vanity-fair-mccain-lieberman-graham3

Walking Tall Tennessee: Lieberman & McCain Unconstitutional NDAA Tyranny Rule To Be Nullified By State!

Tennessee, the Volunteer State, has begun to push back against the tyranny that is the indefinite detention provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2012, better known simply as the NDAA.The state bills currently being considered could be one of the most significant steps taken against the atrocious assault on our most essential liberties embodied by the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA.The Tenth Amendment Center (TAC), a group promoting states’ rights (something which I think is an honorable cause in these dire times in which we have an increasingly centralized, authoritarian federal government) reports that two bills are to be considered in the Tennessee legislature.

These include HB1629 and SB2669, both of which are set to be considered in the 2012 session.

The legislation could essentially nullify the troubling indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA by requiring federal agents to obtain written permission from the county sheriff before making any arrests in Tennessee for any reason.

So long as county sheriffs are actually doing their job and keeping people safe from an out-of-control federal government, this could be a major step forward.

On the second episode of End the Lie Radio, Bob Tuskin and I discussed how sheriffs can act as a buffer between federal tyranny and the American people, something which these bills are going to reinforce.

The actual text is quite striking, and to me it is very exciting that such a thing is even being placed before a state legislature.

This bill declares that any federal law purporting to require local or state lawenforcement agencies to act at the direction of the federal government or the United States military is beyond the authority granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution, is not recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state and is declared to be invalid in this state. This bill further declares that any federal law purporting to give federal agents or employees, including any members of the United States military, the authority of any state or local law enforcement agency of this state, without the express permission of this state, is beyond the authority granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution, is not recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state, and is declared to be invalid in this state.

I try to cover the troubling blending of local, state and federal law enforcement as much as possible, although I can never touch on it enough.This bill is fighting back against exactly what I — and so many others — have been speaking out against unrelentingly.It is trying to properly separate the local and federal law enforcement agencies instead of allowing the continued trend in which local power is eradicated in favor of more centralized bureaucracies.

This is done in a myriad of ways, but some of the most prominent are the so-called “fusion centers” which blend local, state, and federal law enforcement along with military and civilian personnel and the Pentagon’s 1033 program in which they outfit local law enforcement with free military hardware.

There is also the matter of federal grants from entities like the Department of Homeland Security(DHS) which essentially put local jurisdictions into federal receivership, making them beholden to the whims of the centralized bureaucracy instead of the people they are supposed to be serving.

Mike Maharrey, the communications director for the Tenth Amendment Center, makes a great point in saying that the American people should not blindly trust in the good intentions and moral compass of the president or federal judges who are supposed to be protecting our rights but all too often actively strip them from us.

“It falls on the states to step in and protect their citizens,” he said.

“I can’t imagine a more clear-cut application of state and local interposition as a check on federal power. What could be a more palpable, deliberate and dangerous unconstitutional act than the federal government indefinitely detaining an American citizen without due process?”

Indeed I can’t think of anything which is a more troubling attack on everything that America issupposed to be, and I’m not willing to put my faith in the federal government, hoping that they interpret the NDAA’s indefinite detention provisions in a way wholly different from that in which they are written.

This would simply be imbecilic of me, given that we do not even know how the federal government actually interprets the PATRIOT Act, nor what legal justification they think there is forassassinating American citizens without charge or trial.

Stop Homeland Security Agents Cold In Tennessee: McNairy County Sheriffs~ Buford Pusser Lives!

The Tennessee legislation also has some teeth to it, beyond just requiring written permission from the county sheriff; it actually “makes it a Class E felony for any official, agent or employee of the United States government to enforce or attempt to enforce any federal law, order, rule or regulation that is beyond the authority granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution,” and it even includes provisions which would allow for kidnapping charges to be filed against any federal agent who detains an American citizen in Tennessee under the NDAA.

Unfortunately, the last bit of that passage may open it up to challenge or circumvention, given that a corrupt judicial system could easily determine that everything in the NDAA, including the indefinite detention provisions, is indeed granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution.

Even If That Becomes the case – The States May Simply Nullify It Anyways! Volubrjotr

The sponsors of the House version of the bill are Representative Bill Dunn, a Republican from Knoxville, and Representative Cameron Sexton, a Republican from Crossville.

The Senate sponsor is Senator Stacey Campfield who is also a Republican from Knoxville.

Thankfully, it is not just Tennessee fighting back against this attack on everything that American was built upon, indeed Washington and Virginia are also considering legislation which would essentially nullify the detention provisions in the NDAA.

