A breaking scandal reported by USA TODAY reveals that the FBI ran a “dark web” child pornography website for 2 weeks last year, after taking over the server that hosted it from its original felonious owner. The ostensible purpose of this was to entrap the site’s users in order to charge them with possession of illegal downloaded content.
Child pornography is a highly charged emotional subject; so one can reasonably expect that the public reaction to this revelation will be the object of a great deal of irrational hyperbole promoted by the mainstream media and exploited by everyone with a political axe to grind.
Accordingly, it is important to acquire a dispassionate fact-based understanding of the issue, in the interest of minimizing unethical responses to the revelations of the USA TODAY (USAT) article. Hence this article.
Opinions concerning the USAT article and its implications will vary widely because its readers have widely varying assumptions about how the world works. The assumptions listed below illustrate this point, because some of them are true, some are not, and some are sometimes true and sometimes not.
The making of child pornography invariably involves the sexual interaction of a child with an adult.
Sexual interaction of an adult with a child may be physically damaging to the child.
Sexual interaction of an adult with a child is emotionally damaging to the child.
The child may or may not know, at the time, that what the adult is doing with them is emotionally damaging.
The producers and directors of child pornography are “evil-doers”.
The camera operators involved are “evil-doers”.
Those who process the pornographic imagery are “evil-doers”.
The adult porn actors are “evil-doers”.
The parents of the children involved are “evil-doers”.
Those who watch or observe such imagery are “evil-doers”.
Those who distribute the imagery by various means are “evil-doers”.
The children who are victims of child pornographers are further damaged whenever their images are observed.
It is a proper role of government to identify, find, capture, and punish everyone involved in the child pornography industry.
Laws against the production and distribution of child pornography protect the child victims by discouraging the public from buying the pornographic products.
Punishing the customers of child porn reduces the number of customers.
Reducing the number of customers, in turn, reduces the number of children being abused and exploited.
Running a child porn website to ensnare child porn buyers and viewers is a legitimate strategy for protecting child porn victims from those who exploit them.
Child pornography is certainly a symptom of a serious societal problem, because the victims are seriously damaged…AND if one blindly accepts the above assumptions, the damage can be greatly amplified. In order to get to the bottom of the matter, we need to understand the ethical criteria for what constitutes an “evil-doer” and for the allocation of responsibility to those acting.
The Ethics of Responsibility
After thousands of years of philosophical discussion and debate, the most rationally and scientifically defensible definition of an ethical act is:
Rationally we know that the responsibility for an act, be it unethical or not, is divided among all the people who took part in the causal chain of events leading up to the act. However, the one most responsible is the one who had the chronologically last opportunity to prevent the act from occurring. For this reason, despite “legal” opinions to the contrary, the hired assassin is more culpable than the individual who hired him (or her).
In the chain of events leading up to the production of a child porno photograph or video, it is the adult who engages the child sexually that is ultimately most responsible for the harm done to the child victim. The parents who fail to protect their child from such exploitation are arguably the next most responsible. Others involved in the child porn production are also acting unethically, though their participation in support of the crime is less unethical than the actual perpetrators – the adult actor who has sex with the child and the parent who fails to prevent the abuse. These two participants are those from whom the child actually needs protection.
The Objective View: Identifying the Hype
The above definition of an ethical act has a number of logical consequences that yield a dozen important principles that are very useful in applying the ethics to everyday decision-making. Chief among these is the principle that unethical means can never achieve ethical ends. Recognizing that this is so leads to the conclusion that Assumption #17 Running a child porn website to ensnare child porn buyers and viewers is a legitimate strategy for protecting child porn victims from those who exploit them, is FALSE. Therefore, assuming that selling child pornography is unethical, an ethical agency would never resort to doing so…for any reason.
Assumptions 14 through 16 are also false. We know this because they justify the prohibition of child porn, and we know from long experience that prohibition doesn’t diminish the demand for an illegal product, nor its availability. Alcohol, gambling, prostitution and drugs come to mind as obvious examples of prohibition failure.
Assumption 13, It is a proper role of government to identify, find, capture, and punish everyone involved in the child pornography industry. is also FALSE, because punishment of wrongdoers has proven totally ineffectual in curbing crime – especially when the crime is a form of prohibition violation. As an extreme example, consider the fact that drugs are widely available in prisons…where those convicted of selling drugs outside of prisons are routinely sent.
Consider the fact that every crime, as defined in law dictionaries, has a victim – someone who has been physically harmed or whose property rights have been violated. For this reason, Assumptions 10, 11, and 12 are also FALSE. The only victims of child pornography are the children, who are unaffected by strangers seeing their pictures. As much revulsion as most of us feel imagining an adult masturbating in front of a video screen depicting children being molested, the fact remains that the child sex actor shown on the screen is not aware of the event and is not harmed by it. Nor is it a proper function of government to protect us from such revulsion.
Assumptions 1 through 9 are also true, however the first four are qualitatively different than the next 5. The first four serve to simply define the crime that takes place in the production of child pornography…which is ultimately where the crime occurs. Assumptions 5 through 7 indicate the responsibility of the producers of the pornography; but 8 and 9 correctly identify the real culprits – the adult actors and the permissive or absent parents.
Back in the 60’s, in the Vietnam war era, Buffy Sainte-Marie wrote and performed a beautiful song called the the “Universal Soldier”, in which she aptly pointed out that the crime of war could not exist without the willingness of men (most of them practically children themselves) to travel half-way around the world to shoot strangers who had never wronged them.
Today the trigger-pulling soldiers, the bomb-dropping bombardiers, and the rocket-launching drone pilots bear the ultimate responsibility for the international murders we call war.
In similar fashion, it is the child-molesting porno-film actors and the victims’ parents, who abdicate their parental duties, who bear the lion’s share of responsibility for the harm done to children who are thus sexually exploited. While the porn producers and distributors bear some of the responsibility for the harm done to the child victims, the producers don’t usually molest the children personally, and the product distributor issues are just another form of prohibition. And we all know how well ‘The Drug War’ – “works”.
For the creation of an ethical society, free of such evils, it is necessary for a dramatic change to occur in human culture…a change that paves the way for our institutions to make consistently ethical decisions. Fortunately, the knowledge of how this will be accomplished already exists, and more and more people are catching on. For details read Ethics Law and Government and Ethical Organizational Development.
Have you noticed how governments want to own your language, so they can more easily manipulate you into giving up your rights and resources?
All Caps Names
For example, Bob Podolsky is a real person, and has all sorts of natural rights. Yet every single piece of correspondence coming from the BORG such as Bank statements, Drivers Licenses, IRS correspondence, Traffic Tickets has my name in all capital letters. I know these people went to school and learned the same grammar I did. Why is my name is all CAPS? Somehow, BOB PODOLSKY, became a vassal of the state. The argument, the all caps name is not the real person, has been thrown out as frivolous in court, yet there must be a reason why is it done this way.
Right to Travel
Similarly, I have a right to travel on public roads by riding a conveyance under my control. This is something that human beings have done since the domestication of animals, somehow adding a motor to power it and voilà, the state re-names the conveyance a Motor Vehicle andI am now a Driver. Thus the state converts my “right” into a “privilege” and grants itself the “right” to force me to pay for these privileges by buying a title, a license plate, a driver’s license, and specified insurance. If you don’t fill out forms and pay, this magically grants a ‘right” to an armed group of thugs in costumes to beat you up, put you in a cage, steal your “property” and fine you.
Right to Migrate
Since time began, humans have had the right to move to wherever they pleased, based on resources, climate, scenery or religious beliefs. That’s how the the American Indians got to the western Hemisphere, Australians and New Zealanders got to Oceania, Caucasians moved to Europe and the Pilgrims got to Plymouth Rock. They didn’t like where they were, and they moved. However the government calls the right to move, a privileged known as “immigration”. If you don’t fill out forms and pay, this magically grants a ‘right” to an armed group of thugs in costumes to beat you up, put you in a cage, steal your “property” and fine you.
