Tuesday, April 01, 2014

Immediate, extreme, TERMINAL violence against unwarranted attackers?

Immediate, extreme, TERMINAL violence against unwarranted attackers?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/17950-detroit-fatal-self-defense-shootings-up-crime-down

I'll take the solution to unwarranted threats of violence and attacks a step further than Detroit Police Chief James Craig did according to that above-linked article.

While reminding the city's violent thugs, burglars, home-invaders, mobsters, knock-out gamers, and flash-mobs that armed citizens might kill them, Craig said this:
          "People who are faced with a dangerous situation are taking matters into their own hands. We’re not advocating violence; we’re advocates of not being victims. We’re advocates of self-protection. We want people to be safe."
We're not advocating violence? 

Oh yes, Chef Craig.  You clearly advocate exactly what people do to defend life, liberty, and property.  You know that competent aggressive law enforcement does not exist on-scene when citizens need a cop the most to protect them from violent criminals like home-invaders, burglars, muggers, thugs, armed robbers, car jackers, flash mobs, and other crooks. In fact, you know that cops have no legal duty to protect people even if they see criminal hurting somebody.

So, you openly acknowledge that people have the right to protect themselves AND their property AND their loved ones with DEADLY, LETHAL FORCE at ALL TIMES from unlawful aggressors.  And you acknowledge that many do use lethal violence to defend themselves, and you see nothing wrong with it.  So your silent ADVOCACY of lethal violence in self defense SCREAMS SO LOUDLY that you don't have to LIE in saying you don't advocate it.  OF COURSE you advocate lethal violence in self defense, and if you don't. you're an IDIOT.

In fact, the people have that right against government employees like Detroit's cops who become unlawful aggressors under COLOR OF LAW.  That is, the aggressors might wear a cop uniform or drive a cop car or claim to be a cop, but they use the force of authority, backed by a menacing pistol strapped to their hip or bulging beneath a jacket, shirt, or blouse, to commit unlawful acts while pretending the law supports that unlawful act.  By what lawful authority, for example, did  gunmen in uniforms, posing as FEMA agents or sheriffs, enter flooded communities in New Orleans and confiscate home owners' firearms?  NONE.  And therefore, nobody could blame those homeowners for shooting the uniformed aggressors dead in their tracks.

I won't, like Chief Craig did, fail to advocate violence or turn my face away from the blatantly OBVIOUS right to threaten and use VIOLENCE AND LETHAL FORCE in defense of myself, my property, my family, my lawful neighbors, and my community.

Let's honestly face reality.  The PEOPLE constantly risk invasion and injury from all kinds of people in and out of government.  And I personally consider the most egregiously evil and dangerous the gunmen employed by government to investigate crimes and enforce the law.  The newspapers have countless articles in them about armed government agents, sheriffs, cops, etc., who, for personal gain or out of whim, aggressively confront innocent people and make unlawful or dangerous demands upon them and confiscate money, weapons, phones, cameras, vehicles, and personal effects, and do invasive cavity (including vaginal and anal) searches.  If more citizens started shooting dead such government thugs operating under color of law, I believe Americans would enjoy safer and more secure lives.

So I advocate violence and use of lethal force in defense of one's life, liberty, property, family, neighbors, and community, against both non-government thugs and government thugs operating "ultra-vires" (outside actual lawful authority) under color of law (pretending to have lawful authority).  And this includes the effort of government thugs to enforce unconstitutional laws.

For this reason, I believe able citizens of every community should volunteer for militia and neighborhood watch duties and to call on one another for group support in the event of a violent confrontation by a thug like (for example) Trayvon Martin who tried to beat to death nieghborhood watch captain George Zimmerman.  Such watch and militia members should wear a screeching device with a flashing light they can activate at any sign of danger, and upon hearing it, the able, armed members of the community should respond by running to the scene to help out.

Thugs, whether in our out of government, should respect ordinary citizens sufficiently to deter the thugs from invading a citizen's rights.  Citizens only create such respect in the minds of thugs by demonsratively deploying violent force fearlessly and ruthlessly against unlawful attackers, invaders, and thugs, regardless of whether those attackers operate in or out of government.  Thug heads on pikes tend to alert other thugs about the dangers in which their thuggery place them.

