The Declaration of Independence states, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," and we say we believe that to be true. But I have found that that is not always the case. We say we believe in the Right to a fair trial but do we? Bear in mind, it says it is our Creator who gives us these rights not Government. And we say what our Creator gives us Government cannot take away. So why do we rush to the defense of Government when they want to take them from others? We believe, as per the 8th Amendment to the Constitution, that we are protected from cruel and unusual punishment but refuse this same Right to others. The Bible says a double minded man is unstable in all his ways. Has America become unstable.
This recent and ongoing "War" on terror is showing this Country for what she really is. We scream that we have Rights that we want protected but want to refuse those same Rights to the alleged terrorists. That is right, alleged. We are told these people wish to do us harm and must be locked away and tried under the cloak of secrecy but unless we allow these people the Right to "a speedy and public" trial we only have the Governments word for what they did. What ever became of innocent until proven guilty? Just calling someone an enemy combatant doesn't make it so. That is for a jury to decide. Only once tried and convicted can they then be called enemy combatants.
We say, but they aren't Americans and don't have the same Rights as us. I beg to differ. If these Rights we scream for are given by our Creator then they apply to ALL men. "But they say they want to do us harm.". I hear Americans every day say we need to kill all of them. Is this not the same thing? Have we become a Country of hypocrites ? "But they are coming here to kill us. We have to go there to stop them." If that is the case why are we not in Saudi Arabia where the majority of the "alleged", again I say alleged as we were promised proof from our Government that has yet to surface, highjackers on 9/11 came from. And how does this make what happened in Iraq okay? Because they had weapons of mass destruction? Sorry, "aleged" WMDs. Does that mean any country that thinks the U.S. shouldn't have WMDs has a right to invade us? And do we become enemy combatants just because we wish to defend ourselves? Should we be rounded up and tortured?
America likes to call herself a Christian nation. Do they even know what that means? Let's look at what Christ has to say, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in Heaven; for he maketh his sun to to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethern only, what do ye more than others? do not the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father which is in heaven is perfect." St. Matthew 5:43-48.
I hear all the time how Christ said to sell your cloak and buy a sword but very few mention how when Peter cut off the centurions ear Christ said if you live by the sword you will die by the sword. But what does he know, it's not like he was persecuted and had people wanting to kill him, right?
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Monday, December 26, 2011
Are We Seeing Daniel Fulfilled ?
In the book of Daniel
it speaks of three kings at the end. The first king is a warring king
and fades out at the end of his reign. He is followed by a second
that is a raiser of taxes who will only be around a short time. The
king that follows him is called a vile person who doesn’t have the
honor of the kingdom but will use flattery and deceit to gain it. It
speaks of him having a small following that will sweep through like a
flood and he will gain strength. When this king reigns is when the
final war will begin. This war will be with China and Russia. And
will end with his destruction in Israel.¹
The followers of this
king will go after the people of God in an attempt to win them over
and many will fall to go after him. They will be deceived. And I see
that happening now. You have to understand that this person will
appear to be good. And the Bible says when they do these things they
will believe they are doing the will of God, so strong is the
deception.²
The Jews believe that
whoever brings peace to the middle east will be the Messiah. Imagine
a ruler who does stop all the fighting in the middle east and even
allows for the Jews to worship on the Temple mount. The church in
America would think this is the will of God as they have been duped
by the twisting of Gods words to Abraham to believe that the prophesy
speaking of Christs' coming through the Abrahamic bloodline is a duty
to protect the Jews and their being placed in Israel. An Israeli land
grab basically.³
This has been a setup
by the global elite to keep wars going in the middle east to gain
total control. Always beating the “We must protect Israel” drum.
And organized religion, which the Bible calls a whore house, God
never minces His words, is set up to perpetuate the lie.
I know it sounds
contradictory but when everyone feels we are at peace the destruction
will come. But this was
to be expected. I do hope I am wrong. More so for the sake of this
world. I do so want them to see, to know what is coming.
References: 1) Daniel
11:19-44
20Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom: but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle.
21And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
22And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.
23And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.
24He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time.
25And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand: for they shall forecast devices against him.
26Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain.
27And both of these kings' hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed.
28Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land.
29At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.
30For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.
31And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
32And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.
33And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.
34Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.
35And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.
36And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
37Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
38But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
39Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.
40And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.
41He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.
42He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.
43But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.
44But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.
2) John 16 :2
2They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3)Genesis
22:17-18
18And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
Charleston, S.C.; Oldest Knights Templar Commandery in U.S.
 |
| Templar Seal from Charleston, S.C. |
In 330 AD Constantine built the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. This became a place of sacred pilgrimages throughout the Middle Ages. Around 1065 the Turks massacred 3000 Christians and the Poor Fellow- Soldiers of Christ was formed to protect the Christians on these pilgrimages.They later became known as the Knights Templar as they resided on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. They also used the motto "In hoc signo vinces"
The motto "MEMENTO MORI" roughly means a reminder of death or failure. Could this be in reference to the round up and later execution of the Templars on October the 13, 1307?
Charleston is situated on the 33rd parallel. This made it the choice of Issac Long, who brought a statue of Baphomet to Charleston and established the Scottish rite there. Albert Pike moved to Charleston, S.C. in 1852 and it was here he succeded Long and changed the name to "The New and Reformed Palladian Rite" of Freemasonry. " This is considered to be the Mother Supreme Council of the World. The other two headquarters of this Rite are in Rome, Italy and Berlin, Germany. It is in his book "Morals and Dogma" that Pike describes the god of Freemasonry as Lucifer.
