An analysis of the proposed Occupancy Code for Collinsville, Illinois - Copy of proposed ordinance
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.
Most people do not understand what a municipality is. Here is an excerpt from a page I have which explains Municipal Law:
B. [1.2] General Concepts and Definitions
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).
[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).
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.
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.
Word trickery
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:
"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."
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.
There is a canon of statutory construction called ejusdem generis which reads:
Ejusdem generis (Of the same kinds, class, or nature)
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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......
Mark McCoy
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Understanding “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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!”
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
-- Thomas Paine
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.
Only by judicial accountability to the People through J.A.I.L. will their plans be thwarted!
Ron Branson is the author of a series of “Understanding” articles.
(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.)
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!”
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
-- Thomas Paine
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.
Only by judicial accountability to the People through J.A.I.L. will their plans be thwarted!
Ron Branson is the author of a series of “Understanding” articles.
(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.)
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org
Common Law in Illinois
Here 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.
Click here to view the Slide Show Presentation.
Common Law in Illinois
Corpus Juris Secundum on the Common Law § § 11 et seq.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
Corpus Juris Secundum on the Common Law § § 14, 15
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.
Thus, the courts have applied the doctrine of Mobilia sequuntur personam and the maxim De minimis non curat lex.
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.
Statutes
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.
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.
These rules are useful only in cases of doubt, and are never to be used to create a doubt, but only to remove it.
Definitions.
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.
Words defined
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.
§ 52. Construction as including or binding sovereign
General legislative enactments do not impair the rights of the sovereign unless such an intent is expressly declared in the statute.
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.
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.
Click here to view the Slide Show Presentation.
Common Law in Illinois
Corpus Juris Secundum on the Common Law § § 11 et seq.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
Corpus Juris Secundum on the Common Law § § 14, 15
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.
Thus, the courts have applied the doctrine of Mobilia sequuntur personam and the maxim De minimis non curat lex.
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.
Statutes
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.
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.
These rules are useful only in cases of doubt, and are never to be used to create a doubt, but only to remove it.
Definitions.
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.
Words defined
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.
§ 52. Construction as including or binding sovereign
General legislative enactments do not impair the rights of the sovereign unless such an intent is expressly declared in the statute.
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.
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.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."
With respect to "society", I am completely out of "control". With respect to my "conscience", I am the consummate "conformist".
My Statement to Government -
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.
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!
"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."
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
With respect to "society", I am completely out of "control". With respect to my "conscience", I am the consummate "conformist".
My Statement to Government -
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.
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!
"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."
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
All charges stemming from my arrest on 2/17/09 have been dropped.
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.
The charges stemming from this event include:
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.
Improper Lane Usage which allegedly gave rise to reasonable suspicion that I was "intoxicated".
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.
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.
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.
Do Insurance which stems from the same circumstances as the drivers license charge.
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 http://markmccoy.com/excessiveforce.html
In essence, I never entered a plea to any charges. I challenged jurisdiction every step of the way. I presented the court with my Declaration of Sovereignty and asked Judge Randall Kelley to take judicial notice 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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
I digress. More to come.....................
Sunday, September 20, 2009
I get a warm welcome Home….land Security.
I get a warm welcome Home….land Security.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, what happened, why did it happen, and what does it mean?
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.
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.
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.
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?”
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.
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.
PS.
Upon checking my Google Analytics after returning home I find that Homeland Security visited my website on Sept. 18 and 19.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, what happened, why did it happen, and what does it mean?
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.
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.
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.
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?”
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.
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.
PS.
Upon checking my Google Analytics after returning home I find that Homeland Security visited my website on Sept. 18 and 19.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Obama Regulation Czar Advocated Removing People’s Organs Without Explicit Consent
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.
Under such a policy, hospitals would harvest organs from people who never gave permission for this to be done.
Outlined in the 2008 book “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” 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.
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.
“The major obstacle to increasing [organ] donations is the need to get the consent of surviving family members,” said Sunstein and Thaler.
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.”
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.”
“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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
“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.”
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.
“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.”
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.
“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.
“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.
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.
“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.”
Thaler and Sunstein believed that this and other policies are necessary because people don’t really make the best decisions.
“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.
This means that government “incentives and nudges” should replace “requirements and bans,” they argued.
Neither Sunstein nor Thaler currently are commenting on their book, a spokesman for the publisher, Penguin Group, told CNSNews.com.
In a question-and-answer section on the Amazon.com Web site, Thaler and Sunstein answered a few questions about their book.
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.
“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.
“…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. …”
Pittsburgh G20 Summit: De Facto Martial Law
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. WPXI News 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.
In an August 3rd broadcast 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 other 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.
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)
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. Amtrak has announced that they will not be making stops in Pittsburgh during the summit as well as Greyhound, who is considering temporarily moving 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.
KDKA News is also reporting 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.
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 ACLU plans on suing the City of Pittsburgh 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.”
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.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
A Sunday Morning Rant
Good 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
