Replies to post #909 on NO QUARTER FOR CORRUPTION (Focussing on The Fed./F

[Vexari]

Everyone a criminal..
Paul Craig Roberts (archive)

May 7, 2003

Be warned: Law, once a shield of the innocent, is now a weapon in the hands of government. Conservatives generally ignore such warnings, feeling that criticism of the criminal justice system plays into the hands of criminals.

Since the 1980s, I have endeavored to make Americans aware of how the legal protections against tyranny are being lost. This work reached its most general statement in my book The Tyranny of Good Intentions, coauthored with Larry Stratton and published in 2000.

Accidents and civil offenses have been criminalized, and the prohibitions against crimes without intent, retroactive law and self-incrimination have been removed. Even the attorney-client privilege is being eroded.

Conservatives are not alarmed by these developments. They continue to support sweeping definitions of criminal liability and harsher penalties. Prosecutors have been granted wide discretion by social welfare regulation, which criminalizes behavior that bears no relationship to moral wrongs (such as murder) which traditionally defined criminal acts. Today, Americans draw prison sentences for unknowingly violating vague regulations, the meanings of which are interpreted by the regulatory police who enforce the regulations.

The fact that law is interpreted and enforced by unelected regulatory authorities violates the requirement of our political system that law must be accountable to the people.

Law, which once served a concept of justice, has been replaced by a tyranny that answers only to the conscience of prosecutors. One might think this development would strike a chord among conservatives. However, intent on chasing down criminals and now terrorists, conservatives have turned a deaf ear to the collapse of the legal structure built over the centuries in order to protect the innocent.

Paul Rosenzweig's Heritage Foundation Legal Memorandum, "The Over-Criminalization of Social and Economic Conduct," thus comes as a welcome development. If conservative foundations are catching on, their considerable influence, even at this late date, might rescue law from tyranny.

Rosenzweig's paper focuses on the destruction of mens rea, the principle that a criminal act requires intent to do harm. This principle has been pulled down by regulatory crimes that impose criminal liability regardless of intent or even of fault.

He illustrates the point with Edward Hanousek, a manager with a railroad in Alaska. Hanousek was imprisoned because a worker, at the worker's own initiative, used a backhoe to move some rocks from a train track and accidentally ruptured an oil pipeline, causing a few thousand gallons to spill into the Skagway River. Hanousek, who was off-duty at the time, was imprisoned for failing to appropriately supervise the worker.

Formerly, the railroad would have faced civil liability for damages resulting from the accident. But the legal distinction between civil liability and felony has been destroyed. Today, American business executives face criminal liability for the unintended acts (accidents) of subordinates. The extraordinary felony liability that executives face is one cause of the sharp increase in CEO pay.

A decade ago, I was invited to speak to the legal policy group at the U.S. Department of Justice (sic). I severely criticized the lawyers for criminalizing accidents in the Exxon Valdez oil spill and for criminalizing civil liability in the Charles Keating savings and loan case. I reminded the DOJ lawyers that in our Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, felony requires intent and personal guilt.

The Justice Department lawyers shrugged off my concerns. They saw their mission as creating novel interpretations of criminal liability to spring upon the unsuspecting.

Novel interpretations of criminality rank high on prosecutors' achievement lists. To indict under crimes that did not exist prior to the indictment is to destroy certainty in law. When felony was ruled by intent, certainty was required in order that people could be aware of acts that constituted criminal violations. Now that intent is no longer required, certainty has lost its relevance.

Today, anyone can be criminally prosecuted for offenses created by the indictment. The justice system has become a lottery. Rosenzweig believes that the use of prison sentences to achieve social goals (such as clean water), regardless of the moral innocence of those imprisoned, destroys the moral opprobrium of conviction and makes criminal law arbitrary.

Arbitrary and capricious law is what the English struggled for centuries to rein in and to protect against. William Blackstone called the legal protections against arbitrary law "the Rights of Englishmen." Our crime is to have dismantled these human achievements.



©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.



http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulcraigroberts/

[Vexari]

slaves to a system..

that cater to elitists..

under the proper common law dejure government we are the masters and government are our slaves..

under the existing defacto system run by the international money changers, we are enemies of the state..

that translates to slaves of a system that suck the pure energy from the unknowing (many) for the benefit of a select few..


lest we not forget

both set of laws(dejure and defacto) exist and run concurrently..

only one has the lights on however, nobody is home..



when the government fears the people..

we have liberty..

when the people fear the government..

we have tyranny..

~ Thomas Jefferson ~


where are we today?

[Vexari]

who/what is a slave?

think about it..


When the subject of slavery comes up between people born and raised in the U.S., an image of cotton-picking negro slaves comes immediately to mind. To the public school-educated and mass-media-conditioned American mind, if your skin is not black and you don t live in pre-14th Amendment America, you cannot be a slave. The logical obverse, in the minds of properly indoctrinated Americans, is the automatic presumption of personal freedom. As we can see in millions of examples among our countrymen, none are so capable of being progressively enslaved as those whose presumption of freedom can be maintained from birth to death.

But the slave model etched in the American mind is only a stereotype it s only one definition. Slavery has many definitions, a few of which are cited below. All of them, excluding word usage variations like, "He s a slave to his habits," infer sets of circumstances where people s physical bodies, political expressions and spiritual beliefs are controlled by others.

