’ll be talking to the Plaintiffs’ attorneys soon. If you, a friend, or relative have been arrested lately, you might be a member – contact me, if so.

I see two gigantic forces behind this issue. Really, it’s just one – the devil. He’s using two groups for his purposes. First, there’s the government with its insatiable lust to control everything on the planet. Second, this is yet another scheme by the Big Club, international, banking elite to suck up all wealth in advance of the looming financial collapse/dark age. Like Aragorn (in Jackson’s telling), I bid you, stand, men of the West! We must do justice to the evil.

Before I get to the generic news I want to briefly talk about a few lingering stories from around our fading Republic.

In California, New Hampshire, and all other States, the police are seizing innocent people’s children from their homes for nothing. Sound like America? Sounds more like The Hunger Games to me.

Mentally ill and disabled men and women across the country are being treated like garbage by the police and the courts. I know. I had such a case last fall. Soon, I will publish an account with Paul Craig Roberts’s outfit and, of course, here. America?

In Boston, thousands of citizens “sheltered in place” like sheep in the pen, while an army of stormtroopers stomped all over the Constitution in and out of the pen … homes. Boston strong? More like, Kapo weak.

(Protecting the children or something. Google.)

The news:

Three more arrests in the Boston bombing/false flag operation. I watched six seconds of CNN (Fox?) today and heard the reporter remark: “Unbelievable!” I agree, I belive none of it. Again, enough with the kitchen pot and the fireworks! With all those cameras running 24/7, where are the images or video of the provocateurs PLANTING or DETONATING the bombs! They found DNA? Where? Whose? Did Urban Moving Systems do the marathon setup? Any evidence out there????

Satan is recalling Uncle Ben to Hell. Until his resignation takes effect, the money will fly at full speed. Sit on those jail debit cards, please. The crooks need the fees.

In their zeal to hold children and families at gun-point the Boston police skipped the street where the surviving “suspect” was yachting. Feel safer? Boston stronger?

It’s May Day! Happy May Day!!! Much more to come!

The Second Amendment: English Common Law Pre-History

02 Tuesday Apr 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

America, American Revolution, arms, Assize of Arms, colonies, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Declaration of Independence, Empire, England, English, English Bill of Rights, English Civil War, Glorious Revolution, gun control, Jamestown, King, King James II, Liberty, Magna Carta, Mayflower, militia, Myles Standish, Natural Law, oppression, Parliament, peace, Pilgrims, Plymouth, police, regulars, rights, Rome, Second Amendment, Sir. William Blackstone, standing army, Statute of Einchester, The People, tyranny, War, weapons

In my last column in this series I ended by reviewing some of the ancient British customs regarding arms and defense. This article concerns those more readily available but still usually uncited English legal traditions dating to several hundred years before the American Revolution. Again, as with purely ancient intellectuals, those who preserved and lived this period of history regarded the rights of defense, self-preservation, and, necessarily, arms to be the stuff of natural law. They regarded these rights as to defense from criminals, defense against foreign threats, and, particularly, as to thwarting domestic tyranny.

This common law tradition was already set in writing in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries with the Assize of Arms (1181) and the Magna Carta (Great Charter, 1215). In 1285 the Statute of Winchester mandates that all citizens provide arms, according to their respective abilities, for militia usage. Through this period and until the seventeenth century, England had little in the way of a professional military or police force. Citizens were expected to do their part in order to fulfill both roles. This meant that the people were expected (required even) to keep and, at times, bears their own arms.

Two calamitous events during the seventeenth century dramatically effected the legal tradition: the Civil War of 1642 and the Glorious Revolution in 1688. While the former is often painted as a power struggle and the latter a religious conflict, both were concerned foremost with who would control the power of the Crown. In 1689, these and other events, lead to the English Bill of Rights. The Bill was fully known as “An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown;” in light of the recent religious (power) struggles it was riddled with references to Protestants and Catholics, which I will disregard here as unnecessary.

Very similar in nature to the American Declaration of Independence, the Bill lists a litany of charges against the late King James, II. Among these were the following: “[R]aising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;” and “[C]ausing several good subjects … to be disarmed … contrary to law.”

Accordingly, the Lords assembled at Westminster declared certain rights and liberties as inviolable. Two of these addressed the above problems: “That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;” and “That the subjects … may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”

(English Bill of Rights. Google.)

