Being A Criminal

As in just about every other culture on the planet, Americans are raised to respect "authority." They are taught that obedience is a virtue, and that the measure of whether you're a good person is whether you're a "law-abiding taxpayer" who "plays by the rules." Likewise, we're taught that the bad guys are all "criminals" who "have a problem with authority."

People with brains have a problem with authority. And while being at odds with "authority" and "the law" does not automatically make someone a good person, it also doesn't automatically make someone bad, either. Whether someone respects and honors the individual rights of other people is what matters. The trouble is, so many people, including those in the pro-freedom "movement," still have a desire to receive the approval of authority.

Try asking yourself, or the people you know, "Are you willing to be a criminal?" Most will vehemently say no. But why? These days, when politician scribbles are called "laws," what does it mean to be a "criminal" anyway? All it means is that someone disobeyed any one of the myriad of arbitrary politician commands and demands. Why should anyone feel bad about that? (The truth is, by that definition we're ALL criminals, since the sheer volume of "laws" makes it impossible to even KNOW all of them, and impossible to obey them all.)

But shouldn't "laws" against murder and theft be obeyed? Yes and no. People should refrain from committing theft and murder, but NOT because there are "laws" against them. Theft and murder are wrong because they deprive others of their rights, not because some political windbags sat down and scribbled a "law" about it. In fact, most thefts and murders that occur today are seen as necessary, if not good, because those crimes have been declared "legal" (and are called "taxation" and "war").

So my question for today is, are YOU willing to be a criminal? By that, I'm not asking if you're willing to commit real crimes--the kind with victims--because I hope you're not. I'm asking whether you would ever be willing to do the right thing, even when "authority" tells you to do the wrong thing. If not, please stop pretending to be pro-freedom.

With all of the lobbying in favor of or against this or that legislation, or in favor of or against this or that politician, the supposedly pro-freedom "movement" is constantly reinforcing the notion that we need the PERMISSION of tyrants to be free. If we have unalienable rights, then by definition, we don't NEED any "law" or any "government" to bless our freedom. If, for example, we have the RIGHT to say what we think, then we have the right to use outright force to stop anyone from trying to silence us. If we have the RIGHT to be armed, then we have the right to shoot any "law- enforcers" who try to disarm us. If we have the RIGHT to not be randomly stopped, interrogated, searched, and so on, then we have the right to forcibly RESIST when the American fascists try to do those things to us. And the fact that open resistance to tyranny is "illegal"--as it always has been throughout history--doesn't make a speck of difference.

Of course, resisting control freaks is often hazardous, and one must pick his battles carefully. Nonetheless, I ask you all again, are you ready to be criminals? The way things are going, you will very soon have to choose between being at odds with "authority" or being a completely conquered sheep. The megalomaniacs won't give you another option. So which will it be? Are you capable of doing the RIGHT thing, even when doing so puts you at odds with "government," "the law," "the police," and all the other superstitions which the belief in "authority" spawns?

Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com

P.S. It's a little ironic that my own "criminal record" consists of one "crime" that I didn't actually commit.

P.P.S. While I hope my new book, "The Iron Web," wakes up a lot of "normal" people, the way Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" did, I also want it to spread through the freedom movement--as it seems to be doing--to shake a lot of "semi-advocates" of freedom out of their remaining authoritarian mindset, so they stop wasting so much time and effort on begging the tyrants to let us be free.

P.P.P.S. I couldn't be more thrilled--almost embarrassed, actually-- that in his review of "The Iron Web" for Strike the Root, Jim Davies called my book "the best work of fiction I have read this Century." (And I didn't even have to bribe or threaten him!) The entire review can be found here: http://www.strike-the-root.com/91/davies/davies10.html

Quotes

"The only way for a reporter to look on a politician is down." H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

"The mere title of Lawyer is sufficient to deprive a man of public confidence. The most innocent and irreproachable life cannot guard a lawyer against the hatred of his fellow citizens." --John Q. Adams

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971).

"If we know the truth, we must tell it; if we don't, we must learn it!" It is critical to our spirit.

"It is not the function of our government to keep the Citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the Citizen to keep the government from falling into error." American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442.

Cops: Public Servants or Fascist Pigs? (Part 6)

Larken is in top form again. I agree with him. The problem is that we have an entrenched paradigm of inherited "English" law. If you care to study the history of "Law" in Europe you will find that there was a better form of law the preceded English common law. It was Celtic Law. Celts are the ancient peoples of Europe. Their ancient law form was egalitarian, fair, not respecting of rank other than if you were of a higher rank than you had more obligation to follow the law. If you didn't then your punishment was greater. These laws were eventually codified as what is known as Irish laws.

The beginning of the 17th Century saw English law and rule prevail in Ireland and the Irish laws outlawed and declared barbarous. These "barbarous" laws had been what had kept the English from implanting its feudal system in Ireland and from completing its conquest of Ireland for four centuries. These ancient "barbarous" laws of Ireland have since been recognized as the most advanced system of jurisprudence in the ancient world, a system under which the doctrine of the equality of man was understood and under which a deeply humane and cultured society flourished.

These ancient Irish laws have come to be called The Brehon Laws from the Irish term "Brehon" which was applied to the official lawgiver. They were transmitted orally and with extreme accuracy from generation to generation by a special class of professional jurists called Brithem (judge in early Gaelic). These laws are of great antiquity and antedate the coming of the Celts to Ireland. St. Patrick is credited with codifying these laws in the 5th Century. His efforts fill five volumes and are known as the Senchus Mor. its ordinances are named C'ain Padraic after St. Patrick. These five volumes which have come down to us, however, are only a small portion of the old Irish laws which covered almost every relationship and every fine shade of relationship, social and moral, between man and man.

While the Brehon, or lawgiver, administered the law, the aggregate wisdom of nine leading representatives was necessary to originate a law or to abolish it. The nine needed for the making of a law were the chief, poet, historian, landowner, bishop, professor of literature, professor of law, a noble, and a lay vicar. Impartiality is the salient characteristic of all the laws for all the ranks. The king himself was bound by law to do justice to his meanest subject. The democracy of these laws is shown in dozens of ways. For example, a king carrying building material to his castle had the same and only the same claim for right of way as the miller carrying material to build his mill (no blocking the way for common folk as the "motorcade" comes through); the poorest man in the land could compel payment of a debt from a noble or could levy a distress upon the king himself (no "sovereign immunity"); the man who stole the needle of a poor embroidery woman was compelled to pay a far higher fine than the man who stole the queen's needle.

The Brehon Law was based on an individual's identity, defined in terms of clan and personal wealth. Honor was evaluated in terms of personal wealth and each person's wealth or honor price reflected his legal status in the community. In the sight of the law, the bishop, king, chief poet, and public hospitaller (person who owned and operated guest houses for no fee) were in the same rank and a like fine or honor price was payable for the killing of any of the four. The Irish law expected most from those who had received the most from God. For example, a member of the clergy might be fined double that of a lay person for the same offense. For certain offenses, lay people of rank were deprived of half their honor price for the first offense and all their honor price for the third offense. Clerics, on the other hand, would not only lose all their honor price for the first offense, but would be degraded as well. An ordinary cleric could, by doing penance and suffering punishment, win back his grade; a cleric of higher rank, such as a bishop, however, not only lost his honor price and was degraded for the first offense, but he could never again regain his position.