Americans living under the laws of the U.S. are, by definition, slaves. Artful legislative machinations have transformed the inalienable rights to pursue life and liberty and acquire property into statutory privileges that can be granted by government or taken away without recourse.

Are you a slave?

Under the definitions provided above, just about all of us are slaves. Under the Black s definition, all prisoners who were unduly convicted or "denied due process of law" are slaves per 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution.

Per the second half of Black s definition, everyone is a slave because, at any time and without just cause, government agents may "dispose of our person (Vickie Weaver, for instance), dispose of our industry and labor (ask thousands of small business owners who have been unjustly ruined by the IRS) and anything that we acquire may be seized at any time and the seizures will stand in court because ownership is proved by the highest claim of possession and disposal.

The previous paragraph proves the Bouvier s definition: Another has unlimited control over our lives whenever it decides to exercise that control.

Both Black s and Bouvier s describe people held in bondage, enthralled; enslaved per Webster s.

Though we may not be "purchased," we are born free and then "captured" by statutory (14th Amendment) snares that completely divest us of our personal rights and; we submit to these fictitious bonds in a "servile manner" making us slaves under the Oxford Universal Dictionary definition.

Per our American Heritage dictionary definition, we are bound in servitude as instruments to pay an infinite array of taxes to specified influences in a condition that has been easily likened to slavery.



Slave. A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another. One who is under the power of a master, and who belongs to him; so that the master may sell and dispose of his person, of his industry, and of his labor, without his being able to do anything, have anything or acquire anything, but what must belong to his master. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. ~Black s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition

SLAVE. One over whose life, liberty and property another has unlimited control.

~Bouvier s Law Dictionary, 1870

slave: 1. A person held in bondage; a thrall.

~Webster s Collegiate Dictionary, 1947

thrall: a A slave; bondman. b One in moral or mental bondage. c Thralldom - To enslave; enthrall.

~Webster s Collegiate Dictionary, 1947

Slave: 1. One who is the property of, and entirely subject to, another person, whether by capture, purchase, or birth; a servant completely divested of freedom and personal rights. 2. One who submits in a servile manner to the authority or dictation of another or others; a submissive or devoted servant. ~Oxford Universal Dictionary, 1955

slave: 1. One who is bound in servitude to a person or household as an instrument of labor. 2. One who is submissive or subject to a specified person or influence. 3. One whose condition is likened to that of slavery.

~The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1969



Conclusive evidence of live, non-fiction, flesh and blood status

It all seems to start when we witness or experience the lawless power of government: We begin to realize that ours really isn t the land of the free. As we progress in our understanding and the depths and breadths of the betrayal become apparent, we discover that governments are fictions and that, through constructive fraud, they transform our flesh and blood into paper fictions because this trick somehow authorizes governments to treat us like property. The process is a lot like the movies when "real" people are suddenly thrust into cartoonland where the only laws in effect are those imagined into existence by the cartoonist. Though it may seem hard for most to conceive, one of the cornerstones of being abused as government property is our inability to overcome government s presumption that we are paper fictions over which it has the rights of ownership. Patriots have gone to great lengths to"break the presumption" (many of which are expensive, complicated and covered in previous editions of The IO) and still government throws them around like paper dolls. Aren t these strange times: The government will tax and imprison, even murder us at its pleasure and convenience because we are forever failing to provide it with conclusive proof that we are flesh and blood men and women. The following is an interesting, simple and inexpensive tactic one may employ to finally break that presumption provided all our other sovereignty ducks are in a nice, neat row.

by Augustus Blackstone

An interesting question was put to me recently during a discussion about making a legal distinction from an idem sonans (sounds the same when spoken) ens legis (corporate fiction) "strawman" (all capital letter spelled name) entity, that the courts and existing (political) systems would have little choice but to recognize and acknowledge. The question was, "What kind of conclusive evidence would best prove that one is in fact a living, breathing, flesh and blood (wo)man?"

Legal fiction entities, being fictions, cannot bleed because they have no blood. Only living entities have blood, which can be quantified and qualified through immunological compatibility testing and classification (blood typing). In answer to the question, I suggested obtaining a Red Cross blood donor s card, making sure that it shows one s name properly spelled in upper/lower case lettering. This would be an "acceptable" form of conclusive evidence that can be carried in one s wallet and that can be used in conjunction with evidence of one s live birth.

Unlike other, more local blood collection agencies, the Red Cross Society is an internationally recognized body that enjoys near absolute neutrality and political immunity in all nations participant in or adherent to the Geneva Convention, even during active military hostilities between those nations.

To what extent that international political immunity reaches into other zones of application within this country remains to be explored. But anyone can obtain a blood donor s card, even if they do not intend thereafter to donate blood (or anything else). The Red Cross Society is an international philanthropic organization, formed in 1864. And, as such, there is no obligation to donate. It s all voluntary.

This is not a promotional plug for the Red Cross Society. It is an answer to the question pertaining to obtaining conclusive evidence of being a living (wo)man which is or can be recognized by existing political systems (and their courts), that has international neutrality/immunity implications and that can be used to establish entitlement to declared God-given Rights. It is the life within the blood that establishes one s connection to the divine tutelary authority. Make the most of it.

Note: Several of our readers have engaged correspondence with Augustus Blackstone, author of The Errant Sovereign s Handbook. In case you are one of those, "Uncle Gus " address has changed to:

Augustus Blackstone

c/o postal service address:

South 921 Monroe Street #5

Spokane, Washington CF 99204 CF

United States of America