Acute Disorder

Law of unintended consequences

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category


without comments


Very shortly, the British people will be voting in an unlawful referendum; unlawful because our national sovereignty is the birth right of generations yet unborn, just as it was ours and therefore not in the gift of any one generation to decide whether or not they wish to return to being a free sovereign people of self political determination, or remain a satellite state subordinate to the German based European political empire.

The majority will be so doing without the slightest understanding of the issues involved and the consequences and potential perils of their actions. The situation now is similar to the situation that existed in 1972, when the then Conservative government, acting without mandate or regard for due lawful procedure, took the nation into what was then “The Common Market” or European Economic Community, while hiding from the people the factual implications of the terms and conditions of the Treaty of Rome.

In order to facilitate that 1972 act of treachery, the people were led to believe that the issue was one of economics and that national sovereignty would not be affected. Today’s Conservative government is peddling virtually the same dishonest and deceitful lies, and they are now simply smothering the issue of national sovereignty with a great play on the claimed but totally hypothetical advantages of being permanently subordinate to an unelected, unaccountable and undemocratic foreign political power, which has come to replace the pure common market (now the European Economic Area – the free trade zone which is totally separate from the political union that is the EU).

Most importantly, the essential issue of this coming referendum is not about politics or economics, it is about national sovereignty and freedom, the most highly valued thing known to man and for which mankind has time and again been prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice to defend and secure.

Little wonder the people are divided on the issue, which is one of utter confusion as it was deliberately planned so to be. Also as planned, if the people were to be informed of the truth behind our present unlawful governance it would doubtless be met with utter disbelief, for such circumstances are expected to be found in third world countries, not in the land of Christian principles and honest integrity, presided over by a contractually bound sovereign monarch and the mother of all Parliaments. The sad truth is that in 1972 a parliamentary political coup by the Conservative party deposed the office of the monarch, dismissed the people’s common law constitution and surrendered the supremacy of the Crown, together with the people’s law and the nation’s sovereignty to a foreign political power.

As things presently stand, the economies of the world are in a state of flux which does not make for any form of monetary or political stability. The EU is no exception (worse in fact due to fascistic legal processes and endless EU regulation), yet our politicians, large corporates and a number of very wealthy international speculators are attempting to persuade us to dispense with a thousand years of constitutional stability by placing ourselves permanently under the dictate of unelected foreign bureaucrats whose nations’ histories have never experienced democracy as we understand it; and all in the pursuit of the possibility of financial gain.

Important though the issues of trade and investment are, man does not live by bread alone, there are other important aspects and issues that are essential to social cohesion and political stability, such as principle, integrity, truth, transparency and fairness; our ancient word ‘fair’, which summarises all that we are as a people, has no equivalent in any other language. It is these social assets we have in our national disposition and from which our democracy is sustained and gives lead and example to the civilised world, a far greater value than the handful of silver for which our politicians would sell our lawful rights and freedoms.

For the past half century the British people have been deceived, lied to and denied the truth of their inalienable common law rights and liberties. Before 1972 we had a thousand year old written common law constitution that summarised, represented, expressed and upheld all that we were as a nation state and upon which our system of law was based. Under the terms, principles and demands of the Treaty of Rome, this had to be ignored, buried, forgotten and banished from the nation’s education curricula, it being the antitheses of the “Code Napoleon” on which European law is based, not least on such issues as the presumption of innocence and trial by one’s peers in the form of a jury.

Not surprisingly, very few people, including politicians, understand what the Treaty of Rome is all about. The principle and objectives of the Treaty of Rome, which is based on the German High Command document Europaisch Whitshaftsgemeinshaft 1942, is to realise the planned destruction of the nation states of Europe by the eradication of the principle of national sovereignty. Prior to the Conservative government signing up to the Treaty of Rome in 1972 there was deceitful and misleading propaganda proffered by that government that we would not be losing but would be sharing our sovereignty, despite sovereignty being absolute and indivisible. In reality, our national sovereignty was surrendered and replaced by the political sovereignty of the EEC. Before the surrender we were a constitutional monarchy, this was ended, along with the monarchy, for there is no provision in the Treaty of Rome for a constitutional monarchy.

Clearly, the monarch had either abdicated or been treasonously deposed, as there can be no sovereign monarch in a country that is no longer sovereign. Under the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the monarch was also the official Governor of the nation, with extensive powers of governance, as vested in the monarch by the people, at the time of the Coronation. The government of the day was no more than a delegated authority, with no powers of its own, its only powers being those loaned to it by the people for its temporary duration, and was mounted by the monarch on the people’s behalf for a strictly limited period. The power of governance remained with the monarch and through the monarch to the people, the monarch and the people being as one, as established and proclaimed in a marriage as part of the coronation ceremony. In summary, before 1972, this nation was not about Parliament and the people, it was about the people and their elected monarch, Parliament being no more than a temporarily appointed national administration and legislature; a national servant.

With the unlawful dissolution of the monarchy and the surrender of the supremacy of the Crown in accord with the terms and conditions of the Treaty of Rome, Parliament, which formerly drew its legitimacy from the Crown, became an illegitimate and therefore unlawful assembly and has remained so since 1972. The abdication of the monarch was later officially confirmed when following the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, again by a Conservative government, the then Conservative prime minister John Major announced in the House of Commons that all British people had been officially made citizens of the EU including the Queen, the implication being that all, including the Queen were bound by the demands, obligations and restrictions of that foreign citizenship. Had John Major not been correct he would have been ‘imagining the death of the monarch’ and so subject to charges of Treason under the Treason Felony Act 1848, but no action was taken against him. Also, clearly, no one could be both monarch and citizen at the same time. By his statement, John Major was also making sure that everyone fully understood that they were NO LONGER BRITISH SUBJECTS.

Unlawful though this coming referendum is, as it invites the British people to engage in an act of treason against themselves, it could at least give expression to those wishing to return to being British subjects and once more under lawful governance.

To those who will be voting.

If you wish to return to being a British subject.

If you wish to have the Crown and the monarchy reinstated.

If you wish to return to lawful governance and the rule of law administered through a legitimate national parliament.

If you wish to see a return to the lawful recognition of our ancient common law Constitution.

If you wish to ensure your descendants grow up and live in a free and sovereign country of self political determination, there is only one way to vote and that is, for this nation to leave the politically chaotic and financially corrupt European Union.

Do so with a will and be mindful of the hundreds of thousands of foreign immigrants surreptitiously brought here to vote against you, and the hundreds of thousands of those born here of foreign immigrants who have no historic affinity with this country, be it politically or spiritually. Digest the facts that are hereby laid out and check them out for yourself, should you have a mind to, and should you be of a spiritual belief, pray that the sword of truth and enlightenment does ultimately prevail.