The Brehon Law applied to all areas of life and reflects the values of the people. While women in the Western World have been emancipated for less than a century, women in ancient Ireland were nearly on an equal footing with men. They were queens in their own right and led troops into battle. Women always held a place of respect in Celtic society and were accorded their rights as well. It took English law and civilization "to put women in their place." Ironically, the stamping out of the Brehon Laws, and with them the rights of women, was finally accomplished under Queen Elizabeth of England.

In ancient Ireland, under Brehon Law, the lowest clansman stood on an equal footing with his chieftain. For example, it is recorded that when several Irish Kings visited Richard II in Dublin, the Irish kings sat down to dinner with their minstrels and entire retinue as was their custom. The English were appalled by such a display of egalitarianism and soon rearranged things so that the Irish royalty ate separately from the rest of their attendants. The Irish gave in to this demand of the English in order to be courteous guests even though it went very much against their inclination and custom.

Unfortunately for us we have inherited the English system with all its warts, bad teeth and BO. Remember the Sheriff of Nottingham? How is he that different from today's fascist policy enforcement porcines? Not much. Both are unquestioning toadies to an elite class trying to stay out of the reach of the common person.

It is time for a paradigm shift!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cops: Public Servants or Fascist Pigs? (Part 6)

By Larken Rose

Once again, it's time to determine whether American "police" are noble public servants or fascist pigs. The good news is, rendering a verdict this time can easily be done after the first four seconds (literally) of the example video (which is about eight minutes long):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

Now, I don't think this needs much explanation. Beating up little old ladies, in their own houses, in order to disarm them? Randomly disarming everyone, right and left, pointing GUNS at them in the process, when there wasn't even the suspicion that the people had committed any crimes? Barging into homes and destroying property without a shred of due process, without even the allegation that the person had done anything wrong? Do I really need to point out that any "officer" who would engage in such things is a fascist pig? I hope not. Here's some more Nazi thuggery, in case you needed any:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm5PC7z79-8

But what's worth pointing out here is that this is NOT a case of a "bad apple" here and there. This was widespread, premeditated, officially-sanctioned fascism. When you have the damn chief of police openly declaring that he and his fellow Nazi swine intended to disarm EVERYONE (except themselves, of course), then don't tell me that I shouldn't say that ALL American police are fascist pigs.

In that second clip, one fascist swine, Chris Montgomery, this time from the "National Guard" (I wonder who's going to guard us from the "guard"?) laments how tough it is to have the job of being a fascist pig, disarming, maybe even SHOOTING Americans. Sorry, but I don't sympathize. In fact, if the local fascists in YOUR town ever declare that they are going to disarm everyone, and you see Chris Montgomery and his fellow Nazis walking down your street, you would be absolutely justified in shooting that fascist bastard in the head at the first opportunity, and shooting every other jackboot who is with him. When they've openly declared their unconstitutional, illegal, immoral, tyrannical intentions, what more justification could you possibly need?

Once again, let me state the obvious truth: if you have a RIGHT to self-defense, and the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, then by definition you DON'T NEED "government" permission to do so. And, in fact, when authoritarian thugs tell you that you don't have the right, you STILL DO, and you have the right to use whatever force is necessary to protect your rights, including shooting jackboots.

I wonder how many fascist thugs in New Orleans did things that would have justified their intended victims blowing their damn heads off. Probably almost all of them (at least all of the ones shown in those videos). On the other hand, I wonder how many cops DIDN'T violate everyone's rights? Any? Were there ANY "law enforcement" people in New Orleans who REFUSED to partake in the officially-sanctioned Gestapo garbage? I haven't heard of any.

So don't complain when I say that ALL American police today are fascist pigs. When I see some evidence to the contrary--like someone with a badge, a spine, and a brain (if anyone in the country still has all three) doing something to STOP the police state absurdities going on all over then country, then I might regain a speck of respect for "law enforcement." But not before.

Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com

Cops: Public Servants or Fascist Pigs? (Part 5)

He is right you know. ALL cops are bad cops. ALL cops are fascist pigs. If they were good people they would not be cops. It is either abuse by commission or abuse by omission. Either way they are abusive of your rights by blindly carrying out unlawful but "legal" orders. They are the enforcers of the statutory corporate policies of the ruling junta under the guise of "law." Face it folks. This is one of the points of conflict in the undeclared American civil war between freedom and despotism. The poLice of today are no different than the Redcoats of yesterday.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com

(Warning: My language gets a little caustic in the message below, but nothing worse than a PG rating.)

Once again, it's time to put American "law enforcement" to the test, to see if they are noble public servants, or fascist pigs. This time, let's have some audience participation. Let's play, "Spot the Fascist Pig" while viewing the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5Kl8Abi7ag

So, did you have any trouble spotting the fascist pig? Well, let's see. Did you choose the sadistic bastard beating up the defenseless girl (Deputy Pig Paul Sheen)? If so, you only get a "C." While it's very likely that that thug was indeed a fascist pig, the evidence in this video didn't actually prove that.

Again, let's remain clear in our terminology. "Officer" Sheen is obviously a sadistic piece of excrement, but was there actual evidence of the fascist mindset? Not really. Someone who doesn't pretend to be "authority" could still exhibit such violent, bullying behavior. As a result, the violence, by itself, is NOT proof of genuine fascism. I guess one could make a case that anyone who would characterize a girl daintily kicking off her shoe as "assaulting an officer" is pretty likely to be a fascist pig, but it's not nearly the strongest case shown in the video.

I know the video is unpleasant to watch--at least if you're a human being--but I ask that you watch it again, keeping your eyes on the OTHER cop. Here is the link again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5Kl8Abi7ag

Now recall the test for fascism. Does that guy--the one NOT actually beating up the defenseless girl--look like his goal is to protect the innocent? Hardly. Does he look like a defender of truth and justice? Uh, no. Does his failure to intercede, and in fact his assistance in the assault (though relatively minor), show that he is a fascist pig whose loyalty is to his fellow thugs, no matter what they may be doing? Absolutely. Being able to assist in such abuse and oppression when one is NOT enraged is a BETTER indication of the fascist mindset than someone having a violent temper tantrum (which may instead merely indicate that someone is a stupid, violent animal).

But even if you chose the thug's "assistant" as the fascist pig in this case, you still only get a "B." It was really a trick question. The correct answer was: the thug's assistant AND the "spokesman" for the gang of Nazi swine, who refused to condemn actions that were obviously illegal, unjustifiable, and downright despicable. Instead of openly condemning such blatant evil, Sergeant Jim Laing, like the spineless little worm he is, refuses to comment. (I'm assuming the guy is the fascist gang's "spokesman," but what good is a "spokesman" who refuses to SAY anything?)

Several people, including my brilliant wife, have recently taken issue with me seeming to imply that ALL police are "fascist pigs." Well, that is EXACTLY what I am implying, and this is a perfect example of WHY I believe that. Being fascist pigs is OFFICIAL POLICE POLICY across the country. The other cop in the room, does he try to stop the vicious attack committed by his fellow "officer"? No. Does he even seem slightly shocked or surprised? No. He calmly ASSISTS in the abuse.

I'm sure many of you would have many well-deserved, less-than- complimentary words for the thug himself, but I'd like to add a few for the thug's "assistant": You are a worthless, cowardly piece of crap. You don't deserve a shred of respect, regardless of your stupid badge and your imagined "authority." You are not a man, you aren't even a human being. I hope everyone you know, all your friends and family, see that video, and see what kind of spineless maggot you are. And I appreciate you giving such a fine example of how courageous and principled the "men and women in blue" are. You are a Nazi pig, and you'd be doing the world a favor if you go jump off the nearest cliff.

