O.K. now what are we going to do about this? Are we gonna take up a collection for this guy's legal bills or are we gonna let him twist because every one of us is all talk?I don't have much but I will donate what I can afford; put up a link BOB.
Donating money to a legal defense fund is playing the fucking game. Do you have any clue what a real defense on real Constitutional grounds could cost? Any idea where to find a fucking lawyer who is well versed in Constitutional law and practiced at the Federal court level? There are only a few that come to mind; Gerry Spence, Nancy Lord and F. Lee Bailey.
Last I checked, Nancy Lord said she would not take a case for Federal court without a million buck$$$ up front. She knows just how fucking corrupt the DOJ is! Bailey is too damned old and only licensed in Maine. None of the three need the money or the headaches associated with bucking the Feds. Federal court is exactly where this shit needs to wind up, but who in their right mind would spend the fortune it would take to play the game. This is a stupid misdemeanor. He will pay it and comply like a good slave.
This Connecticut resident made a litany of bad choices, starting with remaining in a state that has made him a "criminal" with the stroke of a pen and ending with answering the cop's questions. I can't get all broke up about it. The dumb-shit didn't have the sense to keep his carry permit stashed where the pig can't see it, didn't have the sense to keep his contraband locked away and out of site, didn't have the sense to avoid being contacted by officer friendly....
On the other hand, if he iced the pig who was playing tyrant under color of law, I might be inclined to....
Anonymous @12;50PM, You left out some big and not so big, names of attorney's who have stood up to government scum. Chuck Peterson, David Nevin, Jack Zimmerman, Mike DeGuerin, Gatewood Galbraith, James Jefferies 111, Blair Hindman. I do not disagree with your post about costs, but there are attorneys who have beat DOJ pus buckets.
To the Law Enforcement Officers of Connecticut: Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law (as a law enforcement officer or agent) to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Heller VS District of Columbia and Campbell VS Chicago are Supreme Court precedent and define CGS 53–202 to be in violation of the 2nd amendment of the constitution of the United States.
As such, ANY officer enforcing such "law" is committing a criminal act under color of law. "TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death." You are further advised that your actions may be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 241 : US Code - Section 241: Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured - They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. There is NOTHING within either of these FEDERAL LAWS that prohibit a citizen from resisting an unconstitutional arrest by lethal force: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)“It is the law of self defense and self preservation that is applicable. “One has an “unalienable” right to protect his life, liberty or property from unlawful attack or harm.” “* * * it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody without resistance.” Adams v. State, 121 Ga 163, 48 S.E. 910 (1904) “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right, and only the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” State v. Robinson, 145 Me. 77, 72 Atl, 2nd.260, 262 (1950) “A citizen illegally arrested “cannot initiate the use of force” and neither do “words alone justify an assault.” However, “when the officer initiates the assault by physical contact, which is usually the case, and there is an unlawful arrest, the citizen has the right to protect his liberty to the extent of killing the officer.” See Green v. Kennedy, 48 N.Y. Rep. 653, 654 (1871) and/or Hicks v. Matthews, 266 S.W. 2nd. 846, 849 (Tex. 1954).
...or are we gonna let him twist because every one of us is all talk?
Put up or shut your mouth. You offered nothing constructive, just a bunch of crap intended to incite.
Anybody can spew vitriol but if you can't step up to actually help, you are nothing.
There's enough of us to get the ball rolling and any lawyer worth his salt can see that a win in this would pay HUGE DIVIDENDS down the road. Dems won't be in power forever.
Quit trolling and do something constructive. And if you're so inclined to see some frozen porcine then do it yourself and shut your trap about it in public. Do you think you would't get the death penalty after your oh-so public rant. If this guy was so dumb to converse with a cop then what's that make you? W
6 comments:
O.K. now what are we going to do about this? Are we gonna take up a collection for this guy's legal bills or are we gonna let him twist because every one of us is all talk?I don't have much but I will donate what I can afford; put up a link BOB.
Donating money to a legal defense fund is playing the fucking game.
Do you have any clue what a real defense on real Constitutional grounds could cost?
Any idea where to find a fucking lawyer who is well versed in Constitutional law and practiced at the Federal court level? There are only a few that come to mind; Gerry Spence, Nancy Lord and F. Lee Bailey.
Last I checked, Nancy Lord said she would not take a case for Federal court without a million buck$$$ up front. She knows just how fucking corrupt the DOJ is! Bailey is too damned old and only licensed in Maine. None of the three need the money or the headaches associated with bucking the Feds. Federal court is exactly where this shit needs to wind up, but who in their right mind would spend the fortune it would take to play the game. This is a stupid misdemeanor. He will pay it and comply like a good slave.
This Connecticut resident made a litany of bad choices, starting with remaining in a state that has made him a "criminal" with the stroke of a pen and ending with answering the cop's questions. I can't get all broke up about it. The dumb-shit didn't have the sense to keep his carry permit stashed where the pig can't see it, didn't have the sense to keep his contraband locked away and out of site, didn't have the sense to avoid being contacted by officer friendly....
On the other hand, if he iced the pig who was playing tyrant under color of law, I might be inclined to....
KPN3%
Anonymous @12;50PM, You left out some big and not so big, names of attorney's who have stood up to government scum. Chuck Peterson, David Nevin, Jack Zimmerman, Mike DeGuerin, Gatewood Galbraith, James Jefferies 111, Blair Hindman. I do not disagree with your post about costs, but there are attorneys who have beat DOJ pus buckets.
To the Law Enforcement Officers of Connecticut:
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law (as a law enforcement officer or agent) to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Heller VS District of Columbia and Campbell VS Chicago are Supreme Court precedent and define CGS 53–202 to be in violation of the 2nd amendment of the constitution of the United States.
As such, ANY officer enforcing such "law" is committing a criminal act under color of law.
"TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death." You are further advised that your actions may be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 241 : US Code - Section 241: Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured - They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
There is NOTHING within either of these FEDERAL LAWS that prohibit a citizen from resisting an unconstitutional arrest by lethal force: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)“It is the law of self defense and self preservation that is applicable. “One has an “unalienable” right to protect his life, liberty or property from unlawful attack or harm.” “* * * it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody without resistance.” Adams v. State, 121 Ga 163, 48 S.E. 910 (1904)
“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right, and only the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” State v. Robinson, 145 Me. 77, 72 Atl, 2nd.260, 262 (1950)
“A citizen illegally arrested “cannot initiate the use of force” and neither do “words alone justify an assault.” However, “when the officer initiates the assault by physical contact, which is usually the case, and there is an unlawful arrest, the citizen has the right to protect his liberty to the extent of killing the officer.” See Green v. Kennedy, 48 N.Y. Rep. 653, 654 (1871) and/or Hicks v. Matthews, 266 S.W. 2nd. 846, 849 (Tex. 1954).
MOLON LABE
Like I said AnonyMOUSE:
...or are we gonna let him twist because every one of us is all talk?
Put up or shut your mouth. You offered nothing constructive, just a bunch of crap intended to incite.
Anybody can spew vitriol but if you can't step up to actually help, you are nothing.
There's enough of us to get the ball rolling and any lawyer worth his salt can see that a win in this would pay HUGE DIVIDENDS down the road. Dems won't be in power forever.
Quit trolling and do something constructive. And if you're so inclined to see some frozen porcine then do it yourself and shut your trap about it in public. Do you think you would't get the death penalty after your oh-so public rant. If this guy was so dumb to converse with a cop then what's that make you? W
Post a Comment