.

Just Gun Rights ?

HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
They want them ALL..and will NEVER STOP. http://www.federalobserver.com/index.php




Terry: A Tale of Two Cynics
By Mark and Tina Terry



Libertarian columnist Vin Suprynowicz once responded to one of our e-mail pleas for action, in which we suggested that people contact their local congressperson regarding the newest (at the time) assault on the Bill of Rights. In his response, Vin suggested that participating in the congressional beg-a-thon, in which constituents implore Congress to slow the relentless destruction of the Constitution, was patently useless, and, in his usual logical manner, replete with substantial objective foundation, he pointed out that there were simply no good guys left in Congress to contact. Besides, he chided us, why should we have to plead with our congressional representatives to uphold their oaths to defend and protect the Constitution? Why should we even consider pleading with them at all, since they were our servants and we their masters?

Having lived through enough years of watching all three branches of the federal government aggressively dismantle the Constitution, we now believe that, with the possible exception of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, Vin Suprynowicz's stance is indisputable. Not only that, but we believe that today's American citizens find themselves in a no-win position if and when they have complaints against government agents for violations of their constitutional and civil rights.

Does anyone remember the recent IRS hearings before the Senate, in which numerous victims of IRS abuse testified regarding the manner in which their lives had been ruined and their rights subjugated by IRS personnel? Even though the violations were blatantly unconstitutional and damaging, and in almost every case excruciatingly documented, there has been, to our knowledge, not a single instance of a prosecution of any of these rogue agents following the hearings.

Do you ever wonder why there are such rare and minuscule waivers of sovereign immunity by the government for civil and criminal abuses against private citizens? Or why prima facie evidence of crimes committed by federal agents, when presented to the Department of Justice, is almost never investigated, and the crimes almost never prosecuted? (The exceptions are, of course, the rare instance in which the crime is so egregious and note-worthy that public outcry would occur as a result of the government's standard procedure of ignoring the crimes. Then the usual scenario is this: After millions of dollars have been spent on the government's investigation of itself, the government inevitably concludes that none of its agents has committed any unlawful activity whatsoever.

Meanwhile, it has often destroyed or disappeared evidence, and even indicted, prosecuted and imprisoned the very victims of government abuse - a la Ruby Ridge and Waco .)

Do you ever wonder why government-hired killers like Lon Horiuchi manage to escape prosecution for a crime such as shooting a woman armed only with an infant? Why the government agents who shot 14-year-old Sammy Weaver in the back have been awarded honors by the government instead of prison sentences? Or why criminal prosecutions of federal, state and local law enforcement personnel seem almost nonexistent, even after congressional inquiries such as the Senate's toothless, farcical hearings on IRS abuse?

The main reason for this, in our opinion, is that a gross conflict of interest has been built into the very system itself.

Citizens and residents of this country currently do not have reasonable access for the filing of criminal charges against government agents. Since the United States Attorney is the person in office who defends acts committed by United States Government agents, there is an obvious conflict of interest, as well as a reluctance to investigate and prosecute, when evidence is presented to the U.S. Attorney of crimes committed by such agents.

The same holds true for State Attorneys General, and County and District Attorneys. The result of this is that most complaints filed against government agents are promptly and summarily stonewalled and then round-filed, since it is the natural tendency of any entity, including government, to deny and defend itself against any charges of wrong-doing.

Since the Supreme Court has held that citizens do not have a cause of action under Title 18 - the Federal Criminal Code--and thus no one except the government itself can prosecute Title 18 crimes--citizens and residents essentially have no redress whatsoever against criminal actions of government personnel, except for limited civil causes of action.

As long as government followed the constitutional rule of law, this was not a serious problem, because everyone agreed on what was the rule of law, and what constituted violations of the law. Citizens and government officials alike - everyone was held to the same standard of constitutional behavior under the law. But as soon as government stopped being "of the people, by the people and for the people," and took on a life of its own, unfettered by, and utterly contemptuous of, constitutional restrictions, granting itself sovereign immunity in all but rare cases, the result was that government agents became, in essence, exempt from the same laws which governed ordinary citizens, and, worse than that, able to commit crimes against ordinary citizens with impunity and virtually without fear of punishment. The excuse repeatedly used in these cases: They were only "doing their job" and "following orders." (Shades of Nuremburg!) In the process of this shift, "crimes against the state" have become much more serious than crimes committed against citizens - especially crimes committed against citizens by the agents of the increasingly inviolable state.

