Society's Child

Police State USA: 5 ways to be easily mistreated and abused by cops in the U.S.

RT
Fri, 18 Sep 2015 19:49 UTC

From being innovative to having a disability, many in the US have been treated like criminals without actually committing a crime at all. Others have been brutalized for the most minor of infractions, such as crossing the street in the wrong place.

1. Jaywalk

Crossing the street in an area that isn't an official crosswalk can apparently lead to a beating with a baton. That's exactly what happened to a boy in Stockton, California, who was only trying to walk to his bus.

2. Make a clock and bring it to school

Educators are trained to encourage the intellect and motivation of their students, but perhaps teachers in Irving, Texas, missed that memo. Ahmed Mohamed was seeking to impress his instructors when he brought a homemade clock to school - but he landed in juvenile detention instead, because the invention "looked like a bomb." The move sparked accusations of Islamophobia, as the boy is Muslim.

I expect they will have more to say tomorrow, but Ahmed's sister asked me to share this photo. A NASA shirt! pic.twitter.com/nR4gt992gB
— Anil Dash (@anildash) September 16, 2015

3. Be homeless with crutches

Apparently crutches are considered "suspicious" by US cops, even if you only have one leg and need them to get around. Officers in San Francisco assaulted a homeless amputee after he reportedly waved his "sticks" around.

4. Sing in the street

It may not have been the best singing voice to ever grace Allentown, Pennsylvania, but the source of the melody had no idea his performance would end with police assaulting and arresting him.

5. Be autistic

It's not officially a crime to have autism in America, but that didn't stop New York City police officers from punching a 17-year-old boy in the face before arresting him - all because he was standing in front of his own home and had a hard time making eye contact, which made one of the officers "fear for his life."

Reader Comments

Hugh Mann · 2015-09-18T21:24:01Z

The Truth!

Police Officers, Judges, Clerks are all public servants. If a person works for ANY branch of government, local or federal, they have taken oaths of office and they are bound to honour the oaths by law (Constitution). If they break that oath for any reason, they can be fired, criminally charged with, but not limited to perjury and personally sued. When you are confronted by a Police Officer, all you have to do is remind them of the following.

Sir or Madam, You have taken an oath of office to support and uphold the Constitution of the United States Of America and that of this State. Is that correct?
Pursuant to your oath, you are required to abide by that oath in the performance of your official duties. Is this correct?

Read the following to them and I guarantee they will change their tune.

From the Civil Rights Act:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States Of America or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the depravation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."

Acting under color of state law is a misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law. Thompson vs Zirkle, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77654 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 17, 2007)

Statutes, codes, ordinances, treaties, customs are not laws and therefore are not enforcible.

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the SUPREME Law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." ---Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." ---Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." ---Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." ---16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

I've been doing a lot of studying to protect myself from the Black Robe Cartel and have enough knowledge to hang a cop, judge, clerk or anyone working for any branch of the government that oversteps their authority. They have no authority or jurisdiction. Don't belive me, prove to me wrong. They sure can't...

Baybars · 2015-09-19T03:11:34Z

"Police Officers, Judges, Clerks are all" employed by a system designed to enrich a few people at the expense of everyone else.

Katos · 2015-09-19T03:58:33Z

Yeah that's if you get a chance to press your charges, many have never made it past the initial provocation?

