or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| What do you make of this? Note the legal opinions. |
arcura |
12/01/05 |
HEIL HITLER! IT HAS BEGUN
By: Devvy Kidd
December 1, 2005
NewsWithViews.com
"If we wish to be free, if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending, if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained - we must fight!" Patrick Henry
Anyone who doesn't recognize that a police state is being erected right in front of their eyes is either in a state of denial or welcomes a repeat of Nazi Germany under Adolph Hitler. Two months ago a woman named Deborah Davis was reading a book while riding to work on a public bus. When her bus stopped outside the gates of the Denver Federal Center in Lakewood, Colorado (only three miles from my former home in Lakewood), a guard climbed aboard the bus and demanded that all the passengers produce identification. Mrs. Davis didn't bite:
"I told him that I did have identification, but I wasn't going to show it to him," Davis explains. "I knew that I wasn't required by law to show ID and that's why I decided I wasn't going to. The whole thing seemed to be more about compliance than security."
This guard who obviously has no understanding of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, called the federal dragoons who proceeded to drag Mrs. Davis off this public bus, handcuffed her like some criminal, shoved her into the back seat of their Barney Rubble guard car and transported her to a police station within the Federal Center. For all this guard knew, Mrs. Davis could have been going anywhere outside the fencing of the Denver Federal Center (there is a post office just outside the gated entrance on the south side) once she got off the bus. His apprehension of her in my opinion isn't just unlawful detention, but kidnapping. Mrs. Davis' son is in Iraq fighting Bush's war to control the oil in the middle East while his mother is being subjected to the same treatment as those who live in communist countries and did under Hitler's regime.
Mrs. Davis will be arraigned on December 9, 2005, and faces up to 60 days in jail on federal criminal misdemeanor charges. These charges would be that "citizens must, when requested, display Government or other identifying credentials to Federal police officers or other authorized individuals." The second would be that citizens must comply with "the lawful direction of Federal police officers and other authorized individuals."
Open your eyes America. First, Mrs. Davis was on a public bus, she was not on federal property. This guard had no right to demand any American produce papers of any kind whether they are riding a bus or walking.
Second, under the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to make criminal only four types of conduct: treason, piracies and felonies on the high seas, counterfeiting, and offenses against the laws of nations. Just because Congress has been getting away with passing a zillion laws with all kinds of "offenses" does NOT make it legal. They have only gotten away with it all this time because the American people have refused to hold their elected public servants accountable out of blind loyalty to their damn party. What you are seeing right now in this country is the result of foolish voters. Despite the refusal by the sheeple to boot out rotten politicians, the law is still law:
"The highest law of the land is the Constitution of the United States." Stephen K. Huber, Professor of Law, University of Houston
"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statue must be in agreement with it to be valid. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail over the other. The Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, (2nd ed., Section 256), states:
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statue, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby." Dr. Jacques S. Jaikaran, author of Debt Virus
The same nonsense is about to be unleashed upon innocent, law abiding citizens in Miami, Florida. The announcement came November 28, 2005: local coppers will "...stage random shows of force at hotels, banks and other public places to keep terrorists guessing and remind people to be vigilant."
"Deputy Police Chief Frank Fernandez said officers might, for example, surround a bank building, check the IDs of everyone going in and out and hand out leaflets about terror threats.<> "This is an in-your-face type of strategy. It's letting the terrorists know we are out there," Fernandez said. The operations will keep terrorists off guard, Fernandez said. He said al-Qaida and other terrorist groups plot attacks by putting places under surveillance and watching for flaws and patterns in security. < style="font-family: times new roman;">
"People are definitely going to notice it," Fernandez said. "We want that shock. We want that awe. But at the same time, we don't want people to feel their rights are being threatened. We need them to be our eyes and ears."
