Saturday, January 28, 2012
Corruption within the Court, makes "Fraud upon the Court": Landmark Supreme Court Cases, for you to review an...
Landmark Supreme Court Cases, for you to review an...: Landmark Supreme Court Cases Marbury v. Madison (1803) Holding: Established the doctrine of judicial review. In the Judiciary Act of...
Landmark Supreme Court Cases, for you to review and share!
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Holding: Established the doctrine of judicial review.
In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress gave the Supreme Court the authority to issue certain judicial writs. The Constitution did not give the Court this power. Because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that any contradictory congressional Act is without force. The ability of federal courts to declare legislative and executive actions unconstitutional is known as judicial review.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Holding: The Constitution gives the federal government certain implied powers.
Maryland imposed a tax on the Bank of the United States and questioned the federal government's ability to grant charters without explicit constitutional sanction. The Supreme Court held that the tax unconstitutionally interfered with federal supremacy and ruled that the Constitution gives the federal government certain implied powers.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Holding: Separate schools are not equal.
In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court sanctioned segregation by upholding the doctrine of "separate but equal." The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People disagreed with this ruling, challenging the constitutionality of segregation in the Topeka, Kansas, school system. In 1954, the Court reversed its Plessy decision, declaring that "separate schools are inherently unequal."
Cooper v. Aaron (1958)
Holding: States cannot nullify decisions of the federal courts.
Several government officials in southern states, including the governor and legislature of Alabama, refused to follow the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision. They argued that the states could nullify federal court decisions if they felt that the federal courts were violating the Constitution. The Court unanimously rejected this argument and held that only the federal courts can decide when the Constitution is violated.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Holding: Illegally obtained material cannot be used in a criminal trial.
While searching Dolree Mapp's house, police officers discovered obscene materials and arrested her. Because the police officers never produced a search warrant, she argued that the materials should be suppressed as the fruits of an illegal search and seizure. The Supreme Court agreed and applied to the states the exclusionary rule from Weeks v. United States (1914).
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Holding: Indigent defendants must be provided representation without charge.
Gideon was accused of committing a felony. Being indigent, he petitioned the judge to provide him with an attorney free of charge. The judge denied his request. The Supreme Court ruled for Gideon, saying that the Sixth Amendment requires indigent criminal defendants to be provided an attorney free of charge.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Holding: Police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning.
After hours of police interrogations, Ernesto Miranda confessed to rape and kidnapping. At trial, he sought to suppress his confession, stating that he was not advised of his rights to counsel and to remain silent. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning.
Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Holding: Stop and frisks do not violate the Constitution under certain circumstances.
Observing Terry and others acting suspiciously in front of a store, a police officer concluded that they might rob it. The officer stopped and frisked the men. A weapon was found on Terry and he was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. The Supreme Court ruled that this search was reasonable.
U.S. v. Nixon (1974)
Holding: The President is not above the law.
The special prosecutor in the Watergate affair subpoenaed audio tapes of Oval Office conversations. President Nixon refused to turn over the tapes, asserting executive privilege. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendants' right to potentially exculpating evidence outweighed the President's right to executive privilege if national security was not compromised.
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Holding: Even offensive speech such as flag burning is protected by the First Amendment.
To protest the policies of the Reagan administration, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside of the Dallas City Hall. He was arrested for this act, but argued that it was symbolic speech. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that symbolic speech is constitutionally protected even when it is offensive.
Contact Us | Careers | Privacy & Security Policy | Judicial Conduct & Disability | Glossary of Legal Terms
Widgets | Translate | Browse Aloud | Operating Status
This site is maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on behalf of the Federal Judiciary.
The purpose of this site is to provide information from and about the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government.
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Holding: Established the doctrine of judicial review.
In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress gave the Supreme Court the authority to issue certain judicial writs. The Constitution did not give the Court this power. Because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that any contradictory congressional Act is without force. The ability of federal courts to declare legislative and executive actions unconstitutional is known as judicial review.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Holding: The Constitution gives the federal government certain implied powers.