Bob Lomas.

Written by anubis

May 14th, 2016 at 7:27 am

Illegality of UK’s membership of the EU

without comments

Sovereignty – The ability to rule ourselves and make our own laws.

The Lord Kilmuir letter, below, was sent to Edward Heath advising him that joining the European Economic Community would be contrary to English Constitutional Law. It would be a total abrogation of his duty to govern us according to our laws and customs.

Heath went ahead anyway and in 1972 gave away Britain’s sovereignty in the most grievous act of treason in British history. Diligently pursuing his treachery, every following parliament has been an unlawful assembly unqualified to legally govern. This means that every Act and EU Treaty since 1972 is null and void as treason has no authority in law.

The comments in red interleaved in Lord Kilmuir’s letter, clearly show that the Heath Government was fully prepared to commit acts of Sedition and Treason in order to take the UK into the EEC. Unfortunately we do not have a copy of Heath’s original letter to Lord Kilmuir.

My Dear Ted,

You wrote to me on the 30th November about the constitutional implications of our becoming a party to the Treaty of Rome. I have now had an opportunity of considering what you say in your letter and have studied the memoranda you sent me. I agree with you that there are important constitutional issues involved.

I have no doubt that if we do sign the Treaty, we shall suffer some loss of sovereignty, but before attempting to define or evaluate the loss I wish to make one general observation. At the end of the day, the issue whether or not to join the European Economic Community must be decided on broad political grounds and if it appears from what follows in this letter that I find the constitutional objections serious, that does not mean that I consider them conclusive. I do, however, think it important that we should appreciate clearly from the outset exactly what, from the constitutional point of view, is involved if we sign the treaty, and it is with that consideration in mind that I have addressed myself to the questions you have raised.

He is clear that if we do sign the agreement with the EEC we will suffer some loss of Sovereignty. This is clearly an act of Treason because our Constitution allows no such surrender of any part of our Constitution to a foreign power beyond the control of the Queen in parliament. This is evidenced by the convention which says:-

(Parliament may do many things but what it may not do is surrender any of its rights to govern unless we have been defeated in war). And the ruling given to King Edward 3rd in 1366 in which he was told that King John’s action in surrendering England to the Pope and ruling England as a Vassal King to Rome was illegal because England did not belong to John, he held it only in trust for those who followed him. The money that the Pope was demanding as tribute was not to be paid because England’s Kings were NOT vassal Kings to the Pope nor was the money legitimately owed.

Adherence to the Treaty of Rome would, in my opinion, affect our sovereignty in three ways:-

a) Parliament would be required to surrender some of its functions to the organs of the community;

b) The Crown would be called upon to transfer part of its treaty-making power to those organs of the Community;

The English Constitution confers treaty making powers on only the Sovereign. The Sovereign cannot transfer those powers to a foreign power nor even, to our own parliament because they are mere servants of the Monarch. Sovereignty itself cannot be given away as it resides with the people who entrust it to the Monarch for his/her lifetime and the Monarch is obliged by law to pass that sovereignty on to any successor as it was received.

c) Our courts of law would sacrifice some degree of independence by becoming subordinate in certain respects to the European Court of Justice.

It is a Praemunire to allow any case to be taken to a foreign court not under the control of the Sovereign. The European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights are foreign courts not under the control of our Sovereign. Praemunire is a crime akin to Treason.

The position of Parliament:

It is clear that the memorandum prepared by your Legal Advisers that the Council could eventually (after the system of qualified majority voting had come into force) make regulations which would be binding on us even against our wishes, and which would in fact become for us part of the law of the land.

There are two ways in which this requirement of the Treaty could in practice be implemented:-

It is a Praemunire to allow any laws or regulations not made by the Sovereign in parliament to take effect as law in England. This is illegal under the 1351 Treason Act, the 1351 Act of Praemunire (which was introduced by King Edward III because he believed it was an affront to his honour and dignity as King of England to have laws imposed upon his Kingdom by a foreign power, to have any of his subjects to be taken out of England to be tried in a foreign court or for his Bishops to excomminicate any of his subjects on the orders of the Pope), the Act of Praemunire 1392, the Act of Supremacy 1559, the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 and the Treason Felony Act 1848.

Parliament could legislate ad hoc on each occasion that the Council made regulations requiring action by us. The difficulty would be that, since Parliament can bind neither itself nor its successors, we could only comply with our obligations under the Treaty if parliament abandoned its right of passing independent judgement on the legislative proposals put before it.

A parallel [to the position of Britain and the EU] would be, for instance, the constitutional convention whereby Parliament passed British North American Bills without question at the request of the Parliament of Canada. In this respect Parliament here would have in substance, if not in form, abdicated its sovereign position and it would have pro tanto, to do the same for the Community.

No such power exists for parliament to do this. This would be an act of treason under the 1351 Treason Act, a Praemunire under the 1351and 1392 Acts of Praemunire, an act of treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights and the Treason Felony Act 1848.

It would in theory, be possible for Parliament to enact at the outset legislation which would give automatic force of law to any existing or future regulations made by the appropriate organs of the Community. For Parliament to do this would go far beyond the most extensive delegation of powers even in wartime that we have ever experienced and I do not think there is any likelihood of this being acceptable to the House of Commons. Whichever course were adopted, Parliament would retain in theory the liberty to repeal the relevant Act or Acts, but I would agree with you that we must act on the assumption that entry into the Community would be irrevocable. We should therefore have to accept a position where Parliament had no more power to repeal its own enactments than it has in practice to abrogate the statute of Westminster. In short, Parliament would have to transfer to the Council, or other appropriate organ of the Community, its substantive powers of legislating over the whole of a very important field.

There is no constitutionally acceptable method of doing this because it would be tantamount to a total abrogation of their duty to govern us according to our laws and customs. And it would be an act of treason under the 1351 Treason Act, a Praemunire under the 1351 and 1392 Acts of Praemunire and treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights and the Treason Felony Act 1848.

Regarding Treaty-making powers:

The proposition that every treaty entered into by the United Kingdom does to some extent fetter our freedom of action is plainly true. Some treaties such as GATT and OEEC restrict severely our liberty to make agreements with third parties and I should not regard it as detrimental to our sovereignty that, by signing the Treaty of Rome, we undertook not to make tariff or trade agreements without the Council’s approval. But to transfer to the Council or the Commission the power to make such treaties on our behalf and even against our will, is an entirely different proposition.