While I'm at it, how about a few words for the floundering, evasive police "spokesman"? Dear Mr. Spineless propagandist. You would have made Joseph Goebbels proud. My only hope is that some day some noble "law enforcement" officers, not realizing that you are a member of their club of inferiority complex, sadistic scumbags, beat the living hell out of you, until one of two things happen: 1) you die, or; 2) you suddenly find yourself able to identify evil as EVIL, even when it is committed by one of your fellow "officers."

One--just ONCE--I want to hear some police "spokesman," when asked about such a blatant example of police abuse, say something like, "I think that Officer Paul Sheen is a cowardly piece of crap, and given the chance, I'd gladly pound the living hell out of him myself." When THAT happens, instead of their predictable butt- covering, obfuscating and excuse-making, THEN I might regain some respect for "law enforcement." Until then, they're all fascist pigs as far as I'm concerned.

Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com

(P.S. As I'm finishing up this message, it's coming up on 11:00 p.m. And as luck would have it, just down the road from my house, the local fascists have once again set up their warrantless, suspicionless, random stop of everyone, in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. So how many cops do you think refused to participate in it? I'm guessing: NONE. So does anyone still want to complain when I say that ALL American cops are fascist pigs? Being fascist pigs is now OFFICIAL POLICY of all American police departments. And you'll see more evidence of that in upcoming messages.)

Cops: Public Servants or Fascist Pigs? (Part 4)

Boy is Larken on a roll!!! The fascist anal orifice porcines must be stopped or they will continue to think that they can get away with this behavior. If you can't sue them into compliance, and if you can't embarass or shame them into compliance then all that is left is for vigilante heros to give to them what they have given to others.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cops: Public Servants or Fascist Pigs? (Part 4)

By Larken Rose
Once again, it's time to take another look at American "law enforcement" in action, to determine if they are noble and brave public servants who deserve our utmost respect, or if they are fascist pigs who deserve our scorn and condemnation. So here is today's example (only a few minutes long):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZW0gGKKYMg

During the incident shown on that video, most of the cop's comments demonstrate that he is a belligerent jerk and an obnoxious butthead, but that's not really what we're looking for. The fascist mindset is more than just being rude, or even being a bully. So, for example, when the cop yells at the kid, assaults him (in a relatively minor way), pushes him to the ground, threatens to smack him in the head for his "attitude," and steals his skateboard--not to mention making what is basically a veiled death threat--that shows that the DUDE is a basically rotten human being, who certainly should NOT have a badge, or ever be given any power over anyone. But it does not, by itself, prove that he is an honest-to- goodness fascist. The indications of THAT are more subtle.

Once again, here is the test for whether a cop is a fascist or not:

A NON-fascist cop, when he looks out at the world, would see lots of good people, whom he would want to protect, and would never want to harm, intimidate, or even inconvenience unnecessarily. His goal would be to find the nasty people in the world, and see to it that they are prevented from harming any of the decent people.

A FASCIST cop, on the other hand, would view everyone as his inferior, to be controlled, interrogated, or even abused at will. He sees himself, a representative of "authority," as having the right to forcibly impose his will on anyone he wants, whenever he wants, for any reason (or no reason) and the right to use outright violence against any who do not obey his every whim.

So, aside from being a bully and a thug, what indications do we see of "Officer" Rivieri's view of the world? Well, he seems to think that when HE is talking, "you shut your mouth." He also gets rather dramatically offended when someone calls him "dude"--which was the cause of his prolonged, delusional temper tantrum to begin with. (Of all the teenagers out there in the world, the one in the video seems to be rather LOW on the rudeness scale.) The cop also orders the kid to sit down, suggesting that he likes to be standing over people.

What do all those things tell us about this cop? They tell us that he loves DOMINATING other people. In other words, he loves pretending to be AUTHORITY--the one with the right to boss everyone else around. Notice how vehement he is about being called "OFFICER Rivieri." (Personally, I think "Nazi Swine Rivieri" would be more appropriate, but that's just me.) He repeatedly demands "respect," which, in that context, obviously means that he wants everyone else treating him as their SUPERIOR.

And the dead giveaway--the FIRST thing he complains about to the kid--is that the kid "disrespected me, this badge, and my department." By doing what? By not groveling to the master, obviously. The kid didn't fight, didn't resist, didn't yell, and didn't do any of the other things he would have been perfectly justified in doing. In the eyes of Fuhrer Rivieri, the kid committed blasphemy by calling GOD ALMIGHTY "dude." Because Mr. Rivieri is no mere mortal. Oh, no. He is a representative of AUTHORITY, and thus must be obeyed without question, and treated at all times as a superior being!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the mindset of a fascist pig.

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The poLice culture of corruption and abuse is pandemic. Sometimes the cops are punished. However, it is usually a lighter sentence or fine than if it were you or I. The only thing that bullies understand is retributive force be it legal or extra-lawful.

• Two St. Louis cops accused of lying on multiple search warrant affidavits.
• Guard gets probation for fondling three female inmates
• FBI workers accused of spying on dressing room
• Off Duty NYPD Officer blocks fire hydrant while shopping, then comes after photographer
• Cop arrests man for allegedly calling him a little bitch
• Deputy US marshal accused of leaking witness protection information
• Customs officer pleads guilty to drug trafficking and bribery charges
• Cop who aided suspects in church-based financial fraud gets probation, and must move to a different state to continue his career in law enforcement
• Police Chief gets 33 months on weapons charges
• Cop is accused of tipping off drug dealers
• Police Chief gets 41 months for civil rights abuses
• Police Chief, already jailed for sexual assault on 14-year-old, gets 30 months for beating motorist
• More Philadelphia police officers linked to allegedly tainted cases
• Sheriff's Office says cop did nothing wrong in investigation of blogger for posts crical of his pastor
• More drug convictions challenged over cop's enthusiastic perjury
• Cop gets three years for stealing half million dollars
• Bail for drunk driving cop in fatal wreck with curious record of receiving tickets for serious driving infractions but having tickets tossed
• Cops say they didn't use pepper spray or mace on protesters, but video says cops are lying
• Video backs witnesses' claims and contradicts police account; police seen as obstructive, their faces obscured, ID hidden
• Rampart scandal officer takes 5th
• Cop pleads guilty to molesting girlfriend's teenage daughter
• Prosecuting police an uphill battle; convictions are rare
• Cop kills 20-year-old while driving 90 mph in a 45 without lights or siren in violation of state law, and police are "still investigating" a week later ... while civilian who killed someone speeding in the same city during the same week was charged with murder within 24 hours
• Police Chief wins argument with wife by repeatedly tasering her
• Fort Worth pays $50,000 to settle lawsuit after cop beats deaf motorist
• G-20 bystander who died was attacked from behind by baton-wielding police officer
• Houston cop indicted in baseball player's shooting
• Ex-LAPD officer gets a year in jail for fabricating story
• Cop gets suspended sentence for assault
• "I wouldn’t go to the police in future", says kid who was arrested for turning in found cell phone
• Girl, 14, charged with felony after throwing pretzels, shoe at officers

Cops: Public Servants or Fascist Pigs? (Part 2&3)

Cops: Public Servants or Fascist Pigs? (Part 3)

Once again Larken hits the nail on the pin head of the fascist police state mentality. COPS ARE NOT YOUR FREINDS!!! There is NO place in America for what this this kind of "law" enforcement has become. Today's poLice have very little difference from how the Nazi Gestapo, the East German Stasi and the USSR's MVD/KGB operated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cops: Public Servants or Fascist Pigs? (Part 3)

Again, this series of messages is addressing the question, are today's American "law enforcers" noble public servants, or fascist pigs? Ironically, I remembered a video I had seen that was really bad, but that I did NOT consider evidence of the fascist mindset. I was GOING to reference the video as an example of the fact that cops being rude, obnoxious, even violent, or using bad judgment, is not necessarily proof that they think like fascists. They might just be bullies, or hot-tempered morons. So I looked for the example I had seen before, of a rather large off-duty cop brutally beating a petite female bartender, because she didn't want to give the violent drunk any more alcohol (go figure).