Hugh Mann · 2015-09-19T13:07:17Z

“Authority” is an extremely important word and concept. Nothing lawful can be conducted by government and the courts without Constitutional authority, and government has no authority to disparage your Rights. Keep “authority” in mind as you review the following statements and questions.
CHALLENGES IN COURT BEFORE PROCEEDINGS START
These statements and questions can be directed to the judge, for himself, the prosecuting attorney and state witnesses, such as police, etc., and to each one, individually. Not all of these need be made, so we state those which are most appropriate for the circumstances. If both we and our opposition, including the judge, fully understand the very serious, lawful positions and Constitutional implications of the statements and questions, usually, only the first three are needed for Constitutional justice to be served.
1. When the judge asks if the parties are ready to proceed, we say, “No, not just yet, sir (or madam), I have a few matters I need to clarify before we begin.” Then we make the statements we think most appropriate.
A. You and the prosecutor have taken oaths of office to support and uphold the Constitution of the united States of America and that of this state. Is that correct?
B. Pursuant to your oaths, you are required to abide by those oaths, in the performance of your official duties, especially those before this Honorable Court. Is that correct?
Note: If the judge, or the prosecuting attorney or other state witnesses say “no”, then, obviously, they must be disqualified and/or removed from the bench, position or impeached as witnesses, along with their testimonies, for obvious reasons. This answer is evidence that the one who answered “no” will not abide by his oath in the performance of his official duties, therefore, by his own answer, his oath is meaningless to him. He is a traitor and a danger to the American People, and must be removed from power.
The American Citizen is guaranteed due process of law in all court proceedings and actions before government. If a judge were to answer “no” to the above confirming questions, then, it is obvious that he does not intend to uphold due process of law and Rights guaranteed to the Citizens. In such a situation, we would say “Sir, you are required to uphold due process of law. However, by your answer, it appears that you have either taken an oath, but have no intention of abiding by it, or you have not taken an oath of office, as required by the Constitutions. In either event, your answer demonstrates that you will not uphold due process of law and protect my Constitutionally secured Rights, which are guaranteed to me during these proceedings. Therefore, sir, you are disqualified. Step down.”
All those who have taken oaths are required to answer “yes”. This answer is consistent with the requirements under the oath, the bond which binds the oath and requirements of the Constitutions. A “yes” answer means that ALL actions taken by the public servant, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE must be consistent with Constitutional requirements, specific to the Bill of Rights. If the public servant’s past actions failed this, and if those actions are used in an action or as evidence against the defendant, then those actions were not taken pursuant to his oath and were done in opposition to Constitutional requirements. Therefore, the public servant perjured his oath, invoked the self-executing Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment, vacated his office, and forfeited all benefits of that former office, including salary and pensions. All charges must be dismissed, with prejudice.
He must be disqualified from his position, and if he is acting as a witness, he and his testimony must be impeached and all his unconstitutional, unlawful actions and evidence against the defendant must be denied, and the charges dismissed. All present and future actions by the judge and court must be conducted pursuant to the Constitutions, federal and state. In this situation, if you are fully aware of your Rights and the full extent of the implications of the “yes” answer, you will prevail. However, if the judge were to then violate his answer by his statements and actions during the proceedings, we must inform him of his answer and his Constitutional requirements thereto, and of his liability, if he were to fail in his duty to uphold his oath.
2. I appear before this Honorable Court, by special appearance, as a living, breathing natural-born American Citizen, on the land, with and claiming, all Rights guaranteed to me in the federal and state Constitutions, and with my name properly spelled only in upper and lower case letters.
After this is stated, we wait a few seconds to look at the prosecutors and the judge, then, we say:
Is there any objection to what I just stated?
Obviously, pursuant to oaths taken by the judge, prosecutors or opposing attorneys, there can be no lawful objection to what we just stated, because all that we just stated, includes, but is not limited to, truth and fact. Since what we just stated is true, namely, that we are natural born American Citizens, it would be lawfully foolish and absurd for the judge, the prosecutor or our opposing attorney(s) to object. If they were to object, then, we would demand that they support their objections with fact and law, or their objections are reduced to opinions, only, and opinions are not valid bases in any court of Constitutional competence upon which to state objections or claim lawful positions. In this event, we must specify our objections and demand specific lawfully based performance, pursuant to oaths taken.
When no objection is made, then, we appear before the Court as we stated in our verbal judicial notice to the court. If there are any assumptions or presumptions made by any of our opposition regarding any alleged contracts or requirements with the fictitious entity, those assumptions, contracts, etc., were just removed by our statements, with no objections made. If the case against us is based upon those contracts and assumptions, the entire basis for the case has been removed by our own direct and simple statements and the inability of the opposition to object.