There seems to me to be a clear distinction between the exercise of the sovereignty involved in the conscious acceptance by us of obligations under treaty-making powers and the total or partial surrender of sovereignty involved in our cession of these powers to some other body. To confer a sovereign state’s treaty-making powers on an international organisation is the first step on the road which leads by way of confederation to the fully federal state. I do not suggest that what is involved would necessarily carry us very far in this direction, but it would be a most significant step and one for which there is no precedent in our case. Moreover, a further surrender of sovereignty of parliamentary supremacy would necessarily be involved: as you know, treaty-making power is vested in the Crown.

Parliamentary sanction is required for any treaty which involves a change in the law or the imposition of taxation, to take two examples, and we cannot ratify such a treaty unless Parliament consents. But if binding treaties are to be entered into on our behalf, Parliament must surrender this function and either resign itself to becoming a rubber stamp or give the Community, in effect, the power to amend our domestic laws.

This is a surrender of our Sovereignty, a clear act of treason under the 1351 Treason Act and a Praemunire under the 1351 and 1392 Acts of Praemunire, it is treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights and the Treason Felony Act 1848.

Independence of the Courts

There is no precedent for our final appellate tribunal being required to refer questions of law (even in a limited field) to another court and as I assume to be the implication of ‘refer’ — to accept that court’s decision. You will remember that when a similar proposal was considered in connection with the Council of Europe we felt strong objection to it. I have no doubt that the whole of the legal profession in this country would share my dislike for such a proposal which must inevitably detract from the independence and authority of our courts.

Of those three objections, the first two are by far the more important. I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignty involved are serious ones and I think that as a matter of practical politics, it will not be easy to persuade Parliament or the public to accept them. I am sure that it would be a great mistake to under-estimate the force of objections to them. But these objections ought to be brought out into the open now because, if we attempt to gloss over them at this state, those who are opposed to the whole idea of our joining the Community will certainly seize on them with more damaging effect later on.

Having said this, I would emphasise once again that, although those constitutional considerations must be given their full weight when we come to balance the arguments on either side, I do not for one moment wish to convey the impression that they must necessarily tip the scale. In the long run we shall have to decide whether economic factors require us to make some sacrifices of sovereignty: my concern is to ensure that we should see exactly what it is that we are being called on to sacrifice, and how serious our loss would be.

It is a Praemunire to subject Her Majesty’s Courts of Law to the domination of a foreign court outside of Her Majesty’s control.

Written by anubis

May 9th, 2016 at 12:39 pm


without comments

This is brilliant.

Posted here

Knock Knock


I’m your local X candidate … I hope I can count on your vote …

No … you can’t … voting is against my religion … if it were up to me, I would have you jailed as a Confidence Trickster …

What?? Don’t be ridiculous … I’m not a Confidence Trickster! I’m genuinely trying to get elected!

That’s what I mean … trying to get elected … thus you are a Confidence Trickster and should be jailed.

I don’t know how you can work that out!

It’s easy. You want to become a Local Councillor … is that right?

Well … yes.

And what will you do if you are selected?

I’ll sit as a Local Councillor!

And do what?

Well … whatever I need to do.

Such as?

Well … I don’t know … whatever is necessary …

How would you be entitled to do “whatever is necessary”?

Because I’d been elected!!!

What does “being elected” entitle you to do … that you couldn’t do before?

Well … if I’m elected, then I would have a mandate.

A mandate from whom?

From the people who elected me!

So … the people who voted for you would have given you a mandate … is that right?

Yes … obviously!

Actually, it’s far from obvious … because you can only “give” what you have available to “give” in the first place. So those who gave you this mandate must have had the mandate in the first place ,,, isn’t that true?

I don’t understand.

I’ll repeat it. You can only give something that you possess in the first place. You can’t give what you haven’t got. So if people give you a mandate, then they must have the mandate – in the first place – to give to you. Do you understand that?

Well … yes … I think so.

Good. Well, if those people have the mandate in the first place, then there’s absolutely no need for them to give it to you. They can simply exercise the mandate themselves … since they must have it. Isn’t that so?

Errr … now I don’t understand.

It’s very simple. If I have a car I can drive it. I don’t need to give it to you … to drive it for me. If I can give you a mandate, then I must have that mandate. If I have that mandate, then I can exercise it myself … I don’t need to give it to you. So … why don’t all these people simply exercise their mandate … instead of giving it to you?

Errr … I’m not sure.

I am. The reason those people don’t exercise their mandate is because they don’t – actually – have any mandate to exercise … to … as you put it “Do whatever is necessary”. They can’t “Do whatever is necessary” … so they can’t give you the mandate to “Do whatever is necessary”. Not one voter possesses the ability to “Do whatever is necessary”. Therefore, if you “Do whatever is necessary” you are plucking that ability out of your backside … because no voter has it to give to you. If you pluck the ability out of your backside, then you are acting as a Confidence Trickster … and should be jailed for such criminality! And, if I had my way, you would be jailed, instead of standing on my doorstep. OR … come back when you’ve worked out how to give something you haven’t got.

Written by anubis

April 15th, 2016 at 8:51 am

Why we should leave the EU

without comments

Could Britain survive outside the EU?

There has for years now been a cynical and ruthless propaganda campaign to persuade us that Britain has no future outside Europe. This is nonsense. For example, take Switzerland, they ignored the encouragement of their Government and voted against joining the EU. But they have negotiated for themselves an excellent trade agreement – thereby putting a lie to the utterly false claim that no European country can possibly survive unless it becomes part of the EU.

The europhiles constantly argue that Britain would be ruined if she left Europe.

Oh, what porkies these people do tell.

As The Economist said recently: `…the idea that leaving (the EU) would be `economic suicide’ is nonsense’.

Examine what would happen if Britain pulled up the Tunnel and stopped paying subs to the big EU in Brussels.

1. The EU would impose its external tariff on British exports to Europe. This would make very little difference to British companies – most of whose exports go outside Europe anyway. The World Trade Organisation restricts the EU to an external tariff of around 6% so the effect would, in any case, be quite small. (Britain would almost certainly be able to negotiate for itself a smaller tariff – in the way that Switzerland has. This would drive down the cost of leaving the EU still further.)

2. If outside the EU, Britain would, inevitably, be outside the euro. There would be an exchange rate between the pound and the euro. In the long run this could well be to Britain’s advantage.

3. The external tariff on Britain’s imports from outside the EU would disappear. Britain would probably gain more from this than it would lose from the imposition of a tariff on British exports to Europe.

4. A Britain outside the EU would be able to make special trading deals with other countries – such as those in the Commonwealth. This could be hugely advantageous.

