Retired Police Captain Rejects War on Drugs

05 Aug

LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) co-founder and spokesman Peter Christ speaks out against the War on Drugs and in favor of legalizing drugs.

I and others have been making identical arguments at least 15 years.  I’m a little aggravated that it’s taken truth so long to penetrate into the the body politic, but I’m delighted to see that these ideas are becoming more “mainstream”.

Former police captain Christ absolutely understands and explains the logic and necessity for ending the War on Drugs.  Apparently, Mr. Christ was hired as a cop before police departments started to restrict law enforcement employment to those with below average IQs. I’m almost amazed to hear a (former) cop speaking intelligently against the War on Drugs.  There are some good guys within (or formerly within) law enforcement.

video     00:15:43


Tags: , , , ,

38 responses to “Retired Police Captain Rejects War on Drugs

  1. palani

    August 5, 2013 at 6:55 AM

    But … the prison industry would be crippled if they suddenly lost a majority of their raw material (crimes associated with drugs). Eliminate the war on drugs and you would automatically step into a war on unemployed prison guards idle and non-productive and on welfare.

    • tasercrimes

      August 5, 2013 at 7:13 AM

      Better to pick your battles thusly.

  2. Joseph S Haas

    August 5, 2013 at 7:51 AM

    Thank you Al, but that the title of their organization at: is misleading in that there is no similar Amendment for Drugs as there was for Liquor by the 18th Amendment a/k/a The Volstead Act that was repealed by the 21st Amendment 13 years later from 1920 to in 1933. And so the drugs of today being illegal are not unlawful, and so when LAW EnFORCEment Officers get involved they be actually statute enforcers. Whatever penalty prescribed as for a forfeiture of the land is that of their LEGAL title only, but NOT the lawful title and so like an FRN of a note being a promise to pay in the future tense is legal tender costing about 6-cents to make, it is not lawful money coin, and so whatever forfeiture takes place it be thus like 6% of their land only, of like the exact spot or its equivalent taken from elsewhere of like outside the 60-yard curtilege where that crop of whatever was growing but no more, of it amazing here in New Hampshire that nobody had ever fought for their rights as such since according to: Morrison v. Bedell, Vol. 22 N.H. REPORTS, pages 234-245 @ p. 239 for Grafton County, December Term, 1850 “. . . the books abound with authorities to show that debt is the proper form of action to recover a penalty or forfeiture created by statute.”

  3. Jeff Gardner

    August 5, 2013 at 8:09 AM

    Legalization is the right answer to the wrong question. ‘Legalization’ is just the flip side of de facto recognition that FedGov has authority to make the determination in the first place.

    When someone can show where in the Constitution FedGov has the duty to control drugs, only then can we discuss which course of action they should take. Until then, FedGov has no business or authority to legalize or not legalize. Once we give up this ground (as we have) then the real ‘war’ on our Constitution is lost.

  4. bigbookharry

    August 5, 2013 at 3:03 PM

    The core is much deeper. One could argue the Fed. Gov. ability to create laws based upon constitutional values. An analogy: We could legalize murder and in essence give people a license to kill. Of course that would not be conducive to the society’s welfare. Typically laws are created to compel the people to do what is morally correct and then they do the bare minimum, find loopholes to circumvent or completely ignore them which then requires more laws. This what the Pharisees did with the 163 laws brought through Moses. These laws are designed to correct the external actions of the body and is futile. The core problem lays in the spirit and lack of choosing the guidance of God. Without God moral entropy transpires because of the sinful nature of the flesh and is progressive. The civilization’s cycle of abundance verses revolution has always been paralleled with the civilization’s compliance with God’s moral base line. (Law written on our hearts) I feel that America’s moral degradation has reached a point of no return to turn back to God.

    2 Chronicles 7:14
    if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

    The New Covenant brought by Jesus addressed the heart giving us the freedom to love authentically being convicted by the spirit to do what is right in the eyes of God.

    See: youtube. com/user/TheFuelProject This non-denominational ministry lays the cards on the table in strict compliance with scripture.

    God Bless

    • Jeff Gardner

      August 6, 2013 at 7:02 AM

      Yes, BigBook. One really could argue FedGov’s ability to create laws stems from constitutional values. Actually, there is no argument at all: FedGov’s ONLY ability to create laws is from within the constitutional duty assigned to them by We, The People.

      That’s the point. I read everyone’s comments closely, and find no ‘deeper core’. For everyone’s thoughtful comments and experiences, I respectfully submit that none, including Mr. Adask’s, address any ‘deeper core’ than constitutional cornerstones. And those cornerstones are simple — FedGov has no authority to create drug laws. That power is nowhere provided to FedGov in the charter. Period. Like most fundamentals, this isn’t hard. It only becomes a complicated question when fundamentals are dismissed as unimportant.

