Thursday, July 31, 2008

All I can say is... well done. Very, very well done indeed.
Read more!

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Why I fight

My objection lies not in the registry, but in the ex-post-facto application of new rules, regulations, and punishment to the registry. However, at the same time, tracking all those who have different registry requirements as the laws change would be prohibitive for law enforcement, and thus unenforceable.

To extend this, the problem lies in the fact that it is a blanket law, and a blanket registry, not fully subject to the judiciary and jury, which is a direct denial of specific legal rights.

The way I see it, there are specific guarantees under human rights issues, as well as civil rights. We get so caught up in civil rights that we only see the amendments to the Constitution, rather than the codicils that were built in under common law. In addition, we tend to blind ourselves to the histories and natures of the constitutional argument.

That's ignoring the parallels to a certain European country in the 1930s-1940s, which it has gotten to be a losing argument to bring up, regardless of how accurate your information is.

Thing is, these rights are not granted by the constitution. They never could be. Just as those powers could not be grasped by the government save for the acquiescence of the people. Further, the permission of the people had to be that of all of the people. The Several guarantees, under the constitution, were for the equal treatment of all people, and the recognition of those rights.

These rights were recognized as innate rights, just as those we term as 'civil' rights were at the time of the Constitution. Such was the nature of the original constitution, that not all those rights could be listed, and it would be silly to list the right to walk down the street, or the right to wear a hat. It would be equally silly to list the right to breathe, or the right to seek housing and food.

This is the nature of substantiative due process, it deals with the 'substance' of the law, as compared to procedural due process which deals with the 'procedure' of the law.

We've lost so much in the knowledge of what our rights are.... that I feel it's time to enumerate the most important.

We have the right to freedom of expression.. and the corresponding duty to temper that right where it might affect others. (libel, and slander, and the 'fire in the theater' example)

We have the right to travel without limitation or restriction, upon public roads and highways, without regard to legal status, color, race, religion, or any other separation.

We have the right to freedom of association, and freedom of speech and thought. You cannot be jailed, nor tried simply for your associations, though your actions regarding those associations can be, and are culpable.

You have the right to freedom of belief and religion, insofar as that right does not attack the rights and freedoms of others (I.e. you can speak, promote your religion, but you cannot attack others religions using it, nor can you use it to quell free speech, quell the due process of law, nor destroy any other right with it, including life, liberty, or property)

You have the right to question the government, (and even the duty to do so) and the right to petition for the redress of grievances against that government. (So long as that redress is proportional to the injustice involved within the grievance)

You have the right to trial by jury, including the right to jury nullification, according to the Zenger and Bushell trials, and the Federalist Papers. Further, this right extends to the argument of law in front of the jury, though the argument of evidence may be done out of sight, due to the exclusion arguments automatically revealing that which is to be excluded from the jury.

Links to Jury Nullification:
[quote]It will add great weight to this remark, in relation to prize causes, to mention that the method of determining them has been thought worthy of particular regulation in various treaties between different powers of Europe, and that, pursuant to such treaties, they are determinable in Great Britain, in the last resort, before the king himself, in his privy council, where the fact, as well as the law, undergoes a re-examination.[/quote]
[quote]This is jurisdiction of both fact and law; nor is it even possible to separate them. Though the common-law courts of this State ascertain disputed facts by a jury, yet they unquestionably have jurisdiction of both fact and law; and accordingly when the former is agreed in the pleadings, they have no recourse to a jury, but proceed at once to judgment[/quote]

You have the right to equal treatment under the law: I.e. the right to not have targeted legislation. This right is upheld in all cases of law, including federal, state, local, and county law. This right is of two parts... selective legislation, and selective enforcement. If one passes a law attacking a particular class of individuals (I.e. attacking college freshmen, for instance) it is selective legislation. If the attack is a selective enforcement, it is going after a selected class, without going after an equally dangerous or more dangerous class that is friendly toward the enforcing agency.

We have the right to free travel, including interstate, and international travel, according to international law and treaty. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (strongly authored and influenced by Elanor Roosevelt) guarantees this right, and further, it is part of the reason for the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. (New York and a nearby state were in a tiff a the time, and using tariffs and limitations on travel as economic weapons. This also occurred at the beginning of the Civil War, limitations on economic travel and effective tariffs on the goods in the Southern States.)

You have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, and declared guilty by a jury of your peers. This ensures the full application of the jury, and full argument before the jury. In a criminal case, there must be an absolute certanty that the person is guilty, and that the law is valid, prior to the presentation of a punishment for an act against society.

You have the right to work toward a home, or other property, and no man has the right to deny you such. Economic reasons may prevent it, our own actions may prevent it, but nobody can take that for which you have worked, save by due process of law, and the full application of that law.

You have the right to security of your possessions, your person, and your family. No person can take away your home (via Civil Forfeiture), nor can they take away a family member save for crimes done by that family member.

You have the right to be judged on your own actions, and not those of any other person. Guilt by association is not a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Further, if any class is judged guilty until proven innocent, the entirety of jurisprudence falls. We have the right to ague our innocence, as well as to remain absolutely silent, as often anything we say is used against us in a court of law... even if it is absolutely truthful.

You have the right to privacy (though our 'loving' congress has been doing everything they can to remove this right). This right was, and is guaranteed, under the searches and seizure clauses of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This right to privacy was enshrined largely because of the Magna Carta, and the British habit of marching into homes, ransacking them, inspecting everything there to look for crimes, and in some cases creating them for civil forfeiture, as well as for criminal charges.

You have the right to vote. For no reason was this right to be removed from any citizen, save the reason of commission of treason against the Federal Government. No person could be denied this by Federal Law.

You have the right to protect yourself. You have the right to defend yourself, your home, and your community, and this right goes one step further into a duty to do the above.

You have the right to state that an action done to you was wrong, and more, to remonstrate for the remediation of that wrong.

You have the right to enjoy public places, without limitation, so long as you do so lawfully and do not remove the rights of others.

You have the right to remain free of the harassment of others. No man has a right to harass.

You have the right to prevent self-incrimination, and the commitant right to not name those who would incriminate you in a criminal trial.

You have, further, the right to contract, and the enforcement of that contract as a civil statute, for the redress of grievances done under contract, tort, or escrow law.

You have the right to restitution for properties seized under Eminent Domain, and restitution equivalent to the fair market value of that land.

You have the traditional right to request to speak on the floor of the Congress, though this has been limited in recent years.

You have the right to the restoration of those 'civil' rights at the end of the term of your sentence, as, up until 1933, all rights were restored automatically at the end of one's sentence. (Another Omnibus Crime Act)

You have the right to self-determination. This right is limited in that such self-determination must not remove the same from others. In other words, murder is verboten, simply because of the recognition of the rights of others.

You further have the right to make choices as will determine your health and future prosperity, and the right to suffer by those decisions should they be wrong.

You have the right to do whatever you want... so long as you accept society's right to stop you if that steps on the rights of others.

You have the right to make economic decisions, and bear the burden of poor choices.

Up until the credit companies lobbied congress, you also had the right to bankruptcy, every seven years, to clear out extortionate debt.