Virginia House Nullifies NDAA’s Indefinite Detention Provision

Some local governments have also stepped up to the plate, including the El Paso and Fremont Counties in Colorado.

I have previously covered a similar effort in Rhode Island, although that has been criticized not on its merits, but due to the troubled history of the individual behind the legislation. You can witness just that going on in the comments section of my article.

The most common argument is that the NDAA and the indefinite detention provisions therein do not actually apply to American citizens.

However, Maharrey rightly points out that this should do nothing to stop local and state governments from doing their job and “following James Madison’s admonition to interpose and drawa line in the sand.”

He makes what I think is the strongest point in saying:

If what supporters say is true and the NDAA does not authorize indefinite detention of Americans, what is the harm in this legislation? Why would anybody oppose it? It does nothing but serve notice that state and local officials will not sit back and allow the federal government to exercise unconstitutional powers – powers supporters claim don’t exist anyway. It simply affirms a fence that supposedly already exists. The only rational I can find for opposing this bill is if they really do want the option of detaining Americans without due process to remain open.

“You can only oppose this legislation if you accept the idea that the federal government has the authority to do whatever it wants with absolutely no check on its actions – Constitution be damned. If you ask me, that’s a lot scarier than whatever terrorist threat they claim to be protecting me from,” he added.This is precisely the point I have tried to make to supporters of the NDAA time and time again. If this isn’t going to ever be used against us, why can’t they explicitly outline that in the text?The fact is, as it currently stands, there is absolutely nothing limiting or prohibiting the indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or trial.

Indeed, the only thing the indefinite detention provisions say on the matter is that American citizens are not required to be held indefinitely if suspected to be terrorists.

There is absolutely no language saying that they are not allowed to do such a thing and no supporter has ever been able to counter that, at least none that I have conversed with.

Michael Boldin, the Tenth Amendment Center’s executive, is confident that other states will follow the lead of Tennessee, Virginia and Washington soon enough.

“We have pretty strong indications that Rhode Island, Utah, Maine, New Jersey, Oklahoma and other states will be introducing similar legislation soon. This is just a start – and activists all over the country need to contact state legislators right now to voice their support,” he said.

I highly encourage anyone in these states to get involved and support this legislation however you can. Be sure to raise awareness and contact your representatives to be sure they support this once it comes up for a vote.

For those who are not in these states, I urge you to join me in my efforts to get legislation like this introduced.

The Tenth Amendment Center has made model legislation available along with a way to track local and state legislation across the United States.

I recommend that you utilize these resources however you can as this could be the difference between patriotic Americans being thrown in a prison cell never to be heard from again, or Constitutional government being restored in the United States.

I genuinely believe that there is nothing more important than protecting our right to due process and protection from a tyrannical federal government, and thankfully I’m not alone.

If you are participating in or planning a campaign involving legislation like this, please email me immediately at admin@EndtheLie.com so I can publicize your efforts and hopefully help get you some supporters and raise awareness of your admirable efforts.

 This article first appeared at EndtheLie.com. Read other contributed articles by Madison Ruppert here.
Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis databaseEnd The Lie and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. Madison also now has his own radio show on Orion Talk Radio from 8 pm — 10 pm Pacific, which you can find HERE.  If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at admin@EndtheLie.com
Madison Ruppert, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

Deadbeat Senators!

NDAA: Violates The Constitutional Authority Requirement Act Of January 5, 2011.

On December 1st, 2012 the Senate passed the Unconstitutional NDAA on Thursday night, by a vote of 93-7.

Now, it’s important to make something very clear here.  We’ve received a number of messages from well-intentioned folks who contacted us saying something like, “But, Section 1032 already says it doesn’t apply to U.S. Citizens, you’re making a fight where there isn’t one and really just being used as pawns in the ACLU‘s liberal agenda…”

I cannot stress this enough (nor can I express how many times I responded to it by email, phone, and private message) — don’t be fooled by Section 1032, Subsection (b) on “Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens.”

Despite what a straight-forward reading of the text would appear to say, that the “requirement to detain a person” does not apply to U.S. Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens this is just cleverly worded political-speak to deceive the American people.  Just because they aren’t “required” doesn’t mean they aren’t allowed.

One good thing that came out of votes on both S.A. 1125 & 1126, was that it showed us Senator Mike Lee was still on our side, and didn’t actually believe allowing the military to detain Americans was Constitutional.  He voted for both amendments and gave a powerful floor speech the day before in support of S.A. 1126 while condemning the notion of indefinite detention of American Citizens.