      • palani

        August 6, 2013 at 9:30 AM

        “FedGov’s ability to create laws stems from constitutional values”
        While this statement is true you must reflect on the effect of the 14th amendment. This amendment has single handedly usurped the organic U.S. constitution. For U.S. citizens (aka freed slaves) the ONLY constitution that applies is contained in the 14th amendment; i.e., in exchange for not being able to question the national debt your right to being duly ‘processed’ is recognized.

        The British have bragged for many centuries on the durability of their unwritten constitution and how it requires no inertia to change in response to an unexpected occurrence which causes perturbations that would otherwise lead it into a constitutional crisis. The 14th amendment is the U.S. answer to this claim although they bring up the organic constitution from time to time for window dressing and to deceive people.

      • Jeff Gardner

        August 6, 2013 at 9:56 AM

        A well-educated observation, palani. Two obstacles present, however. Firstly, for all the damage 14A did and does, at no point did its extensions repeal or cancel constitutional enumerated powers granted to FedGov. If it did, then Art I, Sec. 8, pursuant to the rules of constitutional construction, would have had to be repealed at the same time. Severe limits exist on FedGOv authority. We, the People having abandoned that does not de facto provide FedGov the unlimited power it claims today. Nothing anywhere, including 14A, grants FedGov authority to create any dictate about drugs.

        Second point. As quaint as it sounds, 14A exists in our minds, not in fact. Its passage and ratification were a total abomination of democratic process. Whilst the point may seem moot today, I continue to believe that when we give up this historical fact then FedGov gained carte blanche power to do whatever they want, whenever they want. You are right to use 14A as a guidon bearer of today’s destructions. Take that fundamental down one more step, to its foundations. As sooooo often happens when we get to foundations and cornerstones, everything changes.

      • palani

        August 6, 2013 at 10:40 AM

        “at no point did its extensions repeal or cancel constitutional enumerated powers granted to FedGov”
        The distinction is that this is NOT the federal government of the organic constitution. A little matter of $346,681,016 that actually does belong to that ‘original’ federal government that is NOT included in the national debt of the 14th amendment federal government. This means you are applying the constraints of one entity to an entirely separate entity which unfortunately has a similar name. This is not a good stand to take because junior has proven that he has not the restraint of Uncle Sam … if you think otherwise just look at the debt junior has amassed.

        “14A exists in our minds”
        Shades of Lysander Spooner. Oaths are spoken to the wind? Was the 14th amendment being reflected in the oaths of these public officials when they spoke that oath? If so then all they are guaranteeing is due process and by subterfuge they just got out of performing as they were intended and they don’t even bother to provide a surety bond for their performance. An observer looking from the outside would find few actions of any government servants that would indicate that they intend to follow their oath as if the 14th amendment were not included. Instead they are telling you they are following the U.S. constitution AS MODIFIED by the 14th amendment and you ex-slaves had better be prepared to be sold back into servitude before they are done.

        There are no public officials in the sense of the organic constitution. If there were that official would not last a day in office. If his handlers didn’t take him out then the voters would recall him because his performance is substandard in this day and age.

      • Jeff Gardner

        August 6, 2013 at 11:13 AM

        Wow palani, too terrific! What a breath of fresh air.

        As it all relates to drug laws &c, it is clear that it all is within the purview of ‘junior’ (I like that!). We’re just not used to discourse with people who understand that. Given ‘junior’s’ objectives, considering the question probably has nothing to do with what is right, or wrong, about drugs and their legal proscripts outside of lawful ones. The only question seems to be, ‘how is this subject best plied to further junior’s objectives?’ Which are not our objective of good health. So, the fiasco that has emerged is a fiasco to us, but is humming along like a well-oiled machine to them.

        I’ve enjoyed your breath of fresh air, palani. Thank you.

      • Yartap

        August 6, 2013 at 5:21 PM

        Jeff and palani,

        I concur with your reasoning about the 14th Amendment, but the drug laws stem from the foundational use of the Commerce Clause as found in the Constitution.

      • Jeff Gardner

        August 6, 2013 at 5:43 PM

        That is certainly the claim, Yartap. Commerce clause authority originally meant to stop toll roads from existing state to state, began its trek to oblivion in the 1850s, then Munn v Illinois in the early 1880s. The second decade of 20c say a complete court assault to entirely dismantle Commerce Clause limits. Even within this hostile environment Congress, via the abominable Harrison Act, dared not attempt to impose drugs laws beyond doctors writing perscriptions. Under this guise, tens of thousands of medical professionals were jailed. Later, the 1941 Wickard decision erased most of what was left of Commerce. Thereafter, Richard Nixon moved drug laws beyond any shred of Commerce Clause recognition.

        So, yes, Commerce Clause was the ostensible authority. Its one of those fairy tales we must resist. These are difficult matters when someone has as much personal destructions in your life on account of drugs.

