Lawless Constitution - Something Called Democracy

[UPDATE Below]

Chris Williams lives in Fortuna and is one of a rare few that actually "gets it." His letter to the Times-Standard Editors is neat, clean, simple to understand, and right on the subject issue. He defines the real war raging within America today. The battle lines are drawn between the law abiding, those that believe in, support and defend the rule of law, versus the corrupt lawless Anarchists that believe they are the Law. Democracy is reduced to mob rule, guilt by accusation and mass anarchy. No one is held responsible for breaking the law and NEVER held accountable for undisputed and admit gross crimes. (Times-Standard Letter to the Editor, May 2, 2014)

 Here is his letter:

First they came for Donald Sterling ...

We must remember that freedom of speech is a right guaranteed to us by our Constitution, and that includes all speech, even if offensive, inaccurate, unpopular or just plain dumb. But, with political correctness running amok in our society today, racist or rude comments, even uttered privately, are now grounds for public condemnation, expulsion, job loss, or more. 

We may all deplore the comments made by Donald Sterling, L.A. Clippers' owner, but he's been unfairly found guilty in the court of public opinion, thanks to selective media outrage. Sterling's alleged words, taped illegally by a vengeful girlfriend in the privacy of his own home, are likely inadmissible in a court of law because secret taping of conversations is illegal in California, yet he's already been tried and convicted by sensation-seeking media and an uninformed public, both eager to rush to judgment. 

The NBA commissioner also over-reacted by banning Sterling for life, imposing a hefty fine, and illegally confiscating his team, as words alone are not legal grounds for confiscating private property. 

That many Americans condone these actions shows a dangerous misunderstanding of our founding principles. Freedom of speech means no one is punished for expressing negative opinions, critical comments, racial slurs, or for just being a jerk. 

We all have the right to freedom of speech, private property, privacy, non-self-incrimination and more, but all of our rights derive from a strongly defended Constitution, which is specifically what makes us free citizens and not enslaved subjects. [Emphasis mine.]

Chris Williams
Fortuna

Currently no one in the U.S. is "strongly defending the Constitution." They may believe they are, but that perception is only a hazy illusion. Everyone believes they have the god-given right to interpret the Law as they see fit - for their own self-interests. Then they go off and do whatever they damned well want to do. And then, Lord have mercy on the poor bastard that dares say anything. You're lucky to get away with your life.

Have a minor problem with your neighbor, call him or her on the telephone or speak to them over the fence, even though you try to keep the conversation civil and decent and the next thing you know you've got two, three even four EPD officers at your door threatening you with all kinds of mayhem for threatening your neighbor or some other such action. Does you no good to deny any such action or statements took place. You called them or spoke to them and that's all they need to know. "Do it again and your ass goes to jail," simple as that. So, tell me how do you work out your, now rather extensive problems with your neighbor? You don't dare say anything. If you do, they use it against you, even if you didn't say anything of the sort to start with. You are in a virtual state of war whether you want to be or not.

So, how often do you actually stop and red lights and stop signs?

[Source]

[UPDATE :: May 6, 2014] - Gangster State America - Where is America’s Democracy?

by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
"Anyone who looks carefully behind the veil of words cannot find democracy in America. For years I have been writing that the US government is no longer accountable to law or to the people (see, for example, my book, How America Was Lost).  The Constitution has been set aside, and the executive branch is degenerating into Caesarism."

--Joe

The Death Of Free Speech

Glenn Greenwald touches on a subject close to my heart: Free Speech Versus Community in his Guardian column for Sunday, October 14, 2012. It is reprinted here for the benefit of all would-be consumers.