Right to Property
It used to be that a human being had the right to own the land they live on. The Government changed this into a privilege by converting all own-able land into “Real Estate” You acquire the privilege of being a “tenant” on your Government controlled Bank owned land. It is impossible to own it. Want to test that? Stop paying the property tax. If you don’t fill out forms and pay, this magically grants a ‘right” to an armed group of thugs in costumes to beat you up, put you in a cage, steal your “property” and fine you.
As a natural person I owe no allegiance to any government “authority” – but as a “citizen”, I’m perpetually at the mercy of every bureaucrat that warms a chair in a government office paid for by money stolen from the “citizenry.” Of course stealing money through threats, coercion, or extortion is crime. When the act is called “taxation”, it somehow becomes legitimate. If you don’t fill out forms and pay, this magically grants a ‘right” to an armed group of thugs in costumes to beat you up, put you in a cage, steal your “property” and fine you.
Right to Eat
As a human being, I have every right, should my circumstances require it, to “forage” in the wild for food. Yet there exist many government bureaucracies that would punish me severely for doing my foraging without first purchasing their permission in the form of a hunting or fishing license, in the absence of which they’d say I was “poaching”. If you don’t fill out forms and pay, this magically grants a ‘right” to an armed group of thugs in costumes to beat you up, put you in a cage, steal your “property” and fine you.
Wasn’t Robin Hood accused of “stealing the king’s deer”? While I’m not very partial to the “heroism” of the Robin Hood character, I dare to raise the question, “Who or what gave the kings and the Government ownership of all the wild critters and everything else for that matter?” Since the “divine right of kings” is clearly a manipulative fiction, by what “right” do those who run the world today, claim to have any “authority” over anyone else? And who is today’s king, anyway?
According to Larken Rose, whose philosophy I much admire, the whole concept of “authority” exists but for one purpose, to fool the public into complying willingly with the demands of a particular class of people who consider themselves our “betters”, our “superiors”, our modern “nobility”, and ultimately our “masters”. In their eyes, the rest of us are of no value to them except as a source of endless plunder – and they are forever inventing new excuses to abuse the rest of us financially, socially, taking away our natural liberties, stealing our property, and enacting violence against us at their will.
While they claim this behavior is necessary in order to “protect the public”, the reality is that this notion is a total fiction, that in fact the real purpose of most of todays laws is merely to excuse the actions of our gargantuan “plunderers league” – who do to the rest of us whatever they want, up to and including killing us, with complete impunity. Surely the governments of the world collectively comprise the biggest, most powerful organized crime syndicate the world has ever known – egged on I suspect by previously existing crime syndicates that joined ranks with them – the Mafia, I believe, being a case in point.
Walk into a courthouse anywhere, and at any rank, and consider that the salaries of everyone working in the building are paid for with plunder – money stolen from ordinary folks in punishment for doing the things we all have a right to do. And their only “authority” for doing this is the fact that someone who supposedly “represents” you, wrote on a piece of paper that they had the “right” to plunder you.
Of course people who like to plunder others are always polite and subservient to their higher ranking plunderers.
As far as human class structures go, we have an ownership class (nobility) that controls the central banks and large corporations, the political class that makes the rules dictated by the ownership class, the police and military class that enforces the rules, the slave class that are forced to work in hierarchies, and finally the free class that comprise a very small minority.
Note that this circumstance was not always the case in American culture. In the early days of our country, a sizable portion of the population came to this continent to be free – and was unwilling to be anyone’s slave. Alas that day came and went, as fast as the ink dried on the Constitution.
To rescue ourselves from this state of affairs will not be easy, but it will be simple. The current social system operates as a cartel-controlled hierarchy. As we begin tailoring all our institutions, including businesses, charities, schools, foundations, etc., as consensus-based organizations – we will demonstrate that the most successful form of organizational development dispenses entirely with the pretense of “authority”. Members of the existing system won’t approve of this transformation – but they won’t be able to prevent it happening – and the world will be transformed.
It is my pleasure, as Founder of the Organic Laws Institute, to present this short introduction to Constitutional Law as viewed
through the prism of the other three Organic Laws of the United States of America, the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 and the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787. This introduction has been especially written for the student new to the concept of the strict separation of written law from unwritten law for a more accurate study of law and government.
I can begin this introduction, appropriately, with the devious Preamble to the Constitution of September 17, 1787, the unofficial beginning of the last of the four Organic Laws, because I started my basic research into the much easier to understand transition of the federal courts in territories as those territories were admitted into the Confederacy, the United States of America, under the authority of the Articles of Confederation. That research established that none of the federal courts have been ordained and established as judicial courts-they were merely legislated into existence. That research was easy compared to unraveling the Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The court research was easily confirmed by the way the Constitution of September 17, 1787 treated the alleged highest officer of the alleged highest federal court-the Chief Justice. The only duty imposed on the Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 Chief Justice is stated as follows: “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.” Clause 7 of Section 3 of the first Article then makes it clear that Impeachment is a non-judicial proceeding resulting only in removal from office. It was now apparent to me that the Constitution was not what everyone believes it to be. Almost every natural born American believes he or she to be a Citizen of the United States and a member of the posterity of “We the People of the United States,” and that conclusion is exactly the misconception Gouverneur Morris was after when he wrote the Preamble. Gouverneur Morris is widely credited with writing other parts of the Constitution of September 17, 1787; he is one of only five men to sign both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Gouverneur Morris knew both documents so well he managed to write one sentence that has fooled billions.
The language in the Preamble is some of the most duplicitous ever written yet every word has some truth in it. The phrase, “We the People of the United States” in the Preamble to the Constitution of September 17, 1787, is never properly interpreted to mean the free inhabitants of the United States of America, who have become Citizens of one of the two kinds of States of United States of America. The accuracy of that interpretation is proven by asking, where do the people in the nine Article VII Conventions come from? Here’s how to make the constitutional connection between, “We the People of the United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” to the People meeting for “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.” “We the People of the United States” and the “Conventions of nine States” are the same “People”. Free inhabitants had given up their freedom to become Citizens of the United States, just so they could vote in favor of State ratification of the Constitution of September 17, 1787, Taking on the mantle of citizenship may not have been much of a burden in 1787, but it has grown to be quite a hardship today.
The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restriction shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any state, to any other state of which the Owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any state, on the property of the united states, or either of them.
When a free inhabitant becomes a Citizen of one of the two Unions that free inhabitant suffers a net loss in freedom, which is worse if the non-perpetual Union is picked. The original stated purpose and intent of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 was to make revisions to the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, which would make the administration of the Northwest Territory more efficient. This was, of course, a subterfuge to hide a government power grab led by George Washington and supported by both the States and the federal government. Both the federal and State governments were becoming painfully aware that unless uprisings such as Shays Rebellion were ended permanently and soon every State and local government would be in danger of collapse. In the end the Articles of Confederation were revised by the misrepresentation that the Constitution created a “more perfect Union” that Union was first created as a not so perfect temporary one by the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787.
Now, practically every American believes himself or herself to be among “We the People of the United States,” the “more perfect Union,” without realizing that by being one of the “People of the United States” much freedom is lost. Because of the complexity written law, hardly anyone knows the Articles of Confederation have not been replaced or repealed. The perpetual Union of States of the United States of America bound to Article IV of the Articles of Confederation is dormant not dead. My Organic Law Institute can help you awaken the sleeping giant, the United States of America. President George W. Bush was briefed “the Constitution is just a piece of paper.” The Organic Law Institute will provide you with the legal education, so you can prove that and much more.
