tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-94747612024-03-13T10:19:55.590-05:00MarkMcCoy.comArticulate Anarchy, Reasoned Rebellion, Paroxysmal PhilosophyMarkMcCoy.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11668223376242773429noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9474761.post-88172931769056677082010-05-16T20:18:00.000-05:002010-05-16T20:21:37.246-05:00An analysis of the proposed Occupancy Code for Collinsville, IllinoisAn analysis of the proposed Occupancy Code for Collinsville, Illinois - <a href="http://markmccoy.com/occupancyoridance.pdf">Copy of proposed ordinance</a><br />So, what is it about a city council that makes them believe they have the right to pass an ordinance requireing anyone to procure a permit to live in their own home? Well, for one, if one claims "residency" within the corporate municipality then are then deemed to be considered to be regulated by the rules (by-laws) and ordinances which pertain only to that corporate body. Likewise, for U.S. citizens, there are no Constitutional protections since much of what regulates their behavior is codes, and regulations.<br /><br />Most people do not understand what a municipality is. Here is an excerpt from a page I have which explains <a href="http://markmccoy.com/municipal_law.htm">Municipal Law</a>:<br /><br />B. [1.2] <a href="http://markmccoy.com/municipal_law.htm#[1.2]">General Concepts and Definitions</a> <br /><br /><br />A “municipal corporation” has been defined as a public corporation created by government for political purposes and having subordinate and local powers of legislation. People ex rel.Mortell v. Bergman, 253 Ill. 469, 97 N.E. 695 (1912); BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, p. 1042 (8th ed. 2004). As they exist today, these public corporations can be compared with private corporations. Just as private corporations have a charter under which they are organized, so, too, municipalities have a “charter” in the sense that they are organized under the general law as it exists in the Illinois Municipal Code (Code), 65 ILCS 5/1-1-1, et seq. Just as shareholders control the operations of a private corporation by ratifying a charter and electing a board of directors, the citizens comprising the electorate control the workings of the public corporation by opting to form either a city or a village under one of the forms provided in the Code and by electing officials (city council or village board), who in turn carry on the business (government) and affairs of the city or village by passing and adopting ordinances (akin to bylaws passed by the board of directors of a private corporation). <br /><br />[My Commentary] So, if we look at it in these terms, we could say that Ford is a corporation (municipality) that is owned by the shareholders (Citizens/electors) who in turn elect the Officers, or Board (City Council, Mayor...) to perform the duties set forth in the Charter which were written to control the function of the "body" in achieving the ends of the shareholder/citizen. This body, in turn, passes ordinances (By-laws) that regulate the functions of that body in meeting the objectives of the shareholder/citizen. The shareholders believe that their dividends (benefits) are being wasted on providing health care coverage to workers (City employees) who smoke, and therefore want to make Ford a non-smoking company (municipality). The Board of Ford (City council) passes an ordinance (By-law) that prohibits smoking for employees of Ford (City employees). Now, does that mean that Ford can force the smoking shareholders to quit smoking as well? No. The shareholders are not subject to the regulations governing the operation of the corporate body of Ford, the same way that Citizens are not subject to the regulations (ordinances) of the corporate body (Collinsville).<br /><br />So, how do we, the People, create a government that is laid out with a charter and by-laws for the purpose of securing our freedoms and liberty, as well as performing in a collective capacity that which would be otherwise inefficient or cumbersome for us to perform individually? Why, you take up "residency", of course. Normally, Citizens retain all of their natural rights that are protected by the Constitution. However, if you want to derive any of the "corporate benefits" of the "corporation", you must become a resident of that corporation and therefore subject to the governing by-laws of that corporation. You do not need to be a resident to walk into a public library and read a book. However, in order to take that book out of the library's control and have it entrusted to you for safe-keeping and return, you must be a resident of that corporate body which subjects you to the ascribed penalties for violating your agreement with the library for the use and safe return of that book. That library card, that you have to sign (give your permission and therein claim the status of resident) your name and claim residency. That contract is then enforceable with fines and punishment for your violating any provision of that agreement.<br /><br />Residents derive benefits or exercise privileges that Citizens do not. If your tax dollars are going to fund a function of government then you have paid your way and are asking for nothing more than a Citizen is entitled to. However. if you are deriving a benefit that cannot be traced to a service provided through your payment of taxes, then you are acting as a resident. Most of the things provided by government in its proper capacity are paid by our taxes, i.e.., water, sewer, trash, roads...etc. The City gets you to claim the status of resident in order to receive these services, which is a trap, but you are not automatically conscripted to the ordinances unless they specifically apply to a particular benefit derived.<br /><br />Word trickery<br /><br />If you read the proposed ordinance you will see a section called Definitions. What happens is, the drafters of the legislation use words which have common meanings, but used in a particular way which possess a "special" or "legal" meaning. They are terms, not words. The legislation imposes a duty, and penalties, upon persons. Are you a person? Look at the definition:<br /><br />"Person means any natural person; firm; joint venture, including all participants; partnership, including all partners; association, social club, or fraternal organization, including all officers and directors; corporation, including all officers, directors and significant stockholders; estate; trust; business trust; receiver; or any other group or combination acting as a unit." <br /><br />Of course, most of you will see the term "natural person" and believe you are natural and therefore a natural person. A natural person is a flesh-and-blood human being, but one which is charged with a fiducary obligation or acting as a representative for an incorporeal entity. All natural persons are flesh-and-blood but not all flesh-and-blood are natural persons.<br /><br />There is a canon of statutory construction called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation">ejusdem generis</a> which reads:<br /><br />Ejusdem generis (Of the same kinds, class, or nature) <br />When a list of two or more specific descriptors is followed by more general descriptors, the otherwise wide meaning of the general descriptors must be restricted to the same class, if any, of the specific words that precede them. For example, where "cars, motor bikes, motor powered vehicles" are mentioned, the word "vehicles" would be interpreted in a limited sense (therefore vehicles cannot be interpreted as including airplanes).<br /><br />Look at the definition of the word person above. What follows? Firm, joint venture, partnership, association... these are not "natural" things. These are organizations of individuals, many of which are formed pursuant to an act found in statutes. Nowhere does an individual human being come into play unless they are part of a legal structure. A natural person is a flesh-and-blood human being who has taken a position or joined as a member of some other incorporeal or fictional body.<br /><br />So, what does this mean? People have natural, unalienable rights. Corporations, as well as other legal fictions, do not. Constitutions are created by People to create another legal fiction called the State for the purpose of protecting their natural, unalienable rights. The State is nothing more than the People acting in a collective capacity and forming a political body. The State is not some natural manifestation which posseses some supernatural control or authority over the People. The People, being the creators of the Constitution have the power to permit artificial, incorporeal entites like corporations, partnerships, associations... to be created and therefore, make conditional their existence to the will of the people. People cannot make anybody else's existence or exercise of rights conditional.<br /><br />Looking at the definition of person in the ordinance, what is being regulated are things owing their existence to a legal construct. If there is a legal nexus between the entity and the State where a registration or permit has been issued or recognized then it is a legal fiction and thereby subject to regulation. In the case of this legislation, a landlord who is a private individual owning and renting property has an obligation to provide a safe abode for his tenants and is subject to any harm caused by his neglect. He has a duty. However, as a tenant, people have the right to rent accomodations which may appear less than desirable to outside observers. Provided the landlord honors his duty to ensure there are no hazards which endanger the health or life of a tenant he has fulfilled his obligation.<br /><br />I would recommend the following approach should the ordinance pass, and I believe it will because most of the people serving on the Council are ignorant, arrogant, self-serving, Oligarchs. Most of them have probably not even read the Constitution of Illinois or of the United States. What needs to happen is massive civil disobedience. If people do not possess the temerity to assert their liberty then I say they deserve whatever they get. Otherwise, I would take a property owned by a private individual, not one acting in a corporate capacity such as an LLC or other entity, and through a Quit Claim Deed take "ownership" for valuable consideration of $1 with a promise to release the property back after 30 days for the same valuable consideration. What this would do is create a nexus where I would take ownership and thereby be "required" to procure an occupancy permit to occupy the premesis. I would then take up "occupancy" and wait for the ensuing litigation. In the mean-time, I would expect an information campaign relating to this matter to be dissiminated to the public, as well as promoting the people's right to exercise jury nullification as their right. Hopefully, a jury would not convict or I would just refuse to comply, relying on legal arguments I have previously confronted various governmental bodies with. In-short, I would not comply.<br /><br />I will not make myself available for such a tactic without the explicit committment of others desiring to challenge and confront this ordinance. I will also not put myself in harm's way for people who prefer their chains, but prefer them under their terms. I favor NO chains. That said, I will await contact......<br /><br />Mark McCoyMarkMcCoy.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11668223376242773429noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9474761.post-9081725307471089182010-05-16T20:15:00.000-05:002010-05-16T20:16:11.603-05:00Understanding “Peace Officer” vs. “Law Enforcement Officer”Not long ago all law enforcement officers were referred to as “Peace Officers,” but a transition has slowly set in, in which now all peace officers have become known as “Law Enforcement Officers.” Is this just semantics in title, or is there really a difference? That is the subject of this addition to my “Understanding” series “by Ron Branson” on various items of public service.<br /> To start out, we note that one title contains the word “Peace,” and the other “Enforcement.” Do these two titles denote the same thing, or is there a difference? Most any grade school graduate can understand them to be two different things. But to the naked eye, one might argue that both wear a uniform, have a badge, and carry a gun, and therefore are one and the same.<br /> <br /><br /> The distinction is not one of appearance, but rather one of objective. In all of society life is competition, and everything works from three basic positions: “A” versus “B” mediated by “C,” the latter of which is a neutral position that may be called a mediator, an arbitrator, a referee, an umpire, or a judge. Everyone in the competitive society of life is either a player, or a neutral participant. While the competition of “A” and “B” could also include the competition of “D,” “E,” and “F,” there can be only one “C” who absolutely must have no interest in the outcome between A, B, D, E, and F. Once “C” manifests an interest in the competition between A, B, D, E, and F, he automatically forfeits his position as a neutral participant, and becomes a player in the competition.<br /> <br /><br /> Every game of sport provides an excellent illustration of the game of life. No judge in an Olympian race can enter himself into the race as a candidate. The moment he does, he forfeits his neutral position as judge because he now has an interest in the outcome.<br /> This illustrates why there can exist no such thing as a “government interest” because the moment government obtains an interest in the outcome, it ceases to be government and becomes a contestant in the competitive world in which someone else must necessarily step up to assume the role of “government.” “Government” must absolutely be neutral, or it ceases to be government!<br /> <br /><br /> That is a profound statement I have just made because the courts in America have recognized “an overriding governmental interest,” U.S. v. Lee, 102 S. Ct. 1051 (1982), and Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (1986), both dealing with the mandatory numbering of all Americans to support the Social Security Administration. However, any true-thinking person can quickly see that by the very principles of nature itself, there cannot exist a “governmental interest” at all, much less an “overriding” one. Once the existence of such a principle is introduced, there can be no end, for it works like the camel’s nose under your tent; you will soon be sleeping with the camel, or worse yet, be crowded out totally from under the tent, for everything will eventually be done to accomplish “an overriding governmental interest!”<br /> <br /><br /> With this as a background, let me explain the distinction between a “Peace Officer,” and a “Law Enforcement Officer.” The objective of a peace officer is peace, nothing more. He has no interest in the cause of A over B, but seeks only peace, which benefits A, B, D, E, and F. In fact, the whole purpose for all government in society is justice which results in peace. Peace is not possible where there is no justice. Said another way, where there is no justice, there can be no peace; and where there is no peace, you can count on the fact that it is because there is no justice. When a peace officer arrives on the scene, his objective is to separate the disputing factors and quell the tension --whether it be a fight between a husband and wife, or feuding neighbors. He has no inherent interest in arresting anyone upon arrival at the scene. Such pursuit of peace is a rewarding objective. The Bible tells us, “Blessed are the peacemakers.” Matt. 5:9.<br /> <br /><br />So now let us discuss a “Law Enforcement Officer.” His interest, as his title indicates, is enforcing the law. Now we have already stated that the objective of all government must be the establishment of peace through justice. So the question now turns to whether law enforcement’s only interest is seeking peace. I state emphatically, “NO!” Let me again illustrate with a sports game – baseball.<br />Baseball, as with all sports, has rules. The purpose of those rules, which we might here call “laws,” are made to assure that everyone plays on a level playing field and thus keeps the peace. One batter cannot be granted five strikes while another is limited to two. All rules must contribute to the objective of obtaining peace between the competing sides. Obviously, if one side or the other cannot agree as to what the rules are, or to abide by them for the benefit of both sides, there can be no peace, i.e., no game can possibly be played. This natural principle of law is true even where the opponents are fighting in a ring. The objective of all rules/laws must be peace!<br />Applying this law of nature to all rules and all laws governing society, let us consider the incidents where the rule or the law’s objective is not peace. We accept that the umpire is the decision-maker in baseball; and both sides agree to honor his judgment, whether or not they agree with any particular play. Conceptually, both sides agree that the umpire is trying to keep the peace by being honest and just in calling each and every play, and is not motivated by a personal interest in the outcome, such as a bet on the game. <br />Now suppose the umpire, pursuant to the authority and permission of the Baseball Commission, imposes a fine against every player in the game for each strike in the amount of $10, (an “infraction,”) and $100 (a “misdemeanor”) for each out, and finally $1000 (a “felony”) for each accumulation of 10 strikes. The “laws/rules” provide that the Baseball Commission receives 90% of the proceeds, and the umpire 10%. It is declared “perfectly legal,” and such practice “is endorsed by the courts” –see, here it is, pointing to the published opinion of “United Baseball Players v. Baseball Commission, 666 U.S. 911, (2069).” Now the enforcement of this rule/law is “enforceable;” and the Commission is within its right to pursue the players for failure to pay this fee/fine, and it is authorized to send forth law enforcement officers with badges and guns to collect this fee or throw the players in jail.<br /><br />What has happened is, while this enforcement is “perfectly legal,” it has violated the fundamental laws of nature: that all laws must be for the purpose of bringing about peace through justice. Imposing a fine upon the players in a baseball game is neither a pursuit of justice nor peace, but rather the pursuit of the Commission’s own interest --that of collecting fines. And since collecting fines is the Commission’s interest, it then follows that their next step is maximizing those fines, i.e, increasing the numbers and amounts of the fines. Therefore, the “neutral” umpire, who has “no interest” in the outcome, starts “interpreting” more questionable calls in favor of strikes, the Baseball Commissioners, and his own 10% commission. Again I say, show me an umpire that has a “little bit” of interest in the outcome of a game, and I will show you a man that under any natural standard is disqualified as an umpire.<br />A “Law Enforcement Officer” is contending for the interest of those who hire him to “enforce” their “laws/rules” having nothing to do with peace or justice, only with profits for those who have sent him. The objective is greed-oriented. <br />The term “law enforcement officer” connotates the mentality of a fascist police state that has no interest in peace—just sheer obedience to the interests of the authority that pays him, i.e., he gets a cut of the profits of tyranny. There is no difference in this scenario than a driver of a get-away car receiving part of the “profits” of a bank robbery when splitting up the booty; except the former is a “legal” heist, while the latter an illegal one. The former is accomplished with an official uniform and badge, while the latter with a mask and bag.<br />By the very laws of nature, there cannot exist a “Law Enforcement Officer,” for if such were true, then we could all make ourselves “law enforcement officers,” for life itself must be a level playing field for all competitive interests. Life is not supposed to be “government.” It is supposed to be about society getting along peaceably with each other as much as is possible; and society needs only so much government as is necessary to bring about that objective, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” <br />-- Thomas Paine<br />So now we know why the foreign power, under color of “government,” has purposely designed the extermination of every reference to “peace officers” to metamorphose them into “law enforcement officers.” The objective is designed to subjugate the American People to obedience to an all-powerful, ever-expanding law enforcement police state. According to the foreign power, there can never be enough “law enforcement officers” —the more, the better! And if there aren’t enough “laws” for these “law enforcement officers” to enforce, do not worry because the foreign power will surely pass more. <br />Only by judicial accountability to the People through J.A.I.L. will their plans be thwarted! <br /><br /> Ron Branson is the author of a series of “Understanding” articles.<br /> <br /><br /> (It is highly recommended that this article be reformatted into a brochure and distributed to all “law enforcement officers” in America. And all “L.E.O’s” are encouraged to write for Officer Jack McLamb’s newsletter, “Aid & Abet,” at Jack@cybrquest.com.)<br /> J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.orgMarkMcCoy.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11668223376242773429noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9474761.post-28884497688993932962010-05-16T20:13:00.000-05:002010-05-16T20:15:10.456-05:00Common Law in IllinoisHere is a Power Point presentation I used when I spoke at the Illinois Libertarian Party Convention in 2006. My speech focused on the Common Law, and how it is still operative in Illinois. Officials often portray individuals who invoke the Common Law as being fringe, patriot or militia radicals; and there is much confusion and misunderstanding of what the Common Law is. The Common Law embodies long-held judicial decisions dating back hundreds of years. It stands in distinction to statutory law, which is man-made law and often mala prohibita in nature. The application of statutes in relation to the Common Law is to modify, amend, or address shortcomings in the Common Law to address the application of the Common Law to modern-day issues where the Common Law had not previously been applied. The notes below I gleaned from the Corpus Juris Secundum which is the authoritative Legal Encyclopedia used by legal professionals and jurists. I have also included an additional analysis of the City of St. Louis, Missouri Earnings Tax, which imposes a 1% tax upon the "wages" of "taxpayers" working within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. I attempt to clarify and illustrate the chicanery and confusion used in the wording of the City Code which attempts to impose a tax upon working people. You will need the ability to view Microsoft PowerPoint slide shows to view the presentation. <br /><a href="http://markmccoy.com/full%20speech.ppsx">Click here to view the Slide Show Presentation.</a><br /><br /><br />Common Law in Illinois <br />Corpus Juris Secundum on the Common Law § § 11 et seq.<br /><br /> The common law of England, so far as applicable and of a general nature, is in full force in Illinois until repealed by legislative authority.<br /> There is no national common law operative as such throughout the United States, and the adoption and application of the common law were matters left to the several states for determination.<br /><br />Under the Act of March 5, 1874, which is still in effect, the General Assembly provided: "The common law of England, so far as the same is applicable and of a general nature, and all statutes or acts of the British parliament made in aid of, and to supply the defects of the common law, prior to the fourth year of James the First, excepting the second section of the sixth chapter of 43d Elizabeth, the eighth chapter of 13th Elizabeth, and ninth chapter of 37th Henry Eighth, and which are of a general nature and not local to that kingdom, shall be the rule of decision, and shall be considered as of full force until repealed by legislative authority." The fourth year of James the First began March 24, 1606.<br /><br />This statute, without the exceptions, was passed by the general convention of the Colony of Virginia, May, 1776, and in its present form was carried into the legislature of the Indiana Territory by the Act of September 7, 1807, was in force in the territory of Illinois and was reenacted by the first state legislature by Act of February 4, 1819, and has been retained in the same form in succeeding revisions. The statute is declaratory of what was the law by which the inhabitants of the territory now constituting the State of Illinois were governed, and of the rights, privileges, and immunities to which they were entitled ever since Anglo-Saxon civilization first obtained a foothold in it.<br /><br /><br /> The legislature fixed the fourth year of James the First, instead of the date of the Declaration of Independence, or of the formation of our Constitution, as the period for transplanting the common law of England because that was the period at which the first territorial government was established in America, and with it the common law of England as it then existed.<br /><br />As a result of the Act, the great body of the English common law became, so far as applicable, in force in this state, and remains in force except so far as it has been modified or repealed by statute, or changed or modified by custom as found in decisions of our courts. The common law, when applicable, is as much a part of the law of the state, where it has not been expressly abrogated by statute, as the statutes themselves. In other words, Illinois is a common law state. <br /> On the other hand, it has long been settled that the adoption has extended only to cases where the common law is applicable to the habits and condition of our society and in harmony with the genius, spirit, and objects of our institutions. The statute adopting the common law of England does not require the courts to enforce the local customs of England, but, on the contrary, they are excluded. <br /><br /> What the statute adopted was not just those doctrines which happened to have already been announced by English courts at the close of the Middle Ages, but rather a system of law whose outstanding characteristics are its adaptability and capacity for growth. The Supreme Court pointed out in the very early case of Penny v. Little, which was quoted in Amann v. Faidy, "That if we are to be restricted to the common law, as it was enacted at fourth James, rejecting all modifications and improvements which have since been made, by practice and statutes, except our own statutes, we will find that system entirely inapplicable to our present condition, for the simple reason that it is more than two hundred years behind the age."<br /><br />Adoption of English statutes. The Act of March 5, 1874, which is still in effect, adopted not only the common law of England, but also all statutes in aid thereof or to supply defects therein passed prior to the fourth year of James the First, except the second section of the sixth chapter of 43 Elizabeth, the eighth chapter of 13th Elizabeth, and ninth chapter of 37th Henry the Eighth, which were of a general nature and not local to that kingdom. <br /> English statutes are not in force in Illinois which were passed since the fourth year of James the First, or which are inapplicable to our conditions and inconsistent with our institutions.<br /><br />Corpus Juris Secundum on the Common Law § § 14, 15<br /><br />Various maxims and principles of the common law which are of general application and are suited to the conditions and surroundings of our state have been adopted and are in force to the extent that they have not been superseded by statutory enactment.<br /><br />Thus, the courts have applied the doctrine of Mobilia sequuntur personam and the maxim De minimis non curat lex. <br /> In addition, other maxims and principles have been applied, such as ignorance of the law excuses no one, and everyone of sound and pure mind is bound at his peril to take knowledge of both the common and statute law; the law only favors the vigilant; the law abhors forfeitures and will show them no mercy or favor; persons must so use their own property and so exercise their own privileges that they do not thereby destroy or peril the rights of others; the law does not permit a person to do indirectly what he cannot do directly; and the law does not require the performance of a useless act.<br /><br />Statutes<br /><br />Rules for the construction of statutes are not rules of law, but are only aids which courts use to ascertain the legislative intent not clearly manifest from the language of the statute.<br /><br />The purpose of all rules or maxims adopted by the courts for the construction or interpretation of statutes is to discover the true intent and meaning of the law. These rules or maxims are not rules of law, but are merely aids used by the courts in arriving at the real intention of the legislature when that intention is not clearly manifest from the language used.<br /><br />These rules are useful only in cases of doubt, and are never to be used to create a doubt, but only to remove it.<br /><br />Definitions.