Deputy Police Chief Frank Fernandez is a fool who should be removed from his job as well as the Mayor and any member of the Miami City Council who approved this BS. First: There is no legal authority for coppers to demand anyone entering or leaving a bank, hotel or other public places "show their papers." The courts have consistently upheld the absolute right of Americans to travel freely without interference or harassment and walking is traveling, just like riding a horse or driving a car.
Second, the CIA's creation called 'al-Qaida' doesn't give a hoot about a bunch of local coppers acting like testosterone pumped goons harassing little old ladies. You just wait until one of these little old ladies is so "shocked and awed" by a sudden show of force, they drop dead from a heart attack or massive stroke. Then the City of Miami will pay dearly.
Walking into or exiting a hotel, bank or "other public places" is a fundamental right and an action freely chosen by an individual; it is not a mandated activity by any federal, state or local law, ordinance or statute. Free Americans have a constitutional right to travel which is protected by the U.S. Constitution; see Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 35, 49 (1868)("We are all citizens of the United States, and as members of the same community must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own states"); Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125, 78 S.Ct. 1113, 1118 (1958)("The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law under the Fifth Amendment"); United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 1178 (1966)("The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union");
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 1329 (1969)("This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement") Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 339, 92 S.Ct. 995, 1001 (1972)("....since the right to travel was a constitutionally protected right, 'any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional'");(The Court in Dunn also declared that "The right to travel is an 'unconditional personal right, ' a right whose exercise may not be conditioned.'" Id, at 341); and Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 254, 94 S.Ct. 1076, 1080(1974)("The right of interstate travel has repeatedly been recognized as a basic constitutional freedom").
See also Schachtman v. Dulles 225 F2d. 938, 941 (D.C.Cir. 1955)("The right to travel, to go from place to place as the means of transportation permit, is a natural right subject to the rights of others and to reasonable regulation under law"); Worthy v. Herter, 270 F.2d 905, 908 (D.C.Cir. 1959)("The right to travel is a part of the right to liberty"); Cole v. Housing Authority of City of Newport, 435 F2.d 807, 809 (1st Cir.1970)("...the right to travel is a fundamental personal right that can be impinged only if to do so is necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest"); King v. New Rochelle Municipal Housing Authority, 442 F.2d 646, 648 (2nd Cir. 1971)("It would be meaningless to describe the right to travel between states as a fundamental precept of personal liberty and not to acknowledge a correlative constitutional right to travel within a state"); and
Demiragh v. DeVos, 476 F.2d 403, 405 (2nd Cir. 1973)("...the fight to travel....[is] a 'fundamental' one, requiring the showing of a 'compelling state or local interest to warrant its limitation"); United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 912 (9th Cir. 1973)("....it is firmly settled that freedom to travel at home and abroad without unreasonable governmental restriction is a fundamental constitutional right of every American citizen....At the minimum, governmental restrictions upon freedom to travel are to be weighed against the necessity advanced to justify them, and a restriction that burdens the right to travel 'too broadly and indiscriminately' cannot be sustained"); and McLellan v. Miss. Power & Light Co., 545 F.2d 919, 923 n. 8 (5th Cir. 1977)("The Constitutional right to travel is 'among the rights and privileges of National citizenship");
Costa v. Bluegrass Turf Service, Inc., 406 F.Supp. 1003, 1007 (E.D.Ken. 1975)("...pure administrative convenience, standing alone, is an insufficient basis for an enactment which...restricts the right to travel"); Coolman v. Robinson, 452 F.Supp. 1324, 1326 (N.D.Ind. 1978)("The right to travel is a very old and well established constitutional right"); Tetalman v. Holiday Inn, 500 F.Supp. 217, 218 (N.D.Ga. 1980)("the constitutionally protected right to travel...is basically the right to travel unrestricted by unreasonable government interference or regulation"); Bergman v. United States, 565 F.Supp. 1353, 1397 (W.D. Mich. 1983)("The right to travel interstate is a basic, fundamental right under the Constitution, its origins premised upon a variety of constitutional provisions").