3. If we know, for certain, that the charges alleged against us are bogus, false and not based upon lawful position of substance, then, we attempt to resolve the issue with the motions discussed in this paragraph. Whether the matter before the court is civil or criminal, the opposing party, by and through its attorney, is required to verify that all information he presents to the court is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and ability, and/or that the charges filed are supported by oath or affirmation that they are valid. With these positions in mind, knowing that the charges and complaints alleged against us are fraudulent and bogus, and further knowing that the opposing attorneys have not verified the charges or affirmed them by oath, we make the following verbal motion to the judge: “Sir, I move to dismiss all charges and this case, with prejudice, since the charges and claims alleged against me are fraudulent and bogus, without lawful merit.”
If the opposing attorney has read our entire case file, which consists of the presumptive letter(s), affidavit(s), the affidavit(s) filed on the public record, and the motions and challenges filed with the court, then, he should realize that Constitutionally, lawfully and legally we have fully established and proven our positions, while his positions are, at best, entirely weak and without lawful merit. Further, if he truly understands that, from a lawful and legal position, he has not met his requirements to verify the charges, and/or to present only truthful information to the court, then, he may realize that he has not established his lawful positions, and in fact, has no valid, lawful case against us. In such a situation, he would likely remain silent and let the judge rule on our verbal motion to dismiss.
However, if the opposing attorney cannot comprehend the legal jeopardy regarding his positions, and if he displays the usual arrogance and stupidity that most of these attorneys demonstrate, he will object. If this were to occur, then, we say the following to the judge: “Sir, based upon opposing counsel’s objection, I move the court to require him to verify the charges and claims alleged against me, as valid, in compliance with all lawful and Constitutional requirements, specific to the Bill of Rights, by means of his own sworn, notarized affidavit so attesting, under the pains and penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and of this state.”
The presiding judge has already affirmed, on the record, that he and the opposing counsel have taken oaths and must abide by those oaths in the performance of their official duties. Any competent, aware judge fully realizes that the opposing attorney has not met his lawful requirements to verify the charges and claims alleged against us or to authenticate his representations to the court. By this time, the opposing counsel should also be aware of this. In order to abide by due process of law and within the Constitutional mandates imposed upon the judge by his oath, he and the court lack lawful authority to hear, entertain, adjudicate and rule on false, bogus, unsupported charges. The opposing counsel should now realize that he has no valid, lawful authority to file such charges with the court and expect the court to rule upon them. Both the judge and the opposing counsel are lawfully and Constitutionally defective, if they proceed in this matter, and both of them, by now, should know it.
The judge will not require the opposing attorney to execute the affidavit, and the attorney would be entirely reluctant, if the judge were to so require. Both of them are caught in a no-win situation. In such circumstances, there is usually a conference called amongst the parties and the judge, and the case is quickly dismissed.
4. This court abides by all the powers of and Rights guaranteed to American Citizens in the federal and state Constitutions, including due process of law. Is that correct?
Note: A “no” answer carries the same conditions as above. A “yes” answer is in compliance with Constitutional requirements for American Citizens and is consistent with the “yes” answer to #1 above. Again, if we are fully aware of our Rights and the conditions underlying the affirmative answer, we will prevail. Remember: We bind the judge by his answer.
5. I am entitled to and guaranteed a fair and impartial trial presided over by a fair, unbiased and impartial judge, in a court of record, before and decided by a well-informed jury of my peers. Is that correct?
Note: A “no” answer is consistent with conditions stated above. A “yes” answer confirms the conditions of the statement, including: (1) Right to a fair and impartial trial; (2) unbiased and impartial judge; (3) a jury of my peers; (4) which jury decides guilt or innocence.
6. I am presumed innocent of all aspects of the alleged charges, presumptions and assumptions in, by and of this court, unless proven guilty by a well-informed jury of my peers, beyond a reasonable doubt, based solely on verified evidence and proof. Is that correct?
Note: Either answer is consistent with conditions as stated above. However, in this statement, with a “yes” answer, you are confirming several vital positions: (1) presumed innocent of all ASPECTS of the alleged charges; (2) presumed innocent of ALL PRESUMPTIONS and ASSUMPTIONS of this court; (3) unless PROVEN guilty by a JURY OF MY PEERS; (4) proven guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT (5) based SOLELY ON VERIFIED EVIDENCE AND PROOF.
7. A. “Proof” consists of verified and demonstrated evidence, and not opinion, especially opinion unsupported by fact, law and evidence. Is that correct?
Note: In this statement, by the judge’s answer, we are confirming the nature and status of “proof”. It is highly unlikely that any judge will, on the public record, answer “no” to this statement, since his answer would defy the very loudly proclaimed concept of American justice, would defy due process of law, deny Constitutional Rights and allow ‘opinion”, unsupported or otherwise, to be used as “proof”.
When the judge answers “yes”, that will be consistent with the judge’s oath, Constitutional requirements and his other “yes” answers. He will confirm the statement, and the fact that opinion, verified or otherwise, is not proof. This is a major position, a major lawful gain and benefit. Many “testimonies” by witnesses are simply opinions, usually unsupported and unverified. The defendant can now be assured that only verified and documented proof, and not opinion, from anyone, can be used against him.
B. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” consists solely of decisions and verdicts from a well-informed jury of my peers based entirely on proof that absolutely and conclusively confirms guilt, without any reservations or questions, whatsoever, from the jury. Is that correct?