<br /><br />The General Assembly has the power to make a reasonable definition of the terms used in an act, even though such definitions do not correspond with those contained in other acts. Statutory definitions control in the construction of the terms in an act, and the common-law definitions of those terms must yield to the statutory definitions.<br /><br /> Words defined<br /><br />The words in a statute may be defined by common usage, by previous judicial construction, as well as by statutory definition, to render the statute certain.<br /><br /> § 52. Construction as including or binding sovereign<br /><br />General legislative enactments do not impair the rights of the sovereign unless such an intent is expressly declared in the statute.<br /> The rights of the sovereign are never impaired by a general legislative enactment unless such an intent is expressly declared in the statute, and the words of a statute applying to private rights do not affect the rights of the state. The state is not bound by or included in any act of the General Assembly unless expressly named or necessarily implied to give effect to the act, although the rule that general legislative enactments are not applicable to the state is not violated when the state is made subject to the provisions thereof by reason of the expressed intention of the General Assembly to make it subject thereto.<br /><br />In common usage the word "person" does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are generally construed to exclude the sovereign, although the purpose, subject matter, context, legislative history, and executive interpretation of a statute are aids to construction which may indicate an intent, by the use of the term "person," to bring the state or nation within the scope of the statute. According to the Statute on Statutes, the words "person" or "persons," as well as all words referring to or importing persons, may extend and be applied to bodies politic and corporate as well as individuals.MarkMcCoy.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11668223376242773429noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9474761.post-3457009060216658022010-05-16T20:06:00.004-05:002010-05-16T20:25:30.802-05:00MarkMcCoy.com - Articulate Anarchy, Reasoned Rebellion, Paroxysmal Philosophy"I pledge allegiance to no flag of any nation, state, or authority. Beholden to my Creator, from whence I came, a sovereign, free, individual possessing Natural Rights, unalienable, with freedom and tolerance for all."<br /><br />With respect to "society", I am completely out of "control". With respect to my "conscience", I am the consummate "conformist".<br />My Statement to Government -<br /><br />I feel it necessary to preface the following remarks; to speak unequivocally, deliberately, and purposefully. Whatever actions may result subsequent to my statements will be shouldered by those initiating such actions. You may twist my words, but you will never bend my will. I would relish the opportunity to look any would-be actor, usurper, agent, or proponent of control, governance, or regulation in the eye and say what I have taken time to write on the pages contained herein. I am not a violent man. I reserve my right to self-defense, should I choose to exercise same. Holding true to that commitment, I likewise reserve my right to act in whatever manner I see fit, peaceably, and with due regard and care for others. I will NOT obey. Whatever the edict, proclamation, command, or rule; I will refuse to act. I understand that all power resides with the individual and only by way of my ignorance and fear may you gain control of me; and in a purely philosophical sense, it is I who controls myself to step into the shackles you lay before me. I have come to understand too much to allow that to happen. I admonish, caution, warn, and without reservation command you to cease any desire to engage me. Read on and do what you will, and I will live my life with nary a synapse crossing my consciousness which is tainted with any concept of your vileness.<br /><br />I do not "consent"! I am not one of the so-called "consenting governed", and I publically rebut any such presumption. I am not a subject to any earthly master or authority. I rescind all explicit or tacit allegiances to ANY government for the protection of My rights, life, or property, and I assume full and total responsibility for My protection of same. I will pay My own way, through voluntary taxes or fees, for any burden I place on government or society through the use of any privilege or benefit. I operate under no privilege or license; I am armed, capable, and prepared to provide for My own defense, the defense of My loved ones, and any who may seek My aid. I am knowledgeable, informed, and aware of all the absolute, natural, unalienable, and inviolable rights bestowed by My Creator; and I will live My life under the terms of My conscience; acted upon through My reason, and for any transgression against the like rights, freedoms or property of another, be subject to the punishment of my person; save but for My own private actions, shall I be ultimately accountable to no one or no thing other than My Creator. Any action taken by any one or any thing that poses a threat, diminishment, violation or penalty to Myself or My property will be met with resistance, belligerence, resolve, and determination and, if need-be, force. I Understand and acknowledge the pervasive ignorance that permeates and pollutes many of the minds of today, and I objectionably and reluctantly submit to some level of inconvenience upon My person by the unthinking, ignorant, and fearful automatons who have sold themselves into servitude, thereby having abandoned their conscience in favor of the mandates and dictates of artificial reason. I find it more humane and expedient to not bemoan a ripple of inequity that finds it origin in a sea of tyranny. I will reach out to My fellow man, though they may move from a position of ignorance and fear. Should My peaceful offer of understanding and reason be denied in favor of the anesthetizing fog of ignorance, I will deliver upon them a blow indistinguishable from that which is reserved for an ill disposed despot should they attempt to act upon that ignorance to My injury. I unequivocally and definitively claim My life, freedom and property as Mine, and Mine alone, not subject to the whim or needs of any society, government, or incorporeal construct of the mind of man. I will assert My life and freedom in a peaceable and civil manner; will resolve to obey no one; will submit Myself to just penalties for my transgressions; and under coercion, threat, or force will retaliate in-kind for My preservation and protection. So help Me God!<br /><br />"Know all men by these presents, that I, Mark McCoy, do not wish to be regarded as a member of any incorporated society, incorporeal body, or legal construct which I have not voluntarily, explicitly, and with fully informed consent, joined."<br /><br />What I have to say I do so after much anguish and reflection. The evidence, as I see it, is irrefutable and abundant. The assembly of free and independent states that is called America has been relegated to the pages of history and replaced by a de-facto government called the "United States", with no basis in the will of the People, but rather by the consent of the ignorant. Will and consent are not synonymous.<br /><br />Will is voluntary, purposeful, and deliberate. It is a desire and command for something. Consent is voluntary, whether knowingly or ignorantly, and permissive. It is also acquiescence, capitulation, surrender or apathy. The will of the People created a government, but only to act upon the consent of the governed. I no longer offer my consent. In my opinion, modern government is an anachronistic institution that has outlived its purpose. It is widely held that the ONLY legitimate purpose of government is the protection of the rights and property of the People. Government is NOT to dispense benefits, administer programs, heal, clothe, and educate people. These duties should be left to society-at-large. This notion is often impugned by those ensconced in the collectivist camp because society, more specifically people, cannot be trusted to manage such endeavors. My response is then, if People cannot be trusted to act charitably, compassionately, philanthropically, or responsibly towards their fellow-man, then how can such incompetent People be trusted to collectively discern from the population, and vote for, a body of competent People charged with taxing, regulating, controlling, and punishing the People for their political and natural transgressions?<br /><br />Government thrives on consent; be it express or tacit. It is that consent which lends legitimacy to the harm it causes. Without consent, much of what government does could be identified as tyrannical, despotic, terroristic, oppressive, and violent, if it weren't for the People dutifully trudging off to the polls to cast their consent to the wind in hopes that a despot-in-waiting will rain less injury down upon them than the previous despot. And what recourse may provide us relief should the election cycle result in more tyranny with the only chance of relief being years away in another election? Must the People be forced to suffer for no other reason than there be no political relief from a despot? Or may the People shed their political shackles so that they may find relief in their natural state, absent the trappings of political edifices, and simply vow to obey no more?<br /><br />Where does this lead me? I really cannot say. I know only of a few instances where this philosophy has been applied. Henry David Thoreau, I believe, was the first to put it into application. Later, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King took the same path. Each, of their own application of this principle, involved peaceful, non-violent, civil disobedience. It may be worthwhile to investigate the implications of that application, as it may stand in contradistinction to self-defense, even if such defense appears to be violent.<br /><br />If I refuse consent to being governed by a system, or by men and women employed by such system, who have no authority over me then the alternative would be to have a system imposed upon me against my will; compelling me to act; prohibiting me from acting; and extracting from me my property, freedom, liberty and labor.<br /><br />Suppose an officer of the government approaches a child of early years who has been not yet been to the concept of government. Of what consequence will there be for a child who fails to recognize a badge, uniform, statute, summons? To the child, the officer is just an adult exerting power with nothing more than the threat of force. That child doesn't recognize the authority of that officer. Actually, the only thing that gives that officer any authority is the mind recognizing that man as something that has power. The power comes from within us. Without it, officers are just people playing a role that gives them, as they perceive it, power to force us to obey their commands. Once we realize we are not dealing with government, an artificial thing that exists only on paper and in our minds, but instead government actors, people, who are relying upon our ignorance and fear to empower them, then the game is exposed and the truth revealed. The question then becomes, who has any right to compel obedience from anybody else when there is actually no higher authority than that of our Creator and our conscience?<br /><br />I now realize that we are captives. We are surrounded by the presence of a standing army of government agents, police and officers. We are living in a gilded cage. Our keepers are armed, aggressive, and determined to compel our obedience. We are led to believe that we must obey and comply with the orders of anyone in possession of a badge, gun, or wearing the trappings of a figure of authority. I do not recognize, chose to obey, nor offer my consent to such a premise or person who would deem to be so foolish as to believe that I am obligated to obey any command of another human being.<br /><br />Some People who hear these words become uneasy and skeptical. It is comforting to have a force to rely upon for protection from malcontents. There is little circumspection when we hear of someone being tasered to death; detained at a roadside checkpoint; have their property confiscated for ties to "drugs"; failing to act in a certain way prescribed by government; or have their children taken away for unacceptable parenting. We quietly thank our lucky stars, look ship-shape, and pray the next act of aggression befalls anybody but ourselves. Despite everything government does, it never succeeds in creating the utopian society it promises if we only "give a little more". Then slowly through repetition, exposure, indoctrination, and complicity, we subconsciously acquiesce to despotism while we shut our eyes and repeat the words "land of the free and home of the brave" over and over, as if chanting and disengagement will somehow produce a society we long for, but are too ignorant or fearful to invest ourselves in.<br /><br />It is time to face facts. We are not free. Neither as a people, a country, a world; we are not free. The chains grow ever more heavy, the walls ever more closer, and the control ever more pervasive. The unnatural and perverse feelings that permeate my being speak to a juxtaposition of the natural and unnatural. It is not natural to be duty-bound to another person. It is not natural to question your own actions for fear of transgressing on an arbitrary edict of a presumed authority. It is not natural to construct our lives so as to remain between the drawn lines of government and it's minions in observing and inspecting our every move and action for possible violations. I say, let whatever perceived violations manifest in the most prolific way. Overwhelm the tyrants with the task of maintaining their paper-driven world by our refusal to acquiesce. Beleaguer them with resistance, disobedience and revolution.MarkMcCoy.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11668223376242773429noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9474761.post-51722190311977496162009-12-01T21:24:00.000-06:002009-12-01T21:27:54.645-06:00All charges stemming from my arrest on 2/17/09 have been dropped.<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:trackmoves/> <w:trackformatting/> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:donotpromoteqf/> <w:lidthemeother>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:lidthemeasian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark/> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp/> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables/> <w:dontvertalignintxbx/> <w:word11kerningpairs/> <w:cachedcolbalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont val="Cambria Math"> <m:brkbin val="before"> <m:brkbinsub val="--"> <m:smallfrac val="off"> <m:dispdef/> <m:lmargin val="0"> <m:rmargin val="0"> <m:defjc val="centerGroup"> <m:wrapindent val="1440"> <m:intlim val="subSup"> <m:narylim val="undOvr"> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" defunhidewhenused="true" defsemihidden="true" defqformat="false" defpriority="99" latentstylecount="267"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="0" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Normal"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="heading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="35" qformat="true" name="caption"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="10" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" name="Default Paragraph Font"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="11" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtitle"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="22" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Strong"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="20" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="59" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Table Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Placeholder Text"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="No Spacing"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Revision"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="34" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="List Paragraph"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="29" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="30" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="19" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="21" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="31" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="32" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="33" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Book Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="37" name="Bibliography"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" qformat="true" name="TOC Heading"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-520092929 1073786111 9 0 415 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; color:purple; mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} p {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--> <p>Many of you may know that I have been very involved in battling the State of Illinois since February 17, 2009. On that day I was on my way home from work when I was pulled over for no reason by Joshua Alemond, a man acting as a Fairview Heights Police Officer. I was ordered out of my truck at gunpoint and subsequently beaten and Tasered by Alemond and with the assistance of Aaron Nyman, another acting Fairview Heights Police Officer.</p> <p>The charges stemming from this event include:</p> <p>A bench warrant for failure to appear for a previously dismissed driving without a license charge in 2006. The charge had already been dismissed by Collinsville in 2006 and then improperly filed in St. Clair County outside of the permissible time for filing charges of which I was never lawfully notified.</p> <p>Improper Lane Usage which allegedly gave rise to reasonable suspicion that I was "intoxicated".</p> <p>Fleeing/Eluding a Peace Officer which stems from my slowing down, activating my hazard lights and high beams, and driving safely for about a mile to a lighted side street out of concern for my safety for choosing to not stop on the narrow shoulder of a dark highway at 2am.</p> <p>Resisting a Peace Officer which stems from my refusing to place my hands behind my back when ordered to do so by Joshua Alemond when the command was being given to me while I was being beaten and Tasered with two men, Alemond and Nyman, on top of me both of whom are probably over 200 lbs each, and after suffered a blow to the head and face with an electric shock to the back of my neck.</p> <p>No Drivers License which stems from Alemond and Nyman performing an illegal and unconstitutional search of my personal belongings that were inside my truck while I was handcuffed, injured and bleeding in the back of the police cruiser. I was never demanded to produce a drivers license, but instead, because they could not find one they decided to charge me with not having one.</p> <p>Do Insurance which stems from the same circumstances as the drivers license charge.</p> <p>This store is lengthy and has been chronicled piece-meal in various posts so I won't go into detail here, but I will compose a comprehensive chronology of what took place from beginning to end. Most of the information is here <a href="http://markmccoy.com/excessiveforce.html" _fcksavedurl="http://markmccoy.com/excessiveforce.html">http://markmccoy.com/excessiveforce.html</a></p> <p>In essence, I never entered a plea to any charges. I challenged jurisdiction every step of the way. I presented the court with my <a href="http://markmccoy.com/declarationannot.html" _fcksavedurl="http://markmccoy.com/declarationannot.html">Declaration of Sovereignty</a> and asked Judge Randall Kelley to take <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_notice" _fcksavedurl="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_notice">judicial notice</a> of the Declaration; which he did. Upon challenging jurisdiction as well as the alleged reasonable suspicion for arresting me the court then had to allow for a hearing where I challenged probable cause; which in the police report mentions "believing the driver to be intoxicated".</p> <p>I had also been using Freedom of Information Act Requests to try and procure dashboard video and other records which speak to the police report being filled with lies, distortions, and fabrications; as well as containing evidence which would exculpate me of all charges. Fairview Heights Police used a number of tactics to deny the requests and by pressing my rights under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Bailey) the police were required to produce any and all evidence, of which I was permitted a copy. Last month I was provided with certified copies of the dashboard video from both police cars. My 8 month struggle to procure the video had come to an end, and it speaks volumes.</p> <p>Yesterday, 11/30/09, was to be THE day where the probable cause hearing would take place after a number of continuances. I finally had the video, the police report, my supporting case law, and my questions ready to go. However, this time the Alemond and Nyman did not appear.</p> <p>Judge Randall Kelley called myself and the State's Attorney, another Kelley (no relation) to the bench. I was asked if I was prepared to proceed to which I replied yes. Then Mr. Kelley was asked if he was prepared to which he replied no. He then asked Judge Kelley for a continuance because the police, his witnesses, were not present. He said he spoke to them on Friday prior to remind them of the appearance and they told him they would not be able to attend.</p> <p>Judge Kelley then asked me how I felt about the continuance and I explained that I had been more than accommodating in agreeing to necessary continuances in the interest of fairness, all of which did benefit myself and the prosecution, and the last appearance date where we discussed this date took into account the schedules of the Alemond and Nyman. I explained that I had been present and prepared at every appearance and the prosecution had not. Therefore, I felt another continuance would prove unduly burdensome to myself and contrary to due process. I voiced my objection to granting the continuance.</p> <p>Judge Kelley then asked Mr. Kelley if he had done everything in his power to ensure the appearance of Alemond and Nyman, to which he said yes. Judge Kelley then said that he agreed with me; that I had been present at every appearance and prepared to argue my motion. He said that another continuance for the State would prove unduly burdensome to me and he therefore DISMISSED ALL CHARGES.</p> <p>So, what does this mean? Well, the police would have to been sworn in prior to their testimony for the hearing. The report and video contradict each other. The video, being the authoritative record of the events, would speak to perjury and fabrication of evidence as well as exculpate me of the charges while showing Alemond and Nyman engaged in a number of misdemeanors and felonies. Alemond and Nyman could NOT appear without jeopardizing themselves by way of the evidence on the record. Therefore, no witness, no case. I also do not believe the State could have prevailed with two obviously compromised witnesses.</p> <p>What next? With the video in-hand I am looking for an attorney who will pursue civil action against the Alemond, Nyman, and the City of Fairview Heights. I have a number of criminal (misdemeanor and felony) charges that I will be working to have filed against Alemond and Nyman. There is still a lot of work to do, but I am unencumbered with any criminal charges which may tend to cast doubt over my claims against the police.</p> <p>This whole situation speaks to a systemic problem with what is known as "law enforcement". Police believe they are above the law, they are the law. We are a nuisance and should we transgress upon their particular sensibilities they may exact whatever justice they may see fit to summon and be indemnified from prosecution because of "departmental policy". They believe themselves to be a superior class of person and we, the people, the rabble. This debate needs to take place in the public domain and illuminate the self-aggrandizing, megalomaniacal threat that is modern "law enforcement".</p> <p>I digress. More to come.....................</p>MarkMcCoy.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11668223376242773429noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9474761.post-39271939842879482442009-09-20T20:01:00.002-05:002009-09-20T20:05:32.852-05:00I get a warm welcome Home….land Security.I get a warm welcome Home….land Security.<br /><br />I just returned from a week in Mexico on Sept. 18, 2009. My flight landed in Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas and I headed to Customs/Immigration. My wife was first through the check-in. Her passport was scanned without incident; then it was my turn.<br /><br />I handed my passport to the officer. She scanned it and right way it appeared that there was something not quite right. I remembered when I came through the airport at the beginning of my trip that the officer had problems scanning my passport and had to enter the numbers in manually. I thought it was because the passport is fairly worn, but the agent acted like it was odd that it would not scan. So, I thought the difficulty on the way back was no different. However, this agent exhibited an expression that was more telling then I would know. She picked up a telephone and briefly spoke with someone while I stood there. It was then that she said that I would have to go with her. She did not elaborate any further.<br /><br />We were escorted a short-distance to a waiting room where behind glass a number of officers were visible. There were monitors and other equipment in their area. In the waiting room was a man who appeared of middle-eastern descent. He told me his name, but I can’t recall what it was. He said it is common for him to be detained, since he was from Jordan. It happens all the time, he said. While inside the waiting room the officer who escorted had disappeared into the inner office area. There was another officer sitting outside the door. We waited for some time, realizing that there was less than an hour before our next flight left for St. Louis. My wife went to the window to see what the hold-up was. She is told that there is a “problem with my name”, and they had to get things straightened out. My wife told them that we had a flight to catch and they told her that it “was not about you” (my wife), and that it was to do with me.<br /><br />We watched the officers congregating behind the glass. The officer who escorted us back was discussing something with them and they were looking at some information on a computer monitor. Watching the expressions on their faces, it appeared to me that this was not something out of the ordinary. Some of the agents looked puzzled and curious. The man from Jordan left at some point and other officers came from the back office and left through the door. My wife and I waited, somewhat impatiently.<br /><br />Eventually, an agent came out to meet me who identified himself as agent Brock. He explained that there may have been some mix-up with my name, or another individual named Mark McCoy, and they needed to find out if I was that Mark McCoy, whoever that Mark McCoy was. He said they would try to get us to our flight, but they had to speak with me to find out information that may be associated with the possible mix-up of Mark McCoys. We were escorted down to the baggage claim where we picked up our bags and then to another area where they could be examined.<br /><br />On the way down the escalator we discussed some things. Agent Brock said he did not know exactly why they needed to interview me. He believed it may be due to some mix up. He asked if we had brought any contraband into the country. I admitted that the only thing I brought back were two apples, but those were apples that we had purchased at home and took to Mexico for eating on the flight and that we brought them back for the same reason. They were not apples from Mexico. Agent Brock said that should not be a problem. On the way down the escalator I made a remark about the detainment being a result of something I had written or said. Agent Brock asked why I would think that and I replied that I am politically outspoken and may have made someone mad.<br /><br />We picked up our bags at the baggage claim and then proceeded to an area for them to be examined. At that point, agent Brock and another agent named Murdock assisted in examining all or our bags. The apples were discovered and confiscated, as agent Murdock explained they were not permitted back into the country after being in Mexico even though they were purchased in America. In all, my backpack, camera bag, and suitcase were examined and my wife’s two bags were examined. The net result was two apples.<br /><br />Appearing satisfied with the search, agents Brock and Murdock left for some time, leaving my wife and I at the examination station. Upon returning, agent Brock asked me to accompany him to another room for further discussion.<br /><br />I was led into a smaller, more private room, that appeared to be specifically for interviews. I did not notice any microphones or cameras. In the room were agent Brock and another agent whom I don’t recall getting a name from, but who was younger and was not there for the whole time. Eventually, it would be agent Brock and Murdock who were present for the bulk of the interview.