Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Slavery: For the children.

What is extortion? Extortion is, simply, a form of abuse that causes a person to act involuntarily by coercion. Coercion is the use of physical, emotional, or economic force to fulfill a goal.

One must admit, that government, by nature, and laws are coercive. Any and all acts, written by the government, must have a stick. The carrot is optional, and only for those enacting the law anyway.

If one is to define extortion as enforcement of a status against the will of the person upon which the status is being enforced, without the due process of law and judgment under the Common Law system of the Judiciary, including that necessary wall against the abuse that is called the 'Jury', can one claim that any act that seeks to 'regulate' but enforces such regulation with prison sentences is anything but extortion?

If there is a registry, that forces the payment of a fee to be on the registry, that removes the rights and privileges of the offenders, removes the ability of those registrants to travel, to seek gainful employment, to seek and establish residency and removes the rights associated with citizenry in the United States, or any part thereof, then further enforces, by writ, the establishment of that registry as being a registrant of monsters, and to be a civil registry, without the protections of that criminal code... can it be anything but extortion?

So it is with the Sex Offender Registry. They claim the act is non punitive, that it is regulatory and only serves to protect the public, but how does it do so? Are we any safer, or any more aware of the problems? Is it not true that those who are most dangerous will find a way, registry or not, to do as they please? If a man chooses to break the law... how can the same law be said to have prevented crime?

No, our system is something quite different than that. Our agreement, by the Constitution, was that all men were innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. A man could not be tried for a crime which he might commit, but for one that he was in the act of committing, or in conspiracy to commit. It was not good enough to have a suspicion of a crime, one had to have reasonable suspicion, upon probable cause to issue the warrant to search for evidence of that crime.

But when the government chooses not to follow its own law, what then? If they can come and search any building, any vehicle, any property at any time, upon reasonable suspicion rather than upon probable cause, have we not lost a great deal? Are we not all guilty until proven innocent, when the burden of proof goes to the person, rather than to the state?

If this is not extortion, please elucidate! Is it not extortion to use the regulation to control the movements of others? Is it not extortion to threaten fines, imprisonment, and humiliation for not cooperating with the registry? Is it not extortion to create a situation in which one cannot leave their home without asking the government for permission?

Is it not extortion to, under the threat of fines, fees, or prison time, disallow them use of the public parks for which they pay their tax money? Is it not extortion to deny them the right to leave their homes, the right to leave the country and sell those homes to find gainful employ elsewhere?

No.. it is not extortion at this point. Extortion goes simply to the requirement of the commission of an act. This goes far beyond that, into asserting control over a person under color of law, and reducing him to a vassal of the organization that created the registry. Is, however, vassalage enough? The vassal had the right to supplicate his lord for relief of the conditions.... no, this goes beyond vassalage, as well, into flat-out slavery.

The Adam Walsh act goes into a realm of attainder that creates not just restrictions, but outright ownership of the citizens under it under the rule of law. The persons are not free to go out of the state, to go out of the country, on pain of prison time, without complying with that registration. If they have ever traveled in interstate trade (upon an interstate highway or by any other means) they fall under the regulation. They no longer have any right, under the Act, to choose their own homes, to purchase property of their choice, to work at the places of their choice, and are punished, not as a single person for his own acts, but by further restrictions when other registrants or non registrants cause problems. They also no longer would appear to have the right in some states to disaster relief, to education, and in some states to vote. In the most restrictive states, even the right to family is denied.

Is this not the very definition of ownership? If one is forced to be unable to live anywhere but where the registry says, cannot have a family but in the proscribed manner of the registry, subject to revocation on the whim of the registry, cannot have a home that cannot be taken under the registry, cannot own any property that cannot be searched at any time, cannot speak out in public forums, cannot work in public places, that they seek to restrict their travels upon public transportation, that they restrict from parks, homes, neighborhoods, and cities... if they can choose if you go to prison for life, not for what you do, but for what you might do... is this not the very meaning of being a slave?