Thugs KNOW this, of course.  They know the criminal statutes prohibit their thug behavior and they know that while people sometimes tolerate it for a while, eventually they send retribution to torment the thugs and terminate the thug behavior.  They know that they will eventually bring upon themselves such scorn and detestation by repeated thuggery that someone will visit violence on them and end their life or liberty on this whirling rock.  Thus does thuggery in and out of government BEG and PLEAD for the ASSASSINATION of the thug.  Those citizens with a lot of patience might seek criminal prosecution against the thug, but some might just up and kill them in order to stop the thuggery.

And this also applies to thuggish oligarchs.  By this I mean ultra-vires governments, government cliques, good-old-boys networks, and individual government operatives.  I have not become merely the first thinking person to express the above sentiments.  Thugs in and out of government should take their cues from these passages from the Declaration of Independence AND the original Florida Constitution:

Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence of 4 July 1776:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Excerpt from the Florida Constitution of 1838, Article I

That the great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:

Section 1.    That all freemen, when they form a social compact, are equal; and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and reputation; and of pursuing their own happiness.

Section 2.    That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and established for their benefit; and, therefore, they have, at all times, an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may deem expedient.
For the above reasons I think every citizen should "pack heat" when out and about on the byways of the community, when driving around, on the way to and from church, errands, and entertainment, social, or political events, and even when going to court.  I recognize that laws prohibit it, but I don't consider bailiffs and judges and lawyers any more important or deserving of protection than the man on the street.

And I know of many instances where bailiffs have unlawfully manhandled or otherwise intimidated visitors to court proceedings for no good reason whatsoever.  The public should meat such misbehavior with abject intolerance, and insist upon modification of the laws to allow them to defend themselves against brutal and highhanded bailiffs, cops, sheriffs, judges, and other government employees.

The citizenry risks certain death or incarceration by standing up to armed government employees, but not by voting for controls on miscreant behaviors by government employees, such as mandating that all judges and armed government employees or agents wear video cameras that record their activities and confrontations with the public 24 hours a day, with free access to the record by anyone complaining credibly of injury by those employees.

I believe one of the most serious problems with using lethal violence in defense of one's life, liberty, property, family, and neighbors lies in the question of whether the target of that violence deserves it.  The courts tend to believe cops who testify against citizens, and not to believe the citizens.  But any criminal defense lawyer will testify that cops and prosecutors lie in court whenever self-interest seems to justify it and they think they can get away with it.  That's why I want to see laws requiring them to wear cameras to record their behavior and conversations.  I also want to see much harsher penalties to punish cops who abuse citizens than against citizens who abuse one another, and a zero tolerance policy against retention of cops against whom citizens report abuse by public officers and law enforcers.

Meanwhile, I believe every citizen has the right to use lethal force and violence to defend against credible unlawful or color-of-law threats by anyone else in or out of government to encroach on their their life, liberty, and property property rights.  The Chiefs of Police in every community, not just Detroit, should acknowledge this and support the citizenry's effort to protect itself.  After all, everyone nowadays knows that in spite of their motto to protect and serve, cops have no legal duty to protect anyone.


--

Bob Hurt            Blog 1 2 3   f  t  
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
Email Call: (727) 669-5511
Law Studies: Donate   Subscribe
Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary

 



Friday, March 28, 2014

Bob Hurt on Al Adask's MOOA views.


Alfred Adask is a soft-spoken sweetheart of a political activist, and he is a bible-thumper.  I consider him a wonderful human being and a nice guy.  He used to publish the AntiShyster magazine, later renamed to Suspicions.  Now he hosts a blog where he writes articles.  Today he published this article dealing with a Texas law mentioning "man or other animals" (MOOA):

http://adask.wordpress.com/2014/03/28/mooa-and-your-adversaries/

I write in response to his comments:

------------------

First of all, the bible's primitive and allegorical nature makes it anything BUT a credible source of information on the creation.  The universe contains many orders of willed creatures (you do believe in angels and the archangel Michael, and the Holy Spirit, right?) subordinate to God, all different, and all thinking he created them in his own image and likeness.  I'd say using the creation tale as the basis of any logical argument constitutes a logical fallacy on numerous levels.  Furthermore, in his 3-volume Age of Reason, Thomas Paine lithely defeated the notion that Moses authored the first 5 books of the bible (among other flaws, the author of Deuteronomy, certainly NOT Moses, described Moses' funeral).  So if you cannot believe the credentials of the author, how can you believe every word (or anything, for that matter) in the author's tales?  Thus, your bible based arguments have to fall on the rational reader's blind eyes, if you get my drift.

