Lawlessness Strategy

Lawlessness Strategy

As I plan to develop and design my own message on lawlessness in our country, I want to make sure you understand my motive and my decision to do so. Whether I make my point of relevance on this urgent matter is up to the reader and the energy of the content and context he or she takes the message.

Secondly, it is with high hopes that I will reveal the complete idea or concern expressed in the message to get you to think about it and share it without someone who has a common ground of concerns related to these matters. In all actuality, law and order effects everyone and impacts our lives much more than we ever realize until we break it down to where we are in the midst of this issue.

It is with some degree of certainty that the first part of my point of relevance is fairly simple. We are all worried about lawlessness and the chaos around us. I want to demonstrate its relevance over and over without being redundant but the reliance on the reader to buy into the matter is most important.

I can’t assume anything and to suggest the urgency of this topic can only be demonstrated by those who have been directly impacted by such behaviors on the street or in their neighborhoods. Relevance to the topic is based on your personal safety, your family’s wellness and welfare and your ability to cope and function without being victimized by lawlessness in your own space or world.

My words are mere illustrations and demonstrations that the threat is real and worthy of a few minutes of time to understand its severity and effect on your life. I cannot assume you don’t care about yourself or others. I should not take for granted that the world is a utopia with unicorns and purple flowers everywhere. It’s not and we know it to be hostile and dangerous.

How your life exists with peace or hate is up to you but having the intimate or specific knowledge of your surroundings gives you a distinct advantage of awareness needed to survive. In other words, we need to step up our game to be safer. This means a new attitude or intuition related to our well-being.

The main idea or strategy for me is to make this message clear that we are experiencing a dire and growing problem in our streets and communities. Through my own deductive reasoning, added by your own experiences as reported by crime reports, we can accumulate the awareness to the point where you are better informed and more aware of the perils that surround you today.

This is not a sermon or politically correct message – it is simply a time in space where you need to face the reality that things are drastically wrong and that it can be fixed if we stand together with the knowledge of what the problem is and how to address it.

We don’t have to know all the answers, we just need to know the approach to take to make it a stronger voice of clarity and concern with respect and simplicity that everyone can understand. Giving you access to these concerns makes you a more aware citizen and creates a better vigilance on the problem.

There are a lot of negatives in this message. The reason is based on the fact that violence, chaos, disruptive behaviors and such are not things we can write about in a positive light as they distort the severity if given in a brighter light than it deserves. If it is dark, we should call it dark.

The final word is yours. You can reject my words and message or your can accept them, modify them or discard them. The choice is entirely up to you. People may want to fill in the rest of the message as soon as they hear the idea and they might not like what they anticipate is coming but dealing with reality is still the best way to talk about it.

This is not a short-term event – this is a long-term epidemic. There are no quick solutions and there are questions that may not be answered right away but with persistence and perseverance, they will be answered. It can be intense for some and immense for others. Keeping it short and clear is the goal but some things have to be elaborated on for content and context to be a proper fit.

Furthermore, it tends to be less offensive at the start if people are not going to agree with the substance of the message.That means that in some cases, whatever is written can become offensive and cause disagreement but that is a positive thing – thinking is the best way to approach a problem.

If you check out before the end is written you have lost the connection while I at the same time, lost you as a reader. It is much harder to keep your attention than to write the message and keep you going. If I do it well and keep you informed, then the whole experience will pay off one way or another.

It is difficult to keep the tension tight. I can’t control  your mind but if you focus on the message and know where it is going, I have helped you get a better understanding of the problem. For me, that is a positive experience. If I underdeliver, I take the blame and if I over deliver, then it is not done so in vain. The whole experience can be up or down or even somewhere in the middle.

However, it is difficult to maintain tension for the amount of time necessary.  If listeners have to check out (or if you lose them and they mentally check out), it can be much harder to re-enter the listening experience.  Worst of all, if you promise well, but under-deliver, then the whole experience can be very negative.

Organized Lawlessness - the rage Part IV

Mob Crimes – Organized Lawlessness is the Rage Part IV

If you have followed my blogs on the law of retaliation, revenge and common law, you will understand where this particular part of my concern falls into the picture. The world has changed dramatically since 2009. Crime is spiraling out of control throughout parts of the world as police officers, brave men, and women, have been faced with a new high level of lawlessness than ever experienced before.

Even the police are protesting and denouncing to what they say are insufficient, inadequate resources to fight the mounting insurgency, lawlessness and defiance of government everywhere. From Paris to London, Washington DC to LA, they are unable to stop the unauthorized protests and demonstrations that so often lead to violence, assaults, and arson.

Whether you believe it or not, Donald Trump is right – this election is about law and order. The government has lost control of its people and the direct cause can only be blamed on inconsistency in the enforcement of laws and the permissive culture of the bureaucracy in the state and federal governments. This kind of complacency of enforcement has impacted immigration, social order and terrorist-type of perils.