<br /><br />The interview consisted of agent Brock making notes on a blank sheet of 8.5x11 paper. He had my immigration form in front of him. He began by going down the form, verifying the information I had submitted, such as my name, address, etc. He made a comment or question about my being a United States citizen. I said I prefer the word, “American”, and he too said that he was an American. Other questions were such as where I worked, if I had ever been arrested, if I had my own business….etc. Agent Brock asked me about my comment coming down the escalator where I may be detained for something I had said and he wanted me to elaborate. I explained that I had ran for Governor of Illinois and mayor of Collinsville, and in doing so I took the opportunity to rail against the system and those in power; making possible enemies in the process. That comment led to more questions, such as how much money did I raise in my bid for governor, what party I ran under, as well as for mayor of Collinsville.<br /><br />I want to add that the interview exhibited no discernible structure or objective. It was more conversational than anything. My arrest record and current issues with Fairview Heights were discussed. He commented that the only times I had ever been arrested were while in Fairview Heights and asked if I had a problem with Fairview Heights. I replied that I can’t have a problem with Fairview Heights, since it is a political entity, but it was with two men acting as officers with whom I have the problem. I told him that one of the charges consisted of my not having a driver’s license. He asked if I did have a driver’s license; to which I replied no. I said I had no identification, per se, other than my passport needed to enter the country.<br /><br />There were other questions which were curious. I was asked if I heard of or listened to Alex Jones, if I liked Alan Keyes, and if I heard of Democracy Now (www.democracynow.org), and had I read a book by Amy Goodman. I replied that I don’t listen to Alex Jones, liked Alan Keyes, and used to listen to Democracy Now. I took the opportunity to bring up my philosophical and political beliefs. I can’t remember if agent Murdock compared me with Alex Jones, but I would differ on that perception. He did mention Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi, both of whom I hold in high esteem. I also mentioned Henry David Thoreau as being the progenitor of civil disobedience, and that such an approach is my philosophy. Agent Murdock did mention that Dr. King paid the ultimate price for his beliefs. I commented that I don’t believe myself to be so important or significant that I would be killed for my beliefs because the majority of people do not identify with such beliefs and therefore my threat to the status quo is negligible, although, I would not fear facing such a consequence for my beliefs since they are non-violent, and well-reasoned.<br /><br />I was also asked about my feelings on the Federal Reserve, an un-Constitutional, unaccountable private banking cartel; as well as on taxation. I informed them that I marched on Washington over taxation and that the government exceeds its constitutional taxation powers and wastes the taxpayers money on foreign aid and other wasteful endeavors.<br /><br />Finally, the interview ended and I was led back out to where my wife was sitting and the agents went to check on the status of my delay. They were waiting for a phone call from someone in Washington, D.C. to clear me through. We chatted with agent Murdock for a while until agent Brock came back to meet us with his supervisor, I believe, who was later identified as supervisor Jack Cannon.<br /><br />We were escorted to the American Airlines counter where we were given new tickets for a flight, which resulted in about a three hour delay in total, including having to wait for the next flight.<br /><br />So, what happened, why did it happen, and what does it mean?<br /><br />I was detained. I was detained against my will. I would have preferred not, but I understand the reason for it happening. Immigration is actually one of the few constitutionally authorized functions of government. However, I depart from that concept on this point; an individual born on this land has an unfettered right to exit and re-enter his home land without interference. I told the agents that I was a believer in no borders. Political borders hinder the progress of mankind. They are a means for control and hindering the freedom of people who would evolve societally if left to their own devices. But, the world being what it is at this time, if we desire an agency to keep undesirables out and limit immigration, there has to be a procedure in place for differentiating between the two. As a result, we have to submit to a level of inconvenience in being surveyed in order to determine who belongs and who do not.<br /><br />I was interviewed. I was not interrogated. I was not fingerprinted. I was not personally searched. I was not cuffed or shackled. I was not touched in any way against my will. I was not photographed, unless if possibly by surreptitious means. The experience was not contentious, adversarial, antagonistic, or unpleasant. Most of the questions involve information readily available through public information. I was not asked for an SSN or other number. It seemed more like there being some hold or other flag on my name or passport that made someone somewhere uneasy or curious; possibly after having read some of my writings posted on the internet or elsewhere, and my being an unknown quantity, they wanted to possibly assess just what the “man” was like and what threat, if any, I may pose. To be honest, after all my challenging to government to engage me; and all of the silence and avoidance resulting therefrom, I finally had the attention of agents of that government with whom to engage in civil discourse and discussion. Even the agents said that they were not sure as to the purpose for my detention, and that they were merely following standard interview procedures. I believe they were just killing time, having me within reach just in case, and discerning any possible threat or illegal purpose. Whoever was pulling the strings was not in Dallas-Fort Worth, but in Washington and the agents was somewhat in the dark regarding the purpose for my detention.<br /><br />Why did this happen? I don’t know. I can speculate, but I was hoping for the agents to broach the subject. I was never directly approached about anything in particular. The speculation from the agents encompassed everything from an identity mix-up to “I don’t know”. I believe that something attributed to me caught the attention in Washington and they needed to put a “person” to the words. They wanted to know if I was possibly violent, treasonous, dangerous, belligerent, uncooperative….etc. Depending on the circumstances, I could be uncooperative and belligerent, if that be how I am approached. These men were respectful and reasonable. Even I do not accept the “I am just doing my job” excuse for injustices being perpetrated; men can exercise reason and discretion in achieving a peaceful and lawful objective without infringing on the life and property of others. I saw no reason to be anything other than what I always aspire to be, viz, a peaceable and reasonable man who longs for the evolution of mankind in transcending war, divisiveness, mistrust, violence, and suffering.<br /><br />What does this mean? Someone is listening, or has listened. I may be dismissed as inconsequential. I hope to be dismissed as being non-violent, and not-consenting to the authority of government over my person. I can do without it just fine. Will I be detained again? I can’t say. Agent Brock said he will write a report that will hopefully resolve any uncertainty and avoid this from happening again. I can say that had it not been for my wife being with me I may have taken a different tact. I did not want to elaborate too much on some things so as to continue the interview to the point of delaying her from getting home. I actually told her that if I were to be detained for a time that she should continue home and make appropriate contacts. Is that to say I would have been less than civil? No. I would have taken the opportunity to go further into depth on my history with challenging government, removing my consent from same, tendering my Declaration and many other things. I would have taken the opportunity to talk them to deaf. I finally had a “captive” audience who dared ask, “Who are you?”<br /><br />At the conclusion, we shook each other’s hands. I commented on their professionalism and civility. I harbor no malevolence or discontent as a result of the experience. Have my opinions about government changed? No. I did not deal with government. I dealt with men. Even though I believe the office they occupy to be subordinate to that of a man, I was not assaulted with the persona of the official, but engaged by men acting in that capacity. Maybe they were very well trained and shrewd in furthering an ulterior agenda by appearing respectful and civil. My responses were genuine, honest, non-violent, and lawful. I kept telling my wife she had nothing to fear for I had committed no crime. If my experience was a sum of government agents seeking to know the truth about me then I have no issue with their tactics. We will see what happens next time, but for the time-being, I have to give credit to these men for treating me the way they did.<br /><br />I do plan on following up with a comment card and filing a DHS TRIP inquiry. I will update this mailing list with the ensuing results, if any. There were other things said that essentially reiterate much of what I usually espouse and many of you would rather not hear again, so I will dispense with the redundancy. Hopefully, I will be left alone or they will want to know more. Either way, I win.<br /><br />PS.<br />Upon checking my Google Analytics after returning home I find that Homeland Security visited my website on Sept. 18 and 19.MarkMcCoy.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11668223376242773429noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9474761.post-71449650174333490442009-09-06T16:51:00.001-05:002009-09-06T16:53:06.434-05:00Obama Regulation Czar Advocated Removing People’s Organs Without Explicit Consent<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://media.cnsnews.com/resources/53462.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 275px; height: 163px;" src="http://media.cnsnews.com/resources/53462.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><div class="rp2"> <div class="post-text"><p><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53534">(CNS News)</a></p><p><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53534"><br /></a></p> <p>Cass Sunstein, President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has advocated a policy under which the government would “presume” someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation into someone else when they die unless that person has explicitly indicated that his or her organs should not be taken.</p> <p>Under such a policy, hospitals would harvest organs from people who never gave permission for this to be done.</p> <p>Outlined in the 2008 book “<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/014311526X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252011796&sr=8-1">Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness</a>,” Sunstein and co-author Richard H. Thaler argued that the main reason that more people do not donate their organs is because they are required to choose donation.</p> <p>Sunstein and Thaler pointed out that doctors often must ask the deceased’s family members whether or not their dead relative would have wanted to donate his organs. These family members usually err on the side of caution and refuse to donate their loved one’s organs.</p> <p>“The major obstacle to increasing [organ] donations is the need to get the consent of surviving family members,” said Sunstein and Thaler.</p> <p>This problem could be remedied if governments changed the laws for organ donation, they said. Currently, unless a patient has explicitly chosen to be an organ donor, either on his driver’s license or with a donor card, the doctors assume that the person did not want to donate and therefore do not harvest his organs. Thaler and Sunstein called this “explicit consent.”</p> <p>They argued that this could be remedied if government turned the law around and assumed that, unless people explicitly choose not to, then they want to donate their organs – a doctrine they call “presumed consent.”</p> <p>“Presumed consent preserves freedom of choice, but it is different from explicit consent because it shifts the default rule. Under this policy, all citizens would be presumed to be consenting donors, but they would have the opportunity to register their unwillingness to donate,” they explained.</p> <p>The difference between explicit and presumed consent is that under presumed consent, many more people “choose” to be organ donors. Sunstein and Thaler noted that in a 2003 study only 42 percent of people actively chose to be organ donors, while only 18 percent actively opted out when their consent was presumed.</p> <p>In cases where the deceased’s wishes are unclear, Sunstein and Thaler argued that a “presumed consent” system would make it easier for doctors to convince families to donate their loved one’s organs.</p> <p>Citing a 2006 study, Thaler and Sunstein wrote: “The next of kin can be approached quite differently when the decedent’s silence is presumed to indicate a decision to donate rather than when it is presumed to indicate a decision not to donate. This shift may make it easier for the family to accept organ donation.”</p> <p>The problem of the deceased’s family is only one issue, Sunstein and Thaler said, admitting that turning the idea of choice on its head will invariably run into major political problems, but these are problems they say the government can solve through a system of “mandated choice.”</p> <p>“Another [problem] is that it is a hard sell politically,” wrote Sunstein and Thaler. “More than a few people object to the idea of ‘presuming’ anything when it comes to such a sensitive matter. For these reasons we think that the best choice architecture for organ donations is mandated choice.”</p> <p>Mandated choice is a process where government forces you to make a decision – in this case, whether to opt out of being an organ donor to get something you need, such as a driver’s license.</p> <p>“With mandated choice, renewal of your driver’s license would be accompanied by a requirement that you check a box stating your organ donation preferences,” the authors stated. “Your application would not be accepted unless you had checked one of the boxes.”</p> <p>To ensure that people’s decisions align with the government policy of more organ donors, Sunstein and Thaler counseled that governments should follow the state of Illinois’ example and try to influence people by making organ donation seem popular.</p> <p>“First, the state stresses the importance of the overall problem (97,000 people [in Illinois] on the waiting list and then brings the problem home, literally (4,700 in Illinois),” they wrote.</p> <p>“Second, social norms are directly brought into play in a way that build on the power of social influences [peer pressure]: ‘87 percent of adults in Illinois feel that registering as an organ donor is the right thing to do’ and ’60 percent of adults in Illinois are registered,’” they added.</p> <p>Sunstein and Thaler reminded policymakers that people will generally do what they think others are doing and what they believe others think is right. These presumptions, which almost everyone has, act as powerful factors as policymakers seek to design choices.</p> <p>“Recall that people like to do what most people think is right to do; recall too that people like to do what most people actually do,” they wrote. “The state is enlisting existing norms in the direction of lifestyle choices.”</p> <p>Thaler and Sunstein believed that this and other policies are necessary because people don’t really make the best decisions.</p> <p>“The false assumption is that almost all people, almost all of the time, make choices that are in their best interest or at the very least are better than the choices that would be made [for them] by someone else,” they said.</p> <p>This means that government “incentives and nudges” should replace “requirements and bans,” they argued.</p> <p>Neither Sunstein nor Thaler currently are commenting on their book, a spokesman for the publisher, Penguin Group, told CNSNews.com.</p> <p>In a question-and-answer section on the Amazon.com Web site, Thaler and Sunstein answered a few questions about their book.</p> <p>When asked what the title “Nudge” means and why people need to be nudged, the authors stated: “By a nudge we mean anything that influences our choices. A school cafeteria might try to nudge kids toward good diets by putting the healthiest foods at front.</p> <p>“We think that it’s time for institutions, including government, to become much more user-friendly by enlisting the science of choice to make life easier for people and by gently nudging them in directions that will make their lives better,” they wrote.</p> <p>“…The human brain is amazing, but it evolved for specific purposes, such as avoiding predators and finding food,” said Thaler and Sunstein. “Those purposes do not include choosing good credit card plans, reducing harmful pollution, avoiding fatty foods, and planning for a decade or so from now. Fortunately, a few nudges can help a lot. …”</p> </div> </div>MarkMcCoy.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11668223376242773429noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9474761.post-48401443512318907062009-09-06T16:47:00.002-05:002009-09-06T16:50:12.368-05:00Pittsburgh G20 Summit: De Facto Martial Law<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.infowars.com/images/ng.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 258px;" src="http://www.infowars.com/images/ng.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><div class="rp2"> <div class="post-text"><p><a href="http://www.infowars.com/pittsburgh-g20-summit-de-facto-martial-law/">by Joe Pogany</a></p><p><a href="http://www.infowars.com/pittsburgh-g20-summit-de-facto-martial-law/"><br /></a></p> <p>In a disturbing trend that has been emerging in the United States over the last few years, active-duty military will be on a mission in the streets of another modern American city. <a href="http://www.wpxi.com/news/20710486/detail.html">WPXI News</a> is reporting that 2,000 combat-ready troops from the 2nd Brigade Combat team of the Army National Guard will be deployed in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania during the G20 Summit. The troops will be tasked with providing assistance with crowd control, traffic, defensive terrorist tactics, and equipment to sense biological and chemical weapons.</p> <p align="left">In an August 3rd <a href="http://kdka.com/video/?id=60886@kdka.dayport.com">broadcast</a> on KDKA News, it was reported that Gov. Ed Rendell had promised 1,500 Pennsylvania National Guard troops who would be on-call “If necessary.” In this and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/us/23pittsburgh.html">other</a> news reports, it was reported that the roughly 900-member Pittsburgh Police Force was not enough to handle the amount of protestors that are being expected, which was cited as a reason to bring in the National Guard. Pittsburgh Police Department Chief Nate Harper put out a call to other departments and major cities seeking and eventually getting roughly 3,100 out-of-town police officers for the event. So, even though the police were able to secure the needed forces, we now have a confirmed commitment of active-duty military of not 1,500 troops— but 2,000! As of now we can expect 6,000 or more “authorities” for this elitists’ confab.</p> <p align="left">There is still no word as to whether or not these National Guard troops will be armed, and if so, whether they will be armed with lethal or non-lethal weapons. From earlier reports it is known that the police force will have “Standard-issue riot gear” but it is not known if the military will be equipped in this way too. Another point that is not known at this time is what the chain of command will be. (I.e. whether the police will be directing the military or vice-versa)</p> <p>Following the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s designation of the summit as a “National Security Special Event,” the U.S. Secret Service has taken charge of the event. This means that the Federal Government is directing all of the activities of the police, military, local officials, and by fiat— all of the local citizens. <a href="http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=27253">Amtrak has announced that they will not be making stops</a> in Pittsburgh during the summit as well as Greyhound, who is <a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09246/995338-147.stm">considering temporarily moving</a> their terminal to McKeesport. The Port Authority of Allegheny County announced that the light-rail service into the city will stop as it enters the city and admit that they still don’t know about how bus service will be affected.</p> <p align="left">KDKA News is also <a href="http://kdka.com/local/g20/downtown.residents.G20.2.1162692.html">reporting</a> that residents of the Downtown Pittsburgh area will need to show ID to enter their homes. The assorted apartment firms in the area are notifying their tenants that their information will be given to the city, which in-turn will put their names into a database. When the tenants who live in the “security zone” want to get home, they will need to go through a security checkpoint and show proper identification. No word on who will man these checkpoints or whether the residents will have to take their belts and shoes off.</p> <p align="left">Many groups have applied for permits with the city for protests. Many permits have been denied, and many more have not yet been answered. Of the permits that have been granted, none have actually been issued yet. The <a href="http://kdka.com/local/g20/G20.city.council.2.1160578.html">ACLU plans on suing the City of Pittsburgh</a> if the permits are not issued by the close of the business day, Friday. All of the groups who plan on protesting can look forward to doing so in one of the two proposed “Free-speech zones.”</p> <p align="left">With active-duty military personnel being on the streets, free-speech zones, little or no public transportation and making local residents show ID to get to their homes, we will be under a de facto martial law declaration here in Pittsburgh. This summit underlines all of the things that are totally un-American and wholly totalitarian in this country today.</p> </div> </div>MarkMcCoy.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11668223376242773429noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9474761.post-28802029316376631022009-07-26T09:04:00.001-05:002009-07-26T09:10:10.970-05:00A Sunday Morning RantGood morning newsletter subscribers. Feel free to delete this willy-nilly as my mood is at present acerbic and this communiqué' will convey such. The impetus for this diatribe stems from my watching news spewed by the corporate-controlled media. There are people carrying signs, complaining, whining, pleading; as well as businesses whoring themselves by seducing the rabble to engage government stimulus programs. A panoramic observation of the masses speaks to a condition rife with ignorance, fear, apathy, and greed.<br /><br />Am I painting with a broad brush? I will say that I am painting with a spray gun. I mean no attack on anyone personally; I am making a general observation. If the abasement fits, wear it.<br /><br />Swine flu. The hyperbole and propaganda oozing from the media and government trumpets the coming of the viral boogeyman. A vaccine is being hastily developed for which the pharmaceutical industry will be legally indemnified for any harm to you resulting from accepting the poison into your veins. Do you think the powers-that-be value your life? Do you believe that your wellness or happiness is any of their concern? You are guinea pigs, chattel, drones, fools. Whatever result follows your irrational actions is your fault. They will say you should have known better, but you were governed by fear. Maybe you would be better off dead. Take the vaccine. I will take my chances and rely upon my body's defenses and nature's remedies. If it is my fate to succumb to the plague, then so be it. I will not voluntarily introduce poison into my body which may afford no protection, and which may also hasten a painful demise. I will even posit that this flu originated in a laboratory, and planned for the thinning of the herd.<br /><br />Government bailouts. I could take the disingenuous approach that the government is wasting your tax dollars on rescuing private enterprise, but to be honest, the tax dollars are not yours. There is not now, nor has there been for some time, any money. You toil for debt. You are in debt. You will die in debt. Your children will be born into debt. Federal reserve notes, the "currency" of the United States, are worthless script. They have no value other than what others are willing to assign to them; what they are willing to work for. The bailouts are nothing but a way to legislate the confiscation of business through the expansion of the debt. The market is not free. The game has been rigged and controlled for some time by regulation and monopolization. You did not bail out anybody. The debt which tarnishes us all has been expanded for the purpose of bringing under the penumbra of the "exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress" the means of production and industry, ala socialism. Welcome, Comrade. Feed at the trough and satiate your greed.<br /><br />Religion, Christianity, God. I don't know what to say without alienating or angering some of you, but I will say this; the God I see marketed by many churches and religions appears to be a God of fools, ignoramus', tyrants, and hypocrites. If such a God exists I would rather be an Atheist. I refuse to believe in such a God. So many people hide behind their religion as an excuse for being "imperfect". It gives them license to fail and falter, for they will be forgiven; even though their spiritual and moral infirmities are self-imposed. A greater reward awaits when this life ends. A reward for what? What do people reap for having succumbed to the oppression of other men, regardless of how palatable or beneficial that oppression may be? How can anyone support war, yet assail abortion? How can anyone claim to be a child of God, yet serve the State? How can anyone believe in salvation, yet tremble in fear of evil men? Your churches are government controlled. Your preachers spew lies and vitriol. They deceive and dissemble. Their tongues are tied by preclusions from their churches being legal entities born from IRS regulations at 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. You worship the government because you pray in the house of Uncle Sam. Your preachers will not speak ill of government evil, war, revolt, disobedience; all of those things your Savior presumably advocated and died for. Jesus died for nothing. And so will you.<br /><br />Culture. What a cesspool. Not by inherent attributes, but by choice. People are enamored with aspirations of being dregs and buffoons. They are violent, greedy, materialistic, and slothful. They are the products of their lack of responsibility to their own lives. I am not my brother's keeper. I refuse to put upon my back any capable being. I cannot supplant their lack of will with my own. My labor is not meant to sustain their lethargy. I will grasp the outstretched hand of the man who loses his footing while trudging up the same hill as I. I will take into my arms the individual whose legs have been worn to inaction by years of toil and suffering. I will not place myself between a despot and his conscript; but I will stand side-by-side with the man who battles the tyrant. The end is looming for many who have accepted a life governed by vicariousness, voyeurism, and disengagement. When required to summon your wits for survival will you consult reality television, or will you invoke life experiences which afford more than how to be a compliant drone to the State or your materialistic hedonism?<br /><br />Myself. I do not know what the future holds. I do believe the future is a restatement of the past with the opportunity to change according to the dictates of the present. We are doomed to the fate of previous generations. If this is my first life, which I doubt, then I have but one chance to make my ending one which I can rest easy about. If this life is but another cycle in my evolution then I have a duty to learn from the past and to not err the same.<br /><br />The world is perfect. Man is perfect. Perfect in the sense that everything dutifully conforms to the laws of nature. Man, however, possessing free-will, chooses to understand his existence or ignore it. The knowledge acquired through examination may prove disconcerting and uncomfortable. Ignorance and distraction afford more comfort. I have come to understand that man creates his reality. I know of man's capacity for evil; as well as his capacity for good. I have made my choice. My task is to maintain my principles despite the pressure from others to succumb to their artifices; and their attempts to seduce me to abandon my principles for temporary pleasures crafted by man. Look around you. If man possesses the answers to the questions of the world, and we are living under those answers, why do we suffer so? Why have the afflictions of life been enhanced by those manufactured through industry and government? We poison our bodies and divorce our reason, and create the reality of suffering and fear we cling so tenaciously to. Let it all go. You will arrive at the ultimate destination sooner or later.MarkMcCoy.