5. Europhiles claim that if Britain left the EU then countries from outside Europe (such as Japan and America) would invest less. This is nonsense. Britain attracts more outside investment (known to economists as `Foreign Direct Investment’) than other European countries because its labour market is still relatively unregulated. If it was outside the EU Britain could take advantage of its independence to reduce the number of regulations limiting foreign companies. EU regulations are already regarded as a minefield. Just ask some of the foreign companies who have had eurocrats leaping up and down all over them. Many would jump at the chance to invest in a less regulated part of Europe. The tariffs would be a small price to pay. Finally, even if FDI did fall, Britain would not necessarily lose since in an often irrational attempt to encourage foreign businesses (at the expense of British businesses) the British Government subsidises these investments. A subsidised outside investment may well not make money for the country!

The bottom line is that the British stand to lose nothing by leaving the EU.

If Britain left the EU it would leave behind an incompetent and power hungry bureaucracy which has consistently failed. If we left the EU they would not be able to do anything in revenge. Remember we have a trade deficit with the EU. (For example, we have a deficit of over £3 billion a year trade with Germany alone.) The EU countries desperately need our trade.

British politicians have supported the EU, lied and deceived the British voters and signed away rights and freedoms and they have claimed that they wanted Britain to have influence in Europe.

This is nonsense.

Britain has far less influence in Europe than it had ten, twenty or thirty years ago.

Politicians have sold out the voters to gain personal political influence.

Britain, and the British, have gained nothing from membership of the EU. But membership has cost a great deal.

Britain would survive and survive well outside the EU.

The people of Norway and Switzerland have voted against joining the EU – and have thrived. Greenland, once in the EU, escaped and has prospered since getting out. If they can do it so can Britain.

Britain would survive and prosper outside the EU. It would be richer and more powerful – and its citizens would regain their lost independence.

Britain’s trade is in surplus with every state in the world except the EU. If Britain left the EU it could regain power of its legal system, armed forces, and agricultural policies. Hundreds of thousands of small businesses would be saved from stifling bureaucracy. British is the worlds leading business language. British dominates the Internet. Our language means that we can trade with any other country in the world.
David Cameron won’t tell you this but Britain would be much richer if it left the EU. We would save a fortune. And be free of 30,000 rules.

The only people who would lose would be the politicians for whom the British stage is too small.

We could leave the EU in minutes. All we have to do is recall our ambassador to the EU.

(Did you know we had one? How, you might ask, can we have an ambassador to something we are supposed to be part of?) Withdrawing our ambassador would invalidate all treaties between Britain and the EU.

Or Parliament could simply repeal the Acts of Parliament which hold us to the EU.


We could be out of the EU in minutes.

Written by anubis

February 20th, 2016 at 5:07 pm

The Role of Morality…

without comments

Originally posted here

How can the life of such a man
Be in the palm of some fool’s hand?
To see him obviously framed
Couldn’t help but make me feel ashamed to live in a land
Where justice is a game.—Bob Dylan, “Hurricane”

Attorney John W. Whitehead opens a recent posting on his Rutherford Institute website with these words from a song by Bob Dylan. Why don’t all of us feel ashamed? Why only Bob Dylan?

I wonder how many of Bob Dylan’s fans understand what he is telling them. American justice has nothing to do with innocence or guilt. It only has to do with the prosecutor’s conviction rate, which builds his political career. Considering the gullibility of the American people, American jurors are the last people to whom an innocent defendant should trust his fate. The jury will betray the innocent almost every time.

As Lawrence Stratton and I show in our book (2000, 2008) there is no justice in America. We titled our book, “How the Law Was Lost.” It is a description of how the protective features in law that made law a shield of the innocent was transformed over time into a weapon in the hands of the government, a weapon used against the people. The loss of law as a shield occurred prior to 9/11, which “our representative government” used to construct a police state.

The marketing department of our publisher did not appreciate our title and instead came up with “The Tyranny of Good Intentions.” We asked what this title meant. The marketing department answered that we showed that the war on crime, which gave us the abuses of RICO, the war on child abusers, which gave us show trials of total innocents that bested Joseph Stalin’s show trials of the heroes of the Bolshevik Revolution, and the war on drugs, which gave “Freedom and Democracy America” broken families and by far the highest incarceration rate in the world all resulted from good intentions to combat crime, to combat drugs, and to combat child abuse. The publisher’s title apparently succeeded, because 15 years later the book is still in print. It has sold enough copies over these years that, had the sales occurred upon publication would have made the book a “best seller.” The book, had it been a best seller, would have gained more attention, and perhaps law schools and bar associations could have used it to hold the police state at bay.

Whitehead documents how hard a not guilty verdict is to come by for an innocent defendant. Even if the falsely accused defendant and his attorney survive the prosecutor’s pressure to negotiate a plea bargain and arrive at a trial, they are confronted with jurors who are unable to doubt prosecutors, police, or witnesses paid to lie against the innocent defendant. Jurors even convicted the few survivors of the Clinton regime’s assault on the Branch Davidians of Waco, the few who were not gassed, shot, or burned to death by US federal forces. This religious sect was demonized by Washington and the presstitute media as child abusers who were manufacturing automatic weapons while they raped children. The charges proved to be false, like Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction,” and so forth, but only after all of the innocents were dead or in prison.

The question is: why do Americans not only sit silently while the lives of innocents are destroyed, but also actually support the destruction of the lives of innocents? Why do Americans believe “official sources” despite the proven fact that “official sources” lie repeatedly and never tell the truth?

The only conclusion that one can come to is that the American people have failed. We have failed Justice. We have failed Mercy. We have failed the US Constitution. We have failed Truth. We have failed Democracy and representative government. We have failed ourselves and humanity. We have failed the confidence that our Founding Fathers put in us. We have failed God. If we ever had the character that we are told we had, we have obviously lost it. Little, if anything, remains of the “American character.”

Was the American character present in the torture prisons of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and hidden CIA torture dungeons where US military and CIA personnel provided photographic evidence of their delight in torturing and abusing prisoners? Official reports have concluded that along with torture went rape, sodomy, and murder. All of this was presided over by American psychologists with Ph.D. degrees.

We see the same inhumanity in the American police who respond to women children, the elderly, the physically and mentally handicapped, with gratuitous violence. For no reason whatsoever, police murder, taser, beat, and abuse US citizens. Every day there are more reports, and despite the reports the violence goes on and on and on. Clearly, the police enjoy inflicting pain and death on citizens whom the police are supposed to serve and protect. There have always been bullies in the police force, but the wanton police violence of our time indicates a complete collapse of the American character.