---

1) In Sunday's Washington Post, law professor Jonathan Turley has a superb Op-Ed on the gradual death of free speech in the west, and he places the blame squarely where it belongs: on the veneration of "sensitivities" over the free flow of ideas, and relatedly, the adolescent need on the part of many adults to plead with authority figures to shield them from views they find offensive. His essay is well worth reading in full, but here is the crux:

"Free speech is dying in the western world. While most people still enjoy considerable freedom of expression, this right, once a near-absolute, has become less defined and less dependable for those espousing controversial social, political or religious views. The decline of free speech has come not from any single blow but rather from thousands of paper cuts of well-intentioned exceptions designed to maintain social harmony. . . .
"Of course, free speech is often precisely about pissing off other people – challenging social taboos or political values. . . . 

"Such efforts focus not on the right to speak but on the possible reaction to speech – a fundamental change in the treatment of free speech in the West. The much-misconstrued statement of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that free speech does not give you the right to shout fire in a crowded theater is now being used to curtail speech that might provoke a violence-prone minority. Our entire society is being treated as a crowded theater, and talking about whole subjects is now akin to shouting 'fire!' . . . . 

"The very right that laid the foundation for western civilization is increasingly viewed as a nuisance, if not a threat. Whether speech is deemed inflammatory or hateful or discriminatory or simply false, society is denying speech rights in the name of tolerance, enforcing mutual respect through categorical censorship. 

"As in a troubled marriage, the west seems to be falling out of love with free speech. Unable to divorce ourselves from this defining right, we take refuge instead in an awkward and forced silence."

I'm accused with some frequency of focusing my critiques on the US - the reason I do so is set forth here in reasoning I adopt in full - but vibrant free speech protection is a core liberty which the US, though very far from perfect, still safeguards better than most countries.

What has always driven repression of speech are the same universal human traits that are now flourishing as part of this latest effort: the tyrannical thirst for the power to silence ideas one dislikes, the self-regarding belief that one can apply objective principles of decency, "community" and Goodness to decide which modes of expression and which ideas should be barred, authoritarian trust in leaders, and – worst of all – the refusal to understand that endorsing repression of ideas leaves one with no principled grounds to object when one's own ideas end up on the prohibited list.

Throughout history, it has often been the case that today's "hate speech" becomes tomorrow's enlightenment. Today's "incitement" becomes tomorrow's righteous subversion of unjust authority and flawed orthodoxies. Add to all that the ignoble tendency to object to - or even recognize the existence of - repression only when it affects one directly (a dynamic I described here when writing about the inability of many passive, obedient western citizens to acknowledge the repression of their own governments because such citizens are never the ones targeted for repression), and it's clear that the opposition to free expression is grounded in the worst of human attributes.

In sum, it takes a staggering amount of hubris to believe you're in any position to decide which ideas are so objectively and permanently wrong that they should be barred. It takes an equally staggering amount of childishness to want some central authority to protect you from ideas that you find upsetting. And it takes extreme historical ignorance not to realize that endorsing the maintenance of a list of prohibited ideas and then empowering authorities to enforce it will inevitably lead to abusive applications of that power and, sooner or later, will likely result in the suppression of your own ideas as well. [Emphasis added]

---

I reprinted this article because we find the same disease festering in this community (Humboldt County) among local bloggers and newspapers. Those that are out front always beating their chests about promoting and defending free speech are the first to censure over unknown reasons.
[Picture Source]

--Joe

Freedom Of Speech – A Joke and a Joker

[Click to Enlarge]

The “Joke” is today, Wednesday, March 9, 2011, Times-Standard's Editorial and the “Joker” is the person that wrote it. 

The real JOKE is about our so-called “FREE SPEECH and FREE PRESS in this Editorial, “Tainting the message,” is the picture of Sheriff Mike Downey ordering the “media,” an unnamed Times-Standard reporter and photographer to leave the room BEFORE effecting the arrests. Apparently, they (I would guess Donna Tam and Josh Jackson) just tucked their tails between their legs and cleared out without a whimper. 

(I might point out that evidence of a totalitarian police state is that they do everything in secret. Additionally, I don't know why the Sheriff would exclude the local press. They take whatever the police say at face value and publish as if it was the truth anyway.)