I wish only that I had written to you earlier. Like hundreds of thousands of other people – and perhaps many more – I consider you to be an ethical person, a hero, someone who did the right thing in exposing the mass murder, corruption, lies, and the vicious nature of the U.S. government and its obedient minions, who follow orders without a thought as to the nature of these orders or their true criminality. Your actions took not only great moral conviction, but great courage in the face of blindness, indifference, stupidity, and willful evil.
This quality you possess is not valued highly in a nation that is rapidly mimicking the experience of the German people under the Nazi regime in the 1930s and 1940s and under the Soviet regime from 1917 until the 1990s. As you probably know, “just following orders” was the defense that the Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann uttered during his show-trial in Jerusalem. In a similar way, the ignorance – and even more, the moral vacuum – of the American people has enabled them to permit their government to slaughter between four and six million people since the close of World War II, and people like you are helping to expose and bring to light this vicious practice so that they cannot pretend any longer – living a lie. Ignorance is a natural state for all of us (after all, we are born without knowledge), but an evil intent is worse – much worse. And you have exposed it by your actions.
Your heroic act and despicable betrayal by an obedient “patriot” has forced Americans to look into the mirror and see what it has become – a sick parody of cruelty come to life. Most Americans are not aware that the armed forces, through its sanctions program, committed the equivalent of a WTC attack on Iraq on a frequency of every three weeks for ten years from 1990 to 2001. They are unaware that Secretary of State Madeleine Albright even proudly admitted that these sanctions had killed more than 500,000 Iraqi children as of 1996 on the “60 Minutes” program when interviewed by Leslie Stahl. This went without even a peep of protest among “good, clean, god-fearing Americans” whose government is now persecuting you for daring to rip the veil off the evil. And this evil sanctions program continued until the post-9/11 war began and a new kind of slaughter took center stage. As you can see, the total of victims reached perhaps one million by then (after another five years of sanctions), and perhaps another 500,000 to 1 million have died in the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan since then. This ghastly total, plus three million more Vietnamese (Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara’s figures) people burned, shot, and blown to smithereens in the Vietnam War and many tens of thousands poisoned since then by our chemical weapons there have made the US a bona fide terror state. And now the boobus Americanus wonders why people shake their heads in disgust at the Nazification of America’s government and its obedient servants and cheerleaders in death.
Sadly, this willingness to victimize others is not a quality possessed only by the “right” of the political spectrum. In no less a cruel and cowardly manner, the “left” is willing to use the coercive tools of government to victimize others who do not fall into line with their regimented, Procrustean ideas about wealth and hatred of economic liberty and free association. They have elevated the sin of envy to a green-colored sacrament, just as the war-mongers have elevated mass-murder to a red-toned virtue. This type of fascism applies equally to those who invade other countries and those who invade others’ wallets. They are both cut from the same cloth in their willingness to coerce otherwise peaceful people into obedience. It is heroes like you who help to expose these evil practices, and I wish you all the best in your brave stand. Surely you must be an example of all that is best in humanity to those who lock you behind bars.
While you may not know it and the locked-down media of this country will not permit its discussion, you are considered a hero by millions of people around the world. Your imprisonment is an indictment of the government that rules over us all. It is an indictment of President Obama, who has mimicked George Bush, who has mimicked Bill Clinton, who has mimicked George H.W. Bush – and on and on, one criminal in the White House after another – all elected by the shameless people of the USSA.
In a way, perhaps we are all prisoners. Those of us out here – on the outside of your prison walls – will not admit this about our existence. To do so would come too close to the truth of things. You, having been kidnapped and thrown in a cage, cannot lie to yourself in this way – as we on the outside can, if we are so cowardly as to allow ourselves such a delusion. But just as “truth is treason in an empire of lies,” your imprisonment is a metaphor for what this country has become. None dare admit how deep is the pit into which our government and its obedient “respectable” servants have descended or how low they have gone and will surely go.
While the tone of this letter is depressing in a way, it is only dark insofar as it is a stark contrast to the spark of bright light that has illuminated us. You are that spark, and your light has sent the cockroaches into a frenzy of cover-up and fear. The president’s lies are piled higher each day, and his minions must lie themselves into tangles of excuses and lies. And they are helped because we live in the United States of Amnesia, to steal a phrase from Gore Vital. Americans love to be lied to and promised this and that so that they can avoid the pain of thinking and acting righteously. That’s why you have been imprisoned.
I hope you know that you are in a long line of heroes, and your name will live far beyond that of anyone who imprisons you – all of them forgettable because of their faceless, nameless banal cruelty – which is so common that it is as forgettable as yesterday’s dirt. You are not forgettable. They can put you in a hole and try to hide you from the world, but your light shines out of it and acts as inspiration. You already know that Edward Snowden was inspired by you to expose even more lies, and he is making a laughing stock out of Obama and his supporters as well as the Republicans who are identical in their twisted behaviors.
You really are an inspiration – even if the people who can receive the light of your example and enable it to illuminate their path are not the ones who hold the keys to your cell or have their scrofulous hands on the levers of power. Your brilliant example cannot be contained, and those who now persecute you will one day be ashamed. And those who know them will be ashamed of them. This has all happened before in one way or another, and while your suffering is beyond my experience, I hope that in realizing how cherished you are by so many, you will receive some comfort.
If this letter helps to bolster your spirit in any way, it has done its job. I chose to go beyond merely telling you how wonderful your acts are. Instead, I chose to tell you why they are heroic and why they are good and why they are to be admired. This required me to rattle off a list of depressing facts – a parade of evil that serves – by its contrast – to bring into high relief the nature of your inspiring behavior. I hope your family is proud of you. I hope your neighbors are proud of you. I hope – even more important – that you continue to be proud of your actions and to retain your faith in their high value.
The hearts of human beings all over the world are with you – even if you can’t possibly know it from where you sit and even if they cannot give voice to it. I hope that this letter is at least a teaspoon in that ocean of goodwill.
You make me want to believe in god more than all the believers in the world. Perhaps you are the greatest proof that such a thing is possible. God bless you, Bradley Manning
BAIL HEARING JULY 19, 2013 FOR ADAM KOKESH MEDIA CONTACT- DARRELL YOUNG
DARRELL@ADAMVSTHEMAN.COM(Fairfax, VA)– The ADAM VS THE MAN team attended a second bond hearing for Adam Kokesh this morning at 9AM. He remains a political prisoner at the Fairfax County Adult Detention Center where he is being held because of charges that were filed after the police raided his Herndon residence on July 9, 2013. Adam’s initial bond hearing was Monday, and he was granted cash bond at $5,000- meaning that he would have to pay the bond in full and in cash in order to be released. Adam chose to appeal Monday’s decision. The public defender argued that Adam is not a flight risk, has no indication of being a threat to the community, and has a history of appearing at his court summons on time, every time. A guard was quoted by the public defender noting that Adam was “a pleasant person” and the detention center staff have had “no problems” with him. The public defender also noted that no illegal weapons were found inside the residence, and Adam is denying possession of any illicit substances that were purportedly obtained during the search.The judge denied Adam’s request for personal recognizance, and provided Adam two options for his release, both contingent on the payment of the $5000 cash bond. The Virginia State Police feel that Adam is a flight risk,and set additional conditions for his release, both of which would be supervised. Firstly, two lieutenants and a deputy of the Virginia State Police and the Fairfax County Police would be required to be notified of Adam’s release. Secondly, Adam would not be allowed to possess a firearm or be in contact with those who own firearms. These conditions are worse than those granted to a convicted felon. The other option that the judge offered was to allow Adam to stay in a local homeless shelter, if the requirements specific to firearms could not be met.
It should also be noted that the affidavit that allowed Raymond Morrogh to pull the warrant for the Virginia State Police is still sealed at this time. The judge has not yet seen the affidavit.