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11668223376242773429noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9474761.post-70724686730617064292009-07-08T21:14:00.000-05:002009-07-08T21:15:23.944-05:00Preparing for civil unrest <br />By Claire Wolfe<br />The most remarkable thing about civil unrest is that there hasn’t been more of it.<br />Politicians are making a hash of this country—and much of the rest of the civilized world. We know it. They know it. They know we know it. But we don’t feel we can do anything much to stop them.<br />That right there is the pre-condition for civil unrest—when people are frustrated and politicians are nervous.<br />Worse, that was how things stood before last fall’s crash. Before pols on both left and right launched the biggest mass transfer of wealth in history—transferring our wealth (what we had left of it!) to their friends on Wall Street and in the banking industry. In other words, that’s how things were before things got bad!<br />Now everybody’s talking about the ongoing catastrophe (even if we are in a momentarily sunny mood). But almost nobody is talking about the logical—maybe even inevitable—consequences of cynical or desperate politicians abusing an already fed-up populace: civil unrest.<br />I mean people taking to the streets. Or mass resistance. Or crackdowns because the government fears we might do something to upset its apple cart. It’s going to happen. Somewhere. At some time. It’s going to.<br />One of the few VIPs to mention the matter openly was Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor and the ultimate insider’s insider. He commented on the millions of unemployed or soon-to-be-unemployed and the “…public awareness of this extraordinary wealth that was transferred to a few individuals at levels without historical precedent in America.” He told “Morning Joe” Scarborough, “Hell, there could be even riots.” I’d say that’s an understatement.<br />Although few in power are talking about it, rumors abound that governments at many levels are planning for civil unrest. One rumor is about a document supposedly being circulated right now among top federal officials. It’s called the “C&R Document”—with C&R standing for “conflict & revolution.” The much-storied paper is said to be a plan for controlling the American people when we get out of hand. True? Who knows. But the very rumor tells us a lot about these times.<br />Other things are not mere rumor. When the federal government established a North American Army command in 2002, its purpose wasn’t to repel foreign invaders. It was domestic operations—something long and rightly forbidden by the Posse Comitatus Act. In February of 2009, when military commanders in Canada and the U.S. signed a pact allowing their armies to operate inside each other’s country they didn’t even bother to get authorization from Congress—an illegal and unprecedented move. And once again, the purpose was handling “domestic civil emergencies.”<br />For several years, the Centers for Disease Control tried to get states to adopt something called the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA). This act would allow state governments to become police-state dictatorships in event of any ill-defined health emergency—vaccinating people by force, destroying or seizing property without compensation, and rationing medical supplies, food, and fuel. To their credit, most state governments rejected the act. A few adopted portions of it before a fervent opposition campaign caused the CDC to back off. However, the concept of a health dictatorship hasn’t gone away. Not hardly. Within days of the news that a new strain of swine flu had arisen in Mexico in April 2009, states were again considering legislation to give themselves martial-law powers in event of an epidemic.<br />And what of the dozens and dozens of federal agencies that now have SWAT teams? Seriously, what justifies the Bureau of Land Management or the Department of Housing and Urban Development having paramilitary units?<br />Now maybe you like the idea of an Army that watches over its own citizens. Maybe it makes sense to have a government seize total dictatorial power in event of a health emergency. Maybe you believe SWAT teams will never be used except against bad guys. But do you really trust these people?<br />After all, these are the same folks, and this is the same mentality, that not only spent $325,000 to produce a souvenir photo of a presidential 747 zooming low over the Statue of Liberty, but ordered the New York Police Department, the FBI, the Secret Service, and the New York mayor’s office not to tell the public. Never mind that they realized full well that passenger jets and military planes plunging low over Manhattan would evoke panic.<br />Still, peace reigns. Mostly. At least here in North America. But not everywhere. Not long ago, France was brought to its knees by night after night of rioting. In that country it’s become almost common for workers to hold their bosses hostage in hopes of winning economic concessions. Greece, too, saw its normal life and business shut down by days of rioting. So did Iceland—a country that’s normally the picture of civility.<br />Can the U.S. be forever immune?<br />It might not take much—and it could be something out of the blue, something impossible to anticipate—to set us against each other and against the “Trust us; we’ll fix it” political crowd.<br />In a way, this national silence on a matter so many people are afraid of is similar to the silence about general preparedness issues before 9-11 or Hurricane Katrina. Only Mormons and us wingnuts spoke of preparedness way back when. Since then, of course, advice on preparedness is mainstream and common.<br />In another sense, this silence is different. Because when unrest finally erupts, it’s not going to be us merely taking care of ourselves. It’s going to be “us against them.” It might be workers against bosses. Or the poor against bankers. Or blacks against Hispanics. Or little folk against Big Men in public office. Or farmers against the USDA. Or xenophobes against xenophiles. But however it happens, the implications aren’t as Boy-Scoutish as just taking care of ourselves in an emergency.<br />Defining civil unrest<br />Look up “preparations for civil unrest” on Google and…What’s that echo I hear?—you’ll find nothing that’s going to help you. In fact, you won’t even easily turn up a good definition of what civil unrest is.<br />Like “indecency,” the definition seems to be in the eye of the beholder.<br />I wouldn’t consider a peaceful anti-war march to be civil unrest, for instance, but a police chief might. Similarly, I wouldn’t consider acts of localized non-violent lawbreaking (like environmental activists chaining themselves to a tree) to be civil unrest; but a timber company official probably believes otherwise.<br />Civil unrest occurs when anger, frustration, or fear turn disruptive on a mass scale. Or when government officials crack down because they anticipate such disruptions. Crackdowns can lead to further frustration, leading to further crackdowns and so on—especially when the crackdowns look unwarranted and tyrannical.<br />In other words, civil unrest can arise from the anger of people or the folly of government or both together.<br />Anger over an unpopular policy, a new war, a collapse of the currency, panic over a pandemic, a food shortage, a bank run—anything like that could cause civil unrest, especially in a population that’s already on edge and no longer trusts its authority figures.<br />Another thing you won’t find via Google is how various types or levels of unrest are likely to affect us and how we should respond, if we’re affected. Again, although the men and women at the top are quite concerned for their own sakes, they (and their media mouthpieces) would rather not talk about what we should do in event of civil panic.<br />But that’s not good enough for we independent-minded people, is it?<br />Here are my definitions of levels of civil unrest and a little bit about how they might affect us:<br />LEVEL ONE: The lowest level of civil unrest is when people turn on their own neighborhoods—as happened during the race riots of the 1960s and the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles. Level One civil unrest can be deadly and destructive, but primarily to people who live, work, or must travel in the immediate area. Level One unrest is spontaneous, Dionysian, is confined to a narrow geographical zone where the protestors live. Police response may be harsh, but it’s localized. Unless you’re in the middle of it, you’re unaffected.<br />LEVEL TWO: Level Two civil unrest may also be focused on a single area. But in this case, rioters or protesters have deliberately targeted a business district, a facility, a transportation system, or an organization to impose maximum disruption. One example: the World Trade Organization protests in Seattle in 1999; young people with violence in mind and rage in their hearts attacked an entire downtown, affecting hundreds of businesses and tens of thousands of workers who hardly knew what hit them. Another example: This spring, protesters in Thailand shut down the Bangkok airport, affecting who knows how many individuals and businesses. Level Two unrest is usually planned or semi-planned. The target is chosen deliberately. Although still focused in one area, Level Two can disrupt normal life and business in a whole region or country.<br />LEVEL THREE: Level Three comes when mass unrest or authoritarian crackdown causes disruption at state or regional level. Then, no matter what the original cause or location of the trouble, everyone in the region is affected. Effects might include travel restrictions, random ID checks, mass arrests, food and fuel rationing, controls on money and banking, roadblocks, and other harsh “emergency” restrictions.<br />LEVEL FOUR: Level Four is Level Three—but on a national or even international scale. It’s martial law. If things ever get this bad, it’s likely that the government itself will be a far bigger threat to everyone’s well being than whatever the original cause of the clampdown was.<br />And of course, any level of civil unrest can lead to laws, regulations, and harsher police policies that end up affecting everybody in the long run.<br />Yes, it can involve us<br />We make a mistake if we think civil unrest is strictly an urban phenomena. It can happen anywhere.<br />When 400 government agents and soldiers descended on one isolated family in the Idaho mountains, the roadblocks, helicopters, Humvees, media presence, and furious protestors surrounded the Randy Weaver family and brought the normal life of Boundary County, Idaho, to a halt. The siege against the Branch Davidian church in Waco, Texas, wasn’t conducted in the inner-city, either. Yet both of these were large scale catastrophes with all the hallmarks of civil unrest—individuals or groups resisting, government insisting.<br />I can easily envision strictly rural-based unrest that urban dwellers will never even hear about (except perhaps in highly distorted reports). What happens, for instance, if farmers, 4H families, owners of saddle horses, and holders of small chicken flocks decide to resist en masse the National Animal Identification System (NAIS)? It’s easy to imagine, in these crazy days, USDA SWAT teams descending on the countryside to make arrests, forcibly register or destroy non-compliant animals, and burn down non-registered facilities.<br />The future could see rural resistance to invasive census-taking, forced vaccination programs, land takings, water-rights policies, or the destruction of herds for real or bogus health reasons. As country people increasingly see governments as foreign organizations driven by the interests of city dwellers, pharmaceutical companies, and mega-agri-business, it wouldn’t surprise me.<br />If we ever have serious food shortages, expect rural areas to be besieged.<br />Even when civil unrest confines itself to the cities, airports, or highways it can affect us in crazy ways. Here’s a funny example of unpredictable (in this case mild) consequences. A friend was due to have her first book published in Canada. She was very excited—then disappointed when weeks dragged by and the book didn’t appear. Turns out that a band of Indians was blocking a highway bridge the printer’s truck had to cross. The union truckers, in solidarity, refused to route around the protest. Just one small consequence. But you can see the unpredictability.<br />The simple truth is that we don’t know what kinds of unrest to anticipate. We don’t know when, or if, we’ll see civil unrest. But thinking about the problem and preparing ourselves mentally and physically to deal with it should be just another aspect of our personal preparedness.<br />What we can do<br />1. Keep standard emergency preps up to date. First thing to do is make sure all our typical household preparedness supplies and plans are current. As BHM readers know, backup food, water, and other supplies are our mainstay for everything from bad storms to long-term unemployment, from power outages to social breakdowns. During civil unrest, especially at Level Three or Four, we might not be able to get out to buy things we need—or we might consider it more prudent to stay at home. On the other hand, if we ourselves are part of the unrest, we may need those supplies to sit out a siege.<br />2. Don’t fall into foolish complacency. We who live in the country tend to have an “it can’t happen here” attitude toward political violence or social upheaval. We see those things as urban pheonomena. And mostly, they are. But there’s no ironclad rule that says they have to be. If anything disrupts the supply chain, for instance, rural areas could be the first to be cut off from food, medicines, fuel, or other necessities. If government breaks down to the point where it can’t deliver food stamps, housing vouchers, social security, or bureaucrats’ pay, the rural poor and unemployed could become just as restive as their urban counterparts.<br />3. Watch your health. As I write this, the airwaves are shrilling about swine flu. This outbreak may fizzle; after all, perfectly normal flu kills many every year without causing panic, martial law, or incessant media coverage. On the other hand, it’s certain that one day some illness will rampage across the globe. Few things inspire public panic more quickly than contagious disease, and once again rural areas are not immune. Take all the standard recommended precautions like frequent handwashing. Make sure your preparedness kit includes surgical masks and disposable gloves as well as a selection of frequently updated medications. And be ready to lay low at home for a long time in the event a serious plague gets loose.<br />4. Make common cause with your neighbors. I’ve said it before, but establishing a strong bond with people in your community—right now—is vital to every sort of emergency preparedness. In event of a Level One or Two emergency, these are the folks who could come to your house to make sure you’re okay. They might give you a ride out or a place to sleep if you accidentally end up in a “hot zone” of riot or protest. In a deeper or more long-term emergency, they could pool resources with you to make supply runs. They can advise you if they’ve spotted a roadblock. They might let you cross their land to avoid a route that has become dangerous.<br />5. If you grow crops or raise food animals and the unrest is due to a food shortage (or something has driven city people out into the countryside), prepare to protect your resources day and night. Here again neighbors can do each other valuable services, like taking shifts guarding fields, barns, private roads, and gardens. Yes, this is an apocalyptic scenario. Not a likely one. But if it happens, it’s a Level Three or Level Four emergency—delivered to your own front yard.<br />6. Get advance word on local conditions when traveling. We’re used to hopping into our vehicles or onto airplanes and going wherever we want to go. But as the worldwide economy deteriorates, it’s wise to keep an eye on our destination. Right now, this warning pertains more to overseas travel than jaunts within the U.S. If you plan to go abroad, visit online sites like Travelfish.org. They’ll have bulletins about adverse conditions in areas you plan to visit; you may even be able to receive alerts via email that will warn you about anything from political protests to disease outbreaks in places you plan to go.<br />7. Watch for signs of trouble when in an unfamiliar area. Sometimes the only advance notice you get is the notice your own senses give you. When walking, driving, biking, or otherwise traveling in unfamiliar places, stay in what gunfolk call “condition yellow.” This is different than the meaningless colored threat levels the Department of Homeland Security puts out. It just means “be alert!” Never simply allow yourself to slouch along obliviously. Always be aware of who’s nearby and what’s going on around you. If you spot trouble developing, turn. Avoid it if at all possible.<br />8. If you stumble into a “hot zone” of unrest, be prepared to think on your feet. Not many people are qualified to give you advice about how to behave if you unavoidably find yourself in the midst of trouble—a riot, a mass protest that suddenly engulfs your familiar downtown, a spot where police are bashing heads or hurling tear gas seemingly at random. That’s because not many people have ever been there and every catastrophe is different. If street-level chaos surrounds you, do your best to keep a cool head, move away from the worst of it if you get the chance, and get inside if possible.<br />9. If you’re swept up in mass arrests during a riot or demonstration, the officers probably aren’t going to be listening to your protestations of being an innocent bystander. You’ll only tick them off and possibly get a charge of resisting arrest. The best advice I’ve received from my friends who’ve been busted during out-of-hand protests: Go along as best you can. Usually, all charges in such cases are either dropped or reduced once calm is restored. Only if we’ve reached the extreme point where police are rounding people up and throwing them into detention camps or “disappearing” them is fighting cops on the street likely to be worth it; then…fight like a demon.<br />10. Have a good lawyer and carry his or her card with you. Once again, in the heat of chaos it may not do you much good. But that card will come in handy later. Besides, if you and a police officer have an encounter in calmer circumstances, a lawyer’s card, along with your calm assertion of your legal rights, will help you to be taken seriously. Police officers are like anybody else; they’re more likely to go after easy targets than ones who are obviously knowledgeable and prepared. My lawyer has a helpful little list on the back of his card of the things you should do—nor not do when accosted by a police officer. I’d trust that more than my own nerves in a tight situation.<br />11. Be careful of roadblocks. This is a hard one. If we reach Level Three or Four of unrest, we may not only see the obnoxious police “checkpoints” we’re burdened with today. We might also see two other things. One would be expanded police roadblocks, with warrantless searches, harsh questioning, and possibly mass arrests. Another could be “freelance” roadblocks—roadblocks set up by anybody from political protesters to highwaymen. (Just as gangs of home invaders now masquerade as SWAT teams, highwaymen might masquerade as government officials to rob the unwary.) If it’s humanly possible, avoid roadblocks. It’s not illegal to turn away from them, as long as you don’t disobey any traffic laws. Police do consider it suspicious behavior and may come after you, even if you’ve done nothing wrong; but in a time of civil unrest, avoiding a roadblock could save your skin. Of course, both police and freelancers will set up their blockades to make them as hard as possible to avoid—all the more reason to be alert, know where roadblocks are likely to be, and have a mental map of alternate routes. If, in a time and place of unrest, you’re in a line approaching a roadblock, watch what happens to the people ahead of you. If you see any sign that the motorists ahead are being abused, get out of there.<br />So far, we’ve talked mostly as if civil unrest is something apart from us—something we might have to be wary of, something we might stumble accidentally into. But the fact is that as our country becomes less free, we might of course be the civil unrest.<br />We might resist having our premises tagged for NAIS or having our herds slaughtered for real or bogus health reasons. We might end up fighting evictions (as farmers and many rural dwellers have for centuries during hard times). We might be the ones who say, “Hell no, we won’t go!” when the mobile vaccination van comes to town, or the ones who try to keep our neighbors from being rounded up and sent to camps. Times are uncertain. We simply don’t know.<br />But in every case, preparedness, foreknowledge, and a cool head will come in handy.<br />Some of us already have lines in the sand that would inspire us to resist abuses of authority. And that, right there, is something our would-be masters fear—our disobedience. What will happen? And when? Nobody has a crystal ball. But the combination of public frustration and governmental apprehension is an explosive one. Someday, somebody will light the match.MarkMcCoy.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11668223376242773429noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9474761.post-77703556951599578492009-07-08T21:11:00.001-05:002009-07-08T21:13:07.323-05:00A commentary on the delusion of independenceI had promised myself that I would not send a message to this list on Independence Day due to the fact that I find myself in low spirits when reflecting on the state of our nation, but I did not promise that I would not send a message AFTER Independence Day, which I prefer to call co-dependence day. I presume many of you were somewhat upbeat and happy for having a three-day weekend. Some of you probably “ooh” and “ah” to fireworks displays, gorge yourselves on barbeque, and numb your wits with copious libations. The braver amongst you risked repetitive stress injury by flagellating Old Glory on-a-stick with such vigor that the aggregated breeze generated can actually affect the jet stream.<br /> I, however, found that day to be a painful reminder of how we have digressed since the independence of the American inhabitants was won by way of treason and murder. Men, imperfect though they were, came to adopt universal principles pertaining to the recognition of natural rights promulgated by an author whose authority is beyond the reach of the manipulating hand of man. Through philosophical affirmation of unalienable rights these men posited a system of governance where a hierarchy of justice founded upon the rights of the individual would be secured. As a result, people would be permitted to pursue happiness unfettered, with the state being a silent guardian of the common liberty.<br />In the early years of this country, the common man, however ignorant or uneducated he may have appeared, recognized, understood, and cherished the freedom he possessed. He understood the purpose and limits of the new government. He lived his life with no prior restraint on his actions. His labor, fireside, travels, and family were sacrosanct. The audacity of government to inspect the private actions of a free man had not yet manifested in legislation or administrative acts. Agreed, the common man was not a paragon of virtue; without fault or vices. He was free to live and make all the mistakes properly befitting imperfect men. He was not yet placed under the yoke fashioned by other imperfect men in satisfying their own avarice and greed.<br />Today, there is virtually no aspect of our lives beyond the domain of governmental interference. The attitudes of the majority reflect an inherent distrust in human nature. Reason and conscience have been replaced with myriad statutes, ordinances, policies, and regulations. The State has assumed, under the doctrine of parens patriae, to deem us all incompetent, thereby justifying its intrusions into our lives. I find it curious that we celebrate the independence won by the colonies from England, but we seldom, if ever, contemplate our personal independence.<br />I, personally, find little value in our present form of government. As an Anarchist, I fail to recognize the legitimacy of government as it may pertain to those who do not consent to such a system. There is little doubt that any argument which claims our current government reflects the will of the people who first formed it would quickly fail. And if the argument is then that it reflects the will of the people today, then it is even more disturbing to see reflected in our political consciousness a belief that freedom should be mediated by a central authority; and the needs and necessities of life are best left to central planners and administrators.<br />We, as a nation, are at a crossroads. We will either capitulate to being governed into regulatory compliance, or come to revere the natural rights of individuals. A revolution is both long overdue and necessary. Whether it will be a revolution borne of blood or mind has yet to be determined. Almost assuredly, the taking of live is unavoidable. Government systematically engages in the capricious taking of innocent life. Thousands of people are maimed and killed by police action. Review of such atrocities is measured by “departmental policy” as opposed to standards of conduct applied equally to all, and based upon well-founded and established legal standards developed over thousands of years. To harm another, in whatever way and absent an imminent and demonstrable threat to the liberty or life another or one’s self while acting under the authority of the people purported to be protected is a treason perpetrated upon mankind itself.<br />The only celebration I partook of that day was that of my own claim of independence and sovereignty. I came to realize that I could no longer participate in the charade of liberty we are indoctrinated with by incessant incantations of so-called patriots. I am likewise nauseated by those I loosely refer to as my “countrymen” who excuse and dissemble; hiding behind their religion and God in justification for prostrating themselves before other men. Such people either worship a God who is a coward and despot; or they honestly have no faith in anything other than a fear of death and truth. I refuse to acknowledge a God, who would prefer those creatures which he created with a capacity for reason and hope for freedom, to serve as political sodomites for their earthly rulers.<br />I have made my intentions clear by way of my Declaration. I have sworn to live, die, and if need-be defend to the death those principles. Freedom cannot be purchased on bended knee and outstretched palm. It is purchased through struggle, pain, and blood. The rewards are far grander than the cost. I will willingly lay down my life for what I have come to accept as truth. I will be damned before I allow another man to frighten me into compliance. Let us see how the government responds to someone who exercises their natural right and sovereign prerogative to refuse to consent.<br />People speak as if the object of life is to live as easily and comfortably as possible with little outside interference. Tell me, how do you reconcile with your conscience when it confronts you with the disparity between your beliefs and your actions? How will you reflect back on your life, lying on your death bed and hoping for whatever eternal existence awaits, when you have submitted yourself to subjugation and arbitrary rule in violation of your conscience?<br />The purpose of life is not to amass as many trips around the sun as possible; it is to spend those trips living a life we have come to understand through inquiry and discovery. How in God's name can anyone act in a way that is in violation of their conscience? I understand there is a aspect of fear for doing so, but that fear is often self-imposed, based on the pretenses projected to us through media, society, and ignorance. <br />At the end of this essay I find my spirits now elevated. Despite what the world may confront me with, or what men may seek to impose upon me, I possess free will and the courage to exercise it as I see fit. The enumerated, licensed, regulated, deceived, and fearful can do what they will with this world. Celebrate your delusion of freedom and wear your chains dutifully. Even though I hope to enjoy my time in this life, I have not so endeared myself with its trappings that I will deny my nature for it. I am free. That is my celebration; Independence of self and spirit. You should try it.MarkMcCoy.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11668223376242773429noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9474761.post-83547871935366384592009-06-01T08:59:00.004-05:002009-06-01T09:32:34.234-05:00Police State Jobs Available for Psychopaths<h3 class="entry-header">Police State Jobs Available for Psychopaths</h3> <div><span style="font-size:100%;"><strong> <div><span style="font-family:Arial;">The sociopathic police personality: Is it a product of the “Rotten Apple” or the “Rotten Barrel?”