Renaissance Weekend, formerly held on Hilton Head Island, was relocated to Cherleston in 2001. The press release states, "More than 1,200 "movers-and-shakers" from across the nation will exchange views in 400 lectures, seminars, panel discussions and workshops from 8 a.m. till midnight each day. The non-partisan gathering encourages divergent views among leaders in business and finance, education, religion, law and medicine, government, the media, science and technology, sports, non-profits, and the arts." This was attended in the past by the Clintons. An illustrative list of past participants can be found here .
Father Malachi Martin, in his book "Windswept House" writes of a satanic ritual that took place in the vatican and concurrently in Charleston, S.C. Later in an interview he states, "Oh yes, it is true; very much so...But the only way I could put that down into print is in novelistic form.” This ritual took place on June 29, 1963 and was called "The Enthronement of the Fallen Archangel Lucifer". Whether this is true or not there is still enough evil activity in the City of Charleston to rename it the un-Holy City.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
The Stone of Hope Monument.
 |
| The MLK Monument at 2300 Greene St. in Columbia, SC. |
Instead of writing about what these symbols represent I have listed several sites that I found interesting on covering the meaning of these symbols. Take from these sites what you will. You may even wish to do your own research on these symbols. I have no proof, nor have I looked for any, that Dr. King was involved in the occult. I have never heard any accusations to this fact either. So this is not an attack on the man himself. The secret societies do have a way of using these symbols on monuments to show they were responsible for the death of people. This may well be the case.
Please check the following links for more info and to make up your own mind.
Why is Christianity so opposed to Christ ?
Why is the Church so dead set on going against the word ? Mainly this is seen in the politics of the Church. And should the Church even be involved in this arena? I call to mind God's warning in the book of I Samuel where Israel wanted a king over them like everyone else. The people had rejected the reign of God and wanted to be reigned over by a king so God sent a warning by Samuel to the people and told them what the king would do to them. But they still wanted their king. God also warned as the king would take all from them they would cry out to Him but he would not harken to their voice. This king today in America is government. It steals from the people and makes slaves of them but they continue to want this government over them placing their faith in man and not God.
In Jeremiah 17 God goes on to say, “Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm...Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is.”
There is a lot of controversy over Romans chapter 13 as to obeying Government. Some of the arguments I hear for not obeying make little to no sense. That is not to say you should bow down before the almighty Government, but let's look at some of the arguments out there. And I will start with my favorite; public prayer.
As the Government uses freedom of religion to prohibit public prayer the Church has taken it upon itself to fight for the right to have it as they think of this as an attack on Christianity. But is it? Let's look at what Christ has said about it.
ST. MATTHEW 6
5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward.
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
It appears that Christ was against public prayer. These were His words ,”shalt not”. Praying in ones closet even makes it impossible to remove prayer from school. So I ask, where has the Government went against the word of God here? And is this not a case where the Government should be obeyed?
There is also a call to have the Bible taught in school and, as I will point out, it is so hard to find a Church that teaches it as it should. If the pastors are unable, or unwilling, to teach what Christ says is there a chance that the schools will do a better job. How many parents in a country where we have freedom of religion would really want practicing Wiccans teaching their children the Bible? Or even someone of a different Christian sect that teaches a different Jesus? I would think the parents would want to teach it themselves or even just let the child read it for themselves. I am sure there are those who will say they need a teacher so let's again go to the word.
ST. JOHN 14
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
1 JOHN 2
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
While we are in 1 John 2 let's look at another verse of interest. Verse 22, which states, “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the son.” In light of this and the fact that the Church seems to be, or so it says, against antichrist would this not make the term Judo-Christianity a contradiction in terms? And what about the new Chrislam? Why do the people of God allow themselves to be so easily led into the lies of the Church? What do they have against Christ?
Now we have the Government running around removing the 10 Commandments from public buildings and Christianity running around trying to put them back up. Why has the Church taken it upon itself to put us all back under the law? Why deny the Grace of God through the finished work of Christ?
GALATIANS 3
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree.
GALATIANS 4
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free
GALATIANS 5
1 STAND fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and not be entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
EPHESIANS 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
In Revelation 17 it speaks of this faux religious system that will spring up and chapter 18 warns to come out of her so as not to be partaker of her sins and receive of her plagues. As I see the Government go after the Churches I have to wonder if this is not the government fulfilling the will of God.
The 5th Amendment
"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, orproperty, without due processof law; nor shall private property be be taken for public use, without just compensation."
I have chosen at this time to only touch on certain aspects of the 5th Amendment. Mainly those that are violated on a daily basis. "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." "Papers please.." I have yet to see the except clause in the 5th Amendment. Any time you are engaged by an officer there is a good chance anything you say to him will be used in a court of law. ANYTHING.You are under NO obligation to answer a single question. And in Miller v. U.S. the supreme court ruled that "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." In otherwords, if you chose not to give an officer your name he has NO leeway to make that a crime.
Fingerprints and DNA are also ways to witness against yourself. Yes, you have the right to refuse. And this right cannot be infringed upon by the "State" using the 4th Amendment Warrant as it is protected not only under the 5th but the 9th as well. "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.".
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." Gee, that says a mouth full. That means law enforcement cannot take your liberty, you know, toss you in jail, without due process. Due process is that part where an injured party signs a complaint and then you are taken before a jury of your peers and then if, and only if, you are found guilty can you be incarcerated. This also protects your property from being taken. You know, like when an officer unConstitutionally takes you to lock-up and then calls in a tow truck driver to "steal" your car. You have now become deprived of your property. And in order to get your property back you are again deprived of your property...money.
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Ok, this is a biggie. How many times has your neighbors property been taken because they couldn't pay taxes. Well, guess what, even if that unConstitutional property tax was Constitutional, that would only allow for the county to deduct what they say you owe in taxes from the value of the property they just took and would owe you the remainder. This in itself would stop the government theft of property.
