“North Carolina Police Warned To Put Their Personal Property Into Someone Else’s Name !”

Image by e_calamar via Flickr

This might be the single most important email I’ve ever received.

It’s just an email.  It might be a hoax or a mistake.  But I think it’s true.  If it is, the whole damned governmental system is in jeopardy.  It just might be time to break out the Champagne!

It appears that a North Carolina court has ruled that the “police” are actually working for private entities (private companies) and are not associated with The State of North Carolina.  This ruling conforms to ideas I’ve advanced on this blog and on my radio show for several years.

Because the purported “police officers” are working for private companies, they are not entitled to official immunity.  Thus, police officers are being warned to put all of their personal property into someone else’s name since it might otherwise be lost in the event that a “police officer” is sued for assault or some other kind of lawbreaking.

If the police are working for “private companies,” so are most of the judges, prosecutors, and local regulators and bureaucrats.  That means they are all throwing their weight around without any real authority or personal immunity.  

 

L.A. Judges Guilty of R.I.C.O.

Image by dbking via Flickr

Former U. S. Prosecutor Richard I. Fine, Ph.D. appears in a video interview.  He outlines criminal activity of members of the California Judiciary that qualifies as “organized crime” and explains why their activities should qualify for prosecution under the RICO ACT ( Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act).

Mr. Fine complains about L.A. Judges in particular, and California judges, in general.  But the problem of judicial corruption is hardly confined to California.  Mr. Fine’s allegations could apply to most judges in most states throughout the U.S..

Most of the allegedly “honorable” men and women sitting on the benches of this country’s “judicial” system are nothing but racketeers.  They sit as administrators and employees of private entities rather than officers of the “judicial” branch of the de jure governments of “The States” of the Union.

 

Bond vs U.S.

Image via Wikipedia

Surely, there must be some mistake.

On June 16th, A.D. 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in the case of Bond v U.S..  This case involves the standing of private individuals to invoke the 10th–and, to lesser degree, the 9th–Amendments.  The total document (syllabus, opinion and concurring opinion) released by the Supreme Court is 19 pages.

As I read that case, I find excerpts on almost every page that strike me as mind-boggling, explosive and even revolutionary.  I can’t recall reading another case in the past 28 years that filled me with such excitement, glee and even hope.

I see this decision as so extraordinary, that I can’t imagine how the Supreme Court (in a 9 to 0 decision (!!!)), would dare write this opinion without fearing for their lives.

This case seem so good, that my fundamental reaction is:  Surely, there must be some mistake.

 

Title 26 is not the Internal Revenue Code

Image via Wikipedia

The United States Code (USC) consists of 51 “Titles”.  Each “Title” deals with a different subject matter.  For example, Title 26 deals with internal revenue tax laws.

Roughly half of those 51 Titles have been enacted into “positive law”; about half have not.

Title 26 has not been enacted into positive law.

A friend mine, Dick Clark, passed away a few years ago.  He’d been at war with the IRS for most of 20 years before he passed, and had written a book on the subject.   As part of his research, Dick asked the National Archives for a list of those Titles in the USC that had been enacted into “positive” law and those Titles that had not.  The National Archives provided the requested list.

I never saw the list.  But Dick told me that, surprisingly, of the 51 Titles on the National Archive list—only one, Title 26, had an asterisk and associated footnote at the bottom of the list.  The footnote said something like “Title 26 is identical to the Internal Revenue Code”.

The implication was extraordinary.  Title 26 was not the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)  Title 26 and the IRC were two different documents.  Yes, they might be “identical” in terms of verbiage, but they were not identical in terms of authority.