Maryland imposed a tax on the Bank of the United States and questioned the federal government's ability to grant charters without explicit constitutional sanction. The Supreme Court held that the tax unconstitutionally interfered with federal supremacy and ruled that the Constitution gives the federal government certain implied powers.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Holding: Separate schools are not equal.
In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court sanctioned segregation by upholding the doctrine of "separate but equal." The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People disagreed with this ruling, challenging the constitutionality of segregation in the Topeka, Kansas, school system. In 1954, the Court reversed its Plessy decision, declaring that "separate schools are inherently unequal."
Cooper v. Aaron (1958)
Holding: States cannot nullify decisions of the federal courts.
Several government officials in southern states, including the governor and legislature of Alabama, refused to follow the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision. They argued that the states could nullify federal court decisions if they felt that the federal courts were violating the Constitution. The Court unanimously rejected this argument and held that only the federal courts can decide when the Constitution is violated.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Holding: Illegally obtained material cannot be used in a criminal trial.
While searching Dolree Mapp's house, police officers discovered obscene materials and arrested her. Because the police officers never produced a search warrant, she argued that the materials should be suppressed as the fruits of an illegal search and seizure. The Supreme Court agreed and applied to the states the exclusionary rule from Weeks v. United States (1914).
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Holding: Indigent defendants must be provided representation without charge.
Gideon was accused of committing a felony. Being indigent, he petitioned the judge to provide him with an attorney free of charge. The judge denied his request. The Supreme Court ruled for Gideon, saying that the Sixth Amendment requires indigent criminal defendants to be provided an attorney free of charge.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Holding: Police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning.
After hours of police interrogations, Ernesto Miranda confessed to rape and kidnapping. At trial, he sought to suppress his confession, stating that he was not advised of his rights to counsel and to remain silent. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning.
Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Holding: Stop and frisks do not violate the Constitution under certain circumstances.
Observing Terry and others acting suspiciously in front of a store, a police officer concluded that they might rob it. The officer stopped and frisked the men. A weapon was found on Terry and he was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. The Supreme Court ruled that this search was reasonable.
U.S. v. Nixon (1974)
Holding: The President is not above the law.
The special prosecutor in the Watergate affair subpoenaed audio tapes of Oval Office conversations. President Nixon refused to turn over the tapes, asserting executive privilege. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendants' right to potentially exculpating evidence outweighed the President's right to executive privilege if national security was not compromised.
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Holding: Even offensive speech such as flag burning is protected by the First Amendment.
To protest the policies of the Reagan administration, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside of the Dallas City Hall. He was arrested for this act, but argued that it was symbolic speech. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that symbolic speech is constitutionally protected even when it is offensive.
Contact Us | Careers | Privacy & Security Policy | Judicial Conduct & Disability | Glossary of Legal Terms
Widgets | Translate | Browse Aloud | Operating Status
This site is maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on behalf of the Federal Judiciary.
The purpose of this site is to provide information from and about the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
By, Ron Chapman. Thought I share this with you too!
Subject: Can you change what you imagine...?
Very well written article....
Governments are Figments of Human imagination: They do not Exist.
By Ron Chapman
24/12/11
Governments do not exist. What we think of as governments are really nothing
more than hidden human cabals using the idea of government in order to force
their will on the rest of the population. This syndrome permeates every level of
modern society such that people believe that artificial corporate entities like
local councils, regional authorities and state and federal governments, are real
entities when they are not. They are figments of the imagination. Governments
are fictions that haul themselves up by their own bootstraps. Peak national and
supra-national governments are paper creations having no substance. Those
chimerical entities then purport to bestow existence on all corporate entities
beneath them in their self chosen jurisdictions, namely state and local
governments and all other corporations supposedly created by piles of paper
authorized and approved by the fictive governmental authority(s) at the top.
For humans to become autonomous and free and hence true reflections of Creator,
they must learn to see themselves and each other as sovereign individuals who
freely choose to come together to live co-operatively and co-creatively in ways
that eliminate the idea of, and need for, fictional corporate local and other
government entities.