Second, we have no reason to doubt that man is part of the so-called animal kingdom, physically just another mammal.  But man differs from all the rest by possessing a putative gift from the Heavenly Father, a "personality."  More correctly we might say that part of each human with survival capacity IS A personality.  While we cannot precisely define personality, we know it has these characteristics:  self-awareness; moral will, ability to exchange ideals, thoughts, ideas with other personalities; ability to desire to do good to (love) other personalities; and ability to crave to know God and to love and become like him to the extent allowed by inherent capacity and antecedent condition.

Most importantly, we know the effect of neglecting civilizational duty.  It derives from the law of the survival of the fittest.  When the delusional, through government, interferes with with that law by protecting the unfit or less fit, only WISDOM can prevail to find peaceable and humane ways to preserve the benefits of that law.  That means government must find another way to eliminate the unfit.

Our nation's leaders have mired the land in the sticky goo of political correctness, welfare, suffrage and procreation prerogatives for the stupid and other irresponsibles, out of "goodness of heart" or Communist ambition, I imagine.  So now 25% of the population lacks the cognitive ability to graduate from a normal high school.  And another 40% to 50% lacks the knowledge and sense of responsibility to make prudent life decisions, including decisions regarding political matters. Originally only adult free white landed men could vote.  Now women, the stupid, and the irresponsible may vote.  Those have swamped the common sense of government and demanded largess from the public treasury to support them throughout their lives.  The rest have effectively become their slaves. 

Worst of all the smart, responsible people generally fail to organize in an effort to eliminate criminals, crime, and evil philosophy from Government.  So long as otherwise responsible folks use fallacious BIBLE-BASED ARGUMENTS to bolster their points and political philosophy, they will look like bungling fools to the enormous group of responsible folks who don't.  So, only fellow bible-thumpers will listen to anything they have to say. 

THAT is the core problem with Adask's efforts to enlighten people.  It's one thing to believe in and promote God, Jesus, the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.  It's another thing to shove the bible with its absolutely absurd atonement doctrine and creation story up the noses of intelligent readers, particularly when that and the bible's other nonsense have nothing to do with the issues at hand.

Alfred, every time you open your mouth or write about an issue and use the bible to bolster your points, you shoot yourself and your arguments in the foot.

We humans differ from lower ordered animals because we each have personality, and a spirit fragment of the Heavenly Father indwells the mind of all normal-minded people.  We have a civilizational duty to strengthen the family and improve the gene pool, and a community duty to keep criminals and evil philosophy out of government, even if we must resort to rebellion and assassination to accomplish it.  THAT's the point you should make. 

A criminal in government by departing from constitutional duties and obligations to keep the government in operation according to its strict limits, a government actor becomes "ultra-vires" and establishes his/her own private personal oligarchy, usually in concert with and support of sycophants and fellow travelers.  Such an oligarchy, by using force of government authority becomes treasonous, and all its subscribers become traitors.

Look carefully at the beginning of Article I of the Florida Constitution of 1838 (and other state constitutions) to see this principle emblazoned on the pages of history:


---- excerpt From the FL Const. 1838 --------------

ARTICLE I.

Declaration of Rights.

That the great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:

Section 1.    That all freemen, when they form a social compact, are equal; and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and reputation; and of pursuing their own happiness.

Section 2.    That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and established for their benefit; and, therefore, they have, at all times, an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may deem expedient.

-------------- end of excerpt --------

See that?  "at ALL TIMES an INALIENABLE and INDEFEASIBLE right to alter or abolish their form of government..."

The 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence says the same thing.