This Editorial is about the protest demonstration before the County Board of Supervisor as reported in the Times-Standards front page article: "Richardson Grove protesters arrested for disrupting supervisors' meeting." First a comment about the picture on the front page of the paper, it looks staged and almost farcical. Therein lies the “joke.” I don't think that exactly was the point these “demonstrators” were trying to make. Once again the police make a big production out of arresting and removing six obviously peaceful people from a public building.

“Tainting the message” by “HOW” you say it is just a nice way of blaming the messenger AGAIN! Unfortunately, by their own admission this person is totally clueless as to what that message is supposed to be: “So one has to wonder, what was the point (message)?”

This Editorial writer makes comparison to America's so-called “amazing amount of freedom” to the people in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. If this writer understood what those people were fighting for, AFTER decades of totalitarian, authoritarian, dictatorial rule he or she would know exactly what these six demonstrators were trying to do. Those people are holding their “leaders and government agencies” whatever that means, “government agencies,” some sort of entity I guess, WITH TOTAL CONTEMPT AND DISDAIN.

Where is the freedom to speak when you are told when to speak, how to speak and what to speak? The Editorial says: “The protesters were given the 'opportunity' to speak during public comment. They chose civil disobedience instead and paid the 'usual' price the that choice: arrest.” “Given the opportunity to speak,” so they freely chose to speak by singing, but that is not the way the Supervisor's told them to speak. Apparently these people, according to their letter, had a clear-cut demand, "hold a public forum to discuss this issue," that the Members of the Board refused to address in any manner until these protest demonstrators barked like dog for them. What's the difference between “free speech” and “civil disobedience”? The difference is someone's worthless opinion, that is all. The difference is who controls speech by who defines what constitutes “acceptable” speech and “disrupting” speech.  Why should a person's legally guaranteed free speech rights to “demonstrate” or speak by acting rather than talk, automatically produce criminal arrest? Specially if all they are accused of doing, is nothing more than “child-like theatrics.”

Finally, the Editorial writer should have gotten a clue as to what the protest demonstrators were doing with this statement: “In this case, the protest was not even directed at a decision-maker in the process, ...” So, why didn't they? They, the Times-Standard, knows who these demonstrators are. Why didn't they, in particular Donna Tam, ask one of these protest demonstrators why or what they were hoping to accomplish? Apparently their letter the paper quotes is incapable of explaining sufficiently. Or is it it because she and the Editor would rather speculate? Or, perhaps, is it more likely actually recognizing one of these demonstrators enough to talk to them would be beneath their elitist's sensitivities?

I would point out that right now Muammar Gaddafi and other corrupt despot dictators are saying the same things, different words perhaps, but demonstrating the same demeaning and derogatory attitude, judgments and violent assaults towards the people of Libya and other states that this Editor demonstrates toward members of our community, so-called “free” people trying to express themselves as legitimate citizens and individuals. This statement is extremely insulting and reveals the writer as a corporate demagogue: “Childlike theatrics do little to help promote a message – in fact, they can have the opposite effect.” YEAH, they get you beat – arrested.

This is exactly the same thing an all-powerful, self-righteous and self-absorbed father tells his “disobedient and bad” son just before he beats the hell out of him for trying to talk to his father in the only way the son knows how to talk.

When these protest demonstrators can show me why I should leave the safety of my home and risk a beating for joining their cause, they will have learned the lessons of the Egyptian, Libyan, and Tunisian people's revolt.

--Joe

The Bigot Is Back

[UPDATE Below] [UPDATE II]

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Stancliff knows! HA! HA! HA! -- HAAAH!!!

These are the hate mongering, bigoted words of a man that would be, a god:

"Perhaps most disturbing is the sheer blind hatred coming from this church group."