Free human societies must be composed of truly free individual members. That
requires that those members know who they are and accept responsibility for
their actions and failures to act. That state of mind and heart requires a leap
in consciousness that lifts individual humans above the collective ideas and
personal beliefs that currently constrain and enslave humanity.
A truly Human society will therefore require that its members let go of the need
for, and dependence upon, authorities outside of themselves for provision of the
necessities of life; and feelings of individual and collective security.
Societal life must become a co-operative, co-creative activity in which everyone
participates to the extent of his/her capacity, rather than an activity
undertaken by external authorities divorced from the members and their desires
and needs.
It follows that the societies humanity will need to create in the future, once
the present oppressive global governmental regimes have been eliminated, will
feature co-operative, co-responsible, co-creative governance and commercial,
industrial and cultural structures that involve all members, as appropriate.
Such entities will be directly and immediately responsive to social needs. The
arrogance, violence and controlling ethos of current governance structures will
be gone, replaced with genuine attitudes of responsibility and service to others
(STO)ie public service. In that environment everyone, but especially those
charged with responsibility to organize and manage community and commercial
life, will be attuned to the needs of others and not to the requirements of
hidden societal manipulators and exploiters as is currently the case. Also, in a
truly conscious society the members will monitor and be fully aware of the
quality of the performance of those given temporary responsibility for
fulfillment of society’s management needs.
Those who fail or refuse to accept responsibility for their own and their
community’s life, action and inaction, are the authors of their own current
enslaved situation, and that of their community. To be free one must want to be
free and to want to be free one must know when one is not. Today most people are
enslaved but know it not.
Today most governments are characterized by a combination of force and pseudo
benevolence packaged as ‘Welfare Government”. In truth though, governments are
invariably variations on the Mafia model ie they constitute a protection racket
masquerading as a lawful and legitimate societal management mechanism. For
instance, if I stop someone on the road who has harmed no one and caused no
damage to anyone’s property, and say he is driving too fast and demand paperwork
and money from him/her and if my demands are not met I apprehend him/her, take
their vehicle and confine them in a prison, that is called highway robbery,
kidnapping and false imprisonment. But if a person claiming to act for a
government does it, their action is called traffic control in the interests of
road safety and an exercise of the rule of law.
Similarly, if you or I decided to start creating our own money, with nothing of
value to support it; and we take our money and try to circulate it in the
community in order to facilitate our exchange of goods and services, we would be
called counterfeiters, prosecuted and imprisoned. However, fictive corporate
governments invariably license a few favored fictional corporate entities
called banks to create “money” out of thin air and pass it off as having value
which they charge interest on, yet that activity is NOT considered to be
fraudulent and criminal.
The intent to defraud is the same in either case but governments, because they
have a monopoly on force and violence, get away with their criminal activities
in relation to counterfeiting money. Moreover, they license a select group of
others who control banks to do it too.
Indeed the situation is worse than that. Governments harass as criminals those
who seek to operate legitimate, true value money and bartering systems like
LETS, as alternatives to government approved fictional fiat “money” created out
of thin air and “sold” (by charging interest on it) to the general population.
In other words fraudulent government approved money, only available under
usurious conditions, is part of a gigantic protection racket which governments
force upon those they control, using their monopoly on force and violence.
Simply by calling themselves a government, criminal cabals are able to magically
transform counterfeit currency into legal tender AND to persecute anyone who
seeks to create an alternative system of money or barter to compete with the
government’s licensed fraudulent money creation monopoly.
Similar considerations operate in relation to taxation and especially taxation
of personal income. Governments purport to make “laws” requiring people to pay
to them a very substantial portion of the income they earn from personal
exertion and they use money so obtained and their monopoly of force and violence
to ensure that such imposts are paid. Government legislation that creates such
"color of law" legislation is a sham, a fiction which is not binding on
sovereign humans because it is unlawful and contrary to divine law. If you or I
attempted to tax people or create "laws" as governments do, our actions would be
regarded as coercion and robbery under arms and our community would not tolerate
it. We would be treated as criminals.