On the afternoon of July 18, 2013 Adam was served with an additional warrant in the District of Columbia, regarding the alleged firearms violations stemming from his July 4th YouTube video, as well as a retainer issued by Fairfax County. Adam cannot move forward on the Federal charges unless he is released or posts bond. Since he was denied personal recognizance today, his only available options are to pay the $5000 cash bond, or remain a political prisoner until at least October 2nd, provided that lab results on suspected drugs supposedly obtained in the search have been released. The public defender made it clear in court today that it is unlikely that the tests will be completed by October 2nd.
This is a clear violation of a peaceful activist’s right to a fair and speedy trial, for the sole purpose of feeding the local authorities and US Parks Police’s vendetta against him. The government overreach present in this case has been highly specious, and serves as a prime example of the repeated attacks on the civil liberties of all who stand to challenge its monolithic oppressive force.
Now is the time for all free, beautiful and independent individuals to come together to support the plight of an inspiring independent journalist, and to stand together in solidarity to make it clear that the public will not stand for this gross violation of natural rights. In order to obtain appropriate counsel for this landmark case, Adam needs to raise $10,000 in order to obtain appropriate counsel, in addition to the $5,000 cash bond. He needs to do this in order to move forward in the legal quagmire that the US Parks Police has established in coalition with local, state and federal authorities of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
If a BORG judge orders you to decrypt the only existing copies of incriminating files, are your constitutional rights against compelled self-incrimination being violated?
That’s the provocative question being raised as a Wisconsin man faces a deadline today either to give up his encryption keys or risk indefinite imprisonment without a trial. The defendant’s attorney, Robin Shellow of Milwaukee, said it’s “one of the most important constitutional issues of the wired era.”
“Some encryption effects erasure of the encrypted data (so it ceases to exist), in which case decryption constitutes re-creation of the data, rather than simply unlocking still-existing data,” Shellow wrote in a court filing. (.pdf)
In a telephone interview Monday, she said “this area is a new way of thinking about encryption.”
Though rare, decryption orders are likely to become more common as the public slowly embraces a technology that comes standard even on Apple computers. Such orders have never squarely been addressed by the Supreme Court, despite conflicting opinions in the lower courts.
The latest decryption flap concerns Jeffrey Feldman, who federal authorities believe downloaded child pornography on the file-sharing e-Donkey network. They seized 15 drives and a computer from his suburban Milwaukee apartment with a search warrant. A federal magistrate has ordered Feldman to decrypt the drives by today.
Feldman has refused, citing the Fifth Amendment. A federal judge could find him in contempt as early as today and jail him pending his compliance.
The magistrate in the case stepped aside Monday after Shellow argued that only U.S. district court judges, not magistrates, have the legal power to issue decryption orders. As of now, the new judge in the case has not decided whether to uphold the magistrate’s order.
U.S. Magistrate William Callahan Jr. initially said the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination protected Feldman from having to unlock his drives.
But last month, prosecutors convinced Callahan to change his mind. Among other reasons, the authorities were able, on their own, to decrypt one drive from Feldman’s “storage system” and discovered more than 700,000 files, some of “which constitute child pornography,” the magistrate said.
When the magistrate ruled against the government last month, the magistrate said the authorities did not have enough evidence linking Feldman to the data, and that forcing the computer scientist to unlock it would be tantamount to requiring him to confess that it was his. But that theory is now out the door, because the data on the decrypted drive contains pictures and financial information linking Feldman to the “storage system,” Callahan ruled last week.
Among the last times an encryption order came up in court was last year, when a federal appeals court rejected an appeal from a bank-fraud defendant who has been ordered to decrypt her laptop so its contents could be used in her criminal case. The issue was later mooted for defendant Romano Fricosu as a co-defendant eventually supplied a password.
Shellow said it was unclear whether her client even remembers the passwords to the 16 drives the authorities confiscated.
“The government is claiming that our client has the capacity to decrypt them,” Shellow said.
Obliviously, the BORG courts do not want to interfere with the BORG’s ability to gain access to all private and personal communications. Now that the BORG can take your property, your DNA, the court has made it possible for the BORG to continue to destroy every other right to our own personal property. What could be more personal that your own DNA?
Majority Opinion for the BORG is “Justice” Anthony Kennedy wrote that DNA sampling was merely a means of identifying a suspect, in the way that fingerprinting and photographing does, and claimed that when an officer makes an arrest supported by probable cause, taking a DNA swab was a “legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the fourth amendment.”
In a carefully rehearsed “scathing dissent”, “Justice” Antonin Scalia removed the notion that DNA sampling was nothing more than an identification tool, saying it “taxes the credulity of the credulous” to suggest that it was not going to be used to attempt to solve other crimes.
While DNA samples are a useful tool for solving cold cases or exonerating the wrongfully accused, the concern shared by the minority dissent and civil liberties advocates is that using an individual’s DNA to investigate a crime when the state has no incriminating evidence against that individual represents a drastic overextension of the POLICE STATE. As the ACLU’s national legal director Stephen R Shapiro, said in a statement:
“The fourth amendment has long been understood to mean that the police cannot search for evidence of a crime – and all nine justices agreed that DNA testing is a search – without individualized suspicion. Today’s decision eliminates that crucial safeguard.”
As regards the future of our genetic privacy, it’s important to note that the law upheld by the US supreme court ruling in the Maryland v King case only allows for DNA to be taken from people who have been arrested and charged with a serious crime, and that this DNA can only be tested after a judge has found there to be probable cause that the person has committed a crime. The attorney Michael Risher who authored the ACLU’s amicus brief in that case points out, however, that other states’ laws and the federal government allow the police to take DNA from people arrested for much less serious crimes, such as drug possession or intentionally bouncing a check. These laws also allow the BORG to have that sample analyzed even if the person is never charged and when there is no incriminating evidence.
Genetic Privacy is Destroyed
The fear is that this recent decision has paved the way for these much broader laws that allow the violation of our fundamental rights to (genetic) privacy to be upheld also. As Scalia wrote in his dissent:
“Make no mistake about it: as an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.”
So much for the fourth amendment and the supposedly un-a-lienable right it memorializes to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures”?
Previous BORG supreme court rulings, say we can be stopped in the street and frisked by BORG agents without probable cause for arrest. Our international phone calls and emails (and possibly our domestic ones) can be captured and recorded by the state. And now the BORG court has paved the way for our genetic blueprint to be made available to the government as well.
The BORG is a Parasite
We are facing a continuous attack by members of the BORG. They will ALWAYS be justified, because the BORG courts are rubber stamping the actions of the BORG agents. The BORG will continue to take more and more of your freedoms, until there is nothing left to take. The BORG is a PARASITE and the parasite eventually kills the host.
DENVER, Col. (May 6, 2013) – The Colorado state house today voted to approve SB13-241, a bill that would legalize the farming and production of “industrial hemp” within the state. If signed into law, the bill would effectively nullify the unconstitutional federal ban on hemp production in Colorado. The House voted unanimously on a slightly amended version of a bill already approved by the State Senate, 34-1. The legislation will now go back to the Senate, which is widely expected to send the legislation to Governor Hickenlooper for a signature.
The federal government has no constitutional authority to ban the production of this industrial plant, but has persisted in preventing its domestic production. The result? Products with hemp that are readily available at your local grocery store must be imported from another country – resulting in higher costs for you and fewer farming jobs in America. The United States is currently the world’s #1 importer of hemp, which is used in food products, clothing, oil and much more. The top exporters are China and Canada.
The United States is the only developed nation that fails to cultivate industrial hemp as an economic crop, according to the Congressional Resource Service. Recent congressional research indicates that the hemp market consists of over 25,000 various products. The same research found that America imports over $400 million worth of hemp from other countries. At this time of economic difficulty, 13-241 would not only expand freedom and support the Constitution, it would also be a great jobs bill.