You had the right to not be charged money for being loaned money, (usury)

All these rights, and not an exhaustive list.

For instance, most do not realize that they have the right to challenge the law as presented by the police, and as presented by the prosecutor.

We have the right to express reservations against a contract, as well as to not be placed under duress in the contract.

We have the right to protect ourselves from extortion. This includes extortion under the color of law.

I could go on for hours. All these rights were once recognized, they were thought so innate that no man even bothered listing them.

Our rights end where another's begins. Some rights are commingled with other's rights. Some extend and increase the rights of others, and of ourselves, some of those rights limit our rights, and those of others.

But they are rights, independent of the government, independent of anything but your existence as a human being.

The place where society comes in, is in the recognition of those rights of others, and the embrasure of them, in order to complete, and preserve, the rights of all.

This is the nature of wisdom. It is personal responsibility, for one's own actions, and the several and collective responsibility for those with whom you choose to group.

And that's what we've forgotten. We do not need the laws as they stand, so long as we remember that the rights of others are just as important as our own. It is the purpose of law to remind us of the rights of others. It is the balance of justice, wherein the proper punishment is levied, and mercy, wherein the facts and law of the case are tried, and mitigating factors associated. These are the sides of the balance of justice... and justice must be balanced with mercy, and part of that mercy is rehabilitation, and the opportunity for such.

So long as there is any class of persons, that are subject to unequal treatment under the law, these rights cannot be recognized.

That is why I argue for the repeal of laws, and the restoration of rights for all persons, not just offenders. It's giving back personal responsibility to the citizens of the country. Giving them back the right to try, dream, climb, fall, and suffer for their actions... but also the right to have an end to their mistakes. it is the right to be free, and the right to live, love, experience... and be human.
Read more!

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

From Wikipedia

* Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

* Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

* Article 3.

Everyone has the right to live, have liberty, and security of person.

* Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

* Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

* Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

* Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

* Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

* Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

* Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

* Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

* Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

* Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

* Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

* Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

* Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

* Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

* Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

* Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

* Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

* Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

* Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

* Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

* Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

* Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

* Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

* Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

* Article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

* Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

* Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

[edit] Structure and legal implications

The document is laid out in the civil law tradition, including a preamble followed by thirty articles. It was conceived as a statement of objectives to be followed by governments. Some international lawyers believe that the Declaration forms part of customary international law and is a powerful tool in applying diplomatic and moral pressure to governments that violate any of its articles. The 1968 United Nations International Conference on Human Rights advised that it "constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community" to all persons. The declaration has served as the foundation for two binding UN human rights covenants, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It continues to be widely cited by academics, advocates and constitutional courts.
Read more!

An open letter to the Congress

Ladies and gentlemen of the congress,

I hereby exert, and utilize my granted power, and right to remonstrance, and to redress of grievances. But in proportion to the magnitude of this right, is the right of the Congress to know what grievances it has perpetrated, and the pains of the people, and the failings of, not just the congress itself, but of the system involved in the Congress.

The congress was composed of two houses, so as to deliberately slow the debate of bills, the passage, and thus to prevent the passions of the people from undermining their own security, as well as preventing individuals from pushing laws both unconstitutional and unjust upon the people.

We as a nation have forgotten who we are. You as congressmen have forgotten as well, and you should be ashamed of what you have become.

You are the guardians of the constitution, as much as the people are. You are the guardians of the power of the legislature, and guarding against the incursions of the judiciary and the executive branches.

You have failed. Not from action, but from inaction, not from ill intent, in general, but from apathy. You have forgotten your duties in the everyday, humdrum cares of the world, in the fight for reelection, and the ebb and flow of legislative deals, and compromises.

Upon some things, there is no compromise. Those things are the rights of the people, guaranteed in the Constitution, and the duties and limits enshrined in the Federalist Papers, the Constitutional Congresses, and in the body of the Constitution itself.

Your failure is so egregious, as to stand as an attack upon that constitution, and a violation of that constitutional oath that you took upon entry into office. It stands as a shameful example of the waste and bigotry of men, an example of the partisanship and pecuniary interests running rampant upon the floor of the congress.

I am ashamed for you, and ashamed of you. In proportion to the powers wielded by the congress, were the limitations placed upon that power, and the protections of the people in regard to that power. You have usurped those protections, bypassed the protections, and run rampant over the constitution itself.

You have removed the rights of classes of citizens, failed to control a spiraling national debt, created a federal reserve which prints paper money with no worth, and incited the people to give up further on their constitutional protections. You have passed bills which remove the incentives for actual education, then complain of the falling standards. You have removed rehabilitation from criminal systems, and created the largest system of incarceration in the world. You push those who enter into this incarceration system into the fringes of society, where they cannot, and do not, have a chance for the redemption and rehabilitation which was intended in the criminal justice system from the beginning. You have set yourselves up as judge, and jury, and chosen to let the police attempt to enforce laws which are vague, unclear, and in some cases contradictory.

Further, you have grasped powers, denied specifically to the Federal Government, placed upon the people more and more sanctions and prices, and linked our welfare to the oil futures market, which has long demonstrated its volatility.

You introduced a system of taxation which has driven the industry out of the nation, created systems of law and punishment which impermissibly commingle the civil and criminal code, and take away more, and more rights in the interests of security...

but whose security? Who becomes more secure through these laws? The congress itself. They're more and more guaranteed to be re-elected, as the paper vote goes away and the electronic vote enters in its stead. This electronic vote has no oversight from the people, nor does it have the protections against chicanery that even the old Greek system of pebbles had.

Nor does this allow our nation to maintain a system of voting that is anonymous. When we have the identification chip... how long until you require it to vote... and monitor us to make sure we are making the 'proper' vote?

You cede additional powers to the president, in order to gain more for yourself under Interstate Commerce, you claim that the rights of some are not as important as the rights of others, in your bills, and further, in many cases, claim de facto immunity due to the service in congress.

After these things, how can we hope that you will keep your word? When outrage explodes across the nation, you turn with the tides of public opinion, rather than holding to your oath to the Constitution.

This is not the part of wisdom, nor the path which the Founding Fathers wished.

Look to the Federalist Papers.... Look to the Constitution. Look to the very arguments for and against its founding... and ask yourself if your actions truly reflect that.

Then grieve for what you have created, for it is a monstrosity that cries out from the earth with blood on its hands, crying your shame to the world.
Read more!

Open letter to the people

In every man's life, it comes a time to look at one's dreams, look at what is real, and what is not, look at one's history and one's condition, and determine what direction is necessary and proper for that man's life to go.

Such is the nature of nations, as well, a nature that, by the nature, and composition of humanity, is often usurped. Our nation stands clawing at the edge of the precipice. I know not if we can pull ourselves out, given the nature of the trap prepared before us.

Those that would steer the nation, in the opinion of this writer, have steered it wrongly. They have bound us, and riveted upon us chains no less binding for being simply paper and legal documents. We hold on, not from hope, but from the determined survivalism that is part and parcel of our very humanity.