To justify the theft of a very substantial portion of the productivity of those
within their control governments pretend that “taxation” of that productivity is
only extracted in order to use it for the protection and benefit of those they
steal it from, using threats and menaces. However, government welfare “benefits”
and payments would be unnecessary if governments didn’t foist upon us the
criminal fiat money creation usury scheme operated by banks using the fractional
reserve system. That system not only steals massive amounts from the general
population on a continuing basis but banks also deliberately create the “boom
and bust” economic cycle that creates continuing unemployment and poverty with
periodic peaks during which government protected bank-steers to steal massive amounts of property for pennies on the dollar.
This economic vandalism and theft of human production and assets by banks and
governments creates a false scarcity of production and lack of abundance for
billions of people worldwide. That scarcity of the resources and productivity
needed to solve global poverty problems is matched by the false scarcity of
employment created by economic rationalist policies by governments; and
deliberate “liquidity crises” organized by the government protected banking
system. The result is endemic and ever growing poverty which generates
increasing crimes which in turn is used by governments to scare most constituents
shit-less that they gladly pay increasing taxes and give up sovereign rights in order to ostensibly protect themselves from that incipient, seemingly ever increasing crime. And so we have an endless pseudo “law and order” cycle that is also greatly stimulated and exacerbated by government instigated wars on drugs
and “terrorism”.
These governments created wars on drugs and terrorism have not only devoured
humungous amounts of money and resources the net effect of which is to increase
poverty and crime, but also they have enormously increased popular insecurity
and fears about criminal and terrorist activities and hence they have enhanced
all acceptance of ever more “law and order” and government organized
so-called protection from those evils.
As this sense of insecurity and fear increases people accept ever greater
governmental intrusions upon their personal space and freedom. How far will
these intrusions go? How many government imposed personal and civic restrictions
and indignities have yet to be visited upon Western societies? When one surveys
the field it seems there is very little left to lose.
In Anglo-American nations people and their children are already deemed to be the
property of the state and have already lost almost every semblance of true
freedom. For instance governments force parents to allow their children to
receive up to 40 toxic vaccinations during childhood, many of them in the first
few months of life when they are most vulnerable. In many places parents are
forced to allow their children to be factory schooled in large public schools
that dumb them down with false and misleading information and indoctrinate them
with toxic sexual and anti-social curricula. Land, homes and vehicles etc are
required to be registered with governments and are deemed to be owned by the
governments with whom they are registered. At the same time citizens have to pay
taxes and charges in order to exercise the right to use their land and vehicles
etc.
Similarly, Health and Safety, Road Safety and Anti-Terrorism legislation
increasingly limit and control physical activities and movement while political
correctness and anti-Semitic initiatives eliminate free speech and oppress and
stultify intellectual activity. For instance in the US federal government
legislation and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) initiatives have
routinely stopped and body searched people without due cause for many years. For
instance to travel by airplane one can expect that an agent from the TSA will
either radiate you with a back scatter screening device (that pose health risks
in their own right) that takes pictures of you naked and stores them on insecure
computer files; or fondle your private parts and those of your babies and
children; and of octogenarians, grandmothers in wheelchairs et al, to ensure
that parents and families are not terrorists. And so it goes. Not satisfied
with harassing air travelers the TSA has for some years increasingly
diversified into impromptu roadblocks on highways, and bus and train stations
searches under its VIPER program. Moreover, and the TSA proposes to routinely
“screen” all patrons at major sporting venues and the like. See eg:
http://www.rense.com/general92/viper.htm
http://www.rense.com/general92/viper.htm
http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/vipr_blockisland.shtm
http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2011/03/04/tsa%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cviper%E2%80%9D-program-stumbles-again/
Think about that! In the old Bolshevik controlled Soviet Union you needed to
carry your identity papers at all times but it is unlikely that officials would
force citizens to undergo radiation screening and sexual ‘pat downs' without due
cause. When you remove the title of “government” from these acts what you have
left is gross violation of personal modesty, integrity and freedom through
deliberate, officially sanctioned, acts of indecency. The suggestion that these
TSA sponsored activities are done for the “protection” of citizens or in the
interests of national security is ridiculous. They constitute nothing more than
acts of personal and sexual molestation done by government agencies in order to
get the general population used to increasing control mechanisms.