With the passage of Amendment 64, which legalized small amounts of marijuana for adults, hemp was removed from the state’s controlled substances list, though a provision of the initiative states that that hemp cultivation is contingent on legislative action – this bill would be that required action necessary to legalize hemp and authorize the state to begin distributing hemp licenses.Under the proposal farmers would have the option of applying for a 10-acre plot in order to study the viability of various hemp varieties, or they could apply for a larger, full-scale hemp farm – one that wouldn’t be limited by the number of plants, but rather by the THC content in said plants.
HEMP OVERVIEW AND USE
Industrial hemp is not marijuana, but an industrial agricultural product used for a wide variety of purposes, including the manufacture of cordage of varying tensile strength, durable clothing and nutritional products. During World War II, the United States military relied heavily on hemp products, which resulted in the famous campaign and government-produced film, “Hemp for Victory!“
Even though soil, climate and agricultural capabilities could make the United States a massive producer of industrial hemp, today no hemp is grown for public sale, use and consumption within the United States. China is the world’s greatest producer and the United States is the #1 importer of hemp and hemp products in the world.
Since the enactment of the unconstitutional federal controlled-substances act in 1970, the Drug Enforcement Agency has prevented the production of hemp within the United States. Many hemp supporters feel that the DEA has been used as an “attack dog” of sorts to prevent competition with major industries where American-grown hemp products would create serious market competition: Cotton, Paper/Lumber, Oil, and others.
The Floating Dollar as a Threat to Property Rights
Founding Editor New York Sun
Seth Lipsky is the founding editor of the New York Sun. A graduate of Harvard College, he served in the U.S. Army in Vietnam as a combat correspondent for Pacific Stars and Stripes. A former senior editor and member of the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, he has also served as editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal/Europe, managing editor of The Asian Wall Street Journal, and assistant editor of Far Eastern Economic Review. In 2009, he published The Citizen’s Constitution: An Annotated Guide.
The following is adapted from a speech delivered on February 16, 2011, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Phoenix, Arizona.
TO BEGIN, consider one of the most important measures of property, the kilogram. It’s a measure of mass or, for non-scientific purposes, weight. According to the papers last week, a global scramble is under way to define this most basic unit after it was discovered that the standard kilogram—a cylinder of platinum and iridium that is maintained by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures—has been losing mass.
You may think that this is impossible. Of all the elements, iridium is the most resistant to corrosion, and the cylinder is kept in a facility at Sevres, France, where it is under three glass domes accessible by three separate keys. The cylinder itself is more than 130 years old and is what the New York Times calls the “only remaining international standard in the metric system that is still a man-made object.” The new urgency to redefine the kilogram comes from the fact that its changing mass “defeats,” as the Times put it, “its only purpose: constancy.”
The question I invite you to consider for a moment is what would happen if we just let the kilogram float? This is a question that was posed in an editorial last week in the New York Sun. After all, the editorial said, we let the dollar float. The creation of dollars, and the status of the dollar as legal tender, is a matter of fiat. Its value is adjusted by the mandarins at the Federal Reserve, depending on variables they only sometimes share with the rest of the world. This would have floored the Framers of our Constitution, who granted Congress the power to coin money and regulate its value in the same sentence in which they gave it the power to fix the standard of weights and measures—like, say, the aforementioned kilogram.
Now, the record is clear in respect of how America’s founders viewed money. Many of them went into the Second United States Congress, where they established the value of the dollar at 371 ¼ grains of pure silver. The law through which they did that, the Coinage Act of 1792, noted that the amount of silver they were regulating for the dollar was the same as in a coin then in widespread use, known as the Spanish milled dollar. The law said a dollar could also be the free-market equivalent in gold. The Founders did not expect the value of the dollar to be changed any more than the persons who locked away that kilogram of platinum and iridium expected the cylinder to start losing mass. In fact, in this same 1792 law, they established the death penalty for debasing the dollar.
So, the New York Sun asked, why not float the kilogram? After all, when you go into the grocery to buy a pound of hamburger, why should you worry about how much hamburger you get—so long as it’s a pound’s worth? A pound is supposed to be .45359237 of a kilogram. But if Congress can permit Mr. Bernanke to use his judgment in deciding what a dollar is worth, why shouldn’t he—or some other Ph.D. from M.I.T.—be able to decide from day to day what a kilogram is worth?
No doubt some will cavil that the fact that the dollar floats makes it all the more reason for the kilogram to be constant. But what’s so special about the kilogram? If the fiat dollar floats, one has no idea what it will be worth when it comes time to spend it. If the kilogram also floats, it will simply be twice as hard to figure out what something we’re buying will be worth. So what if, when we unwrap our hamburger, the missus has to throw a little more sawdust in the meatloaf?
Or let us consider a compromise. Let’s go to a fiat kilogram—that is, permit the kilogram to float—but apply the new urgency to fixing the dollar at a specified number of grains of gold. To those who say it would be ridiculous to fix the dollar but let the butcher hand you whatever amount of hamburger he wants when you ask for a kilogram, I say, what’s the difference as to whether it’s the measure of money or of weight that floats?
For that matter, one could go all the way and fix the value of both the kilogram and the dollar but float the value of time. You say you want to be paid $100 an hour. That’s fine by your boss. But he—or Chairman Bernanke—gets to decide how many minutes in the hour. Or how long the minute is. You know you’ll get a kilogram of meat for the price a kilogram of meat costs. But you won’t know how long you have to work to earn the money.
There was obviously a satirical element to that Sun editorial. But it’s not satirical to say that we are in a dangerous situation in our country in respect of the dollar, and that property rights are very much bound up in the question of money. After all, consider that kilogram. It is a cylinder. And it’s a cylinder the size of, say, a golf ball. The amount of mass that it is believed to have lost is measured in a few atoms, and yet the institution where they maintain standards is in a complete tizzy about it. The implications are said to be enormous.
The dollar, by contrast, has collapsed from 1/35 of an ounce of gold to less than 1/1,300 of an ounce of gold. If the kilogram had collapsed on that order of magnitude, there would be left only a small shard of that handsome grayish cylinder under the three glass domes at Sevres, France.
I understand that this is not where the property rights discussion is usually focused. It usually centers around the takings clause of the Constitution—the clause at the center of the landmark case that erupted when condemnation proceedings were launched against the homes in New London, Connecticut, of a woman named Susette Kelo and her neighbors. Under the Fifth Amendment, the government is prohibited from taking private property for public use without just compensation. That is a bedrock principle of American constitutionalism. What was special about Susette Kelo is that her property was taken for private use. It was coveted by a private, non-profit development corporation for private, for-profit use near a big pharmaceutical development that the town reckoned would benefit the public.
Mrs. Kelo and her neighbors went all the way to the Supreme Court to try to keep their homes. She lost the case, Kelo v. New London, albeit by a five to four vote. On the one hand, it was a terrible defeat for the principle of property rights. On the other hand, the decision was so alarming that states have begun changing their own laws to strengthen protections against the kind of raid on private property that Mrs. Kelo suffered. At least 43 states have already passed such laws. Rarely has the loser in a Supreme Court case established so great a legacy as Mrs. Kelo, whose case is one of the most important warnings we have had in my generation of the vigilance that is going to be required in respect of the right to property enshrined in the Fifth Amendment.
Which brings me to the question of how the law can be used to illuminate the problem of the floating dollar. What I consider the most astonishing legal question in the country came into the news in 2008, when Judith Kaye, the chief judge of the highest court in the state of New York, the Court of Appeals, filed a lawsuit in an inferior court, asking it to order the state legislature and the governor to give her a raise.
My first reaction, and that of my colleagues at the Sun, was to consider this something of a joke. Yet the more we began to look at the case, the more it threw into sharp relief the issue of the right to the property that comes to us in the form of a salary or is held by us in the form of savings. The judges on New York’s Court of Appeals, after all, hadn’t had a raise in more than a decade, and they were having an ever harder time making their salaries cover rising costs. In that they are just like the rest of us.