S.A. 1125 would have clarified that military requirement to detain individuals only applies to those captured overseas by adding the word “abroad” after “captured” in Section 1032 of S. 1867. This amendment failed by a vote of 45-55.

S.A. 1126 would have amended Section 1031 of S. 1867 to clearly state that the authority to detain individuals does not confer any authority of the military to detain American citizens without trial until the end of hostilities.  This amendment also failed by a vote of 45-55.

Campaign For Liberty

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs —45
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Paul (R-KY)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
 DEADBEAT SENATOR NAYs —55
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Begich (D-AK)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Grouped by Home State

Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Alaska: Begich (D-AK), Nay Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Nay
Arkansas: Boozman (R-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado: Bennet (D-CO), Yea Udall (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut: Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay
Delaware: Carper (D-DE), Yea Coons (D-DE), Yea
Florida: Nelson (D-FL), Yea Rubio (R-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Nay Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Crapo (R-ID), Nay Risch (R-ID), Nay
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Yea Kirk (R-IL), Yea
Indiana: Coats (R-IN), Nay Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Nay Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas: Moran (R-KS), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Kentucky: McConnell (R-KY), Nay Paul (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Nay Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Nay Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Yea Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts: Brown (R-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Franken (D-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Nay Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Missouri: Blunt (R-MO), Nay McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Yea
Nebraska: Johanns (R-NE), Nay Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Nevada: Heller (R-NV), Nay Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire: Ayotte (R-NH), Nay Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Udall (D-NM), Yea
New York: Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Nay Hagan (D-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Yea Hoeven (R-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Yea Portman (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Nay Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Oregon: Merkley (D-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Toomey (R-PA), Nay
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Nay Graham (R-SC), Nay
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Yea Thune (R-SD), Nay
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Nay Corker (R-TN), Nay
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Nay Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Utah: Hatch (R-UT), Nay Lee (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Virginia: Warner (D-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Yea
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Manchin (D-WV), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin: Johnson (R-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Nay Enzi (R-WY), Nay

George Washington 45 Years Old.

The Right To Resist the ‘Duty To Submit’

by William Norman Grigg

Recently by William Norman Grigg: Militarists, Drug Warriors, and Heresy-Hunters: The Anti–Ron Paul Axis of ‘Decency’

Anne Dekins was a loud-mouthed party girl – or at least, that’s what the arrest warrant suggested. Whatever she may have done in the past, Miss Dekins was quietly minding her own business when Officer Samuel Bray found her on the street and began to haul her away.

Dekins wasn’t inclined to go quietly, and she put up a struggle. Her cries for help attracted the interest of several armed men led by an individual named Tooley, who confronted Bray and demanded to know what he was doing to the frantic woman. The officer produced his official credentials and insisted that he was making a lawful arrest for “disorderly conduct.” When witnesses disputed that description, Bray called for backup. 

Tooley and his associates ordered Bray to release the woman, and then took action to enforce that lawful order. After Bray’s partner was killed in the ensuing struggle, Tooley and his associates were arrested for murder. The trial court threw out the murder charge, ruling that the warrant was defective. Since the arrest was illegal, the court pointed out, Dekins had a right to resist – and bystanders likewise had a right, if not a positive duty, to assist her. The defendants were eventually found guilty of manslaughter, but quickly pardoned and set free. 

By trying to enforce an invalid warrant, Bray “did not act as a constable, but a common oppressor,” observed the trial court. Tooley and the other bystanders were properly “provoked” by the act of aggressive violence against Anne Dekins, and their forceful but measured response – first demanding that the abductor release the hostage, then exercising defensive force to free her – was entirely appropriate. 

Lawless violence against the helpless “is a sufficient provocation to all people out of compassion” in any circumstance, observed the court, “much more where it is done under a colour of justice, and where the liberty of the subject is invaded….” In fact, an act of that kind carried out by a law enforcement official is nothing less than “a provocation to all the subjects of England.”

Every Englishman “ought to be concerned for Magna Charta and the laws,” concluded the Queen’s Bench in the 1710 case Queen v. Tooley. “And if any one against the law imprison a man, he is an offender against Magna Charta.”

Roughly forty years earlier, the same court had issued a similar opinion in Hopkin Huggett’s Case. Huggett and his friends had come to the aid of a man who had been arrested by a constable named Berry. Huggett demanded to see the arrest warrant. When Berry produced a clearly spurious document, Huggett drew his sword and demanded the prisoner’s release. Berry refused, and finished second in the ensuing swordfight. 