The Reader will recall that standing armies were a feared tool of tyranny during and after the American Revolution and also as far back as the days of the Roman Republic. The presumed method for national defense (against all agents of evil) was a heavily armed citizenry which could assemble as needed in the form of a militia. The seventeenth century also saw increased professionalism and modernization within the English militia. This, in turn, partly gave way to the ensuing establishment of a permanent “Redcoat” army as the Kingdom gradually assumed the role of a major world Empire.

As we well know, part of that Empire was based here, in North America, in the territory which eventually became the United States. Those earliest parts (colonies) were first established at Jamestown in 1607 and at Plymouth in 1620. These had been preceded by the lost/abandoned colonies of Popham (Maine) in 1607 and Roanoke in 1585.

Jamestown was the site of numerous battles and all out wars fought between the English and the native indians (Chesapeake). It was the birthplace of the modern state of Virginia. In 1691 Plymouth Colony merged with The Massachusetts Bay Colony in what is now modern Massachusetts, all being part of the greater Dominion of New England.

Plymouth, from the very start was a model citizen militia society. While a few students today are still aware of the Pilgrims and their Atlantic crossing aboard the Mayflower, fewer still are knowledgable as to the martial force necessary to carve out the new world. The Mayflower’s first stop was at Provincetown Harbor in November of 1620. Desiring a better location, and to take advantage of the hospitable New England winter, they later removed to Plymouth at the end of December. Most remained aboard ship while a team of men worked during the day to raise a village from the ground. Twenty armed men were left ashore every night to prevent marauding. These men were average citizens who provided their own weapons; 911 was not an available option.

Early relations with the local indians were mixed at best. As more and more colonists arrived the indians perceived the impending loss of their lands and many became hostile. Myles Standish was a trained military officer and was placed in charge of security in the new colony. Many view him as somewhat of a hot head. At any rate he was forced to organize militias from among Englishmen in order to repel attacks by natives. “Major” wars erupted in 1637 and 1675. Each time the militia was sent forth to battle, not any group of regular troops. It was by the force of common people bearing arms that America was crafted from the central-eastern part of the continent.

(Early Militia. Google.)

Regular military units were called in during the next century first to assist and bolster the militias against common enemies (the French) and, later, to do battle with the militia. This latter action contributed greatly to the Founders’ desire for a continued militia force instead of a full-time army in young America. The early Americans were also governed in their views by the pre-existing English law and several legal commentators.

Perhaps the greatest commentator of his time regarding natural defense, along with natural law and the civil laws of England in general was Sir. William Blackstone (1723 -1780). Blackstone was an attorney and politician who published from 1765 – 1769 the Commentaries on the Laws of England, a classic still refered to and cited by the law.

Blackstone’s commentary on defense and other matters, generally, has resonance even today. He famously wrote: “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer.” In modern, fading America, the forces of anti-self-defense gun control stupidly prefer to disarm any and all persons, leaving them to suffer whatever fate criminals have in store for them, than to see a tiny minority of deranged persons have the possibility of committing crimes. All the more stupid is the abundant evidence that such an approach leads only to suffering innocents concurrent with rampant criminal behavior. Defiance of natural law is as successful as defiance of gravity or physics.

Chapter One, Book One of Blackstone’s treatise is entitled: On the ABSOLUTE Rights of Individuals (emphasis added). The final absolute right of individuals set forth therein is “that of having arms for their defense.” Blackstone called this right “a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

Blackstone went into further detail, describing the various remedies available to the people in cases of tyranny: first, use of the courts; second, petitions to the King and to Parliament; and finally, when all else fails, having and using their arms to repel tyranny.

At last we draw near to that time when the American colonists repelled the tyranny of the mother country. In my next segment I will discuss the traditions regarding defense and arms in America before the introduction of the Second Amendment. As with their ancient predecessors, these traditions echoe still in our modern world.

