- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Works every time. First the rights are read again with attention to the part about an attorney. then the deal making starts. "Well you see there were four of us and two got away." Ah you see who was the ringleader." THat was Jack.?"
"Jack Meyers?
"Hoff his last name is Hoff."
I sneaked the last one in.
Followed by a hand written etc. with rights repeated.
Supreme Court ruling as I recall. Nothing says you have to be truthful with a criminal.
That was forty years ago... Now you only have to say. Suspicion of supporting terrorists. The rest was null and voided by Obimbo
That's the line Reagan said was the most fearful.
seating".How can they get away with that?--I
guess there will eventually be a Supreme Court
case. Except, the way things are going, will there
still much longer be any due process?
If anyone believes this is beyond the capabilities of our government...just look at the Ruby Ridge standoff. That started with Federal agents convincing Randy Weaver to built sawed-off shotguns to feed his family. This is the same Randy Weaver who, previously, refused to be a government "mole" in the White Supremacist movement in Idaho. In the end, Weaver was found innocent of any and all charges stemming from that standoff...imagine that.
http://www.mantex.co.uk/2010/02/12/th...
I have also heard from cops that the older generation was trained to be "peace officers" and then they became professionalized in the 60 and 70s. This meant more training in the law and an emphasis on arresting people who violate some law instead of keeping the peace.
I can't think of anything more saddening -- or scary.
You got me again. Luckily, my wife is a successful Avon Lady. She can massage me with a comforting balm.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_bl...
As I understand it, he was demoted for asking inconvenient questions and ultimately left when he recognized he would never get adequate answers. The IRS has been hounding him ever since. Know your enemy; do not underestimate the power of the fedgov.
The book describes the 'Combat Hunter' program developed for the Marines and Police, but utilizing Police interactions and working back and forth between the two separate organizations.
It does a great deal to reveal the attitude and mind set training of today's Police.
I can't think of anyone who wants police who are as described by DB & you and others. Of course, my local friends are mostly 50 to 75+ years of age with the exception of my sons and grandson. My son is a part-time firearms teacher when he's not being a software engineer, Scout leader, and house renovator. He interacts with local police to an extent. Can it be we are not seeing the forest for the trees?
Not my USA.
I knew it was gone, but didn't realize how far.
I guess the American Experiment is almost over.
Can something this far gone be turned around?
Meet me in 20 years. I'll send you a message via ectoplasm.
Group I Righteous
Group II Debaters
That's the couch potato groups. One is interested in preaching be they secular or religious the other in debating not matter which side not for converts but for points.
Group III those who get off their ass and fix the problem then go on to something else While Group I and Group II ever the my way or the highway purists are still stuck in the mud and mire.
Bear in mind after Group I and Group II AFTER Group III has fixed the problem will up to preach and debate how it was done and to take credit.
Once identified I just shine them on. That's the groups AR was referring to when she said turn your back and walk away.
Where are they? We did stuff like that in the 70's. Made the local TV once. Did you ever hear about us? I didn't think so. Not trying to be negative but G3 would require much dedication, organization and talented people willing to put forth the effort.
and we are the targets of their excess. -- j
.
Judges are all too often obsessed with precedent, so creating a new excuse for prosecution almost guarantees the bench is biased toward the prosecution, since the judge wants to be the first to convict. Prosecutors make their careers on a high percentage of convictions, so sometimes charges aren't filed because the accused is too well connected, and other cases are like a kangaroo court, where the accused is swiftly railroaded.
Leona Helmsley was all too open about her contention that "laws are for little people." The powerful and well connected are far more likely to avoid a conviction than Joe six pack. The farther up the political food chain, the more criminal license you're granted.
Did the ATF agents involved get promotions and more power as some did after murdering 80 people in Waco?
Todays cartoon depicting the dichotomy of the subject
Sounds like a inferior version of Project Monarch.
read: The Trans-formation of America by Cathy O'Brien
The Principle is Government has NO rights unless specifically granted in detail. Given the dumbed down population versus the apparant superior literacy of the 1700s that point needs mentioning ....and often.
Which means they have usurped it and we're no longer under the Constitution
Which means the military's oath of office is the next step. Martial law and courts martial for all violaters...starting with the President.
You can cherry pick all you want but it's only wishful thinking not fact.
The State Laws are not collective they are separate intentionally.
Where did you find that Principle of law? google didn't help me and it certainly doesn't apply else why have lawyers?
Always look for the Constitutional authorization and always start with the 9th and 10th amendments. Rights not granted do not exist and the Supreme Court not visiting whatever portion is not an excuse to violate that rule. It's a crime.
Actually I know the answer I've used that myself to toss 52 of 53 counts in a jury trial. I just want to see if you know and by the way it's 5th and 14th amendments. Remember Rand if a contradiction check your premises... so far one of yours ...is....incorrect or at least not sufficiently supported.
OK Void for Vagueness applies in any jurisdiction that has a law that cannot be understood by the average citizen. Something Pelosillyni would write.or say for example.
But it only applies with that jurisdiction.
We'll use states as an example.
Each of the fifty states in the situation described have the right, given to them by their own citizens to write a certain type of law. the result is fifty different laws all legal and none Vague but if taken as a whole that situation probably would arise. .It won't because the Federal Government has no rights granted.beyond military formations and the Supreme Court ruling that self defense is not excluded. Why not. The federal government has no rights granted
Within any of the states one set of those laws may qualify but only within that one single state.
The bonus is the Supreme Court made the use of individually owned by citizens weapons bullet proof by excluding the federal government from the first phrase and up holding rights not granted.
Justice is served with a bonus and dessert.
As for the other 49 states? Cross the line their laws apply not those of your home state.
The fact that you have a weapon registered and licensed or whatever comes under full faith and credit since as a nation self defense is a right retained by citizens, not granted and it's been reviewed and upheld by SCOTUS. It does not give you license to break laws of other states.
Does it apply in the other states? Depends on agreements between states.
Opinions of failed ham'n'egger shysters not with standing.
No vagueness no mess no mish mash - except at the federal level where all is liver mush.
ConLaw and State Laws was a required subject in police academy. The answer was written. We also did State/local and International law. If one over riding law were applied it would require Federal carry permits.
The ATF as presently known should not exist. It should be my favorite convenience store... :)
Regards,
O.A.