A perfect example of this is that it is a federal felony for a citizen to lie to a federal employee - but it is not a felony - or even a misdemeanor - for a federal employee to lie to a citizen.

Thus has the servant become the master, and the master the servant.

The result of this sinister shift in the balance of power is this: Citizens and residents do not enjoy equal protection under the law. Civil redress is not an adequate remedy for criminal actions of agents of the state, i.e. government personnel.

Clearly, civil redress does not constitute equal protection for parties criminally injured by government agents. And few people can afford the attorney's fees to prosecute a case defended by the largest law firm in the world--the U.S. Department of Justice - even in the rare cases in which a statutory waiver of sovereign immunity is available.

However, imagine what would happen if regular citizens had access to grand juries - real grand juries, not the ones stacked with government agents and, in essence, directed by the U.S. Attorney, who is there for the sole purpose of "protecting the interests of the state." Present-day grand juries have become virtual rubber-stampers of indictments against citizens for crimes against the state such as "conspiracy," while even getting a complaint against a government agent for committing a criminal act against a citizen in front of such a grand jury is virtually impossible.

If the facts regarding some of the criminal abuses against citizens by government agents could actually be presented to a bona fide grand jury, and these agents could be criminally indicted for their actions, the balance of power could be restored to the citizens themselves, and not held hostage by agents of the state who increasingly protect only the interests of the employees of the state, and not the citizens at large.

Here's our proposal for how this could work: The person against whom the crime has been committed gathers the facts regarding the incident, and then reviews the facts and the law with his or her personal attorney. (Of course, this premise is based upon the "Government in the Sunshine Act," in which the facts of a case should not be held secret from the public.)

If, after reviewing the facts of the case, the attorney then believes that the person against whom the crime has been committed has grounds for an indictment, the attorney and the person then schedule an appearance with a special grand jury--one to which the U.S. Attorney has no access. If the grand jury requires more information, it would, of course, have the power to subpoena any documentation or person required for justice to be served. To this end, if the government denied the grand jury access to the information requested, contempt charges could then be filed against the custodian of the subpoenaed documents, or against government personnel who failed to appear.

This independent grand jury would then review the case, and if the evidence were proven to be valid, it would return a true bill. The government would then be required to pay the person's own attorney as an independent prosecutor in the same amount that government prosecutors make per hour to prosecute a case. The U.S. Attorney, naturally, would defend the criminal act by the government agent (something he or she is already doing anyway).

The above proposed scenario completely eliminates the conflict of interest of the government's both prosecuting and defending its own--the government itself and its agent.

It is a sure bet that, under the above-proposed system, government agents would speedily return to a policy of politely knocking on doors, rather than the current tactic of alphabet soup agencies' "Special Weapons and Tactics" (SWAT) teams blowing doors off their hinges. Such a system could also be effectively used to curtail unlawful seizures and forfeitures, and, indeed, any criminal violation of a citizen's constitutional rights.

It is also a safe bet that the free market would step in to satisfy the needs of any victims of government abuse, as certain law firms would undoubtedly specialize in this sort of litigation if the demand were there.

At one time - when we still na?vely believed that there was any hope in petitioning our Congresscritters -we would have requested that you share this article with your local congressional "representative," and that you ask him or her to sponsor legislation implementing such an independent citizens' grand jury system.

Of course, after you received the response, you too would then have to agree with us that Vin Suprynowicz's dismissal of the congressional beg-a-thon as completely hopeless was right all along.

October 29, 2003

About the Authors
Mark and Tina Terry are a married couple who spend a lot of time thinking about how poignant it is to live in the waning days of the once-great American constitutional Republic. Send the author an email with your comments to [email protected]

Originally published at Strike-the-Root.com.




God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??

Comments

  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    highball: thanks for posting that. The only way out is a 3rd or even 4th party. There are ways to make that happen. If anyone agrees or wants to know how, just ask.