Today, the police are more focused on terrorist plots, active shooter cases and mass demonstrations than the enforcement of law and order within the communities. They have neither the resources nor the funding to handle it all.

Political opponents have seized on the discontent to accuse the government of letting violent crime and everyday lawlessness proliferate despite a large police recruitment drive in various countries as well as large cities inside the USA. Resignations are happening on two ends of the continuum of law enforcement. Letters of resignation from dissatisfied police officers are growing exponentially. These men and women, who risk their lives daily to protect and serve, are being victimized and criminalized by their own insiders.

Today, they are being criticized for their actions and decisions as the government turned weak policies into even weaker ones. The second element of dissatisfaction is from the people who are being provoked by political groups to create racial unrest and civil disobedience marches turned violent. The streets are unsafe to walk or travel and the number of attacks is mounting.

This is the anger of the police. They are experiencing a gross erosion of their authority through weak government actions and support. The respect for cops has been diminished as their role in the community goes beyond the parameters of their own abilities to take control of their assigned duties responsibilities.

The thinning of the blue line leaves few options open for the government not to use military troops to supplement law enforcement. This is a very unpopular move but one that is being considered every time a neighborhood goes up in flames by riots in the streets. To make matters worse, police and soldiers throughout the world are being deployed to boost airport security and other vital spots where public transportation or assembly is a great concern for safety from militant Islamic attacks in which hundreds of people have died from already in the past two years and the count is rising.

Thousands of police and soldiers have been deployed to boost security at airports, train stations, and schools after a string of militant Islamist attacks in which more than 230 people have died in the past two years. So far, the police officers of our communities have held their own fighting crime but are stretched so far out at times, stress, fatigue, and morale is becoming serious concerns for tomorrow.

A stressed cop is always a concern for the citizen as they are human like us and react to events the best they can but without the benefit of the doubt that we give others. They are always held to a higher decorum or standard than other citizens. We strap body cameras on them to observe them enforce the codes of conduct for law enforcement as well as the citizen but criticize them more harshly than the person breaking the law.

Society has turned the morality of good versus evil around to where evil prevails in many cases. Rather than focusing on the criminal, the camera is used to review and hold the officer to a higher level of restraint and constraint while the criminal acts out in a most violent and brutal fashion. This has demoralized many police agencies and caused many vacancies within major police departments.

Our society is now focusing on the cops and how they perform on and off duty, how they use their training and their equipment and hold them accountable for every line written in departmental or agency policies while the criminal is given due process to the excess and basically a free ride out of jail because of social justice pressures.

Our peacekeepers are under attack by the lawless persons who roams our streets and attack innocent people. This type of scrutiny only results in a diminished capacity to work under and be more cautious in their official role as lawfully appointed agents of various areas of law enforcement. While the cops are being restrained, the protesters are given more freedoms. Their actions go beyond shouting and pushing cops, they are now burning and looting and destroying police cars and attacking police personnel deployed to keep law and order.

Warnings don’t work any longer. These lawless mobs are empowered by politicians who want them to riot, they are being paid to riot and cause a public disturbance. Through legitimate means, they have been warned to tone down the demonstrations but instead, they have failed to respect those rules and announced more demonstrations coming down the line while organized groups fund and flout them.

Protesters have ignored warnings and similar appeals from the government and are threatening to invoke more violence that can only mean more assertive responses from the police and government including martial law sanctions. What was once a task for cops to fight gangland crime has now turned into mob crimes organized by big business and politicians who have their own agendas in destroying the American way of life.

Posse Comitatus – Common Law vs. Federalism

Posse Comitatus – Common Law vs. Federalism

In America, there are two words that are used very commonly and frequent these days related to common law, the law of retaliation and the laws of revenge. These words are ‘vigilante’ and ‘posse.’ Without a doubt, these words are keywords or flag words our government monitors closely on social media and other venues. There are reasons for such precautions as there is a sovereign citizen movement growing in America. This movement can be best described as ‘extreme anti-government’ ideology.

We know how this stuff started. We know the genesis of such ideas and discussions is the fact that our government is corrupt and has been corrupt for a very long time now and people are beginning to refuse their role in our society as the legitimate government to rule them. Without going into the conspiratorial areas and the socio-political aspects of this argument, the fact remains, there is a citizen movement growing that threatens legitimate government and spurs the establishment of a new government.

Many citizens are upset with Washington DC and how they sold out the country to foreign interest and sold their assets to countries rather than keeping the wealth at home. They are upset with the loss of job overseas, the trade agreements, the sale of our own minerals rights and water and more than ever, they are upset on the infringement of our privacy and our rights to conduct surveillance on us without warrants and justification.