Are not the threat of imprisonment for noncompliance with a 'civil code' extortion, under that definition? However, slavery via extortion goes beyond this. It is the imposition of ownership by a person or entity, upon another individual human being. That ownership can be by threats or process of law, or by violence. But it restricts the very rights of the person, restricts living arrangements, family arrangements, the ability to exercise the duties of a free citizen, under penalty or duress. It exercises full and complete control over the lives, facilities, and often the family of the person under duress.

Slavery controls and limits all avenues of expression save that approved by the owner. It prevents, limits, and prohibits free exercise of religion save where it would help the control. It limits or prohibits travel without a writ from the owner. It removes the ability for free choice in conception, in the disposition of goods and services, and ultimately, removes, completely, the concept of property owned by the enslaved individual.

So.. we have the laws limiting where we can travel, writs from our masters, who 'know better than us' what is good for us and the society. We have laws limiting where we can live, where we can work, laws that can take away that work, and that living arrangement at any time, that are arbitrary, capricious, and under the control of the government that placed us under them... that can be morphed at any time and we are required to either follow along, or go to prison and follow along when we leave.

In some states the children can be taken from offenders, spouses driven away by legal requirements, the travel through the town, on public thoroughfares is prohibited. Travel on public transportation is proposed to be limited, disaster services segregated.

They propose to limit our online communication or negate it.

Ultimately are they not asserting their ownership over us? Ultimately are they not providing the very things listed in the civil rights cases on slavery? They require us to work, pay taxes, but we can't go to the park that our taxes pay for. They require us to live as they choose, under the guise of protecting the society. They propose mandatory castration, segregation, and removal of human rights.

At what point does it become slavery?

And by what right does our government enslave us?

Government rules, and must rule by the consent of the governed. When that consent is removed, the only power it has is that of an arm severed from the body. Segregation is not the answer. It never has been. The Bible may say 'if thine eye offends thee, pluck it out', but this as well is not conducive to the story of the good Samaritan, nor of the stories of the Prodigal Son.

Severing part of the society only serves to continue the hurt to society. That severance was designed to be for a time, judged, with the sole power of a jury, to be commensurate with the hurt originally done to that society.

At that point, no man could add to it, nor remove from it. No judge, no magistrate, no sheriff could try the man again for the same crime.

What we have devolved to, however, is a world where 'punishment' is the norm, and evolving punishment has been decided to be 'all right'. It is no different than the bully on the playground, being larger than the other kids, deciding to 'punish' someone, and the punished complying with the demands... then the bully deciding it's insufficient punishment and humiliation, and demanding more.

Any time that the legislature can decide that something needs further restrictions, and punishments, on any registry, and can change the rules of the registry, without notification, warning, or any choice in the matter or judicial review... they have devolved into something quite different than a government.

They have devolved into petty tyrants seeking power at any cost... and now the cost is that of our bodies, our hearts, our minds, our families, our very society and freedoms.

It is one thing for a jury, with full view of the facts presented, both for and against a case to judge for punishment, it is quite another to by writ do so, without review of crime, mitigating factors, and aggravating factors.

This is the nature of the prohibition against ex-post-facto legislation, and further, the wider prohibition against attainder. Attainder, or legislative taint, is not simply an archaic rule that nobody needs anymore. It is nothing less than the legislature deciding that the judicial punishment was insufficient, and thus further restrictions must be emplaced.

For it to continue, we must remain silent however.. we must not be able to leave, must not be able to travel, must not be able to speak out against it, and must remain cowed and subservient, groveling at the feet of the legislators who are using our bodies to pave the road to Hell with their 'Good Intentions'.

My apologies for the vitriol, but there is no room in any democratic republic for the rule of law to apply more strongly to any person than any other. There is no provision to legislate to a targeted class, of any kind, for such was absolutely prohibited in the original agreement.

"Congress can pass no law that does not equally bind itself and its friends, and the whole of society." Federalist papers. Read them. Understand them. Look back in time at what you've had stolen from you.