What I was GOING to say about the video was that, while it may demonstrate that cops can be stupid, abusive, violent alcoholics (and they are, more often than the general public), it's not what I'm talking about when I say that they are fascists. However, when I looked up the video again, the aftermath of the event gives a perfect example of how "police" ARE fascist pigs.

Once again, the goal here is to determine which of the following best describes American police today:

A NON-fascist cop, when he looks out at the world, would see lots of good people, whom he would want to protect, and would never want to harm, intimidate, or even inconvenience unnecessarily. His goal would be to find the nasty people in the world, and see to it that they are prevented from harming any of the decent people.

A FASCIST cop, on the other hand, would view everyone as his inferior, to be controlled, interrogated, or even abused at will. He sees himself, a representative of "authority," as having the right to forcibly impose his will on anyone he wants, whenever he wants, for any reason (or no reason), and the right to use outright violence against any who do not obey his every whim.

So let's consider this example, and see what we can learn from it. Here is the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49kgG0s7lVk

The video of the original beating clearly demonstrates that "officer" Anthony Abbate is a violent sadistic bastard, not to mention a mean drunk. However, it doesn't by itself prove that he's a fascist pig. Being a vicious scumbag who likes to beat up petite women is not a good quality. And giving someone like that a badge and a gun seems like a stunningly bad idea. But he may be merely a stupid, power-happy animal, rather than a genuine fascist.

(It would have been nice if some of the other people who were there had had the spine to actually DO something about it. Yeah, the scumbag is a big guy, but he was also so sloshed that his swings missed a stationary target several times. I doubt a target that swung back would have had much trouble subduing him. If nothing else, I think one hollow-point 9mm to the kneecap would have slowed him down quite effectively.)

However, the AFTERMATH of the event is a classic example showing that "law enforcers" ARE fascist pigs. If the other cops cared about law and justice, and that sort of thing, how would they have responded to the incident? They would have been screaming for Abbate to be fired, charged with assault, and thrown in jail. In fact, had the other cops roughed him up a bit while arresting him, I for one wouldn't have complained.

But what did they do instead? They spent lots of man-hours PROTECTING the thug, from public scrutiny and from public anger, using their pretend "authority" to scare away the press. In other words, they showed that loyalty to their gang of thugs matters more to them than loyalty to justice or the law. Where are the GOOD cops screaming for Abbate to be hung out to dry? I haven't heard any yet.

So once again, the verdict must be: American cops are fascist pigs.

Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com

(P.S. The fact that sometimes a cop goes after someone who's actually a criminal does NOT mean that that cop can't be a fascist. Even the Nazis sometimes went after real criminals. Likewise, the fact that a cop might not harass everyone he meets also does not mean he's not a fascist. If he thinks it's up to HIM who he stops, detains, interrogates, etc.--whether he has any "probable cause" to suspect a crime or not--then he is an honest-to-goodness fascist.)

Larken continues with his excellent observations about corporatist anal orifice porcine behavior. Enjoy!

Cops: Public Servants or Fascist Pigs? (Part 2)

This is the second message in my ongoing series of messages addressing the question: Are those in American "law enforcement" today noble and brave public servants, or fascist pigs? Just to review, we are not asking whether cops are hot-tempered, stupid, or even sadistic. We're not trying to figure out if they're good people, or if they exercise bad judgment. The question is whether they have the fascist mindset. Once again, here are the choices:

A NON-fascist cop, when he looks out at the world, would see lots of good people, whom he would want to protect, and would never want to harm, intimidate, or even inconvenience unnecessarily. His goal would be to find the nasty people in the world, and see to it that they are prevented from harming any of the decent people.

A FASCIST cop, on the other hand, would view everyone as his inferior, to be controlled, interrogated, or even abused at will. He sees himself, a representative of "authority," as having the right to forcibly impose his will on anyone he wants, whenever he wants, for any reason (or no reason) and the right to use outright violence against any who do not obey his every whim.

The incident we will examine in this message, unlike the last one, does not involve open violence and physical abuse. However, it is just as good a test of the attitude of the American "police." The following video clip will explain the circumstances, but in short, a guy who works for the Campaign for Liberty was stopped, interrogated, and arrested* at the airport, for having a bunch of money with him (about $4,700). (* Whether or not the cops actually said he was "arrested," you know darn well what would have happened had he tried to leave. Ergo, he was being forcibly detained against his will, a.k.a., arrested, even though no crime was ever charged or alleged.)

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=14907

In reality, the guy's real sins were two-fold: he didn't volunteer to subject himself to an unwarranted interrogation by the federales, and he had a bunch of stuff with him (e.g., Ron Paul bumper-stickers) indicating that he likes freedom, and dislikes big government. (Oh, the horror.) So in reality, it's pretty likely that the money was the EXCUSE for detaining and harassing the guy, but not the real cause.

But again, what we're looking for here is not about the particular scenario, but about the ATTITUDE of those in "law enforcement." Do they respect individual rights, or do they think they can do whatever they darn well please, and that everyone else should unquestioningly obey? So let's consider a few points:

1) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig think it's okay to detain someone for simply being in possession of a bunch of money? No. Any non-fascist cop would know that such behavior is both legal and, more importantly, NONE OF HIS BUSINESS. Not the American "police." EVERYTHING is their business, in their eyes, whether it's illegal or not.

(It's true, it was pretty much money, around $4,700, but that is neither illegal nor all that unusual. I suspect that at one time or another, even if not very often, most of us have had a few thousand in cash and/or checks on us, if we're going to buy a car, or make a big down-payment or something.)

2) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig think it's okay to try to bully someone into answering something that he has NO obligation to answer, and that the police had no right to ask in the first place? Keep in mind, if the guy was a drug-runner, or a professional hit- man, the Fifth Amendment says that he would NOT have any obligation to say where he got the money, and that the cops should NOT in any way try to compel him to answer. So do we have FEWER rights when we're NOT breaking any law? In the eyes of the American Gestapo, apparently so.

3) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig tell someone that "if you have nothing to hide" you'd automatically happily answer any unjustified questions any jackboot with a badge decides to ask you, even if there isn't any reason to suspect you've done anything criminal? Nope. Once again, it's classical Nazi-think: that not wanting to let them violate your rights constitutes PROOF that you must be a bad guy and guilty of something nasty.

4) And again, an important point to always include: Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig quietly stand by while his fellow "officers" treated someone like this? No. How hard would it be for one noble "public servant" to say, "Hey guys, it's not illegal to have cash, and even if he really is a criminal--which we have no reason to suspect--he still doesn't have to answer our questions"? So how often does that actually happen? Ever?

This time, the example of fascism had a relatively happy ending. Eventually, after illegally and immorally stopping the guy, illegally and immorally detaining him, and illegally and immorally trying to interrogate him (not to mention insulting and harassing him), the cops let him continue on his way. And how many people do you think would have had the fortitude and wisdom to NOT meekly go along with their fascist bullpoop? (And how great was it that the guy happened to have the presence of mind to secretly record the incident?)