      • palani

        August 6, 2013 at 6:23 PM

        “the drug laws stem from the foundational use of the Commerce Clause as found in the Constitution”
        There are only so many concepts concerning governance that can be invented. The commerce clause is well known and understood. The federal government controls the interstate commerce between the several states. They also control every aspect of commerce that touches their 14th amendment ‘citizen/subject/slaves’. This leave intrastate commerce, things like drugs that are not involved in cross border operations, that also avoid sales to those same ‘citizen/subject/slaves’. In this mode there is no basis for federal control of these particular drugs …. except …. in 1948 (June 20th) Harry S. Truman extended federal control INTO the several states in order to make them nothing but administrative subdivisions of the federal government….and somewhere along the line a FRN is going to be used to pay for drugs.

        The whole affair is a mess and is long past due being straightened out. You will not get a straight answer to any of your questions from your public servants. Perhaps few of them desire to decorate oak trees?

      • Jeff Gardner

        August 6, 2013 at 6:41 PM

        You are sure right that this is a mess long since overdue to straighten out. You have a very good grasp on the connection between what is now inrecognizable and what once was.

        So I am surprised to see you write off Commerce as well-known and understood. It certainly is….as FedGov has come to claim it. But the historical record very, very clearly says differently. In a neat and tidy, but unrelentingly incessant progression from Cooley v Port Wardens (1850) through Perez (1971) and beyond (and the 1970s Chevron doctrine regarding its regulations) the Commerce Clause underwent total reversal and evisceration. Since the newly coined matter was essentially secured after Wickard v Filburn (1941), what is “well known and understood” by almost everyone alive today is a Commerce Clause distorted beyond recognition. What is well known and understood” is only generational memory of those who are alive. Dependence on this for knowledge is the province of the unaware, the unknowing, the uneducated.

      • Yartap

        August 8, 2013 at 12:16 PM

        Thanks Jeff, for the insite.

      • Yartap

        August 8, 2013 at 12:17 PM

        Thanks palani, for the insite

  5. Yartap

    August 5, 2013 at 10:59 PM


    This is a hard topic for me. I have seen success in my family over drugs and I have suffered a death from drugs in my family.

    I agree that the so called War on Drugs is truly a failure. But, it was set to be a failure, because this War is nothing more than a RACKET!

    You know – our troops protect the fields of Afghanistan, it’s shipped to Mexico; our government opens our borders for its shipment; the DEA, FBI, state agencies, court system and prisons get a cut of the profit; medical treatment and rehab’s get a cut; they substitute methadone for hard drugs; drug companies get a cut; and the PTB use drugs as a currency and get a cut of the profits.

    For me to accept decriminalizing drug and alcohol use, first and for most, I would have to have the family unit reinstated. No more divorces where children are involved! Government completely out of the profiteering drug racket. Restrictions on doctors (the worst pushers of all) prescribing antidepressants and other mind altering drugs like candy. And implementing the truly successful drug and alcohol rehab’s, which only 20 exist in this nation which have an 80 – 90% success rate, unlike the thousands which have only a 20% success rate at best and are part of the racket.

    • Adask

      August 6, 2013 at 2:43 AM

      I never did much in the line of illegal drugs. I tried a broad variety of such drugs, but I only spent $15 on “illegal” drugs one time back in A.D. 1965. My drugs of choice were alcohol and tobacco. I am a “former” alcoholic and was drunk 360 nights out of every years for about 12 years. With the grace of God, I was able to quit at age 32–I haven’t had another drink of alcohol (or wanted one) for 35 years. I quit smoking about one year after I quit drinking.

      So, while I don’t have much “understanding” of most illegal drugs, I have some appreciation for addiction. I know that there’s no easy answer to the drug problem. I know that, no matter what you do, there are going to be casualties and even fatalities.

      But I absolutely reject the War on Drugs because it’s based on a legal definition of “drugs” and the Federal and most states levels that presumes the people to be animals and thus deprives us our standing as men and women made in God’s image and endowed by our Creator with “certain unalienable Rights”. I will not, under any circumstances, emulate Esau by abandoning my “creation rights” for a bowl of drug prohibition “pottage”.

      I’ve heard and believe that the single most significant cause of a fall in the use of cocaine among kids in the 1980s as the death of college basketball player Len Bias in A.D. 1986 from a cocaine overdose–just two days after he’d been drafted to play for the Boston Celtics. Bias was a superb athlete and kids–who want to “experiment” and “have fun”–learned instantly from Bias’ death that cocaine is no joke. If it could kill Bias, it could kill most other kids, too.

      It is unfortunate but apparently true that kids are too smart to believe most government propaganda and therefore won’t be scared off from using drugs by something like “Reefer Madness”. But if they see someone die, they get the message. They want to experiment. They want to have fun. But the absolutely do not want to die.

      After Len Bias died, cocaine use dropped dramatically for 12 to 18 months. If another athlete or celebrity or merely family member had died from cocaine O.D. a year after Bias, the use of cocaine would continue to be relatively slow. We are a herd species and we learn from each other’s mistakes–especially if those mistakes are lethal.