Posse Comitatus

20 Wednesday Feb 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Uncategorized

≈ 25 Comments

Tags

"Civil" War, 107th Congress, 18 USC 1385, 19th Century, 20th Century, 45th Congress, A Well regulated Militia, Abram S. Hewitt, abuse, air force, Alexander Hamilton, America, army, Articles of Confederation, Attorney General, Barrack Obama, beltway snipers, Ben Hill, Caesar, capital felony, civil power, communism, Congress, Congressional Record, Constitution, criminals, Declaration of Independence, district attorneys, drones, Drug "War", due process, Empire, Federalist Papers, freedom, Gallic War, Gauis Curio, George W. Bush, Georgia, governors, happiness, history, Homeland Security, Japan, Jimmy Carter, John B. Anderson, judicial review, Kentucky, King George, Latin, law, legislature, Loeb Classics, Marx, Maryland, Michigan, military, National Guard, Natural Law, NDAA, New York, north, Patriot Act, Posse Comitatus, President, public hanging, Reconstruction, republic, Rome, Ronald Reagan, scholars, sheriffs, slavery, south, States, Supreme Court, taxs, The Founders, The Time Given, Thomas Jefferson, treason, tyranny, Waco, Washington, William Kimmel, wisdom, Wounded Knee

I love follow-up stories. The other day I did a piece about military drones killing Americans and mentioned the Posse Comitatus Act as a possible solution. I said I’d have more to say about the Act soon. Here it is:

On June 18th of this year we will all celebrate the 135th birthday of the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385. Happy Birthday, Pos-Com!!! Maybe you do not share my zeal? Perhaps you have never heard of this great Act or maybe you don’t know what it means. Allow me to educate you. The Posse Comitatus Act means absolutely nothing. Those who will celebrate the creation of this dead letter are those who should be prosecuted under it – namely those members of the various executive branches of the Federal and state governments.

“18 U.S.C. § 1385” is a legal citation to the United States Code, referring to Section 1385 of Title 18. Title 18 is the federal criminal code thus, Posse Comitatus creates a criminal offense. Like 99.99% of federal criminal laws it only sets forth a felony offense and punishment. Unlike most federal crimes though, the Act carries a lower than usual maximum sentence and it HAS NEVER BEEN PROSECUTED!

In law school I wrote a lengthy research paper on the Act – Posse Comitatus – written for my advanced Constitutional Decision-Making seminar taught by the very Honorable Professor John B. Anderson. Anderson represented the people of Illinois’s 16th Congressional District for twenty years. You may recall his 1980 independent run for President against Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. You may also recall his book The American Economy We Need from 1984.

I consider Professor (as I always call him) Anderson a good friend. Once he and his wife, Keke, graciously received my wife and I at their beautiful home on a visit to Washington. However, back when I initially presented my paper proposal to him he seemed a bit skeptical. I suspect that, at the time, even he had not heard of the Act. As the semester progressed though our Nation’s Capital came under the terror of the Beltway snipers. Anderson called me one day and said he had just heard a news report on the radio about the snipers, the hunt therefore, and … the Posse Comitatus Act. He was hooked and I received an “A” for my efforts.

Over the ensuing decade I have ripped the paper apart, added to it, and conducted additional research on the Act and many related matters. In the not to distant future (later in 2013 perhaps) I look forward to publishing a book based in part on my original thesis. The book is tentatively called A Well Regulated Militia (Amazon/CreateSpace/Kindle) and will relate to all things Second Amendment, Militia, and tyranny prevention (and reversal). This would include, for reasons cited herein, below, the Pose Comitatus Act. This work will be far more substantial than The Time Given (soon, I promise), though that treatise is no less important to the scope of human happiness than anything else I write.

I hope the book-buying public also gives my work an “A” and I experience mass market financial success. Remember, you need not actually read a book; what counts is buying it (multiple copies if possible). I have limited the many notes and many of the citations which accompanied my old paper and which will inevitably appear in the book. For the book I intend to clean them up, eliminate them if possible, or relegate them to the seldom viewed “Notes” section at the back. I hear notes, like charts and graphs, drive down sales. Pictures have been known to help though:

(Our Posse. Source: Google images).

The history of the Act is a great part of the history of the 19th century in America. As you may recall in the middle of that century we had a rather unpleasant incident which resulted in the deaths of about 600,000 men. I refuse to call it The Civil War because it wasn’t. A “civil war” is where two or more factions fight for control of a central government. In our case, the Southerners wanted to be free of Washington, not in control of it. It also wasn’t a declared war (I’ve had debates with other attorneys about what that meant). My northern friends often ask me my opinions about the war. I can sum the up easily: it was as deadly as it was unnecessary.