-----------  excerpt from Declaration of Independence --------------

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

----------- end of excerpt ----------


As I read that, it means that one need not sacrifice life, liberty, and property to stand up publicly against an ORGANIZED CRIMINAL OLIGARCHY operating under color of law while posing as legitimate government, IF one can accomplish the purpose without such sacrifice.  That leaves three methods open: 

1.  Political organization to drive massive force on the handle of an ice pick and shove its tip into the block of ice represented by government crime and criminal process (like letting the stupid vote and procreate).

2.  Assassination to cut off the heads of the evil reptile of criminals in government.

3. Open, violent, bloody rebellion



#1 avoids massive murder, bloodshed, incarcerations, and theft, but it might have become impossible, owing to suffrage for the stupid and irresponsible, and it often includes isolated murders, extortion, and other crimes like stuffing the ballot box.

#2 typically results in the death of the assassin and confederates, but if the government-employed perpetrators of crimes and their financiers disappear, it does send a message to the enablers, and they lay-low at least for a while if they cannot catch the  assassins and THEIR enablers.

#3 wrecks everything and it will take decades or centuries to recover

No matter how you look at this matter, managing government, and making its operatives and employees adhere to the law, from outside or inside the government, becomes fraught with personal difficulty and danger.


Nevertheless, the People governed have these obligations:

1.  Learn and understand the laws (constitution, pursuant law, rules, etc).

2.  Gather and master the tools for investigation and discovery of crimes and criminal activities under color of law

3.  Use those tools to identify the specific individuals and their specific activities that violate laws or principles of good government, and to investigate those individuals and groups so as to expose all the dirt that can be found on them.

4.  Gather, master, and safely stash the tools for personal and family survival

5.  Organize politically and become hard core activists - become intensely dangerous to criminals running ultra-vires oligarchies and government enterprises under color of law.

6.  Target the evil ones for excision from government.

7.  Find and train replacements

8.  Excise and replace the evil ones.

9.  Establish a branch of government devoted to the above function of identifying, exposing, and prosecuting the criminals who would or do govern.

10. Excise bar organizations from government, and put the licensing and discipline of lawyers under the executive branch of each state.  Meanwhile, NEVER vote for a lawyer.

--

Bob Hurt            Blog 1 2 3   f  t  
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
Email Call: (727) 669-5511
Law Studies: Donate   Subscribe
Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary

 



Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Snapshot: Florida Law's Foreign Roots and the Prima Facie Evidence of the Law

The Foreign Roots of Florida Law


http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/databases/pdf/1941statutoryrevisions.pdf

This volume contains the English statutory law still in force in Florida as of 1941, and other important historical information about the roots of Florida law, much of it still in force today.

Prima Facie Evidence of the Law


Interestingly, some of the codification of statutes, US and Florida, become prima facie evidence of the actual law, under some conditions.

From the preface to the Florida Statutes of 2013


http://www.flsenate.gov/PublishedContent//Laws/Statutes/Links/PrefaceFloridaStatutes2013.pdf

Preface

The conTinuous revision sysTem

 

In its continuous revision system, Florida has an efficient method for keeping general statutory law up to date and readily available. Since 1999, the Florida Statutes has been published in its entirety annually. Previously, the statutes were published following each odd-year regular session, and a supplement was published following each even-year regular session. With annual publication of the Florida Statutes, other key features of the continuous revision system are provided more frequently as well. The Division of Law Revision and Information now submits reviser’s bills and the adoption act to the Legislature annually rather than every 2 years.

 

adoption of the Florida Statutes.—The enactment of the adoption act, which provides for adoption of the official statutory law of the state, is a vital part of the continuous revision system. The act amends ss. 11.2421, 11.2422, 11.2424, and 11.2425. With the change to annual publication of the Florida Statutes, the adoption act is now submitted to the Legislature annually instead of biennially. There was no 2000 adoption act because the statutory material from 2 years before is found in the 1998 Supplement to the 1999 Florida Statutes instead of in a full edition. The 2001 and 2002 adoption acts did not pass.

 

The 2-year “curing period” was reduced to 1 year in chapter 2003-25, Laws of Florida, the 2003 adoption act. The 2013 adoption act adopted material from the 2012 edition. The annual adoption act prospectively adopts as an official document the edition of the Florida Statutes to be published following that session. Perhaps more importantly, it will adopt as the official statutory law of the state those portions that are carried forward from the regular edition published the year before. Pursuant to s. 11.242(5)(c), these standing provisions are combined with the laws of a general and permanent nature enacted during the current legislative session. The final product is the Florida Statutes.