As I've said before, those pretending to be "authority" act like all-powerful gods because their victims TREAT them like all- powerful gods. If we all act like wimpy peasants, groveling before anyone pretending to be "authority," what do you expect the fascists to think of us? How would you expect them to treat us? If being an American ever meant anything, it should be this: We don't take $#@$%# from government. In other words, it is UNAMERICAN to "cooperate" with government wrongdoing.

And though this second scenario, thankfully, did not end in bloody violence, the verdict is the same as it was in the first: all indications are that those in American "law enforcement" today are fascist pigs who deserve our utmost contempt.

Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com

Baptist pastor beaten + tazed by Border patrol - 11 stitches

Larken Rose once again expresses the sentiments that many of us have felt for a long time. PoLice of ANY jurisdiction have become the defacto enforcement arm of a fascist poLice state governmental system. They are seldom held accountable for their actions. When they are held accountable it is NOT commensurate with the CRIME that they have have perpetrated on the individual specifically and the public generally at large. See New Professionalism Roundup for the "slaps on the wrists" that the "Fascist Pigs" receive.
This will not stop until they are held personally accountable for their abuse by an extra lawful authority, in the Talion Law form of an Umpire of Justice. Those who are willing to take up the burden of being justices of Talion Law would be true heroes of the people.


It was not many years ago when I considered myself a supporter of "law enforcement." (I made donations, had the F.O.P. and Sheriff's department stickers and everything.) Cops were, I believed, the good guys, protecting the innocent and imposing justice upon evildoers. Oh sure, I knew there was corruption here and there, and scattered examples of police abuse--a few "bad apples" in the ranks- - -but all in all, I thought the cops were the good guys.

Now I'm really darn embarrassed that I ever thought that.

This will be the first in a series of messages where we examine the question, are the American "law enforcers" of today noble public servants, or despicable fascist pigs?

First, we must define our terms. For example, someone having a short temper, or exercising bad judgment, even repeatedly, is not necessarily a fascist pig. No, a cop's level of "fascismo," if you will, must be measured by something other than just being stupid or even malicious. To truly be a fascist, a cop must demonstrate that he has the fascist mindset. So let's define what that is.

A NON-fascist cop, when he looks out at the world, would see lots of good people, whom he would want to protect, and would never want to harm, intimidate, or even inconvenience unnecessarily. His goal would be to find the nasty people in the world, and see to it that they are prevented from harming any of the decent people.

A FASCIST cop, on the other hand, would view everyone as his inferior, to be controlled, interrogated, or even abused at will. He sees himself, a representative of "authority," as having the right to forcibly impose his will on anyone he wants, whenever he wants, for any reason (or no reason) and the right to use outright violence against any who do not obey his every whim.

So, in this message and the ones to follow, we will examine examples of police conduct in this country, and rate the level of "fascismo" demonstrated by American "law enforcement." What we won't bother looking at are things like a car chase which ends with a cop with too much adrenaline in his blood, or a cop shooting someone with somewhat questionable justification. No, we are looking for ATTITUDE. The goal is to determine if American cops today think like defenders of justice, or like fascist pigs.

- ---<>---

As you may know, the feds now do internal "checkpoints," anywhere they want within a hundred miles of the border. If you haven't yet heard of this Orwellian absurdity, here are the basics:

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/37293res20081022.html

(Yes, I know the ACLU is very selective about which rights it cares about. It fights hard to defend the First Amendment, while fighting hard to VIOLATE the Second Amendment. But their site gives a good summary of the "Constitution free zones.")

With the "checkpoint" information in mind, here is the specific incident we're considering this time, with our "fascistometers" at the ready:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc 

Once you've watched the entire video (it's less than nine minutes), consider a few things:

1) First of all, would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig take part in these warrantless, suspicionless searches at all? Well, no. To think you have the right to stop and interrogate anyone who happens to drive down a road, and the right to search through his stuff, is a classic symptom of being a fascist pig.

2) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig view someone's reliance on his Fourth Amendment rights (to not be subjected to an unreasonable and unjustified search) as a REASON to search his car? Put another way, would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig think that someone must be a criminal if he doesn't want to volunteer to let some jackboot rummage through his stuff? No. Again, this is a classic symptom of someone with a fascist pig world view. (Note that in the clip, the guy describes how the fascist pigs at one point admitted that everything the guy went through was because he wouldn't answer a question.)

3) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig FAKE "probable cause" in order to get around that pesky Fourth Amendment? No. They had no reason to suspect anything--to stop him at all, or to search him after the stop--and then they LIED about it to make up an excuse to do a search. Classic fascist pig behavior.

4) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig smash someone's car windows, taser him, and forcibly extract him from his car, without ANY "probable cause" to think the person had committed a crime? Again, no. (If you're finding these questions difficult to answer, please move to Cuba.)

5) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig grind someone's face into broken glass, throw him to the ground, stomp on his head, and otherwise assault him, when the person is unarmed and not resisting, and when there is still no evidence that the guy had committed any crime? No. (The clip doesn't say whether the cops ever knew that the guy is a pastor.)

6) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig openly delight in someone else's misery and suffering, while the person is handcuffed and bleeding profusely, mocking and insulting the guy, when there was still NO EVIDENCE that the guy had committed any crime? No. (I could make another item about not letting the guy go to the bathroom, but I'm trying to keep this relatively short.)

7) Here's an important one: Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig QUIETLY STAND BY while his fellow "officers" did what is described above? NO. If this was a case of one or two "bad apples" in law enforcement, wouldn't some other cop there have tried to stop it, or at least complained about it afterwards? So how often have you ever seen that? Where are the "good cops" speaking out about this stuff?

8) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig want to proceed to prosecute the VICTIM of all the abuse I described above, despite the fact that there is STILL no evidence that he committed a crime? No.

Okay, so what's the verdict for this example? Well, if the story above is an accurate reflection of what "law enforcement" in this country is like today, then American cops are indeed fascist pigs, who deserve our utmost contempt and condemnation. (And if it is NOT an accurate reflection of the attitudes and behavior of the police in this country, where are the GOOD cops speaking out against this?)

In closing, I'd like to say the following to Mr. C. Diaz, Mr. B. Griffiths, and Mr. E. Gomez, and any other Nazi swine who participated in the incident described above. If some day you pick the wrong target for your Gestapo crap, and the guy blows your damn fascist pig heads off, the world will be a better place.

Oh, and have a nice day.

Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com

Guide to Good Citizenship

Highway Robbery!!! Thieves!

No charges, but police can keep the cash

Jeff Wiehe - The Journal Gazette

Money in the Allen County Prosecutor’s Office’s state seizure fund has grown in recent years:

2004…$53,062

2005…$38,378

2006…$64,513

2007…$91,609

2008…$105,852

Going 62 in a 50-mph zone, a Jeep barreled west on a slippery, snow-covered Airport Expressway on Valentine’s Day and blew past an Allen County sheriff’s squad car.

One traffic stop later, two men inside the Jeep were outside being patted down by officers. They acted nervous, according to a police report. At one point they looked as if they wanted to fight; at another they looked as if they wanted to flee.

In the Jeep’s back seat, police found more than $26,000 in cash wrapped in a stocking cap.

Though officers held the two men for a short time in squad cars, they were eventually released without charges, save for the driver receiving a citation for driving with a suspended license.

And the money? The police kept it.