The wrongfully arrested man in that case (who was threatened with impressment into the military) did nothing to resist his abduction. It wasn’t clear that Huggett knew the man, or had even met him prior to the incident. Yet the Queen’s Bench ruled that Huggett’s actions were justified, since a situation in which a “man [is] unduly arrested or restrained of his liberty … is a provocation to all other men of England, not only his friends but strangers also[,] for common humanity’s sake.” 

In addition to codifying the Common Law right to resist arrestHopkin Huggett’s Case and Queen v. Tooley recognized that this right inheres not only in the victim, but in citizens who interpose on the victim’s behalf. 

Simply put: When a police officer commits the crime of unlawful arrest, the citizens who intervene are acting as peace officers entitled to employ any necessary means – including lethal force – to liberate the victim.

In early 18th Century England, this was seen as a non-negotiable bulwark against what the heroic Algernon Sidney called “the violence of a wicked magistrate who, hav[ing] armed a crew of lewd villains,” would otherwise inflict his will on innocent and helpless people with impunity. Sidney’s martyrdom at the hands of precisely that kind of degenerate, tyrannical magistrate underscored the vitality of the principle he expressed.

 “The right to resist unlawful arrest memorializes one of the principal elements in the heritage of the English revolution: the belief that the will to resist arbitrary authority in a reasonable way is valuable and ought not to be suppressed by the criminal law,” observed Paul Chevigny in a 1969 Yale Law Journal essay. Actually, Chevigny – like many others – elides a critical distinction between “power” and “authority”: While a police officer may have the power to abduct or abuse an innocent person, citizens have the authority to prevent that crime.

Until the late 1960s, most states recognized – albeit grudgingly – the Common Law right to resist arrest. By 1969, that right had been transmuted, through judicial activism, into a revocable “privilege” – one that had to be dispensed with to serve the interests of the State’s punitive caste.

“The weight of authoritative precedent supports a right to repel an unlawful arrest with force…. This was the rule at common law,” admitted the Alaska State Supreme Court in a seminal work of sophistry called Terry Glenn Miller v. State of Alaska. “It was based on the proposition that everyone should be privileged to use reasonable force to prevent an unlawful invasion of his physical integrity and personal liberty.”

That admission clearly anticipated the familiar use of the magical conjunction “but” as a rhetorical reset button, and the Court didn’t disappoint:

“But certain imperfections in the functioning of the rule have brought about changes in some jurisdictions. A new principle of right conduct has been espoused” – by whom, the Court didn’t specify. “It is argued” – once again, the parties to that argument were not identified – “that if a peace officer is making an illegal arrest but is not using force” – something that could not occur, given that an arrest, by strict definition, an act of armed coercion – “the remedy of the citizen should be that of suing the officer for false arrest, not resistance with force.”

 “The control of man’s destructive and aggressive impulses is one of the great unsolved problems of our society,” pontificated the Court as it destroyed one of the few effective checks on the deadliest manifestation of those impulses. “Our rules of law should discourage the unnecessary use of physical force between man and man. Any rule which promotes rather than inhibits violence should be re-examined.” That objective is not legitimately served by granting State functionaries an unqualified license to commit criminal violence against the innocent. 

Four years after the Miller decision, a decision entitled Richardson v. Idaho emerged from the Idaho State Supreme Court’s emunctory aperture. John Richardson had been convicted of resisting arrest through violence and sentenced to five years in prison. The incident in which the supposed crime occurred took place at a restaurant in Idaho Falls. Richardson and his ex-wife, who were having dinner, got into an argument, and were asked to leave when the latter became loud and profane. 

Two off-duty police officers escorted them outside, and then tried to arrest Richardson for “disorderly conduct” after he became annoyed by their unwarranted intrusion. Richardson kicked one of the uniformed buttinskis in the mouth, and managed to grab one of their pistols, which he fired into the air, rather than at his assailants (as he was entitled to, both morally and – under the Supreme Court’s still-valid 1900 Bad Elk precedent – legally).

Prominently citing the Miller decision in Alaska, the Idaho Court observed that “More than one state has, without legislative action, modified the traditional common law rule and has adopted the rule that a private citizen may not use force to resist a peaceful arrest,” blithely ignoring, once again, the fact that a “peaceful arrest” is a creature more fanciful than a left-handed unicorn that speaks Norwegian. “We are of the opinion that the trend is, and should be, away from the traditional common law rule, and therefore we hold that if a person has reasonable ground to believe he is being arrested by a peace officer, it is his duty to refrain from using force or any weapon in resisting arrest regardless of whether or not there is a legal basis for the arrest.”