<br /><br /></span></div> <div> </div> <div><span style="color: rgb(129, 0, 129);font-family:Arial;" ><a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/744g275720njq429/">http://www.springerlink.com/content/744g275720njq429/</a></span></div> <div> </div> <div><span style="font-family:Arial;"> The “Rotten Apple” theory states that deviant police officers are those who psychological testing fails to screen out. This concept is favored by police administrators because it offers a quick and easy solution to police deviant behavior. However, there is a growing body of literature that suggests that it is the stressful occupation that is policing that is the fertile soil from which police deviant behavior springs otherwise known as the “Rotten Barrel” theory. This article shall explore police deviant behavior from the perspective that it is the “Rotten Barrel” that leads to police deviant behavior.<br /><br /></span></div> <div> </div> <div><span style="font-family:Arial;">What we are now seeing appears to indicate that psychological testing is being used to </span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><em>locate and hire</em></span> sociopathic deviants <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><em>rather than to screen them out.</em> </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Are the people, who ought to be in prisons or mental institutions, now being given guns and badges? Are the prisons or mental institutions now for religious, or freedom loving people? Sociopathic deviants are the first line of enforcement in every dictatorship.</span></div></strong></span></div><div><span style="color: rgb(129, 0, 129);font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" ><br /></span></div>MarkMcCoy.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11668223376242773429noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9474761.post-5391607521744000992009-06-01T08:26:00.002-05:002009-06-01T08:31:57.715-05:00Career lawyers overruled on voting case Black Panthers had wielded weapons, blocked polls<p> Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews. </p><p>The incident - which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube - had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms.<br /></p><p>Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago.<br /></p><p> The lawyers also had ascertained that one of the three men had gained access to the polling place by securing a credential as a Democratic poll watcher, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Times. </p><p>The career Justice lawyers were on the verge of securing sanctions against the men earlier this month when their superiors ordered them to reverse course, according to interviews and documents. The court had already entered a default judgment against the men on April 20.<br /></p><p> A Justice Department spokesman on Thursday confirmed that the agency had dropped the case, dismissing two of the men from the lawsuit with no penalty and winning an order against the third man that simply prohibits him from bringing a weapon to a polling place in future elections. </p><p>The department was "successful in obtaining an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again," spokesman Alejandro Miyar said. "Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law." </p><p>Mr. Miyar declined to elaborate about any internal dispute between career and political officials, saying only that the department is "committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote." </p><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/neGbKHyGuHU&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/neGbKHyGuHU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>MarkMcCoy.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11668223376242773429noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9474761.post-92153497643304177962009-05-30T20:34:00.003-05:002009-05-30T20:44:30.731-05:00AMERICAN MARXISM BEWILDERS RUSSIANSAMERICAN CAPITALISM GONE WITH A WHIMPER<br />By Stanislav Mishin, from Russia's Pravda www.Pravda.ru<br /><br /> It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism<br />is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.<br /><br /> True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.<br /><br /> Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.<br /><br /> First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in D.C. that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonald's burger or a Burger King burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blinds the foolish.<br /><br /> Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.<br /><br /> The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Weimar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.<br /><br /> These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look like little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison.<br /><br /> Yes, the Americans have beaten our own thieves in the shear volumes. These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters. Should we congratulate them?<br /><br /> Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.<br /><br /> So it should be no surprise that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too.<br /><br /> Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, and so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.<br /><br /> Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper -- but a "freeman" whimper.<br /><br /> So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.<br /><br /> The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.<br /><br /> The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world how free he really is. The world will only snicker. --Stanislav Mishin<br /><br /><br />The article has been reprinted with the kind permission from the author and originally appeared on his blog, Mat Rodina in Russia's Pravda newspaper.MarkMcCoy.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11668223376242773429noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9474761.post-79053212852646410462009-05-09T11:32:00.008-05:002009-05-11T07:20:39.349-05:00Judicial Tyranny Run Amok in St. Clair County<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.thesfig.org/SFIG/c-d/Zina_Cruse_140x195.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 140px; height: 195px;" src="http://www.thesfig.org/SFIG/c-d/Zina_Cruse_140x195.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>On May 8, 2009, I appeared in courtroom 108 for the 20th Judicial Circuit Court in response to a Notice to Show Cause arising from a traffic ticket issued in 2006 by Collinsville, Illinois. The presiding judge was <span class="style8"> <a href="http://www.state.il.us/court/CircuitCourt/CircuitCourtJudges/Judges.asp#20th"> Zina Renea Cruse</a><span class="style6"> (pictured here). It appears that this courtroom is for first appearances relating to traffic/misdemeanor. Judge Cruse called my name and I approached the bench.</span></span><p></p> <p class="style4"> <span class="style8"> <span class="style6"> The judge then began to question me about the 2006 ticket, asking me how I wished to plead. I was taken aback, since the charge had been </span> <a href="http://honestgovernment.doesntexist.org/illinois-concon/docs/Collinsville%20dismiss%20no%20dl%20ticket.pdf"> dismissed in 2006 by Collinsville</a></span><span class="style6"><span class="style8">, but the judge persisted in questioning me regarding the alleged ticket. I tried to explain how I was not there to answer any questions regarding any ticket, but there only to show cause why I should not be held in contempt by not appearing for a court date, of which I was never apprised of, relating to a charge of which I never received. I asked the Judge if she could produce for me a verified complaint alleging a charge, to which she showed me a printout of something which represented a copy of a ticket, but which was not an actual charge.</span></span></p> <p class="style4"> <span class="style6"><span class="style8"> Judge Cruse attempted to enter a plea of not guilty on my behalf, upon which I objected to her attempting to act as my legal representative. I reiterated that I objected to her questioning me about the charge, and I would only entertain the issues regarding the show cause notice. She also attempted to schedule a bench trial for the 3 year old charge, which was previously dismissed, which I refused to accept or participate with.</span></span></p> <p class="style4"> <span class="style6"><span class="style8">In an example of further incompetence and lunacy, when I questioned why I was being questioned about a dismissed charge, Judge Cruse attempted to tell me that, since Collinsville is in both Madison and St. Clair Counties, the Madison County part of Collinsville was dismissed, but not the St. Clair County side. I asked her if there were two charges arising from one incident which were filed in two counties by one municipality; to which she replied, "yes". What that implies is that one traffic ticket issued by Collinsville subjected me to the jurisdiction of both Madison County and St. Clair County. That is either a bold-faced lie or an expression of incompetence. Furthermore, how would Judge Cruse have any information regarding the Madison County charge when she is sitting in St. Clair County? The charge from Collinsville was a municipal charge and the setting was municipal court in Collinsville. When I appeared for that charge the judge, Mallotte, attempted to engage in the same kind of chicanery as Cruse and attempted to entice me to entering a plea to a improper charge. Mallotte also attempted to enter a plea for me, upon which I objected. After I refused to participate with that insanity I received notice the charge had been dismissed.</span></span></p> <p class="style4"> <span class="style6"><span class="style8"> At this time, Judge Cruse, ordered me in contempt and had me placed under custody. I was then cuffed and placed in a holding room and later transferred to a cell in cuffs and ankle chains. Judge Cruse acted with hostility, contempt, unprofessionalism, and ignorance in attempting to goad me into stepping into a trap laid by fraud and deceit by entering a plea and accepting without having seen or been informed of, an unsubstantiated charge. She acted as a despot in depriving me of 3 hours of my liberty without due process of law, for my merely questioning the proceedings and standing upon my rights. Judge Cruse acted outside her judicial capacity and in violation of her office. Judge Cruse expressed the fundamental defects of the legal system as it exists today, by refusing to listen to defendants or providing a discussion of the merits of the charges by arresting those who take exception to her demands, or fail to submit to her ignorance and oppression. </span></span> </p> <p class="style4"> <span class="style6"><span class="style8">Judge Cruse, it would serve you well to understand the limits of your megalomaniacal judicial powers. Your powers to not extend beyond your little fiefdom, and do not attach to people who retain their Creator-derived rights and fail to submit to your, and your ilk's, despotism. You act as a brigand, thug, and tyrant. You possess no authority over me. I will not step foot into your courtroom again. I perceive you to be my enemy, untrustworthy, abusive, and illogical. I am in fear for my liberty should I meet you on your terms again, and I will not be a willing party to what amounts to my own undoing. It would serve you well to leave me be. Save your time, energy, and abuse for those intimidated by your delusional exercise of tyranny. </span></span> </p> <p class="style4"> <span class="style6"><span class="style8">FOOTNOTE: It appears that Zina Cruse may also be an Associate Minister of the </span></span><span class="style8"> <a href="http://cfcstlouis.org/">Christian Fellowship M.B. Church</a><span class="style6"> in St. Louis. If Ms. Cruse's courtroom demeanor is any reflection of her "Christian" beliefs then she is either a consummate hypocrite, or poor example of a Christian. Ms. Cruse can be emailed here </span> <a href="mailto:z_cruse@sbcglobal.net" target="_blank">z_cruse@sbcglobal.net </a><span class="style6"> Her Illinois Bar Association page is </span></span> <a href="http://www.stclairbar.com/index.aspx?itemid=897&directoryview=0"> <span class="style8">here</span></a><span class="style6">.</span></p>MarkMcCoy.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11668223376242773429noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9474761.post-68044974719740139712009-04-18T23:57:00.001-05:002009-04-19T00:02:36.838-05:00My Cup of TeaMy Cup of Tea<br /><br />Unless you have been in a coma, it is hard to escape all the talk about the Tea Party phenomena. People are getting tired of government waste and abuse. Frankly, I'm surprised it took this long. The Declaration of Independence states that, "...and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." The evils to which we are accustomed are no longer sufferable. It does not take government to decide when its evils are insufferable; or even to decide what the People consider evils, but each individual suffering under the systemic denial of their natural, unalienable rights to reach a point where they say, "Enough!"<br /><br />Even though the Tea Party phenomena is a good starting point, it relies upon people gathering together to express their discontent. The adage, "there is strength in numbers" may hold true, but there must first be strength within. What happens when the Tea Party participants have disbanded and go back to their daily routine? The strength of their collective body is dispersed to the respective individuals; often to be remanded back into the despotism from which they crawled for a moment of outrage. They resign to pay obligatory homage to the State, mind their business, pledge their allegiance, and comply with every regulatory edict that may inject itself into their private affairs. The State is none the worse for the momentary display of petulance from its conscripts.<br /><br />If one is to take a honest assessment of their conscience, beliefs, and morals they would be hard-pressed to accede that what government does is in harmony with why it was first created. Many, I posit, are so preoccupied and distracted by the day-to-day demands upon their senses for maintaining their burdensome debt that they give little thought, if any, to just how little autonomy they actually possess. There are movements afoot where some States are proposing bills which purport to assert the State's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment; which unfortunately has been all but eviscerated thanks to the States having become federal municipalities through the disbursement of federal monies to supplant the reserved powers of the States. Yes, you have even been compromised by your State legislatures who exercised control over you by pandering to Uncle Sam for the spoils which had previously been extracted from you through fraud and coercion. How these States will substantiate their sovereignty with tainted hands dyed green from the Federal Reserve's worthless script, or red from the United States' imperial aggression worldwide, is yet to be seen. It is never too late for change.<br /><br />Regardless, none of this is worthwhile without a fundamental change within our own minds. There is needed, a paradigm shift in the way we reason. Government is not something that exists in perpetuity. It requires people; people to lend their consent; people to submit to that authority; people to occupy the offices; people to oppress other people. It is all a game. An often violent and oppressive game,but a game nonetheless. If you want to identify the cause for all your suffering you need only to gaze upon yourself.<br /><br />I held my own Tea Party some time ago. The only participant was myself. There was discord between my conscience and the innumerable demands placed upon me by external restraint and compulsion. I stepped outside myself and took a critical assessment. I was not pleased. Much of what I had done in the past was done through information handed down by others no more invested in their lives than I had been. It was hearsay, presumption, and ignorance. When I asked about the "why" I was to comply with edicts, there was never reasoning founded upon morality or justice, but upon what would happen to me if I did not obey. The truth is, we live under the threat of force, fear, and oppression. We are not truly free, we are free as long as we obey.<br /><br />Each one of us has to come to terms with how we either submit or rule in our own lives. Over a year ago I took the steps to remove my consent, express or implied, from being a subject under this festering despotism I see before me. I have authored a Declaration which makes unequivocal statements to the world as to who I say I am and where my authority over my life derives. I have divested myself of the subjugation imposed upon me by way of my past ignorance. I can walk proudly and honestly, without fear, and confront so-called authority that believes it has acquired some lawful right to compel my allegiance. After sending a copy to the City of Collinsville, the then-Mayor, Stan Schaeffer, issued a memo identifying me as a possible "threat" because of my promise to exercise my natural right to self-defense. This mentality is prevalent in government institutions. Government actors do not like individuals who have lost their fear and confront their lies. They do not fear me as much as the message I offer taking hold in the minds of other free-thinking individuals. That was my cup of tea.<br /><br />I still wait for supposed rulers to compel me to obey. I have made my Declaration and stand by it, to the end, if need be. If this causes government actors some discomfort then it is within their minds such discomfort originates. I am a peaceable man, but will defend myself against aggression. I am not to be ruled by any man, or group of men, without my explicit consent. This is where we all find ourselves today. Tea Parties are a good start, but until you possess the temerity, resolve, belligerence, and tenacity to stand upon your natural, Creator-derived rights, you are nothing but a subject. There is no strength in numbers, when the individuals amongst such ranks are living in fear and ignorance. You can read about my journey, and my Declaration, at http://www.markmccoy.com. You can start by freeing yourself, which is only a thought away.MarkMcCoy.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11668223376242773429noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9474761.post-26764710379625027832009-04-18T06:20:00.001-05:002009-04-18T06:25:20.502-05:00Cops: Public Servants or Fascist Pigs? (Part 1)<p>It was not many years ago when I considered myself a supporter of<br />"law enforcement." (I made donations, had the F.O.P. and Sheriff's<br />department stickers and everything.) Cops were, I believed, the<br />good guys, protecting the innocent and imposing justice upon<br />evildoers. Oh sure, I knew there was corruption here and there, and<br />scattered examples of police abuse--a few "bad apples" in the ranks-<br />- -but all in all, I thought the cops were the good guys.</p> <p>Now I'm really darn embarrassed that I ever thought that.</p> <p>This will be the first in a series of messages where we examine the<br />question, are the American "law enforcers" of today noble public<br />servants, or despicable fascist pigs?</p> <p>First, we must define our terms. For example, someone having a<br />short temper, or exercising bad judgment, even repeatedly, is not<br />necessarily a fascist pig. No, a cop's level of "fascismo," if you<br />will, must be measured by something other than just being stupid or<br />even malicious. To truly be a fascist, a cop must demonstrate that<br />he has the fascist mindset. So let's define what that is.</p> <p>A NON-fascist cop, when he looks out at the world, would see lots<br />of good people, whom he would want to protect, and would never want<br />to harm, intimidate, or even inconvenience unnecessarily. His goal<br />would be to find the nasty people in the world, and see to it that<br />they are prevented from harming any of the decent people.</p> <p>A FASCIST cop, on the other hand, would view everyone as his<br />inferior, to be controlled, interrogated, or even abused at will.<br />He sees himself, a representative of "authority," as having the<br />right to forcibly impose his will on anyone he wants, whenever he<br />wants, for any reason (or no reason) and the right to use outright<br />violence against any who do not obey his every whim.</p> <p>So, in this message and the ones to follow, we will examine<br />examples of police conduct in this country, and rate the level of<br />"fascismo" demonstrated by American "law enforcement." What we<br />won't bother looking at are things like a car chase which ends with<br />a cop with too much adrenaline in his blood, or a cop shooting<br />someone with somewhat questionable justification. No, we are<br />looking for ATTITUDE. The goal is to determine if American cops<br />today think like defenders of justice, or like fascist pigs.</p> <p>- ---<>---</p> <p>As you may know, the feds now do internal "checkpoints," anywhere<br />they want within a hundred miles of the border. If you haven't yet<br />heard of this Orwellian absurdity, here are the basics:</p> <p><a target="_blank" href="http://www.aclu.org/privacy/37293res20081022.html" title="http://www.aclu.org/privacy/37293res20081022.html">http://www.aclu.org/priva...</a></p> <p>(Yes, I know the ACLU is very selective about which rights it cares<br />about. It fights hard to defend the First Amendment, while fighting<br />hard to VIOLATE the Second Amendment. But their site gives a good<br />summary of the "Constitution free zones.")</p> <p>With the "checkpoint" information in mind, here is the specific<br />incident we're considering this time, with our "fascistometers" at<br />the ready:</p> <p><a target="_blank" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc" title="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc">http://www.youtube.com/wa...</a></p> <p>Once you've watched the entire video (it's less than nine minutes),<br />consider a few things:</p> <p>1) First of all, would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig take part in<br />these warrantless, suspicionless searches at all? Well, no. To<br />think you have the right to stop and interrogate anyone who happens<br />to drive down a road, and the right to search through his stuff, is<br />a classic symptom of being a fascist pig.</p> <p>2) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig view someone's reliance on<br />his Fourth Amendment rights (to not be subjected to an unreasonable<br />and unjustified search) as a REASON to search his car? Put another<br />way, would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig think that someone must<br />be a criminal if he doesn't want to volunteer to let some jackboot<br />rummage through his stuff? No. Again, this is a classic symptom of<br />someone with a fascist pig world view. (Note that in the clip, the<br />guy describes how the fascist pigs at one point admitted that<br />everything the guy went through was because he wouldn't answer a<br />question.)</p> <p>3) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig FAKE "probable cause" in<br />order to get around that pesky Fourth Amendment? No. They had no<br />reason to suspect anything--to stop him at all, or to search him<br />after the stop--and then they LIED about it to make up an excuse to<br />do a search. Classic fascist pig behavior.</p> <p>4) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig smash someone's car<br />windows, taser him, and forcibly extract him from his car, without<br />ANY "probable cause" to think the person had committed a crime?<br />Again, no. (If you're finding these questions difficult to answer,<br />please move to Cuba.)</p> <p>5) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig grind someone's face into<br />broken glass, throw him to the ground, stomp on his head, and<br />otherwise assault him, when the person is unarmed and not<br />resisting, and when there is still no evidence that the guy had<br />committed any crime? No. (The clip doesn't say whether the cops<br />ever knew that the guy is a pastor.)</p> <p>6) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig openly delight in someone<br />else's misery and suffering, while the person is handcuffed and<br />bleeding profusely, mocking and insulting the guy, when there was<br />still NO EVIDENCE that the guy had committed any crime? No. (I<br />could make another item about not letting the guy go to the<br />bathroom, but I'm trying to keep this relatively short.)</p> <p>7) Here's an important one: Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig<br />QUIETLY STAND BY while his fellow "officers" did what is described<br />above? NO. If this was a case of one or two "bad apples" in law<br />enforcement, wouldn't some other cop there have tried to stop it,<br />or at least complained about it afterwards? So how often have you<br />ever seen that? Where are the "good cops" speaking out about this<br />stuff?</p> <p>8) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig want to proceed to<br />prosecute the VICTIM of all the abuse I described above, despite<br />the fact that there is STILL no evidence that he committed a crime?<br />No.</p> <p>Okay, so what's the verdict for this example? Well, if the story<br />above is an accurate reflection of what "law enforcement" in this<br />country is like today, then American cops are indeed fascist pigs,<br />who deserve our utmost contempt and condemnation. (And if it is NOT<br />an accurate reflection of the attitudes and behavior of the police<br />in this country, where are the GOOD cops speaking out against this?)</p> <p>In closing, I'd like to say the following to Mr. C. Diaz, Mr. B.<br />Griffiths, and Mr. E. Gomez, and any other Nazi swine who<br />participated in the incident described above. If some day you pick<br />the wrong target for your Gestapo crap, and the guy blows your damn<br />fascist pig heads off, the world will be a better place.</p> <p>Oh, and have a nice day.</p> <p>Larken Rose<br /><a target="_blank" href="http://www.larkenrose.com/" title="http://www.larkenrose.com">http://www.larkenrose.com</a></p>MarkMcCoy.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11668223376242773429noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9474761.post-40415703630728350192009-04-16T13:39:00.001-05:002009-04-16T13:41:35.091-05:00You Are Being Lied to About PiratesWho imagined that in 2009, the world's governments would<br /> be declaring a new War on Pirates? As you read this,<br /> the British Royal Navy - backed by the ships of more<br /> than two dozen nations, from the US to China - is sailing<br /> into Somalian waters to take on men we still picture as<br /> parrot-on-the-shoulder pantomime villains. They will soon be<br /> fighting Somalian ships and even chasing the pirates onto<br /> land, into one of the most broken countries on earth. But<br /> behind the arrr-me-hearties oddness of this tale, there<br /> is an untold scandal. The people our governments are<br /> labeling as "one of the great menace of our times" have<br /> an extraordinary story to tell -- and some justice on<br /> their side.<br /><br /> Pirates have never been quite who we think they are. In<br /> the "golden age of piracy" - from 1650 to 1730 - the<br /> idea of the pirate as the senseless, savage thief that<br /> lingers today was created by the British government in a<br /> great propaganda-heave. Many ordinary people believed it<br /> was false: pirates were often rescued from the gallows<br /> by supportive crowds. Why? What did they see that we<br /> can't? In his book Villains of All nations, the historian<br /> Marcus Rediker pores through the evidence to find out.<br /> If you became a merchant or navy sailor then - plucked<br /> from the docks of London's East End, young and hungry -<br /> you ended up in a floating wooden Hell. You worked all<br /> hours on a cramped, half-starved ship, and if you slacked<br /> off for a second, the all-powerful captain would whip you<br /> with the Cat O' Nine Tails. If you slacked consistently,<br /> you could be thrown overboard. And at the end of months<br /> or years of this, you were often cheated of your wages.<br /><br /> Pirates were the first people to rebel against this<br /> world. They mutinied against their tyrannical captains -<br /> and created a different way of working on the seas. Once<br /> they had a ship, the pirates elected their captains,<br /> and made all their decisions collectively. They shared<br /> their bounty out in what Rediker calls "one of the most<br /> egalitarian plans for the disposition of resources to be<br /> found anywhere in the eighteenth century." They even took<br /> in escaped African slaves and lived with them as equals. The<br /> pirates showed "quite clearly - and subversively - that<br /> ships did not have to be run in the brutal and oppressive<br /> ways of the merchant service and the Royal navy." This is<br /> why they were popular, despite being unproductive thieves.<br /><br /> The words of one pirate from that lost age - a young<br /> British man called William Scott - should echo into this<br /> new age of piracy. Just before he was hanged in Charleston,<br /> South Carolina, he said: "What I did was to keep me from<br /> perishing. I was forced to go a-pirating to live."