Look around yourselves. Look beyond the news, beyond the sound bytes, beyond the blurbs that make up everyday television, and look at the core of our society. Prices rise every day, every day men, and women, more and more desperate to make ends meet. Our prison population rises by leaps and bounds, our nation crying out from its roots against what occurs.

The blood of the innocent and the guilty alike is on our hands. To wash ourselves free of this blood, what method might we use? Shall we imprison more men, claiming that it is not working to imprison few? Shall we imprison all? If registering a few works not, does it not follow that registering all might? With the government implementing plans for a national identification card, and implanted tracking chips, how long can we still exercise our rights?

How long until these devices are required to drive, to vote, to have medical care, to live? How long until they become so ubiquitous that nobody thinks anything of them, but there is no more security? When crime becomes a way of life for the nation, is it not a maxim that the crime will rise to the highest possible level, and that to surpress competition, that such crime will use any power to prevent both the revelation of their crime, as well as to prevent any others from becoming powerful enough to challenge them?

The government does not grant, or guarantee your rights. It cannot, those rights are innate, and subject to none other but God and your own soul and conscience. If you choose not to exercise them, that is your choice. But look around you, look at your children, look at your parents. Are we really so much better off? Are we really more free, or are the chains about us so tight now that we cannot see the freedoms we've lost?

When our nation is so blindfolded, so coddled, that its civilians cannot stand on their own, and are powerless to protect themselves against the predators and criminals of society, what guarantee do we really have? We have only one guarantee, the guarantee of all civil societies, the guarantee of the right to self-protection, self-actualization, and self-rule.

This is the right, ultimately, that we are giving up, and refusing to work toward. We are educated, bred, taught, to comply and fit in... if we do not, we are placed at the fringes of society, placed in prison, and ultimately banned from society even after we have paid the debt that was owed.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?

And is there any peace in those chains?

When one has made an oath to the Constitution, can one stand and allow a constitutional crisis to continue? Can one close their eyes to that crisis and pretend that it does not occur? If I were to do so, I would be as guilty as those who created the crisis, guilty before not just myself, but my people, my society, and even the children that the legislature claims to attempt to protect.

What is the price of freedom? We give up security, ostensibly granted by the government, for the opportunity to create that security ourselves. We grasp back our rights, the rights to life, liberty, property, and freedom of choice, freedom of will, and all the pains and processes committant with it.

Our nation is one of free men... but how free are we now? Can we test the walls of our cells? Can we see the limits of our chains? When the bounds about us are bound tightly enough, can we even perceive what it is to be free?

Ladies and gentlemen of the nation... our constitution is in crisis, and the tearing apart of the document continues every day. It is our idleness, our idolatry for security, our zeal for punishment that allows it, without realizing that any right we deny others... we also deny ourselves.

Though my heart is full of fear, there is only one course which can, and must guide my footsteps, and that is the course of restoration of that constitution, and of the rights of the people. It is only in this manner that we can guarantee, and maintain the rights of the people for our children, and our children's children.

I cannot hold back my opinion, nor hold back the facts. The facts stand before a weary world, untrammeled, and unexplored by so many. Look at them, then look at yourselves. Is it really so great a stretch from where we sit until complete slavery?

Forbid it, Almighty God... I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty... or give me death.
Read more!

Friday, July 25, 2008

In every man's life there are times for changes, times for rediscovery of who you are, what you want, what you percieve, what you believe. Every man is tried, every man is found wanting... but every man must try, and every man must want.

We are a people of passions, of juxtapositions, of wisdom and ignorance, hope and despair, love and hate, all mixed within our blood and marrow in a power that cannot be denied.

But we are also a people of judgement... and mercy. It is mercy that makes us human, hope that gives mercy the power to become such, and wisdom that combats the ignorance that makes men mad.

We only see what we see. We only judge by what we see, what we perceive, and what we feel about ourselves... and it is madness to assume what you see, and judge are the truth.

The following videos are those of a man... a man who was a prisoner, twenty years, for breaking a windowpane, to steal a loaf of bread to feed his family. Ten years, for the theft, and ten for attempting to escape the hard labor. He was released on parole, and nobody would help him, none would give him a place to stay, even overnight. None would allow him to work, for the felon's mark upon his chest and the papers in his hand.

Looking at the grace given by the priest... and after the theft...

A man had lifted a cart off of another, and was identified by Javert as Jean Valjean.. and the mayor, the real Valjean, was faced with a choice to destroy all he'd worked for, or let an innocent man go to prison in his place.

Just before this, Fantine is dying... and has charged Valjean to save her daughter from the owners of an inn she left them with.

It is a story of grace, of redemption, of the pursuit of the law. It is a story of two men, and the society they lived in, at diametric opposites, but inextricably linked.

It is a story of judgment. The villains in this piece are not who they seem... for the law seeks to merely uphold the law, the criminal seeks a new life... and the clash between law and mercy holds all in its grasp.

The people caught in conditions without hope, the loss of the beloved voice of the people... it all circles round and about into a story that cannot be ignored. It, in its own way, is a story of morals... and of the damage that can be done in the judgment of society.

And of the costs of attempting to reach for freedom.... For all freedoms there is a cost, paid in blood. Paid in lives, in hopes, in dreams... but is then freedom not worth it? There are no lives without it, no hope, no dreams. Freedom is the source of hopes, and dreams.

Freedom is worth any cost.

In the sewers, Valjean carries the wounded Marius... and as Marius sleeps, Valjean prays.

At the end, Javert comes to some realizations, as well.. his pursuit of Valjean has become the purpose of his life... and he has realized that his pursuit is injust.

Though it may cost me all I have, though it may cost me my life... it cannot cost me my eternal soul to fight for freedom. Though my life is stained and soiled, and I cannot change what has occurred, I can work for the future, for the freedom of all men. From tyranny, from hate, from injustice. That is the course of life... and even if I fall, I will die a Free man, for I die by the means of my own choosing, not by those who would make me a slave. This is my oath, to all that is holy, that I will, on my honor, strive to make the world a place for freedom, for justice, for mercy, for honor... or die in the attempt.

Read more!

Thursday, July 24, 2008

The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments
From the New York Packet.
Friday, February 8, 1788.
Alexander Hamilton or James Madison

To the People of the State of New York:

TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. Without presuming to undertake a full development of this important idea, I will hazard a few general observations, which may perhaps place it in a clearer light, and enable us to form a more correct judgment of the principles and structure of the government planned by the convention.

In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another. Perhaps such a plan of constructing the several departments would be less difficult in practice than it may in contemplation appear. Some difficulties, however, and some additional expense would attend the execution of it. Some deviations, therefore, from the principle must be admitted. In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications; secondly, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them.

It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal.

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State.

But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified. An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense with which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be neither altogether safe nor alone sufficient. On ordinary occasions it might not be exerted with the requisite firmness, and on extraordinary occasions it might be perfidiously abused. May not this defect of an absolute negative be supplied by some qualified connection between this weaker department and the weaker branch of the stronger department, by which the latter may be led to support the constitutional rights of the former, without being too much detached from the rights of its own department?