      If we legalized drugs, we’d probably have a few more deaths but we’d also have a significant reduction in general drug use, drug-related violence and prison population. Those additional deaths might be the cheapest way to slow the use of drugs. That opinion may sound hard-hearted, but what good does coddling drug users do? Coddling can “buy time” until they come to their senses, but if more people died from drug use, I suspect there’d be less drug use to start with.

      I don’t pretend that my suggestion offers an ideal solution to drug addiction, but we’ve tried the “war” against drugs for 40 years and what’s that done other than increase the availability of drugs and reduce their cost?

      • Yartap

        August 6, 2013 at 5:57 PM

        Al, I concur.

        At my step grandson’s funeral, I meet with many of his druggie friends and their addictions. What did they all have in common and shared: Broken homes – Dysfunctional families or enablers (can’t say no or protectors from shame) – Single parents or no parents – No moral compass – Lack of Hard Love.

        What got my 25 year old step grandson? Two antidepressants and testosterone, he was on, which were all approved by his parents and his doctor! And he hung himself to fight off the demons.

  6. Adask

    August 6, 2013 at 1:57 PM

    Palani. I’ve seen references to the $346 million in debt that’s attributed to the original “federal” government but is not included in the current calculation of the National Debt. If that’s a true story, the implications are huge. But, although I’ve seen rumors and references, I’ve never seen any evidence or authority that verifies the $346 million debt story.

    I would very much like to see evidence or authority in support of the $346 million debt being separate from our National Debt. Can you point us to any evidence or authority that verifies the $346 million debt story?

    • palani

      August 6, 2013 at 3:37 PM

      Unfortunately I have no black letter text that states that $346,681,016 of the original federal government is excluded from the debt of the post 14th amendment government. However you can google that exact figure and you might come up with dozens of government documents that refer to it. This debt has been fixed since 1878 (coincidentally precisely 10 years after implementation of the 14th amendment). I was curious enough about it to actually purchase a share … a $5 note from 1862 which is valued at a quarter oz of gold … not that I ever expect to see it but the note does make me a creditor to the organic federal government … and as long as I know that then they are still on the hook for that quarter oz of gold.

      The 14th amendment stipulates that “neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States” . The rhetoric associated with this sentiment is that the U.S. won’t pay the southern debt from the (un)civil war completed just three years prior. But then the U.S. was never obligated to pay the debt of their opponent anyway so this reasoning makes no sense. If you were to place a legal notice concerning your wife leaving your bed and board and that you were no longer responsible for her debts then that notice takes effect on the day it is published and not before. She contracted debts prior to the notice and you are certainly on the hook for them. The same holds true with this 14th amendment notice. The only obligation it relieves the U.S. from paying is “Junior’s” debt. This $346,681,016 was debt contracted BEFORE the 14th amendment notice and is valid debt. Junior’s debt contracted AFTER the 14th amendment is INSURGENT debt and need not be paid from the viewpoint of Uncle Sam (organic federal government).

      • Dick Marple

        August 6, 2013 at 4:52 PM

        I have been reading that that 14th was never ratified and in fact is in the congressional records show it as being “adopted”. The supreme court of Utah has so issued a similar a ruling in the case Dyett v. Turner. Utah is a sovereign nation/state so how does this play int what is being discussed?

      • Jeff Gardner

        August 6, 2013 at 9:21 PM

        Dick, don’t get me wrong here. 14A ratification is not like the questions that surround 13A,16A, and 18A ratification, and probably others if you look hard enough. There is not any doubt that 14A was constitutional rape, not constitutional ratification. So much so that Congress had to hurriedly pass legislation stripping US courts from hearing challenges to its legality.

        That said, the fact is that America after July, 1868, as aptly noted by others here, underwent radical surgery and transformation. To deny that is foolhardy. My argument is that it is no less foolhardy to rewrite the history to accept it as legal. If I unlawfully stole your paycheck, how much time would have to pass before you declared the theft a lawful act? You may have to accept the result in real life, but that’s a whole lot different than proceeding as though the theft was proper.

        The Dyett opinion, same thing. The Utah Supremes were brave enough to be correct, but in ‘real life’ the crumudgeons at 10th Circuit utterly destroyed the decision in ad hominiem fashion. Such is life: deciding when to be right and when to be pragmatic. There are much wiser placed to use your potent silver bullets

  7. Jetlag

    August 6, 2013 at 6:42 PM


    Drug users like Len Bias are dropping dead every day. If reducing illegal drug use was on the mainstream media’s list of concerns, we would see vastly more tear-jerking and moralizing coverage of these casualties, in all formats of infotainment. There’s enough material available for the saturation treatment they give us on other topics when it suits their agenda.


    You are correct. The US government gets, or at least claims to get, its drug prohibition authority from the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. We find this in the case law, so there’s no need for fanciful speculation.