Note: A “no” answer is consistent with conditions above stated. A “yes” answer confirms ALL the conditions of the statement, due process of law, Constitutional requirements, the judge’s oath, and assures that a jury of our peers will make its verdict based solely on PROOF, not opinion, which absolutely confirms guilt, without any questions, whatsoever.
8. Opinion from any witness or prosecuting attorney unsupported and unverified by fact, law and proven evidence, is simply opinion, and opinion, as previously established, is not proof. Is that correct?
Note: A “no” answer is consistent with conditions stated above. A “yes” answer again confirms the status of “proof”, as different from opinion. Thus, any plaintiff, (or opponent), prosecutor, or witness MUST have verified proof, as described, and not opinion to support his statements. This is of vital importance to American Citizens. Therefore, “proof” by the prosecutor and testimony of witnesses is only opinion, unless it is supported as above stated, and if not, it is meaningless, frivolous, without lawful and legal weight; thus, is null and void and not accepted by the court as proof of anything, including guilt.
9. A. Since I am guaranteed a fair and impartial trial, how is that possible when you, the presiding judge, the prosecuting attorney and all the witnesses against me work for and are paid by the state which is the plaintiff in this case, and my opponent? In this situation, it is impossible for me to have a fair trial. Is that correct?
B. Further, any data used against me is obtained from sources who, are also paid by the state, the same plaintiff against me. At minimum, conflict of interest takes place.
Note: A “no” answer is consistent with above conditions. If the judge were to answer “no”, he is essentially saying, on the public record, that it is possible for a defendant to have a fair trial, even though he, the judge, the prosecutor and the state witnesses all work for and are paid by our opponent, and that all the so-called “evidence” against the defendant was obtained from sources paid by the state, again, the very same opponent. Even the most avowed critic can see through this fraud and blatant conflict of interest.
A “yes” answer confirms the conditions of the statement, and conclusively demonstrates that a presiding judge recognizes, on the public record, that the referenced court conditions are not fair, not partial, and, as such, unconstitutional. This is a major Constitutional and lawful victory for the people, with far reaching implications.
10. Since I am presumed innocent of the charges and all aspects, presumptions and assumptions of those charges and of this court, I have challenged the jurisdiction of this court, which jurisdiction my opponent has failed to prove, on the record. Therefore, since I am presumed innocent of all aspects of the charges and presumptions of the court, and since jurisdiction has not been proven, jurisdiction is simply a presumption of this court, of which I am presumed innocent and to which I am not subject. Therefore, I move for dismissal of all charges for lack of jurisdiction. Pursuant to the foregoing, and to numerous federal and Supreme Court rulings, this case must be dismissed, with prejudice, and I hereby move for dismissal of all charges and this case, with prejudice.
Note: By prior “yes” answers, it has been established that the defendant is presumed innocent of all assumptions and presumptions of the court. Jurisdiction is both an assumption and presumption of the court, of which the defendant is presumed innocent and to which he is not subject. The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the court, which the plaintiff failed to prove, on the record. Therefore, since the defendant is presumed innocent of jurisdiction, has challenged jurisdiction, which the plaintiff has failed to prove, on the record, the court lacks jurisdiction. Since jurisdiction does not exist, the court cannot lawfully proceed, thus, charges must be dismissed, with prejudice.
If the judge were to deny this lawful position and insist that “his” court has jurisdiction, without plaintiff having factually and lawfully proven it, on the record, the following could be stated:
“Since the judge has stated that this court conforms to all Constitutional requirements, then, this court conforms to the Bill of Rights, Article III of the federal Constitution and to due process of law. Jurisdiction is directly related to the foregoing, is an aspect of the charges, and a presumption of this court, of which the defendant is presumed innocent and not subject; yet the court has not held plaintiff to its requirement to prove jurisdiction, on the record. Thus, this court defies Constitutional requirements, due process of law, federal and Supreme Court rulings, therefore, forfeits any “perceived jurisdiction”, has no Constitutional authority to hear this case, and this case must be dismissed, with prejudice, or the presiding judge, pursuant to his oath, perjures that oath, commits insurrection and sedition against the Constitution, on the public record, and treason against the American People.
11. A. Juries are required to take oaths to the Constitutions. Is that correct? In its deliberations and in its verdict, the jury is required to abide by its oath. Is that correct?
Note: Since the jury swears an oath and is required to abide by that oath, it is obvious that a “yes” answer is required. The Constitutional and lawful position here is that the jury must abide by its oath in making its verdict. If it fails to do so, then the jury perjures its oath, its actions and its verdict are unconstitutional, and the jury verdict null and void, without lawful force or effect, whatsoever. Just as a public servant is required to abide by his oath in the performance of his official duties, so is the jury. However, the People must know and demand their Rights, or they have none.
If the judge were to answer “no”, which is highly unlikely, then, as a defendant, we would move for immediate dismissal of all charges, with prejudice, because any judge or court that permits an unconstitutional jury to perjure its oath and reach an unconstitutional verdict, pursuant to its oath, operates as an open fraud upon the People, denies and defies the Constitution and the powers of and Rights guaranteed therein to the American people, denies due process of law and has no lawful jurisdiction over any American Citizen, whatsoever.