This right to travel is also a constitutional right under our state constitution, embodied within its "liberty" provisions; People v. Olivas (1976) 17 Cal.3d 235, 131 Cal. Rptr. 55, 551 P.2d 375, 381 (right to travel is a fundamental liberty interested protected by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; further "We conclude that personal liberty is a fundamental interest, second only to life itself, as an interest protected under both the California and United States Constitutions," 551 P.2d at 384); People v. Horton (1971) 14 CalApp.3d 930, 92 Ca.Rptr. 666, 668 ("...the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference...is a fundamental constitutional right").
The Bill of Rights is just that: rights, not privileges and no federal or state agency can violate our rights as reaffirmed by the Bill of Rights. These are rights we are all born with, no government gave them to us nor can they take them away. These precious tenets are the very foundation of our Republic. In Miller v. U.S., 230 F., 2nd 286, 489 the court said: "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
The City of Miami has no compelling reason to demand it's citizenry show identification papers while they practice a "show of force" to impress some would be terrorists. If the 80 million gun owners of this country would get off their hands and demand their state legislatures reconstitute the lawful, constitutionally authorized state militias, there would be no need for this ridiculous horse and pony "show of force" in any city in America. As for the question of terrorists, I cannot stress how important it is for the American people to get all the known facts at this time regarding 9/11 - the justification for the continued assault on our God given rights by Congress and state and local municipalities.
Jefferson said it perfectly and city fathers, local law enforcement and the federal dragoons need to pay attention:
"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376
We the people are not going to lay down and take this flavor of tyranny. Oh, there will be those who quiver at the very thought of standing up for their rights, but there will always be cowards who want others to fight for their freedom. Mrs. Davis drew her line in the sand and so should the tens of millions of Americans in this country who claim they will fight for their rights. We must let our local, state and federal elected servants hear the roar of NO from coast to coast, border to border.
Will you fight by standing your ground or will you surrender yourself to slavery?
I will leave you with these words from real warriors:
"As long as a hundred of us remain alive we will never be subject to tyrannical dominion because it is not for glory or riches or honours that we fight, but for freedom alone which no worthy man loses except with his life." The Declaration of Arbroath 1320 |
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 12/01/05 12:44 pm:
I incorrectly identified it as a Fed Pen.in my response ; it is in fact a collection of federal office buildings .
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 12/01/05 12:52 pm:
I wonder if she ever tried to board a plane ?
What she should do instead of this publicity stunt if she wants to do something useful is to petition or lobby the Denver Transit Authority to establish a bus route that does not pass right through the middle of a Federal Office Complex. After the Oklahoma City Bombing it is pretty well established that site is a potential terrorist target . It is not unreasonable for them to add additional security .If she ever tried to walk into one of the buildings she would be id'ed .
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 12/01/05 1:50 pm:
Roads run through Military Instillations and Nuclear Testing areas all over the country . Savannah River Plant and Ft. Benning have State Highways running through them with check points . I don't see why this case is different. The same people who belly ache about this will be the first ones to complain about lax security when a suicide bomber takes out a Federal Building . Clarification/Follow-up by arcura on 12/01/05 3:17 pm:
Tom...
To me the point is this: "federal dragoons who proceeded to drag Mrs. Davis off this public bus, handcuffed her like some criminal, shoved her into the back seat of their Barney Rubble guard car and transported her to a police station within the Federal Center."
She should not have been treated in this manner.
Period.
Fred
Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 12/01/05 4:50 pm:
Fred, why should I be concerned with how she was treated? She knew beforehand she would be requested to show her ID and she refused. You think she was treated roughly for that, try refusing to show your ID at Pantex, Oak Ridge, Sandia or NASA.
To me, it's one great big "DUH, what were you thinking Ms. Davis? Are you stuck on stupid"? If you want to go certain places you must be prepared to follow some rules. You can't even go to Seaworld without having your bag searched let alone cruise through federal facilities at will.