    • Jeff Gardner

      August 6, 2013 at 7:09 PM

      Hey Jetlag, you are right. There is no need for fanciful explanation. There is an abundance of caselaw, a small amount of which I’ve given here, that details the roadmap of commerce clause development. If you read the dozen or so major cases or the thirty or so important cases overall and can frame something that supports your belief, or if you can provide other caselaw to support your belief, or if you can come up with one iota of a the historical roadmap that supports your framing vital Commerce Clause development and its relation to drug law development as fanciful speculation, I am MORE THAN WILLING to learn from you. Several Constitutional history departments would also be most interested to hear the fanciful speculation that overturns the discipline’s 110 years of scholarship on the matter.

      • Jetlag

        August 6, 2013 at 8:22 PM

        My statement was not about historical roadmaps. I only said the US government gets, or claims to get, its drug prohibition authority from the interstate commerce clause.

        An amendment to the “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act”, namely the “Drug Abuse Control Amendments” of 1965, is one iota of evidence in support of this:

        “Congress hereby finds and declares that there is a widespread illicit traffic in depressant and stimulant drugs moving in or otherwise affecting interstate commerce; that the use of such drugs when not under the supervision of a licensed practitioner, often endangers safety on the highways (without distinction of interstate and intrastate traffic thereon) and otherwise has become a threat to the public health and safety, making additional regulation of such drugs necessary regardless of the intrastate or interstate origin of such drugs; that in order to make regulation and protection of interstate commerce in such drugs effective, regulation of intrastate commerce is also necessary…”

        Another iota is Gonzales v. Raich (2005):

      • Jeff Gardner

        August 6, 2013 at 8:46 PM

        You did not only say that US govt gets, or claims to get, its drug prohibition from the interstate commerce clause. You also advised Yartap, in response to brief but solid information I provided him, that it was fanciful speculation.

        Historical foundations mean Federalist documents and earlier. 1965 is the modern era. 100% of modern era legislation and so-called ‘public policy’ derives from caselaw that incrementally moved Constitution elements, including the Commerce Clause, beyond recognition. If you wish to read modern statutes as a baseline, well, I’d encourage you to reconsider. But in the meantime, do not dismiss the real history that paved the way as fanciful speculation.

        The singular data points you offer do not create a clear picture of even modern digressions. But, they are instructive nonetheless. The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act is a poster child of incrementalism run amok. First, the food and drug derivatives of a 1906 Food and Drug Act was one next step of Commerce Clause steady dissection. Widely believed to be unconstitutional then, the 1965 Act as a bookend on the other side is simply more evidence of Commerce Clause destruction. Meanwhile, the cosmetics part of the Act solidified other constitutional impairment; namely, the first questionable use of interstate compacts in 1895 or so. The Drug Abuse Control Amendments created the “drug schedule” schema we currently enjoy, and was the step that shredded the restraints thinly imposed by the Harrison Act.

        In the end, this piece of legislation began with three earlier precedents that pushed beyond then-existing new outer limits of Commerce Clause limits on government. In each case, each of those limits were not nudged, pushed, or prodded. They were destroyed. It all looks OK if the frame of reference begins in the modern era, and if history before the modern era is dismissed as a nuisance.

      • Jetlag

        August 6, 2013 at 9:12 PM

        “You also advised Yartap, in response to brief but solid information I provided him, that it was fanciful speculation.”

        Say what? I made no reference to your information. This is mere fanciful speculation by you, and a waste of space on Mr. Adask’s awesome blog.

      • Jeff Gardner

        August 6, 2013 at 9:33 PM

        OK Jetlag, silly me. You are completely right. I can’t imagine what I was thinking, or why I would spend time trying to educate you.

        Meanwhile, speaking of Adask’s usefulness. There is nothing in his ideas and beliefs that is more brilliant than his understanding of the Declaration of Independence. Put your ego aside and breathe it in. In five minutes you won’t remember who I am, but your life and your understanding of the vitality of this perfection of 2500 years of human experimentation – America – will have made these few minutes of your time an extraordinary advance. Good luck in your continued growth.

    • Adask

      August 6, 2013 at 9:10 PM

      Yes, lots of drug addicts die each day–but they’re not like Len Bias. Most of the drug addicts who die each day are impoverished, poorly educated, physically disabled, and unattractive. These daily casualties are more likely to be burnt-out, illiterate crack heads than superb athletes with college degrees.

      No one much cares or is surprised when some homeless, unemployed person dies who’s already done so many drugs that he looks sick, physically disabled and impoverished. Most kids can’t imagine that they would ever come to that condition and therefore don’t identify with the deaths of those who are already at death’s door.

      But when a physically-superb, college-educated athlete who’s about to become a multi-millionaire dies, he is typically someone who large numbers of kids admire and want to emulate. They can identify with the superb, college-educated athlete (but not with the crack head). Therefore when the superb athlete dies, his one death can have a more substantial effect than the deaths of hundreds or even thousands of crack heads.

  8. Jetlag

    August 6, 2013 at 9:30 PM

    @Adask “Most of the drug addicts who die each day are impoverished, poorly educated, physically disabled, and unattractive.”