Only a "god" know what "evil lurks in the hearts of men." Only a would-be god proclaims his self-righteous judgments before all men. The phenomenal reality of Dave Stancliff is that he also proclaims to know how men think and how they feel. Read his words the Times-Standard published in today's As It Stands: "Snyder v. Phelps: a case of free speech or harassment?"

Albert Snyder suffered as only a father can on that horrible day. He didn't want other parents of military sons and daughters to suffer more than necessary when they had to bury a child. They did not deserve to have hate-spewing extremists shatter the sanctity of the ceremony. [Emphasis added]

Yeah! The Shadow knows "hate-spewing extremists" when he sees them, doesn't he?

The self-serving arrogance of the "Dave Stancliff" type of hypocrite is expressed here again and again in his hyperbolic self-righteous tirade against the U.S. Constitution:

In my opinion, this sick church and its 60 members shouldn't be allowed to harass private funerals. *** For Albert Snyder, the case is not about speech rights. It's about harassment, plain and simple. *** Why should anyone be allowed to hijack a private funeral as a vehicle for expression of their hate? *** As a journalist, I respect the First Amendment... *** What this church is doing is wrong. 

This is the same emotionally driven sentiments expressed against the Muslims and against those particular Muslims that are building a Cultural Center near Ground Zero in New York. First Amendment Constitutional rights including the right granted ALL Americans plus the freedom of and the free expression of all religions only applies to the qualified patriotic natural-born Americans as defined by these American wannabe Elitists gods.

As a patriotic American veteran that swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, I doubt anyone thought they'd see the day someone says they "respect" that Constitution by writing and publishing such emotional inspired and blatant hypocritical contravention.

Once again that ugly head of the Thought Police rises up for all to witness. These are not some obscure innocent little children, victims of some obscene child molester. These are the lives of mature adults that made a conscious and deliberate decision to put THEIR lives up for sacrifice to defend, not the "Dave Stancliff's" of this country, but the United States Constitution. These Dave Stancliff's dishonor the value of these lives of these people as they assault this very Constitution with all their emotional blather.

The Great Authority on such matters, Dave Stancliff says:

I'm not sure what God and what Bible he's referring to, as the Christian Bible abhors acts of hatred like his.

You think maybe Stancliff would have everyone believe he's actually referring to the Islamic God and the Koran? My point - what makes Dave Stancliff such an authority on any God or any Bible? Only a wannabe "god" would ever presume such authority to portend such knowledge and personal judgments. The God I worship made this distinction:

"You love what is right and hate what is wrong. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you, pouring out the oil of joy on you more than on anyone else." - Hebrews 1:9 NLT.

 What is "wrong" is judging your fellow man. What is "right" is to "hate what is wrong." Dave Stancliff and all others that express the same state of being need to take Jesus Christ's actual words to heart:

"Do not judge others, so that God will not judge you, for God will judge you in the same way you judge others, and he will apply to you the same rules you apply to others. -Matthew 7:1 GNT.

We can all be sure that none of the parents want to confront the truth of the value sacrificed. In that regard it might be useful to consider these words also written in the Bible, ostensibly about our time. These words are important because they define how God judges men - they are judged by what they are - deluded liars that act on their lies:

"[A]nd in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned (judged) who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. -2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 NIV, NAS.

---

[UPDATE :: Monday, September, 20, 2010]
Copied below are the words of the proven bullying extremist that writes the As It Stands column in the Times-Standard newspaper. Like any neurotic extremist he makes more threats and unproven accusations – this is not the first time he's threatened me either. Dave Stancliff, just read what he publicly writes, certainly has no problem slandering and libeling anyone he judges objectionable. For some people in this country and for all practical purposes, Dave Stancliff's assault on the U.S. Constitution and the people that defend that Constitution, that the Times-Standard published for the general public Sunday, makes him, at the very least, another de facto “hate-spewing extremists.”

The Times-Standard wants letters from the general public, preferably local people, about matters and issues written about and published in their paper. They advertise daily and published this article just last Friday, September 17, 2010: "Getting that letter printed". When these letters object or are critical of the newspaper, their reporters, opinion writers and of some issue or subject, as some obviously and regularly are, do they constitute slander, libel and harassment of the paper or writers?