But it turns out that under the Constitution, judges are not quite like the rest of us—and in a way that lies at the heart of the American Revolution. Indeed, in the Declaration of Independence, one of the reasons our Founders listed for breaking with England was that King George III had “made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.” So they wrote into the Constitution not only that judges would have life tenure (with good behavior), but also that the pay of a judge would not be diminished during his term in office. This principle that one can never lower the pay of a judge is also in many state constitutions.
So if in, say, the year 2000 a judge was paid in dollars that were worth 1/265 of an ounce of gold, and if today that same judge is being paid with dollars worth less than 1/1,300 of an ounce of gold, has the judge’s pay been diminished?
The more I’ve thought about it, the more I have been nagged by the thought that judges’ pay could be the device with which to attack the legal tender law I have come to regard as the greatest threat to property in America. This is the law establishing that paper money in America must be accepted in payment of debts, public and private. The Founders themselves hated paper money. Washington, whose picture is on the one dollar bill, warned that paper money would inevitably “ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice”; Jefferson, whose picture is on the two dollar bill, called its abuses inevitable; as did Madison, whose picture is on the $5,000 bill. Paper money, he said, was “unconstitutional, for it affects the rights of property as much as taking away equal value in land.”
I’m not so sure that the existence of paper money is the problem. The problem is the requirement that a one dollar paper note be accepted in lieu of 371 ¼ grains of silver. Certainly when the greenback was introduced—as it was by President Lincoln—it was for a cause, the Union, that was worth enormous risks. The Treasury Secretary who helped him put through the greenback as a war measure, Salmon Chase, became, in 1864, the sixth Chief Justice of the United States; and when the concept of legal tender finally came up for consideration, Chase ruled against the greenback. President Grant, however, eventually got two new justices on the court, and legal tender was established in a series of rulings—one involving the purchase of some sheep, the other of some bales of cotton, and another some land—known as the Legal Tender Cases.
A few months ago, I called Bernard Nussbaum, who was representing Judge Kaye, and asked him why she didn’t challenge legal tender head on. He told me he feared the Legal Tender Cases couldn’t be overturned. It was too heavy a lift. So instead he fought the case on separation of powers grounds. It seems that the New York legislature had said it would not give the judges of New York a raise until the legislators got a raise. The judges sprang on this as a transgression of separation of powers—and, no surprise, when they heard their own case, they ruled against the legislature. A few weeks ago, the legislature decided to delegate to an independent commission the job of deciding judges’ pay.
By my lights, this delegation to an unelected body, even if the legislature could overrule it, was an unsatisfactory outcome. But it turns out that the judges of New York are not the only jurists who are furious about the diminishment of their pay. A group of federal judges is also in court, fighting over their salaries. In the case of the federal judges, Congress had some time ago enacted a law that gave them an automatic pay increase designed to keep up with the Consumer Price Index. But then, as deficits got out of control and Congress’s own salary lagged, Congress suspended the automatic pay increase.
At that point, a coalition of federal judges went into court. Their aim is limited: to force Congress to reinstate the automatic pay adjustment. To understand the scale of what one is talking about, consider the pay of but one of the plaintiffs, Judge Silberman. I don’t know his exact salary. But at the time he was assigned to the District of Columbia Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals, the salary of a federal appeals judge—$83,200—was worth 258 ounces of gold. Since then, the value of the pay of a judge of one of the Appeals circuits—$184,500—has been diminished to 139 ounces of gold.
At this very hour, the judges’ petition in their pay case is before the United States Supreme Court. And while I believe the justices have been wronged by Congress, I hope they lose on the question of whether a suspension in the automatic pay adjustment is unconstitutional. That should get them angry enough to come back and look legal tender in the face. They could force Congress to pay them in the gold or silver equivalent of a federal judge’s salary at the time they were appointed to the bench. It would move judges closer to the kinds of salaries the lawyers before them are receiving.
And people would start to ask: If judges deserve honest money, why shouldn’t the rest of us?
To those who suggest that such a scenario is far-fetched, one can say, no more far-fetched than the notion that the post-Civil War monetary system could be erected on Supreme Court decisions in a pair of disputes over payment for a flock of sheep and some bales of cotton. Or that centuries of law on abortion could be overturned in a fell swoop by a Supreme Court ruling in the case of a woman who later changed her mind. Could the court cast aside precedent to decide such a sweeping issue as legal tender? It certainly didn’t hesitate—nor should it have—in demolishing the notion that racially separate schools could be equal. With everyone from the United Nations to Communist China today calling for the abandonment of the dollar as a reserve currency, is it so hard to imagine that the Supreme Court might revisit the Legal Tender Cases?
It may be that the judges will lose their pay case, just as Susette Kelo lost her house, or that they will win a partial victory and the Supreme Court will shy away from confronting legal tender. But we know from Mrs. Kelo’s case that this needn’t be the end of things. People began to see the logic and think about property rights, and now at least 43 states have passed laws to make it harder for state and local jurisdictions to use the power of eminent domain to seize private land for someone else’s private use.
Could such a thing happen with money? Well, there is a part of the Constitution called Article I, Section 10. It is the section that lists the things that states can never do. And one of these prohibited activities is making legal tender out of something other than gold or silver coin. So what is happening now is that a growing number of states, watching the sickening plunge in the value of federal money, are starting to explore how they can set up monetary systems based on gold or silver coins. The most recent effort was launched in Virginia, where there is a bill before the General Assembly to set up a joint committee to study the question. There have been early stirrings—just stirrings—in the legislatures of several other states.
Could the entry of the states into the monetary role be a reaction to a failure at the federal level, the way the states reacted to the failure of the Supreme Court to enforce Susette Kelo’s Fifth Amendment rights? It would be inaccurate to make too much of these efforts. But it would be shortsighted to make too little of them. Strange things can happen. It is even possible that one can take a cylinder of platinum and iridium, lock it away in a room under three glass domes, secure it with three separate keys, and come back in a few years to discover that part of it has disappeared. And the New York Times will write an editorial about the value of constancy.
This information is provided by Eddie Craig (a former deputy sheriff, and due process expert)
TO BE PRACTICED AND MEMORIZED!
If necessary, print this out and keep it in your car for easy reference, but it will more effective if you practice it and memorize it like you would for a part in a play. The more you practice the material the more easily it will come to mind when needed and the more effectively you can assert your rights and protect them.
ALWAYS carry one or more audio/video recording devices with you into the public world. Anytime you go out make sure you have them.Always make sure that they are always charged or have good batteries as necessary. The moment you suspect that you are going to have an encounter with some public servant/official, then, TURN THEM ON AND START RECORDING!
Having a pen and notepad of some kind readily available for taking notes is also recommended. Write down any names and badge numbers you receive and use them accordingly. It is also recommended that if you have a cell phone in addition to other recording devices, then, you ALSO call someone that can act as an audible witness to what is said during the encounter and possibly also record the conversation from their end as well. No matter what the officer says, DO NOT hang up the phone. If necessary, LIE about who you have on the phone!! Tell the officer that it is your legal counsel on the line and you will not comply with any of his/her demands without proper legal advice from your counsel.
There is no law against being on the phone during such an encounter, nor is there any legal basis for an officer to threaten you or demand that you disconnect your call during the encounter. The idiotic claim that such a demand is related to “officer safety” is not a plausible basis for such demand.
YOU must control the information exchange and your own emotional state. Stay calm, cool and collected. Talking slower works great for this type of situation.
Maintain your composure and speak in a calm and collected voice and manner at all times. Treat the officer with respect. You want the video evidence to show that if anyone lost self-control during the encounter it was the officer(s) and not you. It is also important that you ask anyone else that may be with you to remain silent and to say and do nothing except as described herein. If they are unfamiliar with these concepts and procedures then it would be a good idea for you to either educate them on these concepts and procedures or simply don’t have them with you. Someone else can get you into just as many problems as you can yourself if they say or do things other than as described herein.