The failure of the American character has had tremendous and disastrous consequences for ourselves and for the world. At home Americans have a police state in which all Constitutional protections have vanished. Abroad, Iraq and Libya, two formerly prosperous countries, have been destroyed. Libya no longer exists as a country. One million dead Iraqis, four million displaced abroad, hundreds of thousands of orphans and birth defects from the American ordnance, and continuing ongoing violence from factions fighting over the remains. These facts are incontestable. Yet the United States Government claims to have brought “freedom and democracy” to Iraq. “Mission accomplished,” declared one of the mass murderers of the 21st century, George W. Bush.

The question is: how can the US government make such an obviously false outrageous claim without being shouted down by the rest of the world and by its own population? Is the answer that good character has disappeared from the world?

Or is the rest of the world too afraid to protest? Washington can force supposedly sovereign countries to acquiesce to its will or be cut off from the international payments mechanism that Washington controls, and/or be sanctioned, and/or be bombed, droned, or invaded, and/or be assassinated or overthrown in a coup. On the entire planet Earth there are only two countries capable of standing up to Washington, Russia and China, and neither wants to stand up if they can avoid it.

For whatever the reasons, not only Americans but most of the world as well accommodate Washington’s evil and are thereby complicit in the evil. Those humans with a moral conscience are gradually being positioned by Washington and London as “domestic extremists” who might have to be rounded up and placed in detention centers. Examine the recent statements by General Wesley Clark and British Prime Minister Cameron and remember Janet Napolitano’s statement that the Department of Homeland Security has shifted its focus from terrorists to domestic extremists, an undefined and open-ended term.

Americans with good character are being maneuvered into a position of helplessness. As John Whitehead makes clear, the American people cannot even prevent “their police,” paid by their tax payments, from murdering 3 Americans each day, and this is only the officially reported murders. The actual account is likely higher.

What Whitehead describes and what I have noticed for many years is that the American people have lost, in addition to their own sense of truth and falsity, any sense of mercy and justice for other peoples. Americans accept no sense of responsibility for the millions of peoples that Washington has exterminated over the past two decades dating back to the second term of Clinton. Every one of the millions of deaths is based on a Washington lie.

When Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, was asked if the Clinton’s regime’s sanctions, which had claimed the lives of 500,000 Iraqi children, were justified, she obviously expected no outrage from the American people when she replied in the affirmative.

Americans need to face the facts. The loss of character means the loss of liberty and the transformation of government into a criminal enterprise.

Written by anubis

July 26th, 2015 at 8:11 pm

Glastonbury Town Hall takeover

without comments

A group of people have taken over the Glastonbury Town Hall under Article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215. They have been in touch with the Duke of Rutland who is the senior peer on the ‘Barons Committee’. It was this committee that took a petition to Buckingham Palace in 2001 asking the Queen to do her job and restore the rule of law. The Committee were refused entry.

The Glastonbury local authority asked the police to move the people out of the town hall. When the police arrived it was explained to them that they were enforcing the law under Magna Carta 1215 Article 61 with the approval of the Duke of Rutland and the Barons Committee. The police then backed-off without removing anyone from the town hall.

This group, who took over the town hall, are asking that everyone in the country take over their own local town hall using the same law which is shown below. Anyone doing this will have the blessing of the Barons Committee and need only to quote the above explanation. This action is 100% legal.

From Albert Burgess

Article 61.
61. Since, moreover, we have conceded all the above things (from reverence) for God, for the reform of our kingdom and the better quieting of the discord that has sprung up between us and our barons, and since we wish these things to flourish unimpaired and unshaken for ever, we constitute and concede to them the following guarantee:- namely, that the barons shall choose any twenty-five barons of the kingdom they wish, who with all their might are to observe, maintain and secure the observance of the peace and rights which we have conceded and confirmed to them by this present charter of ours; in this manner, that if we or our chief Justiciar or our bailiffs or any of our servants in any way do wrong to anyone, or transgress any of the articles of peace or security, and the wrong doing has been demonstrated to four of the aforesaid twenty-five barons, those four barons shall come to us or our chief Justiciar, (if we are out of the kingdom), and laying before us the grievance, shall ask that we will have it redressed without delay. And if we, or our chief Justiciar (should we be out of the kingdom) do not redress the grievance within forty days of the time when it was brought to the notice of us or our chief Justiciar (should we be out of the kingdom), the aforesaid four barons shall refer the case to the rest of the twenty-five barons and those twenty-five barons with the whole community of the land shall distrain and distress us in every way they can, namely by taking of castles, estates and possessions, and in such other ways as they can, excepting (attack on) our person and those of our queen and of our children until, in their judgement, satisfaction has been secured; and when satisfaction has been secured let them behave towards us as they did before. And let anyone in the country who wishes to do so take an oath to obey the orders of the said twenty-five barons in the execution of all the aforesaid matters and with them to oppress us to the best of his ability, and we publicly and freely give permission for the taking the oath to anyone who wishes to take it, and we will never prohibit anyone from taking it.

Written by anubis

October 16th, 2014 at 1:15 pm

Our Enemy, The State.

without comments

Just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power; there is never, nor can there be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power.

As long ago as 1794, James Madison called “the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in the government”;

Indeed, it is by this means that the aim of the collectivists seems likeliest to be attained in this country; this aim being the complete extinction of social power through absorption by the State. Their fundamental doctrine was formulated and invested with a quasi-religious sanction by the idealist philosophers of the last century; and among peoples who have accepted it in terms as well as in fact, it is expressed in formulas almost identical with theirs. Thus, for example, when Hitler says that “the State dominates the nation because it alone represents it,” he is only putting into loose popular language the formula of Hegel, that “the State is the general substance, whereof individuals are but accidents.” Or, again, when Mussolini says, “Everything for the State; nothing outside the State; nothing against the State,” he is merely vulgarizing the doctrine of Fichte, that “the State is the superior power, ultimate and beyond appeal, absolutely independent.”

It may be in place to remark here the essential identity of the various extant forms of collectivism.

The superficial distinctions of Fascism, Bolshevism, Hitlerism, are the concern of journalists and publicists; the serious student (of civilization) sees in them only the one root-idea of a complete conversion of social power into State power. When Hitler and Mussolini invoke a kind of debased and hoodwinking mysticism to aid their acceleration of this process, the student at once recognizes his old friend, the formula of Hegel, that “the State incarnates the Divine Idea upon earth,” and he is not hoodwinked. The journalist and the impressionable traveller may make what they will of “the new religion of Bolshevism”; the student contents himself with remarking clearly the exact nature of the process which this inculcation is designed to sanction.