It is time we start holding our government officals accountable for taking away our rights and stand up for what is right. If you can't do it at the ballot box do it in the jury box. Jurors have rights too. They have the right to judge the Constitutionality of the law as well as the person on trial.
"Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law." Marbury v. Madison. That means even if the defendent did in fact break the law you could and should find them not guilty because an unConstitutional law cannot exist.
I have chosen at this time to only touch on certain aspects of the 5th Amendment. Mainly those that are violated on a daily basis. "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." "Papers please.." I have yet to see the except clause in the 5th Amendment. Any time you are engaged by an officer there is a good chance anything you say to him will be used in a court of law. ANYTHING.You are under NO obligation to answer a single question. And in Miller v. U.S. the supreme court ruled that "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." In otherwords, if you chose not to give an officer your name he has NO leeway to make that a crime.
Fingerprints and DNA are also ways to witness against yourself. Yes, you have the right to refuse. And this right cannot be infringed upon by the "State" using the 4th Amendment Warrant as it is protected not only under the 5th but the 9th as well. "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.".
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." Gee, that says a mouth full. That means law enforcement cannot take your liberty, you know, toss you in jail, without due process. Due process is that part where an injured party signs a complaint and then you are taken before a jury of your peers and then if, and only if, you are found guilty can you be incarcerated. This also protects your property from being taken. You know, like when an officer unConstitutionally takes you to lock-up and then calls in a tow truck driver to "steal" your car. You have now become deprived of your property. And in order to get your property back you are again deprived of your property...money.
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Ok, this is a biggie. How many times has your neighbors property been taken because they couldn't pay taxes. Well, guess what, even if that unConstitutional property tax was Constitutional, that would only allow for the county to deduct what they say you owe in taxes from the value of the property they just took and would owe you the remainder. This in itself would stop the government theft of property.
It is time we start holding our government officals accountable for taking away our rights and stand up for what is right. If you can't do it at the ballot box do it in the jury box. Jurors have rights too. They have the right to judge the Constitutionality of the law as well as the person on trial.
"Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law." Marbury v. Madison. That means even if the defendent did in fact break the law you could and should find them not guilty because an unConstitutional law cannot exist.
The 4th Amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrents shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It is easy to see how the 4th Amendment has repeatedly been violated on a daily basis if one just takes the time to understand what it is they are reading. People are no longer secure. We have allowed ourselves and our neighbors to be violated. "
Probable cause" was never intended to be used by law enforcement as a catch-all to take away our rights. It meant that if there was an injured party that party could go to the authorities and swear out a complaint. At that point a Warrant would be issued on behalf of the injured party. The State was never intended to be the complainant. That is just a created fiction used by law enforcement to deprive you of your rights. Next time you see the State as the victum ask the officer, or prosecutor or judge to define "The State". Unless they are personally injured and ALL sign a complaint the body collective cannot be the complaintant. And real estate cannot be a complainant.
This also limits law enforcement to searches of only what is mentioned in the Warrant. They are given no easement to search what is not covered in the Warrant. The Warrant must be specific. And anything NOT covered in the Warrant cannot be seized.
The term "confidential informant" is also a ruse used by law enforcement as an end run around not only the 4th Amendment but the 6th as well. [...to be confronted with the witnesses against him...]. It is an easy thing to let law enforcement convince you that it is all for the greater good but once a right is taken away you will never get it back.
One curious thing I have noticed about the 4th Amendment is that the search of the person is missing. I believe the founders never intended for the person to be searched. I can only imagine what the colonists suffered at the hands of the Kings officers and believe they wanted to preserve the dignity of the people.
I think it is not only time to hold our elected representatives accountable but ourselves as well. Read the founding documents and understand what it is the founders gave you. Do it now before it is too late. If it isn't already.
It is easy to see how the 4th Amendment has repeatedly been violated on a daily basis if one just takes the time to understand what it is they are reading. People are no longer secure. We have allowed ourselves and our neighbors to be violated. "
Probable cause" was never intended to be used by law enforcement as a catch-all to take away our rights. It meant that if there was an injured party that party could go to the authorities and swear out a complaint. At that point a Warrant would be issued on behalf of the injured party. The State was never intended to be the complainant. That is just a created fiction used by law enforcement to deprive you of your rights. Next time you see the State as the victum ask the officer, or prosecutor or judge to define "The State". Unless they are personally injured and ALL sign a complaint the body collective cannot be the complaintant. And real estate cannot be a complainant.
This also limits law enforcement to searches of only what is mentioned in the Warrant. They are given no easement to search what is not covered in the Warrant. The Warrant must be specific. And anything NOT covered in the Warrant cannot be seized.
The term "confidential informant" is also a ruse used by law enforcement as an end run around not only the 4th Amendment but the 6th as well. [...to be confronted with the witnesses against him...]. It is an easy thing to let law enforcement convince you that it is all for the greater good but once a right is taken away you will never get it back.
One curious thing I have noticed about the 4th Amendment is that the search of the person is missing. I believe the founders never intended for the person to be searched. I can only imagine what the colonists suffered at the hands of the Kings officers and believe they wanted to preserve the dignity of the people.
I think it is not only time to hold our elected representatives accountable but ourselves as well. Read the founding documents and understand what it is the founders gave you. Do it now before it is too late. If it isn't already.
Leadership v. Representation.
It has really come to a sad state in this country when the people think they need leadership and not representation. What are the people wanting to be led to ? When someone is elected in this country they are suppose to represent us, do our bidding and have our interests in mind. It has come to the point where the people want someone to tell them what to do. They have been taught not to think for themselves. They have lost their rights and think it is for the best because some stranger put into an office tells them it is. It is time to wake up and think for yourselves !!