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    I AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • flat8flat8 Member Posts: 887 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Originally posted by tr fox
    highball: thanks for posting that. The only way out is a 3rd or even 4th party. There are ways to make that happen. If anyone agrees or wants to know how, just ask.


    okay, I'm asking!
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    flat8: thank you for asking. The way I see the problem, I'll use myself as an example, is that when I go into the voting booth and have a choice for US President a Democrate, a Republican, a Liberterian, and perhaps even a 4thh party. Now frankly I don't like or trust the Republicians and definately not the Democrats and I would like to see the Liberterian win the election BUT I AM AFRAID TO VOTE FOR HIM/HER. And that fear is because I am almost positive he/she will lose even if I vote for them. And by spending my one vote on the party I really want (the Liberterian) I have cost my second party of choice (Republician) my vote and now the Democrats have a sllightly better chance to win the election. I am bettiing that millions of people find themselves in this same dilemma each time we vote. Here is a way to get out of that dilemma.

    Change the rules to allow each citizen to vote for as many canadidates for each PARTICULAR offices as he/she choses. In my case I vote for the Liberterian AND the Republican. Now I haven't "wasted" my vote but the Liberterian (or party of your choice) now has a much better chance to win or at least have a respectable showing of votes in the election. Even if the Republican wins, he/she might be a little uneasy by the large number of votes the Liberterian got and therefore pay more attention to the citizens and their rights and demands.

    So, if anyone agrees with this idea, the only way it will work is if we all convince the 3rd and 4th parties to save some of their time, money and effort, that they have been using to try and win in elections, and spend that effort on getting the voting laws changed as I have outlined. Until that happens it is highly unlikely any 3rd or 4th party will even win any national election. And I think we need a 3rd or 4th party to change things. I think that is the ONLY thing that will change things for the better.

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • cccoopercccooper Member Posts: 4,044
    edited November -1
  • Horse Plains DrifterHorse Plains Drifter Member Posts: 35,730 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Worthy bump for sure.
  • fyrfinderfyrfinder Member Posts: 205 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Can't be any worse voting for a liberterian than voting for a candidate that backs out before the primaries are finished across the country. [B)]
  • nyforesternyforester Member Posts: 2,574 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Gone silent..........still as deadly !
    Abort Cuomo
  • sovereignmansovereignman Member Posts: 544 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    flat8: thank you for asking. The way I see the problem, I'll use myself as an example, is that when I go into the voting booth and have a choice for US President a Democrate, a Republican, a Liberterian, and perhaps even a 4thh party. Now frankly I don't like or trust the Republicians and definately not the Democrats and I would like to see the Liberterian win the election BUT I AM AFRAID TO VOTE FOR HIM/HER. And that fear is because I am almost positive he/she will lose even if I vote for them. And by spending my one vote on the party I really want (the Liberterian) I have cost my second party of choice (Republician) my vote and now the Democrats have a sllightly better chance to win the election. I am bettiing that millions of people find themselves in this same dilemma each time we vote. Here is a way to get out of that dilemma.

    Change the rules to allow each citizen to vote for as many canadidates for each PARTICULAR offices as he/she choses. In my case I vote for the Liberterian AND the Republican. Now I haven't "wasted" my vote but the Liberterian (or party of your choice) now has a much better chance to win or at least have a respectable showing of votes in the election. Even if the Republican wins, he/she might be a little uneasy by the large number of votes the Liberterian got and therefore pay more attention to the citizens and their rights and demands.

    So, if anyone agrees with this idea, the only way it will work is if we all convince the 3rd and 4th parties to save some of their time, money and effort, that they have been using to try and win in elections, and spend that effort on getting the voting laws changed as I have outlined. Until that happens it is highly unlikely any 3rd or 4th party will even win any national election. And I think we need a 3rd or 4th party to change things. I think that is the ONLY thing that will change things for the better.