Mr. Jefferson wrote in 1823 that there was no danger he dreaded so much as “the consolidation [i.e., centralization] of our government by the noiseless and therefore unalarming instrumentality of the Supreme Court.” These words characterize every advance that we have made in State aggrandizement. Each one has been noiseless and therefore unalarming, especially to a people notoriously preoccupied, inattentive and incurious. Even the coup d’Etat of 1932 was noiseless and unalarming. In Russia, Italy, Germany, the coup d’Etat was violent and spectacular; it had to be; but here it was neither. Under covers of a nation-wide, State-managed mobilization of inane buffoonery and aimless commotion, it took place in so unspectacular a way that its true nature escaped notice, and even now is not generally understood.

This regime was established by a coup d’Etat of a new and unusual kind, practicable only in a rich country. It was effected, not by violence, like Louis- Napoleon’s, or by terrorism, like Mussolini’s, but by purchase. It therefore presents what might be called an American variant of the coup d’Etat. Our national legislature was not suppressed by force of arms, like the French Assembly in 1851, but was bought out of its functions with public money; and as appeared most conspicuously in the elections of November, 1934, the consolidation of the coup d’Etat was effected by the same means; the corresponding functions in the smaller units were reduced under the personal control of the Executive. This is a most remarkable phenomenon; possibly nothing quite like it ever took
place; and its character and implications deserve the most careful attention.

A visitor from a poorer and thriftier country might have regarded Mr. Farley’s activities in the local campaigns of 1934 as striking or even spectacular, but they made no such impression on us. They seemed so familiar, so much the regular thing, that one heard little comment on them. Moreover, political habit led us to attribute whatever unfavourable comment we did hear, to interest; either partisan or monetary interest, or both. We put it down as the jaundiced judgment of persons with axes to grind; and naturally the regime did all it could to encourage this view.

(Another) thing to be observed is that certain formulas, certain arrangements of words, stand as an obstacle in the way of our perceiving how far the conversion of social power into State power has actually gone. The force of phrase and name distorts the identification of our own actual acceptances and acquiescences. We are accustomed to the rehearsal of certain poetic litanies, and provided their cadence be kept entire, we are indifferent to their correspondence with truth and fact. When Hegel’s doctrine of the State, for example, is restated in terms by Hitler and Mussolini, it is distinctly offensive to us, and we congratulate ourselves on our freedom from the “yoke of a dictator’s tyranny.” No American politician would dream of breaking in on our routine of litanies with anything of the kind. We may imagine, for example, the shock to popular sentiment that would ensue upon Mr. Roosevelt’s declaring publicly that “the State embraces everything, and nothing has value outside the State. The State creates right.” Yet an American politician, as long as he does not formulate that doctrine in set terms, may go further with it in a practical way than Mussolini has gone, and without trouble or question. Suppose Mr. Roosevelt should defend his regime by publicly reasserting Hegel’s dictum that “the State alone possesses rights, because it is the strongest.” One can hardly imagine that our public would get that down without a great deal of retching. Yet how far, really, is that doctrine alien to our public’s actual acquiescences? Surely not far.

The point is that in respect of the relation between the theory and the actual practice of public affairs, the American is the most unphilosophical of beings. The rationalization of conduct in general is most repugnant to him; he prefers to emotionalize it. He is indifferent to the theory of things, so long as he may rehearse his formulas; and so long as he can listen to the patter of his
litanies, no practical inconsistency disturbs him – indeed, he gives no evidence of even recognizing it as an inconsistency.

– excerpts from Albert Jay Nock’s “Our Enemy, The State” (1935)

Written by anubis

October 4th, 2014 at 9:56 am

Posted in Government,Politics

State of the Union

without comments

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, fellow citizens:

This summer we will commemorate the 100th anniversary of the start of World War I.

This senseless, destructive war was started and championed by politicians who cared nothing for the 9 million people who lost their lives.

And in doing so, they began a century of warfare which continues to this day.

Our military industrial complex is larger than ever. We have nearly 2 million troops and national guardsmen, plus 3.5 million civilians employed in the defense sector.

With such awesome capabilities, we continue to resort to violence and death to exact political goals which benefit a tiny elite.

All of this has created a police state in the Land of the Free that is a far cry from the country we all grew up in.

Your government has spawned a culture of fear and intimidation. Nearly every federal agency, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, has its own gun-toting police force to pistol-whip citizens into submission.

And we’re stocking up. Your government has recently procured 1.6 BILLION rounds of hollow-point ammunition to supplement our existing supplies.

But frankly, we don’t need guns to harass citizens.

Our tax authorities have become more threatening than mafia warlords. The plunder is so severe that record numbers of Americans are renouncing their citizenship and leaving the country.

There are now dozens of federal, state, and local agencies and courts which have the power to confiscate your assets without any due process.

In addition to your house, your business, and your savings, we also have the authority to take your children away from you as if they are property of the state.

We are here to tell you what you can and cannot put in your own body, or whether you can collect rainwater that falls on own property.

In fact, on any given business day, the federal government issues hundreds of pages of new ‘rules’, proposed regulations, draft bills, executive orders, and/or regulatory notices.

And if you are not compliant with these rules, you may be committing a crime. Whether you know it or not.

When this nation was founded, there were four federal crimes on the books. Today there are THOUSANDS. Plus we have millions of government employees at all levels to enforce the penalties.

All of this, of course, is financed by you the tax slave.

You (plus unborn generations) are the poor suckers charged with paying off the national debt we politicians have created.

Officially the debt is just north of $17 trillion. But if you include Social Security and pension shortfalls, the figure is several times higher.

You’ll never know for sure because we have become masters of deceit regarding official statistics, whether inflation, unemployment, or our liabilities.

But the situation is so dire that the Congressional Budget Office projects the Social Security Administration’s disability insurance trust fund to RUN OUT by 2017.

We get by year after year by increasing the debt. And at well over 100% of GDP, we have truly reached the point of no return.

We are now in a position where we must default. Either we must default on our national debt, or we must default on our obligations to you the citizens.

We may end up stealing your savings. Robbing your Social Security. Taxing you to death. Or simply inflating away the value of our debt.

Naturally, we’re going to screw you in the process somehow… so be prepared for that. Especially the inflationary tidal wave that’s coming.

Our central bank has expanded its balance sheet at an unprecedented pace, creating massive asset bubbles in its wake. These asset bubbles have disproportionately benefited the ultra-wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

Such wanton money printing has also been tremendously destructive to our credibility. Other nations worry about our reckless irresponsibility. That’s why we keep spying on them.

Make no mistake: the consequences of our actions are here. And the days of the United States as the world’s dominant superpower are finished.

As the decline hastens, we will struggle to sell our debt to the world and to ship our dollars abroad. Fewer nations will be interested in our empty promises.

And without the generosity of other nations loaning us money at record low interest rates that fail to keep pace with inflation, you will really be screwed.

When this happens, you can absolutely count on us to clamp down even harder on the economy and control even more of your lives. For your own good, of course.