While I am aware that there is the ability to say less just as effectively, I believe that we should be working toward ending these abuses and behavior by our public servants by making a record that would allow us to take action against those of them that refuse to honor and obey our rights, their oath of office, and the limits of their power and authority. This script is intended to assist you in making a viable record that can be used in a lawsuit against these public servants in state and federal court. If you can get THEM talking about the violations they are perpetrating and their knowing and willful intent to commit those violations, then, a jury is much more likely to find in your favor when the officer(s) stand condemned from their own mouths and recordings.
Dos and Don’ts:
Do remember that an officer is REQUIRED to read you your rights before questioning or searching you if they have placed you in a custodial arrest. In Texas you ARE ALWAYS in a custodial arrest when stopped for an alleged “traffic offense” (see Secs. 543.001-.009, Texas Transp. Code). The reading of your rights is a mandatory requirement that works in your favor unless/until you behave stupidly by talking voluntarily (sees Art. 38.22, Texas Code of Crim. Proc.). Be aware, however, they almost NEVER do this, meaning that anything incriminating that you may say or that they may find can be suppressed as an involuntary or coerced statement or illegal warrantless search and seizure. You should also be aware that the officer(s) is/are trained to lie about you being in a custodial arrest and will most likely say instead that you are in an “investigative detention.” If you are in Texas (and most other “states”), then understand that this is a TOTAL LIE! You almost always ARE in a full-blown custodial arrest (see Legal Equation illustration below).
Don’t EVER answer an officer’s questions. You have the right to remain “silent,” so USE IT!
However, being “silent” DOES NOT mean to suddenly become a DEAF MUTE! It simply means that you are NOT to provide ANY information or documents in response to the officer’s demands or questions.
Invoke your fundamentally protected right to remain “silent” and to assistance of counsel, and then simply refuse to waive them, which you will do if you comply with the officer’s demands.
The foremost thing to remember in these situations is to NOT engage the officer(s) in idle conversation, dialog, or chitchat. It is important that the ONLY things you say to the officer(s) are specifically directed at the reservation and protection of your fundamentally protected rights, and nothing else. This is known as my self-imposed rule of “invoke, demand, protect.” Once you have invoked these rights NEVER waive or abandon them by ignoring these recommended procedures.
Questions like “Where are you coming from?”, “Where are you going?”, “Who are you meeting?” have NOTHING to do with a “transportation stop.” They are used simply to get additional information that may allow the officer to continue his witch hunt and escalate the severity of the charge(s) he might make against you. Also, NEVER answer questions like “Do you know why I pulled you over?” or “Are you aware that you?”
STOP HELPING HIM SCREW YOU OVER! DON’T ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS! Remember the cardinal rule about talking freely, DON”T TALK, BE QUIET and when you have done that, SHUT UP SOME MORE!
Whatever you say CAN and WILL be used against you in a court of law, so SHUT UP unless you are doing or saying something specified in this script!
Do remember to roll up ALL of your windows and to lock your doors whenever you get pulled over, and don’t ever open them or get out. That being said, MY personal habit, on warm and sunny days, has always been to carefully but quickly exit the car (keeping my hands in plain view) BEFORE the officer can prevent me from doing so, while simultaneously locking my doors, throwing the keys into the front seat, and closing the door. Doing this removes the possibility of you having access to any form of weapon that may be inside the car and could be used to injure the officer(s). In this way the officer no longer has the legal ability or excuse to conduct a warrantless search of your car, even if they tow it. Remember to keep a spare door key in your wallet, pocket, or purse if you do this. However, if it is freezing cold and/or pouring down rain, remain in your car and let the officer stand outside for as long as he likes in order to conduct his unlawful and illegal witch hunt while you take your time in following this script.
Don’t EVER roll down more than one (1) window at a time if you remain in your car during the stop, no matter what the officer(s) tell you to do. This eliminates the possibility of an officer fabricating an opportunity to escalate the stop by saying that the resulting cross-breeze allowed him/her to smell something. If you must open a different window then is certain that you have closed all other windows before doing so.
Don’t EVER roll down your one open window more than half an inch, no matter what the officer(s) tell you to do, and for the same reasons as stated above. This also eliminates the possibility of the officer reaching in a grabbing you or opening up the door. On my car door above the window, it has a sign that says “No Trespassing”. Just say “I can hear you fine officer and I am most comfortable with the window at its current level, thank you.” “I like to tell them that is as far down as the window will go down.”
Don’t EVER provide an officer with any documents or other information that they demand. The legal ramifications to your fundamentally protected rights are devastating.
Don’t EVER give your consent to an officer to search your car for any reason. You are just asking to have incriminating evidence planted or discovered that could be used to criminally charge you, and it won’t matter if you knew it was there or not, YOU CONSENTED TO THE WARRANLTESS SEARCH!!
DON’T BE AN IDIOT! Don’t let them threaten or coerce you into waiving this right because it also attaches to the waiver of other important fundamental rights that are essential to your legal wellbeing.
Even if they threaten to have a canine unit report to the scene you must not waive this right. Tell the officer “I do not consent to being detained by you for any additional time or other purposes. Am I free to go or are you going to continue to illegally falsely imprison me beyond the time needed to conclude this stop?”
JUST SAY NO TO WARRANTLESS SEARCHES!
Officers will almost always insist that you are NOT under custodial arrest, but rather are simply being “detained” or are part of an “investigative detention.” This is a blatant lie most of the time. No officer has the authority to simply walk up and demand that you answer questions, produce ID, or provide them with your private information, verbally or otherwise. Be aware, however, that when you won’t submit and give them your information, their favorite tactic is to threaten to charge you with “Failure to Identify.” However, in Texas law (Sec. 38.02, Penal Code) you can be charged with “Failure to Identify”
ONLY if you have ALREADY been lawfully arrested for some other offense, or, you are being lawfully detained for questioning in a criminal investigation, and then ONLY under the following conditions and circumstances; in either case you are required to give ONLY your name, address, and DOB, nothing more; in the case of already being lawfully arrested for some other offense, you cannot refuse to provide these three things; in the case of being lawfully detained, you cannot provide false responses for these three things, but you CAN refuse to provide them at all. You can provide this information verbally (Texas). There is no law in Texas that requires that it be presented on some form of physical ID or document, nor could there be (anywhere USA) because there is not and cannot be a valid law that requires and compels a private individual to obtain and carry a state or federally issued form of ID.
WARNING! It is of the utmost importance that you understand the true nature and purpose of a “transportation” stop.The goal of every enforcement officer nationwide is to create a situation that culminates in one of two scenarios:
This is ALWAYS the goal. It is NEVER about “public safety.”
It is always about maximizing the potential charges against an individual and the revenue that a conviction on those charges generates. STOP HELPING “THEM” SET YOU UP FOR A FALL!
Also, DO NOT attempt to “educate” the officer(s) about what they can and cannot do or the law associated with “transportation” or the Code of Criminal Procedure. Register your verbal objection to their actions for the record by following the procedures below. Napoleon had it right when he said “Never interrupt your enemy while he is busy making mistakes.” Learn from this wisdom or you WILL make your own “fatal mistakes.”
Once you know the officer(s) name(s) and badge number(s) use them both together as often as practicable as shown in these procedures. Make him/them aware that they are being directly associated with any unlawful and illegal acts or violations of your fundamentally protected rights in which they might otherwise engage during this encounter. While it is not fatal to the situation if you fail to do so, it is relatively important that you try to do things in the order and verbiage presented below.
REMINDER: It is important that the only things you say to the officer(s) are specifically directed at the reservation and protection of your fundamentally protected rights and nothing else. Once you have invoked your rights NEVER waive or abandon them by ignoring the recommended procedures listed above and below.
Simply repeat the verbiage in items 1 & 2 as necessary for each new officer you speak with.