<br /><br /> In 1991, the government of Somalia - in the Horn of Africa<br /> -collapsed. Its nine million people have been teetering on<br /> starvation ever since - and many of the ugliest forces in<br /> the Western world have seen this as a great opportunity to<br /> steal the country's food supply anddump our nuclear waste in<br /> their seas. Yes: nuclear waste. As soon as the government<br /> was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing<br /> off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the<br /> ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first<br /> they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies.<br /> Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and<br /> leaking barrels washed up on shore.<br /><br /> People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than<br /> 300 died. Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy to Somalia,<br /> tells me: "Somebody is dumping nuclear material here. There<br /> is also lead, and heavy metalssuch as cadmium and mercury<br /> - you name it." Much of it can be traced back to European<br /> hospitals and factories, who seem to be passing it on to<br /> the Italian mafia to "dispose" of cheaply. When I asked<br /> Ould-Abdallah what European governments were doing about it,<br /> he said with a sigh: "Nothing. There has been no clean-up,<br /> no compensation, and no prevention."<br /><br /> At the same time, other European ships have been looting<br /> Somalia's seas of their greatest resource: seafood. We have<br /> destroyed our own fish-stocks by over-exploitation - and now<br /> we have moved on to theirs. More than $300m worth of tuna,<br /> shrimp, lobster and other sea-life is being stolen every<br /> year by vast trawlers illegally sailing into Somalia's<br /> unprotected seas. The local fishermen have suddenly lost<br /> their livelihoods, and they are starving. Mohammed Hussein,<br /> a fisherman in the town of Marka 100km south of Mogadishu,<br /> told Reuters: "If nothing is done, there soon won't be<br /> much fish left in our coastal waters."<br /><br /> This is the context in which the men we are calling<br /> "pirates" have emerged. Everyone agrees they were ordinary<br /> Somalian fishermen who at first took speedboats to try to<br /> dissuade the dumpers and trawlers, or at least wage a 'tax'<br /> on them. They call themselves the Volunteer Coastguard<br /> of Somalia - and it's not hard to see why. In a surreal<br /> telephone interview, one of the pirate leaders, Sugule<br /> Ali, said their motive was "to stop illegal fishing and<br /> dumping in our waters... We don't consider ourselves<br /> sea bandits. We consider sea bandits [to be] those who<br /> illegally fish and dump in our seas and dump waste in our<br /> seas and carry weapons in our seas." William Scott would<br /> understand those words.<br /><br /> No, this doesn't make hostage-taking justifiable, and yes,<br /> some are clearly just gangsters - especially those who have<br /> held up World Food Programme supplies. But the "pirates"<br /> have the overwhelming support of the local population for<br /> a reason. The independent Somalian news-site WardherNews<br /> conducted the best research we have into what ordinary<br /> Somalis are thinking - and it found 70 percent "strongly<br /> supported the piracy as a form of national defence of the<br /> country's territorial waters." During the revolutionary<br /> war in America, George Washington and America's founding<br /> fathers paid pirates to protect America's territorial<br /> waters, because they had no navy or coastguard of their<br /> own. Most Americans supported them. Is this so different?<br /><br /> Did we expect starving Somalians to stand passively on their<br /> beaches, paddling in our nuclear waste, and watch us snatch<br /> their fish to eat in restaurants in London and Paris and<br /> Rome? We didn't act on those crimes - but when some of the<br /> fishermen responded by disrupting the transit-corridor for<br /> 20 percent of the world's oil supply, we begin to shriek<br /> about "evil." If we really want to deal with piracy, we<br /> need to stop its root cause - our crimes - before we send<br /> in the gun-boats to root out Somalia's criminals.<br /><br /> The story of the 2009 war on piracy was best summarised by<br /> another pirate, who lived and died in the fourth century BC.<br /> He was captured and brought to Alexander the Great, who<br /> demanded to know "what he meant by keeping possession of<br /> the sea." The pirate smiled, and responded: "What you<br /> mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with<br /> a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you, who do it<br /> with a great fleet, are called emperor." Once again, our<br /> great imperial fleets sail in today - but who is the robber?<br /><br /> Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent newspaper. To<br /> read more of his articles, click here. or here.<br /><br /> POSTSCRIPT: Some commenters seem bemused by the fact<br /> that both toxic dumping and the theft of fish are<br /> happening in the same place - wouldn't this make the<br /> fish contaminated? In fact, Somalia's coastline is<br /> vast, stretching to 3300km. Imagine how easy it would<br /> be - without any coastguard or army - to steal fish from<br /> Florida and dump nuclear waste on California, and you get<br /> the idea. These events are happening in different places -<br /> but with the same horrible effect: death for the locals,<br /> and stirred-up piracy. There's no contradiction.MarkMcCoy.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11668223376242773429noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9474761.post-63968340057768274152009-04-15T06:23:00.001-05:002009-04-15T06:25:34.086-05:00Limited Time Offer to GovernmentI wish to make a point. I know you are watching. You are looking for a reason. I bet it will be tied to some of the draconian legislation dealing with domestic terrorism. The free expression of ideas is no longer sacrosanct. Should an individual's words go against the grain of what government believes is in its best interests in preserving its powers then they are an enemy of the State.<br /><br />I've been told by people who are concerned for me that I should lay low. I have "painted a target on my chest". It is foolish to express my opinions in provocative and controversial ways. If my words cause government anxiety then that is a shortcoming of government.<br /><br />I will do this. I will make this overture. To-date, every effort I have made to engage government in extracting honest answers regarding its authority has brought nothing but silence. Considering the increasingly violent actions of government through aggression, police state tactics, disregard for individual liberties, I feel it prudent to avail myself to being humbled by the almighty State should it wish to contact me personally and with proof-shown, enlighten me to the error of my ways. Take me under the wing and reason with me. Correct my misperceptions and elucidate me with the higher, moral-law which I mistake as despotism, fraud, and tyranny. Bring me back into the fold, if you can.<br /><br />Please, contact me. I will meet with you, personally. I will not engage you on your territory, but will meet at a neutral location. You may email or phone me as well. Know this, I will record the conversation. I will make it public. I am no stranger to being questioned by the "feds". I am aware of the games and pretenses. Do not insult my intelligence. I expect that if there was any evidence which gave rise to a criminal act I would already be in custody. I expect you to make my point and show the people how you assail a peaceable man.<br /><br />Use my contact us form and provide when and where you wish to meet. I will be unarmed, and I would expect the same.<br /><br />I will say that I do not expect any takers on this offer. I will instead expect violence, hyperbole, and contrived accusations. I hope you prove me wrong. What is there to fear? Why not take the opportunity to possibly convert me?<br /><br />I await any contact, but not for long.MarkMcCoy.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11668223376242773429noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9474761.post-72339008520382968062009-04-10T19:44:00.001-05:002009-04-10T19:44:39.802-05:00Citizenship created for slaves ala the 14th Amendment<p>"GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS <br /> FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED!" <br /> Guess who are consenting to be Governed ? Answer: Voters, 14th <br /> Amendment citizens of the United States. If you don't claim to be <br /> one of them, don't pretend you are one them, guess what ? You are <br /> not one of the governed (voters) and will get no administrative <br /> relief. Treason by Design, By L.B. Bork <br /> pacinlaw.org <br /> HERE IS THE UNCONSCIONABLE KICKER! You may refer to it as the SET-UP! <br /> It is a fact that is well documented that you have to be a citizen of <br /> the United States to vote in any elections. You may verify this by <br /> checking your [S]tate statutes regarding the state voting <br /> regulations. Although it is difficult to see as the language is <br /> intentionally written to confuse people if you decipher Section 2 of <br /> the Fourteenth Amendment you will see that the de facto states or <br /> governments only represent people who are voting. Someone who is <br /> versed in syntax may be of assistance in the deciphering process. <br /> Accordingly, earlier above in this article it was stated that it is a <br /> crime to vote in elections! Illustrated forthwith is the pertinent <br /> text taken from Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment which <br /> exemplifies that it is a crime to vote. This is so evil it is beyond <br /> belief: <br /> ". . . the right to vote at any election. . . is denied. . . except <br /> for participation in rebellion, or other crime. . . " <br /> You must understand that you cannot just create "citizens of the <br /> United States " without violating inherent Constitutional premises <br /> under the Law of Nations; accordingly, the constitutional government <br /> [s] of the several states of America need to be usurped. This is done <br /> by making voters unwittingly throw off their allegiance to their <br /> lawful governments. The clause illustrated in Section 2 of the <br /> Fourteenth Amendment does this. </p> MarkMcCoy.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11668223376242773429noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9474761.post-10002366973259059362009-04-10T07:50:00.001-05:002009-04-10T07:50:43.506-05:00California Appellate Court Confirms Fragility of Red Light Camera Cases – You Have to Fight to Win<p>California Appellate Court Slams Sacramento Red Light Camera Program <br />Appellate court rules Sacramento County, California red light camera <br />program does not produce sufficient evidence to convict drivers. <br />A decision issued last month by the Appellate Division of the <br />Superior Court in Sacramento County, California would invalidate <br />at least eighty percent of red light camera tickets in Sacramento <br />if drivers were to bring their case to court and contest their <br />citations. A three judge panel found the photo system did not <br />generate evidence sufficient to convict local motorist David Graham, <br />38, of running a red light. <br />"Sometimes you can fight city hall," said Graham. "Now those bozos <br />will have to give me back every penny of the $371 they bilked me <br />for the ticket." <br />On March 2, 2008, Graham's 1995 Oldsmobile was photographed by a <br />red light camera at the intersection of Power Inn Road and Folsom <br />Boulevard. However, unlike most newer programs in California, the <br />angle of the red light camera photographs in Sacramento County do not <br />actually show the signal light in the photograph itself. Instead, <br />a data box superimposed on the citation photo shows the letter "R" <br />which indicates that the signal was red, according to Affiliated <br />Computer Services (ACS), the for-profit company that operates the <br />program. That was not sufficient evidence for the appellate court. <br />"Without photographs showing appellant committing the violation, <br />the system must be proven reliable beyond a reasonable doubt in <br />order for the people to meet their burden of proof," Presiding <br />Judge Maryanne G. Gilliard wrote. <br />The police employee who testified in Graham's case, Officer Holt, <br />said that he had examined logs that showed an ACS technician <br />had maintained the camera properly and that there were no <br />malfunctions. Graham used the California Rules of Evidence to <br />challenge this claim as hearsay. <br />"We have no way of knowing what the technician did to reach these <br />conclusions, because that technician is not in court, and Officer <br />Holt admits to having no direct, personal knowledge of what the <br />technician did," Graham wrote in his brief to the court. <br />The court noted that the first photograph on Graham's citation <br />showed his Oldsmobile behind the limit line with cross traffic <br />facing a red -- not a green -- light. <br />"Given the evidence adduced at appellant's trial, this panel finds <br />that a rational trier of fact could not reasonably find, beyond a <br />reasonable doubt, that the light controlling appellant's entry into <br />the intersection was red when he first crossed the limit line," <br />Judge concluded "Therefore, we find that substantial evidence does <br />not support appellant's conviction. The conviction is reversed with <br />directions to dismiss the complaint." <br />Graham is now asking the court to publish his case so that it will <br />have precedential value. California courts have protected red light <br />camera programs in the past by holding similar decisions unpublished <br />to prevent mass refunds from programs operating in ways that violate <br />California law. <br />A copy of the decision is available in a 150k PDF file at the source <br />link below. <br />Source: California v. Graham (California Superior Court, Appellate <br />Division, 2/20/2009) <br /><a href="http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2715.asp">http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2715.asp</a></p> MarkMcCoy.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11668223376242773429noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9474761.post-19249566096630484122009-04-09T19:18:00.001-05:002009-04-09T19:25:36.967-05:00ABOUT THE COMMON LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES<h3><font face="Arial" size="3"></font></h3> <p><font face="Arial" size="3"><strong></strong></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3"><strong>Q. WAS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BASED ON THE COMMON LAW? </strong></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">A. Yes. The Constitution of the united States of America originated as a Common Law document. That was the underlying law the founding fathers based the entire structure of our nation upon. It was the law of the land until the 1938 Supreme Court ruling (Erie Railroad) which statutorized the Common Law. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "It is never to be forgotten that in the construction of the <br />     language of the Constitution,  we are to place ourselves as <br />     nearly as possible  in the condition of  the men who framed <br />     that instrument." Ex Parte Bain. 12 U.S. 1 7 S. Ct. 781. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "We are bound to interpret the  Constitution in the light of <br />     the law as it existed  at the time it was adopted."  Mattos <br />     v. U.S. 156 U.S. 237 at 243. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "It must  be  interpreted  in the light  of Common Law,  the <br />     principles and  history  of which were  familiarly known to <br />     the  framers  of  the  Constitution.  The  language  of the <br />     Constitution  could not be understood  without reference to <br />     the Common Law."  U.S. v. Wong Kim. Ark. 169 U.S. 649.18 S. <br />     Ct. 456. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "In this, as in other respects, (a Constitutional provision) <br />     must be  interpreted  in the light of the  Common Law,  the <br />     principles and  history of which  were familiarly  known to <br />     the framers of the Constitution..." Minor v. Happersett. 21 <br />     Wall. 162. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "The  language  of the Constitution,  as has been well said, <br />     could  not be  understood without  reference to the Common <br />     Law."  1 Kent. Comm. 336,  Kepner v. U.S.  195 U.S. 100 at <br />     125. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3"><strong>Q. IS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES THE SUPREME LAW?</strong></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3"> <br />A. Yes. The Constitution of the united States of America is the Supreme Law of the Land. Even after the Common Law was statutorized, and courts became Merchant Law courts imposing the Uniform Commercial Code, it must be noted that the U.C.C itself declares that it cannot be in conflict with the Common Law -- and in situations where it is, it bows to the tenants of the original Common Law. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "Law of the Land" means the "Common Law." State v. Simon 2 <br />     Spears 761.767 (1884) Justice O'Neal. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "Law of the Land" means "The Common Law." Taylor v. Porter <br />     4  Hill  140.  146  (1843)  Justice Bronson.    Webster's <br />     definition of "Law of the Land" at Dartmouth 4 Wheat 518. <br />     581. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3"><strong>Q. MUST THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND STATE LAWS CONFORM AND COMPLY WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES?</strong></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3"><strong></strong> <br />A. Yes. State Constitutions and State laws must be in compliance with, and in conformity to, the Constitution of the united States of America for that State to be acceptable as one of the sovereign states of the union of the united States of America. <br />"Provided,  the Constitution  to be formed in  virtue of the <br />     authority herein given, shall be republican, and consistent <br />     with the  Constitution of the united States;  that it shall <br />     contain the  fundamental principles  of civil and religious <br />     Liberty;  conformable to the provisions of the Constitution <br />     of the United States."  Enabling Act of Congress.  Feb. 20, <br />     1811. C.21. 2 U.S. Statute 641. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3"><strong>Q. IS ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION SUBJECT TO COMMON LAW REMEDY?</strong> </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">A.  "Even Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, when brought inland, <br />     is subject to the  Common Law remedy  the same as  Equity; and <br />     cannot  supersede the  sovereign  Citizens'  God endowed/given <br />     unalienable/inalienable  rights,  and  these  same  rights  as <br />     secured in and under the  Constitution of the united States of <br />     America."  Title  5 USC.  Sec. 559 Sentence #2,  Title 28 USC. <br />     Sec. 2072, Miranda v. Ariz. 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966). </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "(a) Saving to suitors, in all cases, the right to a Common Law <br />     remedy,  where the  Common Law  is competent  to give it;  and <br />     shall also have  exclusive original cognizance of all seizures <br />     on land,  or other waters than  as aforesaid made,  and of all <br />     suits for  penalties  and forfeiture  res incurred,  under the <br />     laws of the United States." 1 Statute 177. Sec. 9(a). </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "Third.  Of all causes of Admiralty  and Maritime jurisdiction: <br />     saving  to suitors,  in all cases,  the right of a  Common Law <br />     remedy,  where  the  Common Law  is competent  to give it." 36 <br />     Statute 1161. Section 3rd. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction exclusive <br />     of the Courts of the States, of: <br />     (1)     Any civil case of Admiralty  or Maritime jurisdiction, <br />             saving to Suitors  in all cases all other  remedies to <br />             which  they are  otherwise  entitled."  Title 28 US.C. <br />             Section 1333. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">[Note that the term "Common Law" no longer appears in 28 U.S.C. 1333.] </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3"><strong>Q. MUST THE DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES, AND AGENTS OF THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT CONFINE THEIR ACTIONS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?</strong></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3"><strong></strong> <br />A. The three branches of government and their bureaucratic departments, agencies, and agents, must confine themselves to acting in and under the Constitution of and for the united States of America and its boundaries, restraints, limitations, and prohibitions it imposes upon them. <br />    "That the people have an original right to establish, for future <br />     government,  such principles as,  in their opinion,  shall most <br />     conduce  to their  own happiness,  is the basis,  on  which the <br />     whole  American fabric  has been erected.  The exercise of this <br />     original right is a very great exertion,  nor can it, nor ought <br />     it to be  frequently repeated.  The principles,  therefore,  so <br />     established,  are deemed fundamental and as the authority, from <br />     which  they proceed,  is supreme,  and can seldom  act they are <br />     designed to be permanent." </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "This original  and supreme  will organize  the government,  and <br />     assigns, to different departments, their respective powers.  It <br />     may either  stop here,  or establish  certain limits  not to be <br />     transcended by those departments." </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "Between  these  alternatives  there is no  middle  ground.  The <br />     Constitution is either a superior,  paramount law, unchangeable <br />     by  ordinary  means,   or  it  is  on  a  level  with  ordinary <br />     legislative acts,  and like other acts,  is alterable  when the <br />     legislature  shall please  to alter it."  Marbury v. Madison. 2 <br />     Cranch (5 U.S.) 137.176. 177 (1803). </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "..because, the United States have no constitutional capacity to <br />     exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, <br />     within the limits of a  State or elsewhere, except in the cases <br />     in which it is expressly granted..." -Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan. <br />     44 U.S. 212 at 233; Article 1 Sec 8 Clause 17 U.S. Constitution. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "That the Legislative,  Executive  and Judicial  departments are <br />     each formed in a separate and independent manner;  and that the <br />     ultimate basis  of  each is  the Constitution  only  within the <br />     limits  of which  each department can alone  justify any act of <br />     authority/jurisdiction." Hayburn's Case. 2 Dall. (2 U.S.) 409. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "Neither the Legislative, Executive and the Judicial departments <br />     of the Federal Government  can lawfully exercise  any authority <br />     beyond the limits marked out  by the Constitution."  Dred Scott <br />     v. Sanford. 19 How. 393. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "The  United  States  is  entirely  a creature  of  the  Federal <br />     Constitution,  its power and authority  has no other source and <br />     it can only act in accordance with  all the limitations imposed <br />     by the Constitution."  Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1(1957). IL. Ed. <br />     2nd. 1148. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "The  Federal  Constitution  has  supremacy  over a  treaty  and <br />     executive agreement" Reid v. Covert. 354 U.S. 1. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "The rights and liberties  of the Citizens of  the united States <br />     are not  protected by  custom and  tradition  alone,   they are <br />     preserved from the  encroachments of the government by express/ <br />     enumerated  provisions of the  Federal  Constitution."  Reid v. <br />     Covert. 354 U.S. 1. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "The prohibitions  of the Federal Constitution  are designed to <br />     apply to all branches of the national government and cannot be <br />     nullified by the executive  or by the executive and the senate <br />     combined." Reid v. Covort. 354 U.S.1.1 L. Ed. 2nd; 1148 (1957). </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3"><strong>Q. IS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPERIOR TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS?</strong></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3"><strong></strong> <br />A. Yes. The Constitution of the united States of America is not only the Supreme Law of the Land, and the actual government of the united States, but it is superior to all administrative laws, rules and regulations, and their administrative law, rules and regulations must be in compliance with and in conformity to, the Constitution of and for the united States of America. <br />    "Where rights are secured by Constitution are involved, there can <br />     be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them" <br />     Miranda v. Ariz. 384 U.S. 436 at 491(1966). </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "..A regulation which is inconsistent with law is invalid." Title <br />     5 U.S.C. Sect. 301. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "... because  a statute  may  not  operate in  derogation  of the <br />     Constitution." Title 5 U.S.C. Section 559. Sentence 2. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "Congress may not,  by any definition it may adopt,  conclude the <br />     matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution." <br />     Eisner v. McComber. 252 U.S. 189 at 207. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify  any substantive <br />     right and shall preserve the right of trial by jury as at Common <br />     Law and as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution." <br />     Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2072 at Clause #2. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3"><strong>Q. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ARTICLE I AND AN ARTICLE 3 COURT?</strong> </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">A. Administrative tribunals and administrative judges must restrict themselves to acting in and under the Constitution of the united States of America at Article 1, Section 8, Clause 9, and under the Administrative Procedures Act at Title 5 U. S. C. Sections 701 through 706, Olmstead vs. U.S. 277 U.S. 438 at 485, and are prohibited from hearing any issue At Law which has been enumerated to Constitutional Article 3 courts only. Since the Constitution of the united States of America has no provisions for Article I administrative tribunal courts to hear issues of law enumerated to them, they are prohibited for doing so in and under the further declaratory and restrictive clauses of the Preamble, too, and the Bill of Rights, Amendments 9 and 10; and Article 3 of the Constitution itself. <br />    "To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme Court." Article <br />     1. Sec 8. Clause 9. U.S. Constitution. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "The judicial power of the United States  shall be vested in one <br />     supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may, <br />     from time to time, ordain and establish..." Article 3 Section 1 <br />     U.S. Constitution. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, <br />     arising under this Constitution."  Article 3. Section 2. Clause <br />     1. U.S. Constitution. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "The enumeration  in the Constitution  of certain rights  not be <br />     construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." <br />     Amendment 9, the U.S. Constitution. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "The  powers   not  delegated  to  the  United  States   by  the <br />     Constitution,  nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved <br />     to the States  respectively,  or to the people."  Amendment 10, <br />     the U.S. Constitution. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3"><strong>Q. DOES THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE SUPERINTENDENCY OVER BOTH ARTICLE 1 AND ARTICLE 3 COURTS?</strong></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3"> <br />A. The supreme Court of the united States of America has the superintendency of all inferior administrative Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 9 tribunals/courts and all Article 3 inferior At Law/Common Law courts created/ordained and established by the Congress of the united States of America. <br />    "This is the supreme Court,  and by reason of  its supremacy must <br />     have the superintendence of the inferior tribunals and officers, <br />     whether judicial or ministerial."   