If the principles on which these observations are founded be just, as I persuade myself they are, and they be applied as a criterion to the several State constitutions, and to the federal Constitution it will be found that if the latter does not perfectly correspond with them, the former are infinitely less able to bear such a test.

There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view.

First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.

Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the REPUBLICAN CAUSE, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the FEDERAL PRINCIPLE.


Not much I can add to this. In conjunction, however, with the statements in Federalist 57...

will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny. If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.

There can be neither discriminatory law, nor targeted law, at the federal level, but only law that covers all humans in their care equally, without regard for their gender, thoughts, perceptions, disability, social status, or criminal status. Any crimes meted by the government, require a government police force, which is denied under the Constitution.

Those powers respectively are reserved to the states and the people. If the Federal Government chooses not to adhere to its own rules, it must be reminded of the nature of the constitution on which it is founded, and the purposes behind it. By thus doing, it has lost its basis for its power, and the power in fact, as it is no longer a duly constituted government.
Read more!

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

An open letter to the ACLU.

I am not normally one to write thus. I would not normally suggest that my writing is important enough to be spread far and wide. This, however, has gone too far, and in proportion to the magnitude of the problem, ought to be the power to spread the truth.

Gentlemen, I come before you, a man powerless under the law, seeking the redress of grievances done by the legislators of the country, and by the executive power, that impermissibly infringes upon both human rights, and civil rights.

I write this, knowing that what I am to say is true, but it is a view that few will look at, however, I know that you will understand.

There are two varieties of court in the country, civil or escrow court (as it was termed in the days of the founding of the Constitution) and criminal court. One tries actions between individuals, for the remediation of grievances under contract law. The other, provides punishments due prisoners for wrongs done against society.

The Adam Walsh act claims to be a civil matter.. but it provides punishment more consistent with a criminal code. Further, it impermissibly co-mingles the civil and the criminal justice system, without the protections granted under the Criminal Justice system for criminal offenses.

Under the Federalist Papers 83, this separation was discussed as a necessary guarantee of freedom. However, this act also has other, perhaps unintended consequences.

The Adam Walsh act creates a unique situation. On one hand, it attempts to protect society, on the other, it places a vulnerable population, which, in general has had both its capability of self-protection removed, and in many cases the right to vote, in a position where they are vulnerable to vigilantes. Further, it places limits on where such people can live, advertises their location, making them more vulnerable to attacks, financial fraud, and property damage, and further creates situations where friends, neighbors, and family members (including children) are endangered without recourse to law.

Our constitution guarantees certain rights, and recognizes that other rights exist, from the state of humanity itself. Among these rights were the right to life, to liberty, to property, and to security.

Removing these rights by writ is prohibited, under Article 1, Section 9 of the US consittution, as well as Article 1, Section 10. There is no power granted to the legislature to remove rights, for any group of people, or for all persons, by writ. Such a power was specifically prohibited, and discussed in detail in the Federalist papers. The federalist 48 was specific in the reasons behind the limitations to the congressional powers on this subject, as was the Federalist 83.

The legislative department derives a superiority in our governments from other circumstances. Its constitutional powers being at once more extensive, and less susceptible of precise limits, it can, with the greater facility, mask, under complicated and indirect measures, the encroachments which it makes on the co-ordinate departments. It is not unfrequently a question of real nicety in legislative bodies, whether the operation of a particular measure will, or will not, extend beyond the legislative sphere. On the other side, the executive power being restrained within a narrower compass, and being more simple in its nature, and the judiciary being described by landmarks still less uncertain, projects of usurpation by either of these departments would immediately betray and defeat themselves. Nor is this all: as the legislative department alone has access to the pockets of the people, and has in some constitutions full discretion, and in all a prevailing influence, over the pecuniary rewards of those who fill the other departments, a dependence is thus created in the latter, which gives still greater facility to encroachments of the former.

The first example is that of Virginia, a State which, as we have seen, has expressly declared in its constitution, that the three great departments ought not to be intermixed. The authority in support of it is Mr. Jefferson, who, besides his other advantages for remarking the operation of the government, was himself the chief magistrate of it. In order to convey fully the ideas with which his experience had impressed him on this subject, it will be necessary to quote a passage of some length from his very interesting "Notes on the State of Virginia," p. 195. "All the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands, is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation, that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it, turn their eyes on the republic of Venice. As little will it avail us, that they are chosen by ourselves. An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others. For this reason, that convention which passed the ordinance of government, laid its foundation on this basis, that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments should be separate and distinct, so that no person should exercise the powers of more than one of them at the same time. BUT NO BARRIER WAS PROVIDED BETWEEN THESE SEVERAL POWERS. The judiciary and the executive members were left dependent on the legislative for their subsistence in office, and some of them for their continuance in it. If, therefore, the legislature assumes executive and judiciary powers, no opposition is likely to be made; nor, if made, can be effectual; because in that case they may put their proceedings into the form of acts of Assembly, which will render them obligatory on the other branches. They have accordingly, IN MANY instances, DECIDED RIGHTS which should have been left to JUDICIARY CONTROVERSY, and THE DIRECTION OF THE EXECUTIVE, DURING THE WHOLE TIME OF THEIR SESSION, IS BECOMING HABITUAL AND FAMILIAR. (Federalist 48)

I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny. If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.

If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty.

Such will be the relation between the House of Representatives and their constituents. Duty, gratitude, interest, ambition itself, are the chords by which they will be bound to fidelity and sympathy with the great mass of the people. It is possible that these may all be insufficient to control the caprice and wickedness of man. But are they not all that government will admit, and that human prudence can devise? Are they not the genuine and the characteristic means by which republican government provides for the liberty and happiness of the people? Are they not the identical means on which every State government in the Union relies for the attainment of these important ends? What then are we to understand by the objection which this paper has combated? What are we to say to the men who profess the most flaming zeal for republican government, yet boldly impeach the fundamental principle of it; who pretend to be champions for the right and the capacity of the people to choose their own rulers, yet maintain that they will prefer those only who will immediately and infallibly betray the trust committed to them?

Were the objection to be read by one who had not seen the mode prescribed by the Constitution for the choice of representatives, he could suppose nothing less than that some unreasonable qualification of property was annexed to the right of suffrage; or that the right of eligibility was limited to persons of particular families or fortunes; or at least that the mode prescribed by the State constitutions was in some respect or other, very grossly departed from. We have seen how far such a supposition would err, as to the two first points. Nor would it, in fact, be less erroneous as to the last. The only difference discoverable between the two cases is, that each representative of the United States will be elected by five or six thousand citizens; whilst in the individual States, the election of a representative is left to about as many hundreds. Will it be pretended that this difference is sufficient to justify an attachment to the State governments, and an abhorrence to the federal government? If this be the point on which the objection turns, it deserves to be examined. (Federalist 57)

The supreme court has said that the constitution and the history thereof are silent on the matter of civil law and ex post facto, therefore it is allowed.. I'd argue the following (written regarding the right to jury in civil trials) as evidence against this.