No, this may not be the country that you all grew up in. But it is the state of our union… whatever remains of it.

And so my fellow Americans, I urge you to grab your ankles and get ready for a little ‘shared sacrifice’.

But don’t worry about me, or my senior staff. We will leave government with cushy pensions, $750,000 speaking fees, board seats on public companies, and top positions in the industries that we have accommodated at your expense.

And of course I will be paid handsomely for the arrogant memoirs I will write in which I deny any responsibility for the shit I’ve gotten you all into.

So when I say “shared sacrifice”, I really mean “your sacrifice”.

Thank you. God bless you, and God bless these United States of America.

Written by anubis

March 29th, 2014 at 6:12 pm

Tony Blair – War Criminal

without comments

The Rt.Hon., Chris Grayling,

The Secretary of State for Justice

Ministry of Justice

102 Petty France



Dear Sir,

Re: Obligations of the UK High Contracting Party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions IV Article 146

I assume that, since you have not replied to my letters, dated 18 March and 29th April 2013, asking for your implementation of The 1949 Geneva Conventions IV Article 146, I have finally found the identity of The Representative of The UK High Contracting Party to those Conventions.

All Departments in Whitehall, that could have been the Representative, have, like servants in Kafka’s Castle, sent immediate replies to my requests, saying that it is not their Department and that I should try another.

The Attorney General directed me to the Home Secretary; The Home Secretary directed me to the Crown Prosecution Service; The Crown Prosecution Service directed me to yourself. Replies surely composed by gate keepers anxious to absolve their superiors of difficulties – because difficulties there are a plenty.

My tutor, Sir Harry Hinsley, met Hitler in Munich in 1937, I followed his footsteps, but to Munich and Nuremberg. As a historian you will know that adjacent to Courtroom 600 at Nuremberg is a museum of the 1945 – 6 trials and a collection of the 40 Blue Books which recorded all the proceedings.

The museum pays tribute to the 2,000 idealistic American, Russian, and British men and women who spent two years recording these trials and composing the 1946 Nuremberg Protocols, which formed the basis of 1949 Geneva Conventions IV. Their idealistic aim was to make it impossible for such a war of aggression again.

Vladimir Putin, writing in the New York Times (13 September 2013) referred to the importance of The Geneva Conventions, that Nations must support the United Nations, not letting disintegrate as did the League of Nations. He continued: “ the preservation of law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos.” Fortunately, in the case of Syria, his words, so far, hold the day, and further violence by the USA, UK and France in the Middle East is delayed.

I have pointed out to you the strong evidence that Anthony Blair and our ally, the USA, have, in the conduct of the Iraq war, committed gravest breaches of the Geneva Conventions. The use of depleted uranium (DU), white phosphorous, mercury, napalm equivalents and other toxins against a civilian population penned up in Fallujah in November 2004, were a significant war crime.

Long term damage to the natural environment and disastrous effects on the genetic material of the Iraqi population, have been linked to a massive increase in horrendous birth defects, and grotesque cancers on childrens’ faces and bodies, which you will surely have observed on CNN, Sky News and on You Tube.

The agonised look of a Fallujah mother staring at her otherwise beautiful child, marred by a grotesque growth on her face – and the hatred and despair on that mother’s face, is of hauntings..

Yet Whitehall continues to deny that DU is harmful, stating that its use is perfectly legitimate under international law. The then Defence Secretary Geoffrey Hoon said of the use of “Storm Shadow” missiles in the initial “Shock and Awe” attack, and use of cluster bombs over Hilla, “I will not compromise the safety of our armed forces by restraint.” (As you will know, pure military expediency was not accepted as a defense in the trial of Hermann Goering).

The perpetrators of these actions, Tony Blair and others, require – under the 1949 Geneva Conventions IV, article 146 – investigation by the High Contracting Party to examine grounds for prosecution and penal sanctions against the perpetrators of these breaches.

Your Ministry of Justice is required to act, lest it become an Orwellian Ministry of Injustice by inaction. Inaction in itself is breach of The Geneva Conventions. As, by default, allowing the continuation of effects of toxins and radiation on the genetic material of future generations to continue. The radioactive ‘half life” of depleted uranium, is 4.6 Billionyears.

Another effect referred to by Vladimir Putin, is that inaction under international law encourages continuous wars, death and chaos.

The judgement of future generations, may find inaction itself a war crime. Indeed, Article 146 asks for suppression of those breaches of the Convention IV.

If international law is disregarded, the Ministry of Defence will continue to claim that DU is benign. Such weapons will continue in use in “humanitarian” wars as Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere. Wider UK sales of this weaponry will continue, citing depleted uranium’s unique penetrating power and incineration properties.

However DU dust respects neither boundaries, or time. In the future, your grand children, may, like Kenny Duncan or Jenny Moore, join the army develop genetic damage as a result, or, say, work in Iran, and drinking coffee in Tehran, on one shallow breath, absorb an alpha particle carried on the wind, resulting in an agonising cancer or leukaemia. Neither is inaction an option in the face of lethal, unending damage for future generations where ever these weapons are used, for the population and our own and coalition forces.

In further support of Vladimir Putin’s call to respect the Geneva Conventions I refer to my letter of 1st March 2013, Indictment No.1, on the conspiracy by Blair and others to go to war by: “wrong footing Saddam on the Inspectors”.

At Nuremberg, in 1945-46, conspiracy to go to war was regarded as: “ the supreme international crime.” In my letter to you I pointed out that Tony Blair, was fully aware, in March 2003, that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, yet in Parliament at the crucial debate of 18 March 2003 he pretended that there were. I quote from my letter of 1st March 2013 to you :

Unfortunately Hans Blix’s report on the absence of weapons conflicted with the conspiracy between Downing Street and the USA to wrong foot Saddam in order to justify waging a war in March 2003. Sir David Manning reported in a secret memo, that on 31 January 2003 Tony Blair met George W. Bush in the US and they discussed the fact that probably no weapons would be found.

Bush was reported by Manning at this meeting to suggest three alternatives. One was to “fly U2 Reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them he would be in breach.”

Instead Hans Blix was recalled and instructed to abandon his inspection on 28 Feb 2003. War was declared 2 weeks later. Blair, however said, on 18th March 2003, that the idea that Saddam Hussein had indeed destroyed these weapons was” palpably absurd. ” I suggest that Blair was lying and knew he was lying .

If there is a failure by the UK High Contracting Party to investigate this then it will be failing its obligations under the Geneva Conventions and future generations will know that the UK finally abandoned the Geneva Conventions with all the sorry consequences that President Putin pointed out.