None of these things could happen if governments hadn’t usurped our rights as
sovereign individuals and reduced us to the condition of free range serfs,
dependent on corporate governments and commercial corporations for so-called
security and employment; and even for our physical existence. Why is this so? It
is so because humans are unconscious of who they really are. People have been
conned into believing they are mere physical flesh and blood creatures instead
of being eternal spirits clothed in physical bodies. This unconsciousness makes
it easy for predatory individuals who control governments to create a sense of
fear and insecurity such that people are prepared to give up their God given
sovereignty in return for a promise that “the government” will protect and
nurture them when the truth is the opposite.
A true sense of security can only come from knowing one is a living fragment of
the Creator experiencing life here in order to grow and evolve. If one has that
knowledge one will join with others in a loving STO relationship that,
incidentally, provides the only real physically secure environment for anyone.
Get used to the idea that welfare governments are a false idea, a meme
established by people who seek to control and exploit humanity, because they
are.
Very well written article....
Governments are Figments of Human imagination: They do not Exist.
By Ron Chapman
24/12/11
Governments do not exist. What we think of as governments are really nothing
more than hidden human cabals using the idea of government in order to force
their will on the rest of the population. This syndrome permeates every level of
modern society such that people believe that artificial corporate entities like
local councils, regional authorities and state and federal governments, are real
entities when they are not. They are figments of the imagination. Governments
are fictions that haul themselves up by their own bootstraps. Peak national and
supra-national governments are paper creations having no substance. Those
chimerical entities then purport to bestow existence on all corporate entities
beneath them in their self chosen jurisdictions, namely state and local
governments and all other corporations supposedly created by piles of paper
authorized and approved by the fictive governmental authority(s) at the top.
For humans to become autonomous and free and hence true reflections of Creator,
they must learn to see themselves and each other as sovereign individuals who
freely choose to come together to live co-operatively and co-creatively in ways
that eliminate the idea of, and need for, fictional corporate local and other
government entities.
Free human societies must be composed of truly free individual members. That
requires that those members know who they are and accept responsibility for
their actions and failures to act. That state of mind and heart requires a leap
in consciousness that lifts individual humans above the collective ideas and
personal beliefs that currently constrain and enslave humanity.
A truly Human society will therefore require that its members let go of the need
for, and dependence upon, authorities outside of themselves for provision of the
necessities of life; and feelings of individual and collective security.
Societal life must become a co-operative, co-creative activity in which everyone
participates to the extent of his/her capacity, rather than an activity
undertaken by external authorities divorced from the members and their desires
and needs.
It follows that the societies humanity will need to create in the future, once
the present oppressive global governmental regimes have been eliminated, will
feature co-operative, co-responsible, co-creative governance and commercial,
industrial and cultural structures that involve all members, as appropriate.
Such entities will be directly and immediately responsive to social needs. The
arrogance, violence and controlling ethos of current governance structures will
be gone, replaced with genuine attitudes of responsibility and service to others
(STO)ie public service. In that environment everyone, but especially those
charged with responsibility to organize and manage community and commercial
life, will be attuned to the needs of others and not to the requirements of
hidden societal manipulators and exploiters as is currently the case. Also, in a
truly conscious society the members will monitor and be fully aware of the
quality of the performance of those given temporary responsibility for
fulfillment of society’s management needs.
Those who fail or refuse to accept responsibility for their own and their
community’s life, action and inaction, are the authors of their own current
enslaved situation, and that of their community. To be free one must want to be
free and to want to be free one must know when one is not. Today most people are
enslaved but know it not.