With regard to civil causes, subtleties almost too contemptible for refutation have been employed to countenance the surmise that a thing which is only NOT PROVIDED FOR, is entirely ABOLISHED. Every man of discernment must at once perceive the wide difference between SILENCE and ABOLITION. But as the inventors of this fallacy have attempted to support it by certain LEGAL MAXIMS of interpretation, which they have perverted from their true meaning, it may not be wholly useless to explore the ground they have taken.

The maxims on which they rely are of this nature: "A specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals"; or, "The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another." Hence, say they, as the Constitution has established the trial by jury in criminal cases, and is silent in respect to civil, this silence is an implied prohibition of trial by jury in regard to the latter. (Federalist 83)

Further, I would argue that such a law would be utterly nonsensical under the common law tradition of civil suits. Civil law at the time was contract, tort, property, or escrow law, regarding private individuals, and private matters, in direct contrast to the common law criminal law which dealt with wrongs against the society.

Under civil law no punishment could be meted, not even a moment in prison could be assessed. All judgments were remedial, and such judgments could only occur in explicit or implied contract.

No civil law, further, could be imposed upon any person. Civil code, as well, was an alien issue, the first civil code (a predecessor of the Code Napoleon) coming in with the Louisiana Purchase. (currently still the basis of Louisiana code).

Criminal law, however, is quite the opposite. Criminal law is imposed by its very nature, and punitive, by providing for unique imprisonment and loss of freedom, liberties, and rights.

How then is mandatory registration on pain of incarceration civil? How is it thus legal to restrict the rights of men, not for what they do, but for what they may, someday, perhaps do?

There are three aspects to any criminal law, first that the law must be clear. The second test is one of fairness. The third test is one of assumption of innocence. In primus, is the law clear? It establishes a large number of punishments, increases minimum sentences.. but also leaves the interpretation and application of the law, rather than being codified, in the hands of the Attorney General of the United States. This is a strike against clarity, and the separation of powers.

The second test, fairness, is a subjective test. But according to this test, is it 'fair' or 'reasonable' to expose a population to danger, simply because one believes they may reoffend? Is this just or reasonable? When divested of their ability to protect themselves, labeled and demonized, how is it reasonable to expose them to those to whom they have been labeled as demons? When it has been judged by the Supreme Court that there is no protected property interest in police protection, and that they are in truth there to simply catch criminals and incarcerate, the police in many cases will not protect those thus labeled.. and further in most cases cannot.

"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect
individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty
is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection
of the general public." (Lynch v. NC Dept. Justice)

". . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."--Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

Cases known supporting this:
South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (HOW) 396,15 L.Ed., 433 (1856)
Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, 686F.2d 616 (1882)
Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)
Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill App 2d 460 (1968)
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal. Rptr 5 (1975)
Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477F. Supp. 1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)
Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup. Ct. Penn. 1981)
Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197,185 Cal. Rptr. 252,649
P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A2d 1306 (D.C. App. 1983)
Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)
Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (S.Ct. Ala. 1985)
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
Marshall v. Winston, 389 S.E. 2nd 902 (Va. 1990)

After these things, it becomes plain that there is a protected interest, a substantiative due process interest, in abolishing this law. Further, it may well be that abolishment may come too late. Due to the decision to distribute the data over the Internet, to use the vernacular, the 'genie is out of the bottle'. There is no way to put the knowledge held there back away, nor to delete it from all archives, especially that of those who would willingly put it to malicious use.

After these things, we must ask, and remonstrate for injunctive relief. By the right to redress of grievances, as well, we must insist upon the restoration of our rights, the abolition of this law, and further, the restoration of our ability to protect ourselves, as the government cannot protect us.

We must seek injunctive relief not only for ourselves, but for our families, our children, our friends, and our loved ones. This law does not simply apply to the offender, it applies to those around the offender. The innocents who are bullied, targeted, and harmed, not because of their own actions, but because of a governmental backlash of hatred, control, and intolerance.
Should this state continue, we will be ended, and so will the lives of others who count on us. No right can be removed from any person without causing that right to become a privilege in the eyes of the government. Banishment, disarmament, concentration, and limitations on free speech and association are the tools of tyranny.

The current law stands as a legislative bill of pains and penalties, insofar as they have judged that offenders are guilty of the possibility of a new crime, therefor they must pay. They must register, they must obey restrictions on their livelihood, their location, their communication, their families, their friends, and be legislated further by whim and writ, to limit their rights without recourse to due process of law. Should they refuse, they should be imprisoned.

Wherein is this American? Wherein does the United States gain such power, that the congress can ignore the very foundation of their grant of power?

No, the congress has no such power granted in the Constitution, nor does the states. Article 1, section 9 specifically prohibits attainder and ex post facto legislation. Article 1, section 10 specifically prohibits the same to the states.

It is time to end this. The persons labeled 'sex offenders' according to the GOVERNMENT'S OWN STATISTICS have a lower reoffense rate for any crime, as well as a low reoffense rate for sexual crimes. The lies must end. If you do not believe me, do the research yourself. Go to the department of justice. Go to the departments of correction. The numbers are there, and available, if you look. Look at the studies, and metastudies. Learn and understand, and think!

The actions of few, should not destroy the rights of all.

Tried By Conscience.

Feel free to repost this. Spread it. Share it. The truth must know no ending.
Read more!

Thursday, July 17, 2008

What is it to be free?

I look outside this morning. The sun is rising, barely glimmering over the hilltops, the air smoky from wildfires. The sound of traffic nearby, rushes, people travelling by without seeing, wthout hearing, blind and dumb in their motions, without knowing the strings that make them a puppet.

What is it to be free? Oddly, it's to know a responsibility, a greater responsibility than to just y ourself, but to everyone. It's to know that your people, your life, are as great as your own. Even the 'least' of people is a person, and.. there but for the grace of God go I.

I'm fighting still. I've very little left to fight with. The pain of late increases, but it doesn't matter, really. What matters is the cause. Perhaps I tilt at windmills, thinking them to be giants, but still I fight. I must fight.

Who, after all, is the more courageous? Is it he who fights, or he who stands back and laughs? Believing windmills to be giants, does it not take more courage to defy the mocking laughter than to join it?

I will die a free man. I do not know about others, but the spirit cannot be conquered, so long as there is still courage. The heart cannot be crushed, so long as there is life, and hope can never be extinguished save by my own hand.

So what is freedom? It's more than the simple trappings we so often accept, more than the ability for life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Fredom is the ability to dare, the ability to fail. It's calling up the fire inside, the fire of inspiration, to defy all that comes against you.

It's the freedom to love, to be loved.. the ability to try, and fail. It's the ability to climb and fall, hope and fear, without the intervention of a government beyond what is absolutely necessary. Freedom to speak, think, believe, associate, are all part of the core. Freedom to live, to have a home, to not be driven from that home, to have that home secure from searches, and not have it taken from you by a government. Freedom allows you to live and love, and to pay the price if you've made a mistake.. but also to be redeemed at the end of the day, and the end of the judgment.