We have equal protection under the law, under the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the thirteenth, no man can have ownership or possession over another man, nor exert control over the other, by threats of force, fine, or imprisonment, save by the due process of the jury, commitant with the right and duty to try both the facts of the case, and the rule of law itself.

Thus has it been since Bushell and Throckmorton, reinforced by Zenger, which was in the minds, and on the tongues of the Founding Fathers. Likewise, the remembrance of Valley Forge, and the actions of the British in seizing lands by attainder, and execution by attainder, was remembered, and the role of the jury in enforcing the rights of the people via that juristic nullification was well-thought-out.

Is it any wonder that they seek to control the jury again? That by writ the judge can hold an innocent verdict to be inadequate, and try the jurists for contempt of court for finding a man innocent against such a judge's opinions? This was the very heart of the Zenger and Throckmorton trials, and that of Bushell.

Have we backslid so far as to be amongst Cromwell, or even King John, prior to the Magna Carta?

Have we forgotten our duties to that society, and that government, in the search for release from personal responsibility?

For that is what ultimately must be enforced.. personal responsibility for one's own actions, enforced from within. This is recovery. This is redemption. It is not enough to forsake an act. It is more imperative to change one's own self so the act is no longer possible. It is understanding, compassion, and respect for the rights, duties and privileges of others.

When these fail, then it is the role of the courts to enforce the rights of the society, versus the offender, and the separation is made. The separation is the punishment. It is not for punishment, for what society could not admit the hurt to society by severing part of itself?

And is not part of the curing of that hurt, on the end of the sentence, the reintegration of that severed part, the reestablishment of health and circulation within society?

There is argument made that because sexual offenses are against a child, and the child will 'never recover', that it is just and good to continue punishment and revilement against an offender forever. Cannot, however, this argument be made for anything? If we assume the topic of this argument, how much more culpable is a drunk driver who has struck another car? The lives cannot be restored. How much more culpable an engineer whose design failed, causing death or disfigurement? How much is eternal culpability worth?

In the same vein, how culpable are the very legislators for the legislation they propose? If it saves one child, they cry, is it not worth it? Meanwhile, economic policies poison our waters, darken our lands. They make food, medicine, and education itself out of reach for many of those same children they claim to save. It creates more and more a burden of debt upon each child before even they can have a legal choice about the decisions made in their behalf. The fuel prices rise, food becomes more and more adulterated with materials that may not be safe, their vehicles last less time, their homes made out of cheaper and weaker materials. The forests dwindle due to lack of stewardship, the borders become less and less secure... yet still they sit and linger upon what they can do to registered offenders.

What scapegoat is better after all? Who will speak for them? Who will reach out and risk their own security for those so reviled? And if they can attract the attention upon these scapegoats, cannot they continue their failed policies?

The federal reserve has failed. The loans that held up the economy since the 1930s have failed. The debt is more and more being called due, and our dollars buy less and less than they used to. How many persons will starve? How many will die in the coming depression? How many children will be lost, alone, or dying in a hovel then?

And even so, they call for restricting the rights of those very children, in order to 'protect' them. Meanwhile our police violate those in their care. The judges and magistrates show patterns of abuse and neglect. Our schools teach things only in passing and do not teach critical thought or investigative skills, or even the logic behind mathematics and chemistry.

And people are still caught up on 'offenders' as the government pounds down further debt upon them, fights wars overseas that cannot be 'won' and have no end point. Our votes count less and less as private interests take over their counting and collating, and renege upon their promises of security in the vote.

You want a crime against children that will affect them all their lives.. look at the lawmakers. Look at the lawyers. Look at all of those who would sign away their rights due to false statistics, and fearmongering. Look at those in power who seek to distract you. And look deep, look closely into what you ask for.

If you ask for protection and guidance... the Government is perfectly willing to give it to you. They'll bind and shackle upon you chains and rivet them to the wall. And they're perfectly willing to whip you into the direction they want you to go, for once you've given up the ability to make your own choices to that 'benevolent' government... how can you guarantee the hand with the whip will remain benevolent?

No comments: