Movie Night: Pante 3

Staff Writer, DL Mullan 
Government / History 
____________________________________

Pante 3

State capture and martial law in the US; Governors of 50 states and Adjutants General refused to declare the Constitution of 1789 in effect; Federal Judges masquerading; they are not sitting in courts under Article III of the Constitution - the US is in interregnum, and the nations of the world are in a Global Currency Reset.

Source: Karen Hudes

Supreme Court Supports Police State and You Are No Longer Secure Anywhere

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

Bill of Rights / Supreme Court

___________________________________________

The Supreme Court yet again has shown the American People how irrelevant it has become.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices have decided that the the Fourth Amendment allows for warrantless searches and seizures because you are not at home to refuse the police, have been arrested, or your roommate can approve such a search without your consent. 

"We therefore hold that an occupant who is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason," Alito said.

As well in this case the Supreme Court went back on its decision of when two occupants disagree about letting the police in are present, the objecting occupant prevails. The justices ruled in 2006 in a 5-3 decision. That decision is now null and void. 

The case that changed the definition of the Fourth Amendment is as follows:

Police found a shotgun, ammunition and a knife when they searched the Los Angeles apartment that Walter Fernandez shared with his girlfriend, Roxanne Rojas.

Fernandez told police they could not enter. But shortly after his arrest, officers returned to the apartment and persuaded Rojas to let them in.

Fernandez is serving a 14-year prison term on robbery and guns charges.

When Rojas first answered the door for police, she was crying and holding her 2-month-old baby. She had a fresh bump on her nose, and blood on her hands and shirt. She said she had been in a fight.

At that point Fernandez appeared and ordered the police to get out, telling them he knew his constitutional rights. The police believed the couple had just been in a fight and removed Fernandez from the apartment in handcuffs. An officer noticed a tattoo on Fernandez' shaved head that matched the description of a robbery suspect. Fernandez soon was arrested.

California maintained in its argument at the court that police had enough evidence at that point to get a warrant. But they said one was unnecessary because Rojas had the authority to let them in, despite Fernandez's earlier objection.

The court agreed with that proposition Tuesday.

The case is Fernandez v. California, 12-7822.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissenting argument that "Fernandez's objection to the search did not become null upon his arrest and removal from the scene." A person being arrested for anything including domestic violence has not given up their rights. It's called due process, innocent before proven guilty, but the High Court no longer views Americans in this light.   

To refresh the memories of the Supreme Court, the Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Supreme Court keeps introducing new decisions that vacate our rights and freedoms for the growth of the police state. This behavior of not providing checks and balances on the Executive Branch but encouraging such inequalities is inappropriate. It appears the Supreme Court wants the police, government, and military to be lawless within our own borders.

In this decision, is the Supreme Court sanctioning future edicts for martial law?


Source: AP, FindLaw, 

Checkpoint Charlie: Militarization of Everyday Living

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

Government / News / Martial Law

_____________________________________

Amber Lyon has a new book out: Peace, Love, and Pepperspray. It is a photographic look into protest. Even the protests here in the United States, not just overseas, does she document. What you will find will send chills up your spine.

In the interview on Buzzsaw (please go view now), we see how: Americans' rights to protest and freedom of speech are being eradicated, journalism through corporate intervention is destroying news, and Posse Comitatus is being eviscerated with the militarization of our police force.

The three time Emmy Award winner, Lyon, sees how America is becoming a third world nation via the policies and politics of the United States government against its own citizens. The agenda is not because of terrorism. The fundamental accusation is that you are the terrorist.

For a moment, let's digress and read about Posse Comitatus:

20 Stat. L., 145

June 18, 1878

CHAP. 263 - An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, and for other purposes.

SEC. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section And any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.

10 U.S.C. (United States Code) 375

Sec. 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel:

The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

18 U.S.C. 1385

Sec. 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Editor's Note: The only exemption has to do with nuclear materials (18 U.S.C. 831 (e)

However in America today thanks to laws like the (un)Patriot Act and NDAA, police forces that hire combat ready troops from recent military discharge, and military equipment given to local police exhibits in no uncertain terms that Posse Comitatus is a honor code of long past. 

No longer are Americans safe. Safe from their own government. Safe from their local police force. 

In California, police were out in riot gear to quell a protest by women, children, and unarmed men as Anaheim became Afghanaheim. Texas has forced checkpoints for breath, blood, and urine samples as well as the police attacked peaceful protestors at the recent JFK 50th Memorial. And if your protest is peaceful, police have been seen going undercover to start violence and create vandalism where there was none. All documented facts.

Police are the ones out of control. If a police officer has to engage a crowd unlawfully, then that officer needs to reassess his participation. The Bill of Rights is very clear on this matter.

Let's take a look at the First Amendment: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere in the First Amendment does the right of the government supersede the rights of the individual citizens. No government intervention is allowed. No police force to intimidate or beat protestors is allowable either.

Where does this so-called right of police to harm peaceful Americans come from? This criminal behavior is not sanctioned by the highest law of the land. What is going on?

So the question becomes... is it more than unlawful treatment of the people or has it slid onto the scale of treason?

Yep, there the accusation is: Treason. So let's read the law:

18 USC § 2381 - Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

"Levies war against them..." sounds like what is happening now. A government using its peace officers to commit crimes against the people of the United States. According to the Nuremberg prinicples, just following orders does not relieve a person from their criminal behavior.

So the question is asked again: is attacking peaceful protestors against the Constitution for which peace officers are sworn to uphold constitute a form of treason?

Until Americans come to grips with the realities of the day and begin demanding reinstatement of their rights, then the common person will be subject to Checkpoint Charlie as martial law invades their communities a little by little until everyone is desensitized into their role of papers, please.

Source: Buzzsaw, dojgov, Muckraker, Cornell Law