---

Dave has left a new comment on your post "The Bigot Is Back":
Someday we're going to meet in court Joe.
I'm saving posts like this to prove how you slander and libel me. I thought you were done harassing me...
it seems you just can't just let go of your hatred of me - you hypocrite.
Posted by Dave to Joe Blow Report at September 20, 2010 7:51 AM

---

---

[UPDATE II :: Monday, September 20, 2010]

Are these the words of a rational, sane person with the character and qualities needed to justify writing for the Times-Standard newspaper? Why is it that the newspaper, Kimberly Wear in particular, continues to support and enable this kind of reprehensible conduct and behavior? Is there some reason these people responsible for the Times-Standard are incapable or unwilling to accept the self-manifest truth, or to comprehend that Dave Stancliff's public behavior and conduct directly reflects the paper's ethics, morals and credibility in this community? I've already written to the Times-Standard management and showed them what Dave Stancliff is publicly saying and writing. How bad does it get BEFORE someone responsible for that corporation becomes responsible for this kind of horrendous defamation? It's obvious that Kimberly Wear isn't capable of dealing with this matter. Apparently she's to close to the problem. This community deserves better than a newspaper that enables such unjustified, reprehensible conduct. 

---

Dave has left a new comment on your post "The Bigot Is Back":

What about Rose's comment? I don't see you giving an update on her.
Is that because she know's your so far off base that she disagrees with you?
Does that make Rose a bigot because she disagees with you?
You're such a lying hypocrite.
As far as the Times-Standard letters to the editor policy, they don't print anonymous ramblings from extremist cowards so you'll never get one printed Blow boy.
If you aren't afraid of the truth, let's you and I go to court and see who is slandering and libeling who. You won't do this because you are a coward with some bad past to hide - I recall you saying that you couldn't reveal your real idenity or you would have to move to Peru.
Dark secrets Blow boy?

Posted by Dave to Joe Blow Report at September 20, 2010 12:08 PM 

---

--Joe

S'All BLAH and no HA!

CIA Invests in Software Firm Monitoring Blogs, Twitter
according to Wired reporter Noah Shachtman. He says, "America’s spy agencies want to read your blog posts, keep track of your Twitter updates—even check out your book reviews on Amazon."

Is that all they want to do? Just monitor what's going on in the US blogoshpere?

Notice:

"... But, you know, the way Visible works is it kind of grabs all the blogs and all the tweets out there, then it sorts for certain key words, it sorts for a sentiment about whether things are positive or negative, and then it also sorts based on which bloggers and which tweeters are really important or not. And you can sort of see over time how a conversation develops. Technology then allows companies or the government to respond directly within a blog or within a Facebook page to those people. So, who knows? The commenter—the next commenter on your blog might be the CIA."

They want to get directly involved with their propaganda and disinformation. So, when that "Anonymous" person posts crap to your blog...

Or, comes along behind and takes issue with you...

It could be the CIA! Or maybe it's just S'All Blah and no Ha trying to confuse your poor sorry overworked, stressed and simple-minded efforts to figure out what the real geniuses are trying to say.

Just look for this picture and you'll see a good example what we're talking about. You'll see a true genius at work!

Some people think that posting comments and asking questions that stimulates thinking or exposes an obvious hypocritical lie is tantamount to beating their children or coming-on to their spouse. Some take an abrupt exception. This stuff these people post is way to slick and sophisticated to fall into that trap. The good lookin' gal on the left isn't the only one that's got everyone fooled either. There's some slick guys out here that will make your head ache too. That's why they've all got to be CIA.

All kidding aside, the real story here is not that they, our Government, is monitoring what we are all saying about ourselves, but that they are investing millions of dollars into schools, universities, businesses, local and state governments and agencies. Some of this is done all on the Q.T. -- some not. One way or another, the government just slips in and takes over. They eliminate competition, compromise integrity and reward corruption.  If you don't play ball you get the boot.