Freedom is the heaviest price, the greatest burden, and the greatest gift anyone may have. Freedom forces us to look within ourselves, at our failures, at our frailties, at our greatest weaknesses, and then to overcome them. It forces us to overcome all bounds to freedom, to fight and die for something larger than ourselves, something greater than what we are.

And it forces us to realize our own mortality. I long right now to be in the forest, listening to the rustling of trees, the whisper of the wind... to feel the cool rain on my face, hear the thunder rumbling overhead, and gaze out over a land that is free...

But what really is freedom?

It's the ability to make mistakes... the ability to be responsible for your actions, the ability to reach, fumble, and fall. The government would have us believe that freedom is dangerous... it is. But at least freedom is our own mistakes, and not those of an overreaching, and overgrasping myopic tyrant.

Government is really, in many ways, a toddler.. trying to control the world. It cannot know all the issues, but it can try to control them... and what means has it to control? Only restriction, only the destruction of freedom. Ultimately, the unrestricted government caring for you can only bring you to chains and slavery. It is the nature of governments. They expand and expand, find every possible way to gain more power... and the only powers they gain come at the costs of your liberties, which, as was said by the founding fathers, are made by the hand of God and bestowed upon the person.

When restriction and restriction and restriction come onto the people... when do you stop being free? The answer... you don't. You can either choose to follow the restrictions of your master, or to defy them. Your freedom never truly wavers.

The question becomes, ultimately, if the exercise of that freedom is worth more than the sanctions that can be placed upon you, the punishments that can be meted out. For my part.. if life is a prison, then perhaps it is time to speak out against it... and the harder they press me not to speak.

It is a legal fiction that freedoms can be taken.. they can only be ceded.. and then only by choice.

You see... if any law is a civil regulation... it can only be by choice that it is implemented.. and only by choice that it is followed. Legal fictions be damned, civil law is only consentual law. There can be no civil law that is imposed on another.
Read more!

Tuesday, July 15, 2008


I weep for our nation. For the chicanery and stupidity of our congress, for the idiocy of our policiies... and for the people who get caught in them.

We know about this.. but how many people look at them as people. How many see the depths of the insanity?

Normally.. write far more. But this is enough.

heh. Maybe it isn't. How far will they go? As far as the hysteria can push them. Welcome to the future, friends. I hope you enjoy the world you're working for.
Read more!

Saturday, July 12, 2008

For the Greater Good.

Welcome to the future, friends, you've got a danger here,
and you all have to make sacrifices, to make the danger clear,
where the danger's coming from, we just can't be quite sure,
but we can tell you every one, that you're not secure,
can't you hear the scary things that go bump in the night?
won't you give us a little more power so we can join the fight?

For the greater good, you give away your freedom,
for the greater good, you give all that you can
and for the greater good, you give up privacy
all for the greater good of man....

Ignore the voices coming from the next county down,
it's just our enemies encroaching, trying to take the town,
perhaps you're not giving enough to fight what we endure,
can't you give a little more, so to be secure?

Can't you feel the enemies, whispering, to implore?
now we can keep a few guards just outside your door.
For the greater good, we post guards in your home now,
and watch what you spend and what you plan,
and for the greater good, we watch all you do and how,
all for the greater good of man....

How free do you feel now, sitting there in chains,
when we kicked down your door, in spite of all your pains?
You're now the latest enemy, that we must now cleanse,
you're the insect sitting under a magnifying lens...
You have no rights to anything, and we wanted all,
now you're the one stood up, against the firing wall..

How dare you dream of freedom?
How dare you think you might be free?
you've signed away your rights for security,
now who's going to protect you all from me?

Tried By Conscience:

Read more!

Friday, July 11, 2008

Freedom, security, and sex offenders and the law

I've been doing a great deal of studing on the registry, and what, in the United States, constitutes civil and criminal law, as well as common law. This document discusses this, in detail.

Our law system is Common Law. It is a system of debates, of finding precedent and law, in all of its imperfections. The cases and precedents date back nearly to the 11th century that we know of, and possibly before. The system evolved, several times going to various swings of conservatism and liberalism, sometimes even going so far as to become oppresive, then brought back to heel by the populace.

During the reign of King John, a number of the lords of the land banded together, and forced him to sign the Magna Carta, a great charter that was designed to limit the powers of the King over people nominally his vassals. it established rules and laws, the ability of freemen to keep arms, and bear them in defense of the king and their land, and lords. It further created a nullification of the 'kings right', the right to enter any property and seize any person and property that they wished.

The trial by jury was tested in 1544, by the trial of Throckmorton for treason and Sedition. The jury was severely punished for freeing him against the legal counsel of the Judge. In 1649, the Lilburne trial was held, under the Cromwell Regeime, for a similar issue, and was the first to argue for juristic nullification of the law.

Later, in Bushnell's Case, the right to jury nullification was upheld again, creating a legal precedent in 1670, that lasted until 1990 in the US.

Currently, the statement of a juror regarding nullification is grounds for removal from the jury, as it is in voir dire, and instruction by the defense, or judge, is considered to be grounds for a mistrial.

Our nation is one of common law. It is, and has thus been, since its inception. Cases were judged, not by the law, but by precedent. Those who were on the prosecution, and those on the defense searched the books of precedent, in order to find the most applicable defenses and crimes, respectively. Common law was based in the rights of the people, the right of the accused to be innocent until proven guilty, and the right of the person to the best possible defense, as well as to appeal.

The reason I raise these points of history is to contrast several things. Civil law has two current definitions which are inextricably linked within the U.S. system. Civil law is the codified laws, the regulations, and structures that provide recourse for parties in a contract, including marriage, incorporation, lawsuits, and other 'private' proceedings. It is a system of agreements between persons, or entities declared as persons for the purpose of the law.

Specifically, civil law is considered 'adversarial' law. It is considered to be law that is inquisitorial, mostly because the rights of the people were ignored, one could testify against oneself, and be compelled to do so, as well as being forced into testimony that could be harmful to one's own case. Further, once the initial claim was passed with merit, the defending party had to prove their own innocence.

There were a few limitations, however. According to tradition and law, civil trials, and civil laws, could not provide punishment in the form of jail time. Civil laws could not even provide for a minute in restraint.

This is where civil and criminal laws differ. Criminal laws deal in punishment. They deal in terms of restraint and imprisonment, and this is the very definition of a criminal law. Criminal laws further are dealt with, at least in theory, from the standpoint of innocence until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the state or local enforcement agencies, rather than on the person, save in cases of defense by insanity.

In short, any law with a criminal punishment, a punishment for detention, attached, cannot be a civil law or a civil regulation.

The problem before the courts in Smith Vs Doe, 538 US 84 (2003) was a question, not on the legality of the law itself, but on the legality of the release of information. The release of information, by itself, was not a criminal code, as the release itself provided no punishment per se. However, if the law had been applied to the registry, rather than the release of information, I believe it could not have been found as a civil matter. The focus of the case, however, was on the release of information, rather than the registry itself.

In the Connecticut Dept of Public Safety vs Doe, 538 US 1 2003, the procedural due process grounds were nullified. This leaves the substantiative due process grounds, and a test of the Ex Post Facto, rather than on the release, on the inclusion onto the registry. This, I believe, is due to faulty wording on the nature of the substance of the Ex Post Facto claim.