The people have managed to give up their property rights because they have been led to believe it is for the best to be taxed and if that tax cannot be paid it is for the best for the 'leadership' to toss them out and take what they have worked hard for all their lives. They have given up the right to say what is best for their own children because their 'leaders' tell them they do not know what is best. They have given up their right to keep their wealth because they have allowed their 'leadership' to install a banking system that robs them of any future they may have.They have given up their right to freedom because the 'leadership' has chosen what is acceptable behavior. And always, it is for the best.
It is time to tell the 'leadership' to stop leading and to start representing. It is time for the people to take responsibility for their own lives and futures. Don't let the 'leadership' tell you how you should live, tell them they should start 'represnting' the people who put them in office. Otherwise...well, otherwise you do deserve to lose your property, wealth, freedom and children because the 'leadership' is right.
But hey, that is OK , because one day you will get your rights back. You just have to pay the licensing fee to do so.
The people have managed to give up their property rights because they have been led to believe it is for the best to be taxed and if that tax cannot be paid it is for the best for the 'leadership' to toss them out and take what they have worked hard for all their lives. They have given up the right to say what is best for their own children because their 'leaders' tell them they do not know what is best. They have given up their right to keep their wealth because they have allowed their 'leadership' to install a banking system that robs them of any future they may have.They have given up their right to freedom because the 'leadership' has chosen what is acceptable behavior. And always, it is for the best.
It is time to tell the 'leadership' to stop leading and to start representing. It is time for the people to take responsibility for their own lives and futures. Don't let the 'leadership' tell you how you should live, tell them they should start 'represnting' the people who put them in office. Otherwise...well, otherwise you do deserve to lose your property, wealth, freedom and children because the 'leadership' is right.
But hey, that is OK , because one day you will get your rights back. You just have to pay the licensing fee to do so.
The 1st Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
"Congress shall make no law respecting [showing partiallity] an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Yes we do have the right in America to exercise our religion but the churches have been conned into accepting the governments seal of approval. The 501 (c) 3 tax exemption. Should we blame the government for this one. I don't think so. They are opportunists and took advantage of the ignorant. I think we should blame the churches and pastors who took part and the congregations that enable them to continue. Why is it so hard to get people to give to the churches if they can't deduct it off their taxes at the end of the year? Personally I wonder why they give to these modern churches at all, but that is me.
When the church accepts the 501 (c) 3 they are then under government regulation. I thought "Christian" churches were suppose to be under Christ. Oh well, can't deduct the dollars if you follow Christ. And we know the all mighty debt, I mean dollar, is god.
"...or abridging the freedom of speech..." Do we still have freedom of speech in America? Yes we do, that is if you can find the posted free speech zones. You know, the ones they move in the distance so noone you want to hear you, mainly politicians, ever will. And not just the politicians, but their fawning entourage. Heaven forbid these people should see maybe their favorite overlord to be, or is, is corrupt or unsupportive of their rights. That this jewel is in fact a common stone.
There is this sad pretence in the once "Land of the free and home of the brave" that nothing has altered since its inception. Nothing could be farther from the truth. But we must maintain this pretense to keep the people from really revolting against this unjust regime of totalitarianism that is sweeping this country. So occaisionally we show the protesters and pretend that these are just a bunch of spoiled malcontents that didn't get their way on some small issue. Then we can all just go back to life as usual. Yawn.
"...or of the press..." This is a good one. The press has abridged itself. Most of the media is owned by certain major corporations who refuse to print or report the truth and the people refuse to take the time required to seek out the ones who do tell the truth. And for the most part they only want their news in sound bites. Complacency is destroying America. But those who lie to us have the freedom to do so. And they are usually the ones who teach us to ridicule the ones who would tell us the truth. We are trained so well.
"...or the right of the people to peacefully assemble..." Ok, this one went the way of the dodo bird the first time someone applied for that permit to assemble. You know, there always has to be that first person to comply. Well yeah, there is that first law Enforcement officer who goes along too. And I bet both thought they were great Americans who played by the rules. They probably never saw themselves as the ones breaking them.
"...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," As long as you can afford a lawyer you still have this right too.
"Congress shall make no law respecting [showing partiallity] an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Yes we do have the right in America to exercise our religion but the churches have been conned into accepting the governments seal of approval. The 501 (c) 3 tax exemption. Should we blame the government for this one. I don't think so. They are opportunists and took advantage of the ignorant. I think we should blame the churches and pastors who took part and the congregations that enable them to continue. Why is it so hard to get people to give to the churches if they can't deduct it off their taxes at the end of the year? Personally I wonder why they give to these modern churches at all, but that is me.
When the church accepts the 501 (c) 3 they are then under government regulation. I thought "Christian" churches were suppose to be under Christ. Oh well, can't deduct the dollars if you follow Christ. And we know the all mighty debt, I mean dollar, is god.
"...or abridging the freedom of speech..." Do we still have freedom of speech in America? Yes we do, that is if you can find the posted free speech zones. You know, the ones they move in the distance so noone you want to hear you, mainly politicians, ever will. And not just the politicians, but their fawning entourage. Heaven forbid these people should see maybe their favorite overlord to be, or is, is corrupt or unsupportive of their rights. That this jewel is in fact a common stone.
There is this sad pretence in the once "Land of the free and home of the brave" that nothing has altered since its inception. Nothing could be farther from the truth. But we must maintain this pretense to keep the people from really revolting against this unjust regime of totalitarianism that is sweeping this country. So occaisionally we show the protesters and pretend that these are just a bunch of spoiled malcontents that didn't get their way on some small issue. Then we can all just go back to life as usual. Yawn.
"...or of the press..." This is a good one. The press has abridged itself. Most of the media is owned by certain major corporations who refuse to print or report the truth and the people refuse to take the time required to seek out the ones who do tell the truth. And for the most part they only want their news in sound bites. Complacency is destroying America. But those who lie to us have the freedom to do so. And they are usually the ones who teach us to ridicule the ones who would tell us the truth. We are trained so well.