Today most governments are characterized by a combination of force and pseudo
benevolence packaged as ‘Welfare Government”. In truth though, governments are
invariably variations on the Mafia model ie they constitute a protection racket
masquerading as a lawful and legitimate societal management mechanism. For
instance, if I stop someone on the road who has harmed no one and caused no
damage to anyone’s property, and say he is driving too fast and demand paperwork
and money from him/her and if my demands are not met I apprehend him/her, take
their vehicle and confine them in a prison, that is called highway robbery,
kidnapping and false imprisonment. But if a person claiming to act for a
government does it, their action is called traffic control in the interests of
road safety and an exercise of the rule of law.
Similarly, if you or I decided to start creating our own money, with nothing of
value to support it; and we take our money and try to circulate it in the
community in order to facilitate our exchange of goods and services, we would be
called counterfeiters, prosecuted and imprisoned. However, fictive corporate
governments invariably license a few favored fictional corporate entities
called banks to create “money” out of thin air and pass it off as having value
which they charge interest on, yet that activity is NOT considered to be
fraudulent and criminal.
The intent to defraud is the same in either case but governments, because they
have a monopoly on force and violence, get away with their criminal activities
in relation to counterfeiting money. Moreover, they license a select group of
others who control banks to do it too.
Indeed the situation is worse than that. Governments harass as criminals those
who seek to operate legitimate, true value money and bartering systems like
LETS, as alternatives to government approved fictional fiat “money” created out
of thin air and “sold” (by charging interest on it) to the general population.
In other words fraudulent government approved money, only available under
usurious conditions, is part of a gigantic protection racket which governments
force upon those they control, using their monopoly on force and violence.
Simply by calling themselves a government, criminal cabals are able to magically
transform counterfeit currency into legal tender AND to persecute anyone who
seeks to create an alternative system of money or barter to compete with the
government’s licensed fraudulent money creation monopoly.
Similar considerations operate in relation to taxation and especially taxation
of personal income. Governments purport to make “laws” requiring people to pay
to them a very substantial portion of the income they earn from personal
exertion and they use money so obtained and their monopoly of force and violence
to ensure that such imposts are paid. Government legislation that creates such
"color of law" legislation is a sham, a fiction which is not binding on
sovereign humans because it is unlawful and contrary to divine law. If you or I
attempted to tax people or create "laws" as governments do, our actions would be
regarded as coercion and robbery under arms and our community would not tolerate
it. We would be treated as criminals.
To justify the theft of a very substantial portion of the productivity of those
within their control governments pretend that “taxation” of that productivity is
only extracted in order to use it for the protection and benefit of those they
steal it from, using threats and menaces. However, government welfare “benefits”
and payments would be unnecessary if governments didn’t foist upon us the
criminal fiat money creation usury scheme operated by banks using the fractional
reserve system. That system not only steals massive amounts from the general
population on a continuing basis but banks also deliberately create the “boom
and bust” economic cycle that creates continuing unemployment and poverty with
periodic peaks during which government protected bank-steers to steal massive amounts of property for pennies on the dollar.
This economic vandalism and theft of human production and assets by banks and
governments creates a false scarcity of production and lack of abundance for
billions of people worldwide. That scarcity of the resources and productivity
needed to solve global poverty problems is matched by the false scarcity of
employment created by economic rationalist policies by governments; and
deliberate “liquidity crises” organized by the government protected banking
system. The result is endemic and ever growing poverty which generates
increasing crimes which in turn is used by governments to scare most constituents
shit-less that they gladly pay increasing taxes and give up sovereign rights in order to ostensibly protect themselves from that incipient, seemingly ever increasing crime. And so we have an endless pseudo “law and order” cycle that is also greatly stimulated and exacerbated by government instigated wars on drugs
and “terrorism”.