Marbury v. Madison, I Cranch <br />     143 at Pg. 63 (1803). </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3"><strong>Q. WHAT ARE THE DUTIES OF COURT JUDGES?</strong> </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">A. It is the prime duty of court judges to protect the God endowed unalienable rights of the individual sovereign Citizen from governmental encroachments. <br />    "The judicial branch has only one duty, to lay the Article of the <br />     Constitution  which is  involved  beside  the  statute  (rule or <br />     practice)  which is challenged  and to decide whether the latter <br />     squares with the former." U.S. v. Butler. 279 U.S. 116th Am. Jur <br />     2nd. Sec. 177.178.210 and 547. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "It  is  the   duty  of  the  courts   to  be  watchful  for  the <br />     Constitutional   rights   of  the   citizen   against   stealthy <br />     encroachments thereon." Boyd v. U.S. 116.635. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "This Constitution  is the supreme Law of the Land.  All judicial <br />     officers of the united States  are bound by oath or affirmation, <br />     to support this Constitution." Hayburn's Case. 2 Dali.(2 U.S.S.) <br />     409; Article #6. Clauses 2 and 3, U.S. Constitution. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "Disobedience  or evasion of a  constitutional mandate may not be <br />     tolerated,  even though  such disobedience  may promote  in some <br />     respects  the best interests  of the public."  Slote v. Board of <br />     Transfer. 274 N.Y. 367. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "...And  officers  (of government)  that  carry  on a  government <br />     independent  of  a  Constitution,  constitute  but  a  de  facto <br />     government of assumed and unlimited powers." Hepburn v. Griswald <br />     8 Wall. 611. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "Law repugnant to the Constitution is void..." Marbury v. Madison <br />     1 Cranch 137 (1803). </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "The law provides  that once State  and federal  jurisdiction has <br />     been challenged,  it must be proven."  Main v. Thiboutot. 100 5. <br />     Ct. 2502 (1980). </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "Where  there   is  absence   of  proof   of  jurisdiction,   all <br />     administrative  and  judicial  proceedings  are a  nullity,  and <br />     confer   no   right,   offer  no  protection,   and   afford  no <br />     justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attach." <br />     Thompson v. Tolmie. 2 Pet. 157.7 L.Ed. 381. Griffith Vs. Frazier <br />     8 Cr. 9.3 L.Ed. 471. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "Once jurisdiction is challenged,  it must be proven."  Hagens v. <br />     Lavine. 415 U.S. 533 Note3. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "No  sanctions  can be  imposed  absent  proof of  jurisdiction." <br />     Standard v. Lavine. 415 U.S. 533 Note 3. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "The proponent  of the Rule  has the burden  of proof..." Title 5 <br />     U.S.C.. Sec. 556(d). </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "Jurisdiction  can  be  challenged  at any  time,  even on  final <br />     determination." Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2nd 906 at <br />     910. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3"><strong>Q. CAN THE STATE GOVERNMENTS GRANT OR TAKE AWAY AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS?</strong></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3"><strong></strong> <br />A. No. Individuals have God endowed unalienable Rights (Declaration of Independence, Paragraph 2) and these same rights are secured in the Preamble and the Constitution of the united States of America, and in the Preamble and the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments) of the Constitution of the united States of America. These Rights existed long before the organization of the State and can be taken from an individual only by Constitutional due process of law that is in conformity with the Constitution of the united States of America. <br />    "The individual may stand upon his Constitutional rights as a <br />     citizen.  He is entitled to carry on his private business in <br />     his own way.  His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no <br />     duty  to  the  State  or to  his  neighbors  to  divulge his <br />     business,  or to open his doors  to an investigation, so far <br />     as it may  tend to incriminate him.  He owes  no duty to the <br />     State,  since  he receives  nothing  therefrom,  beyond  the <br />     protection of his life and property." </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "His rights  are such as existed by the  Law of the Land long <br />     antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be <br />     taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with <br />     the Constitution." </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "Among his rights are  a refusal to  incriminate himself, and <br />     the immunity  of himself  and his  property  from arrest  or <br />     seizure except under warrant of the law." </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "He  owes  nothing  to  the  public  so  long  as he does not <br />     trespass upon their rights." </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "Upon the other hand,  the corporation  is a creature  of the <br />     State.  It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of <br />     the  public.  It receives  certain  special  privileges  and <br />     franchises, and holds them  subject to the laws of the State <br />     and the limitations of its charter." </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "Its powers  are limited by law.  It can make no contract not <br />     authorized   by  its  charter.   Its  rights  to  act  as  a <br />     corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the <br />     laws  of  its  charter."  Hale v. Henkel.  201 U.S. 43 at 89 <br />     (1906); Pinkerton v. Verberg 78 Mich. 573.584. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3"><strong>Q. DO INDIVIDUALS HAVE RIGHTS TO LABOR?</strong></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3"> <br />A. Yes. Individuals have a God given unalienable right to labor, and to the fruits of that labor. That right is a natural right and a constitutional right, from unlawful interference from government encroachment. <br />    "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right <br />     secured by the Federal Constitution."  Murdock v. Penns. 319 <br />     U.S. 105. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="3">    "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there <br />     can be no rule  making or  legislation which  would abrogate <br />     them." Miranda v. Ariz. 384 U.S. 436 at 491(1966). </font></p> <p><font><font></font></font></p> MarkMcCoy.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11668223376242773429noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9474761.post-44784728340062993712009-04-09T12:44:00.001-05:002009-04-09T12:44:22.856-05:00The Origins of Birth Registration – It’s not what you think.<p> </p> <p>The Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act was <i>"for the promotion, the welfare and hygiene of maternity and infancy and for other purposes,"</i> It was passed with a vote of 63 to 7, and by the house with a vote of 279 to 39, and was finally signed by the president and became law on Nov. 23, 1921. The act provided for the current fiscal year (1922) $10,000 for each state accepting the provisions of the act, and additional sum of $1,000,000.</p> <p>      The bill was a direct outgrowth of a nine year study made by the "Federal Children's Bureau." Note the Bureau was not the federal bureau for children but the bureau of the federal children. This act and the acceptance of its benefits by the states created the <b>"United States birth registration area."</b><a href="http://presys.com/%7Eekklesia/cvc.htm#FOOTNOTE"><sup>44</sup></a></p> <p>      "(2) Birth Registration Document. The Social Security Administration (SSA) may enter into an agreement with officials of a State... to establish, as part of the official birth registration process, a procedure to assist SSA in assigning social security numbers to newborn children. Where an agreement is in effect, a parent, as part of the official birth registration process, need not complete a Form SS-5 and may request that SSA assign a social security number to the newborn child.<a href="http://presys.com/%7Eekklesia/cvc.htm#FOOTNOTE"><sup>45</sup></a></p> <p>      Did the federal government have the right to impose such legislation on the States? In 1923, it was argued by Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts, "The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for the purposes of the act." The complaint went on to state that, "The act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted to Congress and usurps the local police power." "The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution. The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act."<a href="http://presys.com/%7Eekklesia/cvc.htm#FOOTNOTE"><sup>46</sup></a></p> <p>      In the final analysis the Act was an offer from one corporate entity to another for the purpose of providing an avenue for the individual citizen of America to register as a subject of the State and therefore a citizen of the Federal corporate State, the true and actual sovereign agent, called the United States. The federal government would assume the position of Father of the subject citizen according to the law of Parens Patriae.<a href="http://presys.com/%7Eekklesia/cvc.htm#FOOTNOTE"><sup>47</sup></a></p> <p><a href="http://presys.com/%7Eekklesia/cvc.htm">http://presys.com/~ekklesia/cvc.htm</a></p> MarkMcCoy.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11668223376242773429noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9474761.post-88986483523251153822009-04-02T08:21:00.003-05:002009-04-02T08:26:40.287-05:00Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful ArrestYour Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest<br /><br />These are not my words. These are the words uttered by the courts within the United States and other States. I am not advocating violence or promoting the unjust taking of life. As a matter of fact, I am morally opposed to any taking of life. However, in the realm of our humanity and circumstances we cannot control, any individual has to allow for some possibility of death to others, whether intentional or unintentional, when defending themselves from what they perceive to be imminent harm or death to themselves.<br /><br />That said, government, being the incarnation of force, has recognized at the judicial level the right of people to defend themselves when that force is exercised unjustly. How can any of this be avoided? In my opinion, by abolishing government and creating better ways for society to function. That option notwithstanding, by government mitigating the potential harm it causes by limiting its actions to those involving violent actions of others as opposed to regulatory edicts imposed upon an otherwise peaceful populace.<br /><br />"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: <a href="http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/393909">John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529</a>. The Court stated: "Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show<br />that no offense had been committed."<br /><br />"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter." <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=fCy1AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA294&lpg=PA294&dq=Housh+v.++People&source=bl&ots=dKlqGSSUBm&sig=MxwDEblT5nwKvC7Cmtet2j5OHj8&hl=en&ei=0z2eSZzGNqSoNZip_MwL&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result">Housh v. People, 75 111. 491</a>; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.<br /><br />"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runyan_v._State"> Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80</a>; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.<br /><br />"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v.<br />State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.<br /><br />"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).<br /><br />"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." <a href="http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:te_1MJ8boQgJ:www.ncids.org/Brief%2520Bank/Briefs/Sholar,%2520Donnie%2520Dean.doc+State+v.+Mobley,+240+N.C.+476&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us">(State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).</a><br /><br />"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without<br />resistance." (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).<br /><br />"Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that 'a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.' There would<br />be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, 'If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.' That was the 'ultimate right of<br />all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.'" (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme<br />Court.<br /><br />As for grounds for arrest: "The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace." (Wharton's Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)<br /><br />See also<br /><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=g0c-AAAAIAAJ&pg=PR27&lpg=PR27&dq=Beaverts+v.+State&source=bl&ots=QLKAf_i8i0&sig=-zhjdUO3U_-qZ1l2TVFiWpT6Seg&hl=en&ei=LUCeSe2eKJC4MtrrtdkL&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=11&ct=result#PPA13,M1">The Law of Arrest in Civil and Criminal Actions</a>MarkMcCoy.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11668223376242773429noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9474761.post-14590389539357948512009-04-01T21:46:00.003-05:002009-04-02T08:17:11.356-05:00An analysis of the so-called law (625 ILCS 5/12-212)(c) which is claimed to prohibit under-body neon lights in Illinois<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://markmccoy.com/img3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 284px;" src="http://markmccoy.com/img3.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br />An analysis of the so-called law (625 ILCS 5/12-212)(c) which is claimed to prohibit under-body neon lights in Illinois<br /><br />This is an example of what many cops target as a motor vehicle violation. Of course, I can only speak to Illinois law since that is the only State I've researched, but I'm fairly confident that other States with similar laws on their books rely upon equally misapplied reasoning as the State of Illinois.<br /><br />What is this all about, you may ask, and who really cares? I'm taking no side, specifically, as to the preference or defense of this automotive accessory inasmuch as I am illustrating the often misapplication of the law by police and the complicit fleecing if ignorant and unwitting "Defendants" who are prosecuted for such a contrived offense. This analysis looks at the letter of the law, the authority for its promulgation, the debates relating to its passing, and the intent behind its construction.<br /><br />If you, or anyone you know, has been fined or threatened with prosecution for displaying similar lighting on their cars then you may want to provide them with this information so they may make an informed rebuttal the next time a revenue collector for the State or corporate municipality confronts them with ignorance and violence for violating nothing other than the regurgitated ramblings of an automaton.<br /><br />Essentially, the law works like this; the Legislature proposes a Bill, there are debates and a vote, the Bill, if passed, is signed by the Governor and become law. The police then issue tickets based on what they are told the law means. People who receive citations go to court and the judge or prosecutor informs them of the alleged charge and they are asked to enter a plea. If they adopt the more-often-than-not fraudulent portrayal of the law's application then they have just harmed themselves and plead to a non-existent or insufficient charge. The Statutes are NOT the law. They are prima facia evidence of the law, but they are not the letter of the law. Below is an image of a ticket charging this lighting offense and you'll notice that they rely upon Section 12-212(c). Subsection (c) merely states that any lighting not authorized by this Statute is prohibited. Is that what the Legislature intended when the law was crafted? You will see, per the House Debate below, that the lights have to be "flashing". Also, the charge on the ticket does not state an offense, since the language "Improper Use of a Lighting System" is nowhere to be found in that part of the statute.<br /><br />Again, the entire system is a fraud and intentional misapplication of the law. They rely upon your ignorance and willingness to take the path of least resistance, viz., pay the ticket. I wanted to get this posted for now, and will be following up with more context on what constitutes a charge and how to successfully challenge and defeat this lie.<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://markmccoy.com/lighting_violation.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 654px; height: 328px;" src="http://markmccoy.com/lighting_violation.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br />This is an image of an "information" wherein the "offense" of improper lighting was alleged....improperly. This "information" (ticket) fails to state an "offense".<br /><br /><br />Sources of Authority<br />1.<a href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=062500050HCh.+12+Art.+II&ActID=1815&ChapAct=625%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=49&ChapterName=VEHICLES&SectionID=59744&SeqStart=123100000&SeqEnd=124900000&ActName=Illinois+Vehicle+Code."> </a>Illinois Compiled Statutes 625 ILCS 5/12-212<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=062500050HCh.+12+Art.+II&ActID=1815&ChapAct=625%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=49&ChapterName=VEHICLES&SectionID=59744&SeqStart=123100000&SeqEnd=124900000&ActName=Illinois+Vehicle+Code.">http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=062500050HCh.+12+Art.+II&ActID=1815&ChapAct=625%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=49&ChapterName=VEHICLES&SectionID=59744&SeqStart=123100000&SeqEnd=124900000&ActName=Illinois+Vehicle+Code.</a><br /><br />Illinois House of Representatives Transcripts<br /><br />List of House Transcripts available which are responsive to a search for "2651", the number of the House Bill for Public Act 86-664<a href="http://www.ilga.gov/search/LISGSApage.asp?target=2651&submit1=Go&scope=hsetran86"><br /><br />http://www.ilga.gov/search/LISGSApage.asp?target=2651&submit1=Go&scope=hsetran86</a><br /><br />When viewing any of the documents in pdf format you can perform a search for the text "2651" and go to those sections of the transcripts.<br /><br />STATE OF ILLINOIS 86th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 22nd Legislative Day April 7, 1989 for the first reading of House Bill<br />2651<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ilga.gov/house/transcripts/htrans86/HT040789.pdf">http://www.ilga.gov/house/transcripts/htrans86/HT040789.pdf<br /></a><br />STATE OF ILLINOIS 86th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 35th Legislative Day May 4, 1989 where House Bill 2651 is passed on Short Debate<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ilga.gov/house/transcripts/htrans86/HT050489.pdf"> http://www.ilga.gov/house/transcripts/htrans86/HT050489.pdf</a><br /><br />STATE OF ILLINOIS 86th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 39th Legislative Day May 11, 1989 for the second reading of House Bill 2651<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ilga.gov/house/transcripts/htrans86/HT051189.pdf">http://www.ilga.gov/house/transcripts/htrans86/HT051189.pdf</a><br /><br />2. STATE OF ILLINOIS 86th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 43rd Legislative Day May l8, 1989 (Page 232 - 238) Page 239, where more debate takes place, is missing from the transcript.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ilga.gov/house/transcripts/htrans86/HT051889.pdf">http://www.ilga.gov/house/transcripts/htrans86/HT051889.pdf</a><br /><br /><br />Illinois Senate Transcripts<br /><br />List of Senate Transcripts available which are responsive to a search for "2651", the number of the House Bill for Public Act 86-664<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ilga.gov/search/LISGSApage.asp?target=2651&submit1=Go&scope=sentran86">http://www.ilga.gov/search/LISGSApage.asp?target=2651&submit1=Go&scope=sentran86 </a><br /><br />When viewing any of the documents in pdf format you can perform a search for the text "2651" and go to those sections of the transcripts.<br /><br />STATE OF ILLINOIS 86th GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 38th Legislative Day June 13 , 1989 where it is reported that House Bill 2651 is "passed".<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans86/ST061389.pdf">http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans86/ST061389.pdf</a><br /><br />STATE OF ILLINOIS 86th GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 38th Legislative Day May 22 , 1989 where the where the House asks for concurrence on the passage of House Bill 2651 by the Senate.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans86/ST052289.pdf">http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans86/ST052289.pdf</a><br /><br />STATE OF ILLINOIS 86th GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 38th Legislative Day May 30 , 1989 where the Title of House Bill 2651 is read in the Senate.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans86/ST053089.pdf">http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans86/ST053089.pdf</a><br /><br />STATE OF ILLINOIS 86th GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 38th Legislative Day June 1 , 1989 identifying House Bill 2651 as a Transportation Bill.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans86/ST060189.pdf">http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans86/ST060189.pdf</a><br /><br />STATE OF ILLINOIS 86th GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 47th Legislative Day June l5, 1989 for the third reading of House Bill 2651, at Page 53 by Senator Topinka. How can the third reading take place on June 15, 1989, and the second reading (next link below) take place a day later on June 16, 1989?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans86/ST061589.pdf">http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans86/ST061589.pdf</a><br /><br />STATE OF ILLINOIS 86th GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 48th Legislative Day June l6, 1989 for the second reading of House Bill 2651, even though at Page 55 Senator Lechowicz says it is the third reading.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans86/ST061689.pdf">http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans86/ST061689.pdf</a><br /><br />STATE OF ILLINOIS 86th GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 52nd Legislative Day June 22, 1989 where House Bill 2651 is declared "passed".<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans86/ST062289.pdf">http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans86/ST062289.pdf</a><br /><br />Criminal Procedure<br /><br />(725 ILCS 5/Art. 111) et. seq.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072500050HArt.+111&ActID=1966&ChapAct=725%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=54&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+PROCEDURE&SectionID=30079&SeqStart=19800000&SeqEnd=20700000&ActName=Code+of+Criminal+Procedure+of+1963">http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072500050HArt.+111&ActID=1966&ChapAct=725%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=54&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+PROCEDURE&SectionID=30079&SeqStart=19800000&SeqEnd=20700000&ActName=Code+of+Criminal+Procedure+of+1963</a>.<br /><br />3. (725 ILCS 5/11-3)(a)(b)<br /><br /><br />Taking into account the information found in the statutes, as well as the debates which speak to the "intent" of the legislature, one would be pressed to find where any light is prohibited unless permitted by the legislature. Saying this another way, it is expressed by the police and courts that unless a light is spelled out in the statutes as being permitted, they are otherwise excluded. Saying it yet another way, it is as if the legislature has some Constitutional power to regulate the lighting of vehicles. Can anyone find any such power in the Illinois Constitution? Of course not.<br /><br />Let's take the approach I'm sure some courts may take and say that the legislature has expressed an intent to limit "distracting lights", and not just "flashing lights". The question would be, is this a reasonable interpretation of the statute? If we focus only on (625 ILCS 5/12-212)(c), it would appear that way. However, (c) cannot be interpreted on its own without considering (a) and (b) as well. As I stated earlier, the statutes are not the law, they are a reflection of the law, but reflections can be distorted. You notice Public Act (P.A. 86-664) as the source for the statute. Public Act 86-664 is the offspring of House Bill 2651. This can be seen here in the Translation Table that ties a Public Act to its originating Bill.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ilga.gov/reports/static/PA86.pdf">http://www.ilga.gov/reports/static/PA86.pdf</a><br /><br />Public Act 86-664 can be seen on page 3 in the far upper right corner and 4 lines down the list. This indicates that Public Act 86-664 is tied to all the legislation pertaining to House Bill 2651. That is the Bill we follow for the analysis of this Act.<br /><br />If one were to take (625 ILCS 5/12-212)(c) literally, as a stand-alone statement, it could be interpreted to mean that if you put any light on your car, that is not already authorized by "this Code", even if you are not driving it, it would constitute an offense since such a light was placed on a vehicle. This is why the Code must be read in its entirety and "in context". (625 ILCS 5/12-212)(a) begins with, and is binding upon all subsequent subsections of the act...."No person shall drive or move any vehicle or equipment upon any highway......" (c) makes no statement regarding driving or moving upon any highway. It merely states that any lighting not already authorized is prohibited. Therefore, it is necessary to consider (a) and (b) into the meaning of (c) as well.<br /><br />The first requirement for a violation to exist is the question of the vehicle being driven or moved upon a highway. If this is on a parking lot or other private property there is no highway. You could put a red spotlight on your car and drive around your yard or a parking lot (with permission) and there would be no violation of this Act.<br /><br />Second, (a) specified a "red light". It specifies the color, so we cannot include others that are not red. It also states the light must be "visible from directly in front of the vehicle or equipment". This is because the legislature has already provided for red lights displayed on vehicles when viewed directly from the front and without this qualification of "as otherwise provided by this Act" the law would contradict itself. This statement reserves the use of red lights when viewed from directly in front of the vehicle for a particular purpose. If it mentions red lights viewable from directly in front, it does not include red lights when viewed from underneath. The specifying or inclusion of a qualification excludes all others.<br /><br />Subsection (b) provides for "flashing" lights, which are also spelled out in the Code. Since the purpose of flashing lights is to indicate caution or signal for a turn, the use of other flashing lights is prohibited if not communicating caution or signaling for a turn.<br /><br />Subsection (c), when read in the context of (a) and (b), summarizes the intent and essentially states that "any red lights viewable from directly in front of the vehicle, or flashing lights not used to indicate caution or signal for a turn, not already authorized by this Code, shall be prohibited." It does not claim domain over ALL lighting on ALL vehicles that is not already authorized in the Code.<br /><br />So, if we look then to the Debates, we can also phrase the statement this way, "Unless previously authorized, this Code prohibits the use of multi-colored flashing lights on vehicles other than those allowed under the current law, including red lights viewable from directly in front of the vehicle or equipment." (Emphasis courtesy the statement by Representative Parcells)<br /><br />This appears, to me, to be a reasonable reading of the law, taking into account the legislative intent as found within the House Debates. There is still the issue of improperly alleged charges by the police and prosecution, but that is for another post. I would recommend anyone considering to install these lights and "drive" (you really are not driving) upon a highway to print out the PDF of the House Debates and when confronted by the police, introduce this to them and ask them to read it. Once introduced during a traffic stop it is admissible as evidence in trial where it can be presented to a jury or judge. Even though the judge claims to be able to "instruct the jury as to what the law is", he cannot assign intent not found within the letter of the law or the legislative debates. If you choose to go to court on the first appearance date, confront the prosecuting attorney with this information and see where it goes from there. I would recommend moving for a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or insufficiency to state a charge.