B. If the jury, pursuant to its oath, makes its verdict in perjury of its oath or in opposition or contradiction to the Constitutions and the Rights guaranteed therein to American Citizens, or based in false information and fraud, that verdict is plainly unconstitutional, thus, null and void, frivolous, and without force or effect, whatsoever. Is that correct?
Note: Answer given in previous note. Further, pursuant to oaths taken, any jury verdict based, either in whole or in part, in fraud, deception, manipulation, lies or false information is null and void.
If the judge were to say that this is not correct, then we, as defendants, would inform him, pursuant to his oath and pursuant to his preceding “yes” answers, why his response is not only incorrect, but unconstitutional and unlawful. Further, we would inform him that he has no Constitutional authority to deny, on the record, the very Constitution to which he is bound by oath and bond, and to which the jury swore an oath. Further, he has no Constitutional authority to exceed his limited, Constitutionally delegated authority, or to step outside that authority. It is obvious that the judge is not a higher authority than the Constitutions, therefore, he cannot overrule them.
If the judge were to insist that the jury verdict, even when based in fraud, etc., as above described, is valid, we would remind him of his first “yes” answer to statement #1, in which he is required to conduct his professional duties pursuant to his oath, as is the jury also required. We would then remind the judge of his other “yes” answers, in which he confirmed, including, but not limited to, the Constitutional duties of the court. His response is made in contradiction to his oath, as is the jury’s verdict, thus, both are unlawful, unconstitutional, without force or effect, whatsoever, and not binding in a Constitutionally compliant court, which the judge stated, on the record, is the status of this court.
At this point, we would move for immediate dismissal of all charges and this case, with prejudice, for, including, but not limited to, lack of jurisdiction, lack of Constitutional authority, defiance of the federal and state Constitutions, denial of due process, perjury of oath, insurrection and sedition against the Constitution, and treason against the American People, in the instant case, the defendant.
If the “judge” were to remain firm, then, as defendants, we would inform him that we are entitled to a fair and impartial trial, by a jury of our peers, as he has previously agreed, and as is Constitutionally guaranteed, yet this jury is not a jury of our peers for many reasons, including, but not limited to: (1) jury members are not part of my ethnicity; (2) they do not work in the same profession I do; (3) they do not come from the same background and education that I do; (4) they are not Constitutionalists and supporters of the Supreme Law of the Land, as I am; (4) they are traitors to the Constitution and to the American People, which I am not.
We would then, again, move for dismissal of all charges and the case, with prejudice, based upon previously stated grounds, and further include the fact that the judge would permit an unconstitutional verdict by a lawless, unconstitutional jury not of our peers. The Constitutions guarantee us a jury of our peers, yet this judge denies this Constitutionally guaranteed Right to us. Pursuant to his oath, he has no Constitutional authority to overrule the very same Constitution to which he swore an oath, and, further, is not a higher authority than the Constitution. If the judge were to remain firm, we would again inform him that, by his own actions and responses, he committed insurrection, sedition and treason against the American People, is a traitor to this Nation and its People, and must be removed from the bench for his treason. We will immediately file criminal and civil charges against him, personally, and in his professional capacity, and take action against him in an Article III federal court, which we will demand, by Motion.
Questions To Ask The Jury
1. Are you aware that the Constitution of the united States of America, to which you swore an oath when you were initiated into jury duty, is the Supreme Law of the Land – the Highest Authority in this Nation – and that as such, no other law, statute, rule or ordinance can supersede it, and no other authority, including the Supreme Courts, federal and state, any judge, prosecutor, district attorney, attorney general or other public officer, can be a higher authority than the Constitution?
2. Are you aware that the Constitution is the foundation of all forms of American government, including the courts, and that it LIMITS the power of government to take away any of the People’s inherent Sovereign Rights?
3. The Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, guarantees to all Americans their inherent, unlimited, inalienable Rights, including, but not limited to, all due process Rights, such as those set out in the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Amendments to the Constitution.
(a) Are you, as jurors, fully aware of what these Amendments mean and how they apply in this proceeding?
(b) If not, will you request the court provide you with copies of the Constitution so you can fully understand due process of law?
(c) If you do so, will you make your verdict in this trial in strict compliance with Constitutional due process of law and uphold all Constitutionally guaranteed Rights of the Defendant?
4. Pursuant to your oath, is there anyone on this jury who will not abide by his/her oath in the performance of his official duties, including, but not limited to, jury deliberations and reaching jury verdict?
5. Are there any jury members who believe and will abide by the belief that the government is superior to the People and that government is Sovereign in this Nation, and that the People are required to obey the government in all situations, no matter how unlawful and unconstitutional that government or its actions may be?
6. Are there any members on this jury who are lawyers, government officers, or work for any form of any government, in any capacity, or are employed by corporations or companies that work for government?
7. Are there any informants, paid or otherwise, spies or provocateurs on this jury, for anyone or anything?
8. You have been asked these questions and are expected to, and will be held to, your answers, pursuant to your oaths. Does anyone wish to change his answer?
Note: Feel free to come up with your own questions and qualifiers for the jury.