NOTE: Sub-items 2(a)-(c) are optional, but are also potentially useful during the discovery process if the claim is made later that the officer’s equipment was “malfunctioning” during the encounter. Bear in mind that these questions and statements by you are VERY important to the record you are trying to build, try to remember this and use them accordingly.
1) For the record, may I get your name and badge number please?
2) Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, is there a recording being made of this encounter?
a. Is that recording comprised of both audio and video?
b. Are you relatively certain that your recording equipment is functioning properly for the purposes of making this recording?
c. Is your body microphone and camera, if any, turned on and functioning properly to the best of your knowledge?
3) Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, I can see that you have your emergency lights on: What is the Emergency?
Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, Answer__________ is that an emergency? If he doesn’t want to answer: “do I have the right to knowing what is going on here”?
Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, do you see the “No Trespassing” afixed to my conveyance /property? Do you UNDERSTAND What does “No Trespassing” means? Y/N would you explain that for the court on the record?
Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________,do you see the “No Riders” afixed to my conveyance /property? Do you UNDERSTAND What does “No Riders” means? Y/N __________. Would you explain that for the court on the record?
Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, do you see the “Not for Hire” afixed to my conveyance /property? Do you UNDERSTAND What does “Not for Hire” means? Y/N _______would you explain that for the court on the record?
Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, “Am I FREE TO GO?”
4) Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, what facts or information are you alleging gave you probable cause to stop See and accost me?
5) Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, do you have a properly signed and issued warrant authorizing you to search me or my property?
a. (IF YES) Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, do you currently have that alleged warrant in your possession, if so I would like to see it please? t
6) Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, do you have a properly signed and issued warrant of arrest that accurately describes or names me as the person to be arrested?
a. (IF YES) Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, do you currently have that alleged warrant in your possession, if so I would like to see it please?
7) For the record, I am not “operating” in a “for hire” capacity by engaging in any form of “transportation” or other commercial use of the highways. Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, please acknowledge that you have been so informed.
8) Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, am I under custodial arrest?
9) If I am not under custodial arrest then am I free to go?
10) Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, what is the articulable probable cause that leads you to believe that I have committed or am about to commit a crime that authorizes you to stop and detain or arrest me? Y/N______________ “Am I Free to GO”?
11) For the record Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, in order to protect my rights and not waive any by error or accident, I wish to clarify my legal understanding of the situation:
a. You said that I am not free to go, so I must conclude that I am in a custodial arrest and not simply an investigative detention.
b. Therefore, I am invoking all of my fundamentally protected rights, including my right to remain silent and my right to assistance of counsel.
c. From this point forward I do not consent to providing you with any information or documents that could or will be used against me in a court of law or to possibly incriminate me, so please do not ask me to produce anything and give it to you.
d. From this point forward please do not ask me to answer any questions or to perform any form of test relating to any matter whatsoever without my attorney present.
e. Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, do you intend to harm, injure, or punish me by any method of assault, arrest and/or incarceration because I have invoked these fundamentally protected rights? Y/N______________ “Am I Free to GO”?
Understand this, when you refuse to produce the demanded documents or to answer any questions, the
officer is going to begin to get upset and continuously state that “… the law REQUIRES that you produce a
driver’s license and other information on demand of a law enforcement officer.” They are also prone to
falsely accusing you of obstructing or interfering with a public duty/officer or just outright threatening to
commit acts of violence against you and/or your property. DON’T FALL FOR THIS, IT IS A SCARE
TACTIC! Invoking and refusing to waive your fundamental rights is not and cannot be converted into a crime.
And if they DO arrest and charge you falsely for interfering/obstructing then you get to sue the crap out of
them. Just remember, when the officer(s) continue to demand that you produce a license, registration, proof
of financial responsibility, or any other information or document(s), despite their threats, repeat the following
12) For the record Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, no law is valid if it requires me in any way to waive any fundamentally protected right in order to exercise any other right or alleged privilege. And no law can convert the free exercise of any right into a crime. I have repeatedly informed you that I choose not to waive any of my fundamentally protected rights.
13) So, I ask you again Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, do you intend to harm, injure, steal my property, or otherwise punish me for invoking my fundamentally protected rights? Y/N______________ “Am I Free to GO”?
Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, do you understand when you violate my civil rights, you are operating outside your oath of office and you lose your personal immunity? Y/N______________ “Am I Free to GO”?
Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, do you understand when you violate 18 USC 241-242, the penalty is 10 years in prison? Y/N______________ “Am I Free to GO”?
WARNING: Be prepared for the officer to do or threaten precisely that, and they usually start by threatening you with all manner of unpleasantries, including falsified criminal charges. You only need to use sub-item “a” once on the first officer that threatens you. When s/he/they begin(s) to do so, state the following:
a. Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, due to your attitude, demeanor, and your continuous threats to falsify charges and commit acts of violence against me and my property while displaying a deadly weapon, I feel physically threatened and in fear for my life. I demand that you cease and desist and request the immediate presence of a supervisor. I do not consent to any of your actions, the use of force against me or my property, or to being forced to exit my car for any purpose, especially so that you may attempt to steal my property and/or assault, injure or kill me.
14) Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, you are fully aware that I have already invoked my fundamentally protected right to remain silent and my right to assistance of counsel. Do you intend to continue in your unlawful efforts to violate my rights?
a. It is my belief that the information you are demanding may possibly be used against me in a court of law or in an attempt to incriminate me.
b. And if that is so, then, upon the advice of legal counsel I must respectfully decline to provide you with any information or evidence that possibly can or would be used against me for those purposes.
15) Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, I am asking you again, do you intend to continue to deny me in my rights and to falsely imprison me or am I free to go?
WARNING: Be certain to keep your face as far away from the window opening as possible while sitting normally. Never exhale or speak directly into the opening or toward the officer(s) face(s). Doing so will almost certainly result in the following scenario. Read the Do’s and Don’ts to better understand why.
If the officer makes any statement making a direct accusation against you or directed toward escalating the stop to the status of a DUI or drug bust situation, and they almost certainly will, you MUST be prepared to rebut it INSTANTLY. If any officer makes ANY statement resembling either of the following, BEWARE and immediately respond accordingly!!
OFFICER: “Sir/Ma’am, I smell alcohol/marijuana and I am going to have to ask you to step out of the vehicle.”; or
“Sir/Ma’am, are you aware that you ( allegedly did something ) and I am going to have to ask you to step out of the vehicle.” (Be sure that s/he IS lying in this case.)
16) YOU: Officer _____________ Badge/ID # ________, your statement is patently false and an outright lie. Are you now trying to fabricate probable cause by making false statements into the record and false allegations against me?
a. Even if they threaten to have a canine unit report to the scene or to break out your windows you must not waive your fundamentally protected rights out of fear. Tell the officer “I do not consent to being detained for any additional time or other purposes. Am I free to go or are you going to continue to illegally terrorize, threaten and falsely imprison me beyond the time needed to conclude this alleged “transportation stop?”
b. Repeat steps 12 – 16a as required for each new or continued demand or threat imposed by the officer(s).
This information is brought to you by: Eddie Craig Co-host on Rule of Law Radio (www.ruleoflawradio.com& www.logosradionetwork.com) Eddie Craig will soon be launching a brand new site geared toward publicizing and organizing the efforts of the patriot community groups and organizations. The site will be called www.taooflaw.com. Go on Facebook to learn more. Search for “Tao Law” and make a friend request. You can also go directly to the site launch info page by searching for “Tao of Law” and reading up on what the site will provide as tools, resources, and features to its members and users. Be aware that this information is always evolving out of necessity. Watch the version number in the upper right-hand corner to see which one you are using. Always try to use the latest version. Go to http://www.logosradionetwork.com/tao/ for a preview of what the site will have to offer the American patriot community.
Disclaimer: The materials available on this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the authors. Use of this website or providing information to the email address provided does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please be advised that this is exclusively a Pro Se support system in which you are expected to represent yourself. All sales are final.