"...or the right of the people to peacefully assemble..." Ok, this one went the way of the dodo bird the first time someone applied for that permit to assemble. You know, there always has to be that first person to comply. Well yeah, there is that first law Enforcement officer who goes along too. And I bet both thought they were great Americans who played by the rules. They probably never saw themselves as the ones breaking them.
"...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," As long as you can afford a lawyer you still have this right too.
Are judges above the law ?
I love it when law enforcement puts its own foot in its mouth. OK, the sheriff told me he was a Constitutionalist but yet he enforces unconstitutional laws, or more correctly, allows his deputies to do so. Maybe I am being to hard on the guy. Maybe he doesn't understand the whole concept of due process. But wait a minute, isn't it his duty to understand what he has sworn an oath to uphold ?
The other day at the Kershaw County Court House I was told by a deputy that he would defend every part of the Constitution but in the same conversation he told me that if I was so naive as to think I could walk into a court room and exercise a Constitutional right and the judge was to say, "contempt" this same officer would incarcerate me without due process. What ? Wait a minute. Am I missing something here ?
OK, I guess I should explain due process. It starts with an injured victim who then files a complaint. Once 'probable cause' (You know, the accused probably caused the injury) is determined a warrent is issued (A warrant attested to by the accuser). Oh yeah, then comes search and seizure, not before. Then there is that whole speedy trial by jury of your peers thing. Then, and only then, if the jury (People who today have their 13th Amendment rights trashed and are threatened if they wish to refrain from involuntary servitude) finds you guilty you can be incarcerated. Well, only if the offense warrants jail.
So, the question is, "What gives a judge the right to subvert the Constitutional right of due process and put you in jail ?". Well uh, nothing. He is not above the law. So how did we, and especially this officer who "will defend the Constitution to the letter" get conned into thinking he is ? Good question.
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S. Hey, the sheriff told me if the Supreme Court said it he would abide by it. The jury is definately still out on this one.
So, if you find yourself being forced into involuntary servitude and asked to convict someone of an unConstitutional law you may want to practice jury nullification. If a law is unConstitutional you cannot find someone guilty of it as it cannot exist. "Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law" Marbury v. Madison, 5 us 137.
The other day at the Kershaw County Court House I was told by a deputy that he would defend every part of the Constitution but in the same conversation he told me that if I was so naive as to think I could walk into a court room and exercise a Constitutional right and the judge was to say, "contempt" this same officer would incarcerate me without due process. What ? Wait a minute. Am I missing something here ?
OK, I guess I should explain due process. It starts with an injured victim who then files a complaint. Once 'probable cause' (You know, the accused probably caused the injury) is determined a warrent is issued (A warrant attested to by the accuser). Oh yeah, then comes search and seizure, not before. Then there is that whole speedy trial by jury of your peers thing. Then, and only then, if the jury (People who today have their 13th Amendment rights trashed and are threatened if they wish to refrain from involuntary servitude) finds you guilty you can be incarcerated. Well, only if the offense warrants jail.
So, the question is, "What gives a judge the right to subvert the Constitutional right of due process and put you in jail ?". Well uh, nothing. He is not above the law. So how did we, and especially this officer who "will defend the Constitution to the letter" get conned into thinking he is ? Good question.
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S. Hey, the sheriff told me if the Supreme Court said it he would abide by it. The jury is definately still out on this one.
So, if you find yourself being forced into involuntary servitude and asked to convict someone of an unConstitutional law you may want to practice jury nullification. If a law is unConstitutional you cannot find someone guilty of it as it cannot exist. "Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law" Marbury v. Madison, 5 us 137.
Who Is The Extremist?
When in the world of Sheriff Matthews is enough enough? He complains about being attacked when he started this whole mess by falsely acusing people of being extremist because he has some egotistical drive to feel important or something. Even he said the article "When Should You Shoot a Cop",( http://www.copblock.org/5475/when-should-you-shoot-a-cop/ ) did not advocate going around shooting officers. If anyone has been extreme it is him. If the Kershaw County Patriots were such an extreme group why did he associate himself with the group going into the 2010 elections? Did he really need the extremist vote to get elected? He came to the meetings regularly until after he was elected. And now he wonders why we are worried about law enforcement intervention. Seriously, I think he quit coming to the meetings because he knew what he was about to do and didn't want the intervention of concerned citizens.
As Sheriff matthews is on the Kershaw County Patriots group page on Facebook it is obvious noone was trying to hide anything from him. He could have commented on the article instead of hiding behind the media. But then maybe having his comments documented in the post would have been more exposure than he would have prefered. That would have meant defending against facts. Easier to have the media put out a story to people who would never read the article and believe what the media had to say about it.
So, who are the extremist as Matthews puts it? These are citizens of the county who want to hold elected officials accountable for what they do. These are people who are asking these officials to stick to the Constitutional oath they swore. They did not swear that oath to codes and statutes or to the UN's Agenda 21 but to THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. But for some reason they don't seem to think that matters and the people are extremists if they think it should.
As someone recently expressed to me I bet Matthews would not have a problem picking up a police journal that had an article entitled "When Should You Shoot a Civilian". I'm sure the answer would be when the lives of others or the officer is at stake. Well would he deprive the citizenry the right to protect themselves from an officer if they felt the officer was about to put someones life in danger? Apparently so. Hey, maybe he is wanting to load us all on cattle cars.
I posted the article on Facebook. I never asked anyone if I could post it or told anyone I was going to post it. I posted it as it came through my homepage feed. I read it and thought everyone should. I did hesitate because of the title but figured it would be more likely to get people to read it. I asked that anyone who wished to comment read the article first in an attempt not to have them comment just because of the title. That appears for the most part to be all that did get read.