The key holding in the Richardson ruling has been enshrined in the Idaho Code Judicial Instructions (ICJI 1262), which asserts that “it is the person’s duty to refrain from using force or any weapon in resisting arrest regardless of whether or not there is a legal basis for the arrest.” The obverse of this spurious “Duty to Submit to Arrest” is a police officer’s privilege to commit criminal acts for the purpose of nullifying the Exclusionary Rule – something the Idaho Supreme Court acknowledged in a 2008 ruling captioned State v. Lusby

Police paid a visit to Lusby’s apartment to investigate a disturbance. She quickly grew tired of the uninvited company – what decent person wouldn’t? – and went into her apartment, closing the door behind her. One of the officers committed an act of criminal trespass and announced  that Lusby was under arrest for “obstruction” and “resistance.” At one point the bully caught an elbow in the face from the victim, a small down-payment on what he deserved – but enough to earn Lusby a charge of felonious assault on an officer. She was also charged with drug possession on the basis of evidence found in the officer’s illegal search.

Because that search was patently illegal, the trial court granted a motion to dismiss all charges against Lusby. The State Supreme Court admitted that this was the case – but insisted that Lusby’s resistance to the illegal invasion of her home retroactively legalized the unconstitutional search.

“It appears to be a nearly universal rule in American jurisdictions that when a suspect responds to an unconstitutional search or seizure by a physical attack on the officer, evidence of this new crime is admissible notwithstanding the prior illegality,” decreed the court, extracting that “rule” from precisely the same orifice from which the Richardson ruling originated. “The rationale … [is that] a subsequent attack on the officer is a new crime unrelated to any prior illegality…. Accordingly, we hold that evidence of Lusby’s alleged batter on an officer or other forceful resistance is not suppressible … [and] evidence of paraphernalia found in the search incident to Lusby’s arrest [is] admissible.”


Buehler, 34, is a combat veteran of Kosovo and Iraq, West Point graduate, and middle school teacher. He was serving as a designated driver on the morning of New Year’s Day when he saw a woman being abused by police outside a 7-11. The costumed assailants, officers Pat Oborski and Robert Snider, were conducting what they called a DWI arrest of a woman later identified as Norma Pizana.On this construction, a police officer can nullify the Fourth Amendment anytime he pleases, simply by claiming that the victim committed the supposed crime of resisting. This can take the form of assuming an “aggressive posture,” such as “blading” the body or even putting one foot in front of the other in what can be construed as an “attack stance.” Or, as the recent assault on Austin, Texas resident Antonio Buehler demonstrates, the “assault” can be nothing more than breathing in the face of a police officer. 

To Buehler and his friends, the spectacle looked more like a gang assault.

“We hear a loud scream, and we look over, and we see the cop violently yanking the female out of the car onto the ground,”Buehler told local ABC affiliate KVUE. “She is screaming. The other cop ran up and they both sort of grabbed her arms. Her hands were behind her back straight out and they lifted her up by her arms. It looked extremely painful.”

With the help of a friend, Buehler began to document this act of “street justice” with his cell phone. That prompted Oborski to confront Buehler, who was not interfering in any way.

According to Buehler, Oborski barked, “What the hell are you taking pictures for?”

“My response was, `I am allowed to. Public official in a public place.'”

As he was trained to, Oborski started to lie in an effort to devise a cover charge against Buehler. First he claimed that Buehler was somehow “interfering with the investigation,” which was patently untrue. Then the cop assaulted Buhler by pushing the unresisting man – who would have been more than a match for the donut-grazer, had he chosen to fight back – up against a truck.

“Once he had me pinned up against the back of the truck he kept leaning in,” Buehler continued. “He kept pushing me.”

Eventually Oborski got so close that Buehler actually breathed on him – which gave him a pretext to accuse the witness of “spitting” on him. With some difficulty, and Snider’s help, Oborski wrestled Buehler (who offered only passive resistance) to the ground and handcuffed him. The cops took Beuhler to a BAT van – a patently unreliable mobile alcohol testing unit – in the hope of documenting that the witness was intoxicated, which he wasn’t. The cop finally settled on charging him with “harassing a public servant” – a third-degree felony – and “resisting arrest.”