I am in the minority of honest legal historians who believe that the southern states had every authority to seceed from the union. I think any state today has that same authority. Nothing in the Constitution compels eternal membership and several states expressly reserved the ability to withdraw at any time. They asserted a Natural Law position which, being universal, would seem to apply to even those states which joined without such reservation.

Back in the Nineteenth Century, America was plagued with major problems – debt, financial scams, economic warfare, lying politicians, and, of course, slavery. Come to think of it, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

You may recall from history that once the “war” was over and the Union reunited, a probationary period was imposed on the southern states. This period was known as Reconstruction. It was rank with abuse. In numerous cases the legislatures of southern states and other institutions were invaded or harassed by regular army troops. The Posse Comitatus Act was passed partly in response to these alarming events.

“Posse Comitatus” is a Latin phrase roughly meaning “power of the county.” “Posse” in latin is a verb which means to “be able” or to “have power”. “Comitatus” means “company” or “retinue.” In other words, it refers to the local militia – those men available for service in times of crisis. An aside, suited for a future article: “militia” does not correlate with the “National Guard.”

The concept of the militia predates and was well established at the time of our nation’s founding. Congress still acknowledges the militia separately from the Guard; the Guard and the militia are differentiated under Titles 10 and 32 of the U.S. Code. Every State maintains a militia (at least in the law books) separate from the Guard. In Georgia, the State militia is officially the Georgia State Defense Force. See: O.C.G.A. § 38-2-23, et seq.

The Guard was instituted in the early twentieth century and is essentially a back-up force for the regular national army – it is sometimes on loan to the several States. Enough on that for now.

The Pose Comitatus Act 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.

The Act (let’s call it the “PCA” from here out) originally started out as an amendment to the Army Appropriations Bill (H.R. 4867) for the fiscal year ending in 1879. This would be during the forty-fifth congress, second session, in 1878. The initial mention of the concept of the PCA as an amendment came from Rep. William Kimmel of Maryland on May 20, 1878. Kimmel was cut off in mid speech by time constraints; however, he successfully laid the framework for the PCA amendment. See: 7 Cong. Rec. 3586.

H.R. 4867, PCA and all, eventually became law on June 18, 1878, hence the pending birthday celebration. See: 7 Cong. Rec. 4686. Some scholars have speculated the PCA was enacted only to end the use of he army in supervising southern elections and legislative sessions. Earlier I said the PCA was partly enacted for the reasons said scholars state. I, however, dug deep into Congressional history (boy, what fun) and found a more complicated picture.

The roots behind the theory of Posse Comitatus go much deeper and further back in history than the American Republic. The concept was present 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 King George 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). Jefferson listed various other similar complaints against the King.

Jefferson was not alone in his fear of standing armies, provisions against which found their way into both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution (remember the Constitution?). 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).

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. A sub-issue of concern at the end of the 19th Century was the potential rise of communism, which Congress greatly and rightly feared. Karl Marx was still alive at the time of the PCA debate, his works on “economics” relatively fresh off the presses. 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).

Rep. Kimmel stated the then current use of the army in domestic affairs was a direct “violation of the Constitution.” He cited numerous examples of federal troops aiding tax agents, governors, sheriffs, and district attorneys in Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, and New York. 7 Cong. Rec. 3580 – 3582. Again, it is popularly said that the PCA was the result of Southern states fed up with the misuse of federal soldiers during elections. Most of Kimmel’s examples were responses to tax collections and labor disputes. In 1878, as today, New York and Michigan are generally regarded as northern states. Other Representatives related similar troubles all across the country. The problem was national in scope.

In the Senate the debate continued. 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.

As the PCA is a criminal law and given the federal Empire’s love of prosecuting any and everything, one would expect numerous cases under the PCA over the past century or so. One would be mistaken. There has never been one single case brought against anyone under the PCA. This may be due to the fact that the most likely suspects are government officials. They don’t like to go after their own. Honor among thieves you know.

The closest semblance of judicial review of the PCA has been in the form of indirect rulings in cases involving other crimes. Defendants have asserted, as a defense, an alleged violation of the PCA by government officials executing some duty (such as drug enforcement). This defense universally fails. I will not bore my audience with any particular cases, though they date from at least 1975 and continue into this Century.