    Forget those people for now. Let’s assume no one cares about them.

    Society’s rejects aside, there remains a large daily casualty list of users who may not be millionaire athletes in the making, but are nevertheless apple pie American enough to serve as object lessons to millions of potential druggies in the middle class.

    That is, if the mainstream media wanted to use its enormous influence to render that particular service in the public good.

  9. Dick Marple

    August 7, 2013 at 5:28 PM

    Well here is one you all can comment on as to how this applies to the subject matter.

    “Foley Bros.. v. Filardo, 336 US 281.

    “The question is,

    Page 336 U. S. 285

    rather, whether Congress intended to make the law applicable to such work. We conclude, for the reasons expressed below, that such was not the intention of the legislators.

    First. The canon of construction which teaches that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, Blackmer v. United States, supra, at 284 U. S. 437, is a valid approach whereby unexpressed congressional intent may be ascertained. It is based on the assumption that Congress is primarily concerned with domestic conditions. We find nothing in the Act itself, as amended, nor in the legislative history, which would lead to the belief that Congress entertained any intention other than the normal one in this case.

    • Jeff Gardner

      August 7, 2013 at 5:41 PM

      Applies to what subject matter? Foley Bros. examines whether Congress intended to apply the Eight Hour Law to contracts for work performed in foreign countries.

      • Dick Marple

        August 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM

        Jeff, please read the ” FIRST. The canon of construction which teaches that legislation of Congress…is meant to apply ONLY WITHIN, the TERRITORIAL jurisdiction of the United States.”

        That is, the District of Columbia and the 25 insular possessions owned by that municipal fiction .
        The corporation rules and regulations have NO effect in any sovereign nation/state, unless there is specific language in the construction that constitutionally provides foe the same by use of the word “expressly”.

        Does this now have more meaning for you ?


      • Jeff Gardner

        August 8, 2013 at 6:29 PM

        Well, no, Dick. I’m sorry, and trying hard to understand your direction. Whilst yours is a valid and vital point of discussion, the opinion in the case you cite, and its references in other case law, are quite distant from that matter. If you read the entire case, its appellate history and its briefings, perhaps you would kindly point me to the line of argument — not just an out-of-context quote — that will help me see why you believe this case makes your point.

        I do not seem to be as informed about canons of construction. Within maxims of law, I have never seen construction canons ranked. For the 1856 court, severals of hundreds of maxims were listed alphabetically beginning with A communi observantia non est recedendum. This does not address what you want to discuss. Every listing I know of since 1856 is also alphabetized. For the 1998 court, the most recent listing I know of, the first listed Constitutional construction maxim was “Look first to evidence of the original understanding of the Constitution.” The first listed statutory construction maxim was “When interpreting a statute, first look to the language.” In fact, from 1993 to 1998, SCOTUS provided no territorial maxims at all. Even in the comprehensive 1856 listing, the only maxim referencing territorial jurisdiction was the obscure Extra territorium jus dicenti non paretur impune.

        For territorial arguments, I respectfully suggest that the current US Attorney’s Manual makes your point more persuasively.

  10. Anthony Clifton

    August 11, 2013 at 3:42 AM

    …..”because their tongue and their doings are against the Alighty, to provoke the eyes of his glory.

    The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.

    Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with him: for they shall eat the fruit of their doings.

    Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him.

    As for my people, {who are not the Khazar “Proselytes to Talmudic Judaism in 840 AD}
    children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.
    O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.”

    briefly review the story of Elijah and ” axe yoself ” …
    how many Ashkenazim KHAZAR Proselytes
    were in attendance…

    • Joseph S Haas

      August 17, 2013 at 2:57 PM

      Reply to Anthony Clifford :

      Thank you Anthony Clifford for your: ” As for my people, . . .
      children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.” I see also
      from over at: of: both (1-a)
      “Pulpit Commentary ” = ” The rulers are “children,” or rather “babes” – foolish, capricious *, cowardly. It is not clear that any prince in particular is meant; rather, by the plural form, the upper class generally seems to be intended, as in Isaiah 1:10, 17, 23, etc. Women; comp. Herod., 8:88, where Xerxes says that “his men have shown themselves women, and his women men;” and see also Virg., ‘AEneid ‘- ” and (1-b) ” “O vere Phrygia, neque enim Phryges.” The rulers were womanly, i.e. weak, wavering* *, timid, impulsive, passionate, and are therefore called actual “women.” There is no allusion to female sovereigns. *** They which lead thee cause thee to err; [*] or, they which direct thee lead thee astray. Professing to point out the right path, they led men away from it. Destroy the way; literally, swallow it up, or obliterate it. ” **** and (2) ” Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible ” = ” 12. (See Isa 3:4). oppressors—literally, “exactors,” that is, exacting princes (Isa 60:17). They who ought to be protectors are exactors; as unqualified for rule as “children,” as effeminate as “women.” Perhaps it is also implied that they were under the influence of their harem, the women of their court.”