Today, this conflict has risen to the level of retaliations, lawlessness, vigilante actions and pseudo-legal actions related racism and privacy rights. People are feeling condemned and are facing this problem with resistance and anger. Frankly speaking, there has been a tremendous anti-government movement growing in the 21^st Century that has countered what we used to call communism but is now labeled to be ‘socialism.’ However, the anger goes even further as the election of 2016 illustrates beyond constitutional issues of the Bill of Rights and specifically the findings or rulings of the United States Supreme Court.

The irony here is that some of these groups who opposed governmental policies and challenged its very legitimacy attempted with some success to ally themselves with the government. Private foundations, funded under non-profit organizations and non-governmental agencies are acting as agents for the government to impose their will on the people through legislative efforts to get the laws on the books that suit their needs.

Thus the argument of which government is the legitimate government comes to mind and this is where it gets messy. There are people and movements that claim our federal government has become obsolete and no longer legitimate. They question the authority  and the very nature of the executive, judicial and legislative branches and that they no longer represent the will of the people but the will of themselves. This protest movement is real and it's growing.

With arguments about the illegitimacy of income tax laws and now the fines imposed by Obamacare were easily expanded or altered to challenge the legitimacy of the government itself. This movement is growing and the ideologies of one of these movement groups, the Posse Comitatus, is becoming a daily household word in some states.

To further explain the laws of retaliation, revenge, common law and justice there are members of society who are grasping the rule of law as the rule by the people and not the federal government. Members of the Posse Comitatus take this illegitimacy one step further and insist and believe that the counties of our 50 states are the true seat of government.

They don’t deny the legal existence of the federal or state government but “believed that the county was the true seat of government in the United States and claimed that the county level was the highest authority of government in our Republic as it is closest to the people. The basic Posse manual stated that there had been "subtle subversion of the Constitution by various arms and levels of government, especially the judiciary.”

There was, in fact, a "criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice, disfranchise citizens and liquidate the Constitutional Republic of these United States." The Posse wanted to reverse this subversion and "restore" the Republic through unilateral actions by the people (i.e., the Posse) and actions by the county sheriff.

The sheriff, they argued, was the only constitutional law enforcement officer. Moreover, his most important role was to protect the people from the unlawful acts of officials of governments like judges and government agents. In time, the federal government passed a federal law that is clearly designed to separate the authority and powers belonging to the federal government in regards to using military personnel to enforce domestic policies inside the United States.

This separation of powers has been challenged and amended a few times since it became law and now partially stands as written. The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878, by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States.

It was passed as an amendment to an army appropriation bill following the end of Reconstruction era and was subsequently updated in 1956 and 1981. The Enforcement Acts, among other powers, allow the President to call up military forces when state authorities are either unable or unwilling to suppress violence that is in opposition to the constitutional rights of the people.

 The Act only specifically applies to the United States Army and, as amended in 1956, the United States Air Force. While the Act does not explicitly mention the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps, due to their being naval services, the Department of the Navy has prescribed regulations that are generally construed to give the Act force with respect to those services as well.

The Act does not apply to the Army and Air National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor.

The United States Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act either, primarily because although the Coast Guard is an armed service, it also has both a maritime law enforcement mission and a federal regulatory agency mission.

In 2006, Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). On September 26, 2006, President George W. Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that U.S. armed forces could restore public order and enforce laws in the aftermath of a natural disaster, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition.

These changes were included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122), which was signed into law on October 17, 2006. Section 1076 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies."

It provided that: The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In 2008, these changes in the Insurrection Act of 1807 were repealed in their entirety, reverting to the previous wording of the Insurrection Act. It was originally written to limit Presidential power as much as possible in the event of insurrection, rebellion, or lawlessness. In 2011, President Barack Obama signed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 into law.

Section 1021(b) extended the definition of a "covered person", i.e., someone possibly subject to detention under this law, to include: A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. Section 1021(e) purports to limit the scope of said authority with the text, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

Federal military personnel has a long history of domestic roles, including the occupation of secessionist Southern states during Reconstruction. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal military personnel to "execute the laws"; however, there is disagreement over whether this language may apply to troops used in an advisory, support, disaster response, or other homeland defense role, as opposed to domestic law enforcement. As you can readily see, the conflict between the interpretation of the law is based on two different definitions setting up a conflict between the rights of the county versus the rights of the federal government.

In accordance, it still stands that as far as the law is concerned, the Sheriff is still the chief executive law officer of the county. This is where it gets vague as it is proposed that if the Sheriff refuses to carry out such duties to protect the people (aka posse) the people have the right to act on behalf of the law and enforce their common law rights. It is predictable that there will be an armed insurgency coming soon as the government tightens its rule and dominance over the populace against the will of the people.