Having that much cash is not a crime, but police have the right to seize it if they suspect it has been used or procured through criminal means. Most of the money seized comes from drug cases and can then be used by various law enforcement agencies.

And at least one local agency, the Allen County Prosecutor’s Office, has taken a more aggressive approach in forfeiture cases, with the amount of money in its state seizure fund growing from more than $53,000 in 2004 to more than $105,000 in 2008, according to Allen County’s Chief Deputy Prosecutor Michael McAlexander.

“We’ve gotten a little more aggressive,” said McAlexander, citing better communication with police in how confiscations work locally. “We’ve created a better process.”

In the situation with the $26,000, police seized the money because the driver could not give an adequate reason for having that much money. First, the driver said it was to buy a car, according to the police report. Then, he said it came from working at various jobs. The passenger said he had no clue about the money.

Those factors allowed police to take the money.

“If it’s way, way over and above what a normal person will carry, and if things don’t add up (on how it was acquired), we take the money,” said Lt. Art Barile, head of the sheriff department’s vice and narcotics unit and the Allen County Drug Task Force, a multiagency unit run out of the sheriff’s department.

How often money is confiscated from people not charged with crimes is hard to determine, Barile said, but his best guess for his department is that it happens “maybe 10 percent of the time” his department performs a seizure.

Allen County Prosecutor Karen Richards said her office seldom sees forfeitures without criminal charges attached.

Bob Trgovich, assistant U.S. attorney at the local federal court, said it’s not necessarily a rare practice for his office but it does happen, sometimes with more drawn-out cases.

“We had a case a few years ago where members of this conspiracy, over the course of two years, were stopped several times,” he said. “Each time they were stopped, they had large amounts of money.”

Though the processes may differ with each case and whether it’s handled by federal or state prosecutors, people who typically have money seized must file a claim if they want it back. They have to show how they got the money and that it was procured legally. Many don’t even file a claim, according to Trgovich.

“If you find money in a vehicle, and that’s all you find, many times (the people) in the vehicle don’t want to admit it’s theirs,” Trgovich said.

After money is seized by a law enforcement agency, prosecutors in either state or federal court take over a process that determines where the money ends up. Typically, federal prosecutors handle large amounts of money, such as the $26,000 case, which Barile said has been forwarded to federal authorities. Local prosecutors take the cases with smaller amounts of cash, from $1,000 to $4,000, according to Richards.

Depending on the subtleties of the case and what court is involved, the money usually ends up divided among prosecutors and the police agency or agencies responsible for seizing the money. The process can be long and intricate, though.

“It’s a complicated nightmare, actually,” said Auburn Police Chief Martin McCoy, who sometimes is a spokesman for the IMAGE Drug Task Force, made up of officers from Noble, LaGrange, Steuben and DeKalb counties.

In a state seizure case, the arresting agency must show how much money it used in the investigation that led to the seizure. Prosecutors, too, have to show how much money went into the litigation for the seizures.

“You’re supposed to take your law enforcement expenses out of (the seized money), which could be anything from the attorney’s time to write a search warrant, the cost of doing the forfeiture, the court costs, or (drug) buy money for the police department,” Richards said.

In some cases, that money gets funneled back into the respective agencies involved with the seizures, according to Richards, McCoy and Barile.

The money left over after expenses goes to the state’s Common School Fund, which was established in 1851 and has historically been used to provide low-interest loans for school-building projects.

For example, if police seize $5,000 and the department and prosecutor show the investigation and litigation into the case cost $2,000, the two agencies will probably split $2,000 of the money. The remaining $3,000 goes to the Common School Fund.

A federal seizure typically goes quicker, McCoy said, and the Common School Fund is not in play. A police agency can receive up to 75 percent of the money it seizes, according to Barile and McCoy, while prosecutors at the federal level keep the rest.

According to McCoy, his department does not seize a lot of money, and maybe has one case a year that results in the confiscation of more than $5,000. When the Auburn Police Department seizes money, whatever is recouped usually goes into a general fund for the city of Auburn, and the police department does not see that money again.

If the IMAGE Task Force takes the money, it usually gets that cash back. But, he said, it’s not like seizures are in abundance in his jurisdiction.

“We’re not getting rich on seizures, by any means,” he said.

This is an extremely well documented rant. Check out the hyperlinks for more information. Is one answer an un-coordinated variation of the Michael Collins gambit in the manner of an application of Talion law by people of conscience working as leaderless agents of vendetta justice against those who have done and are doing harm to others? Hmmmmm...

When Is It Going To Be Enough, America?

Lorie Kramer
March 15, 2009

Believe it or not, this started being about HR875 & S425, but in the writing of it, it's just so much more.
This is about the amazing things happening in this nation,
and the inconcievable tolerance the American public has of it all.