Matthews decided, for God knows what reason, to lump the entire group to my post. I was the only one to comment on it and that was a statement taken from the article. The particular statement was provocative, but again, it was an attempt to get people to read the article. Jeff Mattox was the only one in the group to "Like" the article because he actually read it and saw some sense in it. And neither Mr. mattox or myself have been trying to get anyone to go out shooting officers. In fact we would have loved for them to have become a part of our group. We never refused anyone at the meetings or kept anyone from voicing an opinion.
Also, when Mr. Mattox decided to join the GOP I distanced myself from that explaining to him I had no trust of the party and knew any candidates he would try to run who were constitutional would never receive party backing. Jim Pratt, who ran against Jim Clyburn, is a prime example of the party not helping its own. The GOP gave that seat back to Clyburn. So when Chris Oviatt lumped the GOP membership from the group with my post he did so erroniously. And when he said they didn't need people like that in the party he had no worries, I wasn't in it. As for Mr. Mattox, he was concerned over the partys attack on free speech with good reason. All I got from Mr. Oviatts actions was that the GOP was anti-first amendment, they appear to only belive in free speech if it is what they want to hear and that Mr. Oviatt is not for free speech. I should thank Mr. Oviatt for justifying my mistrust of the party. I should also point out I neither lean to the left or the right. I don't believe in the two party system because of these childish party politics. And now they are starting to show their true nature.
Whether it was Matthews intention or not he managed to put fear in the people of the group and several would not come to the last meeting because they were afraid of being arrested just for being there. One member was asked by friends to remove them from his e-mail list. A couple even talked of changing the group name which I see as catering to the sheriffs bullying. He has terrorized people who for the most part aren't even on the group page. Yet he calls us hateful and irresponsible.
I would like to point out that there are LEOs out there that DO take their oath seriously. They want to protect the rights of the people even when it does make their jobs a little harder. And there are ex-LEOs out there that left law enforcement because of the likes of officers like Matthews. No, unlike Matthews, we don't judge all by the one.
In closing, I do ask that any LEOs that wish to join the group feel free to do so. We need to work together to save this country from those who wish to destroy it. We have a lot of enemies, both foreign and domestic, and to aide those who wish to destroy this country will only end up destroying you. Even if you wish to debate the article please feel free to do so. I am open to honest debate.
What Property Rights?
On April 20, 2011 I was arrested for breach of peace, or in layman's terms, for calling an officer what he is, a public servant. I have heard the term 'contempt of cop' bandied about. I'm guessing my response should have been 'overlord' but I really wasn't in the mood. But on with the story...
About a year earlier we met our neighbor, a one Mr. Michael Armstrong, because he had made up his mind since he had 100+ acres of land that 100+ acres included our 2+. Seems Mr. Armstrong has a dog that believes anything that isn't human and smaller than a breadbox is free food. This has included several chickens, a rabbit and the usual cats. The dog also had a propensity for dancing on the hood of cars. And, of course, Mr. Armstrong has the strangest idea that he is not responsible for the damage his doggie does. Restitution is a very, very bad word in his vocabulary.
Well, after 8-10 visits by Lady, the dog, we finally managed to trap her and off to doggie court we go. And all is well right? Wrong. The nice animal control officer, although he let us show photos of the car, would not hear of us telling the judge that the doggie liked to kill small animals. Mr. Armstrong did have to pay a fine and was ordered by the judge to keep the doggie shut up. Now just before trapping Lady we were told by the nice animal control officer that if we knew who the dog belonged to he could write a ticket for the dog. Funny how that option dried up when it was determined who the owner was. Curious thing that. But it gets curiouser and curiouser.
Jump to this year and as my Mom is out in the yard up from the woods comes Lady with her same determination to eat the cats. Mom did manage to subdue Lady and called me out to put her, Lady, on a leash. We then proceeded to call animal control to come pick the dog up. With the history of the dog and the court order this was going to put a stop to this "animal at large" problem. Wrong again. As we were waiting for the AC officer to come Mr. Armstrong shows up looking for the dog and I inform him that we have the dog and are waiting for AC to come get it. Well Mr. Armstrong goes ballistic. He pulls into our driveway from a road that runs up beside our house, an easement really, and I just manage to close our gates as he gets there. He jumps out of his truck and starts screaming at us about how we stole his dog and how his dog followed our dog, we don't have one, into our yard. OK, there is a stray in the neighborhood and he alleged that since it had been in our yard it had to be our dog. Hmm, would this not also now make Lady our dog? Anyway, he is jumping at the gate and all the while this little child, I can only assume is his, is screaming right along with him.
At this point I told him twice to remove himself from the property as the gate comes up into the yard and both times he refused as he stood there in front of the POSTED sign on the gate. Said he did not have to leave. Guessing he thought he also had a right to run free like his dog on any property he wanted. So the wise decision at this point was to call dispatch and have a sheriff's deputy sent out to remove him. Turns out what seems wise isn't always so.
In the meantime, while awaiting for the officers to arrive, I end up on the phone with a friend discussing another case and asked the friend to stay on the line should I need a witness. Well, at least that was wise as the officer made an accusation that the party on the other end of the phone knew to be a lie.
So, the officer, the deputy, shows up and I am standing back up in the yard. The officer is talking to Mr. Armstrong and I walk out to the gate and tell the officer I want Mr. Armstrong removed from the property. The officer says for me to go back and he will talk to me later. Fine, I walk away and continue my phone conversation. But what seemed like more than enough time for the officer to ask Mr. Armstrong if he was trespassing and Mr. Armstrong to admit he was I decided to walk back out. By this time the AC officer had arrived. Anyway, I approached and again told the officer I wanted Mr. Armstrong off the property. The officer told me Mr. Armstrong could not leave because he, the officer, had him blocked in. I guess the look I had to have on my face at that time had to say something along the lines of, "Are you really as dumb as you sound?" but I refrained from taking the officers bait as it was apparent to me by this time the officer was attempting to bait me. After another moment or two I again told the officer I wanted Mr. Armstrong off the property and that is when the officer got even uglier, if that were even possible.