<br /><br /><br />1. (625 ILCS 5/12-212) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 12-212)<br /><br />Sec. 12-212. Special restrictions on lamps. (a) No person shall drive or move any vehicle or equipment upon any highway with any lamp or device on the vehicle or equipment displaying a red light visible from directly in front of the vehicle or equipment except as otherwise provided in this Act.<br />(b) Subject to the restrictions of this Act, flashing lights are prohibited on motor vehicles except as a means for indicating a right or left turn as provided in Section 12-208 or the presence of a vehicular traffic hazard requiring unusual care as expressly provided in Sections 11-804 or 12-215.<br />(c) Unless otherwise expressly authorized by this Code, all other lighting or combination of lighting on any vehicle shall be prohibited.<br />(Source: P.A. 86-664.)<br /><br /><br />2. This text has been slightly modified from the online version through some spelling and grammar correction, as well as some formatting. Nothing has been intentionally altered or deleted so as to portray anything different from the original version. Added emphasis is of my doing.<br /><br />STATE OF ILLINOIS<br />86th GENERAL ASSEMBLY<br />HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE<br />13rd Legislative Day May 18, 1989<br /><br />House Bill 2651,<br />Representative Parcells. Mr. Clerk, read<br />the Bill.<br /><br />Clerk O'Brien: House Bill 2651, A Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Vehicle Code. Third Reading of the Bill<br /><br />Speaker Cullerton: Representative Parcells on House Bill 2651<br /><br />STATE OF ILLINOIS<br />86th GENERAL ASSEMBL Y<br />HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE<br /><br />43rd Legislative Day May18 1989<br /><br />Parcells: 'Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. This is an Administration Bill of the State Police, and it has two or three different things..it's literally a<br />cleanup Bill. It has to do with litter control, prohibits driving vehicles on the shoulder of highways, prohibits unauthorized use of flashing lights, unless they are flashing lights that are in the law already, and it has some provisions for the prevention of...and treatment of those who have squealing tires. There was an Amendment presented because there was some problem with how much mud and rocks and dirt would be dropped from farm vehicles. We amended that to suit the farm community, and as of now<br />know of no opposition to this Bill.'<br /><br />Speaker Cullerton: 'Lady's moved for the passage of House Bill 2651. Is there any discussion? On that question, the Lady from Lasalle, Representative Breslin.<br /><br />Breslin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Parcells, one question. Does this Bill still provide that construction debris must be swept off of state highways by construction<br />companies?<br /><br />Parcells: No. The mud, dirt, and rocks were removed.<br /><br />Breslin: And that applies to everyone, that's not just an agricultural Amendment?<br /><br />Parcells: No. It applies to everything.<br /><br />Breslin: 'Thank you.<br /><br />Speaker Cullerton: Further discussion? The Gentleman from Dekalb, Representative Countryman.<br /><br />Countryman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, will the Lady yield?<br /><br />Speaker Cullerton: For a question?<br /><br />Countryman: Does this Bill still provide for squealing tires?<br /><br />Parcells: Yes it does, but there was a provision made that the squealing tires could be done on race courses and places that squealing tires are an automatic result of what's going on, but not for squealing tires of young teenagers.<br /><br />Countryman: 'Is that what it says?<br /><br />Parcells: No, it doesn't say young teenagers, it just says that they...you see there's always been something in the law that the police can handle this, but they had to take the people down to the County Building, they weren't able to just give them a ticket. This way they will be able to give them a ticket when they're out there showing off and perhaps endangering their lives and other lives.<br /><br />Countryman: Well, would this apply to like when I ride with you in your Camaro down in front of the Capitol Building and you squeal your tires, would you be guilty of an offense?<br /><br />Parcells: I possibly could be, yes.<br /><br />Countryman: And if one of my constituents or Representative Hartke had a load of hogs going to market and they squealed would they be guilty of an offense?<br /><br />Parcells: That could be, yes.<br /><br />Countryman: I don't know, this is kind of a squeaker I think. You know?<br /><br />Speaker Cullerton: Further discussion? Gentleman from Logan, Representative Robert Olson.<br /><br />Olson,R: Will you yield? Will the Speaker Yield?<br /><br />Parcells: Yes.<br /><br />Speaker Cullerton: She...for a question?<br /><br />Olson R: Yes.<br /><br />Speaker Cullerton: Yes, indicates she'll yield for a question.<br /><br />Olson, R: A short question. There's a part in here about flashing lights. Does that cover...what color of flashing lights are we speaking of?<br /><br />Parcells: What has happened in the past was that people could use any color light. This designates that only certain colored lights...it prohibits the use of multi-colored flashing<br />lights on vehicles other than those allowed under current law. They...the police have discovered that it's very dangerous when people decide to put pink, purple, lavender lights on their car and their flashing them. Therefore those that are by law, already in the law are fine, but they don't want you using other colors because it is a danger.<br /><br />Olson,R: The yellow flashing lights on construction equipment and farm equipment...<br /><br />Parcells: I beg your pardon?<br /><br />Olson, R: The yellow flashing lights that is on construction equipment, farm equipment...would still be legal?<br /><br />Parcells: Yes, they would.<br /><br />Olson, R: Okay<br /><br />Speaker Cullerton: Representative Williams, on the purple lights question.?<br /><br />Williams: Yes. What is the penalty for violation of the squeaking, squealing and...making of other noises of your vehicle?'<br /><br />Parcells: It would be at the discretion of the officer, it would probably $50.00 like a regular...<br /><br />Williams: At the discretion of the officer?<br /><br />Parcells: I mean he is giving you a ticket instead of taking you downtown and having to tow your car. He will give you regular ticket that would then be at the discretion of the court. Right now it's a Class A misdemeanor.<br /><br />Williams: Right now squeaking and squealing your tires is Glass A misdemeanor? You mean if...<br /><br />Parcells: ...You see it's under the E.P.A. regulations right now, Title 35, sub-title H, Chapter 1, section 902.0125. The only way they can handle this is that way. That's why<br />we're bringing it into this code and they would...otherwise they'd have to file a long form complaint and take you down to the County Building and maybe drag your car down. So<br />this way the officer could stop you and give you a ticket and it would be...<br />(It is an interesting aside to view the above I.E.P.A. regulation involving tire noise. It should cause you to wonder why the I.E.P.A. would be the source for such violations. Mark McCoy)<br /><br />Williams: What about...?<br /><br />Parcells: It's a petty offense.<br /><br />Williams: Does it apply to a1l motor vehicles or is it...I mean is it...what about airplanes or any other things of that nature. Is it just for cars or is it apply to other, what about bicycles?<br /><br />Parcells: This applies only to operation on the highway...of motor vehicles. I suppose if you had your airplane on the highway you could be in trouble.<br /><br />Williams: Do you deal with other things besides squeaking and squealing? Do you deal with lights and decorations or other things in here? I'm just curious...I've been informed that lights and other things around the tail may be illegal under this, under this Act..it says auto lighting.'<br /><br />Parcells: It prohibits the use of multi-colored flashing lights on vehicles other than those allowed under the current law. And as I said this is a safety thing because it's very distracting to motorists when you are putting...purple, pink, yellow, orange cruise lights on your car and flashing them.<br /><br />Williams: If the cab driver like they often do in Chicago were to do that, who would be responsible, the cab company or the driver?<br /><br />Parcells: The driver.<br /><br />Williams: ...Well to the Amendment...or the Bill...or...what are we vote...the Bill. I understand what we're trying to do...we're...I've often been awakened by squealing, screeching light flashing, automobiles riding at extreme speeds emanating all types of nasty noises and things. But, the thought of allowing someone to take and to have a ticket and to be placed in...I don't know...the police will maybe take them under custody and lock some guy up for this stuff and half the cabs in Chicago and who knows, low riders and other people may be a real dangerous species here, which may be a violation of certain people...cultural things. So I would think at this time, that this Bill is not quite in the perfect form. I think that even though it is not, is an annoying habit, don't know if it should be a punishable habit and I think that this may not be the right Bill at the right time.<br /><br />Speaker Cullerton: Gentleman from Vermilion, Representative Black.<br /><br />Black: 'Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, will the Sponsor yield?'<br /><br />Speaker Cullerton: For a question?<br /><br />Black: Yes, thank you.<br /><br />Speaker Cullerton: She indicates she will.<br /><br />Black: I...Representative just have one question to ask you. Is this Bill on Short Debate? Oh, thank you very much; that's all I wanted to know.<br /><br />Speaker Cullerton: 'Representative Homer.<br /><br />Homer: Question for the Sponsor, please.<br /><br />Speaker Cullerton: She indicates she'll yield for a question.<br /><br />Homer: Representative Parcells, your Bill would prohibit squealing and screeching noises from vehicles tires. think I've heard and understand what those are, but it also says, 'or such other noise from the vehicles tires.' Could you either specify and/or emulate what other noise you're talking about?<br /><br />Parcells: don't know how to describe what other noise they might make, but I would like to answer, that answer to previous question, this is already punishable under the E.P.A. Act but there it is a Class A misdemeanor and we're bringing it into this Act to make it a petty offense, so that a policeman can just write a ticket. But it is already punishable...I mean it is already an offense but a<br />much more serious one than we would have it in this Act.<br /><br />Homer: Well, is this a moving violation for which you could lose your license?<br /><br />Parcells: ...if you'll wait just a moment we'll look that up.<br /><br />Homer: While you're looking notice that you've got it follows in sequence of these offenses, you've got:...DUI, illegal transportation of alcohol, reckless driving, draq racing and then screeking would be the next one. Are those in order of severity, or what was your thought?<br /><br />Parcells: is called a reportable violation.<br /><br />Homer: 'It's a what?<br /><br />Parcells: Reportable violation.<br /><br />Homer: 'Reportable violation?<br /><br />Parcells: Under 6201, and it's the Secretary of State's discretion....whether or not to assess points...<br /><br />Homer: I see. So, if somebody...if somebody accelerated and squealed, screeched or made some other indescribable noise from the vehicle's tires then that person could be fined up<br />to five hundred dollars and would receive points against the possible suspension of a drivers license by the Secretary of State.<br /><br />Parcells: It is a traffic offense, but remember it always could have been punished as a Class A misdemeanor. So, this is a lessor...punishment, if you will, or a lessor offense to make a petty offense in the Class A misdemeanor.<br /><br />Homer: Well, what's the thrust? I mean are you...do you feel that...the current penalties are too strong and your trying to make for lighter penalties for squealers?<br /><br />Parcells: That's part of it and the other part is, if the police<br /><br /><br />(This is the end of Page 238. Page 239.which is supposed to follow, was not included in the online PDF version)<br /><br />3. (725 ILCS 5/111-3)<br />Form of charge.<br />(a) A charge shall be in writing and allege the commission of an offense by:<br /> (1) Stating the name of the offense;<br /> (2) Citing the statutory provision alleged to have been violated;(3) Setting forth the nature and elements of the offense charged; (4) Stating the date and county of the offense as definitely as can be done; and (5) Stating the name of the accused, if known, and if not known, designate the accused by any name or description by which he can be identified with reasonable certainty. (b) An indictment shall be signed by the foreman of the Grand Jury and an information shall be signed by the State's Attorney and sworn to by him or another.<br /><br />A complaint shall be sworn to and signed by the complainant; Provided, however, that when a citation is issued on a Uniform Traffic Ticket or Uniform Conservation Ticket (in a form prescribed by the Conference of Chief Circuit Judges and filed with the Supreme Court), the copy of such Uniform Ticket which is filed with the circuit court constitutes a complaint to which the defendant may plead, unless he specifically requests that a verified complaint be filed. 4. (625 ILCS 5/4-103.2)<br /><br />(7) a person:<br />(A) who is the driver or operator of a vehicle and is not entitled to the possession of that vehicle and who knows the vehicle is stolen or converted, or<br />(B) who is the driver or operator of a vehicle being used to transport or haul a vehicle or essential part of a vehicle and is not entitled to the possession of that vehicle or essential part being transported or hauled and who knows the transported or hauled vehicle or essential part is stolen or converted, who has been given a signal by a peace officer directing<br />him to bring the vehicle to a stop, to willfully fail or refuse to obey such direction, increase his speed, extinguish his lights or otherwise flee or attempt to elude the officer. The signal given by the peace officer may be by hand, voice, siren, or red or blue light. The officer giving the signal, if driving a vehicle, shall display the vehicle's illuminated, oscillating, rotating or flashing red or blue lights, which when used in conjunction with an audible horn or siren would indicate that the vehicle is an official police vehicle. Such requirement shall not preclude the use of amber or white oscillating, rotating or flashing lights in conjunction with red or blue oscillating, rotating or flashing lights as required in Section 12-215 of this Code; or<br /><br /><br />(625 ILCS 5/11-1301) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-1301)<br /><br />Sec. 11-1301. Stopping, standing or parking outside of business or residence district.<br /><br />(d) Any second division vehicle used exclusively for the collection of garbage, refuse, or recyclable material may stop or stand on the road in a business, rural, or residential district for the sole purpose of collecting garbage, refuse, or recyclable material. The vehicle, in addition to having its hazard lights lighted at all times that it is engaged in stopping or standing, shall also use its amber oscillating, rotating, or flashing light or lights as authorized under paragraph 12 of subsection (b) of Section 12-215, if so equipped.<br />(Source: P.A. 91-869, eff. 1-1-01.)<br /><br /><br />(625 ILCS 5/11-1421) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-1421)<br /><br />Sec. 11-1421. Conditions for operating ambulances and rescue vehicles.<br /><br />2. The ambulance or rescue vehicle shall be equipped with a siren producing an audible signal of an intensity of 100 decibels at a distance of 50 feet from the siren, and with a lamp or lamps emitting an oscillating, rotating or flashing red beam directed in part toward the front of the vehicle, and these lamps shall have sufficient intensity to be visible at 500 feet in normal sunlight, and in addition to other lighting requirements, excluding those vehicles operated in counties with a population in excess of 2,000,000, may also operate with a lamp or lamps emitting an oscillating, rotating, or flashing green light;<br /><br /><br />(625 ILCS 5/12-215) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 12-215)<br /><br />Sec. 12-215. Oscillating, rotating or flashing lights on motor vehicles. Except as otherwise provided in this Code:<br /><br />(a) The use of red or white oscillating, rotating or flashing lights, whether lighted or unlighted, is prohibited except on:<br />1. Law enforcement vehicles of State, Federal or local authorities;<br />2. A vehicle operated by a police officer or county coroner and designated or authorized by local authorities, in writing, as a law enforcement vehicle; however, such designation or authorization must be carried in the vehicle;<br />2.1. A vehicle operated by a fire chief who has completed an emergency vehicle operation training course approved by the Office of the State Fire Marshal and designated or authorized by local authorities, in writing, as a fire department, fire protection district, or township fire department vehicle; however, the designation or authorization must be carried in the vehicle, and the lights may be visible or activated only when responding to a bona fide emergency;<br />3. Vehicles of local fire departments and State or federal firefighting vehicles;<br />4. Vehicles which are designed and used exclusively as ambulances or rescue vehicles; furthermore, such lights shall not be lighted except when responding to an emergency call for and while actually conveying the sick or injured;<br />5. Tow trucks licensed in a state that requires such lights; furthermore, such lights shall not be lighted on any such tow truck while the tow truck is operating in the State of Illinois;<br />6. Vehicles of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency, vehicles of the Illinois Department of Public Health, and vehicles of the Department of Nuclear Safety;<br />7. Vehicles operated by a local or county emergency management services agency as defined in the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act;<br />8. School buses operating alternately flashing head lamps as permitted under Section 12-805 of this Code; and<br />9. Vehicles that are equipped and used exclusively as organ transplant vehicles when used in combination with blue oscillating, rotating, or flashing lights; furthermore, these lights shall be lighted only when the transportation is declared an emergency by a member of the transplant team or a representative of the organ procurement organization.<br />(b) The use of amber oscillating, rotating or flashing lights, whether lighted or unlighted, is prohibited except on:<br /><br />1. Second division vehicles designed and used for towing or hoisting vehicles; furthermore, such lights shall not be lighted except as required in this paragraph 1; such lights shall be lighted when such vehicles are actually being used at the scene of an accident or disablement; if the towing vehicle is equipped with a flat bed that supports all wheels of the vehicle being transported, the lights shall not be lighted while the vehicle is engaged in towing on a highway; if the towing vehicle is not equipped with a flat bed that supports all wheels of a vehicle being transported, the lights shall be lighted while the towing vehicle is engaged in towing on a highway during all times when the use of headlights is required under Section 12-201 of this Code;<br />2. Motor vehicles or equipment of the State of Illinois, local authorities and contractors; furthermore, such lights shall not be lighted except while such vehicles are engaged in maintenance or construction operations within the limits of construction projects;<br />3. Vehicles or equipment used by engineering or survey crews; furthermore, such lights shall not be lighted except while such vehicles are actually engaged in work on a highway;<br />4. Vehicles of public utilities, municipalities, or other construction, maintenance or automotive service vehicles except that such lights shall be lighted only as a means for indicating the presence of a vehicular traffic hazard requiring unusual care in approaching, overtaking or passing while such vehicles are engaged in maintenance, service or construction on a highway;<br />5. Oversized vehicle or load; however, such lights shall only be lighted when moving under permit issued by the Department under Section 15-301 of this Code;<br />6. The front and rear of motorized equipment owned and operated by the State of Illinois or any political subdivision thereof, which is designed and used for removal of snow and ice from highways;<br />(6.1) The front and rear of motorized equipment or vehicles that (i) are not owned by the State of Illinois or any political subdivision of the State, (ii) are designed and used for removal of snow and ice from highways and parking lots, and (iii) are equipped with a snow plow that is 12 feet in width; these lights may not be lighted except when the motorized equipment or vehicle is actually being used for those purposes on behalf of a unit of government;<br />7. Fleet safety vehicles registered in another state, furthermore, such lights shall not be lighted except as provided for in Section 12-212 of this Code;<br />8. Such other vehicles as may be authorized by local authorities;<br />9. Law enforcement vehicles of State or local authorities when used in combination with red oscillating, rotating or flashing lights;<br />9.5. Propane delivery trucks;<br />10. Vehicles used for collecting or delivering mail for the United States Postal Service provided that such lights shall not be lighted except when such vehicles are actually being used for such purposes;<br />11. Any vehicle displaying a slow-moving vehicle emblem as provided in Section 12-205.1;<br />12. All trucks equipped with self-compactors or roll-off hoists and roll-on containers for garbage or refuse hauling. Such lights shall not be lighted except when such vehicles are actually being used for such purposes;<br />13. Vehicles used by a security company, alarm responder, or control agency;<br />14. Security vehicles of the Department of Human Services; however, the lights shall not be lighted except when being used for security related purposes under the direction of the superintendent of the facility where the vehicle is located; and<br />15. Vehicles of union representatives, except that the lights shall be lighted only while the vehicle is within the limits of a construction project.<br />(c) The use of blue oscillating, rotating or flashing lights, whether lighted or unlighted, is prohibited except on:<br />1. Rescue squad vehicles not owned by a fire department and vehicles owned or operated by a:voluntary firefighter; paid firefighter; part-paid firefighter; call firefighter; member of the board of trustees of a fire protection district; paid or unpaid member of a rescue squad; paid or unpaid member of a voluntary ambulance unit; or paid or unpaid members of a local or county<br />emergency management services agency as defined in the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act, designated or authorized by local authorities, in writing, and carrying that designation or authorization in the vehicle. However, such lights are not to be lighted except when responding to a bona fide emergency.<br /><br />Any person using these lights in accordance with this subdivision (c)1 must carry on his or her person an identification card or letter identifying the bona fide member of a fire department, fire protection district, rescue squad, ambulance unit, or emergency management services agency that owns or operates that vehicle. The card or letter must include:<br />(A) the name of the fire department, fire protection district, rescue squad, ambulance unit, or emergency management services agency;<br />(B) the member's position within the fire department, fire protection district, rescue squad, ambulance unit, or emergency management services agency;<br />(C) the member's term of service; and<br />(D) the name of a person within the fire department, fire protection district, rescue squad, ambulance unit, or emergency management services agency to contact to verify the information provided.<br />2. Police department vehicles in cities having a population of 500,000 or more inhabitants.<br />3. Law enforcement vehicles of State or local authorities when used in combination with red oscillating, rotating or flashing lights.<br />4. Vehicles of local fire departments and State or federal firefighting vehicles when used in combination with red oscillating, rotating or flashing lights.<br />5. Vehicles which are designed and used exclusively as ambulances or rescue vehicles when used in combination with red oscillating, rotating or flashing lights; furthermore, such lights shall not be lighted except when responding to an emergency call.<br />6. Vehicles that are equipped and used exclusively as organ transport vehicles when used in combination with red oscillating, rotating, or flashing lights; furthermore, these lights shall only be lighted when the transportation is declared an emergency by a member of the transplant team or a representative of the organ procurement organization.<br />7. Vehicles of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency, vehicles of the Illinois Department of Public Health, and vehicles of the Department of Nuclear Safety, when used in combination with red oscillating, rotating, or flashing lights.<br />8. Vehicles operated by a local or county emergency management services agency as defined in the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act, when used in combination with red oscillating, rotating, or flashing lights.<br />(c-1) In addition to the blue oscillating, rotating, or flashing lights permitted under subsection (c), and notwithstanding subsection (a), a vehicle operated by a voluntary firefighter, a voluntary member of a rescue squad, or a member of a voluntary ambulance unit may be equipped with flashing white headlights and blue grill lights, which may be used only in responding to an emergency call.<br />(c-2) In addition to the blue oscillating, rotating, or flashing lights permitted under subsection (c), and notwithstanding subsection (a), a vehicle operated by a paid or unpaid member of a local or county emergency management services agency as defined in the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act, may be equipped with white oscillating, rotating, or flashing lights to be used in combination with blue oscillating, rotating, or flashing lights, if authorization by local authorities is in writing and carried in the vehicle.<br />(d) The use of a combination of amber and white oscillating, rotating or flashing lights, whether lighted or unlighted, is prohibited except motor vehicles or equipment of the State of Illinois, local authorities, contractors, and union representatives may be so equipped; furthermore, such lights shall not be lighted on vehicles of the State of Illinois, local authorities, and contractors except while such vehicles are engaged in highway maintenance or construction operations within the limits of highway construction projects, and shall not be lighted on the vehicles of union representatives except when those vehicles are within the limits of a construction project.<br />(e) All oscillating, rotating or flashing lights referred to in this Section shall be of sufficient intensity, when illuminated, to be visible at 500 feet in normal sunlight.<br />(f) Nothing in this Section shall prohibit a manufacturer of oscillating, rotating or flashing lights or his representative from temporarily mounting such lights on a vehicle for demonstration purposes only.<br />(g) Any person violating the provisions of subsections (a), (b), (c) or (d) of this Section who without lawful authority stops or detains or attempts to stop or detain another person shall be guilty of a Class 2 felony.<br />(h) Except as provided in subsection (g) above, any person violating the provisions of subsections (a) or (c) of this Section shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.<br />(Source: P.A. 93-181, eff. 1-1-04; 93-725, eff. 1-1-05; 93-794, eff. 7-22-04; 93-829, eff. 7-28-04; 94-143, eff. 1-1-06; 94-270, eff. 1-1-06; 94-331, eff. 1-1-06; 94-730, eff. 4-17-06.)<br /><br /><br />(625 ILCS 5/12-216) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 12-216)<br />Sec. 12-216. Operation of oscillating, rotating or flashing lights. Oscillating, rotating or flashing lights located on or within police vehicles in this State shall be lighted whenever a police officer is in pursuit of a violator of a traffic law or regulation.<br />(Source: P.A. 85-830.)MarkMcCoy.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11668223376242773429noreply@blogger.com0