      And so in particular, for the word capricious * = also defined as inconsistent, wayward** , wanton, contrary, arbitrary and frivolous; plus for wavering ** = indecisive (INACTION).

      That although ” There is no allusion to female sovereigns.” *** here in New Hampshire we do have a female governor and her name is Margaret “Maggie” Wood Hassan, who ought to be called Maggie the Nanny, of not to disparage or be derogatory to somebody like that movie character of : “Nanny McPhee” who took charge of the children by their father’s employment of her by contract, we did elect Hassan the Democrat to work for us too and who was supposed to “make and subscribe” as in to draw up and sign her Article 84 oath and viz. as in: to say it too, but that she’s been Article 14 in-“complete” by only the verbal of the tongue talking of refusing to use her arm and hand to put ink in pen to paper that is required by the shall word as a mandatory must requirement BEFORE she can ” proceed_ to execute the duties of h(er) office,” (see RSA Ch. 92:2 and Merrimack County case #2002-E-064 of Chase v. Dan Scroth of Pittsfield) but does so anyway in to dish-out Federal Funds KNOWing (in a culpable mentality for criminality for her RSA Ch. 643:1 “refrain” as an “Official Oppress”or!) that the vote from which they are derived be from an unlawful number of M.O.C.’s (Members of Congress) since N.H. is one of the eleven states that we do not elect our “judicial officers” and so the representation therein the Congress SHALL be reduced as pre-scribed in Section 2 of the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment = ” when the right to vote at any election for the choice of . . . Judicial officers of a State, . . . is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, . . . the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. ” Of thus if she can replace for a vacancy, she can and must subtract for a reduction by penalty, of like in football of too many players on the field to get the ten-yard penalty, of thus too many M.O.C.’s to result in this penalty too: a temporary penalty I say because each state ought to have at least four Federal Reps so that 4 – 1 = 3 of representing the majority interests of the state will always be a number over the 2 in the U.S. Senate for the minority interests, and so to revise The Reapportionment Act of 1929. And so to take this one step backward from 2-1 = 1 here to highlight the corruption in the N.H. judiciary of those judges who are in Contempt of General Court for violating the statutes, as in the RSA Chapter 528 / 529 switcheroo in my real estate case, of the Sheriff’s Sale bidder cannot sell his personal interest in the real estate market because no Title Insurance Company will sell him a policy for a KLNOWN defect. Of which so-called “error” [* ] of really a wanton disregard to the law, has been put into an Article 32 Petition in the past to the N.H. General Court but which “due process of law” to a hearing in the “appropriate committee” was never delivered to such by ANY of the House Speakers [ ** ] having shirked their duty to House Rule 4 as it was finally House Rule 36 endorsed by a State Rep. who at first put his seat # down instead of his district # as required, of Donna Sytek and Gene Chandler in that cover-up of non red-pencil correction, to a blatant disregard of the Rule 4 by both subsequent Speakers of Doug Scamman and Terrie Norelli. Of my State Rep. Seth Cohn of Canterbury during the House Speaker Bill O’Brien regime who could only deal with one petition at a time “on his plate” instead tackling the corruption of the Attorney General Michael Delany in his violation of RSA Ch. 7:6 as reported in the House Record of Fri., May 25, 2012 (Vol. 34, No. 41) leading over to an LSR to House Bill #____ this Fall for to compensate me for the $ damages it’s caused. Of if the judges were elected I could voice my protests on the campaign trail, but instead having to deal with these political bastards! [ ** ]

      So when Hassan, the governor leads the pledge of allegiance at her G&C to the flag of for this Republic (by Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution) , she be but a hypocrite in NOT to lead thee ( of them five Executive Councilors and the bunch of the Department Heads there with their hands out for their take of the spoils collected by corrupt agents of “Uncle Sam” in not following the law either as operating on U.S. Codes tainted with this un-lawfulness by the votes in Congress to get these Statutes at Large so-called into largeness when the largeness in Congress be un-lawful! ) to an “err”or, [*] BUT to direct them to an “astray”ment of NOT to just make lost this Section 2 of the 14th of like somewhere within the forest of the Constitution as somehow offset by another so as to neutralize it, BUT that of it “gone” that be a lie and a theft!