Further, given the following information, historically, I would argue the point that the founding fathers did not intend Ex Post Facto to be attributed to civil laws.

At the time of the founding of the Constitution, civil laws were not in place in the United States. It was not until 1804 that any civil codes were passed. Civil law was designed under common law as a way to mediate the agreements between two private parties. Hence, the judges drew upon their common law knowledge (and common sense) to adjudicate a case where the agreement was in question, or the nature of the penalty of the agreement was. (financial penalties or torts, divorce cases, etc).

The reason the founding fathers did not discuss ex post facto in civil matters during the constitutional arguments was that it could not occur. Who would agree to the creation of a contract where they could be fined for things that occurred before the contract was created? And if they did, was it not their own fault for not reading it more closely?

Ironically, our nation since 1808 has suffered a major shift; we utilize civil law synonymously with Roman Law. Roman law was codified law, adversarial and inquisitorial, and did not include self-protection. Roman law also merged both the civil and the criminal codes.

Roman law is also known as Napoleonic law. Napoleonic law was an outgrowth of the Roman Law, as was a great deal of the law in Europe. The purpose of roman law was threefold; maintaining order, managing the people, and keeping the power in the hands of the Emperor and Senate.

Since 1808, we have had many laws placed on the books. Thousands upon thousands of them in fact, to the point where no man can know all of them, and even the computers have difficulty searching through them to find a meaningful result. Our laws grow more and more powerful, and become more and more punitive, even under the veil of 'civil' law.

But it cannot be 'civil' law, if it provides a punishment, can it?

Only if you mutate 'roman law' into 'Civil law'.

In our nation today, we become more and more interested in keeping control. How better to do this, though, than to legislate everything? We legislate eating, legislate drinking, legislate health and sickness, legislate how we can pay one another, legislate our taxes, legislate our lives.

And the more legislation there is, the more outlawry there is, not because people's behavior changes at first, but there is more to get into trouble for. The more laws we pass, the higher the crime, and eventually, people's behavior changes.

People are strange animals. We apply reason until we are hurt. We often, when hurt, cannot apply reason to prevent another hurt. We live in fear, in injustice, afraid to reach out and change it, but cannot get past the fear enough to realize that we can change it.

Emotions betray reason. They both bring us together, and break us apart. Wisdom falls before lust, falls before anger, falls before fear... but how can we control what we are? Because of reason...

There is no reason, however, to laws designed under the Roman statute. They are black and white, all or nothing, and the punishments as well are all or nothing. mandatory minima, no exceptions. They are systems of punishments designed to keep people in fear and under control, after all, if there is enough law, one can be tried for things that are ephimeral. With ex post facto, one can be tried for crimes that occurred before the law was passed.

Imagine an intersection. You cross it every day.. then someone places a stop sign there, and makes the stop sign retroactive for the past ten years. All the sudden you're guilty of fines for all the time the stop sign 'was there' legally. It is a civl law. it is ex post facto. is it right? No... no it is not. And this is why ex post facto is just as inapplicable under civil law as criminal.

One must agree to civil law, or it is not civil. Are we agreeing to the registry? Aye, we are.. but it is not civil law. It is enforced upon us by extortion, held against us by force, if we do not comply, we go to prison, often for longer than our original sentences. If we do not comply again... in some states we can go away for life.

is this reason? Is a man convicted fourty years ago still a danger? Perhaps... but only in the sense we are all a danger. We are all 'potential predators'. Every man, every woman, every child in the US is a 'potential predator'. Do you still insist on registering the potential problems?

That's the problem with potentials, with perceptions. The problem with definitions is that they change, and understanding them later can be difficult. This is why the constitution and common law worked the way it did. It applied concrete laws in ways that were flexible according to the case.

Mandatory minimum sentences subvert this process. They create a rule by writ of law, that cannot be considered beyond by the judge or jury on the prospective case. They have no oversight, they are a law unto themselves. In any situation where they say 'that is the law, I have no choice', you can bet that the Roman Law, the Napoleonic law, is behind it.

Is this really who we are? The Code Napoleon was used in Russia.. in fascist germany, in France, in Spain. It was embraced with joy by the Bolsheviks, carried by the Fascists in Italy.

It is a tool of subjugation, and war against the very people who give the power to the government.

Yes... People give the power to the government. The citizens cede those powers to the government. The government does not give rights, it can only take them. The people are, in truth, the ultimate arbiters of their rights and privileges. If a right has been given up, it is only by the acquiescence of the people.

We forget who we are, why we are here. It does not matter how few people there are in a group, or if it is even an individual. If it can be done to anyone, it can be done to all. The attack on a single person against their rights is an attack on all rights, converting them into privileges, which will be removed.

This is why we are not a democracy... we are a democratic republic. In a democracy, the only rights one has are those that others vote to give you. They can also, in a true democracy, vote someone out of a vote, and ultimately, only a few control the democracy, until one or more of them die and one takes full control.

Equal protection under the law is not just for those you like... when it fails in any case, and you allow it to fail.. you have slain your own rights on the altar of security. I keep repeating this point.. hoping it will sink in to those who read it.

Benjamin Franklin: Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither and will lose both.

Thomas Paine said it eloquently. in his 'Common Sense' of 1776.

"Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher."
Read more!


The following is a work of fiction... a statement of potentials, and perhaps a caricature. I leave it for you to decide, reader, in a world filled with fear.

For the greater good: By Triedbyconscience.

The human race is dying. Sure, there are more of us than ever before, and we breed just as fervently as ever... but we are dying. Islands of sanity become more and more rare, acts of kindness and conscience, forgotten. In the daily news, story after story of rape, murder, and torture abound.. but do we ever see it anymore?

After a while, the eyes close, the heart hardens. Too many twists on the heartstrings, and they break. The part of the human race that dies is not the biological, but the spirit. We have no hope, only the momentary passions and fears, the hatred and greed.

The greed keeps us alive. The passions keep us from extinction, but are we truly human anymore?

A click of a pebble. I pulled out my pistol, looking toward the yard nearby. It was only a twig, fallen into the dirt. A twig fluttering with dead leaves. At least they weren't here, yet. It was only a matter of time.

I returned to writing, the computer shielded carefully in aFaraday cage made of old tin cans, and scavenged copper. I had disabled the ports I knew of, but... I hadn't survived this long by being so uncautious as to think I knew all. Even here, under the old concrete of an abandoned, burned-out service station, I could not afford to be complacent. They were watching.

"But what is greed?" I wrote "without hope? How did we get here in the first place, what led us to... death in life? The controls bound upon us, what happened to us? The only light in the universe that we knew of, blessed to life by some creator, in the old stories... yes, creator, I write this. Mock as you will, you have given up the reason for your creation."

Perhaps I am mad. I talk to my computer more than people. People are unsafe, they are dangerous. They would turn you in, in a moment, to get an instant away from their drudgery. Writing itself is forbidden for the most part. Reports and statistics are all that is printed, save for GovPress.