If Sir John Chilcot’s legal Advisor, Ms Sara Goom’s letter of 8th March 2011 is taken seriously ( copy enclosed ) Sir John has relied upon me to report to “the appropriate authority “ evidence of criminal offences that have emerged from his Inquiry. If the report of Sir John’s concern regarding the possibility that there was a conspiracy to go to war between Blair and Bush, as reported in The Times of July 20th 2013, is correct, then Sir John may be concerned at my failure to alert you to an implementation of Article 146. I am therefore sending Sir John Chilcot a copy of this letter.

Finally you will surely have read Blair’s biography “A Journey”, which states on page 571:

”I had a vision for Britain. All the way I had believed I could and would persuade the country it was the right choice, the modern way, bigger than Iraq, bigger than the American Alliance, bigger than any one thing; a complete vision of where we should be in the early twenty first century; about how we finally overcome the greatness of our history to discover the full potential of our future.”

I suggest to you, as Secretary of State for Justice, that such a vision should be restrained before it is emulated and allowed free rein.

I shall be grateful if you will confirm that you are indeed the Representative of the High Contracting Party to The 1949 Geneva Conventions IV.

Yours faithfully,

Nicholas Wood,

Secretary Blair War Crimes Foundation;

Secretary to 19 November 2009 Submission to Chilcot Inquiry.

Copy to:

Sir John Chilcot,

Ms Glenda Jackson MP

Elfin Llwyd, MP

The most reverend Desmond Tutu

Dr. Yakovenko , the Russian Ambassador to the U.K.

His Excellency Mohammad Khazaee, the Iranian Ambassador to the U.N.

His Excellency Bernard Emié, the French Ambassador to the U.K.

Written by anubis

January 16th, 2014 at 5:33 am

Posted in Government,Politics,War

Dealing with Policy Officers – you know them as Police Officers

without comments

As a group, “Peace Officers” do not exist in the DEMOCRACY; only POLICY ENFORCERS do. A peace officer only exists in the Republic. The word ‘peace’ should be your first clue in comparison to the militarized thugs we have today.

You must choose your battles/confrontations wisely. Sometimes, even the calmest of approaches will not quell the blinding rage of POLICY ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. This I have experienced. Sometimes those dudes/chicas have already had a bad day and your calm can further piss them off. But people and their experiences and emotions can never be 100% predictable, which makes life a bit interesting at times.

I’ve had success with a number of different approaches, one of my faves is to immediately begin the Contract before the COP has the chance.

“What is the Emergency and how can I help?”

Usually get back a confused “Excuse me?” or a simple confess-and-avoid leading to: “License and registration…”

I repeated: “What is the Emergency and how can I help?”

Regardless of whether he answers, I’d qualify like this:

“Is that your patrol vehicle?”
“Aren’t those ‘emergency beacons/flashers/lights’ atop your patrol vehicle?”
“Didn’t you activate/turn on those lights?”

I’ve had it go a couple different directions here and I’ll share one:

COP: “Reason I pulled you over is that your inspection sticker is the wrong color.”
Me: “If an emergency is signaled by beacons where none exists, isn’t that a FEDERAL CRIME?”

Me: “Haven’t people been injured because they rushed to move for an emergency vehicle that signaled a false emergency?”

“Sir, I don’t wish to take you into Federal Court and charge you with an offense that may cost you your livelihood and occupation. Maybe I need to speak to your Sergeant/Shift Supervisor to avoid any more incurred liability on your part.”

COP: “You some kind of lawyer?”
Me: “Would that give my words a bit more GRAVITY for you, sir? And who is the name of your current Shift Supervisor?”

Cop makes to walk toward his cruiser when I ask: “Am I free to go or am I being detained without a declared emergency?”

He quickly got into his car and drove away like he was on mission to save Earth.

Am I saying to replicate this action? No. Hell no. Much of how I’ve handled highway-stops is just to be chill and confident. I pretend I’m dealing with my neighbors recalcitrant children. Yes, they are little tyrants and hellions, but I mean them no harm. I can beat up a little kid, sure, but that’s just WRONG. I can speak some words to them and ask them to go and get their daddy so I can have an adult conversation and get things straightened out.

I can verbally inform them of what consequences they may face if they continue their behavior, making them fear what their daddy would do to them if I report them, so to speak.

The point I’m getting at is that with children and cops you must be very sweet yet unwavering and CONFIDENT. You KNOW you’re the adult when you’re dealing with a child and you have that confidence. Once you KNOW you’re an adult-Creditor when you’re dealing with a bureaucrat, the confidence will simply BE THERE.

Confidence of the quiet-cool nature puts more trepidation into the minds of bureaucrats than any ranting raving threatening slobbering patriot redneck. I say redneck because they abound where I am.

Well before I was aware of Admiralty, I defended my STRAWMAN in court thinking it was I they were trying. And I did better than most with a 75% success record (mostly traffic incidents and minor things).

I once verbally wrangled an NC State Trooper on the stand for the better part of 20 minutes, and although I was anxious, seeing him sweat and stutter and give ‘No I am not qualified’ and ‘I have no idea’ and ‘I don’t know what that statute says or if I’m liable for it.’ testimony, plus seeing the DA’s face wrinkle and pinch, got me confident. So you’re not the only one being nervous on the spot. So relax…we’re all human…allegedly.

I lost that particular “argument” but I got a huge boost from the Judge who held me back while the other ‘Actors’ went their separate ways. He told me I had the right mindset and tenacity and attention to detail, but that I was missing crucial elements of foundational procedure.

I also had the Assistant DA approach me later and ask me which law school I attended, to which I almost threw up in my mouth, but thanked him for his sidelong attempt at “giving props”.

Is praise from an Esquire noteworthy? I don’t know, I just know that they are actors in a Play and I didn’t read the Play, I didn’t know my stage-Presence and Proper Lines that day. That judge gave me a huge swell in confidence which has assisted me ever since in dealing with cops, attorneys, any and every bureaucrat that think they have power and hold sway over me.

Judges and Clerks aka the higher-level bureaucrats are the most polite yet also they are the craftiest. And that’s OK. I like crafty. It’s a challenge. It’s psychological, mostly. It’s a Head Game.

And one thing higher-level bureaucrats do well is ASSESS YOUR ASS. They are very good behaviorists. They know fake confidence over the real thing. You go in with the real thing, they sit and take notice if for nothing else, to return your politeness. This has been my experience alone.

Remember to speak to POLICE OFFICERS with the right Humor, the right Humility, the proper tonality as you would your neighbors wayward children, and like children they’ll grow up to respect you and not harass you. When that happens you get to see the magical transformation of SWAT thug into a true and genuine Peace Officer.

Written by anubis

May 28th, 2013 at 6:02 pm