      **** “Professing to point out the right path, they led men away from it. Destroy the way; literally, swallow it up, or obliterate it. ” ” Plus in regards to the Ed Brown CIVIL case, of yes – there was a CIVIL Case #2005-C-033 BEFORE that of the CRIMINAL case, in Grafton County Superior Court but that of there was not supposed to be a “way” or “path” from North Haverhill, N.H. down to the Federal Building in Concord, N.H. because the case shall NOT be “Removed” unless with the “consent” of both parties per the prescribed Title 28 U.S. Code Section 636(c)(1) but that of these “other laws” allowed to control over these N.H. Article 12 inhabitants of Ed & Elaine Brown by N.H. Court Judge Jean K. (Mrs. Peter Hoe) Burling who sanctioned the Clerk Robert Bruce Muh’s cooperation with the Feds over the right that was supposed to be secured as a guarantee by N.H. Article 1 for which faithful performance of duty is insured to $100,000 per state agent (by RSA Ch. 93-B:1-5 ) for it to be honored, but that of which RSA 643:1 Official Oppression against Muh (of now retired to Littleton, N.H.) in Haverhill District Court was likewise nol prossed meaning dismissed again in violation of RSA Ch. 7:6 of the County Attorney acting “on behalf” of the A.G. to save travel time of 2 + 2 = 4 hours in gas to put ink to paper within the file. Of thus a Private Prosecution and HB #___) planned for 2014 Legislation too, so as to prevent these wrongs from happening but if they do, of there to be a $penalty. The Warren B. Rudman and James C. Cleveland Federal Blocks in Concord housing the U.S. Marshal and U.S. District Court, plus U.S. Attorney respectfully of claiming 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution like or similar, not same EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction, but NOT such type of jurisdictional authority because their excrement flows by water to the local sewer lagoon, and so they either to build their own treatment plant on their own property OR file their RSA Ch. 123:1 paperwork with our N.H. Secretary of State since only then they be RSA Ch. 123:2 exempt from the land, but not the property tax for their building, and for both together, of there used to be an Agreement or Contract for payment of Sewer in lieu of property tax of some City Custom over-ride of the law, but that was decades ago according to former City Solicitor Paul Cavanaugh, with the current City Solicitor of Jim Kennedy supposedly looking into it as I told him through the City Council this past Mon., Aug. 12th at the Public Hearing that my Executive Council has asked the new A.G. Joe Foster to not only investigate this 14-2 requirement but to render his WRITTEN “Report” on such. The Concord City Assessor woman likewise making the decision of to this custom over-ride too thus costing city and county taxpayers to pay $more than their fair share of property taxes.

      **** Finally for now of that second part of this 4-star footnote being that: The Trust for the Browns as caretakers of with an RSA Ch. 480:1-9 homestead and who WOULD have challenged the tax as not a debt due in the CIVIL court but that which case was stolen as I’ve said, of the Trust had paid the property taxes for this N.H. Article 12 protection, but that which State-Federal agents be really the: ” oppressors—literally, “exactors,” that is, exacting princes (Isa 60:17). They who ought to be protectors are exactors; as unqualified for rule as “children,” as effeminate ( sissy and weak) as “women.” Perhaps it is also implied that they were under the influence of their harem, the women of their court.” Of thus this not just a G&C (Governor and Council) of the councilors supposed to be giving advice or counsel to the governor, but them acting as like under her “influence” , of my own Executive Councilor to “defer” to under that of the A.G. who was APPOINTED by Her Article 41 Excellency in Procrastination to continue the procrastination (not to act to execute the laws of the state AND United States including this 14-2 by her Article 51 duty! for which she and that Judge Burling ought to be Articles 40 + 17 impeached! and to Article 38 of the judge to have her Article 36 retirement taken away per the next, IF ever, annual review that is never done!) ) of to a continual investigation to render NO “Report”, and by WHO? Paul Broder? the “Public Integrity Unit” Chief who thought that we lived in the First Judicial District, and so allowed a non-check and balance to the Feds, for to honor the Sixth (6th) Amendment ( of that ALL trials NOT just SOME of that SHALL take place withIN the state AND district of where the offense occurred) when State Trooper David Cargil did likewise “defer” to him, of what happened? The Browns were taken to preliminary hearings are a PART of the trial in Portland, Maine because the judge George Z. Singal assigned to travel FROM Maine TO N.H. by Judge Stephen McAuliffee was lazy, and former N.H. A.G. Jeffrey R. Howard of the 1st Circuit Court (4th floor of The Rudman Block) of now the judge there did cut the checks to the four attorneys to travel to, at and back from there too at OUR expense of this OVER-payment of tax-payer dollars! of WHERE and by WHO does the audits IF ANY!? _____ Of a complaint to which Federal Rep. ? as only one is supposed to be there as THE one and only lawful one, but both of them on-the-take! Of this “Protection Racket” has got to stop! Cargil having since been promoted to U.S. Marshal for his non check and balance as a state executive to that of Federal corruption in all three branches of the legislative (MOC’s), executive (U.S. Attorney Prosecutors appointed by the President KNOWING of to have to comply with 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution from U.S. Attorney Manual 664 but not doing so to get that CONDITIONAL Consent to become con-current to allow not only service of civil and criminal process to happen on Federal soil but to be effective too! that wasn’t when I had Stephen Robert Monier of Goffstown, the now former U.S. Marshal and his Deputy Marshal of Gary DiMartino served by CIVIL process to BOTH Merrimack County Superior Court AND Goffstown District Court – Small Claims Court on the $300+ check to me from him that bounced! and the judicial, by these judges.

      Joe Haas


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s