Dear, dear, America, When is it going to be enough? Haven't you been disrespected, marginalized, misdirected, demeaned, disregarded, ignored, insulted, bullshitted, deliberately misinformed, uninformed, manipulated, controlled, cheated, lied to, poisoned, killed…and generally just plane old screwed for long enough? I'm really starting to wonder about you. Why isn't all that enough for you America? Yoo Hoo! Are you in there? How does it make sense that you can be thrown into jail for an unpaid traffic ticket, perhaps for days if it's on a weekend yet; Bernard Madoff who ruined the lives of thousands gets to hang out in luxury, being available to do whatever one does when they are trying to cover their assets before going to jail? Isn't that enough for you, America? You are a number. You are photographed hundreds of times everyday. They intend to track you everywhere, they pretty much already do. They already have your grocery cards, and your cars, and your phones, and your computers. They want to "chip" you, and your animals. You have no privacy. Why isn't that enough for you, America? You work, most of you, when you can. Those that don't work and live off the system just don't "get it". Then you pay for their dead weight and their children's. Hell, you allow yourselves to work a third of the year just to pay taxes! Do you think that's what our founding fathers had in mind? Is that not enough for you YET, America? You have worked hard for years, tried to save, invested for the future; only to see your future become a far less comfortable one, if it will be there for you at all. All this because of the legalized gambling known as "the stock market". All this so that bankers and corporations and politicians can profit, from your losses. And you allow them to throw more and more of your money down the toilet. Your dollar is dying. The domino effect of the situation resulted in a global financial meltdown. Why isn't THAT enough for you, America? As the late great Bill Hicks said, "Entertainment is a weapon." Your "news" is controlled and manufactured. Your comedians are the journalists. You and your children are stupefied and zombified by television. Movies, cars, sports and fashion, and Hallmark holidays; they take your attention and your resources. You are in debt up to your ears. Isn't that enough for you, America? Your jobs have already gone overseas or are disappearing daily. Welfare, which used to be an embarrassing thing to partake of, is a way of life for millions. Is that enough for you, America? Your Constitution might as well not even exist. You allow the marginalizing and silencing of those who would honor it. You call them "possible terrorists". You watch as they try to deny you your rights. You allow them to ignore our borders and the consequences. You don't care enough anymore whether or not the person who "leads" your nation can provide the necessary qualifications to even be considered to run for the office, let alone occupy it. That's why "they" can slip such schmucks in on you, you make it so easy. Don't YOU and your children have to throw down your birth certificates for all kinds of things? I thought so. It's the law. Try and not do it and see what happens. Your current liar in chief didn't have to do it. Why isn't THAT enough for you, America? Then, you are told that you have "no standing" in YOUR own courts to question whether or not these Constitutional requirements have been fulfilled. One or two of you make it part of the way only to be told you WILL NOT BE HEARD, and that's OK with you! Why isn't THAT enough for you America? Any of you, and I mean ANY of you has standing to ask this question because it is YOUR Constitution that is OUR LAW. Should you decide to voice your opinion in disagreement with those in power, you are "allowed" to do so but are penned in cages, or trodden by horses, or beaten or sprayed or tazed. Why isn't THAT enough for you America? Your rights have been marginalized; you allow voter fraud to go unchecked. You scream for change but at the next election, you re-elect all but 8 of the 257 about which you complain. Your cities and towns are in disrepair, your infrastructure is crumbling. You devalue your teachers, and reward thieves. You let your schools flounder; therefore many of your children are ignorant (not stupid, there's a difference). Too many of you are fat, way too many of you are on way too many drugs, legal or not. Your sweeteners cause cancer. You are diseased with mystery illnesses, cancer and HIV/AIDS; and your vaccines are dangerous. Why isn't all of THAT enough for you, America? Your families are in shambles. Your children are parents. Divorce is expected. Lying is expected and accepted. Sex is perverted. Morals are old-fashioned. Love is hardly a thing of real value. All this supported by your "media" and "entertainment" industry. Is that still not enough for you, America? Your fellow Americans have raised valid questions about what actually happened on 9-11. Instead of investigating and insisting on the truth, you demonize them and act as if there could be no possibility of any foul play. There is plenty of evidence that the "official" story is not complete or accurate. You saw with your own eyes how that went down. They continue to lie to you and use the tragedy to further restrict your liberties. Why isn't THAT enough for you, America? You are no longer considered one of the good guys in the geopolitical scheme of things. You are hated and reviled for your foreign policy. War profiteering is more important than human life; more important than you and your children's lives; and those of "the enemy". Your military and government tortures. Your sons and daughters have died for greed and nation building; and now they want Iran. Why isn't THAT enough for you, America? Your drinking water is laced with mind numbing poison. Your cell phones are rotting your brains. You live in an electromagnetic cess pool. Is that enough for you, America? Your atmosphere, the air you need to breathe, and the waters that you and all other living things on the planet need to live, have been poisoned, often beyond repair; to facilitate military/industrial desires. Why isn't THAT enough for you, America? And now, they are after your food, AGAIN. That's what this started to be about, HR875 & S425. The HR875 bill is in committee in the House with 40, count them, 40 sponsors that will let the government control what you can and cannot do on your own land, with your own crops or livestock, or organic garden. Ixquick it. This bill was introduced by Rosa DeLauro whose husband, Stanley Greenberg, works for Monsanto. This bears repeating. This bill was introduced by Rosa DeLauro whose husband, Stanley Greenberg, works for Monsanto. Do you honestly think this is going to be GOOD for you? Don't we already have the FDA and the USDA and the FSIS? Why do we need this new agency of control? Growing one's own food, local farms, co-ops and ranches are things that do indeed need to be protected. If this global crisis continues, and all indications are that it will; what are you going to do for food if your local growers go away because of government regulation and/or fines and penalties? Remember victory gardens, they used to be a good idea, now they are a threat? It looks to me like what we need to protect our food from is our government. If they finally go after your food, and you'd better know they are, what are you going to do about it? I'll write more on that and watch it. But, they'll still try and do it. When they do, which is NOW, will THAT be enough for you, America? It's all more than enough for me. Where the hell are you, America?

When is enough going to be enough?

Lorie Kramer
Houston, TX
seektress@seektress.info

"As stern as it sometimes appears to be, the truth is love and is never anything but love."
Vernon Howard

A judicial experience myth

SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS

Scott D. Gerber / Special To The National Law Journal

March 9, 2009

To paraphrase the classic E.F. Hutton commercial, "When the chief justice talks, people listen." It doesn't even matter if what he says is a 90-second sound bite in the middle of a sentimental speech about his predecessor in the center chair.

Such is the case with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.'s comment during his recent Rehnquist Center Lecture that, because every member of his court is a former federal appeals court judge, the court now takes "a more legal perspective and less of a policy perspective" to the questions it decides. Previously, he said, "the practice of constitutional law — how constitutional law was made — was more fluid and wide ranging than it is today, more in the realm of political science."

Roberts' praise for Supreme Court justices with prior judicial experience marks at least the third time since the heyday of the Rehnquist Court that someone with the power to influence who gets appointed to the nation's highest court has extolled the virtues of such experience. The most vicious occasion occurred during the imbroglio over the nomination of Harriet Miers. As readers may recall, Miers withdrew her name from consideration after being savaged by the legalerati for, among other reasons, a lack of judicial experience.

Consensus-building, debunked

Intriguingly, the current fetish about prior judicial experience actually traces to the presidency of Bill Clinton, who announced in 1994 that he was nominating Stephen G. Breyer to the Supreme Court in large part because of the nonpartisan "consensus-building" skills that Breyer had exhibited on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

But none of the articulated reasons for valuing prior judicial experience — as a predictor of consensus-building skills, as a proxy for merit and to ensure that Supreme Court decisions are grounded in "law" rather than "policy" — are supported by the facts. Keeok Park and I debunked the consensus-building rationale in an article published in the American Political Science Review that examined the members of the Rehnquist Court with prior appellate court experience. We found that all the justices became less concerned with building consensus as justices than when they were as judges in a lower court because they viewed themselves as policymakers on the high court.

A Ph.D. in political science is not required to repudiate the argument that prior judicial experience is a necessary condition for "greatness" on the Supreme Court: A nodding acquaintance with history will suffice. Only two of the justices appearing on all, or most, of the lists of "great" justices had significant prior judicial experience, and those justices, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Benjamin Cardozo, were great because, in the evocative words of Felix Frankfurter, "they were Holmes and Cardozo. They were thinkers, and particularly, legal philosophers."

With respect to the most recent iteration on the importance of prior judicial experience — Roberts' claim that it has led the members of his court to forsake policy judgments for legal judgments — political scientists have come out of the woodwork to challenge it. For example, Professor Lee Epstein of Northwestern University School of Law, among the nation's most influential political scientists, concisely informed the New York Times when queried about the chief justice's claim that "the data don't support it."

The most profound judicial mind since Holmes doesn't support it, either. Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit concludes in a recent book, How Judges Think, that judges, including Supreme Court justices, can't help but make policy decisions. In fact, Posner characterizes Roberts' well-known analogy that judges should be "umpires" not "batters" as little more than an "updating for a sports-crazed era" of Alexander Hamilton's sophistic claim in Federalist No. 78 that federal judges would exercise "neither force nor will but merely judgment" if the Constitution were ratified. Most people didn't believe Hamilton in 1788, and Posner doesn't believe Roberts today.

Let's hope that the misguided call for Supreme Court justices with prior judicial experience suffers the same fate as E.F. Hutton: It fades into oblivion.

There is reason to be optimistic. President Barack Obama stated during the campaign that he was open to appointing someone to the nation's highest court who wasn't a sitting federal appeals court judge. Although the policies an Obama Supreme Court nominee would seek to advance almost certainly would be more egalitarian than my libertarian instincts would prefer, at least we could put to bed the trope that Supreme Court justices aren't making policy and concentrate in 2012 on what John McCain encouraged us to concentrate on in 2008 when he was asked about filling Supreme Court vacancies: Elections have consequences.

Scott D. Gerber is the Ella and Ernest Fisher Chair and Professor of Law at Ohio Northern University Pettit College of Law and a senior research scholar in law and politics at the Social Philosophy and Policy Center. He is the author of, among other works, First Principles: The Jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas (2002) and The Law Clerk: A Novel (2007).