As is always the case in incidents of this kind, Buehler wasn’t arrested for an actual crime; he was vindictively punished for “contempt of cop.” 

“You don’t f*** with cops,” Oborski snarled at Buehler. “You don’t get in our f***ing way. You don’t question us, and we’re going to teach you a lesson.”

Norma Pizana’s plight was strikingly similar to that of Anne Dekins, with at least one critical difference: Dekins and her rescuers were blessed to live in 18th Century England, a relatively civilized society that recognized and protected a free individual’s indispensable right to resist State-licensed criminal violence.

Reprinted with permission from Pro Libertate.

January 14, 2012

William Norman Grigg [send him mail] publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program.

Thomas Jefferson 3x4

Our Forefathers saw the same Tyranny of greed by the city of London bankers over nation states and founded The United States Of America.I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
Thomas Jefferson

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) on Senate floor explaining it was Obama who requested the provision for indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial.  Senator Diane Feinstein recently confirmed that she was unable to excise Section 1031 in an email:

Senator Feinstein Confirms President and Military Can Detain US Citizens Without a Trial

Like you, I oppose these provisions.  Section 1031 is problematic because it authorizes the indefinite detention of American citizens without due process.  In this democracy, due process is a fundamental right, and it protects us from being locked up by the government without charge.

For this reason, I offered an amendment to prohibit the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial or charge.  Unfortunately, on December 1, 2011, this amendment failed by a vote of 45-55.

I was, however, able to reach a compromise with the authors of the defense bill to state that no existing law or authorities to detain suspected terrorists are changed by this section of the bill.  While I would have preferred to have restricted the government’s ability to detain U.S. citizens without charge,this compromise at least ensures that the bill does not expand the government’s authority in this area.

Dear brothers and sisters. Now is the time to open your eyes!

In a stunning move that has civil libertarians stuttering with disbelief, the U.S. Senate has just passed a bill that effectively ends the Bill of Rights in America.
The National Defense Authorization Act is being called the most traitorous act ever witnessed in the Senate, and the language of the bill is cleverly designed to make you think it doesn’t apply to Americans, but toward the end of the bill, it essentially says it can apply to Americans “if we want it to.


Bill Summary & Status, 112th Congress (2011 — 2012) | S.1867 | Latest Title: National Defense Authorization Act for.

This bill, passed late last night in a 93-7 vote, declares the entire USA to be a “battleground” upon which U.S. military forces can operate with impunity, overriding Posse Comitatus and granting the military the unchecked power to arrest, detain, interrogate and even assassinate U.S. citizens with impunity.

Even WIRED magazine was outraged at this bill, reporting:

SEDITION!!!!

Senate Wants the Military to Lock You Up Without Trial.

…the detention mandate to use indefinite military detention in terrorism cases isn’t limited to foreigners. It’s confusing, because two different sections of the bill seem to contradict each other, but in the judgment of the University of Texas’ Robert Chesney — a nonpartisan authority on military detention — “U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority.”
The passage of this law is nothing less than an outright declaration of WAR against the American People by the military-connected power elite. If this is signed into law, it will shred the remaining tenants of the Bill of Rights and unleash upon America a total military dictatorship, complete with secret arrests, secret prisons, unlawful interrogations, indefinite detainment without ever being charged with a crime, the torture of Americans and even the “legitimate assassination” of U.S. citizens right here on American soil!

If you have not yet woken up to the reality of the police state we’ve been warning you about, I hope you realize we are fast running out of time. Once this becomes law, you have no rights whatsoever in America. — no due process, no First Amendment speech rights, no right to remain silent, nothing.


The US senate does not want us to speak. I suspect even now orders are being shouted into telephones and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn’t there?

Cruelty and injustice…intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance, coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who’s to blame? Well certainly there are those who are more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told…if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.

I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn’t be? War. Terror. Disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you and in your panic, you turned to the now Putative President in command Barack Obama. He promised you order. He promised you peace. And all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.

ANONYMOUS

More than four hundred years ago, a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness. Justice, and freedom are more than words – they are perspectives. So if you’ve seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you, then I would suggest that you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek…then I ask you to stand beside one another, one year from November 5th, 2011, outside the gates of every court house of every city DEMANDING our rights!!


Together we stand against the injustice of our own Government.
We are anonymous.
We are Legion.
United as ONE.
Divided by zero.
We do not forgive Censorship.
We do not forget Oppression.
US SENATE…
Expect us!!

Blacklisted News

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,288 other followers