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
    Vote your mind and let the chips fall. If we all did it would correct Washington very fast, it would send a message.JMO.
  • sovereignmansovereignman Member Posts: 544 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    They want them ALL..and will NEVER STOP. http://www.federalobserver.com/index.php




    Terry: A Tale of Two Cynics
    By Mark and Tina Terry



    Libertarian columnist Vin Suprynowicz once responded to one of our e-mail pleas for action, in which we suggested that people contact their local congressperson regarding the newest (at the time) assault on the Bill of Rights. In his response, Vin suggested that participating in the congressional beg-a-thon, in which constituents implore Congress to slow the relentless destruction of the Constitution, was patently useless, and, in his usual logical manner, replete with substantial objective foundation, he pointed out that there were simply no good guys left in Congress to contact. Besides, he chided us, why should we have to plead with our congressional representatives to uphold their oaths to defend and protect the Constitution? Why should we even consider pleading with them at all, since they were our servants and we their masters?

    Having lived through enough years of watching all three branches of the federal government aggressively dismantle the Constitution, we now believe that, with the possible exception of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, Vin Suprynowicz's stance is indisputable. Not only that, but we believe that today's American citizens find themselves in a no-win position if and when they have complaints against government agents for violations of their constitutional and civil rights.

    Does anyone remember the recent IRS hearings before the Senate, in which numerous victims of IRS abuse testified regarding the manner in which their lives had been ruined and their rights subjugated by IRS personnel? Even though the violations were blatantly unconstitutional and damaging, and in almost every case excruciatingly documented, there has been, to our knowledge, not a single instance of a prosecution of any of these rogue agents following the hearings.

    Do you ever wonder why there are such rare and minuscule waivers of sovereign immunity by the government for civil and criminal abuses against private citizens? Or why prima facie evidence of crimes committed by federal agents, when presented to the Department of Justice, is almost never investigated, and the crimes almost never prosecuted? (The exceptions are, of course, the rare instance in which the crime is so egregious and note-worthy that public outcry would occur as a result of the government's standard procedure of ignoring the crimes. Then the usual scenario is this: After millions of dollars have been spent on the government's investigation of itself, the government inevitably concludes that none of its agents has committed any unlawful activity whatsoever.

    Meanwhile, it has often destroyed or disappeared evidence, and even indicted, prosecuted and imprisoned the very victims of government abuse - a la Ruby Ridge and Waco .)

    Do you ever wonder why government-hired killers like Lon Horiuchi manage to escape prosecution for a crime such as shooting a woman armed only with an infant? Why the government agents who shot 14-year-old Sammy Weaver in the back have been awarded honors by the government instead of prison sentences? Or why criminal prosecutions of federal, state and local law enforcement personnel seem almost nonexistent, even after congressional inquiries such as the Senate's toothless, farcical hearings on IRS abuse?

    The main reason for this, in our opinion, is that a gross conflict of interest has been built into the very system itself.

    Citizens and residents of this country currently do not have reasonable access for the filing of criminal charges against government agents. Since the United States Attorney is the person in office who defends acts committed by United States Government agents, there is an obvious conflict of interest, as well as a reluctance to investigate and prosecute, when evidence is presented to the U.S. Attorney of crimes committed by such agents.

    The same holds true for State Attorneys General, and County and District Attorneys. The result of this is that most complaints filed against government agents are promptly and summarily stonewalled and then round-filed, since it is the natural tendency of any entity, including government, to deny and defend itself against any charges of wrong-doing.

    Since the Supreme Court has held that citizens do not have a cause of action under Title 18 - the Federal Criminal Code--and thus no one except the government itself can prosecute Title 18 crimes--citizens and residents essentially have no redress whatsoever against criminal actions of government personnel, except for limited civil causes of action.

    As long as government followed the constitutional rule of law, this was not a serious problem, because everyone agreed on what was the rule of law, and what constituted violations of the law. Citizens and government officials alike - everyone was held to the same standard of constitutional behavior under the law. But as soon as government stopped being "of the people, by the people and for the people," and took on a life of its own, unfettered by, and utterly contemptuous of, constitutional restrictions, granting itself sovereign immunity in all but rare cases, the result was that government agents became, in essence, exempt from the same laws which governed ordinary citizens, and, worse than that, able to commit crimes against ordinary citizens with impunity and virtually without fear of punishment. The excuse repeatedly used in these cases: They were only "doing their job" and "following orders." (Shades of Nuremburg!) In the process of this shift, "crimes against the state" have become much more serious than crimes committed against citizens - especially crimes committed against citizens by the agents of the increasingly inviolable state.