 

consequences.—As a result of the concurrent operation of s. 11.242(5)(c) and the adoption act, the evidentiary value of material published in the edition of the Florida Statutes that was most recently adopted (the previous year’s edition per the change to a 1-year curing period by chapter 2003-25, Laws of Florida) is different from that of the current edition. The portions of the text as it was published in the adopted edition that are carried forward unchanged into the current edition are the official law of the state by operation of the adoption act and, therefore, the best evidence of the law. Material enacted since the adopted edition is only prima facie evidence of the law. During the period that a provision is characterized as prima facie evidence, the enrolled act stands as the best evidence of the law and will prevail in the event of a conflict.

 

The Florida continuous revision system greatly simplifies statutory research. A researcher seeking the current enacted general law needs to examine the latest edition of the Florida Statutes, as well as session laws enacted since publication of the latest statutes edition, printed in the Laws of Florida or enacted but not yet printed in the Laws.

 

Any “statute of a general and permanent nature” enacted prior to the period since publication of the last adopted regular edition of the Florida Statutes which does not appear in the current edition stands repealed, both by the logic of the system and by the operation of s. 11.2422. See National Bank v. Williams, 38 Fla. 305, 20 So. 931 (1896).

 

The adoption of the Florida Statutes cures title defects that existed in an act as originally passed. See State ex rel. Badgett v. Lee, 156 Fla. 291, 22 So. 2d 804 (1945). Thus, general legislation may be attacked on this ground only during the period between its original enactment and its subsequent adoption as the official law of the state. An act with a title defect is considered valid only from adoption and not from the date of original enactment. See Thompson v. Intercounty Tel. & Tel. Co., 62 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1952).

 

Analogously, once reenacted as a portion of the Florida Statutes, a statute is no longer subject to challenge on the ground that it violates the single subject requirement of s. 6, Art. III of the State Constitution. See State v. Combs, 388 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 1980); Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District v. School Board of Palm Beach County, 515 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1987); State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993).





1 U.S. Code § 204 - Codes and Supplements as evidence of the laws of United States and District of Columbia; citation of Codes and Supplements

Current through Pub. L. 113-86, except 113-79. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)


In all courts, tribunals, and public offices of the United States, at home or abroad, of the District of Columbia, and of each State, Territory, or insular possession of the United States—
(a) United States Code.— The matter set forth in the edition of the Code of Laws of the United States current at any time shall, together with the then current supplement, if any, establish prima facie the laws of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, in force on the day preceding the commencement of the session following the last session the legislation of which is included: Provided, however, That whenever titles of such Code shall have been enacted into positive law the text thereof shall be legal evidence of the laws therein contained, in all the courts of the United States, the several States, and the Territories and insular possessions of the United States.
(b) District of Columbia Code.— The matter set forth in the edition of the Code of the District of Columbia current at any time shall, together with the then current supplement, if any, establish prima facie the laws, general and permanent in their nature, relating to or in force in the District of Columbia on the day preceding the commencement of the session following the last session the legislation of which is included, except such laws as are of application in the District of Columbia by reason of being laws of the United States general and permanent in their nature.
(c) District of Columbia Code; citation.— The Code of the District of Columbia may be cited as “D.C. Code”.
(d) Supplements to Codes; citation.— Supplements to the Code of Laws of the United States and to the Code of the District of Columbia may be cited, respectively, as “U.S.C., Sup.  ”, and “D.C. Code, Sup.  ”, the blank in each case being filled with Roman figures denoting the number of the supplement.
(e) New edition of Codes; citation.— New editions of each of such codes may be cited, respectively, as “U.S.C.,  ed.”, and “D.C. Code,     ed.”, the blank in each case being filled with figures denoting the last year the legislation of which is included in whole or in part.

 





--

Bob Hurt            Blog 1 2 3   f  t  
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
Email Call: (727) 669-5511
Law Studies: Donate   Subscribe
Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary

 



Print Friendly and PDF