The officer told me if I did not leave, and please bear in mind that the officer was outside the gate and at the back of Mr. Armstrong's truck and I was inside the yard away from the gate, he was going to put me in jail. I just had to ask, "Are you threatening me?" at which point the officer asked me if I knew who I was talking to. "A public servant" was not the answer he was looking for. That managed to get the officer inside the gate at which point he removed the phone from my hand and put it in my pocket and cuffed me. Funny how that was never mentioned in his report. He told me he just wanted me to calm down. I was the calm one and told him so. He was the one chomping at the bit.
By now the AC officer is also in the yard and the deputy removes the cuffs. The AC officer starts asking questions about the dog and I explain how Mr. Armstrong was ordered to keep the dog shut up by a judge. And that my mother had all the information and she was in the back yard with the dog on a leash. And again I asked the deputy to remove Mr. Armstrong from the property and again he said he could not be moved because the deputy had him blocked in. At this time I am beginning to question the wisdom of putting this guy on the streets with a gun and badge. I am also realizing that neither officer is going to do as they are supposed to do. So I just threw up my hands and started to walk away at which point I hear the deputy moving to come after me so I just stop and put my hands behind my back. And again he cuffs me and rushes me out to the car neither explaining what vicious crime I had perpetrated or reading me my rights. So off to jail I go.
On the ride to the jail the deputy asked my name and I exercised my 5th Amendment right not to tell him. Apparently he did not like that either. Now there are those who will say you have to answer that question but I have yet to find the "except when an officer asks your name" clause in the 5th Amendment. Seriously, I must have quite a different constitution than the one they use.
We proceeded to the detention center with the deputy speeding to get this hardened criminal to jail. He was doing 60 mph in a 45 mph zone. This was through a residential area. Not only was he endangering my life but that of anyone in the area. At least he took the precaution of putting my seatbelt on, you know, so the cuffs could better cut into my wrists.
Now I have a court date and in an attempt to find out what they are going to use against me in court I file a Brady Motion for discovery with the sheriffs dept. and the officer sends his statement of record , the 'Incident Report'. That was all that I received. That was what he was going to court with. Wait a minute, wasn't the AC officer present? What about the trespasser? Anyway, the report was bad enough. That alone would have got the case dismissed.
First, he accused me of being somewhere I wasn't and claimed that was where the arrest took place. Then he accused me of yelling. Oops, remember, I was on the phone with someone who could verify I was not yelling. He proceeded to say that the trespasser had nowhere else to move his truck to if he asked him to vacate the property. Wrong. There are actually three access roads the gentleman could have used One directly across the street, one next to the property and one directly across the street from that. The officer also said the child was frightened by my behavior. Wrong. The child's father, the trespasser, Mr. Armstrong, already had the child upset before the officer got there and all he had to do was remove the trespasser and the child away if he truly thought that was a problem. This was his reason, as he put it, for entering the yard, not the fact that the term 'Public Servant' was used. He also said I put my hand in the AC officers face. I was four-foot away from him and my arms are not that long. He also had me living in a different town on the report too. But my favorite part, the victim in all this was of course 'STATE OF SC' and when asked on the form if the victim was on drugs or using alcohol the officer checked "UNK". I also liked that the STATE OF SC had the same number as the Kershaw County Sheriffs Dept.
When I finally got to court the officer mumbles something to the judge and the judge says I can go as the witness did not appear. I came so close to saying, "What do you mean? The SOB is standing right here.". See, I do have self-control.
And just in case you are wondering, the officer left the trespasser on the property with my 79-year-old mother blocking her exit from the driveway and the AC officer gave him back his dog even though it was on our property when he arrived. I did speak to the judge later and even he could not understand this. Also, the AC officer was in the court room but made tracks before my case came up. The trespasser never showed. But hey, would you swear an oath and then perjure yourself in court?
About a year earlier we met our neighbor, a one Mr. Michael Armstrong, because he had made up his mind since he had 100+ acres of land that 100+ acres included our 2+. Seems Mr. Armstrong has a dog that believes anything that isn't human and smaller than a breadbox is free food. This has included several chickens, a rabbit and the usual cats. The dog also had a propensity for dancing on the hood of cars. And, of course, Mr. Armstrong has the strangest idea that he is not responsible for the damage his doggie does. Restitution is a very, very bad word in his vocabulary.
Well, after 8-10 visits by Lady, the dog, we finally managed to trap her and off to doggie court we go. And all is well right? Wrong. The nice animal control officer, although he let us show photos of the car, would not hear of us telling the judge that the doggie liked to kill small animals. Mr. Armstrong did have to pay a fine and was ordered by the judge to keep the doggie shut up. Now just before trapping Lady we were told by the nice animal control officer that if we knew who the dog belonged to he could write a ticket for the dog. Funny how that option dried up when it was determined who the owner was. Curious thing that. But it gets curiouser and curiouser.
Jump to this year and as my Mom is out in the yard up from the woods comes Lady with her same determination to eat the cats. Mom did manage to subdue Lady and called me out to put her, Lady, on a leash. We then proceeded to call animal control to come pick the dog up. With the history of the dog and the court order this was going to put a stop to this "animal at large" problem. Wrong again. As we were waiting for the AC officer to come Mr. Armstrong shows up looking for the dog and I inform him that we have the dog and are waiting for AC to come get it. Well Mr. Armstrong goes ballistic. He pulls into our driveway from a road that runs up beside our house, an easement really, and I just manage to close our gates as he gets there. He jumps out of his truck and starts screaming at us about how we stole his dog and how his dog followed our dog, we don't have one, into our yard. OK, there is a stray in the neighborhood and he alleged that since it had been in our yard it had to be our dog. Hmm, would this not also now make Lady our dog? Anyway, he is jumping at the gate and all the while this little child, I can only assume is his, is screaming right along with him.