Amazed by the Lunacy · 2015-09-20T16:39:20Z

Great comments Hugh, but the psychos running the place have shredded the Constitution in the name of national security. We got terrorists running round, don't ya know? After all, it's just a piece of paper, right?
[Link]

denekin · 2015-09-20T15:28:48Z

Thank you, Hugh Mann

Great comments, Hugh Mann. Thank you for your contribution.

Hugh Mann · 2015-09-21T21:25:53Z

You're very welcome.

"psychos running the place have shredded the Constitution in the name of national security. "

This is what they want everyone to belive.

The thing is, they took a law-binding oath and when push comes to shove, they must comply with it or else. If everyone would stop being lazy or intimidated and take some time to educate themselves about the real law (Constitution), the psychos would be out of business and in jail. No one needs to study the bullshit they're calling laws because they aren't laws and they don't apply to us unless we consent. I don't personally know anyone who has consented. The problem is most people just don't know how to defend themselves against these criminals. Most people would rather just pay the fine than fight. People are under the false belief attorneys will help them. No they won't, attorneys are whores and belong to the same brotherhood/cult/club/union as the judge and it's called the BAR Association. The whores will screw you out of your money and you'll still end up on the shitty end of the stick. You can not be sovereign and have an attorney/lawyer. If you ever intend on winning a case against the state, you must learn to do it yourself. Not only do I win my cases, the state pays me for their mistakes. This stuff really isn't difficult. If I can learn it, anyone can.

Peace!

It seems those Ukrainian draft dodgers might have alternatives : [Link] “Putin can say: if Ukraine does not give you passports, then I will give...

codis

If anyone still believes Trump will bring peace : [Link] The Trump campaign is preparing a bill to impose sanctions against countries that refuse...

codis

Gosh, have they asked the boys if they are traumetized, of feel raped ?!?

codis

As I recall, Van Halen wrote a song about this very issue way back in 1983... [Link]

Unkl Brws

One of my most favourite memories of living in the UK as a child was listening to Brass Bands. I lived in the North of England and they were...

Joan

Society's Child

Police State USA: 5 ways to be easily mistreated and abused by cops in the U.S.

Reader Comments

Latest News

Picture of the Day

Quote of the Day

Recent Comments

Quantum Quirk