These governments created wars on drugs and terrorism have not only devoured
humungous amounts of money and resources the net effect of which is to increase
poverty and crime, but also they have enormously increased popular insecurity
and fears about criminal and terrorist activities and hence they have enhanced
all acceptance of ever more “law and order” and government organized
so-called protection from those evils.
As this sense of insecurity and fear increases people accept ever greater
governmental intrusions upon their personal space and freedom. How far will
these intrusions go? How many government imposed personal and civic restrictions
and indignities have yet to be visited upon Western societies? When one surveys
the field it seems there is very little left to lose.
In Anglo-American nations people and their children are already deemed to be the
property of the state and have already lost almost every semblance of true
freedom. For instance governments force parents to allow their children to
receive up to 40 toxic vaccinations during childhood, many of them in the first
few months of life when they are most vulnerable. In many places parents are
forced to allow their children to be factory schooled in large public schools
that dumb them down with false and misleading information and indoctrinate them
with toxic sexual and anti-social curricula. Land, homes and vehicles etc are
required to be registered with governments and are deemed to be owned by the
governments with whom they are registered. At the same time citizens have to pay
taxes and charges in order to exercise the right to use their land and vehicles
etc.
Similarly, Health and Safety, Road Safety and Anti-Terrorism legislation
increasingly limit and control physical activities and movement while political
correctness and anti-Semitic initiatives eliminate free speech and oppress and
stultify intellectual activity. For instance in the US federal government
legislation and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) initiatives have
routinely stopped and body searched people without due cause for many years. For
instance to travel by airplane one can expect that an agent from the TSA will
either radiate you with a back scatter screening device (that pose health risks
in their own right) that takes pictures of you naked and stores them on insecure
computer files; or fondle your private parts and those of your babies and
children; and of octogenarians, grandmothers in wheelchairs et al, to ensure
that parents and families are not terrorists. And so it goes. Not satisfied
with harassing air travelers the TSA has for some years increasingly
diversified into impromptu roadblocks on highways, and bus and train stations
searches under its VIPER program. Moreover, and the TSA proposes to routinely
“screen” all patrons at major sporting venues and the like. See eg:
http://www.rense.com/general92/viper.htm
http://www.rense.com/general92/viper.htm
http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/vipr_blockisland.shtm
http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2011/03/04/tsa%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cviper%E2%80%9D-program-stumbles-again/
Think about that! In the old Bolshevik controlled Soviet Union you needed to
carry your identity papers at all times but it is unlikely that officials would
force citizens to undergo radiation screening and sexual ‘pat downs' without due
cause. When you remove the title of “government” from these acts what you have
left is gross violation of personal modesty, integrity and freedom through
deliberate, officially sanctioned, acts of indecency. The suggestion that these
TSA sponsored activities are done for the “protection” of citizens or in the
interests of national security is ridiculous. They constitute nothing more than
acts of personal and sexual molestation done by government agencies in order to
get the general population used to increasing control mechanisms.
None of these things could happen if governments hadn’t usurped our rights as
sovereign individuals and reduced us to the condition of free range serfs,
dependent on corporate governments and commercial corporations for so-called
security and employment; and even for our physical existence. Why is this so? It
is so because humans are unconscious of who they really are. People have been
conned into believing they are mere physical flesh and blood creatures instead
of being eternal spirits clothed in physical bodies. This unconsciousness makes
it easy for predatory individuals who control governments to create a sense of
fear and insecurity such that people are prepared to give up their God given
sovereignty in return for a promise that “the government” will protect and
nurture them when the truth is the opposite.
A true sense of security can only come from knowing one is a living fragment of
the Creator experiencing life here in order to grow and evolve. If one has that
knowledge one will join with others in a loving STO relationship that,
incidentally, provides the only real physically secure environment for anyone.
Get used to the idea that welfare governments are a false idea, a meme
established by people who seek to control and exploit humanity, because they
are.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Corruption within the Court, makes "Fraud upon the Court": Justice Joe shared a link. 5 hours ago * Who ...
Corruption within the Court, makes "Fraud upon the Court": Justice Joe shared a link.