Steve Clarification/Follow-up by arcura on 12/01/05 5:47 pm:
Steve,
You are assuming she knew!!!
I see no indication that she did.
To me it looks like she decided at that moment, not before hand.
But even is she knew ahead of time, the way she was treated was Gestapo tactics.
This is one of the few cases where I'd support the ACLU if they decided to defend her.
Merry Christmas,
Fred
Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 12/01/05 11:16 pm:
Fred, I looked for the article on the blog, but it has been deleted.
Will keep my eye out for another mention of it.
Regards,
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 12/02/05 9:09 am:
I am sticking by the story that
1. she had been id'ed before on this bus
2. that she 3 times previously claimed she forgot it
3. that when the guards told her that next time it would be required she consulted with an ACLU activist who advised her to commit and act of civil disobedience.
4. I do not believe she was treated with 'Gestapo tactics' and anyone who says so is willfully ignorant of what 'Gestapo tactics 'were.
Like all people who perform civil disobedience ,she was well aware that she could be handcuffed and detained as a result. She has made her "stand " ;let's see how it plays out . I still say she would've better served the community by asking the DTA to re-route the bus .
Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 12/02/05 9:38 am:
Fred, you obviously did not read the site tom linked to...
"On her first day commuting to work by bus, the bus stopped at the gates of the Denver Federal Center. A security guard got on and demanded that all of the passengers on this public bus produce ID. She was surprised by the demand of the man in uniform, but she complied: it would have meant a walk of several miles if she hadn't. Her ID was not taken and compared to any "no-ride" list. The guard barely glanced at it.
When she got home, what had happened on the bus began to bother her. 'This is not a police state or communist Russia', she thought. From her 8th grade Civics class she knew there is no law requiring her, as an American citizen, to carry ID or any papers, much less show them to anyone on a public bus.
She decided she would no longer show her ID on the bus."
She knew beforehand. She is without excuse. You're only reacting to her side of the story. Is it fair to condemn the authorities for using "Gestapo tactics" based only on her version of the incident?
Nobody is saying Ms. Davis can't travel to or through the Denver Federal Center, but there are rules, and the first of those rules is:
"In order to make this facility safe for you and those who work here, we request that you comply with the following guidelines:
Please be prepared to present a valid drivers license and current vehicle registration at the gate."
Further down we find "Vehicles may be subject to inspection upon entrance."
In this day of terrorist threats how is it unreasonable to require ID at a gated federal facility, then respond when someone refuses to comply?
They say it's about the right to travel - it is not. She is free to travel through the Denver Federal Center during operating hours if she complies with the rules. No ID, no admittance.
They say "having to show your ID is a search without a warrant." It is not. The next time you write a check at the grocery store and they request your ID, try claiming it's a search without a warrant while refusing. No ID, no check. Try getting on a flight without showing your ID, applying for Social Security benefits or watch a 21 year old try to buy beer without showing an ID.
You really shouldn't be so quick to jump a bandwagon without knowing the rest of the story.
Steve
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 12/02/05 11:53 am:
Arcura,
>>>There is no indiction that she planned ahead of time for what happened.<<<
Citing directly from the site you linked to:
On her first day commuting to work by bus, the bus stopped at the gates of the Denver Federal Center. A security guard got on and demanded that all of the passengers on this public bus produce ID. She was surprised by the demand of the man in uniform, but she complied: it would have meant a walk of several miles if she hadn't. Her ID was not taken and compared to any "no-ride" list. The guard barely glanced at it.
When she got home, what had happened on the bus began to bother her. 'This is not a police state or communist Russia', she thought. From her 8th grade Civics class she knew there is no law requiring her, as an American citizen, to carry ID or any papers, much less show them to anyone on a public bus.
She decided she would no longer show her ID on the bus.
SHE DECIDED... beforehand. This was a premeditated incident. She got what she deserves.
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by arcura on 12/02/05 12:08 pm:
Of course you are right.
And so should the guy who wrote that be....
Sorry,
Fred
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