At this point I told him twice to remove himself from the property as the gate comes up into the yard and both times he refused as he stood there in front of the POSTED sign on the gate. Said he did not have to leave. Guessing he thought he also had a right to run free like his dog on any property he wanted. So the wise decision at this point was to call dispatch and have a sheriff's deputy sent out to remove him. Turns out what seems wise isn't always so.
In the meantime, while awaiting for the officers to arrive, I end up on the phone with a friend discussing another case and asked the friend to stay on the line should I need a witness. Well, at least that was wise as the officer made an accusation that the party on the other end of the phone knew to be a lie.
So, the officer, the deputy, shows up and I am standing back up in the yard. The officer is talking to Mr. Armstrong and I walk out to the gate and tell the officer I want Mr. Armstrong removed from the property. The officer says for me to go back and he will talk to me later. Fine, I walk away and continue my phone conversation. But what seemed like more than enough time for the officer to ask Mr. Armstrong if he was trespassing and Mr. Armstrong to admit he was I decided to walk back out. By this time the AC officer had arrived. Anyway, I approached and again told the officer I wanted Mr. Armstrong off the property. The officer told me Mr. Armstrong could not leave because he, the officer, had him blocked in. I guess the look I had to have on my face at that time had to say something along the lines of, "Are you really as dumb as you sound?" but I refrained from taking the officers bait as it was apparent to me by this time the officer was attempting to bait me. After another moment or two I again told the officer I wanted Mr. Armstrong off the property and that is when the officer got even uglier, if that were even possible.
The officer told me if I did not leave, and please bear in mind that the officer was outside the gate and at the back of Mr. Armstrong's truck and I was inside the yard away from the gate, he was going to put me in jail. I just had to ask, "Are you threatening me?" at which point the officer asked me if I knew who I was talking to. "A public servant" was not the answer he was looking for. That managed to get the officer inside the gate at which point he removed the phone from my hand and put it in my pocket and cuffed me. Funny how that was never mentioned in his report. He told me he just wanted me to calm down. I was the calm one and told him so. He was the one chomping at the bit.
By now the AC officer is also in the yard and the deputy removes the cuffs. The AC officer starts asking questions about the dog and I explain how Mr. Armstrong was ordered to keep the dog shut up by a judge. And that my mother had all the information and she was in the back yard with the dog on a leash. And again I asked the deputy to remove Mr. Armstrong from the property and again he said he could not be moved because the deputy had him blocked in. At this time I am beginning to question the wisdom of putting this guy on the streets with a gun and badge. I am also realizing that neither officer is going to do as they are supposed to do. So I just threw up my hands and started to walk away at which point I hear the deputy moving to come after me so I just stop and put my hands behind my back. And again he cuffs me and rushes me out to the car neither explaining what vicious crime I had perpetrated or reading me my rights. So off to jail I go.
On the ride to the jail the deputy asked my name and I exercised my 5th Amendment right not to tell him. Apparently he did not like that either. Now there are those who will say you have to answer that question but I have yet to find the "except when an officer asks your name" clause in the 5th Amendment. Seriously, I must have quite a different constitution than the one they use.
We proceeded to the detention center with the deputy speeding to get this hardened criminal to jail. He was doing 60 mph in a 45 mph zone. This was through a residential area. Not only was he endangering my life but that of anyone in the area. At least he took the precaution of putting my seatbelt on, you know, so the cuffs could better cut into my wrists.
Now I have a court date and in an attempt to find out what they are going to use against me in court I file a Brady Motion for discovery with the sheriffs dept. and the officer sends his statement of record , the 'Incident Report'. That was all that I received. That was what he was going to court with. Wait a minute, wasn't the AC officer present? What about the trespasser? Anyway, the report was bad enough. That alone would have got the case dismissed.
First, he accused me of being somewhere I wasn't and claimed that was where the arrest took place. Then he accused me of yelling. Oops, remember, I was on the phone with someone who could verify I was not yelling. He proceeded to say that the trespasser had nowhere else to move his truck to if he asked him to vacate the property. Wrong. There are actually three access roads the gentleman could have used One directly across the street, one next to the property and one directly across the street from that. The officer also said the child was frightened by my behavior. Wrong. The child's father, the trespasser, Mr. Armstrong, already had the child upset before the officer got there and all he had to do was remove the trespasser and the child away if he truly thought that was a problem. This was his reason, as he put it, for entering the yard, not the fact that the term 'Public Servant' was used. He also said I put my hand in the AC officers face. I was four-foot away from him and my arms are not that long. He also had me living in a different town on the report too. But my favorite part, the victim in all this was of course 'STATE OF SC' and when asked on the form if the victim was on drugs or using alcohol the officer checked "UNK". I also liked that the STATE OF SC had the same number as the Kershaw County Sheriffs Dept.
When I finally got to court the officer mumbles something to the judge and the judge says I can go as the witness did not appear. I came so close to saying, "What do you mean? The SOB is standing right here.". See, I do have self-control.
And just in case you are wondering, the officer left the trespasser on the property with my 79-year-old mother blocking her exit from the driveway and the AC officer gave him back his dog even though it was on our property when he arrived. I did speak to the judge later and even he could not understand this. Also, the AC officer was in the court room but made tracks before my case came up. The trespasser never showed. But hey, would you swear an oath and then perjure yourself in court?
 |
| The scene of the crime |
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)