Oddly, I, the great authority on this matter, was once threatened with the potential of facing a PCA violation! Yes, yours truly, Perrin Lovett. It all stemmed from one of those lovely anti-family law cases of which I have previously expounded: https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/02/09/anti-family-law/. I believe it was a custody dispute.

Anyway, the defendant was a member of the U.S. Army stationed at Camp Zama in Japan. Thus, I was tasked with the trouble of perfecting International legal service of process which is not necessarily the easiest thing to do. I decided to circumvent technicalities by having the defendant simply acknowledge he had received my petition. Not having an exact address for him, I contacted several offices at the Camp in an attempt to solicit their help in the matter. The Provost Marshall’s office quickly told me they could not assist with serving a civil lawsuit without running afoul of the PCA. They actually said that; you know, from the history given here, this type of situation was not within the original intention of Congress. I pointed out that I was not asking for such, just for friendly information. As luck would have it, I located the defendant on my own and the case went forward. As usual, no-one was happy. Correction: I am happy to have avoided being the only PCA prosecution in history.

Back to reality. There have been cases innumerable of the military becoming involved in civil law enforcement – from the “war” on drugs to the massacre at Waco, to the Wounded Knee massacre, to the hunt for the D.C. snipers, etcetera, ad nauseum. Why then, have there been no criminal cases arising from the incidents?

The answer lies in the actions of both the Executive branch and, especially, with Congress. Exception after exception to the PCA have been enacted over the long years. Congress has all but rendered the PCA a dead letter to the point the Act is useless for its intended purpose.

It is somewhat interesting that, having taken the teeth away, Congress has not fully repealed the PCA. This may be because federal laws never die, they linger forever, used or not. Amazingly, as recently as 2005, the 107th Congress reaffirmed the spirit of the PCA, literally, but not meaningfully. “The Congress reaffirms the continued importance of …[the PCA] … and it is the sense of Congress that nothing in this Act [H.R. 5005 – creating the Department of Homeland Security] should be construed to alter the applicability of such section to any use of the Armed Forces as a posse comitatus to execute the laws.” H.R. 5005 § 780(a) – (b).

The Homeland Security debacle … Act … followed the Patriot Act and decades of “war” on drugs, crime, and your freedom. Various National Defense Authorization Acts have followed. The result has been the complete decimation of the PCA. President Bush (No. 43) and his successor, Barack Obama, have made clear their intention to use the military whenever necessary, wherever needed, to keep us safe, of course. Obama even claims he can use military weapons to kill without Due Process. The protests against his claim are less than deafening. I protest!

I have some suggestions for changes and improvements to restore the vitality of the PCA. This is one of the few instances where you will ever hear me call for a new or continued statute. In the name of freedom, Congress should amend the PCA first to kill all of the previous exemptions. Second, they should specify that the law only applies to those members of the federal, state, or local governments who would dare to use federal military force to accomplish civil law enforcement of any kind; they could define a violation as an act of government employee-specific treason.

The punishment could be expanded accordingly. Perhaps the original punishment might be appropriate in minor cases. Others, such as those which involve the mass killing of American citizens could be made capital felonies. Congress has the Constitutional authority to also limit the review of any conviction from any court – including the Supreme Court; thus, when a high official (an attorney general for example) orders Army tanks to drive into a church and burn the worshippers within alive, that official could be convicted under the PCA and immediately hanged in public. This might serve as a warning to future would-be tyrants.

Again, this is only a suggestion. I do not relish the idea of killing even to avenge killing. I reconsider, reluctantly, when the dread act(s) have the potential of continuing against all of the free people.

This leads me back to my article on drones picking off the voting, tax-suffering public, https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/droning-on-and-on/. A President, already forbidden to use military drones against domestic targets (his already unConstitutional Orders overridden by my proposed law) might think twice about defying the law if he knew the gallows awaited his defiance.

The issues raised herein may likely lead to other related articles. All of which concern you and those you hold dear. It is your freedom, security, and happiness that drives me to raise the alarm – the same alarm raised by the Founders and the forgotten members of the forty-fifth Congress. Bless their wisdom and fore-sighted concern.