    A perfect example of this is that it is a federal felony for a citizen to lie to a federal employee - but it is not a felony - or even a misdemeanor - for a federal employee to lie to a citizen.

    Thus has the servant become the master, and the master the servant.

    The result of this sinister shift in the balance of power is this: Citizens and residents do not enjoy equal protection under the law. Civil redress is not an adequate remedy for criminal actions of agents of the state, i.e. government personnel.

    Clearly, civil redress does not constitute equal protection for parties criminally injured by government agents. And few people can afford the attorney's fees to prosecute a case defended by the largest law firm in the world--the U.S. Department of Justice - even in the rare cases in which a statutory waiver of sovereign immunity is available.

    However, imagine what would happen if regular citizens had access to grand juries - real grand juries, not the ones stacked with government agents and, in essence, directed by the U.S. Attorney, who is there for the sole purpose of "protecting the interests of the state." Present-day grand juries have become virtual rubber-stampers of indictments against citizens for crimes against the state such as "conspiracy," while even getting a complaint against a government agent for committing a criminal act against a citizen in front of such a grand jury is virtually impossible.

    If the facts regarding some of the criminal abuses against citizens by government agents could actually be presented to a bona fide grand jury, and these agents could be criminally indicted for their actions, the balance of power could be restored to the citizens themselves, and not held hostage by agents of the state who increasingly protect only the interests of the employees of the state, and not the citizens at large.

    Here's our proposal for how this could work: The person against whom the crime has been committed gathers the facts regarding the incident, and then reviews the facts and the law with his or her personal attorney. (Of course, this premise is based upon the "Government in the Sunshine Act," in which the facts of a case should not be held secret from the public.)

    If, after reviewing the facts of the case, the attorney then believes that the person against whom the crime has been committed has grounds for an indictment, the attorney and the person then schedule an appearance with a special grand jury--one to which the U.S. Attorney has no access. If the grand jury requires more information, it would, of course, have the power to subpoena any documentation or person required for justice to be served. To this end, if the government denied the grand jury access to the information requested, contempt charges could then be filed against the custodian of the subpoenaed documents, or against government personnel who failed to appear.

    This independent grand jury would then review the case, and if the evidence were proven to be valid, it would return a true bill. The government would then be required to pay the person's own attorney as an independent prosecutor in the same amount that government prosecutors make per hour to prosecute a case. The U.S. Attorney, naturally, would defend the criminal act by the government agent (something he or she is already doing anyway).

    The above proposed scenario completely eliminates the conflict of interest of the government's both prosecuting and defending its own--the government itself and its agent.

    It is a sure bet that, under the above-proposed system, government agents would speedily return to a policy of politely knocking on doors, rather than the current tactic of alphabet soup agencies' "Special Weapons and Tactics" (SWAT) teams blowing doors off their hinges. Such a system could also be effectively used to curtail unlawful seizures and forfeitures, and, indeed, any criminal violation of a citizen's constitutional rights.

    It is also a safe bet that the free market would step in to satisfy the needs of any victims of government abuse, as certain law firms would undoubtedly specialize in this sort of litigation if the demand were there.

    At one time - when we still na?vely believed that there was any hope in petitioning our Congresscritters -we would have requested that you share this article with your local congressional "representative," and that you ask him or her to sponsor legislation implementing such an independent citizens' grand jury system.

    Of course, after you received the response, you too would then have to agree with us that Vin Suprynowicz's dismissal of the congressional beg-a-thon as completely hopeless was right all along.

    October 29, 2003

    About the Authors
    Mark and Tina Terry are a married couple who spend a lot of time thinking about how poignant it is to live in the waning days of the once-great American constitutional Republic. Send the author an email with your comments to [email protected]

    Originally published at Strike-the-Root.com.




    God,Guts,& Guns<BR>Have we lost all 3 ??<BR>


    We truly live in a despotic controlled society, but we can fix it if
    the populace would get off it's *.

    The Red Beckman meeting's we attended a few years back taught myself and others that attended much about the power of the jury and Grand Jury. The manipulation of our jury system by despotic government officials can only happen when the majority of Americans remain ignorant of their God given power to reign in despotic government.



    He was a very astute teacher.
Sign In or Register to comment.