Probate Judge Issues Pay Raises Over Council's Objections

Ind. Courts - Yet more on "St. Joseph County Probate Judge to issue pay raises despite council's objections."

Updating earlier ILB entries, including this latest one from Feb. 25th, WNDU South Bend has this brief report:

St. Joseph County has challenged a judge's attempt to mandate pay raises for eight workers at the Juvenile Justice Center.

This week, the Indiana Supreme Court ordered that the case go to mediation.

Both sides have 15-days to select a mediator, or the Supreme Court will assign one to the case.

St. Joseph County Probate Court Judge Peter Nemeth sought to use his judicial mandate powers to order double digit pay raises for eight employees.

The raises were to be funded by fees paid by juvenile offenders--as opposed to tax dollars.

The Supreme Court has posted an Order Referring Case for Mediation, dated March 2. It deals with three matters: (1) real estate acquired and used for the juvenile justice center; (2) the funding of building and structural repairs and equipment for the center; and (3) the appropriation of funds from the juvenile probation services fund for certain salary increases.

The Supreme Court's Order states that, on Feb. 4th, it had amended TR 60.5, based upon recommendations of the Indiana Judges Association and the Indiana Association of Counties: "One of the new amendments to TR 60.5 authorizes this Court to order the parties to submit their dispute to mediation at any time in the process."

This is an effort to resolve the continuing problem at the local level between the local courts and the local government units with respect to control over finances. This ILB entry from Sept. 5, 2008 gives an overview of the problem. This paragraph indicates that thought was being given at that time to reviewing TR 60.5:

Re Rule 60.5, the CJ said it was adopted by the Court at the request of the counties, to establish something more orderly, a forum to address concerns of the counties in the 1970s and 80s. Our Court's view, said CJ Shepard, is that TR 60.5 is printed on paper, not carved in stone. In the last six months, the Indiana Judges Association has asked the Indiana Association of Counties to meet and talk about TR 60.5. The Supreme Court, he concluded, is open to restructuring.

Here is the revised wording of TR 60.5.

Corruption in Congress: Indiana Rep. Pete Visclosky

March 2, 12:18 PM ·

Rep. Pete Visclosky

Indiana Democrat Rep. Pete Visclosky is among a number of members of Congress who are being accused of having ties to a defense lobbying firm under federal investigation. The PMA group, one of the biggest lobbying firms in Washington, which specialize in securing defense earmarks for it clients. It steered donations to lawmakers through sham donors.

Visclosky's former congressional chief of staff worked as a lobbyist for the firm. According to the Federal Election Commission, he received around $100,000 from donors tied to PMA between 2006 and 2008. Among donors listed were some members of PMA's board of directors. The group was the largest donor to the Representatives 2008 reelection campaign. The result was that Visclosky reciprocated, helping to secure $23 million in earmarks for clients of PMA.

For further reading:

Political corruption acceptable in the U.S.
Congressional Pork and Pay-to-Play goes round and round
Pork and political corruption go hand-in-hand

Citations: Police Duties and Limits of Authority

Tell your children and others around you:

"Remain alert. Behave graciously. Obey the law. Demand respect for your rights. Do Not Tolerate abuse from police, Sheriffs, deputies, judges, conservators of the peace, or other law enforcement officers. Report every instance of abuse to the State Attorney, Grand Jury, and (for judges) the House Judiciary Committee, and vigorously prosecute a law suit for any damages you suffer from such abuse." See citations below.

S.O.S. (Son Of Stroller)

=================

"An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the government." - Brookfield Const. Co. v. Stewart, 284 F. Supp. 94.

"Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law." - In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.

"Personal liberty, which is guaranteed to every citizen, under our constitution and laws, consists of the right to locomotion,- to go where one pleases, and when, and to do that which may lead to one's business or pleasure, only restrained as the rights to others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. One may travel along the public highways or in public places; and while conducting themselves in a decent and orderly manner, disturbing no other, and interfering with the rights of no other citizens, there, they will be protected under law, not only their persons, but in their safe conduct. The constitution and the laws are framed for the public good, and the protection of all citizens from the highest to the lowest; and no one may be restrained of his liberty, unless he transgressed some law. Any law which would place the keeping and safe conduct of another in the hands of even a conservator of the peace, unless for some breach of the peace committed in his presence, or upon suspicion of felony, would be most oppressive and unjust, and destroy all rights which our constitution guarantees." - Pinkerton v. Verberg* 99 S.Ct. 2627 (1979)

"Obviously, administrative agencies, like police officers (People v. Cahan (1955) 44 Cal.2d 434, 437 [282 P.2d 905, 50 A.L.R.2d 513] [former Pen. Code, ' 653h "could" not authorize violations of the Constitution]), must obey the Constitution and may not deprive persons of constitutional rights." -Southern Pac. Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Com*., 18 Cal.3d 308 [S.F. No. 23217. Supreme Court of California. November 23, 1976.]

"The duties of police officers are many and varied. (21 Cal.Jur. 400 et seq.) Such officers are the guardians of the peace and security of the community, and the efficiency of our whole system, designed for the purpose of maintaining law and order, depends upon the extent to which such officers perform their duties and are faithful to the trust reposed in them. Among the duties of police officers are those of preventing the commission of crime, of assisting in its detection, and of disclosing all information known to them which may lead to the apprehension and punishment of those who have transgressed our laws. When police officers acquire knowledge of facts which will tend to incriminate any person, it is their duty to disclose such facts to their superiors and to testify freely concerning such facts when called upon to do so before any duly constituted court or grand jury. It is for the performance of these duties that police officers are commissioned and paid by the community, [33 Cal.App.2d 568] and it is a violation of said duties for any police officer to refuse to disclose pertinent facts within his knowledge even though such disclosure may show, or tend to show, that he himself has engaged in criminal activities." - Christal v. Police Commission*, 33 Cal.App.2d 564 [Civ. No. 11003. First Appellate District, Division Two. June 29, 1939.]

"Having made no showing that Officer Erickson had a warrant for the arrest or search of defendant, the burden to demonstrate justification for the police conduct rested on the prosecution. (Badillo v. Superior Court (1956) 46 Cal.2d 269, 272 [294 P.2d 23]." - People v. Superior Court (Simon), 7 Cal.3d 186 [L.A. No. 29881. Supreme Court of California. May 19, 1972.]

"...an officer may be held liable in damages to any person injured in consequence of a breach of any of the duties connected with his office...The liability for nonfeasance, misfeasance, and for malfeasance in office is in his 'individual', not his official capacity..." - 70 Am. Jur. 2nd Sec. 50, VII Civil Liability.

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or territory, or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States, or other person within the jurisdiction thereof, to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity or other proper proceedings for redress. ..To maintain an action under 42 USC 1983, it is not necessary to allege or prove that the defendants intended to deprive plaintiff of his Constitutional rights or that they acted willfully, purposefully, or in a furtherance of a conspiracy. . . it is sufficient to establish that the deprivation. . . was the natural consequences of defendants acting under color of law. . . ." - Ethridge v. Rhodos*, DC Ohio 268 F Supp 83 (1967), *Whirl v. Kern CA* 5 Texas 407 F 2d 781 (1968)

Title 18 USC Section 241, provides that... "any person who goes on the highway in disguise to prevent or hinder the free exercise and enjoyment of any right so secured by law...shall be fined not more than *$10,000.00*or imprisoned not more than ten years or both.