--Joe

Legal Extortion – Fine on Suspicion

[Update below]

“Assessed immediately” and “held accountable” Police Chief Garr Nielsen says. You can read the latest “guilty by suspicion” from Allison White for The Times-Standard in the Friday, October 2, 2009, edition: “EPD to fine DUI drivers for emergency response.”

This is as clear-cut an example as you can get of how the government perverts the law and uses their taser-wielding enforcers to extort money. It starts by picking some part of our socially-rejected underclass, in this case supposedly drunk drivers, and singling them out for special treatment. Then authorize any unfortunate encounter with any of these “enforcers” as a suspicious situation, thus making the reject a suspect and now it's open season. Oh! There's a minor regulation supposedly regulating what can and can't be done, but the general outcome has proven they are mostly ignored.

Notice how it's all justified by saying the small fee, $350 is authorized by CA State Law. Just make sure you are in Eureka and the EPD is handling your “emergency response.” Get the CA Highway Patrol involved and you could be paying $12,000!

It's the perversion of the law that is astounding. Eureka City Attorney Sheryl Schaffner says that this fee collection on suspicion is “civil and not criminal.” That's why the “threshold for evidence is not as great.” And takes the cake, “The stakes are also different. Civil consequences are generally money; it not going to cost you your liberty.” Really? We'd like to know just exactly how she defines “liberty.” I guess it's okay with her to walk around naked, homeless and starving – just don't get thrown in jail.

More importantly, how is it that the individual police officer now has the authority and legal right to be accuser, prosecutor, judge and jury in civil matters bypassing all the safeguards the “law” is supposed to provide? Notice how she hedged answering how the “suspect” gets their money back when found “not guilty” of anything. She said, “it is unclear how someone would contest the fee, but there is usually an administrative appeal process through the EPD.” The EPD is going to admit they took the money when they did not have the legal right and then give it back? Not likely. That's what proves the extortion.

Here's the definition of "extortion":

The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon
EXTORTION - The use, or the express or implicit threat of the use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to person, reputation, or property as a means to obtain property from someone else with his consent. USC 18

The Hobbs Act defines "extortion" as "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." 18 U.S.C. S 1951(b)(2).

Don't get us wrong, here. We believe drunk drivers as well as all criminals, either admitted or judged and convicted by a just court should be held accountable. That's why we have judges. They are to dispense punishment whether physical loss of freedom, financial or both in accordance with the law when the law justifies such punishment. Not put it off on the police to enforce some vague civil law, that according to them, won't fill the “general fund” coffers. What it won't do is get a serious backlash for fines sufficient to deter drunk driving should the general populace that drinks and drives realize their jeopardy.

But then how can you not justify this kind of knee-jerk, “the end justifies the means,” way of trying to deal with the lawlessness that pervades our streets? It starts out with “money.” What's next? A summary beating or multiple taserings because the suspect is disobedient and uncivil? More importantly, whose next? The homeless?

[Photo source - Brian Fairrington, Cagle Cartoons]

UPDATE :: Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Here is this opening portion of the "Taser Policy" posted at Civil Liberties Monitoring Project:

308.5 TASER GUIDELINES
When properly applied in accordance with this policy, the Taser is considered a non-deadly control device which is intended to temporarily incapacitate a violent or potentially violent individual without causing serious injury. It is anticipated that the appropriate use of such a device will result in fewer serious injuries to officers and suspects.

Notice the words emphasized: "control device" "incapacitate" WHO? "violent or POTENTIALLY violent" WHO? "suspects" -- Suspicious individuals with a "potential" for "violence." Does that include the potential for verbal violence? Or are they talking about simple non-cooperation?

Be interesting to know what the EPD guidelines are. Couldn't find them posted on the Internet.

--Joe