"You mock god.. I mock godlessness. To be free from god, you choose to abandon the idea of god, but in that abandoment, you have given up your freedom. If rights are not given by god, they are taken by man. They become privileges, writ in pencil to be erased at a stroke. They become empty ashes of promises, lost in the wind.

We talked once about freedom. We talked about a world where we could walk down the street, whenever we wished. Now our schedules are written as prescriptions by the government, for our own good, to follow them. After a time we came to accept this. Subversive ideas were dangerous, and so we burned the books. After a generation few remembered the history. The govcasts were history. It had always been thus, according to them, the beneficial government guarding and guiding the people, and if the conditions were brutal, it was the fault of the people for not working harder.

Pah. I spit on their kindness. Kind enough of them to provide cradle to grave, and if you refuse to eat of their provisions and poisons, you committed to being their flesh. After all, the medical service had to harvest spare organs from somewhere... and nobody would miss the subversives that might take away their dole.

But again I digress. How did we get here? With all the best of intentions, I believe. I found old books in abandoned caverns. I am not sure what happened to the people, why they hid them and never returned. I left them locked there. Perhaps someone else might find them, and know the damnation to which we're exposed.

The valley below me is full of smoke. That's true of everywhere anymore, the actinic scents of lightning and fire, the scents of the burning. Why care about the environment when your number could come up in either lottery tomorrow?

Why educate yourself, when it counted against your dole? When you had to work harder to maintain even the standard of living? Thence came the Wolves... people on the outskirts of society. Refusing both the dole and the lotteries, the Wolves were outlaws. They hunted the last of those down long ago.

Now we have the regressives... like me. People who educate themselves outside of the System. But are we regressive? Are we Wolves? Or are the Wolves those who feed upon the sheep that live in the society?

Long ago, there was a group. The name of the group isn't important, and wouldn't have any meaning today. Their crimes have become impossible. Nobody would care about them, when the thrill of watching someone fry for becoming rich due to the lottery has become boring. Sex and sex offenses... how long ago was that morality? The hysteria?

It made a good tool, though, for those in control, those 'politicians'. In the name of protecting the people, they isolated them, segregated them.. and nobody cared. They were just those offenders. They were all guilty of horrific crimes, they knew. They'd always do it again, and were a drain on society in general.

But were they really? Historical records indicate otherwise. Yes, some did horrible things, some offended, some reoffended... but the waste, the hysteria, the drain on society.. was from their politics in how to deal with them.

Left alone, I imagine some would have ended up in the prisons. A prison is... well, we call them work camps today. Imagine a work camp, though, where someday you could leave. Yes, I know, hard to imagine. Even know my soul is repulsed by the thought of meeting such a person after a work camp. The psychic scars are evident, even on my soul, when I'd at best be labeled a subversive, and burned on evening 'cast.

We didn't always have two hours required watching per day of executions. We didn't have the harvest shown, to get our dole. And we didn't always feel the anger that a person did something so foul that even their organs shouldn't be harvested.

No... that came into being fairly recently... two generations. I met an old timer hiding once. We talked for a long time. Even now it's hard for me to accept what he said, the StatePol programmed me very well.

Once there was blue skies. Once there were parks, and places for children to play, rather than creches they lived with their bio-parents. And the barbarism, they had guns, and used them. Sometimes on each other, sometimes on paper targets, sometimes on animals... but what a gift they had. Those weapons were the key to their freedom.

When the Sex Offenders became more vocal, the politicians became more aggressive in trying to silence them. When the restrictions reached a certain point, the offenders could no longer be ignored. It seemed that even the 'lowest of the low' had their limits in how far they would be pushed down, and they pushed back. They filed redresses, 'law suits' which were some kind of renumeration for inuries, and even attempted to enter the temple of these politicians, and show them where they were wrong...

It seems this angered the politicians, and they restricted them farther, pushed them into a creche, and ultimately, extended the registry to all. Yes, the citizen's registry came from a crime. We are probably more guilty in this than anyone in the work camps.

The hysteria was strong, the fear stronger. The politicians managed to whip up the people in hate against the offenders, and... *sighs* Even now, my brain says thanks to StatePol that they were right. Even when I know the truth. The truth is that they were normal citizens, in some cases. They were caught in wrongdoing, yes, but they were people. Some even had committed no crime at all, others henous crimes, and some recommitted horrific crimes. StatePol wants me to say that those who committed horrific crimes deserved what happened, and so did the others for having simply been associated with them, but... it wasn't always so."

A soft beep. Time to move. I closed my case, and nodded, looking around, and mounted my cycle. No, I didn't have the locator on it as required by law. I didn't have much of anything on it, that was detectible. The computer took care of all of that. I'd built the controls out of scrap. It would run father, on less power, for far longer than the originals, and even the police rigs. So much power was used for those tracking systems.

Better, it gave less signature to track. I dropped a package and moved out on the cycle, the hoverunit giving the softest hum under its Faraday's cage. Behind me I seemed to still be there, engrossed in my work. Hopefully the package would convince them. Hopefully.

With trepidation I activated the stealth field generator. It too was cobbled together from police parts. Yes, I'm such a regressive. Perhaps.. no. I won't go back to you people. I had come too far for that. There it was... a hiss and a streak of light, a crack. The building went up with an explosion. The StatePol would be here soon. I'd have to hide before that. An old tunnel was hidden nearby. I'd have to be careful to remain under the speed of sound. There was the first copter flying in. I flew a lot lower to avoid it, but higher than the laserlines down on the ridge.

There it was... an outcropping of rock. I shouldn't leave it, but... it was good sometimes to pretend I was free. I plummeted toward the rock, instincts screaming to pull up and away.. then through. The system recognized me, and closed the door behind me with real rock. Someday, I imaigne, they'll find me here... but I hope that day is a long time down the road. I have to commit an act.. an act so shocking that people will break their programming.

I sat down in the dark, and waited. The glow of the screen was dimmed by the cage over it, but even here I didn't dare remove it. The earth should nullify any signals, but how do you trust something made by StatePol?

I started to write again. "Yes, these politicians gave themselves the ability to lie to the people. The ability to look out and suspect each and every person. The people demanded more protection, they received mroe fear. And so was born, eventually, StatePol. State Politics, my friends.. came from the ruling elite grabbing police power. They were not granted it, they took it. In spite of what their programming wants me to believe, they did not, under their own rules, have the power to do so. They convinced the foolish, damned, gullible people to give it to them for their protection, even though they had convinced the other politiicans that the people deserved no protection.

Is it any wonder, as these people signed away their own rights, that they became ever more desperate for protection?

And now we live in a 'protected' world... where there are no rights, no joys, no hope... just more days of drudgery. When for being outside, we can be executed for increasing StatePol's health cost, when for having unprescribed sex we can be castrated. When for having a family, we can be executed. We're so much safer, aren't we? Aren't we?

So much safer, and so much more dead. StatePol.. safety from cradle to grave. They determine the cradle, and they determine the time of death. The whole planet is a prison now. We're all criminals under the eyes of StatePol, and nothing is safe.
Read more!