5 hours ago
* Who ...: Justice Joe shared a link. 5 hours ago * Who can see this wall post? * Your friends Michelle ..... On behalf of the PEOPLE UNI...
5 hours ago
* Who ...: Justice Joe shared a link. 5 hours ago * Who can see this wall post? * Your friends Michelle ..... On behalf of the PEOPLE UNI...
Justice Joe shared a link.
5 hours ago
* Who can see this wall post?
* Your friends
Michelle ..... On behalf of the PEOPLE UNITED FOR LEGAL SYSTEM EQUALITY .... WE THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF OUR HEARTS for what you are doing to share the "Justice for Georgia Self-Litigants" Petition with your friends and contacts. May God BLESS YOU for your kindness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
STOP UNFAIR AND ABUSIVE TREATMENT OF SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS IN FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA
www.gopetition.com
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, in support of the PEOPLE UNITED FOR LEGAL SYSTEM EQUALITY (P.U.L.S.E.) and its mission to seek immediate
5 hours ago
* Who can see this wall post?
* Your friends
Michelle ..... On behalf of the PEOPLE UNITED FOR LEGAL SYSTEM EQUALITY .... WE THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF OUR HEARTS for what you are doing to share the "Justice for Georgia Self-Litigants" Petition with your friends and contacts. May God BLESS YOU for your kindness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
STOP UNFAIR AND ABUSIVE TREATMENT OF SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS IN FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA
www.gopetition.com
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, in support of the PEOPLE UNITED FOR LEGAL SYSTEM EQUALITY (P.U.L.S.E.) and its mission to seek immediate
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
I recieved this from a friend. I hope you enjoy his story too! Amazing!
|
--
Monday, January 16, 2012
Justice Joe, thanking me! I thought I share this with you too!
Justice Joe:
Greetings, Michelle! THANK YOU for friending me!!
I am the Founder and Program Director for the People United for Legal System Equality, a nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) nonprofit project dedicated to reforms supporting fair, unbiased, affordable, and abuse-free access to the Legal System for Self-Represented Litigants.
Our latest advocacy effort involves the issuance of a Petition upon Chief Judge W...right of Fulton County, Georgia seeking the review and investigation complaints of judicial and/or opposing attorney abuse submitted by Self-Represented Litigants. Please see attached link. Signors can be from ANYWHERE in the world!
Your help in signing and forward this Petition would be EXTREMELY valuable to litigants who face harassment, unjust rulings, and in some cases INCARCERATION, on daily basis by judges who are biased against the constitutional right of self-representation.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH for your time and attention, and I welcome any discussions you may have on similar topics of interest to you.
Greetings, Michelle! THANK YOU for friending me!!
I am the Founder and Program Director for the People United for Legal System Equality, a nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) nonprofit project dedicated to reforms supporting fair, unbiased, affordable, and abuse-free access to the Legal System for Self-Represented Litigants.
Our latest advocacy effort involves the issuance of a Petition upon Chief Judge W...right of Fulton County, Georgia seeking the review and investigation complaints of judicial and/or opposing attorney abuse submitted by Self-Represented Litigants. Please see attached link. Signors can be from ANYWHERE in the world!
Your help in signing and forward this Petition would be EXTREMELY valuable to litigants who face harassment, unjust rulings, and in some cases INCARCERATION, on daily basis by judges who are biased against the constitutional right of self-representation.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH for your time and attention, and I welcome any discussions you may have on similar topics of interest to you.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Black Robe Regiment Pastor: “Americans Are Angry At Republicans Also.....”
Black Robe Regiment Pastor: “Americans Are Angry At Republicans Also.....”: “ Americans Are Angry At Republicans Also.....” in 2010, when I seen the Republican field of challengers who were announcing their ru...
Corruption within the Court, makes "Fraud upon the Court": John Kerry calls for US funding to Egypt's Muslim ...
Corruption within the Court, makes "Fraud upon the Court": John Kerry calls for US funding to Egypt's Muslim ...: John Kerry calls for US funding to Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)